Cyprus-Forum.com

[Viewpoint]

Kikapu

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

Have to be honest but most of the time you appear to be the insigator in creating an atmosphere where everyone is on the defensive.

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.!

I dont know how to explain this to you anymore, all you have to ask yourself is can the GCs flood the TC state whether it is 37% or 20%? Reducing our numbers by half will allow the GCs more of a chnace to easily take control of the TC state. 800.000 into 100.000 in a TC state of 20% carries more risk and is much easier to achieve than 800.000 into 250.000 TC state of 37%. As you are fully aware I do not trust GC intention and feel they will walk through the door if it is left open. It will take many years of positive steps to achieve trust between the 2 communities.

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.?

It all depends which laws can be changed locally as both GCs and TCs will be living in the same local area surely the laws will be for the benefit of all residents. The guaranteed 5 seats is our safeguard to stop developments that will effect the TCs more negatively than the GCs.
Yo always claim they will not attempt anything untoward what appears to be the problem now, do you not trust the GCs?

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.?

99% of laws are not made locally Federal law dictates what can be passed locally, the framework is agreed previously at which stage we will use our 5seats plus veto to stop the scenario you describe above from happening.

If you are so concerned about the local power framework then feel free to put forward how you as TCs would stop the above from happening??

For me the federal laws which dictate the local law making power is far more important to setting up a mechanism which will not allow many of the problems you have devised in your head.

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.!

EU nationals are restricted from settling in Malta due to the size of the population is one that comes to mind, derrogations were also included in the AP which were rubber stmaped by the EU so it is possible and will be a vital part of any agreement put to referendum.

[Kikapu]

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

Kikapu

Have to be honest but most of the time you appear to be the insigator in creating an atmosphere where everyone is on the defensive.

I talk very straight forward and some are not able to handle such honesty, so they get confused and react with negativity. It's not my fault that they need more honesty within themselves and to be their own person, rather than in wanting to defend the indefensible actions of others at all cost, at all times.!

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.!

I dont know how to explain this to you anymore, all you have to ask yourself is can the GCs flood the TC state whether it is 37% or 20%? Reducing our numbers by half will allow the GCs more of a chnace to easily take control of the TC state. 800.000 into 100.000 in a TC state of 20% carries more risk and is much easier to achieve than 800.000 into 250.000 TC state of 37%. As you are fully aware I do not trust GC intention and feel they will walk through the door if it is left open. It will take many years of positive steps to achieve trust between the 2 communities.

For starters, you have not made your case where these 200,000 + non refugee status GC's are going to come from to flood your state. You don't even believe some TC's will even move a very short distance to the 20% TC state, if they are in the 37% area of the north now, to be part of the new and legal TC state, but you think 200,000 GC will abandon their lives to trek across Cyprus to come to your 20% state. Once again, I do not but it, because you cannot sell it to me.

800,000 into 100,000 or 800,000 into 250,000 (which you don’t have by the way) is a very simplistic way of reaching this equation. You make it sound like it is as easy as mixing two containers with same quantity of milk and water as above numbers. Besides, one equation is 4:1 ratio and the other is 3:1 ratio. Very little difference really, so if you are going to be worried of being flooded by the GC's, both above equations will work against you. The only difference between the two is, with a TC state at 37%, you are inviting the "flood" yourself, whereas a TC state at 20%, the GC's will be "inviting" themselves, the 200,000 non refugees that does not even exists. Sorry but, I will have to stand my ground on this one, that for the TC's to keep the state power and the upper 5 seats to exclusively in the hands of the TC's, just because they are the predominant community in the northern state, the TC state has to be reduced and substancial GC land needs to be given back to become the part of the GC state in order for the TC state to maintain their 50% power in the Upper House decision making, as well as almost all the power at local state level.

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.?

It all depends which laws can be changed locally as both GCs and TCs will be living in the same local area surely the laws will be for the benefit of all residents. The guaranteed 5 seats is our safeguard to stop developments that will effect the TCs more negatively than the GCs.
Yo always claim they will not attempt anything untoward what appears to be the problem now, do you not trust the GCs?

All the local laws can be changed with the will of the people, as long as it does not violate the constitution and Federal Laws and are changed Democratically. States have a tremendous autonomy from the Federal Government and the Federal Government does not like getting involved in state matters as long as constitution and Federal Laws are not broken, and if they are, they will be struck down if not by state courts, most certainly in Federal Courts.

