Cyprus-Forum.com

[Piratis]

Ok, let's assume that TCs having excessive rights were one of the reasons why we had conflicts. What would happen if we had one man one vote in Cyprus in 1960? You know it...we would have Enosis. You can't deny this after what happened in 1960s. Makarious publicly announced that independence was a step for Enosis. Therefore, how could you expect TCs not to ask for safeguards against Enosis?

According to the 1960 agreements Cyprus could not be partitioned or become part of another country. If we had one man one vote this would still be the case. Anything beyond that would be illegal. This is why the coup was illegal, and this is why the occupation and "TRNC" are illegal.

An agreement, a constitution, treaties etc, can only define what is legal and what should be done. This is what the 1960 agreements were, and this is what the solution will be. Beyond that, no matter what we sign, if one party has the power and is willing to use it an illegal way there is no kind of agreement that can stop this from happening. (however a good agreement can help by making communities depend on each other and not to have any reason of harming each other)

There you go. You just said it. GCs didn't believe in independence. If there were no safeguards for TCs in the RoC constitution, Enosis was inevitable. I still don't understand how you can complain about TC veto rights when you accept that your side didn't believe in independence and they were trying something else (i.e. Enosis) How were TCs supposed to protect themselves against Enosis if they didn't have vetoes?

See above. The case of union of Cyprus with Greece would be a no go from the very beginning because it is illegal and against the agreements. Therefore it would never reach the stage that TCs would have to stop it using their veto.

Also, I didn't say that TCs shouldn't have a blocking power. I said they shouldn't have a blocking power on everything. They can have blocking power on several things that will be predefined in the agreement.

[turkcyp]

deleted by the author...

[boulio]

They had veto power on only in three areas. Requirement of seperate majorities does not necessarily imply blocking power on EVERYTHING.

a)care to list the three areas t/c had veto rights?

b)separte majorities in the instance of cyprus in the 1960-1963 period meant just that blocking power on everthing,you so eloquently speak of makarios 13 points but the were rejected by turkey before the t/c,so basically what does that say to you?that the seperate majority will be dictated by turkey and not by the t/c communitiy.

[gabaston]

Piratis

Please you keep repeating your one-man one-vote thing.

Democracy as you wish to see in cyprus takes time. USA have had it for 200 years, yet only a few decades ago it was considered ok in some states to lynch members of certain minorities. It takes time and many mistakes before democracy matures into a reasonable government producing tool. I dread to think of the mistakes, a one-man one-vote 1960 government would have produced, in light of the then gc thirst for Enonis. Turkish intervention sooner rather than later perhaps.

As a further example check out Iraq, they got it. Is it working?

Not every country is ready, or can handle democracy. Cyprus wasn’t, and imo isn't.

[turkcyp]

deleted by the author...

[Dhavlos]

We all know the 1960 constitution was wrong on many different aspects, and that the leaders at the time were not really up to scratch on trying to let it work.

What we need to do is forget this old constitution, and look towards the new one being presented, or a completely new one if need-be. We just need to make sure the new constitution is not anything like the 1960s one that helped to cause so many problems.

All i want from a solution is the chance to live wherever i like, in security and safety and be able to participate in politics in a civilised democracy. As long as a solution gives me this, i dont care whether it is based on bizonality/unitary or any kind of other -ary State.

[Piratis]

Piratis if we have no requirement for seperate majorities in the parliament in 1960 or if we did not choose president and VP seperately in 1960 then all of those articles that makes Enosis illegal can be changed by the majority.

Not true. A simple majority can not change the constitution in most countries. All countries have some form of what is called "special majority" which is required for very important decisions such us this one. In Cyprus we could have this "special majority" also.
The wheel is there, and it functions in all democratic countries, many of which are multicultural/multilingual. We can make some modifications to this "wheel" but there is no need to reinvent it in a way that will serve the interests of some and screw some others.

Why do you think Makarios had proposed the 13 points? Elimination of veto power of VP, elimitaion of seperate majorities have given the opportunity to GCs to change any element of the constituion against Enosis.

If you look at the 13 points you will see that non of them made the union with another country legal, and as I said no majority could change this.

Do not distort the truth. TCs never had blocking power on everything. They had veto power on only in three areas. Requirement of separate majorities does not necessarily imply blocking power on EVERYTHING. It implies blocking power on things that does not satisfy majorities of both communities.

So the TCs could block whatever they wanted to block, yes or no? Are we playing with words here?

If GCs had come up with proposals that not only benefit the majority of GCs but also benefit the majority of TCs than it would not be blocked would it?

What if the TCs believed that they should get the 30% or 50% of something and the proposal was for them to get the 18-20%? Since TCs were equally satisfied with either getting way more than what they deserved, or with the collapse of RoC that would bring them closer to their dream (partition) then blackmailing and demanding outrageous things was very very possible, right?

At the heart of 1960 agreement lies the necessity of consensus building and cooperation. The reason they did not work back then because we were not ready to coopearte and build consensus. After 40 some yeras of experience I belive both communities are mature enough to make a similar agreement work right now.

It could work if both sides were dedicated to the independence of Cyprus and they would try their best to make sure our state would not collapse. GCs changed (the great majority at least) and they don't want union with Greece any more. Therefore they would make their best for independent Cyprus to work out. What about TCs? I am afraid that some TCs would think like this: "If they accept to give to us whatever outrageous we ask for good. If they don't accept, then everything will collapse and we will have partition, which is good again".

For a solution to work out it should be one that will create common interest for both sides. If GCs win TCs win and vice versa. And if GCs loose, TCs loose, and vice versa. If the way is "if GCs looses something, TCs gain that something and vice versa" then I doubt the future will be bright.

[turkcyp]

deleted by the author...