Cyprus-Forum.com

[Piratis]

Alexandre, what you quoted above are the cases where 2/5ths are required. In all other cases 1/4th is required PLUS at least 1 out of the 2 (=50%) TC members of the Presidential council.

Decisions of Parliament shall require the approval of both Chambers
by simple majority, including one quarter of voting Senators from
each constituent state. For specified matters, a special majority of
two-fifths of sitting Senators from each constituent state shall be
required.

The Presidential Council shall strive to reach decisions by
consensus. Where it fails to reach consensus, it shall, unless
otherwise specified, take decisions by simple majority of members
present and voting, provided this comprises at least one member
from each constituent state.

[Piratis]

If the RoC exists and if GCs really believe in the RoC as it was agreed in 1960 (and they seem claim that) then why don't we simply use the security treaties (650 Turkish soldiers and intervention) from these agreements?

I feel like many GCs use pick-and-choose tactic (like Denktash does) in regard to 1960 agreements.

Metecyp, you talk about "pick-and-choose tactic" while what you are doing is exactly a pick-and-choose tactic.

What you do is that you pick what you like from the 1960 agreements (guarantees, veto power, 70-30 etc) and you want to change everything that you don't like.

So if you didn't do pick-and-choose then you would come back to take your 70-30, veto power, guarantees etc, and stop talking about TC component state and the like.

We accept the 1960 agreements. They are not perfect but they are acceptable. Do you accept them too? If you do then problem solved. If you don't, then stop the pick-and-choose tactics.

[erolz]

And who will decide what kind of decision each issue is?

Lets say that TCs want to block something. Isn't it obvious that they will claim that this something is an issue that they should be able to block?

So we are on square one.

Well if a decision does not affect TC differently, why would we want to block it any more or less than GC? Or do you think we would do so just to annoy and belittle the GC community?

The 'principal' I proposed seems pretty clear to me. Certianly there may be case where it is 'arguable' as to if the proposed change affects TC differently than GC. Ultimately these could be decided by some form of independent legal panel if necessary.

You suggest some possibilites and I will say if I think they meet the principals definition or not ?

[Alexandros Lordos]

Yes Piratis, I know ...

I don't think 25% of TC senators is too high, I don't see that leading to any serious deadlocks.

However, 40% is high, and I think it should have been reserved for very important issues only ...

As for the Presidential Council, I agree that needing the agreement of one out of two ministers is very high - it is even higher than the percent for the senate, and we are talking about daily executive decisions here ...

I think it would have been better if there were 3 voting TC ministers (instead of 2) with only one having to agree to any particular decision... that would still safeguard that anti-TC actions were blocked, while offering less pretexts to lead the executive into paralysis. This is an improvement that the GCs asked for last year during the negotiations, but unfortunately it was not incorporated.

P.S. This is a very lively discussion, but unfortunately I will have to log off now - my wife is complaining

[erolz]

Erol,

I like your ideas concerning turkish guarantees ...

Maybe a new treaty could be signed (without Britain this time ) whereby the right of intervention is clearly defined and clearly limited, in the way that you propose ...

In addtion to laying out the conditions in which Turkish intervention would be allowed it could also try and define some 'guidlines' for what will after such an event. Say and agreed seperation for an agreed period of 5 years - in which time all perties will try and resolve their differences. If they are unable to do so in this set time period then full seperation would be the result?

I personaly am willing to consider all proposals to try and meet GC security concerns (re Turkish intervention) but can not accept an pre condition that Turkey can never have a valid right to intervention under any circumstance at all.

[metecyp]

We accept the 1960 agreements. They are not perfect but they are acceptable. Do you accept them too? If you do then problem solved. If you don't, then stop the pick-and-choose tactics.

Dear Piratis,

Whether I accept 1960 agreements or not is irrelevant because I am not the one claiming that the RoC exists and I am not the one benefitting from the structure in the south.

