Cyprus-Forum.com

[Oceanside50]

For a USA style of Federation to happen in Cyprus, the island needs to adopt True Democracy. Without True Democracy, nothing will work in Cyprus. 1959 agreements have proven, that without True Democracy communities will want to do what ever they want. The north and south states cannot be GC state and TC state. No, they will need to be north and south states and ALL citizens living in those states will need to have ALL their Democratic rights respected, otherwise communal separation will occur on large scale as you have stated, which will be bad for Cyprus. Freedom of moment has to be a must, even if there is a short-term derogation on that in the beginning, but ultimately, the whole island needs to be free in every way.

USA has come a long way from its policy of the 50's, 60's and even the 70's. It is true, that individual states do have a lot of say what goes in their state, which is an argument I have made many times before, however, individual states cannot override Federal constitution. The states might try passing laws that might not be agreeable with the Federal Laws, and then it is up to the courts to sort it out. If the Federal government is in the right and the state is in the wrong and the state does dot back down, then the Federal government can and will hold back funds on any Federal projects in that state on such things as highways, bridges, ports and so on, not to mention political and economic pressure from other states also. It is not easy to get around the Federal laws.

kikapu there are many instances of states ignoring the federal government, including the reason for the american civil war. what would happen to cyprus if immigration restrictions were lifted by the tc state or derogations against gc were imposed and the tc state ignored the central government?

[Lordo]

As we get closer to the "hard bits" of the negotiation, and as the EU is making clear that it is not keen on major diversions from the EU aquis, the BBF concept is getting harder to maintain. One EU official said yesterday it is hard to justify allowing all EU citizens the right of establishment in the north yet exclude GCs.

Then comes the rotating presidency. The concept that it will be the TC state head just taking over has been challenged and what is proposed is the Cristofias-Talat idea of a weighted voting system where all citizens vote for both presidents.

I want to see Turkey's reaction to the notion that GCs will vote to choose the TC president.

It is also becoming clear to the TCs that if they want to retain their state "racially pure" they must agree to a territorial settlement that will keep GCs out, ie return territory that wil contain the highest GC pre 1974 population centers.

it really aint rocket science.
gc will be allowed to live in the north. there will be limit so they cannot take over the north. do you suppose the dutch would sit by and let the germans flood holland with germans and tale of it. why is it so hard for you to understand. self preservation.
voting need not be that complicated and there is nothing wrong with rotating presidency.
it can only be good for tcs to vote for the gc presdient and visa versa. what terggy says about that is no consequence. terggy has already agrred to back th eplan akinci and anastasiades agree.
nobody is keeping racially pure state anywhere. it is one thing to have a racially pure state, and another not allowing it to swamped. where the hell do you get your logic from.
we can have up to 50,000 gc under the northern authority with no problems what so ever, so long as anybody living in the north pays taxes to the north. you can even vote if you like. is that nice or is that nice.

[Kikapu]

For a USA style of Federation to happen in Cyprus, the island needs to adopt True Democracy. Without True Democracy, nothing will work in Cyprus. 1959 agreements have proven, that without True Democracy communities will want to do what ever they want. The north and south states cannot be GC state and TC state. No, they will need to be north and south states and ALL citizens living in those states will need to have ALL their Democratic rights respected, otherwise communal separation will occur on large scale as you have stated, which will be bad for Cyprus. Freedom of moment has to be a must, even if there is a short-term derogation on that in the beginning, but ultimately, the whole island needs to be free in every way.

USA has come a long way from its policy of the 50's, 60's and even the 70's. It is true, that individual states do have a lot of say what goes in their state, which is an argument I have made many times before, however, individual states cannot override Federal constitution. The states might try passing laws that might not be agreeable with the Federal Laws, and then it is up to the courts to sort it out. If the Federal government is in the right and the state is in the wrong and the state does dot back down, then the Federal government can and will hold back funds on any Federal projects in that state on such things as highways, bridges, ports and so on, not to mention political and economic pressure from other states also. It is not easy to get around the Federal laws.

kikapu there are many instances of states ignoring the federal government, including the reason for the american civil war. what would happen to cyprus if immigration restrictions were lifted by the tc state or derogations against gc were imposed and the tc state ignored the central government?

No my friend, individual states cannot re-write Federal Laws or write laws to change Federal Laws. Taking your immigration example for instance. ONLY Federal Government laws deal with passports, citizenship, immigration, asylum, port controls and so on. Individual states cannot change these laws, they just CAN'T!

[Lordo]

you do talk a lot of bull. in early 60s the roc constitution did not allow for setting up a national guard or allow 12,000 greek soldier to enter cyprus. and they did both against the constitution of the country.

[Kikapu]

what is your assessment regarding this document and the way the two leaders are equal and anastasides is not referred to as the president.

There's nothing to assess, you fool. Don't you know anything about politics ffs? Let me exlain it to you because you are getting a hard-on about these terms of leader/president ALL for nothing.