It is not a question of not trusting anyone. All I'm saying is, the local state power is more important to any citizen living under a Federation than power at Federal level. That's where you live and that's where your life is and that's where you make use of the laws that govern your state. My message in trying to reach you is, local state power is more important to you than Federal Power. Having both is even better, but if I had to choose one over the other, I'll take the state power over Federal Power. Don't forget, the Federal Constitution and Federal Laws already cover indivials rights in all aspects of the law and the upper house cannot change these without changing the constitution, and I have already built in that safeguard, that each state legislators would need to approve such changes by 75% from each state before the constitution can be changed. This is why I always remind you, that anything and all the safeguard concerns you may have, is to be negotiated into the Federal Constitution from the beginning that will effect every Cypriot citizen. This is were all your guarantees are stored, therefore even by losing some of the upper house power, will not mean you will be left defenceless. But local state power is in the hands of the citizens of that state and not in the hands of the Federal Government, as long as you do not try to override the Constitution and the Federal Laws.

Right now in the USA, the Democrats are in complete control of the Upper and Lower House and the white house. Do you see any Republicans getting worried that there will be laws made that will effect their lives personally more than the Democrats, other than the top 1% having to pay more taxes, and of course, there just as many super rich Democrats as there are Republicans. It is that time when the sand dunes have shifted again, and after a while, it will shift the other way. In Democracy, the sand dunes are always changing shape, but it does not mean drastic changes in the lives of people in general. You give way too much importance to the upper 5 seats, but if you can have both, the upper 5 seats and the local state power, why not. It is better for democracy all around.

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.?

99% of laws are not made locally Federal law dictates what can be passed locally, the framework is agreed previously at which stage we will use our 5seats plus veto to stop the scenario you describe above from happening.

I've already explained above regarding this question.

Let me tell you where I'm coming from. I do not like seeing all the power in the hands of anyone group or political party. "Absolute Power Corrupts, Absolutely"!. I like to see power spread around. The reasons why the Democrats are in complete power right now in the USA, is because the Republicans had complete power themselves and abused it. The Democrats have had done the same in the past and they too were punished for it. Americans in general like power spread around to have checks and balances between political parties, and I would like to see the same in Cyprus between the communities, as long as it is done democratically and no ones Human Rights are violated. This is what Democracy is all about. The power structure is always shifting around but the core principles of Democracy and individual rights are never compromised, because they are kept safe in the Federal Constitution.

If you are so concerned about the local power framework then feel free to put forward how you as TCs would stop the above from happening??

I'm working on it.!

Giving land back to place most of the 200,000 GC refugees into the GC state is the first step and you need to start seeing this, or else you are taking on a big gamble in losing the local state power to the GC's.

For me the federal laws which dictate the local law making power is far more important to setting up a mechanism which will not allow many of the problems you have devised in your head.

Federal laws are not about making laws that dictate how local laws are made. Those guidelines are already in the Federal Constitution and the Federal Laws, AND in the State Constitution, and sure, from time to time, there will be few additional Federal laws are made, but this may or may not be used by the local states if they don't need them. In the states, there are 50 states, and by and large, all the states have similar laws, but than there are laws in some states, that are much different than the other states, but all 50 states state laws fall within the Federal Constitution and Federal Laws.

Tell us what is 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.!

EU nationals are restricted from settling in Malta due to the size of the population is one that comes to mind, derrogations were also included in the AP which were rubber stmaped by the EU so it is possible and will be a vital part of any agreement put to referendum.

So basically, the Maltese citizens are not restricted from doing anything in Malta, but only the EU nationals are. The same will apply in Cyprus, that you will not be able to restrict any Cypriot from doing what is guaranteed by the Federal Constitution. What the EU may have rubber stamped in the Annan Plan may or may not have been valid to begin with, since Cyprus was not yet in the EU. I would like to see them put such approvals now and see what will happen. My guess is, the EU will not accept such Undemocratic and violations of anyone's Human Rights. That is just one more example of how corrupted the AP was and it's the reason why it was rejected in the past and anything close to it in the future, will again be rejected.!

[Viewpoint]

Kikapu

I talk very straight forward and some are not able to handle such honesty, so they get confused and react with negativity. It's not my fault that they need more honesty within themselves and to be their own person, rather than in wanting to defend the indefensible actions of others at all cost, at all times.!

