Cyprus-Forum.com

[Piratis]

Insan, your posts do not refute what I said.
Where does it say that in federations all states have equal power?

You are just shifting the subject and you are missing the point of this thread.

We said OK for federation already. If thats good or bad it doesn't matter, and you don't need to convince us about it.

There might be one billion interpretations of what federation means. When we accepted federation, this didn't mean we accepted whatever some dude somewhere said is a federation. We accepted federation based on well known models like the one of the USA.

It is like telling me that because according to Mr. X shit is eatable, that we have to eat shit. No. It doesn't matter what you consider to be a federation, the matter is to find a model that will satisfy both communities and your model of "federation" clearly doesn't satisfy us.

Federation was a big compromise from our side, but as usually you keep asking for more and more. Probably it was a mistake from our side. We should have just said that we demand all Turkish troops to go out of Cyprus and RoC to be allowed to have jurisdiction over the whole island as per all international laws. Since you can never be satisfied why should we make compromises?

[insan]

Insan, your posts do not refute what I said.
Where does it say that in federations all states have equal power?

Because you are an irredentist, centralist...

You are just shifting the subject and you are missing the point of this thread.

We said OK for federation already. If thats good or bad it doesn't matter, and you don't need to convince us about it.

I'm not trying to convince anyone about anything... Just sharing my opinions with you. And next time talk about only yourself ...

There might be one billion interpretations of what federation means. When we accepted federation, this didn't mean we accepted whatever some dude somewhere said is a federation. We accepted federation based on well known models like the one of the USA.

I either didn't mean that you accepted whatever whatever blah blah...

It is like telling me that because according to Mr. X shit is eatable, that we have to eat shit. No. It doesn't matter what you consider to be a federation, the matter is to find a model that will satisfy both communities and your model of "federation" clearly doesn't satisfy us.

Take that shits and put them somwhere in you b...! Go find a satisfactory model of federation and come tell it to us! OK? I'm not telling you to eat this or that shit... We are discussing here... if you got disturb of we are discussing the issues under the thread you created, it's no problem I can post a new topic regarding it, don't worry!

Federation was a big compromise from our side, but as usually you keep asking for more and more. Probably it was a mistake from our side. We should have just said that we demand all Turkish troops to go out of Cyprus and RoC to be allowed to have jurisdiction over the whole island as per all international laws. Since you can never be satisfied why should we make compromises?

It's still not too late to do what you have always dreamt of.... Go on! Don't hesitate just for a minute!

You made me to speak in a way I dislike!

There are several questions in my posts, instead of telling me what's your opinions regarding them; you just making nonesense!

[erolz]

Just take the EU for example

EU is not a country, its a union of independent countries.
In Cyprus there is only one country which is partly occupied by a foreign power.

So let me get this straight and make sure I understand your position correctly. Within a state there should be an absoloute, black and white, direct relationship between political rights and representation to numerical numbers. That anything else is unfair and a perversion of 'democratic prinicpals.

Within a political union of states there is no such requirment for such an absoloute black and white direct relationship between politcal rights and representation to numerical numbers. That it is, in a union of states, perfectly fair and totaly comptaible with democratic prinicpals for one member to have equailty not justifed by its numerical numbers or to have represntation unequall to its numbers.

Is this really what you are saying then? If so then you will have to fogive me for seeing this as a little inconsistent. I thought things were 'simple' - less numbers means a minority (politcal as well as numerical). True within in a state but not true within a union of states? Surely if the concept is as simple and true as you make out in your original post it would be ture in a union of states as well as within and indivdual state?

If it is not true within a union of states, then why should there not be total equality within the EU, with equal numbers of EU parilamentary seats and council of minister seats for each member state regardless of numercial size?

[MicAtCyp]

Insan brother,
I ve read the whole article in the past. It basically repeats the same and same arguments over and over again without mentioning the disadvantages of Federalisation.The article is basically a praise to Federalisation as a de-centralised system, simply forgetting that there can be de-centralisation in Unitary states as well. There is no such term as centralised-Federation in fact this is contrary to what he says about de-centralisation. There is strong and weak Federative structure. Strong when the Federal Goverment holds most of the power, weak when it holds too few.The Anan Plan was weak. But not Federation.Weak Confederation.

The problem with a weak Federal system is that it tends to break the Federation apart. (I think the proffesor stated that clearly).Moreover he did not mention any of the costs invlolved to have such a system, and he just praises the fact that among that 90% of the Multi-ethnic Countries he studied a few converted to Federalism (out of necessity) with good results.
Well in my opinion de-centralisation and Federalism simply have something in common.He forgets however that de-centralisation IS CURRENTLY the tendency in Unitary states as well, i.e giving more excecutive powers to the provinces and the provinces to their municipalities and village authorities. And as usual like all proffessors he got messed up in his own deeeep thoughts.....

