 |
| Author |
Message |
Kifeas
Warnings : 6
Ministerial
Joined: 26 Aug 2005
Posts: 2733
Location: Location: Pafos-Cyprus, since 1974 ethnic cleansing. Originally, Lapithos, northern occupied Cyprus.
|
|
MOD NOTE, TOPIC SPLIT FROM: http://www.talkcyprus.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=3724
| Birkibrisli wrote: |
This is good news.Can you give me an example of a BBF you might consider acceptable to the Greek Cypriot community and hence to Papadopoulos? |
First of all, what is a Bi-zonal, Bi-communal federation? It is a Federation like all the rest, the US, the German, the Australian, with the only added component being that of bi-communality.
How do these federations function? First of all they regard all their citizens to be citizens of one sovereign nation with one single nationality, irrespective of state residency. Every citizen is free to move inside the country, from one state to another, and to also exercise his political rights from within his state of residency. No state has the right to prejudice on any citizen of the country that moves into the boundaries of its own state, on the basis of the fact that he previously was the resident of another state, or on the basis of his “ethnic” background, religion, language, etc. This is more or less the general rule.
What is the added ingredient in our case? The only added ingredient is that of bi-communality. Bi-zonality (or multi-zonality) is the ingredient that exists in all the rest of the other conventional federations, world wide. They are all based on the concept of many (two or more) states (zones) functioning under one central (federal government) roof as semi-autonomous regions /states /cantons /provinces, etc, etc. The sovereignty and international legal identity of the country is held and expressed through and by the central (federal) government. The added ingredient in our case, which is that of bi-communality, is an abstract (a virtual) notion. It does not necessarily have to be served on or through the ground, and /or through the political identity of each one the two States, and /or through their (each state’s) representation in the central (federal) government. Bi-communality represents a separate and different notion, which should not be equated with the bi-zonality notion. It is a complementary notion to that of bi-zonality, and not an interchanged or a substitute notion to it. Bi-communality can exist as a separate level of people’s representation in the federal government, like it was somehow the case in the 1960 constitution, and bi-zonality can exist as another separate level of representation in the federal government. For example, part of the parliament (in both upper and lower houses) can be elected on the basis of state residency (like the rest of the conventional federations,) and part on it, in a parallel way of voting, can be elected on a community identity basis (irrespective of state residency.)
Furthermore, none of the two states should be identified or equated, in a strict sense, with any one of the two communities, by virtue of historical ownership. The states should furthermore do not bare the names of the two “ethnic” groups. They can be called the North Component State and the South Component state, instead of the T/C Component State and the G/C Component State. Why this? Because neither the G/Cs, nor the T/Cs are the historical and cultural owners and the historically exclusive inhabitants of each one of the two regions /areas! The states should exist outside the concept of communality. The T/Cs will be in control of the North State, only by virtue of majority population presence /residency, and not by virtue of historical and /or ancestral and /or cultural ownership of this particular area. Equally, the G/Cs will be in control of the South State, only by virtue of majority population presence /residency, and not by virtue of historical and /or ancestral and /or cultural ownership of the particular area. The T/Cs will be in control of the North State, only through and by virtue of their capacity as the majority current permanent residents of the north part of Cyprus, and not because of their capacity as members of the T/C community, as such. Equally, the G/Cs will be in control of the South State, only through and by virtue of their capacity as the majority current permanent residents of the north part of Cyprus, and not because of their capacity as members of the G/C community, as such.
None of the two constitutions of the two states should prejudice in favour of the members of one community and against the members of the other community, like it was the case -among many other troll things- in the Annan plan, in which any G/C that would wish to become a permanent resident of the T/C State and would wish to exercise his residency political rights through his residency state, should have to become Turkified and would be required to take an oath on Kemal Ataturk, otherwise he would not be permitted to exercise his political rights. We have no objection or problem if the T/C honour Kemal Ataturk in their private lives, schools, clubs, associations, etc. However, Ataturk is the founder of another separate country than ours, is the symbol of Turkish national identity, and should stay out of the constitutional affairs of any of the two states in Cyprus, or those of the Federal government. This is unacceptable for the G/Cs. You are not making a BB federation with Turkey but with the G/Cs in Cyprus. You are not becoming a province or a federal state of Turkey, but a federal state of the EU member United Republic of Cyprus. You should not expect us (the G/Cs) to more or less become like the Kurdish people of Turkey (i.e. without respect of our separate cultural identity,) should any of us would wish to become residents of the state in which you will be the majority. The North part of Cyprus is not your homeland alone; in fact we (G/Cs) have been once and for many millenniums now, the majority in this area. That doesn’t mean that we intent to become again the majority, so that we undertake the state from inside and cancell federalism all together. However, this will depend solely on you. If we can function in this area, with our cultural and historical identity respected and honoured, as if there will be no difference for us should we either in the north or in the south of our country, then there will be not reason and /or incentive for us to ever consider anything like that.
