The Best Cyprus Community

Skip to content


Kikapu's "BBF" Power Sharing Plan.!

Propose and discuss specific solutions to aspects of the Cyprus Problem

Postby Kikapu » Mon Jan 19, 2009 3:51 pm

Tim Drayton wrote:One thing interests me, Kikapu. You know two federations, the USA and Switzerland, very well. I am curious as to why you have looked to the former, rather than the latter, as your model. The USA, while certainly a successful working federation, is very different from Cyprus. It is the size of Europe and the individual states themselves are the size of European countries. In terms of size, Switzerland comes closer, and its individual cantons are even smaller than the proposed constituent states in Cyprus. The USA is a very multicultural place, but English is the official language and it is assumed that immigrants will melt into the wider American culture - that is the dream, at least. The Swiss constitutional order, on the other hand, manages to balance the interests and aspirations of different ethnic and linguistic groups and fuse them into a single nation. I have known Swiss Germans. They consider themselves to be different from French, Italian or Romansch-speaking Swiss, and are proud of their German cultural identity, but on the other hand most definitely consider themselves to be Swiss and not Germans (or Austrians). Does Switzerland not provide a better model for a place like Cyprus where the two main communities have a dialectical sense identity in which they are torn between the two conflicting poles of different motherlands and a shared Cypriot home?.

A map of the Swiss cantons:

[img]http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/f/f8/Suisse_cantons.svg/400px-
[/img]


Tim,

In a nutshell, the Swiss model cannot work for Cyprus, because neither the GC's not the TC's have their own specific land that they own or habitated throughout the centuries. All the Cantons of Switzerland, all 26 of them have joined the Union one by one over the last 900 years bringing with them their land and people to the Union to be part of the country of Switzerland. Had we had two distinct areas (cantons) in Cyprus also that had century old history and not what we have today where a division is forced by invasion, then I would agree with you that a confederation would be ideal, and this is what the Annan Plan wanted to do and this is what the TC leadership are after. But in order for this to even happen, the GC's will have to "gift" the northern part of Cyprus to the TC's and this land from here on will only be known as TC land, in effect to become a Canton. The south then would also become the next Canton and between the two, you can have a Swisss model created. The danger with such arrangement does not end there unfortunately, because as a Confederate state, each Canton can secede from the union just by people of that Canton holding a referendum to do so, and that's what could have happened in Cyprus and the AP passed. Besides, I'm giving you a plan based on agreed Federation of "BBF" and not Confederation based on "BBC".!
User avatar
Kikapu
Leading Contributor
Leading Contributor
 
Posts: 13540
Joined: Sun Apr 16, 2006 6:18 pm

Postby Tim Drayton » Mon Jan 19, 2009 4:30 pm

Kikapu wrote:
Tim Drayton wrote:One thing interests me, Kikapu. You know two federations, the USA and Switzerland, very well. I am curious as to why you have looked to the former, rather than the latter, as your model. The USA, while certainly a successful working federation, is very different from Cyprus. It is the size of Europe and the individual states themselves are the size of European countries. In terms of size, Switzerland comes closer, and its individual cantons are even smaller than the proposed constituent states in Cyprus. The USA is a very multicultural place, but English is the official language and it is assumed that immigrants will melt into the wider American culture - that is the dream, at least. The Swiss constitutional order, on the other hand, manages to balance the interests and aspirations of different ethnic and linguistic groups and fuse them into a single nation. I have known Swiss Germans. They consider themselves to be different from French, Italian or Romansch-speaking Swiss, and are proud of their German cultural identity, but on the other hand most definitely consider themselves to be Swiss and not Germans (or Austrians). Does Switzerland not provide a better model for a place like Cyprus where the two main communities have a dialectical sense identity in which they are torn between the two conflicting poles of different motherlands and a shared Cypriot home?.

