Cyprus-Forum.com

skipper wrote:Kikapu,

You've obviously put a lot of effort into thinking this through some of the thinking seems very similar to the Annan plan. For example in the last plan around 50% of displached GCs (90,000) would be able to return home under the GC state (28.6% area for TC state) and GCs returning under the TC state would have a transitional 18% limit of the GC population (33,000 assuming TC state had a total population of 180,000 including GCs) also there where a number of villages (including all of the all GC villages in karpaz) which did not count in that 18% (as far as I recall) that would basically be autonomous from the state government in education, cuture, etc with the same provisions for certain TC villages in the GC state.

The federal state had upper and lower houses with the lower house seats divided by federal states population and the upper house GC/TC 50/50 plus atleast one seat each for each latins, armenians, maronites. Both houses pass legislation with simple majority with the upper (senate) requiring an additional atleast 25% GC/TC votes to pass through. This would allow for safeguards plus allow co-operation between say AKEL + CTP. Every citizen would vote for where they reside except for the upper house where GC votes and TC votes would go to the the appropiate community representatives.

The Annan plan had a "presidential council" to resolve deadlocks which is significantly different to your proposal though.

Also there are no refugees in cyprus since you cant be a refugee in your own country according to the UN the definition is internally displaced people.

You also say 200,000 as a number although I'm sure there was a discussion here where it was actually 180,000 (or was it 160,000?).

You also assume that everyone who can go back would go back. For example how many children of the displaced (that are counted as refugees) are willing to leave their jobs and homes to reside in the TC state? And since refugee status is passed down I read that refugees will make up the majority of GCs within a generation.

We also dont know how many originally displaced people have left cyprus with no intention of returning even if there is a settlement.

Then there are TCs communities that came north from different places in the south but want to be relocated as a community in the new TC state rather than go back south.

If these statistics could be attained we could get a much better idea of what kind of compromises could be made although last time I suggested this I had a barrage of comments calling me a thief etc even though I am from the north and have n't recieved any GC land so who gets to go back does n't affect me.

Skipper,

The AP failed primarily because it was going to be a Confederation where the TC State would be owned by the TC's and the GC state would be owned by the GC's. Within this ownership, each state would then run their own state as they wished and anyone who was not a TC or a GC, will be seen as a "foreigner" without rights to vote in the state they lived in, but as you correctly stated, that they will be able to live in one state but can only vote in another state of their community, since they will not be considered "citizens" of the state they lived in, despite owning property, paying taxes and generational history of their ancestors on that land. Further more, each Confederate state could have held an referendum at later stage voted by only "citizens" of that state to secede from the Union and there would be nothing to stop it from going through, since GC's in a TC state would not be able to vote against such a move. The AP did not unite Cypriots but rather it was designed to keep the ethnic communities apart long enough until one of the states would break away and become independent.

The Federation I described is totally different from the AP and "BBF" is about Federation and not what AP was trying to do. The AP gave seats allocated to the TC's, the GC's and the Latin, Armenian and Maronite in the Upper House, where as, the Federation allocates seats to each state, and through Democratic elections, these seats are filled, regardless who is winning those seats. Naturally, if the overwhelming majority in the TC state are TC's, then they will fill most of the Lower House seats and all of the Upper House seats themselves. The reason why some Lower House seats may be filled by the GC's, is because these seats will be elected in districts, and if there are equal number of TC's and GC's living in the same district, then that seat is up for grabs by a candidate who gets the most votes, regardless of their ethnicity. Since the Upper House seats (Senators) are chosen state wide and the overwhelming majority are TC's, then TC's will fill those seats every time Democratically chosen by those living in that state.

Lets just say that the TC state will have 200,000 TC's and 100,000 GC's. The other 100,000 GC's from the original displaced people and their descendants from the north are relocated on land that is given back and is now part of the GC state. The remaining 100,000 GC can continue to live in their properties in the TC state and continue to vote in local and Federal elections without changing the outcome of the results in the Lower and Upper House. I said that there would be 50 seats in the Lower House in the example that I gave based on 1,000,000 (1 million) Cypriots on the island with 200,000 TC citizens in the north (TC's state) and 800,000 GC citizens in the south (GC state), which gives 40 seats to the south and 10 seats to the north. But if 100,000 GC's are relocated to their homes in the TC state, then the number of Lower House seats will change from 10 to 15 seats and the seats in the GC state will be reduced from 40 seats to 35 seats. So the north will gain seats in the Lower House, but with that many GC's in the north, it is possible that those seats will go to the GC's, because now there will be 15 districts and not 10 anymore where these districts may well be GC's in majority. It really does not change the dynamics at all in the Lower House. All that is done, is that 5 extra seats held by the GC's in the south has now moved to the north in the Lower House. The TC's will still have 2:1 majority in the north TC state to continue to keep the Upper seats in the hands of the TC's. If the north gave more land back to the GC's that another 50,000 GC's were located on land that will be part of the GC state, even though it may be on a seperate parcel of land that does not physically touch the GC state, then that ratio will be 4:1, which would mean 2-3 less seats in the Lower House for the TC state, but a huge TC numbers to maintain the 5 seats in the Upper House in the hands of the TC's which is where it counts to maintain the 50% power.

