Cyprus-Forum.com

[Viewpoint]

Kikapu

Once again, you are making very contradictory comments here, which are, that if you gave the GC's their own land back, 50% of the north, then you will lose the control of the other 50% state's and Upper Houses power to the GC's over time. If you really believe that, then why are you accepting what may well be as much as 130,000 refugee GC's (40,000 destined for Verosa, but since that town is in ruins, they may choose to re-settle with the rest of the other 90,000 GC refugees in the 29% TC state instead, since they will find safety in numbers) in a TC state, who will be able to establish a stronghold on parts of the north state by setting up businesses and offering jobs to GC's from the southern state to move to the north. You are not only opening the door, but knocking down the barn door right off it's hinges.

You are knowingly trying to drag the TCs into danger, reducing the TC state 50% does not reduce the risk of losing control in the upper house. This is a phallcy as the ratios do the talking 256.000 in 29% has a far greater chance of with standing an influx of 70.000 GCs. You want us to reduce the TC state 50% asking 128.000 TCs to become refugees yet again, knowing full well that the majority will not up sticks and move into the TCs therefore reducing our numbers to for arguements sake 128.000 versus 800.000 who can if they are ordered by their leadership gradually move into the TC state to as to gain the one seat they require to take full control of both houses, leaving the TCs in the cold...thats what I call check mate.

Now, you know you are not going to get any restrictions on who can vote and who cannot in all the elections in the north, because the EU won't allow it. Neither putting a limit on the Freedom of Movement, and nor can you use the Malta case, because first of all, that provision was agreed with the EU before Malta joined because the restrictions are not against the Maltese, but EU member citizens. The limitations are not on Freedom of Movement, but rather it only requires that EU member citizens must obtain work permit from Malta before arriving, so that the Maltese jobs are protected for the Maltese and has no restrictions on any EU member citizens if they choose to move to live there, if they have no intentions of working in Malta. So please, don't bring up Malta again, because Cyprus has already agreed to all the rules set by the EU before becoming a member and will remain as such, even though my 5 year plan (will give soon) does provide certain protections to the TC's as long as the GC's voting age population remains below 75% of the TC's voting age population in the TC state. But with the potential 130,000 GC's already in the TC's 29% state, that threshold is almost there, thanks to your invitation. Within a very short time, the Upper House will become a toss-up, as well as start to lose control of the state power from day one, again, thanks to your invitation to allow 130,000 GC's into the north state.

If you dont ask you dont get, the Maltese people saw the dangers going into the EU so therefore asked for derrogrations, which were granted by the EU, if its democratic for them and does not infrindge on any EU citizens rights then why cant we do the same in order to resolve a blockage which if left unresolved will mean yet another failure in agreement. You figures are out of text and need revision the real unprogandized refugees figure is closer to 160.000 with 8% being returned this figure will go down to 70.000 not 130.000 as you claim.

It is all this problems that you can avoid by giving back another 10% (25%) of the north back to the GC's to satisfy the remaining 90,000 GC refugees. But we all know why you want to keep the 29% of the north, and it is not the extra 10% ( 25% of the "trnc") of land, but keeping additional 50% of the coastline of the north. This is what you will lose, that you don't want to lose, but by allowing 130,000 GC's into the 29% north to keep all of the north’s coastline, is what is going to coast you the Upper House seats and the state’s power from the TC's hands into the GC's hands. Even if you got an agreement from Christofias to guarantee the Upper House to the TC's, I would not accept it if I were you, because as soon as that deal is signed, wait and see what the 130,000 are going to do when they are denied to vote for the Upper House. They will shut down the TC state with protests, hold back paying taxes claiming "no taxation without representation", demand equal rights, take their cases to the EU courts for having their Human Rights violated and win, and make chants such as"Give me Freedom or Give me DEATH".!

Any agreement would have to rubber stamped by the EU and therefore mean that GCs will not be allowed to contest specific issues they placed their signature to as this would be no different from the 1960 agreements on which the GCs renegged. If you predict such shienangens then we should also ask for further safeguards to not allow GCs to reneg the penalty should be automatic division and the birth fo 2 states...this would act as a deterrant and they would not try to upset the balance and understand that they have work within the bounderies that they initially agreed to.

The issue is not giving back land but how will the TC state guarantee its only safeguard to losing an effective say in the running fo the country, you ahve sucessfully put forward a plan which will allow the GCs over time to take control of the whole island reducing us down to just another minority left to the mercy of the GCs.

That's enough to put on your plate for tonight. Think about all this, versus having almost no GC's in your 18-20% state. Sometimes having more of something is not always the best policy. Quality is better than quantity. Try to remember that when you start telling the rightful owners of the land in the north, that if they want their land back, they have to live with you. They may just take you up on your offer, and once they have moved and established themselves in the north, then they will invite their friends, cousins, neighbours, and all the retired pensioners to come and live in the lovely north, and after you have lost all the power, then watch the north hold a referendum to unite with the south to become a Unitary state.!

I am not convinced your motives are genuine in trying to answer the TCs concerns about power sharing as you have put forward a plan which can be manipulated and used to push TCs out of any say in the running of the country. Thats why I rejected your plan as you appear to be placing the interests of the GCs much highers than TCs (eg loss of any impact in the lower house) and risk of losing the balance by just 1 seat in the upper house, to add insult to injuiry we would have given up 50% of the TC state to boot.

[Kikapu]

I think the whole concept of being swamped by g/c in the northern state is rubbish.People fled 35 years ago,many have died or are to old to go back,there descedants have grown up in the south and have homes and jobs there(basically there lives).If even if 30,000 to 60,000 g/c returned to the northern state i would thing many wouldn't even be on a permanant basis.

I agree with you. The only ones that may want to return, are the ones who already have a property in the north. This is my main argument, that if most of all the GC properties in the "trnc" are returned back to the GC refugees to become part of the south state, the north state will become almost all TC's, except for a small percentage of GC's who's property will fall into the 18-20% of the TC state. This small number of GC's will pose no political threat to the entire elected offices in the TC state, or the Lower or Upper Houses.

does anyone know what a correspoding formula be for all refugees to go home without really upsetting the balance?

ex 180,000 refugees

75/25 split of south and north state

120,000 back to g/c state
60,000 living in t/c state

Annan Plan had about 30,00 GC's returning to the 29% TC state, and denying the rest of the 60,000 GC's from ever returning within that 29%. I have not been given any explanation as to why the TC state has to be 29% if it means denying 60,000 from returning, when making the TC state around 20%, would do away with this problem, not to mention, that the returning 30,000 GC's under the AP, would have been treated as foreigners in their own country with very little rights in the election process.

i think many g/c returning to the north wouldn't mind giving up there voting rights for federal northern senators and instead vote for southern senators even though living in the north.

If an individual doesn't want to vote, it is up to them. They are not obligated to do so. You will find, that if you live in a place, pay taxes, you also want to have a say who are elected into office. It is the very basic cornerstones of Democracy. If one lives in one state, you only vote where you live and not across state lines. If that was allowed, then most of the GC's in the south state will be able to vote across the state line to a GC living in the north state. This will be like bringing Turks from Turkey, make them a "TC citizens" so that they can vote for you to win elections. This is what Denktash use to do, and they still believe they have a Democracy in the north.! Plus, by denying ones basic Democratic and Human Rights, you are already violationg the basic protections afforded to each citizens in the constitutions. If you want to vote in another state, then you need to move to that state. It's very simple.!

[Kikapu]

This post is to illustrate to those who are having a hard time accepting my plan from page ONE, because of the apparent threat of population imbalance between the GC's and the TC's once the north state has been established at a reduced size than what it is now (from 37% to 18-20%). The arguments put forward by the TC's is, once they reduce the state size to 20% and even if most of the TC's were to be located in that state with their numbers around 150,000-200,000, all the GC's would need to do, is either "flood" their state with massive GC population movement in order to take away one or two seats from the upper house's 5 senate seats given to the each of the two Federal States. This would mean of course, that the GC's would then have the majority of the Lower House and the Upper House, and since politics will be based on ethnic lines for the foreseeable future, the TC's are not feeling comfortable with that idea.

In theory, this may happen if one were to ignore the fact that once the majority of the GC refugees have been given their land back, they will be happy to be living in the south state with their own ethnic people, so in practical terms, it is a farfetched concept to say the least that the north will be "flooded" by the GC's. Needless to say, there will be some GC's left in the north state as there will be some TC's left in the south state, and neither group will be forced to move under the Freedom of Movement laws. These remaining ethnic groups in the "opposing" states will not be a factor to alter any of the political voting outcomes just because their numbers will be very low in comparison to the majority, GC's or TC's in their respective states, but the fear for tne TC's are, that other GC's will come at later stage just to shift the political landscape from 50-50 state power structure at 5 senate seat each. I do not share in this conspiracy to occur anytime soon, if ever, although the possibilities are there, no matter how improbable that may be from ever happening, the TC's may feel threaten by this possibility all the same.