A map of the Swiss cantons:

[img]http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/f/f8/Suisse_cantons.svg/400px-
[/img]


Tim,

In a nutshell, the Swiss model cannot work for Cyprus, because neither the GC's not the TC's have their own specific land that they own or habitated throughout the centuries. All the Cantons of Switzerland, all 26 of them have joined the Union one by one over the last 900 years bringing with them their land and people to the Union to be part of the country of Switzerland. Had we had two distinct areas (cantons) in Cyprus also that had century old history and not what we have today where a division is forced by invasion, then I would agree with you that a confederation would be ideal, and this is what the Annan Plan wanted to do and this is what the TC leadership are after. But in order for this to even happen, the GC's will have to "gift" the northern part of Cyprus to the TC's and this land from here on will only be known as TC land, in effect to become a Canton. The south then would also become the next Canton and between the two, you can have a Swisss model created. The danger with such arrangement does not end there unfortunately, because as a Confederate state, each Canton can secede from the union just by people of that Canton holding a referendum to do so, and that's what could have happened in Cyprus and the AP passed. Besides, I'm giving you a plan based on agreed Federation of "BBF" and not Confederation based on "BBC".!


Are there no ethnically mixed cantons, or areas of Switzerland where people of different linguistic origins live together? A genuine question, because I don't know much about this country except I get the strong feeling that it "works" as a nation.
User avatar
Tim Drayton
Main Contributor
Main Contributor
 
Posts: 8226
Joined: Sat Jul 21, 2007 1:32 am
Location: Limassol/Lemesos

Postby zan » Mon Jan 19, 2009 4:35 pm

Kikapu wrote:
zan wrote:You are getting common sense and political will mixed up Kikapu....You ask why????Think in both terms and you will find out...If you are honest that is.


As I have said to you before....Sell it to he GCs and Greece first and then to us.


No Zan, it is not the GC's that this needs to be sold to solely so stop trying to pass the buck by trying to duck the issue, because it is the TC's who keeps bringing up the "safeguards" issues in any Power Sharing deal. What I want to know from you is, do you accept this plan as a remedy to make up for the veto vote that was in the 1960 Constitution.?



Not trying to pass anything on any one Kikapu :roll: We said YES to the AP and we MIGHT say yes to this......It is the GCs that are against anything but surrender to the "RoC"....
User avatar
zan
Leading Contributor
Leading Contributor
 
Posts: 16213
Joined: Wed Nov 02, 2005 8:55 pm

Postby DT. » Mon Jan 19, 2009 4:45 pm

zan wrote:
Kikapu wrote:
zan wrote:You are getting common sense and political will mixed up Kikapu....You ask why????Think in both terms and you will find out...If you are honest that is.


As I have said to you before....Sell it to he GCs and Greece first and then to us.


No Zan, it is not the GC's that this needs to be sold to solely so stop trying to pass the buck by trying to duck the issue, because it is the TC's who keeps bringing up the "safeguards" issues in any Power Sharing deal. What I want to know from you is, do you accept this plan as a remedy to make up for the veto vote that was in the 1960 Constitution.?



Not trying to pass anything on any one Kikapu :roll: We said YES to the AP and we MIGHT say yes to this......It is the GCs that are against anything but surrender to the "RoC"....


I personally would say yes to this Zan. WHat about you?
User avatar
DT.
Leading Contributor
Leading Contributor
 
Posts: 12196
Joined: Sun Nov 12, 2006 8:34 pm
Location: Lefkosia

Postby zan » Mon Jan 19, 2009 5:03 pm

DT. wrote:
zan wrote:
Kikapu wrote:
zan wrote:You are getting common sense and political will mixed up Kikapu....You ask why????Think in both terms and you will find out...If you are honest that is.


As I have said to you before....Sell it to he GCs and Greece first and then to us.


No Zan, it is not the GC's that this needs to be sold to solely so stop trying to pass the buck by trying to duck the issue, because it is the TC's who keeps bringing up the "safeguards" issues in any Power Sharing deal. What I want to know from you is, do you accept this plan as a remedy to make up for the veto vote that was in the 1960 Constitution.?



Not trying to pass anything on any one Kikapu :roll: We said YES to the AP and we MIGHT say yes to this......It is the GCs that are against anything but surrender to the "RoC"....


I personally would say yes to this Zan. WHat about you?


Needs some more work yet.....About another 255 pages I would say.....And about another 9000 pages of bylaws... :wink: :lol:
User avatar
zan
Leading Contributor
Leading Contributor
 
Posts: 16213
Joined: Wed Nov 02, 2005 8:55 pm

Postby DT. » Mon Jan 19, 2009 5:07 pm

zan wrote:
DT. wrote:
zan wrote:
Kikapu wrote:
zan wrote:You are getting common sense and political will mixed up Kikapu....You ask why????Think in both terms and you will find out...If you are honest that is.


