Cyprus-Forum.com

[Piratis]

As far as I can tell your idea of an acceptable 'federation' is one where TC will have a right to block decsions only on a small set of pre defined issues. In what way is this 'federal'?

Pre-defined yes. Otherwise who will decide if an issue falls in this category or not. In the past you said "the foreigners" but personally I do not accept to have foreigners running my country to that degree.

But it doesn't need to be a small set. It can be a big set, as long as it is predefined and clear without the intentional vagueness that we see in Annan plan.

In what way is this 'federal'?

Well, this is needed as balancing factor of the fact that freedom of settlement with full political rights would be restricted. You get something, you give something.

[Alexandros Lordos]

What I want is for any decision that affects TC differently to how GC are affected for there to be a requirement of consent from the TC community before such a decsion can be put into force (and visa versa).

Erol,

I think the basic principle of what you are saying is clear enough (and as far as I am concerned acceptable). The big, practical question is: What constitutes an effective community-protecting block? And what constitutes over-kill? In my opinion, the Annan Plan was an over-kill as far as blocking powers were concerned, leading to the opposite extreme of potential administrative paralysis. Maybe this perspective is not very prominent in your mind, because in this issue you focus mostly on your own fear: Political equality, and how it can be attained. When we focus too much on our preconceived fears, however, we tend to neglect other potential dangers ...

[erolz]

Erol,

I think the basic principle of what you are saying is clear enough (and as far as I am concerned acceptable). The big, practical question is: What constitutes an effective community-protecting block? And what constitutes over-kill? In my opinion, the Annan Plan was an over-kill as far as blocking powers were concerned, leading to the opposite extreme of potential administrative paralysis. Maybe this perspective is not very prominent in your mind, because in this issue you focus mostly on your own fear: Political equality, and how it can be attained. When we focus too much on our preconceived fears, however, we tend to neglect other potential dangers ...

I undersatnd the fear of political paralysis (vs political domination). However political paralysis in the end effects both communites negatively where as political domination, by definition affects only one negatively. Thus whilst both are potential fears / problems the balance seems to me to be to worry more about political domination than paralysis. Now this may be 'rationalisation' but I do think nerver the less that there is a 'logic' to this position?

[erolz]

Pre-defined yes. Otherwise who will decide if an issue falls in this category or not.

Well to me, an maybe I am unrealistic here, what will determin if a decsion affects one community differently to the other is whether the decsion affects one community differently than the other or not. I realise I am not explaining myslef very well here but it seems to that such a determination is not realy an issue of opinion but one of fact and thus should be quite easy to determine.

In the past you said "the foreigners" but personally I do not accept to have foreigners running my country to that degree.

If the fear and block on a workable solution is that one side will act unreasonably then I see little way forward other than to accept and agree some form of external arbitration. That or abandon a potential solution all togeather and resort to 'waiting till a balance of power shift allows one side to impose its own solution on the other' - which personaly is not a 'solution' to me at all - just an absense of one.

But it doesn't need to be a small set. It can be a big set, as long as it is predefined and clear without the intentional vagueness that we see in Annan plan.

The whole point is that we can not pre guess how one community might seek to exert control or domination on the other. That is why politcal equality of some degree is necessary. If it was just a case of our only fear being that GC will force enosis on us then a pre defined ban on enosis might be a solution (with sufficent pre agreed actions should this restriction simply be ignored). But the problem is there are nay number of ways that a numerical majority might seek to 'dominate' a numericl minorty that is split on such ethnic and historical antagonistic lines as Cyprus.

Well, this is needed as balancing factor of the fact that freedom of settlement with full political rights would be restricted. You get something, you give something.

You think if GC rights to total free settlement is limited this is a federation?

As I have said I (personaly) would trade 'free settlement' against 'political equality' (sufficent to achieved my state aim re political equality) - with Cypriots free to live and move anywhere but with 'federal' level political representation within thier own 'state' regardless of where they live (local political representation would be based on where you live but subject to federal rules / oversight).

[Bananiot]

Its heartening to see that people reject the dreaded partition and eventual "extinction" of our country. The analogy made by Othelos was quite good, I thought, and at the same time I need to inform insan that our dinosaur still has 3 more years in office and is currently working hard to make them eight. Your dinosaur will be out soon, I gather. Also, if I may add, what is missing from the above discussion is the common sense factor. Can we, or anyone else come to that, invent a constitution or call it whatever you like, that will account for all fourthcoming misfortunes or incidences? I remember quite vividly an interview by McMillan despite being very young at the time, who was asked by the journalist to comment on the hardest times of premiership. MacMillan paused for a second and replied "events my boy, events". This is where common sense comes into it.