The above scenario will allow every Cypriot citizen to vote for whom they choose in the state that they live in without racist restrictions what percentage of GC's can live in the north state, and prevent them from voting in a state where they pay their taxes, because if that were to be the case, then you are going to have a revolt by the GC's in the north state as the Americans did with the "Boston Tea Party" where they were paying taxes to the British but were not able to vote in Britain, hence the term
"No Taxation without Representation". That's what the AP had in mind, a Racist laws to overcome some people not being allowed to vote where they lived. No wonder the AP did not go through.

I share with you and VP and many other GC's that not all of the displaced GC's will move back to the north, whether on properties that will be given back that will be part of the GC state, or to their properties that will be in the TC state. This in fact makes everything less confusing, but in order to have a balanced system where every one's Democratic and Human Rights are respected, even if all 200,000 GC's were to move back to their land in the north, the TC's will be able to keep the Upper House in their hand, providing enough land is given back to the GC's. If no land is given back and land sizes are kept as they are today, then you are looking at a potential situation where the Ratio between the GC's and the TC's in the TC state in the north to being 1:1 ratio, and then every election will be a toss up as to who will control the Upper House. This is not what the TC's want, and you will not be able to prevent the GC's from going to their properties if they wished to, because as citizens of Cyprus, you cannot restrict any one's freedom of movement or restrict their Democratic Rights to vote. The TC's can also choose to move to their properties in the south or remain in the TC state in the north. It will be up to them. They can sell or rent their properties to others, or just keep them.

You could of course offer the GC's living in the TC state from paying any taxes at all in the TC state if they volunteered not to vote at all in the north . I do not know if that can be arranged legally, but think of the huge loss of revenue for the TC state by not being able to collect one single penny of taxes from the GC's living in the north state while they use all the services provided by that state paid by the TC taxpayers. You might even get half of the whole islands' GC's moving to the TC state in the north.! Lets face it, "Money talks and BS walks.".!

Viewpoint wrote:Kikapu your points are valid but when we cut to the basics we find that the whole system revolves around the veto issue of either the president or the vice president, the lower house with its 40 vs 10 split means that all bills can be passed without contention so its function it purely for debating and raising bills, they will automatically be passed to the upper house where the balance will be 5 vs 5 pending on a deciding vote by either the President or Vice President, then whats the function fo the lower house? Your propose structure is just a rehasing and dressing up procedure to meet "EU requirements" do you think you will be able to sell this to the GCs who have yet to comment.

Another important factor as you to mention is to keep the balance of 5 vs 5 which will for a risk factor when you consider that it can be manipulated through free movement to gain the seat that will swing the whole system in favor of the GCs. To guarantee this imo a upper limit must be applied otherwise we run the risk of losing control, this upper limit may become redundant over time but in order to persuade TCs this is vital.

If this balance can always be guaranteed I think TCs would accpet such a power sharing balance do you think you cna sell it to the GCs....any GCs want to comment?

The purpose of the Lower House is to have representatives who will represent citizens in the districts that they live in. If I lived in, say Kyrenia/Girne district, then my representative is Mr or Ms so and so who was elected by us to represent us in the Government and to fight on our behalf for funds for projects in our district from the Federal Government. This person becomes my voice because this person was elected by my district, and as long as they continue to serve the people of the district of Kyrenia/Girne, they will be re elected, I'm sure. The Upper House Senators represent the whole state and their purpose is to be a counter to the Lower House. This is a system of "Checks and Balances". Without the Upper seats at 50% power given to each state, then the Lower House will rule everything with their 40-10 seat difference. The other purpose of the Lower House, is to get a lot of the leg work done to get bills ready for the Upper House which may takes weeks and months. The Lower House can do all the "Horse Trading" with all the give and take they want to get a bill to the Upper House to be voted on and pass it in a timely fashion.