As I have said to you before....Sell it to he GCs and Greece first and then to us.


No Zan, it is not the GC's that this needs to be sold to solely so stop trying to pass the buck by trying to duck the issue, because it is the TC's who keeps bringing up the "safeguards" issues in any Power Sharing deal. What I want to know from you is, do you accept this plan as a remedy to make up for the veto vote that was in the 1960 Constitution.?



Not trying to pass anything on any one Kikapu :roll: We said YES to the AP and we MIGHT say yes to this......It is the GCs that are against anything but surrender to the "RoC"....


I personally would say yes to this Zan. WHat about you?


Needs some more work yet.....About another 255 pages I would say.....And about another 9000 pages of bylaws... :wink: :lol:


If you read, this has nothing to do with the AP. The power is with the 2 states and the central govt. Not the communities.
User avatar
DT.
Leading Contributor
Leading Contributor
 
Posts: 12196
Joined: Sun Nov 12, 2006 8:34 pm
Location: Lefkosia

Postby zan » Mon Jan 19, 2009 5:18 pm

DT. wrote:
zan wrote:
DT. wrote:
zan wrote:
Kikapu wrote:
zan wrote:You are getting common sense and political will mixed up Kikapu....You ask why????Think in both terms and you will find out...If you are honest that is.


As I have said to you before....Sell it to he GCs and Greece first and then to us.


No Zan, it is not the GC's that this needs to be sold to solely so stop trying to pass the buck by trying to duck the issue, because it is the TC's who keeps bringing up the "safeguards" issues in any Power Sharing deal. What I want to know from you is, do you accept this plan as a remedy to make up for the veto vote that was in the 1960 Constitution.?



Not trying to pass anything on any one Kikapu :roll: We said YES to the AP and we MIGHT say yes to this......It is the GCs that are against anything but surrender to the "RoC"....


I personally would say yes to this Zan. WHat about you?


Needs some more work yet.....About another 255 pages I would say.....And about another 9000 pages of bylaws... :wink: :lol:


If you read, this has nothing to do with the AP. The power is with the 2 states and the central govt. Not the communities.



I have said it before and I will say it again for your benefit.....It took the best minds from all over the world and years of work, to put together a plan that you guys rejected. A few guys on a Forum talking about a single posts worth of detail and you guys ask me if I would sign up to it... :roll: :roll:

If you think that it is so worth while then I suggest you tell Kikapu to approach Christofias with it and, if he agrees, he can present it to Talat. I am sure that Christofias would want a bit more but hey...A full time job for Kikapu.

I have no intention of fiddling while Rhome burns. :roll:
User avatar
zan
Leading Contributor
Leading Contributor
 
Posts: 16213
Joined: Wed Nov 02, 2005 8:55 pm

Postby Viewpoint » Mon Jan 19, 2009 8:39 pm

Kikapu wrote:
Viewpoint wrote:Kikapu do you not see a risk? the upper house is the only place we have a chance of stopping a bill that we oppose, so leaving matters to chance and the door wide open to manipulation makes me very uncomfortable. The GCs would more than likely use their numerical advanatge to register a home in the north state as if they were resident in order to swing just one seat in their favor in the upper house and hey presto we are out in the cold. Why not fix the upper house seat in ratio to the total population seeing that they will be chosen island wide no matter where they reside so that this number would always be 5 to 5 therefore removing the risk element which would make me reject this formula.

You suggest giving back substantial land in order to keep the TCs numbers strong and therefore maintain our 5 seats in the upper house but with freedom of movement into the North state the GC could do the damage if we were 37% or if we were 20%, once they use their number to infiltrate the north state they can take control of the 1 vital seat they need for total control .


