Cyprus-Forum.com

[Pyrpolizer]

I don't think anyone else in this forum had any difficulty understanding the term GreekTC or TurkishGC ...
Anyway I have edited my previous post giving you an example of a GreekTC that of Sener Levent. Or the other guy (forgot his name) of the platform called "this country is ours"

In a nutshell these are TCs who the GCs like very much and will vote for collectively, whereas the TCs would not give them any votes.

[Viewpoint]

I don't think anyone else in this forum had any difficulty understanding the term GreekTC or TurkishGC ...
Anyway I have edited my previous post giving you an example of a GreekTC that of Sener Levent. Or the other guy (forgot his name) of the platform called "this country is ours"

In a nutshell these are TCs who the GCs like very much and will vote for collectively, whereas the TCs would not give them any votes.

If they get enough votes from which ever source be it GC or TC and are their placed in the top 25 places as TC candidates then they become MPs, now do you get it? I dont see the problem here what are you getting at? is it that these people are corrupt and will sell out their own people? to counter this I have also mentioned that a minimum of votes from each set of MPs must be obtained to pass laws.

Example mininmum vote required is 15

25 GCs say YES
14 TCs including Şener Levent say YES
this bill does not pass.

[Kikapu]

I don't think anyone else in this forum had any difficulty understanding the term GreekTC or TurkishGC ...
Anyway I have edited my previous post giving you an example of a GreekTC that of Sener Levent. Or the other guy (forgot his name) of the platform called "this country is ours"

In a nutshell these are TCs who the GCs like very much and will vote for collectively, whereas the TCs would not give them any votes.

If they get enough votes from which ever source be it GC or TC and are their placed in the top 25 places as TC candidates then they become MPs, now do you get it? I dont see the problem here what are you getting at? is it that these people are corrupt and will sell out their own people? to counter this I have also mentioned that a minimum of votes from each set of MPs must be obtained to pass laws.

Example mininmum vote required is 15

25 GCs say YES
14 TCs including Şener Levent say YES
this bill does not pass.

You haven't answered my question that was in my last post, which was, with your system of Pan voting, why the need then for two separate states under Federation. You can get the same results in a Unitary state under your system, can't you?

So tell me VP, will the sky fall in if 16 "Greek TCs" voted with the GCs to pass a bill?

Then again, with such a hill to climb just to pass a simple bill, I don't think any bills would pass. What happened to Democracy and majority rule? I can see raising the voting bar very high on very important issues like amending the constitution, but for day to day issues, it's likely to cause gridlock and nothing will pass.

And how would the President be elected?

And what about the lower house members. Are they too elected the same way as the upper house MPs, or don't we need any at all?

I assume there will be no "Rotating Presidency" either!

[Viewpoint]

I don't think anyone else in this forum had any difficulty understanding the term GreekTC or TurkishGC ...
Anyway I have edited my previous post giving you an example of a GreekTC that of Sener Levent. Or the other guy (forgot his name) of the platform called "this country is ours"

In a nutshell these are TCs who the GCs like very much and will vote for collectively, whereas the TCs would not give them any votes.

If they get enough votes from which ever source be it GC or TC and are their placed in the top 25 places as TC candidates then they become MPs, now do you get it? I dont see the problem here what are you getting at? is it that these people are corrupt and will sell out their own people? to counter this I have also mentioned that a minimum of votes from each set of MPs must be obtained to pass laws.

Example mininmum vote required is 15

25 GCs say YES
14 TCs including Şener Levent say YES
this bill does not pass.

You haven't answered my question that was in my last post, which was, with your system of Pan voting, why the need then for two separate states under Federation. You can get the same results in a Unitary state under your system, can't you?

This is a possibility in the future if trust cooperation understanding and economical development occurs, but initially a local administration is necessary to allow both sides a period of adjustment and protection.

So tell me VP, will the sky fall in if 16 "Greek TCs" voted with the GCs to pass a bill?

