Cyprus-Forum.com

[Kikapu]

now thats very interesting. back in 1967 there were no tc mps in parliament and it voted uninanimously to enosis with greece. and yet they were unable to. in 1974 they organised a coup and put in place a dick-tator who was the best advoctae of enosis. still no enosis. in 2004 they joined the eu. since that they also suffered a haricut where money was taken out of peoples' private bank acounts. and yet 2018 they felt the need to remind the schoolchildren that in 1950 plebesite 95% of gc voted for enosis. so you reckon they wee able to do everything they wished.
So what stops them fromenosising with greece so they can declare sheepros grik island?

why have they been negotiating all these years. if it has all been to stop tcs from having the same power that says a lot about your avearge gc and ho wlittle brains it has.
dream on.

You did not answer the simple question put to you. Not surprising, because you cannot.

So, it is a fact that, since 1974, the RoC has done anything it wanted and the TCs and Turkey has not been able to stop it from joining the EU to awarding drilling blocks for the hydrocarbons, and unless any BBF is agreed based on EU values, the talks will keep on going and going and going as there isn‘t any incentive for the RoC to gamble it‘s future for some Banana Republic agreement with the TCs and Turkey for the sake of few % of imaginary land back. The RoC being in the EU gives them all the cover and justification needed without being seen at fault for not agreeing to a settlement anything less than EU values no matter how many U.N. organized meetings takes place. 2004 was the last chance with the Annan Plan for Turkey and the TCs to get a Banana Republic established, but that has come and gone and will not return again. The RoC as a last option will let the north go to Turkey for the sake of saving the rest of the RoC, but what will the TCs gain. Very simple, the TCs will be culturally and ethnically be genocided by the Turks. The GCs will win, the Turks will win but the TCs will lose under such scenario.

[Lordo]

now thats very interesting. back in 1967 there were no tc mps in parliament and it voted uninanimously to enosis with greece. and yet they were unable to. in 1974 they organised a coup and put in place a dick-tator who was the best advoctae of enosis. still no enosis. in 2004 they joined the eu. since that they also suffered a haricut where money was taken out of peoples' private bank acounts. and yet 2018 they felt the need to remind the schoolchildren that in 1950 plebesite 95% of gc voted for enosis. so you reckon they wee able to do everything they wished.
So what stops them fromenosising with greece so they can declare sheepros grik island?

why have they been negotiating all these years. if it has all been to stop tcs from having the same power that says a lot about your avearge gc and ho wlittle brains it has.
dream on.

You did not answer the simple question put to you. Not surprising, because you cannot.

So, it is a fact that, since 1974, the RoC has done anything it wanted and the TCs and Turkey has not been able to stop it from joining the EU to awarding drilling blocks for the hydrocarbons, and unless any BBF is agreed based on EU values, the talks will keep on going and going and going as there isn‘t any incentive for the RoC to gamble it‘s future for some Banana Republic agreement with the TCs and Turkey for the sake of few % of imaginary land back. The RoC being in the EU gives them all the cover and justification needed without being seen at fault for not agreeing to a settlement anything less than EU values no matter how many U.N. organized meetings takes place. 2004 was the last chance with the Annan Plan for Turkey and the TCs to get a Banana Republic established, but that has come and gone and will not return again. The RoC as a last option will let the north go to Turkey for the sake of saving the rest of the RoC, but what will the TCs gain. Very simple, the TCs will be culturally and ethnically be genocided by the Turks. The GCs will win, the Turks will win but the TCs will lose under such scenario.

you either are not able to read or understad engleziga my friend. i answered what it is they could not do and how many times. lets try again.

back in 1967 there were no tc mps in parliament and it voted uninanimously to enosis with greece.
1. and yet they were unable to unite with griiks.
2. in 1974 they organised a coup and put in place a dick-tator who was the best advoctae of enosis. still no enosis.
3. in 2004 they joined the eu. since that they also suffered a haricut where money was taken out of peoples' private bank acounts.
4. and yet 2018 they felt the need to remind the schoolchildren that in 1950 plebesite 95% of gc voted for enosis. and still no enosis

so you reckon they were able to do everything they wished right.
So what stops them from enosising with greece even now, so they can declare sheepros grik island?

as what turks will do to the tcs we' can leave for another day as we are unable to communicate about the past ey.