VP,

You yourself has said it many times, that very few GC's would come and live under a TC administration in the north state, and that's the way I see it also, so why do you now believe, that the GC's are going to come in large numbers to "steal" one of the Upper House's members seat.? In order to do that, the GC's would need to equal the TC's numbers in the TC state. If most of the concentrated GC properties are returned to become part of the GC state, why would then will they move to the TC state to live there.? It does not make sense. You are looking to some kind of conspiracy to take place by shifting almost 200,000 GC's into the TC state.! You are talking about families uprooting themselves from rest of the island just to move north, so that to change the dynamics of the Upper House.! Really VP.? If 50,000 GC moved to the TC state, it will be a miracle and that would still give the TC's a 4:1 majority in the north state. Those who are registered to vote will need to maintain their residence in the state that they vote in, and just by establishing an fake address, such as an PO Box will not work. They will also need to have drivers licence from the north or some kind of another ID, one can only vote in one state only which can be verified in national registration system, bills and taxes paid in the state they live in, kids going to school in the state they live in as well as bank accounts and mortgages and on and on.

The other reason why I do not worry about it, you have not told us what it is that such a conspiracy will take place to do what exactly in the Upper House by the GC's. Do not forget, that anything that is put to be voted on that is unconstitutional, will be rejected by the Supreme courts, even if it did pass in the Upper House, which will be unlikely. You are assuming that all the GC's are out to get the TC's at every turn. Give a little time, and once both the Houses start voting based on political ideology, the voting will be so mixed by the communities, you will not have any control how the TC's will vote and neither will the GC's. Of course, these MP's represent the views of their constituents in their home states and districts, and if MP's votes do not represent the will of their constituents, they will be kicked out of office at the next elections.

Give us some examples what will be voted on by both the Houses that will harm the TC's more than the GC's, since the Upper and Lower Houses will vote on matters that concern the whole country and all the citizens and not individual communities or individuals citizens.

But to answer your question more directly as to why the 5 seats are not assigned to each community rather to each state, it's because it would disenfranchise anyone who is not a TC or a GC in running for those seats. In another words, if a Cypriot citizen who happens to be an Armenian, British, Russian Turk will not be allowed to run, even though they are full Cypriot citizens. How will you justify that. No, those seats are up for grabs by any citizen living in those states by anyone as long as they have met the basic requirements to run for office. Now, I know your reasoning very well why you want to have it the way you have stated above, and it is not so much about feeling uncomfortable of losing any of the Upper House seats to anyone who may not be a TC, because that's not going to happen if substantial GC land is given back but rather because you want to keep most of the GC land as part of the TC state. It is only then you create the risk of having too many GC's in the TC state by keeping their land, and you can then only blame yourself by trying to have it both ways, which you might then end up losing some of the Upper House seats to the GC's, and even then it is unlikely, because once again, you have told us that the GC's will not come and live under a TC administration in the north, and I believe you are correct. It is just that, when giving substantial GC land back, you have reduced that risk enormously as well as have created a aroma of fairness that the rightful owners have gotten their lands back which will in return make better neighbours living next to each other.

Most of the bills will pass as a joint voting in the north between the GC's and the TC's with very few deadlocks, and in those deadlocks, we will have a mechanism to resolve it with the vice President or the President.


You have obviously put a lot of thought into this structure which I congratulate you for but leaving the door wide open to the possibility which could cost us everything is alarming whether or not it would happen is irrelevent as the sheer possibility is a risk we cannot afford to take for obvious reasons. If the balance in the upper house was fixed at 5 5 with a TC president and GC Vice President or visa versa for the last safeguard then I would vote for your proposal but with the risk element which could leave us at the mercy of the GCs I will have to reject it.
User avatar
Viewpoint
Leading Contributor
Leading Contributor
 
Posts: 25211
Joined: Sun Feb 20, 2005 2:48 pm
Location: Nicosia/Lefkosa

Postby Kikapu » Mon Jan 19, 2009 9:19 pm

Tim Drayton wrote:
Kikapu wrote:
Tim Drayton wrote:One thing interests me, Kikapu. You know two federations, the USA and Switzerland, very well. I am curious as to why you have looked to the former, rather than the latter, as your model. The USA, while certainly a successful working federation, is very different from Cyprus. It is the size of Europe and the individual states themselves are the size of European countries. In terms of size, Switzerland comes closer, and its individual cantons are even smaller than the proposed constituent states in Cyprus. The USA is a very multicultural place, but English is the official language and it is assumed that immigrants will melt into the wider American culture - that is the dream, at least. The Swiss constitutional order, on the other hand, manages to balance the interests and aspirations of different ethnic and linguistic groups and fuse them into a single nation. I have known Swiss Germans. They consider themselves to be different from French, Italian or Romansch-speaking Swiss, and are proud of their German cultural identity, but on the other hand most definitely consider themselves to be Swiss and not Germans (or Austrians). Does Switzerland not provide a better model for a place like Cyprus where the two main communities have a dialectical sense identity in which they are torn between the two conflicting poles of different motherlands and a shared Cypriot home?.