As to your concern of free movement to manipulate the 5-5 in the Upper House, is the reason I told you the other day, that in order to protect the Upper House's 5 seats in the hands of the TC's in the north state, you will need to pay the price and that it will not come cheap, which is to give back land that had mostly GC population living on them before. I explained this in detail post made to Skipper, so please read that for more information.

The balance can be guaranteed, as long as the President and the Vice President are ONLY a GC and a TC. So far during these talks, that seems to be the case as it was in the 1960 Constitution. My understanding from GC's on the forum who expressed BBF meaning to be a True Federation USA style, cannot not agree with this format. All Cypriots will continue to be the owners of all of Cyprus and are free to come and go as they please, and under the Federal Constitution which will act as an umbrella over the Federal state constitutions, each state will not be able to have Racist and undemocratic laws that would violate anyone Federal Constitution Rights. I believe this is what Christofias meant when he told the GC's back in March 08, to prepare themselves to the idea of Federation. What the GC's get pissed about along with myself, is the constant attempts by Talat to push for a system close to the AP which was a Confederation and also to try and get around the EU laws on Freedom of Movement and individuals voting rights. The True Federation as I described will not allow either state to break away and become an independent state, which the AP would have provided, and that's what Christofias is telling Talat I believe.

So the lower house is no more than a place of introduction and debate and has no real deciding capacity in making laws, therefore the 40 10 split is just symbolic we could have 50 members of GC origin who introduce bills that are anti TC they all vote in favor it still ends up in the upper house where everything depends on holding onto the balance of 5 5 and at least the role of vice president.

The arguement I put forward to guaranteeing this balance would be if the from the outset the TC community are awarded 5 seats in the upper house with a population of 200,000 then surely it really doesnt matter where these TCs are located as the decision at this level would be for the benefit of the country as a whole. Why index the population of TC just in the north why not the whole island?

If a population of 100.000 GC decide to live in the north state then surely their numbers will fall in the south state therefore reducing their seats in the upper house. Although it is vital as was the case in the AP that land will definately be return it does not have to be the deciding factor in the number of seats awarded in the upper house as the number of TCs and GCs in the total population would not change. This would also close the door to manipulation of this very important issue by the majority to gain power and place us in a difficult position.

Are there no GCs who want to comment as I said before Kikapu you will not be able to get the GCs to agree to such as arrangement, we are more flexible than they are.

Its very simple. If the seats in the houses and the executive are given to the states and not the communities, and in addittion there are no racist limits on No's of GC's in the north and vice versa then you've got yourself a deal.

DT. wrote:Its very simple. If the seats in the houses and the executive are given to the states and not the communities, and in addittion there are no racist limits on No's of GC's in the north and vice versa then you've got yourself a deal.

Then you will have no problem with my proposal that the seats in the upper house will be supported by the number of TCs and GCs all over the island and therefore there is no risk of the balance being manipulated in favor of one community.

Viewpoint wrote:

DT. wrote:Its very simple. If the seats in the houses and the executive are given to the states and not the communities, and in addittion there are no racist limits on No's of GC's in the north and vice versa then you've got yourself a deal.

Then you will have no problem with my proposal that the seats in the upper house will be supported by the number of TCs and GCs all over the island and therefore there is no risk of the balance being manipulated in favor of one community.

Kiks proposal gives 5-5 seats to the north and south state not TC's and GC's.

You want to gaurantee TC majority in a state then make sure you include our homes and villages in this state.

Viewpoint wrote: So the lower house is no more than a place of introduction and debate and has no real deciding capacity in making laws, therefore the 40 10 split is just symbolic we could have 50 members of GC origin who introduce bills that are anti TC they all vote in favor it still ends up in the upper house where everything depends on holding onto the balance of 5 5 and at least the role of vice president.

The Lower House represent proportionate representation the number of citizens from each state in the government and the larger the number, the greater number of representatives will be given to that state. If the north state had 500,000 citizens, then each state will receive 25 seats in the Lower House, the same with the state in the south with their 500,000. The Upper house seats are given to each state on equal basis that does not reflect on the number of citizens living there. This is a way to give every state in the union an equal voice in the Upper House. So yes, the Upper House is where the TC's will have an equal voice at 200,000 TC's versus equal voice to the GC's at 800,000, if both the states remained completely ethnically divided.

