Cyprus-Forum.com

[Nikitas]

Going beyond the narrow scope of GC versus TC interests, looking at the Federal concept in its wider context. In the USA there is an indentifiable overriding Federal ideology. Any anti federal initiative is crushed in its infancy. Good example is the heavy handed manner they crushed AIM the American Indian Movement.

We do not have such commitment to the Federal principle. It is doubtful we can cultivate such a culture. You can imagine the calls of "traitors" if the Federal police were to forcibly tear down foreign flags, for instance, or break up celebrations on a "motherland" national day. Add the presence of military contingents from both "motherlands" complete with their intelligence sections and their contingency and planning people and you get the picture.

Reading VP's posts I marvel at the irreconcilables involved in having both a strong state that cannot be GC dominated yet preserving Turkishness of the TCs with all sorts of special provisions that weaken the proposed Federation, lest it becomes GC dominated. In the whole time ignoring the undeniable fact that the TCs have relinquished their position by insisting on an a priori acceptance of the settlers presence. It is an interesting self made quagmire and I wonder how representative this approach is of the average TC. None of my TC friends are fond of settlers but again, I do not know how representative their views are of the whole TC community.

[Viewpoint]

In the USA it is simple, a federal statute passes through the House, the Senate and gets the presidential seal.

In our BBF plans it would need separate majorities in each region and in the senate. What is the big deal?

The more interesting question is whether a member of one region would be committing a local offence if he gambled in the other region. Most probable example, a GC gambling in the TC region. If gambling is forbidden in the GC region but permitted in the TC region would his gambling in the TC region be an offence? Since we envision a personal connection to political rights, and not a territorial one, the same might hold true for criminal jurisdiction as well. Get ready for a royal FUp if things go this way and the whole Bizonal bit is ranked below the Bicommunal bit and each region tries to extend its control over its citizens. It is going to get funny fast.

How many seats/votes does each state have in the US Senate to pass a bill? before presidential ratification?

TWO!

So given your little example we have two states North (Navada) and South (California) with 2 votes each, so to pass a bill 3 votes are required which in itself has a built in checks and balances structure which is what we TCs want and people like you oppose, so you have rather shot yourself in the foot Kikapoooo.

[Kikapu]

In the USA it is simple, a federal statute passes through the House, the Senate and gets the presidential seal.

In our BBF plans it would need separate majorities in each region and in the senate. What is the big deal?

The more interesting question is whether a member of one region would be committing a local offence if he gambled in the other region. Most probable example, a GC gambling in the TC region. If gambling is forbidden in the GC region but permitted in the TC region would his gambling in the TC region be an offence? Since we envision a personal connection to political rights, and not a territorial one, the same might hold true for criminal jurisdiction as well. Get ready for a royal FUp if things go this way and the whole Bizonal bit is ranked below the Bicommunal bit and each region tries to extend its control over its citizens. It is going to get funny fast.

How many seats/votes does each state have in the US Senate to pass a bill? before presidential ratification?

TWO!

So given your little example we have two states North (Navada) and South (California) with 2 votes each, so to pass a bill 3 votes are required which in itself has a built in checks and balances structure which is what we TCs want and people like you oppose, so you have rather shot yourself in the foot Kikapoooo.

You don't know what the hell you are talking about as usual. I don't even know why I bother with a novice like you in the workings of a Federal structure.

Nobody opposes each state having their political equal share of voting seats in the upper house except for you. You want those two seats in the north state to be in the hands of TCs ONLY and not the state, or did you already forget what you really want?

[Viewpoint]

I know its hard for you when faced with truths but please try not deflecting the subject people are not stupid and cannot be easliy manipulated by you, they see right through, the system you have put up for approval has an inbuilt checks and balance when applied to Cyprus, two states with two votes each, each state needs to add to their own votes at least one from the other state to pass a bill, this is what we have been supporting and you have opposing all along.....case closed as you would say.

[Kikapu]

I know its hard for you when faced with truths but please try not deflecting the subject people are not stupid and cannot be easliy manipulated by you, they see right through, the system you have put up for approval has an inbuilt checks and balance when applied to Cyprus, two states with two votes each, each state needs to add to their own votes at least one from the other state to pass a bill, this is what we have been supporting and you have opposing all along.....case closed as you would say.

You can barely close the toilet door, because I can smell you all the way here in Switzerland, let alone you closing a case!

Not every bill that is proposed needs to be passed, does it?