A map of the Swiss cantons:

[img]http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/f/f8/Suisse_cantons.svg/400px-
[/img]


Tim,

In a nutshell, the Swiss model cannot work for Cyprus, because neither the GC's not the TC's have their own specific land that they own or habitated throughout the centuries. All the Cantons of Switzerland, all 26 of them have joined the Union one by one over the last 900 years bringing with them their land and people to the Union to be part of the country of Switzerland. Had we had two distinct areas (cantons) in Cyprus also that had century old history and not what we have today where a division is forced by invasion, then I would agree with you that a confederation would be ideal, and this is what the Annan Plan wanted to do and this is what the TC leadership are after. But in order for this to even happen, the GC's will have to "gift" the northern part of Cyprus to the TC's and this land from here on will only be known as TC land, in effect to become a Canton. The south then would also become the next Canton and between the two, you can have a Swisss model created. The danger with such arrangement does not end there unfortunately, because as a Confederate state, each Canton can secede from the union just by people of that Canton holding a referendum to do so, and that's what could have happened in Cyprus and the AP passed. Besides, I'm giving you a plan based on agreed Federation of "BBF" and not Confederation based on "BBC".!


Are there no ethnically mixed cantons, or areas of Switzerland where people of different linguistic origins live together? A genuine question, because I don't know much about this country except I get the strong feeling that it "works" as a nation.


Some Canton do have mixed linguistic origins where they border each other or other countries like France, Italy and Germany. The Swiss system works very well for the Swiss, then again, everything seems to work well here. They are basically law abiding citizens with respect for themselves and others. It is a civilized nation of no other who pushes the boundaries in perfecting anything that they do. I can't say enough about the Swiss and I'm afraid, Cypriots are not in the same league as the Swiss to make the Swiss political system to work in Cyprus.! No offence intended.!

Here is something you may not know. When a child is born, say in Canton of Zurich, that's not was is reported in official document, including passports, if Canton of Zurich is not your ancestral Canton. What is written down, is the place of your fathers ancestral place which goes back to the Canton the family originated from which can be centuries old. To this date, Cantons keep track of where their people are, because once you are from a particular Canton, you remain with that Canton regardless of where else you are born in Switzerland. When a woman marries, than she takes her husband place of ancestral birth place as her place of birth also.
User avatar
Kikapu
Leading Contributor
Leading Contributor
 
Posts: 13540
Joined: Sun Apr 16, 2006 6:18 pm

Postby Kikapu » Mon Jan 19, 2009 9:30 pm

Viewpoint wrote:
Kikapu wrote:
Viewpoint wrote:Kikapu do you not see a risk? the upper house is the only place we have a chance of stopping a bill that we oppose, so leaving matters to chance and the door wide open to manipulation makes me very uncomfortable. The GCs would more than likely use their numerical advanatge to register a home in the north state as if they were resident in order to swing just one seat in their favor in the upper house and hey presto we are out in the cold. Why not fix the upper house seat in ratio to the total population seeing that they will be chosen island wide no matter where they reside so that this number would always be 5 to 5 therefore removing the risk element which would make me reject this formula.

You suggest giving back substantial land in order to keep the TCs numbers strong and therefore maintain our 5 seats in the upper house but with freedom of movement into the North state the GC could do the damage if we were 37% or if we were 20%, once they use their number to infiltrate the north state they can take control of the 1 vital seat they need for total control .