Viewpoint wrote:The arguement I put forward to guaranteeing this balance would be if the from the outset the TC community are awarded 5 seats in the upper house with a population of 200,000 then surely it really doesnt matter where these TCs are located as the decision at this level would be for the benefit of the country as a whole. Why index the population of TC just in the north why not the whole island?

As I stated from the beginning, that the 5 seat are given to the states and not to any one ethnicity. It would be undemocratic if you just award these seats on ethnicity bases. Kifeas's plan had just that at 80-20 basis which would have been OK in a Unitary state, but the 20 seats would be a minority in any decision making. Kifeas also went one step further by giving the TC's with their 20 seats a way to say NO by requiring X number of votes from each community, which in actual fact, would be totally undemocratic. Kifeas was very generous with his plan, but I'm not so sure if the rest of the GC's would have gone for that deal. Regardless, we are now talking about a BBF based on Federation and not a Unitary state, and in a Federation USA style, with full Democratic method, the Lower and Upper House structure as I described, will give the TC's an equal voice in the Upper House, but not in the Lower House, but the Upper House is also where each side will have a say so whether the bill will go forward or not providing the the President and the Vice Presidents are always GC and a TC.

Viewpoint wrote:If a population of 100.000 GC decide to live in the north state then surely their numbers will fall in the south state therefore reducing their seats in the upper house. Although it is vital as was the case in the AP that land will definitely be return it does not have to be the deciding factor in the number of seats awarded in the upper house as the number of TCs and GCs in the total population would not change. This would also close the door to manipulation of this very important issue by the majority to gain power and place us in a difficult position.

Sorry VP, but you are getting yourself a little bit confused here with the population numbers and the number of Upper House seats. The Upper House seats are awarded to each state regardless of how many citizens live in them. By 100,000 more GC's moving to the north state will only change the seats in the Lower House where the north state will get and the south state will lose the same number. There are only 50 seats available for the whole country of 1,000,000 Cypriot citizens. At the present time if all stayed as it is right now, then 40 seats will go to the south and 10 seats will go to the north.

Since 2000,000 thousand GC's were displaced from the north and will have right to return back to the north, and if all returned, then the north will have 400,000 citizens and the south would have 600,000 citizens which would make the Lower House seats at 30 for the south and 20 for the north, but the Upper House seats will remain at 5 seats each. But since the Upper House seats are chosen statewide and not in districts just like the Lower House representatives, with equal number of people voting in the north, 200,000 GC's and 200,000 TC's, the Upper House seats will be up for grabs by either community in the north, while in the south, they will for sure all go to the GC's. The only way to prevent this from happening in the north, is to give substantial land back to the GC's so that the TC's can have the overwhelming majority in the north, so that they too will have all 5 seats in the north. All you need to do is lose 1 Upper seat in the north, and it will not matter if the President or the vice President is a TC or not, because if all the GC's band together in the Upper House, the TC's will not be able to stop a bill from passing, even if the President was a TC and he would veto it by not signing it, since the Upper House would be able to override the President with 6 votes out of a 10 in the Upper House.

As I said previously, the members of the Lower and Upper House will work for their constituents from their districts and states, there fore any bills that comes up for a vote will not be against each state or ethnicity. Under normal circumstances, the voting will be done based on political ideology and not on ethnicity, and I hope within 25-30 years, we can get to that stage and then it would not matter if 300,000 GC's lived in the north against 200,000 TC's, because decisions will be based on political ideology, which would not matter if it a GC or a TC who may have the same ideas, therefore they will vote for the same thing, while other GC's and TC's in the north will vote for what they believe in, but for the time being, we are where we are which means voting by ethnic lines, which means giving back substantial GC land to the GC state in the south.

Viewpoint wrote:Are there no GCs who want to comment as I said before Kikapu you will not be able to get the GCs to agree to such as arrangement, we are more flexible than they are.

Weekends are not a good time for political discussions. Hopefully more people will join in during the week, starting tomorrow.!

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 .

DT. wrote:

Viewpoint wrote:

DT. wrote:Its very simple. If the seats in the houses and the executive are given to the states and not the communities, and in addittion there are no racist limits on No's of GC's in the north and vice versa then you've got yourself a deal.

Then you will have no problem with my proposal that the seats in the upper house will be supported by the number of TCs and GCs all over the island and therefore there is no risk of the balance being manipulated in favor of one community.

Kiks proposal gives 5-5 seats to the north and south state not TC's and GC's.

You want to gaurantee TC majority in a state then make sure you include our homes and villages in this state.

Include or exclude, doesnt make any difference.

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.