 |
| Author |
Message |
Dream_Merchant
Warnings : 1
Senior Villager
Joined: 19 Jun 2006
Posts: 422
Location: Limassol
|
|
| Euronews wrote: |
Belgian King demands fresh political intervention
The King of Belgium has called on the heads of the two chambers of parliament to step into the country's political minefield. After a meeting with Yves Leterme, the head of the Flemish Christian Democrats, Albert II said there needed to be a dialogue between the French-speaking president of the upper chamber, and the Flemish-speaking president of the lower house.
But all know they face a huge challenge. Wednesday's parliamentary vote set the Flemish against the French. To the casual observer it may not seem so serious: a "yes" to splitting up the greater Brussels' electoral district, home to Flemish and French speakers.
But Didier Reynders, the leader of the French-speaking Liberal Reform Movement, was adamant it was a very serious move because it was a vote against the Belgian pact, violating respect between the communities. It will leave more than 100,000 French voters in a Flemish-only voting district.
For one mayor, in Dinant, in French-speaking Wallonia, it's being seen as the death knell for the Belgian state, when French and Flemish speakers can no longer live together. |
This bi-communal thing doesn't seem to work well does it.. even in the heart of Europe, Brussels, the non-plenary seat of the European Parliament. |
|
| Back to top |
|
Mete
Warnings : 3
Deputy
Joined: 16 Aug 2005
Posts: 1150
Location: Boston
|
|
| Quote: |
This bi-communal thing doesn't seem to work well does it.. even in the heart of Europe, Brussels, the non-plenary seat of the European Parliament.
|
Out of all working examples of federation, you go and choose the one that doesn't work. So what do you want? A repeat of division Czechoslovakia into Czech Republic and Slovakia in Cyprus? |
|
| Back to top |
|
Kifeas
Warnings : 6
Ministerial
Joined: 26 Aug 2005
Posts: 2733
Location: Location: Pafos-Cyprus, since 1974 ethnic cleansing. Originally, Lapithos, northern occupied Cyprus.
|
|
| Mete wrote: |
| Quote: |
This bi-communal thing doesn't seem to work well does it.. even in the heart of Europe, Brussels, the non-plenary seat of the European Parliament.
|
Out of all working examples of federation, you go and choose the one that doesn't work. So what do you want? A repeat of division Czechoslovakia into Czech Republic and Slovakia in Cyprus? |
There is NO relationship between the realities of Cyprus and any of the above mentioned cases of Belgium and /or Czechoslovakia, nor with any other cases that have been used in the past as a potential reference model for Cyprus, such as those of Switzerland, Canada, etc!
Cyprus doesn’t consist of any two or more uniform ethnic territories in any legitimate or legal sense! There has never been historically a single mono-ethnic and mono-cultural Turkish Cypriot territory -and consequently neither a corresponding Greek Cypriot one, for any of the above cases or examples to make any significant sense in trying to solve the Cyprus issue! To claim the opposite, it equates with trying or wanting to vindicate and legitimize the outcomes of an illegal and illegitimate act of aggression; in violation of human, historical and heritage rights of a very large proportion of the Cypriot people! Unfortunately, this is the (not-so-hidden) aim of the Turkish Cypriot /Turkish side, this was the disguised philosophy of the failed Annan plan, and this is why we did not have a solution in Cyprus so far! Anyone with only a little bit of IQ, should be able to realize this!
To be able to solve the Cyprus issue on the basis of a Bi-zonal and a Bi-communal Federation, we have accept that the two attributive adjective terms to the noun called “Federation,” should represent two different and largely independed layers of power or administrative structures! What we should essentially be seeking for, is an evolution of the already legally existing on paper 1960 bi-communal unitary Republic of Cyprus, into a bi-communal and bi-zonal federative Republic of Cyprus!
The bi-communal layer should take the form of a more refined, more workable and more balanced power sharing arrangement between the two communities in the central (federal) government, which (federal government) will be the successor of the 1960 (unitary) Republic of Cyprus government!
The bi-zonal (territorial) layer should be the new added ingredient into the (refined) 1960 bi-communal setup, as the ingredient that will cause the evolution of the Republic of Cyprus from a unitary into a federal state! The bi-zonal (territorial) layer should not be based on exclusively mono-communal (mono-ethnic and mono-cultural) assumptions and considerations! It should, both in the letter and the spirit of its foundation, be affordably open to all Cypriots, regardless and irrespective of ethnic origin! |
|
| Back to top |
|
Kifeas
Warnings : 6
Ministerial
Joined: 26 Aug 2005
Posts: 2733
Location: Location: Pafos-Cyprus, since 1974 ethnic cleansing. Originally, Lapithos, northern occupied Cyprus.
|
|
continued...