This is the end of part one of what we can possibly accept. Remind for part two later, but you can comment on part one in the meantime.
Last edited by Kifeas on Wed May 10, 2006 7:25 pm; edited 2 times in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
Birkibrisli
Deputy
Joined: 29 Aug 2005
Posts: 1404
Location: Australia
|
|
Kifeas,thanks for that detailed response.
so you are essentially suggesting an Australian type federal system.
Here people can live in any one of the 6 states and 2 territories,vote for their own State parliament plus for the Federal government that has very specifically defined powers in certain areas.Here they have a Senate too (an upper house in Federal parliament).The Senate serves as the protector of the States rights,and it made up of 5 senators from each state (and two from the territories if I am not wrong).A highly populated state like NSW has the same number of senators as the lowly populated state like Tasmania for example,which gives Tasmanian voters' more value for their votes,but is tolerated for the good of the stability of the Federation.
I personally have no problem with this type of BBF,but you will come up with the same fears and resistances from the Turkish Cypriot side.The foremost fear would be the Trojan horse fear:Greek Cypriots infiltrating the Northern state and becoming a majority.The other fear would probably be personal security fears.How can we manage with the Greek Cypriots without the Turkish Army etc.
But i suppose the most difficult would be to agree on the constitution of the Federal government.If we don't take the "bi-communality" out,it will inevitable be too complicated and probably unworkable trying to accomodate people's ethnic origins in many government functions and positions.BBF will not be my first choice,but it might be an interim measure till the two sides learn to trust each other and live with each other. When it comes down to it,my brother,this problem can be solved easily if we put our Cypriotness above all,and see each other as human beings,members of the same tribe,inhabiting the same planet Earth from which the only escape will be in a coffin...The same inevitable end awaits us,yet we are still hell bent on taking our own preferred road there,with only people who speak our language and believe in our God... 
Got off the topic a bit.But do tell me the other option you have for 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.
|
|
| Birkibrisli wrote: |
Kifeas,thanks for that detailed response.
so you are essentially suggesting an Australian type federal system.
Here people can live in any one of the 6 states and 2 territories,vote for their own State parliament plus for the Federal government that has very specifically defined powers in certain areas.Here they have a Senate too (an upper house in Federal parliament).The Senate serves as the protector of the States rights,and it made up of 5 senators from each state (and two from the territories if I am not wrong).A highly populated state like NSW has the same number of senators as the lowly populated state like Tasmania for example,which gives Tasmanian voters' more value for their votes,but is tolerated for the good of the stability of the Federation. |
I am not that familiar with the details of the Australian case, however I believe it won’t be much different than all the other conventional federations existing world wide.
Yes, the Senate (upper house) should have a symbolic, approval and an overlooking role. It will not enact laws itself, this will be the job of the lower house, but it will approve or disapprove them, and will approve or disapprove the formation of the federal government and /or any its major impact decisions i.e. annual budget for example.) It will symbolise the equality of the (two) communities, the equality of the (two) states, and the equality of the people; all in one house. It can be constituted by 3 components, the Bi-Communal (Communities,) the Bi-Zonal (States,) and the Unitary (People) Components. Each component will have an equal number of senators, i.e. 1/3 of the total. The Communities Component will have an equal number of senators from each one of the two Communities (“ethnically” based, regardless of state residency.) The States Component will have an equal number of senators from each one of the two States (State “residency” based, regardless of “ethnic” origin.) The People Component should be elected on one-man-one-vote basis by the entire population of Cyprus (irrespective of state residency and “ethnic” community identity.)