[Kikapu]

Who said that enosis has been the desire for the GCs since 1974?

[Pyrpolizer]

Here is the first result that Google gives on the term of Political Equality:

Of the various ways in which citizens in the United States can be unequal, political inequality is- one of the most significant and troubling. By political equality we refer to the extent to which citizens have an equal voice over governmental decisions. One of the bedrock principles in a democracy is the equal consideration of the preferences and interests of all citizens. This is expressed in such principles as one-person/one-vote, equality before the law, and equal rights of free speech. Equal consideration of the preferences and needs of all citizens is fostered by equal political activity among citizens; not only equal voting turnout across significant categories of citizens but equality in other forms of activity.

Note that USA is also a federation, but Political Equality is about the equality of citizens not of ethnic groups or even states. The term Political Equality in the negotiations for the Cyprus Problem is very vague, but it is explicitly stated that it does NOT mean numerical equality, and that TCs can have veto power only for the change of constitution and a few other agreed things, but not on everything. The Turks now want "one positive vote" on everything, which is essentially another way to get veto on everything.

To give you an example, if you give ELAM or the Greens "one positive vote" you make them more powerful than AKEL. The whole point of having more MPs is that a greater numbers gives you greater power. Otherwise what is the point of having more MPs? To warm up the chairs? So the Turks are trying to circumvent the agreement that Political Equality does NOT mean numerical equality, and essentially get 50% power even thought they are the 18%.

To some idiots (even on our side) they hear "Political Equality" and they think "hey, equality, that's a good thing!". What those idiots don't understand is that "Political Equality" of groups of different sizes is in fact political inequality. It is the same thing as when we say that the top 1% of people have equal wealth to the bottom 50%. If you are an idiot you might think "hey, both classes have an equal amount of wealth, great!" but if you are not an idiot you realize that each individual within that 1% has a lot more wealth than each individual in that 50%, and that this equality between the 1% and the 50% in fact demonstrates a gross inequality.

The argument of the Turks that such kind of "Political Equality" is something that exists in all Federations and that without it the result is a unitary state, is pure nonsense. In the USA for example the States are equal only in the Senate and of course all citizens are free to be residents with full political rights of any state they want, there is no such thing as the "Whites State" and the "Blacks State".

Good analysis.
Here's the relevant part of the UN resolution:

Political equality.PNG

So basically it's effective participation to the decision making of the Federal State
Question is what does "effective" participation mean?
And how effective could any participation be without the tools to overrule decisions that might be against the interests of any side?
What do you suggest?

[Pyrpolizer]

Another UN resolution. This one states clearly there must be tools or safeguards.

Political equality para11.PNG

[Sotos]

So basically it's effective participation to the decision making of the Federal State
Question is what does "effective" participation mean?
And how effective could any participation be without the tools to overrule decisions that might be against the interests of any side?
What do you suggest?

It explicitly states that "political equality" does not mean "numerical equality" and only in the case of amending the constitution the concurrence of both sides is explicitly required. Beyond that what "effective participation" means is vague, but because it is vague this doesn't mean we have to accept whatever interpretation the Turks want to give to this term.

For me "effective participation" means that TCs will participate in all organs of the Federal government and will have a number of votes. Say for example a Federal organ has 10 voting members, some GCs and some TCs. Each member has 1 vote each, and therefore the participation of all 10 members is as effective and their votes count the same. The vote of a TC member isn't any less effective than the vote of of a GC member. The TC member is equal to the GC member. At the same time there are more GC members, because GCs have a greater population, which is why "political equality" does NOT equal "numerical equality".

