Cyprus-Forum.com

[Natty]

[/quote]Have you met many men that can so consistently and for so long maintain the same monotonous wooden tong style, and insist on the same “broken record” and dogmatic approach, even after they have been proved time and time again not to have any real or logical argument to defend their case?[quote]



Should I be offended by that Kifeas??

[Pyrpolizer]

Have you met many men that can so consistently and for so long maintain the same monotonous wooden tong style, and insist on the same "broken record" and dogmatic approach, even after they have been proved time and time again not to have any real or logical argument to defend their case?

Bananiot!

[Kifeas]

Have you met many men that can so consistently and for so long maintain the same monotonous wooden tong style, and insist on the same “broken record” and dogmatic approach, even after they have been proved time and time again not to have any real or logical argument to defend their case?

Should I be offended by that Kifeas??

No Natty, you shouldn't be offended, as it was not being said with a sexist underlining. What I only meant is that the above mind-frame is more common to women that men, but this doesn't mean that all women are like that, or that there are no men that may posses they same qualities (with or without inverted commas.)

[Pyrpolizer]

I think Viewpoint is a beautiful person.



I mean it stop laughing!

[Viewpoint]

t;]I must admit I thought Viewpoint was a man.I would not have asked to meet for a drink had I known of that.

Have you met many men that can so consistently and for so long maintain the same monotonous wooden tong style, and insist on the same “broken record” and dogmatic approach, even after they have been proved time and time again not to have any real or logical argument to defend their case?

You are totally wrong yet again

[Natty]

Have you met many men that can so consistently and for so long maintain the same monotonous wooden tong style, and insist on the same “broken record” and dogmatic approach, even after they have been proved time and time again not to have any real or logical argument to defend their case?

Should I be offended by that Kifeas??

No Natty, you shouldn't be offended, as it was not being said with a sexist underlining. What I only meant is that the above mind-frame is more common to women that men, but this doesn't mean that all women are like that, or that there are no men that may posses they same qualities (with or without inverted commas.)

Don't worry Kifeas, I wasn't offended, I understand...

[Viewpoint]

Have you met many men that can so consistently and for so long maintain the same monotonous wooden tong style, and insist on the same “broken record” and dogmatic approach, even after they have been proved time and time again not to have any real or logical argument to defend their case?

Should I be offended by that Kifeas??

No Natty, you shouldn't be offended, as it was not being said with a sexist underlining. What I only meant is that the above mind-frame is more common to women that men, but this doesn't mean that all women are like that, or that there are no men that may posses they same qualities (with or without inverted commas.)

Don't worry Kifeas, I wasn't offended, I understand...

Natty you and all women should be offended, you are being to polite and thus allowing people like Kifeas to discrminated against the sexes. How can he just say my comments due to their content are consistent with how a female would respond. Are females all the same do they all think the same and argue their point in a uniform manner. He knows I am male and using this childish rhetoric to bully an emotional reaction but Kifeas it wont work you can call me a she all you like we are grown up now and I do not have any problems with your disriminative manner. This is the man that has asked all other forum members not to respond to my posts, another form of discrimination because my thoughts differ from his. This is the man who promote war as a possible future solution and is preapring by going to the gym and taking shooting lessons so that one night when we are weak he will creep up on us and no not to give us roses but shoot us with point blank accuracy. Your silence allows discrimination....

[Kikapu]

Kifeas,

The above is my own idea for the Cyprus solution, since I do not live in Cyprus or have any contact with any political figures. If I had lived in Cyprus, I believe, I could live with the following agreements, to protect the minority( TC's ) from any political and security concerns they may have.

The 50-50 will only apply to members who will be in charge of the legislation to make laws and pass laws, and if we take the USA example, there would be 50%-50% in the Senate and 50%-50% in the Congress, regardless of the population size for the TC's and GC's. Any law making or changing should require no less than 60% to pass in the Senate and a simple majority in the House ( Congress ). Each side will only need to convince 10 members from the other side to vote with them to pass or reject anything that comes in front of them. Surely they should be able to find 10 moderates from each side to pass any law that is good for the country.