This argument was discussed at lengths on this thread, if one wished to read them. But lets just take the hypothetical situation that the fear that the TC's have might happen, where they could lose a senate seat in the Upper House to a GC population even if they do not have the same population numbers as the TC's, but at much smaller numbers, anywhere between 25%-75%. Under normal elections where there would be 5 seats up for grab for the Upper House at every election cycle, where many candidates would be running for those 5 seats, the candidates will be competing for all the voters votes. So, in theory, if only one GC candidate were to run in the north state by design, because all the GC political parties would have colluded with one other and all the GC's living in the north state voted for this one candidate to get a GC into the north states Upper House. This would of course shift the balance towards the GC's, because the TC's would be putting between 5-10 candidates by various political parties to get them elected.

The problem for the TC's will be then as stated by Birkibrisli and VP below, that the TC's candidates will dilute all the TC votes between them, which means, some TC candidates will get a lot of votes and some may get far less then what the GC candidate would get from all the GC's living in the north state, and if the top 5 candidates gets more than the rest and a GC is one of them, then you are then going to have 4 TC's and 1 GC in the north states Upper House, which the overall Upper House political landscape will look like 6 GC's and 4TC's, which would then invalidate the veto vote by the TC President/Vice President if the bill were to effect the TC's far more adversely then the GC's. This power differential will remain as such until the next election 5 years later, where it may return back to being 5 GC's and 5 TC's again, or 7 GC's and 3 TC's. In a political ideology voting, this would not be a issue, because people of different ethnic groups vote based on political ideology, but for the next 20 years or so in my estimation, ethnic line voting will be the norm.

Therefore, holding elections for all the Upper House candidates at the same time may not be a good idea for the TC's, so what is the alternative. Well, who says that all the candidates need to be elected at the same time. There are no rules as far as I know in a True Democracy, where all the candidates running for office will need to be voted all at the same General Election. Even if there is such a rule, there is no reason why the TC and GC leadership cannot agree on having a different scheduling for voting for all the candidate for the Upper house separate from all the voting for all other offices for the sake of reaching a settlement that is still democratic but unusual from the norm, for at least until the country can start to vote based on political ideology and not based on ethnic lines, so here is my 5 year plan that can be part of the transitional period from where we are today to the New Federal Cyprus.

15.000 would seal the 1 seat leaving us whistling in the wind and at the mercy of a revenge seeking GC people.

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....

Kikapu's 5 year Plan.!

After 45-50 years of problems in Cyprus, going from the past into the future with such vast differences between the RoC and the "trnc" is far beyond the saying of "Night and Day" from the economy, recognition, legality, income, infrastructure and so on. If this was a football match between the South and the North, the ball will not be placed at the centre circle of the field but at the penalty spot at the North's goal at the start of the game as the South runs forward to kick the ball towards the goal. This would be a major disadvantage for the TC's, therefore we need to bring the ball to the half way line to start the game from there, in order for the TC's to have a chance to start a New Country and be part of it as full equal citizens.

Since 1963 many TC's have left the island, as well as many GC's of course. In 1960, the population ratio difference was 4:1 in favour of the GC's, therefore, it would only be fair, if we were to start the new Federation of Cyprus with those same ratios, at 4:1, even though there are nowhere near 200,000 True TC's in the north today. I would venture to guess, we have about 120,000 True TC's. I will not include any settlers given "TC citizenships" for this discussion, since we do not know what the final outcome will be for them, despite some may be staying, but whether they will be given new citizenships of Cyprus or just a permit to stay legally remains to be seen.

What I would like to see is, that the TC's are given 5 years transitional period to "stock up" their TC numbers in the north by True TC's who are living abroad to come back. To reach the 1960's 4:1 ratio parity, the TC's would need additional 80,000 TC's to come back to Cyprus and living in the north state to be a contender to keep their 5 seats in the Upper House. It may also be possible to register eligible TC's and GC's living abroad to the north and south state respectively, so that they can vote as absentees once they have all fulfilled the required processing. With the recent passing of a bill in the RoC where Cypriots living abroad will be given voting rights, then it should make this process workable. This will add additional voters to the north and the south states. Even if many of the 80,000 needed TC's do not move back to Cyprus, they can still vote from abroad only on Federal elections, which will include President/Vice President, Lower and Upper House seats ONLY, providing of course, that they are fully registered with an address in the north state. The same for the GC's living abroad to vote in the south.

Also, for the first 5 years during the transitional period, the only GC's allowed to live in the north state and be able to vote in local, state, and Federal elections, will be the ones who's properties will be already in the 20% of the north state. Same will be for the TC's also in the south state. Only after 5 years, will any other GC's or TC's will be allowed to vote in the said elections above, even if they already moved to live in those states within the first 5 years. This is for the purpose of to get the elections started off with the majority GC's establishing their MP's and the same for the north for the TC's to establish their MP's for all the offices. This is the kind of derogations the EU will give in my opinion, just to get the new election system started in the right direction. After 5 years is up, then it will be free for all and anything goes. I believe the above can be accommodated by the EU Derogation laws for Cyprus to make a smooth transitional period.

Now lets discuss the Federal Elections process and terms in office.

The President and Vice President will serve 5 years with a possibility of another ONLY 1 more term of 5 years.

The Lower House's MP's will serve for 2 year terms with unlimited re-elections.

The Upper House's MP's will serve for 5 year terms with unlimited re-elections.

As we discussed at the top of the page regarding the Upper House seat voting concerns for the TC's, this is what I would propose. Lets say we start the new Federal Cyprus as of January 1st, 2010.

2010 Elections are held for all the offices for Federal and State governments.

The Upper House MP's in a ONE TIME ONLY election, after the 5 MP's are chosen for the north and south states, they will need to be placed in an order from 1 to 5 based on the number of votes they had received from the voters in the north and in the south. For example, the MP who got the least votes will be placed as number 1 and the MP who received the most votes, will be placed as number 5. The other 3 MP's will fall in place as numbers 2, 3 and 4 according to the number of votes they had received. What this means is, The MP's who got number 1, both in the south and the north, will ONLY serve 1 year as a Upper House senator before needing to run for re-election again. The number 2 MP's will ONLY run for 2 years as MP's before re-election and so on. The Number 5 MP's will serve their full 5 years before re-election. The purpose for this method, is to spread out the Upper House's 5 MP seats to be elected 1 per year (2 in total with 1 for the north and 1 for the south), so that the TC's in the north state can feel comfortable that their votes will not be diluted amongst all the candidates that will allow a GC candidate to get a seat easily. Although the same principles would apply in the south with the TC's, in reality, the south state will not face any challenges for their upper seats from the TC's.

Each year, the north's and south's Upper House candidates, TC's and GC's alike within each state, will go through vetting process where there will be first an election to select the candidates voted by the voters and if no one gets 50+% then have a run-off election with the top 2 finalist. If for the sake of argument that in the north state one candidate is a TC and the other a GC, and the population difference is 2:1 in TC's favour (I expect the margin to be much wider actually, 4:1 to 6:1) , a TC should get 50+% in the first round, but if he/she would not and the other candidate is a GC and votes are based on ethnic lines, then a TC should win hands down on seconds round very comfortably. In this system of voting, if approved, can guarantee the Upper House 5 seats for the first 10 years purely for the TC's, since the south will be already guaranteed for the GC's. Ten years is a long time where relationships between the north and the south will improve to a point, where we will start to see elections taking place based on political ideology and not based on ethnic lines, which is what happens in other True Democracies and True Federations. This is how the elections will look like for all the candidates and offices.

2010 elections are held for President/vice President for 5 year term.

2010 elections are held for all the 50 seats for the Lower House MP's for 2 year terms.

2010 elections are held for all the 10 seats for the Upper House MP's(special one time ONLY election to determine numbers 1 to 5 as explained above)

2010 elections are held for all the state and local offices (length of terms to be determined by individual states)

2011 elections are held for 2 Upper House MP's for 5 year term (numbers 1 from the north and south).

2012 elections are held for all 50 lower house MP's for 2 year terms.

2012 elections are held for 2 Upper House MP's for a 5 year term(numbers 2 from each state)

2013 elections are held for Upper House seats for MP's for 5 years (numbers 3 from each state)

2014 elections for all 50 Lower House MP's for 2 year term.

2014 elections for 2 Upper House MP's for 5 years (numbers 4 from south and north state)

2015 elections for President/vice President for a 5 year term.

2015 elections for 2 Upper House MP's for 5 years (numbers 5 from north and south states)................

..........and this will continue in the order of the above examples given..

Any Questions.??

[Viewpoint]

This post is to illustrate to those who are having a hard time accepting my plan from page ONE, because of the apparent threat of population imbalance between the GC's and the TC's once the north state has been established at a reduced size than what it is now (from 37% to 18-20%). The arguments put forward by the TC's is, once they reduce the state size to 20% and even if most of the TC's were to be located in that state with their numbers around 150,000-200,000, all the GC's would need to do, is either "flood" their state with massive GC population movement in order to take away one or two seats from the upper house's 5 senate seats given to the each of the two Federal States. This would mean of course, that the GC's would then have the majority of the Lower House and the Upper House, and since politics will be based on ethnic lines for the foreseeable future, the TC's are not feeling comfortable with that idea.