The only factor that will perhaps color each of the two state (local) governments differently, will be that of each state’s administrative apparatus explicit working (not official) language, as in the case of the EU administrative apparatus which (even though the EU has 23 official) has only 3 working ones! It will be Turkish for the smaller and Greek for the larger state! Certain safety valves may be put in place to guarantee that the smaller community will not be numerically dominated in both zones (states,) provided that the vast majority of it (smaller community) will choose to remain as inhabitants (permanent residents) of the territorially smaller state –however- this should not be solely in the expense of the larger community’s rights to its own country! |
|
| Back to top |
|
Mete
Warnings : 3
Deputy
Joined: 16 Aug 2005
Posts: 1150
Location: Boston
|
|
Kifeas, first, I wasn't the one who claimed the situation in Belgium relates to Cyprus.
Secondly, I'll take the rights of Turkish Cypriots as outlined in the Republic of Cyprus any day as a solution! So if you can find a way to make Republic of Cyprus bizonal where I can be guaranteed that Turkish Cypriots will be the majority (at least in the short term) in the north in their own northerm/small/constituent state and they will have the same rights at the federal level as outlined in the Republic of Cyprus, that's more than enough for me. |
|
| Back to top |
|
Kifeas
Warnings : 6
Ministerial
Joined: 26 Aug 2005
Posts: 2733
Location: Location: Pafos-Cyprus, since 1974 ethnic cleansing. Originally, Lapithos, northern occupied Cyprus.
|
|
| Mete wrote: |
Kifeas, first, I wasn't the one who claimed the situation in Belgium relates to Cyprus.
Secondly, I'll take the rights of Turkish Cypriots as outlined in the Republic of Cyprus any day as a solution! So if you can find a way to make Republic of Cyprus bizonal where I can be guaranteed that Turkish Cypriots will be the majority (at least in the short term) in the north in their own northerm/small/constituent state and they will have the same rights at the federal level as outlined in the Republic of Cyprus, that's more than enough for me. |
Mete, you probably didn't read carefully what I said:
I said above:
"To be able to solve the Cyprus issue on the basis of a Bi-zonal and a Bi-communal Federation, we have accept that the two attributive adjective terms to the noun called “Federation,” should represent two different and largely independed layers of power or administrative structures! What we should essentially be seeking for, is an evolution of the already legally existing on paper 1960 bi-communal unitary Republic of Cyprus, into a bi-communal and bi-zonal federative Republic of Cyprus!
The bi-communal layer should take the form of a more refined, more workable and more balanced power sharing arrangement between the two communities in the central (federal) government, which (federal government) will be the successor of the 1960 (unitary) Republic of Cyprus government!"
I meant this in comparison to the 1960 constitution!
I hope you agree that the 1960 constitution had a number of vertical polarizing, unworkable, imbalanced and unfair elements that should be revisited, without this meaning the disenfranchising of the Turkish Cypriot community from its proportional rights or effective decision making participation or input! |
|
| Back to top |
|
erolz
Site Admin
Joined: 11 Aug 2005
Posts: 4195
Location: Kyrenia / Girne
|
|
| Kifeas wrote: |
| I hope you agree that the 1960 constitution had a number of vertical polarizing, unworkable, imbalanced and unfair elements that should be revisited, without this meaning the disenfranchising of the Turkish Cypriot community from its proportional rights or effective decision making participation or input! |
When an issue is pan communal, means the same regardless of which community you are in and affects you the same regardless of which community you are in then 'proportional' rights are not a problem and represent effective participation.
The problem comes when an issue is by its very essence not a cross communal one but one of only the larger Greek Cypriot community, where it is just Greek Cypriot that want this thing, where it means something very different to a cypriot depending on if they are Greek Cypriot or Turkish Cypriot and affects you differently as a Cypriot depending on if you are Greek Cypriot or Turkish Cypriot. On issues like this there has to be an equality between the communites , because the issues are communal, for Turkish Cypriot to have effective participation.