[turkcyp]

Partition is not a very bad option for many TCs including me. At least I agree on one thing with Piratis. It is better than Annan Plan.

We can partition the island in two ways.

a) Calculate the economically feasible land hold by the TCs in 1960 and get the same quality and amount of land. This land may be 5% 10% 20% whatever it is. It is acceptable for me. The only condition is that partition should be done not one population percentages but on the amount of land hold by TCs at 1960 (or 63 for that matter), and quality of land used should be taken into account. If we have %5 urban area we should get 5% of urban, if we have 5% of farmable land we should get %5 of farmable land, if we have 5% of mounatins we should get %5 of mountains. the goverment owned land should be divided as 70-30 (since everything in the goverment is divided with that ratio in 1960 constitution, or another compromise ratio can also be found if GCs so desire). The refugess that will loose their properties because their property lies in the x% given to Turkish state can go and claim TC property at the south.

b) The second option is to keep the borders as it is, and provide ALL the GCs that has lost their properties return to their properties. The ones choose not to turn can get TC properties in the south. The GCs that choose to turn to north should live under TRNC (or whatever it will be called) rules as many of the Brits, or EU nationals choose to live so. They will have all the rights of TRNC citizenship of voting, getting elected etc. etc. , if they choose to be a citizen. The TCs and/or settlers that currently lived in GC properties will vacate the property if GC choose to return, if they choose not to return they can keep on living there. For those TCs that vacate their current houses becasue GCs reclamed then, they have effective right to go back to RoC and ask for compensation for their property left in south or get reinstated to their property.

I am sure you will find both options quite reasonable. This would be a swift divorce to an already very messy marriage.

[Alexandros Lordos]

I undersatnd the fear of political paralysis (vs political domination). However political paralysis in the end effects both communites negatively where as political domination, by definition affects only one negatively. Thus whilst both are potential fears / problems the balance seems to me to be to worry more about political domination than paralysis. Now this may be 'rationalisation' but I do think nerver the less that there is a 'logic' to this position?

Hmm, shouldn't we all be worrying about both?

After all, political domination would cause TC bad feelings which would cause lack of co-operation which would again cause administrative paralysis. So political domination would also hurt everyone ...

[erolz]

Hmm, shouldn't we all be worrying about both?

After all, political domination would cause TC bad feelings which would cause lack of co-operation which would again cause administrative paralysis. So political domination would also hurt everyone ...

Yes we should be worried about both potential problems.

I just think that their is a natural 'check' against paralysis (not perfect but it exists) that is missing with 'domination'

In analogy terms I think it is less likely that person A, in order to inflict damage on person B would force himself and person A off a high wall, than it is for person A to push person B off the wall. The reason is that in the first senario he would sustain equal damage to person B and the second only person B would sustain damage.

I say this in terms of defining where the balance should be in any proposed solution. It seems to me their is an axis with 'straight indivdual majority voting (effective GC control of all decsions) at one end through to total TC right to veto every and any decision at the other, with the corresponding problems of 'domination' at one end and 'paralysis' at the other. When considering where the 'balance' along this line should be, to best avoid both problems in practicle terms I think some consideration of the 'analogy' above needs to be made.

[Saint Jimmy]

In analogy terms I think it is less likely that person A, in order to inflict damage on person B would force himself and person A off a high wall, than it is for person A to push person B off the wall. The reason is that in the first senario he would sustain equal damage to person B and the second only person B would sustain damage.

Erolz,
your analogy left out the possibility of a third scenario: Person B's Mom is standing right under the wall, Person B jumps off, Mom grabs him and he starts yelling 'He pushed me!'. The implication is that Person B actually wants to get off the wall but is afraid of the damage he will sustain. I am not claiming it's a probable scenario, but the fear of that does exist in the GCs...[/b]

[erolz]

Erolz,
your analogy left out the possibility of a third scenario: Person B's Mom is standing right under the wall, Person B jumps off, Mom grabs him and he starts yelling 'He pushed me!'. The implication is that Person B actually wants to get off the wall but is afraid of the damage he will sustain. I am not claiming it's a probable scenario, but the fear of that does exist in the GCs...[/b]

I understand what you are saying. I was considering the 'dynamics' of two problems that of potential paralysis and of potential domination. What you have raised seems to me to be a third potential problem - namely one of deception. I am not sure that any structure can protect us from 'deceit'? At the end of the day in either or both parties is acting in bad faith, with the implicit intent of undermining a system they claim to have accepted, can any strucutre survive this? I do not think so. On the other hand I do think getting the right balance between potential domination and potential paralysis in the strucutre of an agreement can help us avoid problems (provided we want to avoid them that is!).