In theory, this may happen if one were to ignore the fact that once the majority of the GC refugees have been given their land back, they will be happy to be living in the south state with their own ethnic people, so in practical terms, it is a farfetched concept to say the least that the north will be "flooded" by the GC's. Needless to say, there will be some GC's left in the north state as there will be some TC's left in the south state, and neither group will be forced to move under the Freedom of Movement laws. These remaining ethnic groups in the "opposing" states will not be a factor to alter any of the political voting outcomes just because their numbers will be very low in comparison to the majority, GC's or TC's in their respective states, but the fear for tne TC's are, that other GC's will come at later stage just to shift the political landscape from 50-50 state power structure at 5 senate seat each. I do not share in this conspiracy to occur anytime soon, if ever, although the possibilities are there, no matter how improbable that may be from ever happening, the TC's may feel threaten by this possibility all the same.

This argument was discussed at lengths on this thread, if one wished to read them. But lets just take the hypothetical situation that the fear that the TC's have might happen, where they could lose a senate seat in the Upper House to a GC population even if they do not have the same population numbers as the TC's, but at much smaller numbers, anywhere between 25%-75%. Under normal elections where there would be 5 seats up for grab for the Upper House at every election cycle, where many candidates would be running for those 5 seats, the candidates will be competing for all the voters votes. So, in theory, if only one GC candidate were to run in the north state by design, because all the GC political parties would have colluded with one other and all the GC's living in the north state voted for this one candidate to get a GC into the north states Upper House. This would of course shift the balance towards the GC's, because the TC's would be putting between 5-10 candidates by various political parties to get them elected.

The problem for the TC's will be then as stated by Birkibrisli and VP below, that the TC's candidates will dilute all the TC votes between them, which means, some TC candidates will get a lot of votes and some may get far less then what the GC candidate would get from all the GC's living in the north state, and if the top 5 candidates gets more than the rest and a GC is one of them, then you are then going to have 4 TC's and 1 GC in the north states Upper House, which the overall Upper House political landscape will look like 6 GC's and 4TC's, which would then invalidate the veto vote by the TC President/Vice President if the bill were to effect the TC's far more adversely then the GC's. This power differential will remain as such until the next election 5 years later, where it may return back to being 5 GC's and 5 TC's again, or 7 GC's and 3 TC's. In a political ideology voting, this would not be a issue, because people of different ethnic groups vote based on political ideology, but for the next 20 years or so in my estimation, ethnic line voting will be the norm.

Therefore, holding elections for all the Upper House candidates at the same time may not be a good idea for the TC's, so what is the alternative. Well, who says that all the candidates need to be elected at the same time. There are no rules as far as I know in a True Democracy, where all the candidates running for office will need to be voted all at the same General Election. Even if there is such a rule, there is no reason why the TC and GC leadership cannot agree on having a different scheduling for voting for all the candidate for the Upper house separate from all the voting for all other offices for the sake of reaching a settlement that is still democratic but unusual from the norm, for at least until the country can start to vote based on political ideology and not based on ethnic lines, so here is my 5 year plan that can be part of the transitional period from where we are today to the New Federal Cyprus.

15.000 would seal the 1 seat leaving us whistling in the wind and at the mercy of a revenge seeking GC people.

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....

Kikapu's 5 year Plan.!

After 45-50 years of problems in Cyprus, going from the past into the future with such vast differences between the RoC and the "trnc" is far beyond the saying of "Night and Day" from the economy, recognition, legality, income, infrastructure and so on. If this was a football match between the South and the North, the ball will not be placed at the centre circle of the field but at the penalty spot at the North's goal at the start of the game as the South runs forward to kick the ball towards the goal. This would be a major disadvantage for the TC's, therefore we need to bring the ball to the half way line to start the game from there, in order for the TC's to have a chance to start a New Country and be part of it as full equal citizens.

Since 1963 many TC's have left the island, as well as many GC's of course. In 1960, the population ratio difference was 4:1 in favour of the GC's, therefore, it would only be fair, if we were to start the new Federation of Cyprus with those same ratios, at 4:1, even though there are nowhere near 200,000 True TC's in the north today. I would venture to guess, we have about 120,000 True TC's. I will not include any settlers given "TC citizenships" for this discussion, since we do not know what the final outcome will be for them, despite some may be staying, but whether they will be given new citizenships of Cyprus or just a permit to stay legally remains to be seen.

What I would like to see is, that the TC's are given 5 years transitional period to "stock up" their TC numbers in the north by True TC's who are living abroad to come back. To reach the 1960's 4:1 ratio parity, the TC's would need additional 80,000 TC's to come back to Cyprus and living in the north state to be a contender to keep their 5 seats in the Upper House. It may also be possible to register eligible TC's and GC's living abroad to the north and south state respectively, so that they can vote as absentees once they have all fulfilled the required processing. With the recent passing of a bill in the RoC where Cypriots living abroad will be given voting rights, then it should make this process workable. This will add additional voters to the north and the south states. Even if many of the 80,000 needed TC's do not move back to Cyprus, they can still vote from abroad only on Federal elections, which will include President/Vice President, Lower and Upper House seats ONLY, providing of course, that they are fully registered with an address in the north state. The same for the GC's living abroad to vote in the south.

Also, for the first 5 years during the transitional period, the only GC's allowed to live in the north state and be able to vote in local, state, and Federal elections, will be the ones who's properties will be already in the 20% of the north state. Same will be for the TC's also in the south state. Only after 5 years, will any other GC's or TC's will be allowed to vote in the said elections above, even if they already moved to live in those states within the first 5 years. This is for the purpose of to get the elections started off with the majority GC's establishing their MP's and the same for the north for the TC's to establish their MP's for all the offices. This is the kind of derogations the EU will give in my opinion, just to get the new election system started in the right direction. After 5 years is up, then it will be free for all and anything goes. I believe the above can be accommodated by the EU Derogation laws for Cyprus to make a smooth transitional period.

Now lets discuss the Federal Elections process and terms in office.

The President and Vice President will serve 5 years with a possibility of another ONLY 1 more term of 5 years.

The Lower House's MP's will serve for 2 year terms with unlimited re-elections.

The Upper House's MP's will serve for 5 year terms with unlimited re-elections.

As we discussed at the top of the page regarding the Upper House seat voting concerns for the TC's, this is what I would propose. Lets say we start the new Federal Cyprus as of January 1st, 2010.

2010 Elections are held for all the offices for Federal and State governments.

The Upper House MP's in a ONE TIME ONLY election, after the 5 MP's are chosen for the north and south states, they will need to be placed in an order from 1 to 5 based on the number of votes they had received from the voters in the north and in the south. For example, the MP who got the least votes will be placed as number 1 and the MP who received the most votes, will be placed as number 5. The other 3 MP's will fall in place as numbers 2, 3 and 4 according to the number of votes they had received. What this means is, The MP's who got number 1, both in the south and the north, will ONLY serve 1 year as a Upper House senator before needing to run for re-election again. The number 2 MP's will ONLY run for 2 years as MP's before re-election and so on. The Number 5 MP's will serve their full 5 years before re-election. The purpose for this method, is to spread out the Upper House's 5 MP seats to be elected 1 per year (2 in total with 1 for the north and 1 for the south), so that the TC's in the north state can feel comfortable that their votes will not be diluted amongst all the candidates that will allow a GC candidate to get a seat easily. Although the same principles would apply in the south with the TC's, in reality, the south state will not face any challenges for their upper seats from the TC's.

Each year, the north's and south's Upper House candidates, TC's and GC's alike within each state, will go through vetting process where there will be first an election to select the candidates voted by the voters and if no one gets 50+% then have a run-off election with the top 2 finalist. If for the sake of argument that in the north state one candidate is a TC and the other a GC, and the population difference is 2:1 in TC's favour (I expect the margin to be much wider actually, 4:1 to 6:1) , a TC should get 50+% in the first round, but if he/she would not and the other candidate is a GC and votes are based on ethnic lines, then a TC should win hands down on seconds round very comfortably. In this system of voting, if approved, can guarantee the Upper House 5 seats for the first 10 years purely for the TC's, since the south will be already guaranteed for the GC's. Ten years is a long time where relationships between the north and the south will improve to a point, where we will start to see elections taking place based on political ideology and not based on ethnic lines, which is what happens in other True Democracies and True Federations. This is how the elections will look like for all the candidates and offices.

2010 elections are held for President/vice President for 5 year term.

2010 elections are held for all the 50 seats for the Lower House MP's for 2 year terms.

2010 elections are held for all the 10 seats for the Upper House MP's(special one time ONLY election to determine numbers 1 to 5 as explained above)

2010 elections are held for all the state and local offices (length of terms to be determined by individual states)

2011 elections are held for 2 Upper House MP's for 5 year term (numbers 1 from the north and south).

2012 elections are held for all 50 lower house MP's for 2 year terms.

2012 elections are held for 2 Upper House MP's for a 5 year term(numbers 2 from each state)

2013 elections are held for Upper House seats for MP's for 5 years (numbers 3 from each state)

2014 elections for all 50 Lower House MP's for 2 year term.