The President can also be appointed by the legislators on a 60% passing vote, with the condition that, who ever is elected President, the vice President will be from the other side. If the President dies in office, then the vice President takes over, and then will take on another vice President from the other side. As far as government positions go, they can be based on proportion to the population, 80%-20%. Naturally, if the President wants to be able to work with the legislators, he would want to put some members from the other side into one or two cabinet positions. For example, if a TC is elected to be the President, the cabinet should maintain the 80%-20% proportionality. For the military, it should be open to who ever wants to join. Let the best person serve his / her country. Each side can employ how ever many police they want, since the cost will come out of their own budget. Each side can also have equal number of National Guard members, paid by the government for the citizens to feel extra secure for the short term ( 25 years ). After that time period, there should be enough trust built between the two sides, the National Guards can be dismantled.

This would be a good way to set the stage for "my" 50-50 solution for the government of Cyprus. It can be fine tuned by you guys ( TC's and GC's ) later on.!!

What if we have a parliament that is more or less based on population ratios (i.e. 80:20,) that will be deciding on simple majority (50% + 1,) but in order for this majority to be qualified, there should be participation of at least 20% for some decisions and 30% for some other (higher level) decisions, of the members of each one of the two groups? Will this be satisfactory?

Kifeas,

I'm sure you know what you're talking about with the above, but I'm having a hard time getting my hands around it to try and understand how it all suppose to work. Are you saying, if there are 80 GC members and 20 TC members in the parliament (80%-20%), then only 16 GC and 4 TC members (20%) +1 to have a simple majority to make some decisions, and 24 GC and 6 TC members (30%) +1 to make decisions on higher level.??

It may achieve the same results perhaps, however, I think numbers mean something in the psyche of the TC's to have equal number of members in the lagislator. The 50-50 is seen as an equal partners in decision making, and if we had 50 members from each side in the House (Congress), for the simple majority 50%+1 to pass or reject any laws, before going to the next stage to the equal number members in the Senate, to achieve the 60% to become law. I think this method adds more safeguards in protecting the rights of all Cyptiots.

[Kifeas]

Kifeas,

I'm sure you know what you're talking about with the above, but I'm having a hard time getting my hands around it to try and understand how it all suppose to work. Are you saying, if there are 80 GC members and 20 TC members in the parliament (80%-20%), then only 16 GC and 4 TC members (20%) +1 to have a simple majority to make some decisions, and 24 GC and 6 TC members (30%) +1 to make decisions on higher level.??

Not exactly!
I think what I said is quite simple.
If we have a house of 100 members (80 GCs plus 20 TCs) and decisions are taken on simple majority, it means that at least any 51 members out of the above 100 members will have to approve it. However, in order to qualify as simple majority, at least 4 (or 6) of the votes must come (included in the 51 votes needed) from the 20 TCs (20% or 30% of the TC members,) and at least 16 (or 24) of the votes must come from (included in the 51votes needed) from the 80 GCs.

For example we can have the following combination for simple majority to qualify.
I take a special case example that needs 30% minimum from each side.

Case 1:
6 TCs plus 45 GCs equals 51 /100. (Qualifies)

Case 2:
20 TCs plus 31 GCs equals 51 /100. (Qualifies)

Case 3:
5 TCs plus 46 GCs equals 51 /100 (it doesn’t qualify)

Case 4:
1 TC plus 80 GCs equals 81 /100 (it doesn’t qualify)

It may achieve the same results perhaps, however, I think numbers mean something in the psyche of the TC's to have equal number of members in the lagislator. The 50-50 is seen as an equal partners in decision making, and if we had 50 members from each side in the House (Congress), for the simple majority 50%+1 to pass or reject any laws, before going to the next stage to the equal number members in the Senate, to achieve the 60% to become law. I think this method adds more safeguards in protecting the rights of all Cyptiots.