In ALL Federations in the world (either weak or srong) the Central State is of higher authority than the Constituent states and CAN apply its law on them.Can you say it was the same in the Anan Plan?

Name me just one of the many countries that has confederation.
And the reply iiis

switserland is one.

The same person then quotes:

Among the 25 constitutional federations, some are quite multi-ethnic. Belgium and Switzerland are two examples.

I think we must re-write the constitutional terminologies here as to what is a Federation and what a Confederation is, and the difference between the two. Anyway there is google and there is button. THE FACT IS THERE IS NO ALIVE CONFEDERATION ON THIS PLANET TODAY.

There are no 3 states in Annan plan there is only one central state comprising (and representative)of two Constituent states that were not independent but directly DEPENDENT on the Central Government.

Are you trying to tell us that the Federal State is the superior power in the Anan Plan? Are you trying to say that the Constituent States are under it and it is not just a 3rd autonomous state dealing only with some matters most of which it did not even given the means to apply on the constituent states?

Well read this from page 24 of the Plan...

3. The federal government shall, as appropriate, entrust the implementation of its laws, including the collection of certain forms of taxes, to constituent state authorities.

... and explain to me how this "entrustment" will materialise and how that makes the Central State superior. (not by your personal assumptions but quoting me the provisions of the Plan.)Do you know the difference between the words "entrusting" and "enforcing"?

Is a centrilised Federative Structure suitable for Cyprus due to its small territorial protectorates?

In fact a strong Federative structure is a must for Cyprus due to its small size. We do not need such de-centralisation here, when we only have 6 towns most of which are less than one hour drive from each other! If there wouldn’t be the past history of Cyprus one would even be called paranoid to think of such a system.De-centralisation can happen more effectively inside a Unitary State.We do not need 2 states to have de-centralisation.....

Or is centralisation something arised from irredentism? Or perhaps fear of partition?

Neither of the two. It has to do with the Political rights as being the some of the individual rights.

I will just explain one aspect of these rights (and obligations) i.e the economic one: The 82% pays 82% of the cost involved so that the 18% will run its own house.The minority wants to have a zero strength Federation so that is completely independent. The majority wants to have 100% strong Federation so that it controls everything the minority does.Where is the mid way? Half strong half weak? No! It is 82% of the line between fully weak and fully strong.

There are hundreds of other aspects that can be explained this way.

Now many posters explained here in the past as well as today (wecome Erol) that the political rights of minorities are always inflated a bit for several reasons, (we have as an example the 6 Cyprus Euro MPs ) and I can understand that. So we may end up to 70% along the line.But certainly the Federation can not be strong below zero because then it is a confederation and that’s what it was in the Anan Plan.

[insan]

There is no such term as centralised-Federation in fact this is contrary to what he says about de-centralisation.

I've used that term re brother Mic... you know what I meant by using that definition...

What do you think about Nigerian federalism which I found their disputes much similar with ours...

[Piratis]

Where does it say that in federations all states have equal power?

Answer:

Because you are an irredentist, centralist...

Isn't it clear that you are avoiding the question?

I can agree with you that complete centralization is bad, I can agree that in Cyprus we can have a federation, where I don't agree is that the two states should have equal power.

So let me get this straight and make sure I understand your position correctly. Within a state there should be an absolute, black and white, direct relationship between political rights and representation to numerical numbers. That anything else is unfair and a perversion of 'democratic prinicpals.

MicAtCyp answered this already, and I agree with him. You are 18% (now actually 12%), say you want 19% of power, fine, 20%? ok, 25%? We can talk about it ... but 50%??? Thats outrageous!
Even in your the example of EU that you use, yes they gave us a bit more, but they didn't give us the same number of MPs as Germany or France, right?

Also, one thing is to have two (or more) independent regions that get united to serve their common interests (e.g. EU), and another thing the case of Cyprus, that the reason we have to regions today is that Turkey invaded Cyprus and forced Greek Cypriots out of their homes.

North Cyprus does not belong to you to decide by yourselves what you are going to do with it.

[insan]

Isn't it clear that you are avoiding the question?

I can agree with you that complete centralization is bad, I can agree that in Cyprus we can have a federation, where I don't agree is that the two states should have equal power.

People as Source of Power

In federalism the centre does not give power. In federalism the people give power in their sovereign capacity The delegate power to both the national government and the states. It is a constitutional arrangement. Thus neither can the centre take power away from the states, nor can the states take power away from the centre. It is an arrangement created by the people. Through constitutional processes only the people can change it. In order to change this arrangement in the US it would require a constitutional amendment.To amend the US constitution it requires a national majority; you must get a 2/3 vote in both the House of Representatives and in the United States Senate.Then it also requires a majority of the states. In the US system it is 3/4 of the states, an extraordinary majority to ratify a proposed amendment.There is nothing magical about the 3/4, the point being that there is a system of compound majority, a national majority and state majority and you often find this sort of arrangement built in to federal systems. In federalism it is power that is delegated by the people and can only be changed by the people.