Depends on the bill.

Then again, with such a hill to climb just to pass a simple bill, I don't think any bills would pass. What happened to Democracy and majority rule? I can see raising the voting bar very high on very important issues like amending the constitution, but for day to day issues, it's likely to cause gridlock and nothing will pass.

I disagree if we consider that the majority of laws are passed for the betterment of the country then everyone will vote in favor.

And how would the President be elected?

The upper house can decide with a minimum of 24

And what about the lower house members. Are they too elected the same way as the upper house MPs, or don't we need any at all?

Imo we dont need a lower house.

I assume there will be no "Rotating Presidency" either!

No

[Kikapu]

Let me first answer your question and then I will give you my closing arguments on your system at the end.

You haven't answered my question that was in my last post, which was, with your system of Pan voting, why the need then for two separate states under Federation. You can get the same results in a Unitary state under your system, can't you?

This is a possibility in the future if trust cooperation understanding and economical development occurs, but initially a local administration is necessary to allow both sides a period of adjustment and protection.

So you expect the GCs to agree for the north to remain at 29%-37% where once these territorial lines are drawn, they will become permanent, trust or no trust from either side in the future. Not only you expect to gain 50% of the voting power, but also a guaranteed "Turkish state" in the north. Surely you don't expect anyone to believe, that once "your trust" is achieved, that then you will want the already established north state with it's own borders to turn into a Unitary state with the GCs? If you want to become a Unitary state, then there must be a reason, that you (Turkey) will have hopes in taking the whole island one way or the other for Turkey. Your Pan voting can be just as effective in a Unitary state and agree to forgo the BBF, but you are not willing to give anything back or risk the north state. If I were the GCs, I would say to you, just to keep you honest, you need to give 50% of the north state to the RoC now leaving you with 18% or so, so that the official territorial boundaries are only for the 18% and not for the 37%. If "your trust" is returns, then you will want to have a Unitary state anyway, so in effect you are not losing anything, but if you had plans to secede from the union, you are only going to get 18% and nothing else. So how does that sound to you?

So tell me VP, will the sky fall in if 16 "Greek TCs" voted with the GCs to pass a bill?

Depends on the bill.

It's funny how you were panicking and calling me names because of my plan that if the GCs were to get just one seat in the north's senate seat, as if the sky would fall for the TCs, but you are not showing the same concern should 16 "Greek TCs" are voting with the GCs. So, shall I start calling you names now also?

Then again, with such a hill to climb just to pass a simple bill, I don't think any bills would pass. What happened to Democracy and majority rule? I can see raising the voting bar very high on very important issues like amending the constitution, but for day to day issues, it's likely to cause gridlock and nothing will pass.

I disagree if we consider that the majority of laws are passed for the betterment of the country then everyone will vote in favor.

I hate to disappoint you, but majority of the laws are not passed in any country for the betterment of the country, but for the betterment of the politicians political ideology in order for them to keep their party in power. You make it sound like these MP's are passing laws every day. They are not. They are suppose to be helping their constituents in their districts, which your system will not give these MPs any district for them to represent, since anyone from anywhere in the country can vote for them. Do you know how dangerous your system is going to be for the TCs?. NO, then read the end conclusion of this post. I guess in your view, all it matters is, that they just represent the north state and the south state respectively. That being the case, why does the north's and the south MP's need to be all TCs & GCs in the first place, again respectively?

And how would the President be elected?

The upper house can decide with a minimum of 24

So if both sides vote 24 each for a president, then you will have 2 presidents elected, right?

And what about the lower house members. Are they too elected the same way as the upper house MPs, or don't we need any at all?

Imo we dont need a lower house.

So, basically just like Erdogan, you don't want any "Checks & Balances" in the government, but all I hear from you is "we want more checks & balances". It appears that's not the case at all. You want what benefits you and Turkey only.

I assume there will be no "Rotating Presidency" either!