What you think is straight forward honesty to the rest of us appears as down right rude and pur arrogance, you need to get a reality check as you have obviously feel you are a cut above everyone else and therefore have the right to dictate your opinions as being the only truth out there. Well sorry to burst your bubble but you are not god nor do you know everything far from it, you need to accept other peoples viewpoints for just that, another viewpoint which does not have to coincide with yours which doesnt mean they are wrong.

For starters, you have not made your case where these 200,000 + non refugee status GC's are going to come from to flood your state. You don't even believe some TC's will even move a very short distance to the 20% TC state, if they are in the 37% area of the north now, to be part of the new and legal TC state, but you think 200,000 GC will abandon their lives to trek across Cyprus to come to your 20% state. Once again, I do not but it, because you cannot sell it to me.

Can it be achieved if desired? The GCs are very devious and to grab full control imho I feel they would use their numbers to get what they want. Registering as a resident would be sufficent to get the number reqired to tip the balance in their favor. This door has to be firmly shut.

800,000 into 100,000 or 800,000 into 250,000 (which you don’t have by the way) is a very simplistic way of reaching this equation. You make it sound like it is as easy as mixing two containers with same quantity of milk and water as above numbers. Besides, one equation is 4:1 ratio and the other is 3:1 ratio. Very little difference really, so if you are going to be worried of being flooded by the GC's, both above equations will work against you. The only difference between the two is, with a TC state at 37%, you are inviting the "flood" yourself, whereas a TC state at 20%, the GC's will be "inviting" themselves, the 200,000 non refugees that does not even exists. Sorry but, I will have to stand my ground on this one, that for the TC's to keep the state power and the upper 5 seats to exclusively in the hands of the TC's, just because they are the predominant community in the northern state, the TC state has to be reduced and substancial GC land needs to be given back to become the part of the GC state in order for the TC state to maintain their 50% power in the Upper House decision making, as well as almost all the power at local state level.

I to have to stand my ground as your ratios are way off line, are we more at risk with a balance of 8;1 in a state of 20% or 4;1 in a state of 37%? You are purposely trying to reduce the north therefore intensify the risk of allowing GCs to easily go through that open door, why?

All the local laws can be changed with the will of the people, as long as it does not violate the constitution and Federal Laws and are changed Democratically. States have a tremendous autonomy from the Federal Government and the Federal Government does not like getting involved in state matters as long as constitution and Federal Laws are not broken, and if they are, they will be struck down if not by state courts, most certainly in Federal Courts.

States do not have "tremendous" autonomy as this autonomy is provided by the constitution and federal level made laws. The states cannot go outside of these restrictions and therefore cannot do what they wish. If the federal law says no death penalty the states cannot just say we will apply the death penalty in our state. If the constitution does not a state to declare independence the state cannot do this independently. You ar eonly kidding yourself by stating that local laws are more important than the constitiution and federal laws which dictate everything.

It is not a question of not trusting anyone. All I'm saying is, the local state power is more important to any citizen living under a Federation than power at Federal level. That's where you live and that's where your life is and that's where you make use of the laws that govern your state. My message in trying to reach you is, local state power is more important to you than Federal Power. Having both is even better, but if I had to choose one over the other, I'll take the state power over Federal Power. Don't forget, the Federal Constitution and Federal Laws already cover indivials rights in all aspects of the law and the upper house cannot change these without changing the constitution, and I have already built in that safeguard, that each state legislators would need to approve such changes by 75% from each state before the constitution can be changed. This is why I always remind you, that anything and all the safeguard concerns you may have, is to be negotiated into the Federal Constitution from the beginning that will effect every Cypriot citizen. This is were all your guarantees are stored, therefore even by losing some of the upper house power, will not mean you will be left defenceless. But local state power is in the hands of the citizens of that state and not in the hands of the Federal Government, as long as you do not try to override the Constitution and the Federal Laws.

Have to disagree the constitution and federal laws dictate the bounderies of local laws and the impect they have on daily life. You actually contradict your self in your above statement.

Let me tell you where I'm coming from. I do not like seeing all the power in the hands of anyone group or political party. "Absolute Power Corrupts, Absolutely"!. I like to see power spread around. The reasons why the Democrats are in complete power right now in the USA, is because the Republicans had complete power themselves and abused it. The Democrats have had done the same in the past and they too were punished for it. Americans in general like power spread around to have checks and balances between political parties, and I would like to see the same in Cyprus between the communities, as long as it is done democratically and no ones Human Rights are violated. This is what Democracy is all about. The power structure is always shifting around but the core principles of Democracy and individual rights are never compromised, because they are kept safe in the Federal Constitution.

