Cyprus-Forum.com

[Pyrpolizer]

Furthermore there is adequate chance that the RoC will win such a challenging of the IPCs decisions to transfer ownership of the tittle deeds between a Kibrisli and a Kypreos, on grounds that such action MATHEMATICALLY over time deprives the right of at least 80% of the Kypreos Refugees to get an equal treatment and exchange their properties in the same way.

It's like rewarding the 10-20% of Kypreos Refugees who will run FIRST to the IPC on the expense of the remaining 80%.

[Kikapu]

this may well be the case but whose side are u on? the lamb or the three wolves who had it for lunch?

To be honest I am not sure I understand the question ?

The quote in my signature as I see it is about the limits of democracy, from one of the greatest modern day champions of it. It is not about sides. Wether I am a lamb or a wolf or on the side of each I do not think it changes the point that Benjamin Franklin was making.

If democracy was so bad as that quote implies then he wouldn't be a champion of democracy It seems that Benjamin Franklin never said such thing:

Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote.
Widely attributed to Franklin on the internet, sometimes without the second sentence. It is not found in any of his known writings, and the word "lunch" is not known to have appeared anywhere in english literature until the 1820s, decades after his death. The phrasing itself has a very modern tone and the second sentence especially might not even be as old as the internet.
http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Benjamin_Franklin

Even if Benjamin Franklin did make the quote Erolz uses as his signature, as if he is having contempt for Democracy by doing so and as if to say that Cyprus should do without one also in the 21st century, the USA did not have a True Democracy in the 18th & 19th century and ONLY started to have it by the middle of the 20th century. Democracy in the USA before the middle of the 20th century was ONLY in name and nothing more. Today the USA's Democracy is nothing like what Erolz would like us to believe as it was in Benjamin Franklin's days. Erolz can do with a more up-to date quotes on Democracy for his signature, now that Cyprus is in the EU if nothing else.

[Kikapu]

The point as to how 'voluantary' TC signing of their south properties to the TRNC was is a valid one. However what I suggested is that if a TC today was to agree to do such and exhange, not in exchange for land in the north that is still disputed, but for land in the north that is no longer dispute, say for example land where dispute has already been settled by the IPC or for land that was never GC pre 74, then this is a different senario.

No one is questioning any legal land transactions done by the TCs as long as it also involves the Land Registry in the RoC, but anything that has to do with GC land in the north without the GC owners consent, is not only illegal, but immoral also. There are also legal questions if a TC only deals with only legal TC land in the north. Without those transactions being registered with the Land Registry in the RoC and taxes & fees too paid to the RoC, will have lasting problems for the TCs in the future ranging from issues on legal wills, probates and inheritance to heirs.

PS Kikapu - I probaly did confuse with someone else - though you were the one writting the long account of their recent visit to cyprus. Also I do not take a middle road for any fear because I live in the "TRNC". I offer my views nothing more and nothing less.

Talk about me feeling as if I have been left at the alter just because you don't want to meet with me anymore, just because you think you got the wrong person.!

Erolz, I wrote that Cyprus trip piece also 4 years ago and it was not written recently. Someone did however brought that Cyprus trip thread back to life very recently, only few days ago. That's probably how you got your wires all crossed.

It's OK, I won't take it personally.

[ZoC]

this may well be the case but whose side are u on? the lamb or the three wolves who had it for lunch?

To be honest I am not sure I understand the question ?

The quote in my signature as I see it is about the limits of democracy, from one of the greatest modern day champions of it. It is not about sides. Wether I am a lamb or a wolf or on the side of each I do not think it changes the point that Benjamin Franklin was making.

cyprus is the lamb. the wolves are the 'guarantors' who ate it for lunch.

[erolz3]

Even if Benjamin Franklin did make the quote Erolz uses as his signature, as if he is having contempt for Democracy by doing so and as if to say ........:

I have expressed my views on democracy many many times on this forum. I f I could be bothered I would find the previous posts but right now I can not. In any case my views have not changed.

For me there is a difference between the intent or purpose of demcoracy and the means by which you achieve it. For me the intent is that people should have a valid say in the decisions that affect their lives. One means to achives this goal, and one that works well in many circumstances is one person one vote. However there are cirucmstances when one person one vote not only fails to achieve the goal as I define it but actualy undermines it. I think the cirumstances when this is the case are very obvious and clear and recongition of this can be see in many democratic systems around the world, that do not rely solely on simple one person one vote. I think this is what the quote (who ever may have said it or not) seeks to highlight a sucsinct and clear manner.