Anastasiades is the President of the RoC, but he is also the leader of the GCs, just as Akinci is the leader of the TCs, just as Obama is the leader of the Democratic Party, but he is the president of the United States. It is not the RoC which is negotiating with the "trnc". Instead, it is the leader of the GCs negotiating with the leader of the TCs. They are even referred as "Mr" for god sake. So what? What does it change? It was the UN's idea most likely to use these terms after an agreement from Anastsiades no doubt to keep things "on even keel" just for sake of etiquettes. The UN did not realise you would get such a hard-on and prematurely ejaculate all over yourself for absolutely nothing. If the RoC was negotiating with Turkey directly, be sure the term "president" would be used for Anastasiades.

and while we are on questions since when did you move from 5% for the TCs state 18%, thats some movement. perhaps in a few years you will see what 27% is more reasonable.

I don't know what the hell you are talking about regarding the 5%. Show me where I said that and if I did, give me the whole page to read and not just one short sentence.

[Kikapu]

you do talk a lot of bull. in early 60s the roc constitution did not allow for setting up a national guard or allow 12,000 greek soldier to enter cyprus. and they did both against the constitution of the country.

I have already stated this.

Without True Democracy, nothing will work in Cyprus. 1959 agreements have proven, that without True Democracy communities will want to do what ever they want.

[Kikapu]

As we get closer to the "hard bits" of the negotiation, and as the EU is making clear that it is not keen on major diversions from the EU aquis, the BBF concept is getting harder to maintain. One EU official said yesterday it is hard to justify allowing all EU citizens the right of establishment in the north yet exclude GCs.

Then comes the rotating presidency. The concept that it will be the TC state head just taking over has been challenged and what is proposed is the Cristofias-Talat idea of a weighted voting system where all citizens vote for both presidents.

I want to see Turkey's reaction to the notion that GCs will vote to choose the TC president.

It is also becoming clear to the TCs that if they want to retain their state "racially pure" they must agree to a territorial settlement that will keep GCs out, ie return territory that wil contain the highest GC pre 1974 population centers.

Well Nikitas, looks like we are slowly working back towards "Kikapu's "BBF" Power Sharing Plan" cyprus21685.html

[Nikitas]

Kikapu,

The more I read the press leaks from the talks the more I think of your BBF plan and the more I realise that politicians abhor simplicity.

Lordo- re the right of establishment, and the possibility of incomers outnmubering the locals. That cannot happen because the incomers do not have voting rights. Most EU states, probably all, do not allow voting for foreign legal residents (the UK allows it to Commonwealth citizens). In several villages in Greece the foreign EU retirees outnumber the locals, but there is no take over at election time.

Several times I referred to the separation of property from residence, the separation of residence from political rights. It is conceivable that a BBF citizen resides and votes in Kyrenia, works in Nicosia, has property yielding income in LImassol. Is is hard to see how such a situation can be prevented from arising post solution. It would be idiotic to uphold that foreign EU nationals can invest and reside anywhere in Cyprus but its own citizens are subjet to apartheid laws, not to mention mixed ownership of companies that might have several cross border investments.

These are the cucumbers in this BBF thing. It is surprising that there is no open factual reporting about the talks but only oblique cryptic references. This is why I seriously think the talks should be on live TV with continual public opinion monitoring.

[Lordo]

what is your assessment regarding this document and the way the two leaders are equal and anastasides is not referred to as the president.

There's nothing to assess, you fool. Don't you know anything about politics ffs? Let me exlain it to you because you are getting a hard-on about these terms of leader/president ALL for nothing.

Anastasiades is the President of the RoC, but he is also the leader of the GCs, just as Akinci is the leader of the TCs, just as Obama is the leader of the Democratic Party, but he is the president of the United States. It is not the RoC which is negotiating with the "trnc". Instead, it is the leader of the GCs negotiating with the leader of the TCs. They are even referred as "Mr" for god sake. So what? What does it change? It was the UN's idea most likely to use these terms after an agreement from Anastsiades no doubt to keep things "on even keel" just for sake of etiquettes. The UN did not realise you would get such a hard-on and prematurely ejaculate all over yourself for absolutely nothing. If the RoC was negotiating with Turkey directly, be sure the term "president" would be used for Anastasiades.

and while we are on questions since when did you move from 5% for the TCs state 18%, thats some movement. perhaps in a few years you will see what 27% is more reasonable.

I don't know what the hell you are talking about regarding the 5%. Show me where I said that and if I did, give me the whole page to read and not just one short sentence.

interesting that you think it is not significant that anastasiades is refereed to as the gc leader rather then president.
how come you can find out what said and what i have not said and you cant remember what you said yourself. shame on you. i will look for it but you have so much shit on here it will not be easy

[Nikitas]

It was agreed from way back, in the 70s, that in the talks the heads of the two communities would be referred to as "leaders" and not by any title they may have, legitimate or otherwise. I think it was Kurt Waldheim's invention and accepted by all involved parties.