No

But you may end up with two elected presidents anyway with your system giving each one to be in office at the same time, or do you intend on tosing a coin to see which one actually rules?


Closing argument against your system.

So in essence, you don't want BBF as in Federation at all, nor for it to be a Democratic one, because your system is flawed in many fronts to be fair for all Cypriots, but I guess you were only thinking about yourself, the north and Turkey, hence your love for the AP. However, you have left a large gap where your system will actually help the GCs in time, which is what Pyro was trying to tell you. My guess is, that time will not come, because you have a plan to secede from the union at the earliest time taking all of the north with you as well half of the countries natural wealth with it.

These so called MPs in your system will not be able to have any districts to represent, so how do they help anyone is my question, other than pass some laws, and once in a blue moon at that with such a threshold you have put, where at least 15 MPs has to be from each state. But in time, all you will need is to have 15 MPs from both states making 30 MPs in total with a certain political ideology that may not be in the interest of the majority of all Cypriots, who will then rule the whole island and pass laws that the majority of Cypriots will not like or be a betterment for the country. Then what are you going to do, accept this as Democracy in the end? Then what about all those Cypriots who are not Gc or a TC. Will they be discriminated from being elected? And what about someone who is half TC and half GC, which state can he/she be elected in or none at all?

Here are the dangers to the TCs under your system. The north state will be lucky if they can have 100,000 registered voters once the dust is settled and many of the settlers are either sent back home or they are in Cyprus as non citizens, which means they can't vote. The GCs will have about 500,000 registered voters. Your system of anyone can vote for anyone from anywhere is very flawed, because the GCs will outnumber the TCs by 5:1 ratio at the polling stations. If the GCs wanted, they can spend 25 votes out of the 500,000 votes that they have and elect 25 GC MPs for the south, one vote for one MP each, and then spend the rest of the 499,975 votes to elect 15 "Greek TCs" in the north. How would you be able to prevent this from happening. Perhaps only Turks vote for Turks and Gcs only vote for GCs, but that would do away with your system and make the whole thing into a sectarian and separatist system, but equal all the same, much like what they had in the USA "separate but equal", before the civil rights movement that changed that country politically for the better. In any case, the GCs may welcome your system for the reasons I gave above and you will end up regretting it, but the Gcs will still want to draw the state lines at 82%-18% respectively just to keep you honest that you are not going to take the whole 37% and run with it. Unless you also make some compromises on the land issue, don't expect the GCs to give you everything you ask for in your system.

Personally I give you an "F" for effort on your system. It has almost no "checks & balances" you are always asking for, there are no accountability of the MPs when they do not have a district to represent and no regular constituents to answer for. It is a totally flawed system. If I were to spend a little bit more time on this, I can write down more flaws than I have already made.

[Viewpoint]

Wow thank you for the time you have spent responding to my proposals, it must have rattled your cage to warrant such a long and detailed response although flawed nice to know you have taken it seriously:

Firstly land return should be enough to accomadate as many refugees as possible this has at every negotiating table worked out at around the north reducing its size to around 25-29%, yet you demand we reduce down to 18% in order to protect against us demanding our own country in the future, this begs the question why wait if we are to accept 18% then let cut the umbilical cord today and have done with it. You really have to understand that if a solution is to be agreed then both sides should be tied to it with as many checks and balances as each side wants, I am sure the TCs would not object to signing that once a united Cyprus has been formed they can never ever again ask for their own separate state, thats it, the end deal but in order to do this the GCs also have to commit to not pushing the TCs out of a partnership ever again, committing 101% to working with the TCs and always including them in the running of the country as a whole.

Now to your thoughts about my pan voting system, you are right that the MP candidates should be elected from districts so those elected know exactly the district they represent, I did not mention this but that would in fact be the case only difference being that a candidate from Nicosia due to pan voting could get votes from Larnaca, now how many votes he gets from Larnaca is very doubtful imo because those living in Larnaca only have one vote wouldn't they want to elect their own local Representative in Larnaca? This would allow for TC MPs to come out of the south and GC MPs out of the north, isnt that what you have been demanding all along?