You are confusing ethnic trust with political conviction, 2 totally different things and will only develop over time.

Federal laws are not about making laws that dictate how local laws are made. Those guidelines are already in the Federal Constitution and the Federal Laws, AND in the State Constitution, and sure, from time to time, there will be few additional Federal laws are made, but this may or may not be used by the local states if they don't need them. In the states, there are 50 states, and by and large, all the states have similar laws, but than there are laws in some states, that are much different than the other states, but all 50 states state laws fall within the Federal Constitution and Federal Laws.

You are getting very confused the lower house is a lost cause for TC as these positions will be filled according to proportional representation where we will always be out numbered. So any new laws introduced in the lower house will automatically travel to the upper house where the balance we have discussed is our only safeguards to stop what we see as a threat to TCs. Again federal laws and the original constitution will dictate the bouderies of local law making.

So basically, the Maltese citizens are not restricted from doing anything in Malta, but only the EU nationals are. The same will apply in Cyprus, that you will not be able to restrict any Cypriot from doing what is guaranteed by the Federal Constitution. What the EU may have rubber stamped in the Annan Plan may or may not have been valid to begin with, since Cyprus was not yet in the EU. I would like to see them put such approvals now and see what will happen. My guess is, the EU will not accept such Undemocratic and violations of anyone's Human Rights. That is just one more example of how corrupted the AP was and it's the reason why it was rejected in the past and anything close to it in the future, will again be rejected.!

The methodology is the same placing a limit to safeguard a balance..this can also be apllied to Cyprus in order to perserve the delicate balance.

[Kikapu]

VP,

It is no point discussing this plan with you anymore, because you have shown us that you are not interested in a Democratic Cyprus with equal citizenship as one people and one country. I have given you a plan that gives you equal say in the government with veto vote built in but you still insist on having a undemocratic system instead, because you feel that the north at 37% should remain as such to become the TC state, despite 80% belonging to the GC's.

You have failed repeatedly to show me how a TC state at 18%-20% will be overrun by the GC's other than using their greater numbers being a threat. You give the untrustworthiness of the GC's as a reason who will do anything to gain control of the TC state, but you are not able to tell us where these non refugee status 200,000 GC's will come from to the TC state. The reason why you want to keep the 37% of the north, even if it means potential 200,000 GC refugees can return, who will then be able to take over the state power away from you does not seem to concern you, but it concerns you that they will move into your 20% with the same results, plus a threat to the Upper 5 seats, if most of the TC's do not move into the 20% TC state. The truth is, if the TC's, 150,000 according to you are willing to live outside the 20% TC controlled area and are not concerned losing any of their political power if it was a 37% TC area to the GC's, then they really are not concerned at all, that the GC's will move into your 20%, or else, all the TC's will move to the 20% area and keep the potential 200,000 GC refugees outside the 20% TC state, in which the GC refugees will become part of the GC state.

The reason why you so confidently are inviting 200,000 GC's to live in the 37% TC state, is because you know very well, that only a fraction of them will ever come, because you have told us this a million times, that the GC's do not want to live with the TC's and all they want is just more land.............their land.! This is the reason for your insincere invitation of the 200,000 GC's to move to the TC state at 37%, despite the risk of losing the state power to the GC's, which after all, is what you have been demanding, to have your own state with the control under the TC administration. You are offering the GC’s a very safe calculated offer by inviting the GC's, because you know they are not coming, but this will be enough to establish the 37% to be known as the TC state, in which, once the state lines are drawn, it will be easier to have a partition at later stage with this amount of land if and when the condition are right.

Therefore, the conclusion is, since you want to secure the upper house seats by undemocratic means by having them just granted to the TC’s only who can vote on, then lets do the second undemocratic thing instead, which is, to give the 200,000 GC's their land back in the north to be part of the GC state, and have a total ban on all GC's who do not already have a property that falls within the 20% TC state from establishing a residence there. Annan plan gave 18% maximum of the total number of people living in the TC state to be GC's, which would limit the number of GC who can reside in the TC state to few thousands, which you gave a resounding YES of approval, so, if you do not want to be know as the racist TC state, you can still offer the 18% figure as AP did, which I can guarantee you, you will not have many GC's who will even take your offer, because trust is a two way street and not just one way as you like to suggest.