As it is seen, the seperate majority votes of "sovereign" constituent states is the strongest and final determination factor... That's how federalism works in US. And this the most appropriate federative structure which makes "sovereign" constituent states politically equal.


If the men on the top who want to make constitutional ammendments or pass new vitally imporatnt laws; they must be transparent to their people and inform them well about it... Then if they convince the compound, and "sovereign" constituent states majorities; they can be sure of that vast majorty of Cypriots would give support to them.


But our problem is not only administartive... As we all know GCs demand all refugees to be given the right of return back to their properties... This could solely be possible under a non-zonal mixed unitary state.

[erolz]

MicAtCyp answered this already, and I agree with him. You are 18% (now actually 12%), say you want 19% of power, fine, 20%? ok, 25%? We can talk about it ... but 50%??? Thats outrageous!
Even in your the example of EU that you use, yes they gave us a bit more, but they didn't give us the same number of MPs as Germany or France, right?

No the EU does not give you a 'bit more'. In respect of those issues that are subject to veto you have totaly equality with the larger states. In terms of commisioners you have total equality with larger states (one comissioner each). In regard to the EU parliament and council of ministers you have represntation around 8* greater than that of a country like the UK. So I ask again how is this compatible with your asseration at the start of this thread that

"The fact is that an 18% of anything is a minority. Thats simple maths. Its a paradox to claim otherwise."

and the implication that for such a numerical minority to have any political equality or representation beyond this is unreasonable and unfair? Unless of course you are prepared to make the same claims agains the EU with regard to RoC?

Also, one thing is to have two (or more) independent regions that get united to serve their common interests (e.g. EU), and another thing the case of Cyprus, that the reason we have to regions today is that Turkey invaded Cyprus and forced Greek Cypriots out of their homes.

The concept and the establishment of political equality and representation beyond a strict numerical division was established way before the events of 1974. It was established (and agreed to) in the 1960's agreements that created the RoC. I can just as easily claim the reason there now exits two sepreate physical areas in Cyprus is as much to do with GC machinations and determination to reverse and remove those very elements of the RoC constituion, having previously agreed to them and swearing to uphold them.

However this to me is largely a distraction from the point of yours that I seek to counter. You have stated there is a simplicity to the issue of minority rights - stating that anything that deviates from direct numerical proportionality is inhernetly unfair and un democratic and portraying such represntation disporportionate to numerical numbers as a unusal and exceptional state of affairs in regard to the TC minority within the RoC. I have countered this by pointing out how within the EU this exact same concept of disproptionate politcal represntation to numercial numbers not only exits it exits to a greater degree than that expressed say in the original 1960's consitituion. That the issue is simple and black and white to you within the RoC but not relevant or so simple and black and white within the EU, is to me an inconsistent position.

If you were to state there should be simple and direct correaltion between political representation withing the RoC AND within the EU I would find your position much more logicaly sounds and would be less suspicious that you favour such direct realtion to numerical numbers when it benfits your position and reject it when it does not.

North Cyprus does not belong to you to decide by yourselves what you are going to do with it.

Have I ever said anything that says Cyprus belong solely to 'us' or anything that implies such? (I could show you many quotes from GC leaders from Makarios onwards and backwards that have said exactly that though - and that use the argument of the political superiority and primacy of numerical majorites)

[insan]

One more thing to remind you piratis... It's from the Federal System that you seemingly said accepted by "your side":

In true federalism the states are represented in the national government. In the US we do this by having a bi-cameral legislature. The people are represented in the House of Representatives and states are equally represented in the United States Senate. So that, based on the notion of equality of states, a huge state like California with 30 million people or so has two senators, and a small state like North Dakota or Wyoming each of which has about half a million people also has two senators. It is this balance in representation for the state that permits US to have a compound majority for constitutional change.

Now I hope you have seen where it says all states are represented equally in US Federal System...

[erolz]

In conclussion any solution that deviates from the norm of 18% TC rights +asurances in the constitution for matters of their specific concern, will create an UNSTABLE system. The cost of this unstable system will be paid every day by all of us (GCs and TCs) until it finally either changes to norm, or left to collapse.....

So is the political union of European states (EU) inhernetly unstable, being fundamentaly based on politcal representation that is is not directly realted to numerical numbers? If not why not?

Question: How much did the Anan Plan deviate from the norm?

To vastly lesser degree than the EU currently deviates what from what you describe as the 'norm'.