So how do you propose to ensure the Turkish Cypriot communities effective participation in such a scenario ? If your answer is that Greek Cypriot pursuing purely Greek Cypriot communal objectives have every right to impose these things on the Turkish Cypriot community regardless of their communal desires, then I say we do not have effective participation and we are no further forward than pre 60 re a solution. |
|
| Back to top |
|
Kifeas
Warnings : 6
Ministerial
Joined: 26 Aug 2005
Posts: 2733
Location: Location: Pafos-Cyprus, since 1974 ethnic cleansing. Originally, Lapithos, northern occupied Cyprus.
|
|
| erolz wrote: |
| Kifeas wrote: |
| I hope you agree that the 1960 constitution had a number of vertical polarizing, unworkable, imbalanced and unfair elements that should be revisited, without this meaning the disenfranchising of the Turkish Cypriot community from its proportional rights or effective decision making participation or input! |
When an issue is pan communal, means the same regardless of which community you are in and affects you the same regardless of which community you are in then 'proportional' rights are not a problem and represent effective participation.
The problem comes when an issue is by its very essence not a cross communal one but one of only the larger Greek Cypriot community, where it is just Greek Cypriot that want this thing, where it means something very different to a cypriot depending on if they are Greek Cypriot or Turkish Cypriot and affects you differently as a Cypriot depending on if you are Greek Cypriot or Turkish Cypriot. On issues like this there has to be an equality between the communites , because the issues are communal, for Turkish Cypriot to have effective participation.
So how do you propose to ensure the Turkish Cypriot communities effective participation in such a scenario ? If your answer is that Greek Cypriot pursuing purely Greek Cypriot communal objectives have every right to impose these things on the Turkish Cypriot community regardless of their communal desires, then I say we do not have effective participation and we are no further forward than pre 60 re a solution. |
I believe we have already discussed this issue, several times, but let me try again! All decisions to be taken, or laws to be enacted /amended, etc, to be valid they should ideally be debated on the basis of combined ideological and /or partisan platforms, and not on the basis of ethnic –set aside nationalist platforms. All legislating or executive acts should be taken with a simple majority vote, provided that a certain minimum percentage (say ¼) from each communal component is also part of this simple majority vote. For a certain limited number and type of decisions, i.e. those affecting fundamental constitutional articles, or affecting the cultural orientation of the country or those critically affecting the foreign policy orientation of the federal government (and of Cyprus,) may be taken on a reinforced majority of the entire house or cabinet (say 2/3) and provided an increased minimum participation (say 1/3) from each communal component is also part of this reinforced majority vote. |
|
| Back to top |
|
erolz
Site Admin
Joined: 11 Aug 2005
Posts: 4195
Location: Kyrenia / Girne
|
|
| Kifeas wrote: |
| All decisions to be taken, or laws to be enacted /amended, etc, to be valid they should ideally be debated on the basis of combined ideological and /or partisan platforms, and not on the basis of ethnic –set aside nationalist platforms. |
Yes this is what SHOULD happened but the historical FACT is that this is NOT what happened. Historically Greek Cypriot pursued solely Greek ethnic agendas for all Cypriots and Turkish Cypriot responded in kind. That is the core of the problem so talking about what should happen, when it never happened in the past is not much of a reassurement to me as a Turkish Cypriot.
| Kifeas wrote: |
All legislating or executive acts should be taken with a simple majority vote, provided that a certain minimum percentage (say ¼) from each communal component is also part of this simple majority vote. |
If you are accepting that Greek Cypriot in the 60's should not have been able to impose enosis on Turkish Cypriot unless they could gain a minimum 25% support from the Turkish Cypriot community for such a move, then we are 99% of the way to an agreement.
However I always understood your position to be that historically there was nothing wrong with enosis being achieved purely via a straight majority vote of all Cypriots and no requirement or need for a minimum support for it from the Turkish Cypriot community ? |
|
| Back to top |
|
cypezokyli
Ministerial
Joined: 20 Dec 2005
Posts: 2344
|
|
belgium is of course important!
these is no doubt that there exist no problems of invasion , refugees , settlers etc.
BUT belgium has been up to now the prototype of a political system which allowed two communities to resolve their problems without resorting to violence.
the current crisis in belgium is extremely interesting. if a well functioning rich democracy like belgium collapses, from immature politicians, then there will be practically no real prototype to offer to cases like ours. if a rich country with long democratic tradition collapses, then it really poses the question: how can we expect anyone else to make it ? because belgium fullfills most of the criteria that should have prevented such a crisis from erupting.
the new elections will hopefully allow belgium to get over the crisis.... after so much nationalistic rhetoric it would be interesting to see how the belgians will vote ! but for that i wouldnt dare making any kind of predictions. |
|
| Back to top |
|
cypezokyli
Ministerial
Joined: 20 Dec 2005
Posts: 2344
|
|
| Dream_Merchant wrote: |
This bi-communal thing doesn't seem to work well does it.. even in the heart of Europe, Brussels, the non-plenary seat of the European Parliament. |
i wouldnt celebrate that if i were you.