Again it would have to be the first past post to secure the 25 25 balance in parliament. I still stick to my proposal on the necessary minimum number of votes necessary to pass bills laws etc, the danger of these so called Greek TC and Turkish GC are applicable to both sides and cannot be really stopped has everyone has the right to be elected, the minimum votes necessary system would to a certain extent put a stop to this type of biased voting as either side would have to find the minimum number required that would sell out their voters to vote on a law that would place them in danger or at a disadvantage.

Of course this proposal can be fine tuned so why not be constructive and help develop it?

As for the rotating presidency issue, each candidate would have to get a specific minimum number of GC and TC MP votes in order to wing the overall tally, the candidate with most votes would be president, it that clear enough? only one president.

[repulsewarrior]

...please read my manifesto thingy.

it would be nice at the Federal level, Government is elected by Individuals, as Citizens, without distinction or discrimination, not as Persons. at the level of Constituencies, being Bizonal, Territorial Jurisdictions exist within the Sovereign Country, where in essence, Greekness is sustained, or Turkishness, (or/and others). BBF allows for Individuals to be equal, and it allows for the equality of Persons as well.

only by offering a system of governance that appeals to the nature of Individuals toward sustaining National Identities toward their daily lives, can Cypriots be happy. yet the Federal Government must be strong, and capable as the representative of all its people when it comes to External Affairs, and defending/bettering Universal Principals. we are close...

[Kikapu]

Wow thank you for the time you have spent responding to my proposals, it must have rattled your cage to warrant such a long and detailed response although flawed nice to know you have taken it seriously:

You're welcome for me taking my time to respond to your "F" rated proposal, but it's a drop in a bucket to your responses to my proposal in "Kikapu's "BBF" Power Sharing Plan" where you spend 29 pages in responding to it. That's what I call really rattling one's cage!

Firstly land return should be enough to accomadate as many refugees as possible this has at every negotiating table worked out at around the north reducing its size to around 25-29%, yet you demand we reduce down to 18% in order to protect against us demanding our own country in the future, this begs the question why wait if we are to accept 18% then let cut the umbilical cord today and have done with it. You really have to understand that if a solution is to be agreed then both sides should be tied to it with as many checks and balances as each side wants, I am sure the TCs would not object to signing that once a united Cyprus has been formed they can never ever again ask for their own separate state, thats it, the end deal but in order to do this the GCs also have to commit to not pushing the TCs out of a partnership ever again, committing 101% to working with the TCs and always including them in the running of the country as a whole.

Land return has nothing to do with return of refugees. The 18% is only to keep you honest in wanting a Unitary state eventually because the 18% is not worth making a country out of. If you had much more than that, you won't have any reasons to go for a Unitary state, hence your YES vote for the AP. Today you are demanding at least 29% if not the whole 37%. The Gcs are not willing to give you either one of those two figures. Actually I don't think they want to give you the 18% either, but if it ends up they are going to lose some land forever, better to lose 18% than 29% or more. But why are you concerned if you do not have any secessionist ideas. You will be able to convert the 18% into a 100% Unitary state in time if you are an honest "partner".

Now to your thoughts about my pan voting system, you are right that the MP candidates should be elected from districts so those elected know exactly the district they represent, I did not mention this but that would in fact be the case only difference being that a candidate from Nicosia due to pan voting could get votes from Larnaca, now how many votes he gets from Larnaca is very doubtful imo because those living in Larnaca only have one vote wouldn't they want to elect their own local Representative in Larnaca? This would allow for TC MPs to come out of the south and GC MPs out of the north, isnt that what you have been demanding all along?