So "effective participation" does not mean veto power. Having an effect doesn't mean you always get what you want. It just means what you want counts in the final result.

An "ineffective participation" would be not having anybody in the committee, or being there just on observer status without a vote. In that case what you want can not affect any result.

[Pyrpolizer]

So basically it's effective participation to the decision making of the Federal State
Question is what does "effective" participation mean?
And how effective could any participation be without the tools to overrule decisions that might be against the interests of any side?
What do you suggest?

It explicitly states that "political equality" does not mean "numerical equality" and only in the case of amending the constitution the concurrence of both sides is explicitly required. Beyond that what "effective participation" means is vague, but because it is vague this doesn't mean we have to accept whatever interpretation the Turks want to give to this term.

For me "effective participation" means that TCs will participate in all organs of the Federal government and will have a number of votes. Say for example a Federal organ has 10 voting members, some GCs and some TCs. Each member has 1 vote each, and therefore the participation of all 10 members is as effective and their votes count the same. The vote of a TC member isn't any less effective than the vote of of a GC member. The TC member is equal to the GC member. At the same time there are more GC members, because GCs have a greater population, which is why "political equality" does NOT equal "numerical equality".

So "effective participation" does not mean veto power. Having an effect doesn't mean you always get what you want. It just means what you want counts in the final result.

An "ineffective participation" would be not having anybody in the committee, or being there just on observer status without a vote. In that case what you want can not affect any result.

Notice they do not actually ask for a veto as such. What they want is to have at least 1 positive TC vote.
The numerical part will generally be 1:3.
So taking your example of 10 people voting, 7 GCs+3 TCs If it gets a yes from 5 GCs and just one yes from the 3 TCs, it gets approved.
If all GCs say no, and all TCs say yes it drops. If all GCs say yes and All TCs say no, it drops again.
Do you agree with that?

[Sotos]

What you describe is what the Turks want, and I do not accept it, as it violates a democratic principle and defeats the point of GCs having a greater number.

What you describe is not very different from having 5 GCs and 5 TCs:

If it gets a yes from 5 GCs and just one yes from the 5 TCs, it gets approved.
If all GCs say no, and all TCs say yes it drops. If all GCs say yes and All TCs say no, it drops again.

Having a greater number means having a greater say. Otherwise having a greater number is pointless.

[Oceanside50]

https://cyprus-mail.com/2019/02/10/akincis-idea-of-political-equality-equates-to-political-inequality-president-says/
According to Anastasiades:

But if by ‘political equality’ he means a positive vote for every decision of the central government or any other institutional structure, then I am sorry to say, this is not political equality, but it creates political inequality for the reason that it will allow one community to impose itself on the other.”

Can someone analyze this?

It’s pure propaganda in my opinion. In this BBF all three governments will be equal, which means there is no central government supremacy like they have in America. The central govt in Cyprus will have limited jurisdiction, federal taxation, passports, foreign policy, preservation of federal lands, federal police.. 99% of all decisions imposed on Cypriot citizens will be enacted by the state govt, the central and EU regulations will have the remaining 1%jurisdiction. Where does Akinci see one community imposing on the other?

[Kikapu]

https://cyprus-mail.com/2019/02/10/akincis-idea-of-political-equality-equates-to-political-inequality-president-says/
According to Anastasiades:

But if by ‘political equality’ he means a positive vote for every decision of the central government or any other institutional structure, then I am sorry to say, this is not political equality, but it creates political inequality for the reason that it will allow one community to impose itself on the other.”

Can someone analyze this?

It’s pure propaganda in my opinion. In this BBF all three governments will be equal, which means there is no central government supremacy like they have in America. The central govt in Cyprus will have limited jurisdiction, federal taxation, passports, foreign policy, preservation of federal lands, federal police.. 99% of all decisions imposed on Cypriot citizens will be enacted by the state govt, the central and EU regulations will have the remaining 1%jurisdiction. Where does Akinci see one community imposing on the other?

This was the proposal with the Annan Plan, which was voted down by the GCs.