VP,

You yourself has said it many times, that very few GC's would come and live under a TC administration in the north state, and that's the way I see it also, so why do you now believe, that the GC's are going to come in large numbers to "steal" one of the Upper House's members seat.? In order to do that, the GC's would need to equal the TC's numbers in the TC state. If most of the concentrated GC properties are returned to become part of the GC state, why would then will they move to the TC state to live there.? It does not make sense. You are looking to some kind of conspiracy to take place by shifting almost 200,000 GC's into the TC state.! You are talking about families uprooting themselves from rest of the island just to move north, so that to change the dynamics of the Upper House.! Really VP.? If 50,000 GC moved to the TC state, it will be a miracle and that would still give the TC's a 4:1 majority in the north state. Those who are registered to vote will need to maintain their residence in the state that they vote in, and just by establishing an fake address, such as an PO Box will not work. They will also need to have drivers licence from the north or some kind of another ID, one can only vote in one state only which can be verified in national registration system, bills and taxes paid in the state they live in, kids going to school in the state they live in as well as bank accounts and mortgages and on and on.

The other reason why I do not worry about it, you have not told us what it is that such a conspiracy will take place to do what exactly in the Upper House by the GC's. Do not forget, that anything that is put to be voted on that is unconstitutional, will be rejected by the Supreme courts, even if it did pass in the Upper House, which will be unlikely. You are assuming that all the GC's are out to get the TC's at every turn. Give a little time, and once both the Houses start voting based on political ideology, the voting will be so mixed by the communities, you will not have any control how the TC's will vote and neither will the GC's. Of course, these MP's represent the views of their constituents in their home states and districts, and if MP's votes do not represent the will of their constituents, they will be kicked out of office at the next elections.

Give us some examples what will be voted on by both the Houses that will harm the TC's more than the GC's, since the Upper and Lower Houses will vote on matters that concern the whole country and all the citizens and not individual communities or individuals citizens.

But to answer your question more directly as to why the 5 seats are not assigned to each community rather to each state, it's because it would disenfranchise anyone who is not a TC or a GC in running for those seats. In another words, if a Cypriot citizen who happens to be an Armenian, British, Russian Turk will not be allowed to run, even though they are full Cypriot citizens. How will you justify that. No, those seats are up for grabs by any citizen living in those states by anyone as long as they have met the basic requirements to run for office. Now, I know your reasoning very well why you want to have it the way you have stated above, and it is not so much about feeling uncomfortable of losing any of the Upper House seats to anyone who may not be a TC, because that's not going to happen if substantial GC land is given back but rather because you want to keep most of the GC land as part of the TC state. It is only then you create the risk of having too many GC's in the TC state by keeping their land, and you can then only blame yourself by trying to have it both ways, which you might then end up losing some of the Upper House seats to the GC's, and even then it is unlikely, because once again, you have told us that the GC's will not come and live under a TC administration in the north, and I believe you are correct. It is just that, when giving substantial GC land back, you have reduced that risk enormously as well as have created a aroma of fairness that the rightful owners have gotten their lands back which will in return make better neighbours living next to each other.

Most of the bills will pass as a joint voting in the north between the GC's and the TC's with very few deadlocks, and in those deadlocks, we will have a mechanism to resolve it with the vice President or the President.


You have obviously put a lot of thought into this structure which I congratulate you for but leaving the door wide open to the possibility which could cost us everything is alarming whether or not it would happen is irrelevent as the sheer possibility is a risk we cannot afford to take for obvious reasons. If the balance in the upper house was fixed at 5 5 with a TC president and GC Vice President or visa versa for the last safeguard then I would vote for your proposal but with the risk element which could leave us at the mercy of the GCs I will have to reject it.


As I said to you before VP, you control the outcome, which depends how much land you give back to the GC's that they already own. This is the only way you are going to be in a position to keep those 5 Upper House seats for ever. But lets put that aside for the moment. How will you control what decision that the 5 TC senators will make in the Upper House. You are going to have 5 TC's with 5 different political ideology, and one or two may want to vote with their GC senators from the south, because it all depends what you see as being against TC's interest, but they may see it as what is best for the country. How will you control how those 5 TC's will vote. The answer is of course, you cannot not. This is what Democracy is all about and nothing is black and white, which you have reminded me of that fact many times in the past. I go back to my question for you. What would be a bill that would be against the TC's interest, considering the fact, the TC state will control 99% of what goes on in the TC state. The Upper and Lower House is mainly for national and International based voting and not on ethnicity or on the states themselves.
User avatar
Kikapu
Leading Contributor
Leading Contributor
 
Posts: 13540
Joined: Sun Apr 16, 2006 6:18 pm

PreviousNext

Return to Cyprus Problem Solution Proposals

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests