Cyprus-Forum.com

[Kikapu]

VP, go ahead and use your method if you like, just like the one below, just because you want to try and keep the north state at today’s lines, but don't come crying to me when 200,000 GC's and more move back to their properties and take complete control of your state legislator, state's law making body, because you will be outnumbered eventually, but look on the bright side, because you will have your 5 seats in the Upper House which is only a fraction of laws that goes through them that will not have much effect on the individual states. They are primarily to deal with international matters and balancing the national budgets and giving money to states for Federal Projects. The President will override both the Houses with Executive Orders that may include some of the things you are tying to protect, which is making sure trade with Turkey is not broken off. This is your biggest concern so far, at the risk of losing the control of the TC state's political power and by the way, don't be surprised when the GC's will sue the Federal Government for the Federal Election laws violating their Democratic and Human Rights by being disenfranchised for not being able to vote for their state's (TC state) Upper House members, assuming of course, you can even sell this idea to the GC's in the referendum, but then again, your signature says it all, doesn't it.? This plan finally exposed you for not wanting everything you have been demanding regarding “safeguards”, and now that you know there is a way, you make all the excuses to reject it. I'll go ahead and finish the rest of the plan for the benefit of others, because this plan does not involve partition, therefore you do not like it. There’s nothing worse than being a short sighted when the realities stares you in the face. Go ahead and lose the TC state just to save 5 seats in the Upper House, when you could have had both. Good luck.!

For the upper house we have a cross states vote and the top 5 GCs and top 5 TCs, so they are democratically selected by everyone one person one vote method.

The lower house is proportional representation according to who each state residents elect.

Kofi Kikapu has left the building

You wish, Zan.!

I'll finish the plan as promised, not that you will personally understand any part of it, but it will benefit others.!

[zan]

VP, go ahead and use your method if you like, just like the one below, just because you want to try and keep the north state at today’s lines, but don't come crying to me when 200,000 GC's and more move back to their properties and take complete control of your state legislator, state's law making body, because you will be outnumbered eventually, but look on the bright side, because you will have your 5 seats in the Upper House which is only a fraction of laws that goes through them that will not have much effect on the individual states. They are primarily to deal with international matters and balancing the national budgets and giving money to states for Federal Projects. The President will override both the Houses with Executive Orders that may include some of the things you are tying to protect, which is making sure trade with Turkey is not broken off. This is your biggest concern so far, at the risk of losing the control of the TC state's political power and by the way, don't be surprised when the GC's will sue the Federal Government for the Federal Election laws violating their Democratic and Human Rights by being disenfranchised for not being able to vote for their state's (TC state) Upper House members, assuming of course, you can even sell this idea to the GC's in the referendum, but then again, your signature says it all, doesn't it.? This plan finally exposed you for not wanting everything you have been demanding regarding “safeguards”, and now that you know there is a way, you make all the excuses to reject it. I'll go ahead and finish the rest of the plan for the benefit of others, because this plan does not involve partition, therefore you do not like it. There’s nothing worse than being a short sighted when the realities stares you in the face. Go ahead and lose the TC state just to save 5 seats in the Upper House, when you could have had both. Good luck.!

For the upper house we have a cross states vote and the top 5 GCs and top 5 TCs, so they are democratically selected by everyone one person one vote method.

The lower house is proportional representation according to who each state residents elect.

Kofi Kikapu has left the building

You wish, Zan.!

I'll finish the plan as promised, not that you will personally understand any part of it, but it will benefit others.!

You can take it out from under your bed and show your grandchildren Kikapu....Good luck...........