The GC's would rather be in their own land and property placed in their own GC state, than take the risk of having to deal with the NeoPartitinist on a daily bases. This way you will maintain the Upper 5 seats in the hands of the TC's as well as all the state power, and all Democratically done, and the only infraction you are going to have is, is by putting a 18% limit on the number of GC's who can live in the TC state, which may well be a reciprocal to the number in percentage to the number of TC's who may want to live in the GC state. This arrangement is far better than keeping the 37% of the north which 80% belongs to the 200,000 GC refugees anyway and violating their Democratic Rights to vote in the state that they would live in. This is a compromise that everyone can live with and can accept.

This does not mean however, that anyone will be restricted to move around the country to visit or even own a holiday homes in any of the states by the TC's and GC's. The primary residence of the GC's and TC's will be in their own respective states and that's where they will vote and not where their holiday homes are. Even this number will be very small. There won't be too many people wanting to go and live in the other state, despite having businesses there. To majority of Cypriots, driving from one state to another will be a very short distance if one's business and residence were in two separate states, therefore it will be of no inconvenience to have both in separate states.

I have to say, it has been very interesting to see you twist and turn at every opportunity in not accepting this plan, because you are not interested anything that is a Democratic system, so, rather than you violating the rights of the potential 200,000 GC's living in a TC state at 37% without they having the rights to vote for the Upper house seats, lets just violate the rights of those GC's who will fall into the category beyond the 18% that the AP allowed for, which you supported, and my best estimation will be, you will not even get anywhere 18% GC's to come and live with you, because they don't trust you any more than you trust them. You can even take away the 18% allowing any GC who does not already have any property in your TC state, and you will hardly be creating any political storm over it, because you are not going to get too many complaints from the GC’s. How will the TC state’s landscape will look like once almost all of the 200,000 GC’s land is returned to them to be part of the GC state, is anyone’s guess, but that’s what you have asked for, and that’s what you will get.

This then concludes this plan as far as I'm concerned and it does not warrant me to put the other ideas I had regarding this plan, because it is very evident, that there are always going to be excuses to avoid having a True Democracy in Cyprus, so that being the case, lets do what I've suggested above and make a compromise on freedom of movement on those GC's who does not exists anyway in wanting to live in the TC state, therefore no one will be harmed by it, rather than violating the Democratic Rights of 200,000 GC's in the 37% TC state, (which the GC's will never allow the TC’s to keep 37% of the north in any case, therefore it is all wishful thinking that you will get 37%) which will be a bigger violation than the one which will not effect anyone in reality. So, VP, you get to not have a 100% True Democracy for Cyprus after all, but as far as I'm concerned, I'll take 99.9% of the True Democracy than a con job with the NeoPartitionist idea of "consociationalism" for Cyprus.

This thread has been most educational for me in seeing you refuse everything you have been asking for, for the TC's, but you used every method to come up with all the lame excuses you can think of despite this plan giving you an equal power at 50-50 (upper house), veto power, your own state, a TC vice-President/President and a say so in your future. This plan gave you all that, and yet you have refused to embrace it. Then again, your ideal solution is a partition which I'm not interested in, therefore, find others who will agree with you on what you want, which is not a Democratic solution for Cyprus.!

[Viewpoint]

Arguing your corner does not mean you do not want a fair solution or the label of over rated democracy. You are frustrated becuase I did not accept everything you put forward, you attempt is admirable buy it does not deliver a sound plan that will not leave us exposed to GC domination.

I have time and time again explained how 37% vs 20% even providing risk ratios and the they both carry the same risks, if there is the possibility of this plan being manipulated and exploited leaving the door open to future hardship then I will like the GCs have no problems rejecting it. That said I have not once said that land should never be given back I support the minimum return of land for the maximum number of refugees, the AP reduced the TC state to 29% allowing 90.000 refugees to return if this could further be increased to insure more refugees return im pretty certain TCs would not object to a figure between 25-29%.

You still have not grasped the fact that having lost the balance in the lower house we cannot afford the luxury of allowing the GCs the opportunity to take control of the upper house and the right to push us aside which would devastate the TC state, which is exactly what GCs aim to achieve you are handing them our heads on a silver platter all in the name of "democracy".

Your suggestion of 18% max GCs population is just another alternative which was infact in the AP and if as you say a limited amount of GCs were to return then this derrogration would not even have to be implemented but would creat a sense of security for those who doubt and new structure.