because if that "bi-communal thing" collapses, do you know what the second real option (proposed both in the literature as well by practisioners ) is ? |
|
| Back to top |
|
Kifeas
Warnings : 6
Ministerial
Joined: 26 Aug 2005
Posts: 2733
Location: Location: Pafos-Cyprus, since 1974 ethnic cleansing. Originally, Lapithos, northern occupied Cyprus.
|
|
| erolz wrote: |
| Kifeas wrote: |
| All decisions to be taken, or laws to be enacted /amended, etc, to be valid they should ideally be debated on the basis of combined ideological and /or partisan platforms, and not on the basis of ethnic –set aside nationalist platforms. |
Yes this is what SHOULD happened but the historical FACT is that this is NOT what happened. |
I am not sure I understand what you want to say here! If you are talking about 1960-1963, it did not happen because the constitution wouldn't allow it to happen! It wouldn't, simply because everything was solely based on separation, confrontation and polarization between the two communities, besides the fact that it was unbalanced and provocatively biased in favor of the Turkish Cypriot community! No cross voting! No common or combined political parties! Two presidents with almost equal powers, one exclusively elected by one and the other exclusively by the other community, separately; and each president with the power of canceling the other one out! Impossible to have a government coming out of a single or similar combined ideological platform with a single unified political agenda! Separate majorities in the parliament! Disproportional representation and disproportional job opportunities for one community in the expense of the other! Separate municipalities, etc, etc!
| erolz wrote: |
| Historically Greek Cypriot pursued solely Greek ethnic agendas for all Cypriots and Turkish Cypriot responded in kind. |
I am sure you are somewhere making an amnesia mistake here! It is only the Turkish Cypriot community that was initiating and pushing for ethnic agendas, and not the other way around! You were pushing for things for the sole aim of facilitating the ground for partition, right from the beginning! You wanted the enforcement of every single provision that was imposed on the Greek Cypriot community through that constitution, even though you knew that they were the result of blackmailing on us and were either unworkable or unfair against the majority of the population, such as that of separate municipalities, employment of 30% from your community even though you knew you were only 18% of the people, separate army commands, vetoing budgets in order to blackmail, etc, etc! Everything that was pro-separation, you pursued it to the last iota, forcing the hand of the already discontent Greek Cypriot leadership (and community) to seek amendments in the way it tried to do! Now you are wondering why it didn’t work, and why there was no cooperation between the two communities, when all the sperms for separation and confrontation were all planted in that constitution, as a result of your side’s and Turkey’s insistence and of British machinations and blackmailing!
| Quote: |
| That is the core of the problem so talking about what should happen, when it never happened in the past is not much of a reassurement to me as a Turkish Cypriot. |
And what is it that you want to propose then? Do you have any alternative proposal to make?
| Quote: |
| Kifeas wrote: |
All legislating or executive acts should be taken with a simple majority vote, provided that a certain minimum percentage (say ¼) from each communal component is also part of this simple majority vote. |
If you are accepting that Greek Cypriot in the 60's should not have been able to impose enosis on Turkish Cypriot unless they could gain a minimum 25% support from the Turkish Cypriot community for such a move, then we are 99% of the way to an agreement. |
What are you talking about, here? Who tried to impose enosis? The Greek Cypriot leadership only proposed amendments to the constitution, something which your community (together with Turkey) saw as an opportunity to commit a mutiny in order to invite Turkey in and impose partition! The only ones that proposed (not imposed) enosis, were the Americans with the Acheson plan in 1964, something that Makarios rejected anyway! Except that handful of coupists in 1974, who unsuccessfully tried to assassinate Makarios for this reason, and the unknown writer of the Akritas plan, I know of no Greek Cypriot that tried to impose Enosis! However, I know of many prominent Turkish Cypriots that tried to impose partition, right from the first day of the Republic of Cyprus in 1960!
| Quote: |
| However I always understood your position to be that historically there was nothing wrong with enosis being achieved purely via a straight majority vote of all Cypriots and no requirement or need for a minimum support for it from the Turkish Cypriot community ? |
How can you possibly understand what my positions are, if you very rarely pay attention in what I write! I only spoke about the legitimacy of the enosis struggle in the 1950's, before the establishment of the Republic of Cyprus and when Cyprus was still under an illegal and illegitimate British occupation and rule! |
|
| Back to top |
|
Mete
Warnings : 3
Deputy
Joined: 16 Aug 2005
Posts: 1150
Location: Boston
|
|
| Kifeas wrote: |
It is only the Turkish Cypriot community that was initiating and pushing for ethnic agendas, and not the other way around!