In short one person one vote works when there is a wider commonality within which opinions vary and can and do change for each given individual. It fails (as a means to the goal as I define it) when any wider commonality is overriden because the determining factor on how one person votes one way or naother is not determined by personal preferance but by some unchagable attirbute of that person.

On the other issue of can the ECHR force the RoC to accepted exchanges of land as a result of IPC settlements, I think we will know the answer to that sooner rather than later.

http://www.cyprus-mail.com/cyprus/state ... g/20110515

Anyway I am sorry for my patchy posting recently. I do not have the usual time I do right now for such things. I am not trying to avoid issues raised. I should be back to 'normal' by the end of the month.

[Pyrpolizer]

Erolz3,
the cyprusmail article is full of misinformation.
See my reply here
http://www.cyprus-forum.com/viewtopic.php?t=34233

[Kikapu]

Even if Benjamin Franklin did make the quote Erolz uses as his signature, as if he is having contempt for Democracy by doing so and as if to say ........:

I have expressed my views on democracy many many times on this forum. I f I could be bothered I would find the previous posts but right now I can not. In any case my views have not changed.

For me there is a difference between the intent or purpose of demcoracy and the means by which you achieve it. For me the intent is that people should have a valid say in the decisions that affect their lives. One means to achives this goal, and one that works well in many circumstances is one person one vote. However there are cirucmstances when one person one vote not only fails to achieve the goal as I define it but actualy undermines it. I think the cirumstances when this is the case are very obvious and clear and recongition of this can be see in many democratic systems around the world, that do not rely solely on simple one person one vote. I think this is what the quote (who ever may have said it or not) seeks to highlight a sucsinct and clear manner.

In short one person one vote works when there is a wider commonality within which opinions vary and can and do change for each given individual. It fails (as a means to the goal as I define it) when any wider commonality is overriden because the determining factor on how one person votes one way or naother is not determined by personal preferance but by some unchagable attirbute of that person.

On the other issue of can the ECHR force the RoC to accepted exchanges of land as a result of IPC settlements, I think we will know the answer to that sooner rather than later.

http://www.cyprus-mail.com/cyprus/state ... g/20110515

Anyway I am sorry for my patchy posting recently. I do not have the usual time I do right now for such things. I am not trying to avoid issues raised. I should be back to 'normal' by the end of the month.

Erolz,

Let me give you some links from few years ago that points out some of your arguments regarding Democracy.

http://www.cyprus-forum.com/cyprus23829-60.html

http://www.cyprus-forum.com/viewtopic.p ... &start=300


This was a recent article as to how one NYTimes columnist, THOMAS L. FRIEDMAN defines what Democracy is/needs. He touches on countries with different etchnic groups, such as Iraq.

"Democracy requires 3 things: citizens — that is, people who see themselves as part of an undifferentiated national community where anyone can be ruler or ruled. It requires self-determination — that is, voting. And it requires what Michael Mandelbaum, author of “Democracy’s Good Name,” calls “liberty.”

“While voting determines who governs,” he explained, “liberty determines what governments can and cannot do. Liberty encompasses all the rules and limits that govern politics, justice, economics and religion.”

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/27/opini ... las&st=cse

Democracy works well when citizens of a ANY country votes based on Political ideologies and not based on Ethnicity (even-though I did manage to put one together in "Kikapu's "BBF" Power Sharing Plan.!" http://www.cyprus-forum.com/viewtopic.php?t=21685 ), specially when any one of the ethnic groups still dream of Taksim. That's where most of the problems lies in Cyprus. Until the TC community decides no longer to pursue Taksim, western style of Democracy will not come about to the whole island and a "Democracy" of Annan Plan style is what they would pursue instead, which I assume is what you believe to be ideal for Cyprus also. AP kind of "Democracy" can ONLY bring about partitioning of Cyprus, since that has been the objectives way before the 1960 constitution by the TCs and Enosis by the GCs. Enosis has died 30+ years ago, so it's about time Taksim has too met it's demise. As long as Taksim dreams are alive, there cannot be western style Democracy in whole Cyprus, which means there cannot be peace either. Times have changed and the RoC as a EU member, the TCs can forget about any "Democracy" Annan Plan style. It is either going to be western style of Democracy, or the status quo will just continue until something major develops that will solve the Cyprus problem once and for all, which may end up not to the liking to a lot of the people in Cyprus.

On the ECHR issues, it just goes to show that any property exchanges between the legal owners of the TC/GC land, the RoC will need to be involved in order for that transaction to be legal, regardless what the "trnc" thinks what they can do with the TC land in the south and the GC land in the north. The "trnc" does not own any of the TC land in the south or the GC land in the north until the RoC agrees to it. So far the RoC has not agreed to ANYTHING.!