Cyprus-Forum.com

[cypezokyli]

this was proposed sometime ago (i guess by alexandros). anyway i dont claim the property rights of the idea , but since i liked it i would like to bring it up once again.

it works like that. both communities keep the power of the veto in some form (two co-president, rotating presidency, equal representation in upper house and any other you can imagine). i take the copresidents as means of simplicity.
each president will be elected by both communities, but the weight of the other community will be significantly less. so for the gc president, the gc votes will count for 75% and the tc for 25% (you can choose any number, 70-30, 66 - 33 etc) and the same for the tc president.

the advantages that i see in this voting system are
:
1. a copresident elected only by his community will inevtably try to promise as much as possible to his own community - usually at the expense of the other community. in this way the candidates will be forced to take into consideration the opinion of their compatriots, and.... who knows? perhaps force them to realise that they are elected to rule cyprus and not just their community

2. it could force gc and tc parties to force alliances and cooperate

3. its a way of lowering signifigantly the represantation of nationalist parties in the central goverment. moreover such parties will start realising that the should start approaching the others if they would ever try to succeed.

so what do you think ?

or would it be some critisism of the kind:
- another cunning gc idea to reduce the tc into a minority and take control of us

or

- it is not enough you give the tcs disproportionate veto powers you want turkey to take control our side as well? or increase the power of the gc give-iners?

[Piratis]

The idea for the voting is not bad.

Where I disagree is giving to the 18% minority a 50% power and an effective veto on everything. (rotating presidency etc)

I believe that before we discuss the how we do things, we have to agree on what we are going to do.

Is what we want to do give to the 18% of TCs an effective veto on everything? For me this is unacceptable no matter how it is done. In this way 9.5% of the population (not even 1 in 10) will be able to block a decision. And it can get worst: If we combine this with the settlers that most of them might stay, then in effect the settlers alone will be able to block everything that we want to do!

Turkish Cypriots can have an effective blocking/veto power on a number of critical issues that will be agreed as part of the solution. If this is accepted then we can continue on the "how". If this is not accepted then discussion the "how" is just a waste of time in my opinion.

As I said many times we have to agree on the principles before we agree on the details. If this does not happen, then the only way we will be able to agree on the details without agreeing on the principles is if the details are not clear and are explained in a different way by each side. As you understand this can only lead to problems.

[cypezokyli]

I believe that before we discuss the how we do things, we have to agree on what we are going to do.

it could be that the "how" can affect the "what" we are going to do
let me explain you that after this:

Turkish Cypriots can have an effective blocking/veto power on a number of critical issues that will be agreed as part of the solution

the veto is needed by the tc for those critical issues. it is that, after a point it has also gained a symbolic effect. in saying that, i believe that the tc want and will use the veto only on those critical matters and not to block all decisions of the central goverment. moreover if we manage to reach that state, were the two sides wont agree on anything the republic wil collapse in any case, whether they have the veto or not.

but, try to put yourself in the shoes of a tc (or a gc) politician. his only purpose is to be elected or reelected (thats my opinion about politicians ). being rational, that is realising that he needs the gc (tc) votes, he is going to think twice before he will decide to use the veto. it will force him to use all possible alternatives/discussions/negotiations before he makes himself an unpleasant figure to the voters of the other side.
as a concequence the time he will decide to use the veto in practise, will be exactly on what u refer as the "critical issues". the reason is that he will be sure that the tc community will all unite and vote for him (because the issues is critical) and as a concequence , the low weight gc vote will be for him not that important anymore.
moreover, if the tc leader is elected by gc votes as well (the 9.5% is altered). if we take the weight 75-25, then the 66% of the tc community will have to accept the idea of the veto. and if the majority is that high as two thirds, then we indeed have a critical issue.

since the tcs are not going to accept any solution without the veto, and since our concern is the possibility of over/miss-using it, the "how" we vote, can indeed affect the "what".

[Piratis]

moreover if we manage to reach that state, were the two sides wont agree on anything the republic wil collapse in any case, whether they have the veto or not.

This is the point I disagree. If non-agreement will make the Republic collapse, this is what will happen. Do not forget that partition has been the dream of TCs for decades. If they will have the power to make everything collapse they will. Just like union with Greece which has been our dream is 100% excluded, partition should also be 100% excluded and they should be given no way of achieving it.

then the 66% of the tc community will have to accept the idea of the veto. and if the majority is that high as two thirds, then we indeed have a critical issue.