I have only expressed my views which reflect to a great extent that of a high number of Tcs living in the TRNC and it is my right to argue for what I believe is right as it is I who will be thrown to lions if I do not consider every possible flaw that will leave my community exposed to GC shennagans and discriminations, our community has to be seen as an equal state with equal rights to their future which should not be surrendered into the hands of GCs.

We prove why the Cyprus problem has not been solved and maybe will never be solved I dont trust anything you put forward so I question every little detail to ensure I cover all possible future risks that will make me a foreigner in my own country.

[Kikapu]

VP,

I don't have a problem with your concerns, and it was those very same concerns I had in my mind in coming up with this plan. Everything fits in it's place as far as I'm concerned, but it does not fit for you, therefore, as I suggested, if we are going to have a violation on Democracy for a settlement, then lets not violate the Democratic rights of the 200,000 GC refugees so that we can give their land and homes back so that they can be part of the GC state in the south where they can be with their own people, and instead only violate freedom of movement to fraction of non refugee GC's who may want to live in the TC state by limiting their numbers to establishing residence in the TC state. I personally do not think you will be violating any GC's Human Rights, because they will not be coming to live with you, except for the few hundreds who may still have their properties in the TC state, which will be more than sufficient to show some reciprocal gesture to the GC's, because many more thousands of TC's will be living in the GC state.

What all this means VP, you better get ready to hand over 50% of the what is the "trnc" today back to it's legal owners, so that they can be part of the GC state, and in return, you will have control of the Upper House seats as well as full control of your state seats. It's a win win situation and all your problems solved, or did I miss anything.? You will no longer need to worry about being flooded by the GC's. And by the way, that was not 18% GC's allowed to live in the north, but just like what AP had, which was 18% of the north states population can be GC's, so for example, taking your figures, which you claimed that if the TC state was reduced to 18% in land size, then only 100,000 TC's would be living in it, therefore, 18% of 100,000 TC's would be 18,000 GC's maximum allowed to live in the TC state, and if we have 800,000 GC's in the south and 18% TC's in the south GC state, that would be 144,000 TC's, which means, that more TC's will be living outside the TC state than in the TC state, which may require further reduction of the TC state's land size for the number of TC's that will be living there. Land size will need to be proportionate to the size of each states population. If more of the 144,000 TC's were to live in the TC state instead of the GC state, then the TC state would be bigger of course. But then again, there are only about 120,000 True TC's in the "trnc" today, so you are really facing a uphill battle in trying to keep the TC state as large as you want. But to be fair, we should use the 1960 population figures in any case, which will be 4:1 ratio, regardless how many GC's and TC's are currently living in Cyprus today.

To make matters worse, you will not get 18,000 GC's in the TC state, because they will not want to live with you, because since you don't trust them, they will not trust you either, so that may reduce the size of your state’s land size even more. So you see VP, this what happens when you use language of fear to get more than you are entitled. I gave you everything that you asked for in that plan, but that wasn't enough, because you wanted more, by depriving Democratic Rights of 200,000 GC's in a TC state at 37%, or a much reduced TC state where very few refugees would come to live with you, when overwhelming majority of the 200,000 GC refugees will be happy to live in their own GC state, but you still wanted to use fear that your 18% state will and can be flooded by the GC’s, because they can’t be trusted and are very devious in getting what they want. Instead, we can have it as described above, and only violate freedom of movement for only few thousand, if that. Since land size has not been your concern but only the security of the Upper 5 seats, well, this gives it to you 100% guaranteed. Enjoy.!

[Viewpoint]

Your whole ideology and effort has been to get the TC state reduced to as small as possible leaving the door wide open for GCs to flood the TC state and take control, upon highlighting this danger you now propose to counter this by putting forward reducing the TC state even further to half it size that would be around 18% 19% which is approximately the figure that has been claimed TCs owned, then the question has to be asked as why not seperate all together? if you want to squah us into 18% and have the opportunity to take the limitation on GC in the TC state to the EU to be quoshed then we are still wide open to manipulation, discrimination, loss of control and say in our own future. We put forward 29% you say 18%, at 29% TC would accept a partnership along the lines you have described but at 18% they would want an independent state. Which do you choose?

[Kikapu]

Your whole ideology and effort has been to get the TC state reduced to as small as possible leaving the door wide open for GCs to flood the TC state and take control, upon highlighting this danger you now propose to counter this by putting forward reducing the TC state even further to half it size that would be around 18% 19% which is approximately the figure that has been claimed TCs owned, then the question has to be asked as why not seperate all together?