2014 elections for 2 Upper House MP's for 5 years (numbers 4 from south and north state)

2015 elections for President/vice President for a 5 year term.

2015 elections for 2 Upper House MP's for 5 years (numbers 5 from north and south states)................

..........and this will continue in the order of the above examples given..

Any Questions.??

At first glance it looks to complicated and unworkable, if you can summarize Id be willing to re-evaluate but for now all this reveals is that what I claimed is a real risk and a major flaw in your original plan engineered or not allows us to understand exactly how your mindset works, which should not be trusted. With the acceptence of reducing the TRNC to 20% the question that will be asked by all TCs is why not go it alone as a seperate country and avoid all the intricate and risky structures which the GCs are experts at manipulating and twisting in their favor therefore leaving us out in the cold.

[Kikapu]

At first glance it looks to complicated and unworkable, if you can summarize Id be willing to re-evaluate but for now all this reveals is that what I claimed is a real risk and a major flaw in your original plan engineered or not allows us to understand exactly how your mindset works, which should not be trusted. With the acceptence of reducing the TRNC to 20% the question that will be asked by all TCs is why not go it alone as a seperate country and avoid all the intricate and risky structures which the GCs are experts at manipulating and twisting in their favor therefore leaving us out in the cold.

That was the condensed version.!

The original BBF Plan stands as is and can be workable as is.

This additional text is designed to take away your imaginary fears of the north being "flooded" by the GC's so that they can "steal" one of the north's Upper House seats and it has done that.

So what other excuses do you have left, VP, in rejecting a Democratic Plan as I have given you.?

This is equivalent to a chess move that has you “Check, Mate and Game” I’m afraid. No more excuses will do.

Your problem is with True Democracy and the fear that after a while, TC’s will become True Cypriots once again and vote based on political ideology along with the GC’s and not vote based on ethnic lines. It is this that is scaring you to death, so you want the Upper House seats to be assigned to “communities” and not to states. Sorry, it will not happen that way.

Apparently NONE, so now you want to blame the above text being too complicated for you to understand. Actually, it was made easy specially, so that you can understand it. After all, you had no problem understanding 9,000+ pages of the Annan Plan.! Perhaps because that one was NOT a True Democratic Plan, so it was easier to understand, digest and accept.!

Just what do you think BBF means anyway.? It does not mean anything what the AP said it meant, therefore it is time for you to accept what it really means, which if a FEDERATION, which is what Obama told the Turkish Parliament 2 weeks ago which is what the US stands by, which may I remind you, that Obama did not get any applause for that comment, which means that the Turks also think a BBF means what AP said, in what it means. Obama does not support the AP's interpretation, Turkey's or yours for that matter as to what BBF means. True Federation with True Democracy or nothing else, so get use to it. I have given you both, the above text and the original BBF Plan. Playing ignorant as to what they mean is not going to be accepted. I suggest you re-read the above text and ask relevant question on what is it that you do not understand. It is very straight forward as it is, but I'll be happy to expand on anything particular that you may be having a difficultly with in understanding.

The reason why you can't take 20% of the north and make it your own country, is because it does not belong to you. If you really want to have your own country in the north, you will have to take much, much smaller land than 20%, and then, perhaps the GC's will let you have it, as long as they can keep you and Turkey out of the EU also.

Do you still want your own country in the north.??

[Viewpoint]

Kikapu

That was the condensed version.!

Condensing means providing the basics and not clouding up in jargon which means the following;

1. Transitional period of 5 years providing,

2. We have to stock up on TCs from abroad,

3. Allow for TCs who live abroad to vote from abroad,

4. Only GCs with property currently in the N.State may vote for 5 years (EU deerofgration required),

5. End of the 5 year period as put in your own words a free for all.

I think and correct me if I am wrong you aim is to increase the number of TCs to buffer any predetermined attempts or natural development by the devious GCs to take the one seat they require in the North state therefore in effect taking control of the whole island and leaving TCs out in the cold yet again.

Arent you being rather naive here or is it yet again another camaflouged attempt at exposing us to GC dominance and danger. The bolstering of the TCs numbers only brings with it a distribution of TCs all over the island just not in the north state as these TCs own properties all over the island the same will go for GCs, their numbers will increase in the north state which will ineffect place us in more danger during the transitional period coupled with the right to vote form abroad the GCs who numbers will make a bigger impact in the north will place us in dange rof losing the one seat necessary to brush us aside.

Another question why do we need to return to 1970 ratios?

Couls you clarify why we need such a complicated upper house scale to years of service ratio? arent you discriminating against MPsbecuase they received less votes and even if all MPs served the 5 year term or rotated as you suggest at the end of the 5 years it would be a free for all anyway.

At best this plan is putting off the inevitable for 5 years which is opening the door for GCs to consciously move and superficially register their residency in the north state to manipulate and win the 1 seat they require. If we allow that each representative will not be voted for by the whole state as regional representation is more the norm the numbers they would require would be even less than orginally required, given freedom of movement and voting from abroad it would not be long before we would be back to square one and GCs would have what they have always wanted the whole island with us always coming second.

With the reduction in land to 20% and the risks you put in our path imo the majority of TCs would want to go it alone, dont foget the incentive of 29% is so as to form a union with hostile GCs looking for ways to get us to jump into a deal that would make us lose everything in the long run, you appear to one of those people.

If the upper house seats are guaranteed then we maybe closer to an agreement otherwise forget it, your plan has been rejected by me.

This additional text is designed to take away your imaginary fears of the north being "flooded" by the GC's so that they can "steal" one of the north's Upper House seats and it has done that.

maybe imaginery to you but as I have shown time and time again very real and very dangerous for us.

So what other excuses do you have left, VP, in rejecting a Democratic Plan as I have given you.?

Read above another point is you see fit for derrogrations when it suits you but once we ask for these you immediately object funny that but people should judge your character and sincerity on that point themselves.

This is equivalent to a chess move that has you “Check, Mate and Game” I’m afraid. No more excuses will do.

If you make up the game as you go along then it can be whatever you wish doesnt mean it is right, thats only in your head.

Your problem is with True Democracy and the fear that after a while, TC’s will become True Cypriots once again and vote based on political ideology along with the GC’s and not vote based on ethnic lines. It is this that is scaring you to death, so you want the Upper House seats to be assigned to “communities” and not to states. Sorry, it will not happen that way.

Political ideology is a long way off and needs to develop with trust and understanding and not by setting traps that will not guarantee our effective input in our own future but push us off the cliff into minority status living under revenge seeking GCs. What are you so afraid of TCs will always support laws and measure taken that will benefit a united Cyprus why not guarantee their input, look at it as an auto control that will not allow GCs who are well known experts at manipulating rules in their favour and to the detrement of others to gain what they have always made their ultimate goal domination and control fo the whole island.

Apparently NONE, so now you want to blame the above text being too complicated for you to understand. Actually, it was made easy specially, so that you can understand it. After all, you had no problem understanding 9,000+ pages of the Annan Plan.! Perhaps because that one was NOT a True Democratic Plan, so it was easier to understand, digest and accept.!

1000s of worldwide experts = AP vs Kikapu = KP, hardly a match for claiming theres was not democratic and your is, people are not stupid. (plus I dont trust you at all).

Just what do you think BBF means anyway.? It does not mean anything what the AP said it meant, therefore it is time for you to accept what it really means, which if a FEDERATION, which is what Obama told the Turkish Parliament 2 weeks ago which is what the US stands by, which may I remind you, that Obama did not get any applause for that comment, which means that the Turks also think a BBF means what AP said, in what it means. Obama does not support the AP's interpretation, Turkey's or yours for that matter as to what BBF means. True Federation with True Democracy or nothing else, so get use to it. I have given you both, the above text and the original BBF Plan. Playing ignorant as to what they mean is not going to be accepted. I suggest you re-read the above text and ask relevant question on what is it that you do not understand. It is very straight forward as it is, but I'll be happy to expand on anything particular that you may be having a difficultly with in understanding.

Are you Obama or one of his advisors? you know jack shit about what he supports and after your rantings prior to his election and the doom and gloom you predicted for Turkey no one will take you seriously on that score and what you think he stands for. You have given us a death trap and expect us to swallow it all in the name of democracy just because this guy who contributes to CF nick named Kikapu say so, please dont over estimate your half baked drivel, some may swallow it but not those who can see right through you and what you stand for.

The reason why you can't take 20% of the north and make it your own country, is because it does not belong to you. If you really want to have your own country in the north, you will have to take much, much smaller land than 20%, and then, perhaps the GC's will let you have it, as long as they can keep you and Turkey out of the EU also.

The principle is important here, its the Gcs who claim we only have a right to 18% of the land..I am willing to leave this to independent experts to evlauate all claims and accept the outcome are you?

As for the EU you know my opinion on that its over rated.

Do you still want your own country in the north.??

If its that or your plan Ill take our own country in the north...even the current status quo is better then the camaflouged capitulation you are trying to sell us, the last attempt to amend the flaw in your plan flaw is just an idiotic attempt to push us into a danger zone only difference is a delay in the inevitable.