For example, if we assume that the senate will have thirty (30) senators, ten (10) will came from the Communities (5 T/Cs and 5 G/Cs,) ten (10) will come from the States (5 from the North and 5 from the South,) and the remaining ten (10) from the People as a whole. If we assume that the G/C community members in the North state will reach at some stage in the future between 25%-35% of the total population the North State, then theoretically the maximum number of Senators of G/C origin from the North State sub-component will be 1-2 out of the 5. The remaining 3-4 will most likely always be of T/C origin. If we assume that the T/C community as a percentage of the total population will be between 18%-20%, then theoretically it can elect 1-2 senators out of the 10 of the People Component. Consequently, the average number of Senators of T/C origin will be 5 from the Communities component, 3-4 from the States component and 1-2 from the People component. This makes the total to be around 9 (min) to 11 (max) senators out of the total of 30 senators, or between 30%-37% of the Senate, or say 33% (1/3) as an average.
All approval decisions by the senate should be taken by simple majority (minimum of 16 Senators out of the 30.) Extra-ordinary cases should also require simple majority from each one of the Components, and extra-extra-ordinary cases should require simple majority from each sub-Component. That means that no extra-ordinary approval decision can be taken without any participation by senators of T/C origin, and no extra-extra-ordinary approval decisions can be taken without participation by the majority of Senators of T/C origin.
The lower house (Parliament) will be responsible for the bulk of the legislating work and perhaps also the election of the government, which (both) will also have to be approved by the Senate. The lower house will be constituted by MPs from the two States based on the permanent residents population ratio of each state at any given period (term,) irrespective of Community or “ethnic” origin. As the population changes, i.e. the North State increases and the South decreases due to the movement of G/Cs from South to North, the ratio of MPs from the two States will be adjusted. Any rounding discrepancy will be ruled in favour of the smaller State.
The Senate (upper house) will symbolise, demonstrate, represent and safeguard the 3 essential political equality ingredients of the country, i.e., the political equality of the Communities, the political equality of the States and the political equality of the People of the country.
No election for the MPs, and no election for the senators (with perhaps an exception in the case of the Community component of the senate,) and no government election and /or approval and no law enacting and /or approval, will be have to be decided on the basis of ethnic agendas and grounds. Decisions should be taken on the basis of Socio-political and ideological grounds, something which will require the formation of party associations among the political parties of the two states, on grounds of common political ideologies.
I described above what the G/C side (and Papadopoulos) will be ready to accept without further discussion, and I believe it is something fairly balanced and something which the T/C community should have absolutely no problem accepting as well, provided they put their nationalistic irredentism aside. If they cannot put their nationalist irredentism aside, in favour of their long term interest and prosperity, and that of the country as a whole, then nothing can possibly work in this country. |
|
| 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.
|
|
| Birkibrisli wrote: |
| I personally have no problem with this type of BBF,but you will come up with the same fears and resistances from the Turkish Cypriot side.The foremost fear would be the Trojan horse fear:Greek Cypriots infiltrating the Northern state and becoming a majority. |
Brother, I tend to regard the above as a pseudo-dilemma. I have reasons to believe it will never happen, unless for some reason the majority of the T/C community will be castrated and thus stop multiplying, or if for some reason the majority of them will decide to either permanently move to the South or emigrate elsewhere, outside of Cyprus. For this to happen and assuming that the majority of the T/Cs will indeed stay and keep multiplying in the north, it requires at least 200,000 G/Cs to decide to permanently move into the north during the next 10-15 years, so that they become the majority there, since this will also be the T/C population by then, (in 10-15 years,) if we also include the number of settlers that will be naturalised. This is something that can never happen. People do not abandoned their social life, business activities, work, schools of their children, sell their houses and move into another part of Cyprus, unless there are extremely important reasons. Besides that, we have to assume that with the territorial adjustments that will take place for the two states, only about 100,000 G/Cs will be formally originating from the areas that will remain part of the territory of the North State. Taking the above two factors into consideration, I hardly imagine that within the next 15 years, more than 40 to 50 thousand G/Cs will choose to become permanent residents of the North State. Any other claim is simply out of common sense. By then, and if we assume that the T/C residents of the North State will reach more than 200 thousands, the number of G/Cs will only constitute the maximum 20% of the total resident population of the North State, and the remaining 80% will be of T/C origin.
Furthermore, and in order to alleviate even the last drop of concern of any of the T/Cs, we can always discuss the reduction of the territory percentage of the North State down to levels closer to their population ratio, so that even less areas of former G/C community origin will be part of the North Stat’s territory, so that even less G/Cs will have any incentive to become permanent residents of that State. For example, if the North State is reduced down to 22%-23% of Cyprus, instead of 29% that the Annan plan had given, then perhaps only about 15 to 20 thousands of G/Cs will ever return in the next 15 years and thus their ratio vs. the total residents of the north State will be less than 10%, the most.
