Cyprus-Forum.com

zan wrote:

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 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...

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...

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.

Kikapu wrote:

zan wrote:

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 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...

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...

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.

Zan, for the love of GOD. I was not writing the entire settlement plan. I thought you would have seen that at least. This was just one plan to do with the Power Share and on how to secure "safeguards" for the TC's in decision making so that the TC's are not "railroaded" by the GC's greater numbers. It is totally Democratic with built in "safeguards", but like anything else in life, nothing comes free or cheap. To be able to secure the plan as I proposed and be Democratic at the same time, because the EU will require that everything be Democratic and respecting every one's Human Rights, substantial GC land would need to be returned in exchange, and in return, the TC state will be part of Cyprus, so that you can once again call yourself Cypriot and have the northern part become part of the EU which will bring many benefits to TC's in particular.

zan wrote:

Kikapu wrote:

zan wrote:

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 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...

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...

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.

Zan, for the love of GOD. I was not writing the entire settlement plan. I thought you would have seen that at least. This was just one plan to do with the Power Share and on how to secure "safeguards" for the TC's in decision making so that the TC's are not "railroaded" by the GC's greater numbers. It is totally Democratic with built in "safeguards", but like anything else in life, nothing comes free or cheap. To be able to secure the plan as I proposed and be Democratic at the same time, because the EU will require that everything be Democratic and respecting every one's Human Rights, substantial GC land would need to be returned in exchange, and in return, the TC state will be part of Cyprus, so that you can once again call yourself Cypriot and have the northern part become part of the EU which will bring many benefits to TC's in particular.

What are you planning to do with it Kikapu.....

Kikapu wrote:

zan wrote:

Kikapu wrote:

zan wrote:

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 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...

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...

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.

Zan, for the love of GOD. I was not writing the entire settlement plan. I thought you would have seen that at least. This was just one plan to do with the Power Share and on how to secure "safeguards" for the TC's in decision making so that the TC's are not "railroaded" by the GC's greater numbers. It is totally Democratic with built in "safeguards", but like anything else in life, nothing comes free or cheap. To be able to secure the plan as I proposed and be Democratic at the same time, because the EU will require that everything be Democratic and respecting every one's Human Rights, substantial GC land would need to be returned in exchange, and in return, the TC state will be part of Cyprus, so that you can once again call yourself Cypriot and have the northern part become part of the EU which will bring many benefits to TC's in particular.

What are you planning to do with it Kikapu.....

It was to show VP, that there are options in getting what we want as far as "safeguards" in a democratic way which can be agreed on by both sides. I'm sure those in the position of discussing a settlement already can figure this out themselves and that they don't need my help. Democracy does not need to be a Dirty Word, Zan, but Democracy does not come cheap however. The question is, what are we willing to pay to do things in a right way.!

Kikapu wrote:It was to show VP, that there are options in getting what we want as far as "safeguards" in a democratic way which can be agreed on by both sides.

We can think of democracy as a system of government with four key elements:

1. A political system for choosing and replacing the government through free and fair elections.

2. The active participation of the people, as citizens, in politics and civic life.

3. Protection of the human rights of all citizens.

4. A rule of law, in which the laws and procedures apply equally to all citizens.

Get Real! wrote:

Kikapu wrote:It was to show VP, that there are options in getting what we want as far as "safeguards" in a democratic way which can be agreed on by both sides.

Democracy is NOT a bunch of arrangements "agreed on in a democratic way" as you seem to suggest above, but a system of government with CRYSTAL CLEAR and UNWAVERING properties...

We can think of democracy as a system of government with four key elements:

1. A political system for choosing and replacing the government through free and fair elections.

2. The active participation of the people, as citizens, in politics and civic life.

3. Protection of the human rights of all citizens.

4. A rule of law, in which the laws and procedures apply equally to all citizens.

http://www.stanford.edu/~ldiamond/iraq/ ... 012004.htm

Your plan fails on ALL four elements above because the KEY WORD in democracy is CITIZENS, not communities, but CITIZENS!
In a democracy, the supreme power lies in a body of citizens not ethnic gangs!

Only a citizen-based system of government can ever be democratic and everything else is hogwash!

Kikapu wrote:

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.

Get Real! wrote:

Kikapu wrote:It was to show VP, that there are options in getting what we want as far as "safeguards" in a democratic way which can be agreed on by both sides.

Democracy is NOT a bunch of arrangements "agreed on in a democratic way" as you seem to suggest above, but a system of government with CRYSTAL CLEAR and UNWAVERING properties...

We can think of democracy as a system of government with four key elements:

1. A political system for choosing and replacing the government through free and fair elections.

2. The active participation of the people, as citizens, in politics and civic life.

3. Protection of the human rights of all citizens.

4. A rule of law, in which the laws and procedures apply equally to all citizens.

http://www.stanford.edu/~ldiamond/iraq/ ... 012004.htm

Your plan fails on ALL four elements above because the KEY WORD in democracy is CITIZENS, not communities, but CITIZENS!
In a democracy, the supreme power lies in a body of citizens not ethnic gangs!

Only a citizen-based system of government can ever be democratic and everything else is hogwash!

DT. wrote:

Get Real! wrote:

Kikapu wrote:It was to show VP, that there are options in getting what we want as far as "safeguards" in a democratic way which can be agreed on by both sides.

Democracy is NOT a bunch of arrangements "agreed on in a democratic way" as you seem to suggest above, but a system of government with CRYSTAL CLEAR and UNWAVERING properties...

We can think of democracy as a system of government with four key elements:

1. A political system for choosing and replacing the government through free and fair elections.

2. The active participation of the people, as citizens, in politics and civic life.

3. Protection of the human rights of all citizens.

4. A rule of law, in which the laws and procedures apply equally to all citizens.

http://www.stanford.edu/~ldiamond/iraq/ ... 012004.htm

Your plan fails on ALL four elements above because the KEY WORD in democracy is CITIZENS, not communities, but CITIZENS!
In a democracy, the supreme power lies in a body of citizens not ethnic gangs!

Only a citizen-based system of government can ever be democratic and everything else is hogwash!

Thats exactly what he's done GR. The seats of the upper house are fixed with the state and not the community. If the TC's wish to control those seats then they must provide back adequate land so that the GC's are not a majority in their state. If they are then the 5 seats of the northern state will also be voted by GC's.