Therefore you are basically saying that the 50:50 issue is rather symbolic than one of essence for the TCs. And why the GCs should not claim the above argument (symbolisms rather than essence,) so that they stand against a 50:50 representation.

What you seem to be asking is not for Political equality like the TCs were asking so far, but you are also asking for numerical equality too. Well, will your community be willing to contribute the 50% of the annual budget for the government as well, or you will only be contributing your proposition, which currently would even be less than the 18%. Isn’t this also a symbolic issue for you?

What I offered above is a form of political equality, as you have been asking for one, and as it is defined by the UN resolutions. What you are asking for is a levelling out of two numerically unequal groups of people. Why should we be paying from our tax money the salaries of 50 TC MPs and 50 GC MPs, if the TC community's tax contribution will at best be equal to the 18% of the budget, and the rest will be the GC contribution?

[Kikapu]

Kifeas,

I'm sure you know what you're talking about with the above, but I'm having a hard time getting my hands around it to try and understand how it all suppose to work. Are you saying, if there are 80 GC members and 20 TC members in the parliament (80%-20%), then only 16 GC and 4 TC members (20%) +1 to have a simple majority to make some decisions, and 24 GC and 6 TC members (30%) +1 to make decisions on higher level.??

Not exactly!
I think what I said is quite simple.
If we have a house of 100 members (80 GCs plus 20 TCs) and decisions are taken on simple majority, it means that at least any 51 members out of the above 100 members will have to approve it. However, in order to qualify as simple majority, at least 4 (or 6) of the votes must come (included in the 51 votes needed) from the 20 TCs (20% or 30% of the TC members,) and at least 16 (or 24) of the votes must come from (included in the 51votes needed) from the 80 GCs.

For example we can have the following combination for simple majority to qualify.
I take a special case example that needs 30% minimum from each side.

Case 1:
6 TCs plus 45 GCs equals 51 /100. (Qualifies)

Case 2:
20 TCs plus 31 GCs equals 51 /100. (Qualifies)

Case 3:
5 TCs plus 46 GCs equals 51 /100 (it doesn’t qualify)

Case 4:
1 TC plus 80 GCs equals 81 /100 (it doesn’t qualify)

It may achieve the same results perhaps, however, I think numbers mean something in the psyche of the TC's to have equal number of members in the lagislator. The 50-50 is seen as an equal partners in decision making, and if we had 50 members from each side in the House (Congress), for the simple majority 50%+1 to pass or reject any laws, before going to the next stage to the equal number members in the Senate, to achieve the 60% to become law. I think this method adds more safeguards in protecting the rights of all Cyptiots.

Therefore you are basically saying that the 50:50 issue is rather symbolic than one of essence for the TCs. And why the GCs should not claim the above argument (symbolisms rather than essence,) so that they stand against a 50:50 representation.

What you seem to be asking is not for Political equality like the TCs were asking so far, but you are also asking for numerical equality too. Well, will your community be willing to contribute the 50% of the annual budget for the government as well, or you will only be contributing your proposition, which currently would even be less than the 18%. Isn’t this also a symbolic issue for you?

What I offered above is a form of political equality, as you have been asking for one, and as it is defined by the UN resolutions. What you are asking for is a levelling out of two numerically unequal groups of people. Why should we be paying from our tax money the salaries of 50 TC MPs and 50 GC MPs, if the TC community's tax contribution will at best be equal to the 18% of the budget, and the rest will be the GC contribution?

Kifeas,

Thanks for your examples above. I now understand what you meant with your percentages for the voting system within the government. As far as I can see, what you have proposed makes good sense, and it appears to be fair. As far as the 50-50 "numerical numbers" goes to have equal members on both sides, the results will be the same in the House ( Congress) , since the budget to pay for 100 members will cost the same, whether they are 50-50 or 80-20. Sometimes "good will" is worth much more on the long run than just money.!! I guess with the Parliamentary system, you would also want to do away with the second layer of government in decision making, being the SENATE.

Kifeas, overall, I do not have a problem with what you have outlined for both sides to work together, and with all the safeguars in place, I would accept it.