I find it deceitful when you claim that the RoC exists in its original form and then you don't even accept the fundamental aspects of the 1960 agreements that make up the RoC. If you have difficulty accepting veto power of TCs, 650 Turkish soldiers, intervention rights today or in a future solution, then how can you say you accept the 1960 agreements? That means you don't really accept it, you just pretend that you accept it just to be seen as if you abide by the law and there is no TC presence in the RoC to challenge this.

Declare to the whole world that what you have in the south is not the RoC and then we can start talking from the scratch, I have no problem with that. But instead you keep insisting that what you have is the RoC and you accept it, and then you try to reach to an agreement where the fundamental aspects that make up the RoC are completely ignored. Isn't this a big contradiction?

[Piratis]

You suggest some possibilites and I will say if I think they meet the principals definition or not ?

The problem is that it doesn't really matter what you think since you are not the one who is going to take the decisions.

The TCs (and probably settlers) that will be taking the decisions will be given an effective veto power on everything. If there are no specific areas on which they can use this power, then nothing can stop them from using this power whenever they feel like.

For example we have some MPs that are elected mainly from farmers votes. Say that farmers demanded 10 million pounds of financial support from the government, but the government was only willing to give them 5. Now if those MPs had a veto power, they could blackmail the government that either they give in and give to the farmers the 10 million they are asking, or they will veto the yearly budget.

[erolz]

The problem is that it doesn't really matter what you think since you are not the one who is going to take the decisions.

OK

So do you accept in my 'theoretical' example of a proposed limit on non EU foreign investment that TC should have a right to block such proposals if it materialy affects the TC to a much greater degree then the GC community?

If so how would you word / include such proposals in your list of 'special circumstances'?

[Piratis]

Whether I accept 1960 agreements or not is irrelevant because I am not the one claiming that the RoC exists and I am not the one benefiting from the structure in the south.

Yes, but you (TCs) are the ones who prevent RoC from functioning the way it should.

You can't on one hand illegally occupy 1/3rd of the country, and on the other hand accuse us that RoC doesn't function the way it should!!
Of course it doesn't! How can it function the way it should when part of it is occupied??

you claim that the RoC exists in its original form

No, RoC has 1/3rd of its land occupied. Thats not its original form. There is obviously an anomaly, and this anomaly is due to the Turkish occupation. If you don't want anomalies, and you want the RoC in its original form then you have to end the occupation.

[Piratis]

So do you accept in my 'theoretical' example of a proposed limit on non EU foreign investment that TC should have a right to block such proposals if it materialy affects the TC to a much greater degree then the GC community?

If so how would you word / include such proposals in your list of 'special circumstances'?

The way I see it the differences between GCs and TCs are 1.Language, 2.Culture, 3.Religion.
Other than that we are all basically the same. Now if in addition to those 3 areas, there are some other specific areas where TCs are different, then we will have to look at this areas one by one and see how we can accommodate the differences, but we have to be very specific (e.g. add a 4. and 5. in the list above). For this 3,4,5..10 specific things TCs can have an effective veto power.

To come in "my shoes" and understand me better lets leave out the TCs/GCs for a moment and take some other groups. I am from Limassol. Say I was the mayor, and Limassol had an effective veto power. I love my town and I believe it deserves a lot. I could go and demand a huge financial support for my town, I could demand that 1/3rd of the budget for development should go to Limassol. You can say "hey, why 1/3rd? There are 6 districts in Cyprus". Sure, but like TCs that they are 18% but think they are 33% (or 50% some times) I could think that Limassol deserves 1/3rd of everything. In any case, Limassolians are the ones who vote for me, and they would like to get 1/3rd of everything. Who cares if the rest of Cypriots think that what I demand is unfair?

The result:
Either they would give in, give me the 1/3rd of everything that I demand, and Limassol will become the richest district.
Or, they will not, I will retaliate with vetos on everything because I will believe they do not treat me in a fair way, and everything can collapse.

Now, if it was me, I wouldn't go that far because I don't want my country to collapse. But when some others were dreaming of partition for ages, I don't think that such development would bother them too much. Actually it might be their aim, like it has been for the last half century.