66% of the 18% is 12%. Still about 1 in 10 can block any decision.

In general I like the proposal, but the areas that the TCs can veto should be pre-determined.

[Eric dayi]

Gentlemen please, let us look at the problem sensibly shall we?

What is the population of the EU, any one know? I am going to take a wild guess that it’s about 250mil (maybe a little more?).

Now let’s see, what the population of the so called “Roc”, half a million?

Ok, can anyone guess what I am trying to point out here? No?

Seen as you are all talking about the percentages and veto power and is it right or is it wrong and also if the veto of 1 in 10 could block a veto and what not, try to understand how that veto system of the EU works and work out the percentage of the GC’s and work out 1 in ? (how many) have exactly this veto power that the GC’s think is only fair that they should have but definitely do not want to give the same rights to the TC’s.

Phew, I recon that must be the longest sentence I have ever written in my life. LOL

Ok, now let’s do the maths shall we.

What is the percentage of the GC’s within the EU?

EU= 250,000,000

GC’s= 500,000

Therefore,

X = 500,000*100/250,000,000 = X = 50,000,000/250,000,000 = 0.2 %, WHAAAT, 0.2 PER CENT ONLY?

Ok, and that is 1 in how many? X = 250,000,000/500,000 = 500 = 1 in 500, WHAAAT , 1 in 500? Oh boy!

The above numbers are rough guesses so the end result could be + - 0.05%.

So, as some of you say you do not believe that 1 in 4 should have veto powers and it is not “democratic” but very strongly believe that 0.2 percent (1 in 500) of the EU population should have and is right and is democratic to have the same veto powers as the rest of the EU and what not (I don’t want to write another long sentence so I’ll stop here and you can think the rest of what I want to say and am thinking about the way you think how democracy should work and that you can twist it to suit your own purpose and the rest of the blah blah coming out of your corner is a lot of bull but you also know that I personally and ever increasing numbers of TC’s do not want unification because we do not trust that the GC’s to keep their word and will not stick to the agreement they sign (again) ) opppps…while trying to explain I why I didn’t want to write another long sentence I wrote another one….

Ok, I could have said what I wanted to say in a more serious manner but would it have nade any difference? Nah, I don't believe that for a minute because I know that most of you (that is 9 out of 10) don't believe for a second that us TC's should have the same rights as you GC's, so why bother? Oh, BTW, I know what your answers will be so I really do not care if you do reply or not!

[cypezokyli]

why dont you give an answer on what is proposed eric dayi rather than aking for questions you already known the answers?

[Piratis]

EU is not a country. EU is an association of independent countries, 25 of them. Cyprus is one country. Not an association of countries as you would like it to be.

I would accept the constitution of any EU country for Cyprus. Do you know any EU country that gives veto power on everything to a minority? No, you don't know, because such thing does not exist, and it will never exist.

Would you accept the constitution of any EU country? I will even leave the choice on you.

[cypezokyli]

see eric dayi... you got the typicl answer to the typical question. and this can go on for centuries...
the tc will give the example of the EU and the gc will say its not the same
the gc will give the example of the kurds and the tc will say its not the same...

the purpose of this post was to try to (perhaps) find/propose a way to adreess both concerns... the tc wanting a veto and the gc being afraid of its overuse. perhaps its not a good idea afterall. but i have to say that at least piratis gave an answer to the original question of this thread. i am really sorry that i will not join you two in the repeating of the same arguements. and this can indeed go on like that for centuries...

[Eric dayi]

see eric dayi... you got the typicl answer to the typical question. and this can go on for centuries...
the tc will give the example of the EU and the gc will say its not the same
the gc will give the example of the kurds and the tc will say its not the same...

the purpose of this post was to try to (perhaps) find/propose a way to adreess both concerns... the tc wanting a veto and the gc being afraid of its overuse. perhaps its not a good idea afterall. but i have to say that at least piratis gave an answer to the original question of this thread. i am really sorry that i will not join you two in the repeating of the same arguements. and this can indeed go on like that for centuries...

There won't be an argument because I ahve said what I wanted to and that's it for me. I could though however give convincing replies to Piratis but he is just not worth it in my view to waste any more time on this subject. The only thing he would agree to is absolute power for the GC's and a "minority" rights to the TC's in a Greek country, anything else he will not agree to, he's already made that very clear.

[cypezokyli]

could you at least say what you dont like about this proposal?