In the USA, once the bill is passed in the lower house it then goes to the senate. Of the 50 states with 2 votes each from each state it totals 100. The 2 senators from each state do not always vote the same, since they are not necessarily from the same part. Even if they were, they don't always vote the same. If the votes are 50-50, then the vice president casts a vote one way or the other. The same can happen in Cyprus. Perhaps that was the intend of Anastasiades to have a TC as a vice president (not very democratic, is it, but the TCs had accepted it in 1960, so there you go), which can cast the deciding vote in the upper house if it should be 2-2, but then the president can veto the vote if it's not what he wants, and the bill dies, unless there is a super majority of 3-1 senate vote (does not include vice president's vote), in which case the president cannot veto the bill and the bill passes. That's what "Checks & Balances" are. But these votes have nothing to do with your state gambling question, to have it or not. That is strictly voted by those in the state legislators or by the citizens of that state and has nothing to do with the Federal government.

But again, you are hiding from what you want, which is, you don't want the north or south states to have the two votes each, you want the GCs to have the 2 votes in the south state and the TCs in the north state, which means only GC can be elected as senators in the south state and only TC senators in the north state, or an apartheid system where other ethnics groups are discriminated from being elected to upper house. Good luck getting that passed in the EU.

[Viewpoint]

Now we appear to be getting somewhere, you have accepted that there should be an inbuilt checks and balances with 2 + 2 votes, needing an overall majority of 3 to pass laws at the federal level that will in effect both states.

This system is the same as having eg 30 seats from each and placing a minimum votes required form each state eg 15 to pass a bill at the federal level, the TCs support this its the GCs that oppose it, so in reality we now understand that its the GCs that oppose "true democracy true federation blah blah blah"

[Kikapu]

Now we appear to be getting somewhere, you have accepted that there should be an inbuilt checks and balances with 2 + 2 votes, needing an overall majority of 3 to pass laws at the federal level that will in effect both states.

This system is the same as having eg 30 seats from each and placing a minimum votes required form each state eg 15 to pass a bill at the federal level, the TCs support this its the GCs that oppose it, so in reality we now understand that its the GCs that oppose "true democracy true federation blah blah blah"

It is this which is opposed by everyone except by you. When will you admit it?

But again, you are hiding from what you want, which is, you don't want the north or south states to have the two votes each, you want the GCs to have the 2 votes in the south state and the TCs in the north state, which means only GC can be elected as senators in the south state and only TC senators in the north state, or an apartheid system where other ethnics groups are discriminated from being elected to upper house.

[Nikitas]

We do not have enough info to know exactly what is being proposed as a legislative process. What is coming through my end is that the regional parliaments will function as the lower house and the federal legislature as the upper house. For a law to pass at the federal level it will have to get majorities in each regional house and a simple majority at federal level. But thanks to our Cypriot penchant for secret diplomacy this is speculation.

It seems to be the simpler and more effective way, to get each regional legislature committed first and then hit the federal senate. Going directly to the federal level would seem to open all kinds of blockage possibilities for no good reason.

[repulsewarrior]

...why not take this discussion somewhere where you are on topic?

[Kikapu]

Now we appear to be getting somewhere, you have accepted that there should be an inbuilt checks and balances with 2 + 2 votes, needing an overall majority of 3 to pass laws at the federal level that will in effect both states.

This system is the same as having eg 30 seats from each and placing a minimum votes required form each state eg 15 to pass a bill at the federal level, the TCs support this its the GCs that oppose it, so in reality we now understand that its the GCs that oppose "true democracy true federation blah blah blah"

Not necessarily. If one state votes for a bill with 30 votes and the other state has 30 votes against the bill, then the bill can still pass or fail with a single vote from the vice president who in effect is a tie breaker. If the president agrees with the vice president's tie breaking vote, then the bill is passed or failed, which ever the case may be. You don't need to have a minimum votes from each state to vote for any bill. You just need a majority to pass/fail a bill.

I can assure you, neither the north state or the south state will vote in blocks as you imagine, because not everyone in your 30 seats per state scenario are on the same ideology or from the same party or from the same ethnic group, because the bills are not going to be based on GCs vs. TCs issues, because any bill that violates the Federal Laws or the constitution will be rejected either before the bill is submitted or after the vote has been taken, assuming it will even get approved. The system has plenty of "Checks & Balances" without you wanting a system where it will create a grid log in the voting system at the Federal level. Once again, most of the voting by 99% that affects each state will be voted within that state and not at the Federal level.