You are still missing the point. The GCs would have 5 to 1 ratio on number of voters, which would mean that they only need to spend relatively speaking little of their 500,000 votes to elect their 25 MPs in their districts in the south, specially if TCs also spend some of their votes to elect GC MPs. The GCs as a collective body will have hundreds of thousands of spare votes to elect as many as possible numbers of "Greek TCs" for the north state. You may in the end have 25 GCs MPs + 15 "Greek TC" MPs = 40 MPs for the south state and only 10 MPs for the north state. Then what are you going to do?

Again it would have to be the first past post to secure the 25 25 balance in parliament. I still stick to my proposal on the necessary minimum number of votes necessary to pass bills laws etc, the danger of these so called Greek TC and Turkish GC are applicable to both sides and cannot be really stopped has everyone has the right to be elected, the minimum votes necessary system would to a certain extent put a stop to this type of biased voting as either side would have to find the minimum number required that would sell out their voters to vote on a law that would place them in danger or at a disadvantage.

With 5:1 ratio in the GCs favour, you are not going to have any Turkish GCs elected, therefore, don't expect for the TCs to pass any laws that are not in agreement with the GCs, but the GCs will be able to pass laws much easier that may not be in agreement with the TCs. But don't worry, because the constitution will not allow to pass laws that would make the Turkish language illegal, circumcision illegal, praying in the mosques illegal, or TCs having sex on Fridays illegal and so on.

Of course this proposal can be fine tuned so why not be constructive and help develop it?

Why try and make a undemocratic system more undemocratic that would go against the EU norms for a EU country just so to try and fit a square peg into a round hole, when we can have the same system as the rest of the EU norms under True Federation. Your system has more loopholes than Swiss cheese. Under the system of True Federation I proposed, even in the unlikely event of the north losing 1 seat to the Gcs, it would still be much better than the system you have proposed that will be more harmful to the TCs. Under my system, once you have reduced the north state by 50%, you are guaranteed to keep the north Upper House strictly all TC and totally Democratic, specially by asking the "Grandfathered-in population" clause that I gave you. Once your so called "trust" returns, then turn the 18% north into a 100% Unitary state with the south state, assuming the south state would want to the same thing. You may find they might not. "Partnership" will work both ways after all.

As for the rotating presidency issue, each candidate would have to get a specific minimum number of GC and TC MP votes in order to wing the overall tally, the candidate with most votes would be president, it that clear enough? only one president.

With the 25 GCs MPs + 15 "Greek TC" MPs = 40 MPs for the south state and only 10 MPs for the north state configuration, forget about ever having a TC president.

[Lordo]

closing argument. where the bloody hell do you think you are eogapoobullomu.

[Viewpoint]

Wow thank you for the time you have spent responding to my proposals, it must have rattled your cage to warrant such a long and detailed response although flawed nice to know you have taken it seriously:

You're welcome for me taking my time to respond to your "F" rated proposal, but it's a drop in a bucket to your responses to my proposal in "Kikapu's "BBF" Power Sharing Plan" where you spend 29 pages in responding to it. That's what I call really rattling one's cage!

Firstly land return should be enough to accomadate as many refugees as possible this has at every negotiating table worked out at around the north reducing its size to around 25-29%, yet you demand we reduce down to 18% in order to protect against us demanding our own country in the future, this begs the question why wait if we are to accept 18% then let cut the umbilical cord today and have done with it. You really have to understand that if a solution is to be agreed then both sides should be tied to it with as many checks and balances as each side wants, I am sure the TCs would not object to signing that once a united Cyprus has been formed they can never ever again ask for their own separate state, thats it, the end deal but in order to do this the GCs also have to commit to not pushing the TCs out of a partnership ever again, committing 101% to working with the TCs and always including them in the running of the country as a whole.