[Kikapu]

Condensing means providing the basics and not clouding up in jargon which means the following;

1. Transitional period of 5 years providing,

2. We have to stock up on TCs from abroad,

3. Allow for TCs who live abroad to vote from abroad,

4. Only GCs with property currently in the N.State may vote for 5 years (EU deerofgration required),

5. End of the 5 year period as put in your own words a free for all.

You forgot the most important one, which is to have only ONE seat open in the Upper House from each state per year, which will eliminate watering down the votes of the TC's in the north state if all 5 seats were up for election once every 5 years, that might make it easier for a GC to be elected with far less GC population than the TC's in the north state, if and when all the GC's were to collude to "steal" one of the seats in the north for the Upper House, given that, they (GC's) are also entitled to vote for whom ever they wished for.

I think and correct me if I am wrong you aim is to increase the number of TCs to buffer any predetermined attempts or natural development by the devious GCs to take the one seat they require in the North state therefore in effect taking control of the whole island and leaving TCs out in the cold yet again.

My attempt to increase the TC numbers is to shore up the much needed TC's in the north state for the 20% land that we are talking about, because the True TC's population at the moment is not 250,000 as you would like to claim but 120,000 at best. Recent press release puts it at 90,000 in fact. But since you believe many TC's will not vacate from their present locations to move into the newly created north state, then you will need more TC's to counter the numbers of what will be the original GC's who may want to move back to their properties in the north. If you cannot get more TC's to move to the north state and want to avoid the possibility of the GC's outnumbering you in the future, then you are left with no other alternative, but to reduce the north state even further that will reflect the True TC's numbers.

I have made it clear from the beginning, that most of the TC's will need to live in the north state to be able to hold onto the Upper House seats. Now, if many TC's do not care about the Upper House seats and feel comfortable living in the south state with the GC's, just because they would feel comfortable with the protections provided for them under the new constitution and being also being in the EU, then you will need to reduce the north state to much smaller size than the 20%. To counter this problem, I would suggest that many TC's living abroad should be encouraged to come and live in the north state. Were you not telling us recently, that upon a solution, many TC's will return back to Cyprus. Well, I have given them 5 years to make up their minds and return, while keeping the GC population to only those who had property in the north state before 1974. This would give the TC's 5 years head start to "stock up" their numbers.!

You are yet to give me any decent examples as to how it would be detrimental for the TC's, if by chance, the GC's did have a majority in the Upper House. Politics is not absolute, therefore anything can happen, then it changes again, and again and again. This is Democracy at work. The moment Cypriots start voting based on political ideology, the better for all concerned, so rather than worrying about what may happen 15, 20 years down the road a system based on ethnic lines, why don't you put your energy in creating a system where decisions are based on political ideology, which then, it would not make any difference who votes for whom or where they live, if you are really serious about not seeking a partition down the road. Besides, what is it that the GC's will be able to do, that the protections that would be already in the new constitution will not be able to protect the TC's, not to mention the protections from the EU.?

Arent you being rather naive here or is it yet again another camaflouged attempt at exposing us to GC dominance and danger. The bolstering of the TCs numbers only brings with it a distribution of TCs all over the island just not in the north state as these TCs own properties all over the island the same will go for GCs, their numbers will increase in the north state which will ineffect place us in more danger during the transitional period coupled with the right to vote form abroad the GCs who numbers will make a bigger impact in the north will place us in dange rof losing the one seat necessary to brush us aside.

You are all confused, I'm afraid. During the 5 years transitional period, only GC's who had properties that will lie in the north state will be able to return, where as TC's who do not own properties in the north prior to 1974 and now live abroad or in Cyprus for that matter, will be able to move to the north and establish their residence right away. If the north state is 20%, which is 17% smaller than what it is today which signifies to about 180,000-200,000 GC refugees, mathematically speaking, approx. 150,000 GC refugees will be able to move to their properties to be part of the south state. As I stated before, it may be possible to return some land back to the GC's that will not be part of the constituent south state, but as a separate parcel of land that will be part of the greater south state. I had also suggested the same to be done for the north state to capitalize on land where TC's are the majority and return land that is overwhelmingly GC, but you have refused this idea. I don't know what difference it makes if you both south and north states are more than one piece if there are no intentions to try and break off the parts to claim independence. This is the reason why we need True Federation, so that such ideas are put to rest and that it would not happen. It would be more in the TC's favour to have such an arrangement, to help them in the Upper House to maintain those 5 seats in a True Democratic way.

If returning TC's want to move to the south state upon coming from abroad in the first 5 years, they can do so, only if they had properties in the south prior to 1974. But if you are complaining now, that returning TC's may move to the south state and not to the north, than that will be their choice, which once again, it would mean that they are not too concerned in what happens to the upper house since they will rely on the constitution to protect them. They can also sell their properties in the south and buy another in the north within that 5 years and there after. Basically speaking, the TC's from all over are given the option to move to the north state along with the small number of GC's who already had properties in the north state, and the same goes in the south state with the GC's.

Another question why do we need to return to 1970 ratios?

I never used 1970 for anything. The year I gave was the 1960 GC-TC ratios at 4:1, and the reason being, it is when the RoC was formed.

Couls you clarify why we need such a complicated upper house scale to years of service ratio? arent you discriminating against MPsbecuase they received less votes and even if all MPs served the 5 year term or rotated as you suggest at the end of the 5 years it would be a free for all anyway.

I think you missed the whole purpose on this method. The idea is to get the Upper House seats arranged in a way, that ONLY 2 Upper House seats are up for election every year, one from the north and one from the south so not to dilute the TC electorates in the north if you had all 5 seats running all at the same time, once every 5 years. The initial election of 5 TC Upper House MP's was for ONLY one time, so to straddle the MP's, therefore, the elected MP's would know ahead of time, that depending on the number of votes they received, they would be numbered from 1-5 to take their places, in order to get the system going. If you don't like the votes received to place them into 1-5 places, them they can just draw a numbers from 1-5 from a hat or just draw the high card from a deck of cards. The purpose is to give the TC's an advantage, that it is better to have only one seat open for the Upper house once a year, then 5 seats once every 5 years, because if you did that, that with a GC population of 20-50% in the north, they might be able to get an upper house seat, if all the GC's were to collude with each other to try and elect at least one GC into the Upper House. With only one seat open and the TC's are the overwhelming majority in the north state, then you are guaranteed to have an all TC MP's in the north, UNLESS, the TC's will choose to vote for a GC rather than a TC, in which case, you should blame the TC's and not me if they lose a Upper House seat, just because they are willing to cross ethnic lines and vote for the better candidate than someone just because they are a TC.

At best this plan is putting off the inevitable for 5 years which is opening the door for GCs to consciously move and superficially register their residency in the north state to manipulate and win the 1 seat they require. If we allow that each representative will not be voted for by the whole state as regional representation is more the norm the numbers they would require would be even less than orginally required, given freedom of movement and voting from abroad it would not be long before we would be back to square one and GCs would have what they have always wanted the whole island with us always coming second.

5 years, 10 years, 20 years, for ever, who knows. The point is, we are faced with EU laws and no matter how you slice it, a settlement needs to based on EU's democratic values, so we need to find the best possible method for the TC's and the GC's to live in a Democratic Cyprus.

One cannot just have an address in the north if they do not live there, in order to be able to vote if they live abroad or in the south state. After first 5 years of transitional period has passed, then of course anyone wishes to live in the north state will be able to do so, and after establishing residence, they will be able to vote. There can be rules set, where one needs to be living and voting in a given state for 3 years before they will become eligible to vote by mail from abroad if they no longer live in that state. If they just move to the other state, they will then need to register to vote in their new state and can no longer vote in their old state. Cyprus is a small place, therefore it will be very easy to monitor where people live, work, kids go to school and so on, so that one will not be able to vote in a state they do not live in, or be able to vote more than once for the same election. These are just details that can be worked out.

With the reduction in land to 20% and the risks you put in our path imo the majority of TCs would want to go it alone, dont foget the incentive of 29% is so as to form a union with hostile GCs looking for ways to get us to jump into a deal that would make us lose everything in the long run, you appear to one of those people.

As far I'm concerned, under a True Federation and True Democracy, the state lines can remain as they are at 63%-37%, as long as you understand, that this will allow 180,000 GC's to return to live with you from day one, which they will be more than the True TC's number at 120,000 at the present time, but this is not what you want for obvious reasons. Then you talk about at 71%-29% which then allows 90,000 GC's to return, which makes the True TC's a majority by about 30,000, which again, this is not what you want. Going to 80%-20%, this will only leave few thousand in the north state versus an overwhelming majority TC's. Once the TC's establish themselves as the majority in the north state without any pressure during the transitional period of the first 5 years, they will be holding most of the political positions if not all of them. In the mean time, most of the remaining GC refugees have returned to their land to be part of the south state. Now, add to the 120,000 True TC's another 50,000 settlers to be given Cypriot citizenships along with some TC's relocating from abroad, you will have close to 200,000 TC's in the north state of 20%. In order to pose any problems by the GC's to the TC's in regards to losing political seats in the north, the GC's will need to bring over 150,000 new GC residence. Where will all these people come from.?? As I’ve said before, the TC's will increase their numbers through birth much faster than the GC's will, therefore, the north state's numbers will grow as a majority TC's no matter.!