[Viewpoint]

VP, go ahead and use your method if you like, just like the one below, just because you want to try and keep the north state at today’s lines, but don't come crying to me when 200,000 GC's and more move back to their properties and take complete control of your state legislator, state's law making body, because you will be outnumbered eventually, but look on the bright side, because you will have your 5 seats in the Upper House which is only a fraction of laws that goes through them that will not have much effect on the individual states. They are primarily to deal with international matters and balancing the national budgets and giving money to states for Federal Projects. The President will override both the Houses with Executive Orders that may include some of the things you are tying to protect, which is making sure trade with Turkey is not broken off. This is your biggest concern so far, at the risk of losing the control of the TC state's political power and by the way, don't be surprised when the GC's will sue the Federal Government for the Federal Election laws violating their Democratic and Human Rights by being disenfranchised for not being able to vote for their state's (TC state) Upper House members, assuming of course, you can even sell this idea to the GC's in the referendum, but then again, your signature says it all, doesn't it.? This plan finally exposed you for not wanting everything you have been demanding regarding “safeguards”, and now that you know there is a way, you make all the excuses to reject it. I'll go ahead and finish the rest of the plan for the benefit of others, because this plan does not involve partition, therefore you do not like it. There’s nothing worse than being a short sighted when the realities stares you in the face. Go ahead and lose the TC state just to save 5 seats in the Upper House, when you could have had both. Good luck.!

For the upper house we have a cross states vote and the top 5 GCs and top 5 TCs, so they are democratically selected by everyone one person one vote method.

The lower house is proportional representation according to who each state residents elect.

Why do you automatically enter in a polimi or talk down when you are unable to get your own way or when challenged. I have not said that we will not give land back to GCs if that is whats necessary what I have said is you have yet to show me that giving back land will not allow GCs to take the 5 seats life line you have provided TCs in your plan.

So far you have gifted the lower house to the GCs, reduced and broken up the TC state and left us exposed to potential loss of any say in the upper house on which we pin our hopes and trust to ensure we are not hijacked once again.

You also forget that if the TC state is to reduced to half its size then why not just make the break and agree 2 separate states but this time both will be recognized.

[BirKibrisli]

Kikapu,
You deserve our admiration and gratitute for all the work you have put into this thread....I have read the whole thread in one sitting and I believe this power sharing agreement would work with slight ammendments to accomodate VP's main fear...The Federal upper house members (Senators) would be chosen by a quota system i assume...political parties would put up their candidates (max of 5) and the citizens in each state would vote for their prefered ticket,so to speak...so for every 20% of the vote the party would get 1 senator....Think about this...for the GCs to gain one Senator in the North their party would need to win 20% of the vote...To win 2 seats they will need 40% of the vote....

So what is stopping us to make it not 6 but 8 votes needed from the upper house to pass any bill....Or if you want to go all the way and make it watertight,we can say all 10 senators have to vote for any bill to make it law....Two questions...Would anyone really object to this on democratic grounds??? And would this satisfy VP's fears of domination by the GCs??????

Hi Bir,

Let me talk about your second paragraph only, because I want to address your first paragraph in my next post regarding getting the whole process started from the time peace is achieved..

By adding more numbers to pass any bill is not what VP is worried about, and secondly, the more numbers you add that passes the 50% margin to pass any laws, you are creating problems, such as;

a) getting away from simple majority rule

b) you are creating gridlock in the government requiring 8 or god forbid, 10 senate votes (100%) to pass anything. Hake you ever tried to get 10 people to agree on anything.? This will lead to complete gridlock of the government, because as DT stated, you will have small minority group blocking the whole process.

VP is happy with the simple majority of 6 votes, because anything one side that does not like in a bill, will vote against it, and at 5-5 votes for both states (sides), then it is a tie, then only a vice President and President can break the tie, and if they too cannot, then the bill either dies or it is revised to be voted again later. The government needs to work and the higher the numbers (%) required to pass a bill, the less chance you are going to get everyone to agree on, or that in order to agree on a bill by all 8 or 10 senators, the bill will be so watered down to please everyone from it's original intent, it will be like drinking 1% fat milk...........yuck.!

What VP is concerned about is not having enough TC's vs. the number of GC's in the north state if the present lines to be kept as is now, which would mean, that the GC's will take away potentially one or two senate seats away if the GC vs TC population is on even numbers if all 200,000 GC's were to return. His other concern is, by giving the GC's their land back and reducing the north state by 50% of what it is today's "trnc", he believes that will not be enough land to have a functioning state. The advantage of doing the above of course, is to keep the north almost "pure TC" which would mean maintaining the 5 senate seats and equal power for the TC's at 50%. Lets not forget what VP has been demanding all these times. He wants the TC's to have equal power and also for them to have an equal say to their future. Since most of the TC's and GC's future is determined within their own states which is where 99% of decisions are made that will effect their day to day lives, this plan makes that possible. VP has yet to come to terms with of giving GC land back to become part of the GC state, and that is where his problems lies. You can blame the AP for that, because it gave the TC's way too much land than it should have done, so now it is hard to accept anything less. The moment he accepts the realities on the ground, then everything will fit in it's place.

Kikapu,
By having a two-tier government you are alreary at risk of creating gritlock....VP's fear is that the TCs will be at the mercy of the GCs when it comes to the actual running of government. While I agree that getting 8 people to agree on something is more difficult that getting 6,if this will overcome the TC resistance to your arrangement,I think it is worth taking that risk... The Upper house would be the house of review anyway...The senators are there to safeguard the intrests of their own state...The lower house will be aware of this and would prepare its bills accordingly...I would like to hear from VP on this.... If the number was 8 would he accept this proposal...????

I personally think everyone is overestimating the number of people who would reuproot themselves and move to the other side...I would be surprised if more than 15% of the GC refugees return to the North...People do not plan their lives according to the perceived interests of their "community"...They decide on a very personal and family level...
And same with their politics...you are right ,Kikapu,GCs will not vote according to their ethnicity...They will vote according to their political and economic beliefs...But saying this to VP will not make his fears go away...Both our communities have suffered extended trauma,and the distrust and emnity is well entrenched...You can't tell a clinically depressed person to trust you and all will be well...You can't tell them to just shake themselves out of it,they are just being self indulgent....Communities in post-traumatic stress are no different...

We have to find a way to move from where we are onto an agreement which will allow us to start living together and cooperating in running our lives and our governments...If lifting the required votes from 6 to 8 will do it,lets do it...But VP has not had his say yet...I'd like to know what he thinks about this...

[Nikitas]

Kikapu,

Re the points I raised above a starting point is VPs comment:

"your structure will go down like a lead balloon and GCs will take full control pushing us to one side yet again."

This view represents an existent and real fear of the TCs and it must be addressed. A component state where the TCs are assured of full control within the context of a Federation will reassure them since they will hold all posts and functions within that area. GCs cannot take control of the whole country as long as there is a guaranteed and territorially defined TC area.

Restricting political rights within the territory of each state is the logical consequence of the above. Obviously it is not ideal especially for those that will reside and/or have a business in the "other" state. But if it works to preserve a sense of security for one or both communities then I am willing to go for it, as long as the rest of the rights (establishment, residence, property etc) are preserved. The assumption for the above is that EU acquis will prevail in the whole of the federation.

The test for the degree of separation, and here I refer to Talat's views on the property issue and how it affects bizonality, will be the future movements of the population. At some point in the future the division might prove to be anachronistic and a block to the prosperity of the whole island. My view is that the structure that will come out of the talks will by necessity be an artifice and realities will bring about practical adaptations. In other words the natural way of things would be towards an open and fully democractic system such as the one you propose. I am not sure that Cypriots would be ready to admit to themselves that they are ready for that now and accept it if it was proposed in the talks.

And one aside re the properties issue. If some sort of clearing house system is set up for voluntary exchanges is put in place, and the emphasis here is on VOLUNTARY it will function like a stock exchange in the sense that it will show desireability of certain areas. I wonder what the demand levels will be for property by location. We might be surprised to see that land in some areas in the south is at a premium and TCs will not want to let it go, which will tend to sink the properties exchange system as a means to an eventual bizonal solution. If I were a TC with property in Zakaki in Limassol, near the new container port, I would not want to exchange it with land in Karpasia no matter how much they offered me. The value of land is not only current market vallue but also future anticipated income and capital gain. Things are going to get interesting over this property issue as it comes up against the Cypriot sense of self interest and self preservation!

[Viewpoint]

BirKibrisli

We have to find a way to move from where we are onto an agreement which will allow us to start living together and cooperating in running our lives and our governments...If lifting the required votes from 6 to 8 will do it,lets do it...But VP has not had his say yet...I'd like to know what he thinks about this...

Bir this is of course a better arrangement but still leaves a risk as we do not trust each other TCs will not want to see any doors left open for GCs to exploit by swamping the TC state in order to change the balance and take full control.

The upper house can be voted for by both states and the first 5GCs and first 5TCs past the post can take their places in the upper house,if any deadlock then the president/vice president will have to deciding vote.

And same with their politics...you are right ,Kikapu,GCs will not vote according to their ethnicity...They will vote according to their political and economic beliefs..

Totally wrong....have to disagree 101% GCs have not matured to this degree they are heavily influenced by the Church and racist ideologies. This is a people who have given Greece their 12 points for the last god knows how many years. Has their not been 1 song that they have preferred to Greece, their excuse was the language but now all countries including Greece sing in English. This example may appear irrelevant but it shows clearly the narrow mentality of GCs.

[Viewpoint]

Kikapu,

Re the points I raised above a starting point is VPs comment:

"your structure will go down like a lead balloon and GCs will take full control pushing us to one side yet again."

This view represents an existent and real fear of the TCs and it must be addressed. A component state where the TCs are assured of full control within the context of a Federation will reassure them since they will hold all posts and functions within that area. GCs cannot take control of the whole country as long as there is a guaranteed and territorially defined TC area.

Restricting political rights within the territory of each state is the logical consequence of the above. Obviously it is not ideal especially for those that will reside and/or have a business in the "other" state. But if it works to preserve a sense of security for one or both communities then I am willing to go for it, as long as the rest of the rights (establishment, residence, property etc) are preserved. The assumption for the above is that EU acquis will prevail in the whole of the federation.

The test for the degree of separation, and here I refer to Talat's views on the property issue and how it affects bizonality, will be the future movements of the population. At some point in the future the division might prove to be anachronistic and a block to the prosperity of the whole island. My view is that the structure that will come out of the talks will by necessity be an artifice and realities will bring about practical adaptations. In other words the natural way of things would be towards an open and fully democractic system such as the one you propose. I am not sure that Cypriots would be ready to admit to themselves that they are ready for that now and accept it if it was proposed in the talks.

And one aside re the properties issue. If some sort of clearing house system is set up for voluntary exchanges is put in place, and the emphasis here is on VOLUNTARY it will function like a stock exchange in the sense that it will show desireability of certain areas. I wonder what the demand levels will be for property by location. We might be surprised to see that land in some areas in the south is at a premium and TCs will not want to let it go, which will tend to sink the properties exchange system as a means to an eventual bizonal solution. If I were a TC with property in Zakaki in Limassol, near the new container port, I would not want to exchange it with land in Karpasia no matter how much they offered me. The value of land is not only current market vallue but also future anticipated income and capital gain. Things are going to get interesting over this property issue as it comes up against the Cypriot sense of self interest and self preservation!

Thank you for acknowledging our concerns and accepting some sort of compromise we can only hope that after years of copperation and growth trust will grow enough to move forward even further.

[Kikapu]

VP, go ahead and use your method if you like, just like the one below, just because you want to try and keep the north state at today’s lines, but don't come crying to me when 200,000 GC's and more move back to their properties and take complete control of your state legislator, state's law making body, because you will be outnumbered eventually, but look on the bright side, because you will have your 5 seats in the Upper House which is only a fraction of laws that goes through them that will not have much effect on the individual states. They are primarily to deal with international matters and balancing the national budgets and giving money to states for Federal Projects. The President will override both the Houses with Executive Orders that may include some of the things you are tying to protect, which is making sure trade with Turkey is not broken off. This is your biggest concern so far, at the risk of losing the control of the TC state's political power and by the way, don't be surprised when the GC's will sue the Federal Government for the Federal Election laws violating their Democratic and Human Rights by being disenfranchised for not being able to vote for their state's (TC state) Upper House members, assuming of course, you can even sell this idea to the GC's in the referendum, but then again, your signature says it all, doesn't it.? This plan finally exposed you for not wanting everything you have been demanding regarding “safeguards”, and now that you know there is a way, you make all the excuses to reject it. I'll go ahead and finish the rest of the plan for the benefit of others, because this plan does not involve partition, therefore you do not like it. There’s nothing worse than being a short sighted when the realities stares you in the face. Go ahead and lose the TC state just to save 5 seats in the Upper House, when you could have had both. Good luck.!

For the upper house we have a cross states vote and the top 5 GCs and top 5 TCs, so they are democratically selected by everyone one person one vote method.

The lower house is proportional representation according to who each state residents elect.

Why do you automatically enter in a polimi or talk down when you are unable to get your own way or when challenged. I have not said that we will not give land back to GCs if that is whats necessary what I have said is you have yet to show me that giving back land will not allow GCs to take the 5 seats life line you have provided TCs in your plan.

So far you have gifted the lower house to the GCs, reduced and broken up the TC state and left us exposed to potential loss of any say in the upper house on which we pin our hopes and trust to ensure we are not hijacked once again.

You also forget that if the TC state is to reduced to half its size then why not just make the break and agree 2 separate states but this time both will be recognized.

VP,

I did not talk down to you, but if you meant Zan, well VP, did you read his 3-4 posts on this thread. He has no clue what the hell we are talking about regarding with this plan, so how can I talk "up" to him on this issue..?

Some of your questions will be answered as soon as I write down the rest of the plan. It is still in my head getting polished.!

Please answer these few questions for me.

1. If present lines are kept to become the north and south states, are you prepared for the return of the potential 200,000 GC's in to the TC state, even though they may outnumber the TC’s in numbers.?

2. Lets just say that you get the Upper House 5 seats only as a TC seats and the GC's will not be able to vote for it, will you then allow them to vote for the Lower House seats, state government seats, mayors seats and even the Governor's seat. Just that I get this straight, that the only seats that the GC's will NOT be able to vote on, are the Upper 5 seats. Is this what you want.?

3. Since you want to create an undemocratic voting for the GC's in the TC state for the Upper 5 seats only, then why don't you instead give most of the GC land back that will make the majority of the 200,000 GC's to be in the GC state, and then just ban all other GC's from the TC state from establishing a residence there, except for the few hundred that may still have property there and can live with you without ever being a threat politically. They can even vote for the Upper 5 seats, because it will not make a dent. So, if you are already wanting to do something undemocratic with 200,000 GC's, why not do another undemocratic thing, and just refuse the GC's to live in the TC state, except for the few hundred. You can even get rid off them with little intimidation, I’m sure, so now, you will not have any GC's and the problem voting for the Upper 5 seats solved. Surely, if the EU allows one infraction in Democracy in what you want, it can surely allow the second infraction also. What do you think.?

[Viewpoint]

Kikapu

I did not talk down to you, but if you meant Zan, well VP, did you read his 3-4 posts on this thread. He has no clue what the hell we are talking about regarding with this plan, so how can I talk "up" to him on this issue..?

Do you realize that your scarcastic and down your nose comments only fuel ten times more of the same thrown back at you? If you stop this Im pretty sure you would get much more constructive comments in return, this is what I have tried to do and I think we have achieved more of a constructive debate rather than the usual barrage of insults and hate which does not allow anyone to understand the others viewpoint becuase you are always on the defensive.

1. If present lines are kept to become the north and south states, are you prepared for the return of the potential 200,000 GC's in to the TC state, even though they may outnumber the TC’s in numbers.?

Yes because it carries just as much risk as being reduced to 20%, with freedom of movement the GCs can use their numbers to swamp the TC state whether it be 37% or 20%.

2. Lets just say that you get the Upper House 5 seats only as a TC seats and the GC's will not be able to vote for it, will you then allow them to vote for the Lower House seats, state government seats, mayors seats and even the Governor's seat. Just that I get this straight, that the only seats that the GC's will NOT be able to vote on, are the Upper 5 seats. Is this what you want.?

Yes they could vote for all the other positions as they would have to abide by laws created at the upper house as the major risks are imo here where we have to have the right to stop anyting that will effect us more negatively you feel there will be no issues so whats the fear??

3. Since you want to create an undemocratic voting for the GC's in the TC state for the Upper 5 seats only, then why don't you instead give most of the GC land back that will make the majority of the 200,000 GC's to be in the GC state, and then just ban all other GC's from the TC state from establishing a residence there, except for the few hundred that may still have property there and can live with you without ever being a threat politically. They can even vote for the Upper 5 seats, because it will not make a dent. So, if you are already wanting to do something undemocratic with 200,000 GC's, why not do another undemocratic thing, and just refuse the GC's to live in the TC state, except for the few hundred. You can even get rid off them with little intimidation, I’m sure, so now, you will not have any GC's and the problem voting for the Upper 5 seats solved. Surely, if the EU allows one infraction in Democracy in what you want, it can surely allow the second infraction also. What do you think.?

There can always be derrogations from the EU aquis Malta has a few yet is in the EU, you are limiting the criteria for providing a solution that will address our concerns nothing is just black and white there are shades of grey and intially until trust and understanding are developed with have to be flexible enough to agree a solution that both sides can commit to.

[Kikapu]

Kikapu

I did not talk down to you, but if you meant Zan, well VP, did you read his 3-4 posts on this thread. He has no clue what the hell we are talking about regarding with this plan, so how can I talk "up" to him on this issue..?

Do you realize that your scarcastic and down your nose comments only fuel ten times more of the same thrown back at you? If you stop this Im pretty sure you would get much more constructive comments in return, this is what I have tried to do and I think we have achieved more of a constructive debate rather than the usual barrage of insults and hate which does not allow anyone to understand the others viewpoint becuase you are always on the defensive.

I'm always nice to those who are respectful, and for those who take one too many liberties at my expense, are treated accordingly.!

1. If present lines are kept to become the north and south states, are you prepared for the return of the potential 200,000 GC's in to the TC state, even though they may outnumber the TC’s in numbers.?

Yes because it carries just as much risk as being reduced to 20%, with freedom of movement the GCs can use their numbers to swamp the TC state whether it be 37% or 20%.

I don't know how you can reach this conclusion. If the 200,000 GC's return to their homes and becomes part of the GC state, where are you going to get another 200,000 GC to come and flood you in your 20% TC state. There is a risk in everything, I grant you that, but in this situation, I have to say the risks are so minuscule, I don’t know just how many decimal points I would need to give you a certain unlikely percentage that you will be swamped. I know you said that the church will get the people to leave their homes and come and move into the TC state.! Do GC people are that much of a "sheep" to do what the church demands, if such were ever made.? I just don't buy it......sorry.!

It is totally illogical, that 200,000 non refugee status GC's will leave the lives they have known all their lives, because they did not had to move too far, if at all, after the 1974 events. You are talking about people with jobs, kids in schools, family, friends, community ties to leave all this and come to the north state, so that they can vote on your Upper 5 seats, so to tip the balance at one point in the future. You make it sound like a priest is going lead 200,000 GC to the north from the south just as Moses lead the Hebrew slaves by their thousands from Egypt to the promise land. Please tell me where these non 200,000 GC’s are going to come from. I need to know this, so that I can see you point clearly.!