|
| Kifeas wrote: |
Except that handful of coupists in 1974, who unsuccessfully tried to assassinate Makarios for this reason, and the unknown writer of the Akritas plan, I know of no Greek Cypriot that tried to impose Enosis!
|
I want to have a meaningful discussion with you but when you say crap like this, there's little room for a discussion. You make it sound like majority of Greek Cypriots welcomed and accepted the Republic of Cyprus and completely abandoned the idea of Enosis right after 1960. You make it sound like Greek Cypriots had their arms open to embrace Turkish Cypriots as equal citizens of this republic and being evil Turks, Turkish Cypriots tried everything possible to undermine this republic. Ironically you acknowledge that this republic gave "so much" to Turkish Cypriots but I guess your theory is that being greedy Turks, these "excessive" rights were not enough for Turkish Cypriots. |
|
| Back to top |
|
erolz
Site Admin
Joined: 11 Aug 2005
Posts: 4195
Location: Kyrenia / Girne
|
|
I have to say Kifeas that I pretty much agree with Mete here.
It is so hard to have a sensible discussion when you try and make out that Greek Cypriot both the leaderships and those they led did not seek enosis both pre 60 and post it, in various ways and as various factions and without any real regard for Turkish Cypriot communal wishes or any acceptance that such a decision required at least some degree of support from the Turkish Cypriot community. It is just nonsense to claim this and then claim that all that Turkish Cypriot did was try and secure partition.
For me the basic 'test' I put any proposed solution too TODAY , is would such a system have allowed the Turkish Cypriot community to legitimately block the imposition of something LIKE enosis (ie something that was purely an ethnic based desire) on them agains ttheir communal will or not.
If you are saying your proposed system would require that the Turkish Cypriot community showed a 25% support for something like enosis TODAY and if it did not then such could NOT be implemented despite a majority of all Cypriots wanting it, then that is a solution I can accept.
However it does also matter to me if you consider that such a requirment is 'right' and 'just' in and of itself and not just 'necessary for now'. If you do accept that it right and just today (and not just a convience to get an agreement that can be argued as 'unfair' after an agreement is made) then I can not see how you can not also accept that such a requirement of some minimal consent from the Turkish Cypriot community on something as fundamantal as enosis was not right pre 1960 or post 1960 for that matter. |
|
| Back to top |
|
repulsewarrior
Deputy
Joined: 06 Jan 2006
Posts: 1742
Location: Canada
|
|
| Quote: |
To be able to solve the Cyprus issue on the basis of a Bi-zonal and a Bi-communal Federation, we have accept that the two attributive adjective terms to the noun called “Federation,” should represent two different and largely independed layers of power or administrative structures! What we should essentially be seeking for, is an evolution of the already legally existing on paper 1960 bi-communal unitary Republic of Cyprus, into a bi-communal and bi-zonal federative Republic of Cyprus!
The bi-communal layer should take the form of a more refined, more workable and more balanced power sharing arrangement between the two communities in the central (federal) government, which (federal government) will be the successor of the 1960 (unitary) Republic of Cyprus government!
The bi-zonal (territorial) layer should be the new added ingredient into the (refined) 1960 bi-communal setup, as the ingredient that will cause the evolution of the Republic of Cyprus from a unitary into a federal state! The bi-zonal (territorial) layer should not be based on exclusively mono-communal (mono-ethnic and mono-cultural) assumptions and considerations! It should, both in the letter and the spirit of its foundation, be affordably open to all Cypriots, regardless and irrespective of ethnic origin! |
well said Mr.K
...so Greek Cypriots need to divorce themselves from the State, the Republic of Cyprus.
And they need a level of government equal to their counterpart; both with a National Assembly, and both sovereign in their affairs because they have this charter from the same central government independant of any other state of power.
May I add that creating a State that holds no bias one way or the other toward any ethnicity does not solve the problem. But, by having a majority in either territorial zone of one ethnic entity, the problem is transfered to both of these peoples, who will act reciprocally, and by their democratic process, respecting and recognising the needs of the minorities in their midst.
Futuristicly, far more appealing, this governmental set (three governments), if the aim is to sustain both the grecophone and turcophone societies, who will in the near future confront a changing demographic from external forces, such as our membership in the EU. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
All times are GMT + 3 Hours
Goto page 1, 2 Next
|
| Page 1 of 2 |
| |
 
 
Link Partners
3205 Attacks blocked
|
Register 
Log in 
Album 
Home