If the upper house seats are guaranteed then we maybe closer to an agreement otherwise forget it, your plan has been rejected by me.

In a Democracy, you cannot guarantee any political positions. They need to be voted on democratically. Is this not the same in the north right now.? The only thing is guaranteed in a Democracy, are your constitutional rights in every aspect. What you are asking for is entitlement just because you are a TC. Sorry, it will not happen, because if that was the case, then every group will want something as an entitlement. Would you be happy if all short people got twice the salary as people taller than them doing the same work, just so that they can feel equal to taller people.? The reason why you reject anything that is democratic, is because you are afraid to make it on your own. You want things to be given to you so that you do need to lift a finger to earn it. You want "political welfare system" and not Democracy.

Political ideology is a long way off and needs to develop with trust and understanding and not by setting traps that will not guarantee our effective input in our own future but push us off the cliff into minority status living under revenge seeking GCs. What are you so afraid of TCs will always support laws and measure taken that will benefit a united Cyprus why not guarantee their input, look at it as an auto control that will not allow GCs who are well known experts at manipulating rules in their favour and to the detrement of others to gain what they have always made their ultimate goal domination and control fo the whole island.

Political ideology will develop in time. In fact, much quicker than you can imagine, only IF and WHEN a settlement is based on True Democracy where everyone's Democratic and Human Rights are respected. This is the only way to build trust. You do not build trust by violating other rights while you are enjoying yours. This creates mistrust and hate, therefore, you have got to start the settlement based on good principles and not hope that trust can be built in the future.

The TC's will always have an input in what goes on in Cyprus. The question is, how best to do it democratically, and I have given you one way of doing it. All you have to do, is to protect those 5 seats in the Upper House through democratic way, and to do that, I have given you 5 years to set up a system to be advantages to the TC's in the north state. All you need to do to capitalize on this system and be a willing compromising participant in this settlement, is to return most of the land that belongs to the 180,000 GC refugees and accommodate the remaining few thousand GC refugees to live on their own land that will be in the north state with their Democratic and Human Rights respected and protected by the TC's. This is how you can help built trust so that future politics are not based along ethnic lines which on the long run is very destructive, but politics based on political ideology, which will then would not make any difference where anyone lives in Cyprus.

We have been through this many times, but the reason why you cannot have guaranteed representation only by the TC's in the Upper House, is because it is not Democratic and that you would be violating others rights who are not a TC and are living with you in the north state. Those 5 seats are given to each state on equal basis and not to the TC's in the north and to the GC's in the south. However, through default, that's the way it will be anyway, only because of the majority of each community in their respective states, but as in all politics, no one is guaranteed an office. You will need to get voted in by the people. This is not a right that the TC's or the GC's must be given these seats in the Upper or the Lower Houses or any other political office for that matter. By agreeing to have a GC and a TC President/vice President is already stretching the democratic selection system. But since I'm using the US model, it allows for the President and the vice President to come from different states, therefore the two cannot come from the same state.

But to answer your question in another way, I'm against such as what you want, because with such arrangement

a) You will not be incline to give enough land back to the GC refugees
b) You can hand pick whom ever you want to serve in the upper house which will lead to cronyism and corruption.
c) Democratic rights of all those living in the north state will be violated, including the TC's.
d) It will be contrary to the system they will have in the south, therefore it will not work.
It will be contrary to all the constitutional rights given to all citizens in Cyprus
e) It will create resentment from one community to the other within the state
f) Some citizens will be disenfranchised by not being able to vote in some offices, which they will be paying taxes without representation within that state.
g) You will be able to resort to mass walkout from the government if you don't get what you want. This cannot be allowed to happen. By each senator having been voted in, they would have a duty to their constituents to act in their best interest and not follow some "ringleader" who has other ambitions by disrupting the government.

The list goes on really and I do not want to bore you with all the violations that will incur by asking for such guarantees.

Settlement can only happen in Cyprus if it's going to be Democratic and respecting everyone's Human Rights. The EU will not have it any other way, so get use to it, or else, you will get very much for your community at much later stage as Turkey will get desperate to join the EU. Play smart now and get the maximum you can now. No body said True Democracy was easy or fair at times, but it does also not mean the "kiss of death" when things don't go your way. Democratic politics landscape is much like the shifting Sand Dunes. It is constantly changing. Once decisions in Cyprus are based on political ideology and not on ethnic lines, you will sleep much better, I'm sure of it, and the only way to get to that stage, is to start with respecting Democratic and Human Rights from the beginning.

1000s of worldwide experts = AP vs Kikapu = KP, hardly a match for claiming theres was not democratic and your is, people are not stupid. (plus I dont trust you at all).

And the end result by such so called experts was to produce a Racist and Undemocratic so called "peace" plan. Have they got no shame, that it took them over 5 years to come up with such a plan. If they gave me the fraction of all the monies all these so called 1,000's of experts who worked on the Annan Plan, I could have made another plan that would have been 10 times worse than the AP, and the result still would have been an "OXI" (NO) from the GC's and 100% "EVET" (YES) from the TC's. Even Denktash would have voted YES, so lets not praise these so called experts who worked on the AP. They made a damn good living by producing something that was guaranteed to get a "OXI" vote from the GC's, so what was it that it was so great in what they actually did.?

Are you Obama or one of his advisors? you know jack shit about what he supports and after your rantings prior to his election and the doom and gloom you predicted for Turkey no one will take you seriously on that score and what you think he stands for. You have given us a death trap and expect us to swallow it all in the name of democracy just because this guy who contributes to CF nick named Kikapu say so, please dont over estimate your half baked drivel, some may swallow it but not those who can see right through you and what you stand for.

Obama should be so lucky to have me on his team, but if he wants me, he can track me down, I'm sure of it.!

Actually, Obama does not need me, because he is a lawyer and a professor of constitutional studies, as well as everyone that works for him respects Democracy, Human Rights and International Laws. The person I can best serve would be Talat since it appears that he does not have anyone on his team who values the above , so if Talat needs a helping hand, I'll be glad to help him in this area.

My predictions on Turkey-USA relationship is spot on. There is no "new" USA-Turkey relationship, specially if Turkey does not play ball with what the USA expects from Turkey, and Obama told the Turks in their own house only few weeks ago and already the short lived "honeymoon" is over for now. Turkey need to watch where she steps, and it better not be on EU's or USA's "toes".!

The principle is important here, its the Gcs who claim we only have a right to 18% of the land..I am willing to leave this to independent experts to evlauate all claims and accept the outcome are you?

The 18% is based on the TC population numbers based from 1960 and the amount of personal ownership by the TC's and their percentage of the state land. Understand something, this 18% is to form a state within a True Federation and is not granted for you to form another country with it. When you bought your land in Cyprus, that’s all you bought. You did not buy the country, or else, every Tom, Dick and Mary will want to turn their own house and garden into a sovereign independent country downtown Nicosia to be able to sign international treaties with anyone they wish with. Sorry, it does not work this way.!

As for the EU you know my opinion on that its over rated.

Only a fool can make such a statement, given the ruling that just came down from the ECJ over the Orams. You may disagree with the EU on many fronts because of their decision makings that has been favouring the RoC, a fellow EU member over the "trnc" which is not recognised, but it is very immature of you to say that the EU is over rated in your opinion.!

If its that or your plan Ill take our own country in the north...even the current status quo is better then the camaflouged capitulation you are trying to sell us, the last attempt to amend the flaw in your plan flaw is just an idiotic attempt to push us into a danger zone only difference is a delay in the inevitable.

Well, you don't really have a "country" in the north, but lets not dwell on that right now. Nothing about my plan is a "camouflaged capitulation", since it is all in the open, that even the most simpleton can understand it, but it does require the TC's to help make it work, by either most TC's living in the new state, or, take far less land than 20% if large amount of the TC community does not want to live in the new state. This is your job to make it work. Don't expect everything to be given to you on a silver platter in everything that you want. You need to work for it.

You not trusting me is not a valid excuse to dismiss this plan, just because I do not agree with your ideology, but it does not mean I do not have the TC's best interest at heart as well as best interest of all Cypriots as well as Cyprus. You are faced with a BBF based on Federation as well as to be Democratic and respecting Human Rights, which the EU will make sure of, therefore, your options are limited on how far you can deviate from the above requirements. The days of Annan Plan are over and it is best you look forward in building a country with your fellow countrymen that will benefit your children than looking back at the AP and wishing that it will return. It is not going to happen and that is the reality.

[Viewpoint]

Condensing means providing the basics and not clouding up in jargon which means the following;

1. Transitional period of 5 years providing,

2. We have to stock up on TCs from abroad,

3. Allow for TCs who live abroad to vote from abroad,

4. Only GCs with property currently in the N.State may vote for 5 years (EU deerofgration required),

5. End of the 5 year period as put in your own words a free for all.

You forgot the most important one, which is to have only ONE seat open in the Upper House from each state per year, which will eliminate watering down the votes of the TC's in the north state if all 5 seats were up for election once every 5 years, that might make it easier for a GC to be elected with far less GC population than the TC's in the north state, if and when all the GC's were to collude to "steal" one of the seats in the north for the Upper House, given that, they (GC's) are also entitled to vote for whom ever they wished for.