2. Lets just say that you get the Upper House 5 seats only as a TC seats and the GC's will not be able to vote for it, will you then allow them to vote for the Lower House seats, state government seats, mayors seats and even the Governor's seat. Just that I get this straight, that the only seats that the GC's will NOT be able to vote on, are the Upper 5 seats. Is this what you want.?

Yes they could vote for all the other positions as they would have to abide by laws created at the upper house as the major risks are imo here where we have to have the right to stop anyting that will effect us more negatively you feel there will be no issues so whats the fear??

I have to be honest with you when I hear you talk this way, and ask you, are you a GC by any chance.! You are willing to give up control of the state power to the GC's if their numbers eventually outnumber the TC's, and given your above reply, you seem to think that there is a good possibility that it will happen, so let me take your word on that for a minute and say to you.............are you nuts.? Are you seriously telling me, that you would give up the control of power in the TC state into the hands of the GC's, just to prevent them from voting on the Upper 5 seats.
You do that, and they would not careless about the 5 Upper seats in the TC state. Again, are you nuts.?

I’ll tell you something. If I were a GC person, I would accept your offer to give the TC's their 5 Upper seats to them exclusively, because if the GC's wanted to take control over the TC state where they can then change all the local laws that would be similar to the ones in the south and ban such things like gambling, prostitution and what ever else the church may not like, they could, because that may happen if you lost the state power. Don't forget, 99% of decisions made for the citizens of each state, are made right there in their own states and not in the Federal Upper and Lower Houses. If that wasn't enough to scare the crap out of you, let me give you something that will. What will you do, when the GC's control the state power and decides to hold a referendum to either form a Unity state with the GC state in the south , because the south state will vote with them to make the chance or even a better one, ask for their own separate state, so that there will be 3 states in total, where they too will gain 5 Upper seats as the lower seats will be redistributed between the 3 states, but the Upper house will now have 15 seats, 10 held by the GC's and 5 by the TC's. You can kiss the veto power from the TC vice president/President and kiss goodbye to ever preventing anything you don't like from passing. Shall I continue with more scenarios, VP, or have you gotten the point yet.?

3. Since you want to create an undemocratic voting for the GC's in the TC state for the Upper 5 seats only, then why don't you instead give most of the GC land back that will make the majority of the 200,000 GC's to be in the GC state, and then just ban all other GC's from the TC state from establishing a residence there, except for the few hundred that may still have property there and can live with you without ever being a threat politically. They can even vote for the Upper 5 seats, because it will not make a dent. So, if you are already wanting to do something undemocratic with 200,000 GC's, why not do another undemocratic thing, and just refuse the GC's to live in the TC state, except for the few hundred. You can even get rid off them with little intimidation, I’m sure, so now, you will not have any GC's and the problem voting for the Upper 5 seats solved. Surely, if the EU allows one infraction in Democracy in what you want, it can surely allow the second infraction also. What do you think.?

There can always be derrogations from the EU aquis Malta has a few yet is in the EU, you are limiting the criteria for providing a solution that will address our concerns nothing is just black and white there are shades of grey and intially until trust and understanding are developed with have to be flexible enough to agree a solution that both sides can commit to.

Tell us what ids the situation in Malta. Are all Maltese citizens not allowed to live where ever they want and also vote to whom they like in the place they live, or are these EU aquis only applies to EU citizens and not to any Maltese citizens. Please explain.!

It all depends how much the EU will want to bend as far as allowing Democratic and Human Rights violations to take place on it's "territory", even if the TC's and GC's agree to such terms, even for a limited time. I really do not know, so perhaps Nikitas , CopperLine , Kifeas or anyone else can shed some light on this question. Will the EU allow the practice of Undemocratic and Human Rights violations to take place regarding voting and freedom of movement.!