It's not an ideology, but it is a way for you to get what you want in the most Democratic way, since anything undemocratic will not be approved by the GC's or the EU, so what choice do you have. I have already invited you tell me if you had other ideas to get what you want without violating anyone’s Democratic rights, and you said nothing. If you do not want 50-50 power, veto power, your own state with full control, then claim your 20 seats in a Unitary Parliament that is based on proportional representation and forget about my plan. I had told you before it was presented, that you had to make hard choices and compromises, but I see that you are not willing to lift a finger to get what you want, because you think you are entitled holding onto the GC's properties. You are going to have to give them up anyway to reach a deal, so why not get what you want also in return.

The only time you are going to leave the door wide open, is when you invite 200,000 refugee GC's back into the 37% of the north now. At 29% TC state, you will be inviting 100,000 refugee GC's. You only have at most 120,000 True TC's in the north now, so do the math and see what you are doing by wanting to retain the 37% or even the 29%. There is no guarantee, that the additional fake TC's (settlers) will be given a Cypriot citizenships or only a permanent residence permit, which means that they will be able to stay in Cyprus, but they will not be able to vote. (I do have a 5 year plan in my head to get us started and increase the TC's voting numbers, but lets leave that alone for now.) You also have to consider, that many TC's will choose to leave the north after a while and move to their old homes in the south or just to another town for jobs or just plain different lifestyle. Just because they have not done so up to now, just because it was not possible even if they wanted, does not mean that they will not. My guess is, as time goes by, certain percentage of TC's will move about the island, leaving you even less to counter the GC's 200,000 numbers in the 37% or the 100,000 GC's in the 29% area. The only logical thing to do, as I suggested, is to reduce the north state by 50% of what it is today down to 18%-20%. That is plenty of space for 100,000 TC's plus 50,000 legal settlers to live and work. If we make a comparison to Gaza Strip with the Palestinians, 18%-20% of the new TC state will be 5 times larger (land) and have population 10 times less, so stop with excuses about the size of land not being enough. It is more than enough. Plus, the more land you have for the size of your population, the more money you will need to maintain it. Don't expect the Federal Government to come and bail you out every time you have a deficit. Unless any GC's already have a property in the TC's 20%, the rest are not coming to "squash" you. They would rather give their tax dollars to the GC state. They don't trust you any more than you trust them, so don't expect them to come and live with you.

Can we agree, that you are not going to prevent the GC's from exercising their voting rights to any office in the State level elections or the Federal level. This is the EU we are talking about. Same goes for freedom of movement. You will not be able to do all the things you voted for in the Annan plan. Do yourself a favour, VP, and forget about the AP, because it is the AP that is distorting your vision to see things clearly, because you start panicking what if this happens, what if that happens and what if the other happens. Democracy is not absolute with guarantees to have it your way at all times, or else it will not be a Democracy. In a Democracy, you have to work at it to get what you want. Don't confuse Democracy with Dictatorship what you had with Denktash or the puppet “government” what you have in the north now. Time for you to move into the 21st century. Think of the analogy I gave you before. Democracy is like the shifting Sand Dunes that changes the political landscape depending how hard the wind blows and from which direction. Nothing is absolute, but you can help yourself by being smart in how you do things, and by wanting to keep 29% for a TC state, you are already inviting 100,000 GC's refugees back to their homes, and by doing this, you have already started the sand storm to change the political landscape. This is why you need to be in the 20% TC state with the bare minimum number of GC's in it to have what you want. You want to take the risk with the 200,000 GC's in the 37% TC state, be my guess. You will turn over your 100% control of the upper house and the State senate to be shared with the GC's, or you can be smart and keep it all for yourself in a 20% TC state.

if you want to squah us into 18% and have the opportunity to take the limitation on GC in the TC state to the EU to be quoshed then we are still wide open to manipulation, discrimination, loss of control and say in our own future. We put forward 29% you say 18%, at 29% TC would accept a partnership along the lines you have described but at 18% they would want an independent state. Which do you choose?

I'm glad you have finally realised that you will not be able to prevent the GC's from voting in a TC state, or limit their numbers in moving to the TC state. The larger the TC state, the larger amount of GC's will be in the TC state, and the smaller the TC state, the less number of GC's will be in your state.