I think and correct me if I am wrong you aim is to increase the number of TCs to buffer any predetermined attempts or natural development by the devious GCs to take the one seat they require in the North state therefore in effect taking control of the whole island and leaving TCs out in the cold yet again.

My attempt to increase the TC numbers is to shore up the much needed TC's in the north state for the 20% land that we are talking about, because the True TC's population at the moment is not 250,000 as you would like to claim but 120,000 at best. Recent press release puts it at 90,000 in fact. But since you believe many TC's will not vacate from their present locations to move into the newly created north state, then you will need more TC's to counter the numbers of what will be the original GC's who may want to move back to their properties in the north. If you cannot get more TC's to move to the north state and want to avoid the possibility of the GC's outnumbering you in the future, then you are left with no other alternative, but to reduce the north state even further that will reflect the True TC's numbers.

I have made it clear from the beginning, that most of the TC's will need to live in the north state to be able to hold onto the Upper House seats. Now, if many TC's do not care about the Upper House seats and feel comfortable living in the south state with the GC's, just because they would feel comfortable with the protections provided for them under the new constitution and being also being in the EU, then you will need to reduce the north state to much smaller size than the 20%. To counter this problem, I would suggest that many TC's living abroad should be encouraged to come and live in the north state. Were you not telling us recently, that upon a solution, many TC's will return back to Cyprus. Well, I have given them 5 years to make up their minds and return, while keeping the GC population to only those who had property in the north state before 1974. This would give the TC's 5 years head start to "stock up" their numbers.!

You are yet to give me any decent examples as to how it would be detrimental for the TC's, if by chance, the GC's did have a majority in the Upper House. Politics is not absolute, therefore anything can happen, then it changes again, and again and again. This is Democracy at work. The moment Cypriots start voting based on political ideology, the better for all concerned, so rather than worrying about what may happen 15, 20 years down the road a system based on ethnic lines, why don't you put your energy in creating a system where decisions are based on political ideology, which then, it would not make any difference who votes for whom or where they live, if you are really serious about not seeking a partition down the road. Besides, what is it that the GC's will be able to do, that the protections that would be already in the new constitution will not be able to protect the TC's, not to mention the protections from the EU.?

Arent you being rather naive here or is it yet again another camaflouged attempt at exposing us to GC dominance and danger. The bolstering of the TCs numbers only brings with it a distribution of TCs all over the island just not in the north state as these TCs own properties all over the island the same will go for GCs, their numbers will increase in the north state which will ineffect place us in more danger during the transitional period coupled with the right to vote form abroad the GCs who numbers will make a bigger impact in the north will place us in dange rof losing the one seat necessary to brush us aside.

You are all confused, I'm afraid. During the 5 years transitional period, only GC's who had properties that will lie in the north state will be able to return, where as TC's who do not own properties in the north prior to 1974 and now live abroad or in Cyprus for that matter, will be able to move to the north and establish their residence right away. If the north state is 20%, which is 17% smaller than what it is today which signifies to about 180,000-200,000 GC refugees, mathematically speaking, approx. 150,000 GC refugees will be able to move to their properties to be part of the south state. As I stated before, it may be possible to return some land back to the GC's that will not be part of the constituent south state, but as a separate parcel of land that will be part of the greater south state. I had also suggested the same to be done for the north state to capitalize on land where TC's are the majority and return land that is overwhelmingly GC, but you have refused this idea. I don't know what difference it makes if you both south and north states are more than one piece if there are no intentions to try and break off the parts to claim independence. This is the reason why we need True Federation, so that such ideas are put to rest and that it would not happen. It would be more in the TC's favour to have such an arrangement, to help them in the Upper House to maintain those 5 seats in a True Democratic way.

If returning TC's want to move to the south state upon coming from abroad in the first 5 years, they can do so, only if they had properties in the south prior to 1974. But if you are complaining now, that returning TC's may move to the south state and not to the north, than that will be their choice, which once again, it would mean that they are not too concerned in what happens to the upper house since they will rely on the constitution to protect them. They can also sell their properties in the south and buy another in the north within that 5 years and there after. Basically speaking, the TC's from all over are given the option to move to the north state along with the small number of GC's who already had properties in the north state, and the same goes in the south state with the GC's.

Another question why do we need to return to 1970 ratios?

I never used 1970 for anything. The year I gave was the 1960 GC-TC ratios at 4:1, and the reason being, it is when the RoC was formed.

Couls you clarify why we need such a complicated upper house scale to years of service ratio? arent you discriminating against MPsbecuase they received less votes and even if all MPs served the 5 year term or rotated as you suggest at the end of the 5 years it would be a free for all anyway.

I think you missed the whole purpose on this method. The idea is to get the Upper House seats arranged in a way, that ONLY 2 Upper House seats are up for election every year, one from the north and one from the south so not to dilute the TC electorates in the north if you had all 5 seats running all at the same time, once every 5 years. The initial election of 5 TC Upper House MP's was for ONLY one time, so to straddle the MP's, therefore, the elected MP's would know ahead of time, that depending on the number of votes they received, they would be numbered from 1-5 to take their places, in order to get the system going. If you don't like the votes received to place them into 1-5 places, them they can just draw a numbers from 1-5 from a hat or just draw the high card from a deck of cards. The purpose is to give the TC's an advantage, that it is better to have only one seat open for the Upper house once a year, then 5 seats once every 5 years, because if you did that, that with a GC population of 20-50% in the north, they might be able to get an upper house seat, if all the GC's were to collude with each other to try and elect at least one GC into the Upper House. With only one seat open and the TC's are the overwhelming majority in the north state, then you are guaranteed to have an all TC MP's in the north, UNLESS, the TC's will choose to vote for a GC rather than a TC, in which case, you should blame the TC's and not me if they lose a Upper House seat, just because they are willing to cross ethnic lines and vote for the better candidate than someone just because they are a TC.

At best this plan is putting off the inevitable for 5 years which is opening the door for GCs to consciously move and superficially register their residency in the north state to manipulate and win the 1 seat they require. If we allow that each representative will not be voted for by the whole state as regional representation is more the norm the numbers they would require would be even less than orginally required, given freedom of movement and voting from abroad it would not be long before we would be back to square one and GCs would have what they have always wanted the whole island with us always coming second.

5 years, 10 years, 20 years, for ever, who knows. The point is, we are faced with EU laws and no matter how you slice it, a settlement needs to based on EU's democratic values, so we need to find the best possible method for the TC's and the GC's to live in a Democratic Cyprus.

One cannot just have an address in the north if they do not live there, in order to be able to vote if they live abroad or in the south state. After first 5 years of transitional period has passed, then of course anyone wishes to live in the north state will be able to do so, and after establishing residence, they will be able to vote. There can be rules set, where one needs to be living and voting in a given state for 3 years before they will become eligible to vote by mail from abroad if they no longer live in that state. If they just move to the other state, they will then need to register to vote in their new state and can no longer vote in their old state. Cyprus is a small place, therefore it will be very easy to monitor where people live, work, kids go to school and so on, so that one will not be able to vote in a state they do not live in, or be able to vote more than once for the same election. These are just details that can be worked out.

With the reduction in land to 20% and the risks you put in our path imo the majority of TCs would want to go it alone, dont foget the incentive of 29% is so as to form a union with hostile GCs looking for ways to get us to jump into a deal that would make us lose everything in the long run, you appear to one of those people.

As far I'm concerned, under a True Federation and True Democracy, the state lines can remain as they are at 63%-37%, as long as you understand, that this will allow 180,000 GC's to return to live with you from day one, which they will be more than the True TC's number at 120,000 at the present time, but this is not what you want for obvious reasons. Then you talk about at 71%-29% which then allows 90,000 GC's to return, which makes the True TC's a majority by about 30,000, which again, this is not what you want. Going to 80%-20%, this will only leave few thousand in the north state versus an overwhelming majority TC's. Once the TC's establish themselves as the majority in the north state without any pressure during the transitional period of the first 5 years, they will be holding most of the political positions if not all of them. In the mean time, most of the remaining GC refugees have returned to their land to be part of the south state. Now, add to the 120,000 True TC's another 50,000 settlers to be given Cypriot citizenships along with some TC's relocating from abroad, you will have close to 200,000 TC's in the north state of 20%. In order to pose any problems by the GC's to the TC's in regards to losing political seats in the north, the GC's will need to bring over 150,000 new GC residence. Where will all these people come from.?? As I’ve said before, the TC's will increase their numbers through birth much faster than the GC's will, therefore, the north state's numbers will grow as a majority TC's no matter.!

If the upper house seats are guaranteed then we maybe closer to an agreement otherwise forget it, your plan has been rejected by me.