Land return has nothing to do with return of refugees. The 18% is only to keep you honest in wanting a Unitary state eventually because the 18% is not worth making a country out of. If you had much more than that, you won't have any reasons to go for a Unitary state, hence your YES vote for the AP. Today you are demanding at least 29% if not the whole 37%. The Gcs are not willing to give you either one of those two figures. Actually I don't think they want to give you the 18% either, but if it ends up they are going to lose some land forever, better to lose 18% than 29% or more. But why are you concerned if you do not have any secessionist ideas. You will be able to convert the 18% into a 100% Unitary state in time if you are an honest "partner".

Now to your thoughts about my pan voting system, you are right that the MP candidates should be elected from districts so those elected know exactly the district they represent, I did not mention this but that would in fact be the case only difference being that a candidate from Nicosia due to pan voting could get votes from Larnaca, now how many votes he gets from Larnaca is very doubtful imo because those living in Larnaca only have one vote wouldn't they want to elect their own local Representative in Larnaca? This would allow for TC MPs to come out of the south and GC MPs out of the north, isnt that what you have been demanding all along?

You are still missing the point. The GCs would have 5 to 1 ratio on number of voters, which would mean that they only need to spend relatively speaking little of their 500,000 votes to elect their 25 MPs in their districts in the south, specially if TCs also spend some of their votes to elect GC MPs. The GCs as a collective body will have hundreds of thousands of spare votes to elect as many as possible numbers of "Greek TCs" for the north state. You may in the end have 25 GCs MPs + 15 "Greek TC" MPs = 40 MPs for the south state and only 10 MPs for the north state. Then what are you going to do?

Again it would have to be the first past post to secure the 25 25 balance in parliament. I still stick to my proposal on the necessary minimum number of votes necessary to pass bills laws etc, the danger of these so called Greek TC and Turkish GC are applicable to both sides and cannot be really stopped has everyone has the right to be elected, the minimum votes necessary system would to a certain extent put a stop to this type of biased voting as either side would have to find the minimum number required that would sell out their voters to vote on a law that would place them in danger or at a disadvantage.

With 5:1 ratio in the GCs favour, you are not going to have any Turkish GCs elected, therefore, don't expect for the TCs to pass any laws that are not in agreement with the GCs, but the GCs will be able to pass laws much easier that may not be in agreement with the TCs. But don't worry, because the constitution will not allow to pass laws that would make the Turkish language illegal, circumcision illegal, praying in the mosques illegal, or TCs having sex on Fridays illegal and so on.

Of course this proposal can be fine tuned so why not be constructive and help develop it?

Why try and make a undemocratic system more undemocratic that would go against the EU norms for a EU country just so to try and fit a square peg into a round hole, when we can have the same system as the rest of the EU norms under True Federation. Your system has more loopholes than Swiss cheese. Under the system of True Federation I proposed, even in the unlikely event of the north losing 1 seat to the Gcs, it would still be much better than the system you have proposed that will be more harmful to the TCs. Under my system, once you have reduced the north state by 50%, you are guaranteed to keep the north Upper House strictly all TC and totally Democratic, specially by asking the "Grandfathered-in population" clause that I gave you. Once your so called "trust" returns, then turn the 18% north into a 100% Unitary state with the south state, assuming the south state would want to the same thing. You may find they might not. "Partnership" will work both ways after all.

As for the rotating presidency issue, each candidate would have to get a specific minimum number of GC and TC MP votes in order to wing the overall tally, the candidate with most votes would be president, it that clear enough? only one president.

With the 25 GCs MPs + 15 "Greek TC" MPs = 40 MPs for the south state and only 10 MPs for the north state configuration, forget about ever having a TC president.

So in short we disagree, this is nothing unusual when it comes to the Cyprus problem, but if you were a person of good character or a TC you would have suggested fine tuning such as district voting first past the post but instead your poor attempt at ignoring very important parts of my post by just responding with your standard rhetoric of trying to reduce our size down to nothing, exposing us to GC domination and taking away our partnership rights can be seen by everyone as a sign of bad will, revealing to all your true intentions of selling us TCs out. In your words CASE WELL AND TRULY CLOSED.