But I will have to ask you few questions here. If you think 170,000 TC's and settlers are going to be squeezed in a 20% TC state, then surely there won't be any more room left for any GC's to come and swamp you, specially if you limit the amount of development growth of housing by local ordinances, you will have the state predominantly TC. You are yet to show me, where these 200,000 non refugee GC's are going to come from to flood your state. Until you can answer this question, you are just making a lot of hot air. From where will these GC's come from to move into your state for you to worry about the upper 5 seats. You need to answer this question, or else your worrying is just an empty excuse.

I also like to know, why you were not concern about litigations that would be made in the EU by the GC's to correct all the Undemocratic advantages given to the TC's by the Annan Plan, as you are now with the suggestion of limiting the freedom of movement of the GC's by 18%, which you voted for it. The same provisions were in the AP along with dozens of other Undemocratic and Human Rights violation. Why were you not concerned back then, that the EU will eventually change all these undemocratic benefits that the TC's received at the expense of the GC's.? Why are you so concerned now, VP.? I really need to know this.

TC's wanting partnership is something I do not understand what that really means. What does partnership means when you have 80%-20% population difference, economy 25Billion vs. 2Billion (with Turkey's help), land in the north belonging to 80% by the GC's, the RoC holding all the legal cards in the world and recognition as well as being in the EU and also have a veto over the "trnc" and Turkey ever getting into the EU. If I were to try and think what kind of a partnership that would make if it was a business merger between the RoC and the "trnc", the "trnc" will barely make it as a very junior silent, silent, silent partner against the RoC, given the above criteria. You will be better of in a Federated state solution with a north and south states. You just have to work hard to maintain those powers in the upper house and the State senate, so welcome to True Democracy.!

Let me finally answer your other question, which is, anything less than 18%, then you want to be independent.! Well, if you can get it, that's one option, but the GC's are not about to kiss off 18% of their country. You may not want your other 82%, but I doubt very much that they will let their 18% go. If push came to shove and they did agree to something on a agreed partition, you'll be lucky if you can get less than 10% of the north, if that. Many TC's will end up staying on the GC side as a result because their homes and fields will be there, rather than move to the north's 10%. You will still be better off than the Palestinians in the Gaza strip by far, but how will you benefit really. You will not be able to run it as a country, so, you will become a province of Turkey and that will be the end of your dreams of the TC's having a control of their own destiny, as you have been asking from the RoC. So my recommendation is, keep Cyprus in one piece and have your own state at 18%-20% and have full access of the whole island and work with everyone else to make your state and country prosper in every way. You really do not have too many options as you think you have. Here is something for you to do, that might help you see my plan more clearly. Imagine there is no Turkish Troops on the island anymore. Which of the options would you choose for the TC community. My plan or partition at best 10% of land and a province of Turkey, because there is no way that Turkey will allow the north 10% to become an independent country, because she will need that piece of land to negotiate with the RoC to let her into the EU club by not using her veto power in exchange, so forget ever about becoming an independent state and all the dreams that goes with it.

[Kifeas]

Kikapu, I think you gave the wrong example with Gaza strip, its size and population. A more appropriate example will be that of Malta which is only about 4% the size of Cyprus, but has a population of 400,000 (that is 3 times the size of the TC community,) and unlike Palestinians in Gaza stripe, it has a per capita income approximately the same as in the south of the RoC and very close to the EU average. Malta is only a rock in the sea, without trees, water or other resources, and certainly neither any oil reserves.

[Kikapu]

Kikapu, I think you gave the wrong example with Gaza strip, its size and population. A more appropriate example will be that of Malta which is only about 4% the size of Cyprus, but has a population of 400,000 (that is 3 times the size of the TC community,) and unlike Palestinians in Gaza stripe, it has a per capita income approximately the same as in the south of the RoC and very close to the EU average. Malta is only a rock in the sea, without trees, water or other resources, and certainly neither any oil reserves.

Kifeas,

The information I got on Gaza Strip is, it is 360 sq Km or 140 sq miles with a population of 1,500,000. The present size of the "trnc" is 3,360 sq Km or 1,300 sq miles. If the TC state to be between 18%-20% or just 50% of what it is today, then the new TC state would be about 1680 sq Km or 650 sq miles for 150,000 TC's and "legal" settlers together at the most.! Therefore, the new TC state will be 5 times larger than Gaza Strip but 10 times less population than Gaza.

With this kind of space in comparison to Gaza, the TC's will really be able to "swing a cat" in the northern state.!