In a Democracy, you cannot guarantee any political positions. They need to be voted on democratically. Is this not the same in the north right now.? The only thing is guaranteed in a Democracy, are your constitutional rights in every aspect. What you are asking for is entitlement just because you are a TC. Sorry, it will not happen, because if that was the case, then every group will want something as an entitlement. Would you be happy if all short people got twice the salary as people taller than them doing the same work, just so that they can feel equal to taller people.? The reason why you reject anything that is democratic, is because you are afraid to make it on your own. You want things to be given to you so that you do need to lift a finger to earn it. You want "political welfare system" and not Democracy.

Political ideology is a long way off and needs to develop with trust and understanding and not by setting traps that will not guarantee our effective input in our own future but push us off the cliff into minority status living under revenge seeking GCs. What are you so afraid of TCs will always support laws and measure taken that will benefit a united Cyprus why not guarantee their input, look at it as an auto control that will not allow GCs who are well known experts at manipulating rules in their favour and to the detrement of others to gain what they have always made their ultimate goal domination and control fo the whole island.

Political ideology will develop in time. In fact, much quicker than you can imagine, only IF and WHEN a settlement is based on True Democracy where everyone's Democratic and Human Rights are respected. This is the only way to build trust. You do not build trust by violating other rights while you are enjoying yours. This creates mistrust and hate, therefore, you have got to start the settlement based on good principles and not hope that trust can be built in the future.

The TC's will always have an input in what goes on in Cyprus. The question is, how best to do it democratically, and I have given you one way of doing it. All you have to do, is to protect those 5 seats in the Upper House through democratic way, and to do that, I have given you 5 years to set up a system to be advantages to the TC's in the north state. All you need to do to capitalize on this system and be a willing compromising participant in this settlement, is to return most of the land that belongs to the 180,000 GC refugees and accommodate the remaining few thousand GC refugees to live on their own land that will be in the north state with their Democratic and Human Rights respected and protected by the TC's. This is how you can help built trust so that future politics are not based along ethnic lines which on the long run is very destructive, but politics based on political ideology, which will then would not make any difference where anyone lives in Cyprus.

We have been through this many times, but the reason why you cannot have guaranteed representation only by the TC's in the Upper House, is because it is not Democratic and that you would be violating others rights who are not a TC and are living with you in the north state. Those 5 seats are given to each state on equal basis and not to the TC's in the north and to the GC's in the south. However, through default, that's the way it will be anyway, only because of the majority of each community in their respective states, but as in all politics, no one is guaranteed an office. You will need to get voted in by the people. This is not a right that the TC's or the GC's must be given these seats in the Upper or the Lower Houses or any other political office for that matter. By agreeing to have a GC and a TC President/vice President is already stretching the democratic selection system. But since I'm using the US model, it allows for the President and the vice President to come from different states, therefore the two cannot come from the same state.

But to answer your question in another way, I'm against such as what you want, because with such arrangement

a) You will not be incline to give enough land back to the GC refugees
b) You can hand pick whom ever you want to serve in the upper house which will lead to cronyism and corruption.
c) Democratic rights of all those living in the north state will be violated, including the TC's.
d) It will be contrary to the system they will have in the south, therefore it will not work.
It will be contrary to all the constitutional rights given to all citizens in Cyprus
e) It will create resentment from one community to the other within the state
f) Some citizens will be disenfranchised by not being able to vote in some offices, which they will be paying taxes without representation within that state.
g) You will be able to resort to mass walkout from the government if you don't get what you want. This cannot be allowed to happen. By each senator having been voted in, they would have a duty to their constituents to act in their best interest and not follow some "ringleader" who has other ambitions by disrupting the government.

The list goes on really and I do not want to bore you with all the violations that will incur by asking for such guarantees.

Settlement can only happen in Cyprus if it's going to be Democratic and respecting everyone's Human Rights. The EU will not have it any other way, so get use to it, or else, you will get very much for your community at much later stage as Turkey will get desperate to join the EU. Play smart now and get the maximum you can now. No body said True Democracy was easy or fair at times, but it does also not mean the "kiss of death" when things don't go your way. Democratic politics landscape is much like the shifting Sand Dunes. It is constantly changing. Once decisions in Cyprus are based on political ideology and not on ethnic lines, you will sleep much better, I'm sure of it, and the only way to get to that stage, is to start with respecting Democratic and Human Rights from the beginning.

1000s of worldwide experts = AP vs Kikapu = KP, hardly a match for claiming theres was not democratic and your is, people are not stupid. (plus I dont trust you at all).

And the end result by such so called experts was to produce a Racist and Undemocratic so called "peace" plan. Have they got no shame, that it took them over 5 years to come up with such a plan. If they gave me the fraction of all the monies all these so called 1,000's of experts who worked on the Annan Plan, I could have made another plan that would have been 10 times worse than the AP, and the result still would have been an "OXI" (NO) from the GC's and 100% "EVET" (YES) from the TC's. Even Denktash would have voted YES, so lets not praise these so called experts who worked on the AP. They made a damn good living by producing something that was guaranteed to get a "OXI" vote from the GC's, so what was it that it was so great in what they actually did.?

Are you Obama or one of his advisors? you know jack shit about what he supports and after your rantings prior to his election and the doom and gloom you predicted for Turkey no one will take you seriously on that score and what you think he stands for. You have given us a death trap and expect us to swallow it all in the name of democracy just because this guy who contributes to CF nick named Kikapu say so, please dont over estimate your half baked drivel, some may swallow it but not those who can see right through you and what you stand for.

Obama should be so lucky to have me on his team, but if he wants me, he can track me down, I'm sure of it.!

Actually, Obama does not need me, because he is a lawyer and a professor of constitutional studies, as well as everyone that works for him respects Democracy, Human Rights and International Laws. The person I can best serve would be Talat since it appears that he does not have anyone on his team who values the above , so if Talat needs a helping hand, I'll be glad to help him in this area.

My predictions on Turkey-USA relationship is spot on. There is no "new" USA-Turkey relationship, specially if Turkey does not play ball with what the USA expects from Turkey, and Obama told the Turks in their own house only few weeks ago and already the short lived "honeymoon" is over for now. Turkey need to watch where she steps, and it better not be on EU's or USA's "toes".!

The principle is important here, its the Gcs who claim we only have a right to 18% of the land..I am willing to leave this to independent experts to evlauate all claims and accept the outcome are you?

The 18% is based on the TC population numbers based from 1960 and the amount of personal ownership by the TC's and their percentage of the state land. Understand something, this 18% is to form a state within a True Federation and is not granted for you to form another country with it. When you bought your land in Cyprus, that’s all you bought. You did not buy the country, or else, every Tom, Dick and Mary will want to turn their own house and garden into a sovereign independent country downtown Nicosia to be able to sign international treaties with anyone they wish with. Sorry, it does not work this way.!

As for the EU you know my opinion on that its over rated.

Only a fool can make such a statement, given the ruling that just came down from the ECJ over the Orams. You may disagree with the EU on many fronts because of their decision makings that has been favouring the RoC, a fellow EU member over the "trnc" which is not recognised, but it is very immature of you to say that the EU is over rated in your opinion.!

If its that or your plan Ill take our own country in the north...even the current status quo is better then the camaflouged capitulation you are trying to sell us, the last attempt to amend the flaw in your plan flaw is just an idiotic attempt to push us into a danger zone only difference is a delay in the inevitable.

Well, you don't really have a "country" in the north, but lets not dwell on that right now. Nothing about my plan is a "camouflaged capitulation", since it is all in the open, that even the most simpleton can understand it, but it does require the TC's to help make it work, by either most TC's living in the new state, or, take far less land than 20% if large amount of the TC community does not want to live in the new state. This is your job to make it work. Don't expect everything to be given to you on a silver platter in everything that you want. You need to work for it.

You not trusting me is not a valid excuse to dismiss this plan, just because I do not agree with your ideology, but it does not mean I do not have the TC's best interest at heart as well as best interest of all Cypriots as well as Cyprus. You are faced with a BBF based on Federation as well as to be Democratic and respecting Human Rights, which the EU will make sure of, therefore, your options are limited on how far you can deviate from the above requirements. The days of Annan Plan are over and it is best you look forward in building a country with your fellow countrymen that will benefit your children than looking back at the AP and wishing that it will return. It is not going to happen and that is the reality.

Wow have to start by thanking you for the above post it must have taken a great deal of time and thought, please dont be modest it will not suit you. I have read it and appreciate the contents but the division and mistrust is so deep rooted that I think TCs woudl have great diffulcty in accepting the majority of what you have put forward their views continue to harden the Ormans news (which has yet to be finalized and actioned by the Brits) being just another reason not to trust GCs. I personally will continue to support agreed division and vote against any new plan in a future referendum, this is my right as it is anyone elses but if the majority of TCs should be foolish enough to vote in favor then there is nothing I can do but go with it and if I do not like the new Cyprus I will pack up my bags and like you move elsewhere.

[boulio]

Thank you VP for comfirming to everyone that your a skell

[Viewpoint]

Thank you VP for comfirming to everyone that your a skell

Rather live elsewhere than see TCs as a minority in a GC state run by revenge seeking GCs like yourself discriminated against TCs at every turn.