The T/Cs can choose what they like, i.e. more territory for the North State and consequently more G/C origin residents as part of the total, or less territory and consequently less G/C origin residents as a percentage of the total. It is ether the one or the other, but certainly it cannot be both of them together.
PS: The 29% of territory that the Annan plan provided for the North (T/C) state justifies the presence of G/C origin permanent residents, up to becoming the minimum of the 35% of the total residents population of the North (T/C) State. How it comes out? Simple! The T/C community is the 18%, say 19% of the total population. Therefore it gets a territory (29%) that contains about 35% more than its population share. This extra territory over its share justifies the presence of G/C permanent resident population, so that the total population ratio will become equal to the territory ratio. Simple maths! |
|
| Back to top |
|
Bananiot
Warnings : 1
Deputy
Joined: 13 Aug 2005
Posts: 1214
Location: Nicosia
|
|
I must say, I admire the arrogance of Kifeas. He ended the first part of his diatribe as follows:
| Quote: |
| That doesn’t mean that we intent to become again the majority, so that we undertake the state from inside and cancell federalism all together. However, this will depend solely on you. If we can function in this area, with our cultural and historical identity respected and honoured, as if there will be no difference for us should we either in the north or in the south of our country, then there will be not reason and /or incentive for us to ever consider anything like that. |
Having stated quite clearly that we are willing to let the Turkish Cypriot share with us the northern part of Cyprus despite being for eons the majority there, he warns Turkey in effect, that should the Greek Cypriot minority there not be allowed to exercise its cultural and other functions, we would attempt to disturb the balance and become the majority again (the hairs on Denktash's chest stood on end). Its not up to us, its up to you, he says. Do not make us mad, look after us and we will strive to remain a minority (thus doing you a favour).
Obviously Kifeas is battling with shadows to see if the idea of guaranteed majorities can be bypassed. I think he needs to come up with a better plan. |
|
| 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.
|
|
| Bananiot wrote: |
I must say, I admire the arrogance of Kifeas. He ended the first part of his diatribe as follows:
| Quote: |
| That doesn’t mean that we intent to become again the majority, so that we undertake the state from inside and cancell federalism all together. However, this will depend solely on you. If we can function in this area, with our cultural and historical identity respected and honoured, as if there will be no difference for us should we either in the north or in the south of our country, then there will be not reason and /or incentive for us to ever consider anything like that. |
Having stated quite clearly that we are willing to let the Turkish Cypriot share with us the northern part of Cyprus despite being for eons the majority there, he warns Turkey in effect, that should the Greek Cypriot minority there not be allowed to exercise its cultural and other functions, we would attempt to disturb the balance and become the majority again (the hairs on Denktash's chest stood on end). Its not up to us, its up to you, he says. Do not make us mad, look after us and we will strive to remain a minority (thus doing you a favour).
Obviously Kifeas is battling with shadows to see if the idea of guaranteed majorities can be bypassed. I think he needs to come up with a better plan. |
If you cannot understand what I implied by this, you could simply ask for further clarification as to what I precisely wanted to say, which has nothing to do with what you are trying to load on me. However, If, and since, from all that I posted all along, this is the only part (only sentence) which you found suitable to comment on, then I must tell you that I think you are even more screwed up than I initially thought you was. |
|
| Back to top |
|
Viewpoint
Warnings : 2
Mukhtar/is
Joined: 14 Aug 2005
Posts: 971
Location: Lefkosa/Nicosia
|
|
All very interesting Kifeas thank you for the posts. I have a few questions...Who will decide if an issue is extra-ordinary? Ultimately this upper house can reject or approve any law prepared and presented by the lower house? Then the 19 to 11max (16 needed to pass a law) balance swing in favor of Greek Cypriots is a recipe for disaster.
Doesn't the 2 state control depend a lot on the goodwill of the Greek Cypriot community? The possibility for becoming the majority in north will be there, that indicates a big risk for the Turkish Cypriots what do you suggest we do, trust Greek Cypriots? There has to be safety valves in place and as you sound confident that they will not be exceeded then you will have no problems in allowing them to be put in place just in case Greek Cypriots decide to act differently from your predictions. |
|
| Back to top |
|
Birkibrisli
Deputy
Joined: 29 Aug 2005
Posts: 1404
Location: Australia
|
|
Kifeas has spent a lot of time and effort detailing his version of what is acceptable to the Greek Cypriot side and to Papadopoulos.I think his posts deserve careful study and a detail response from those who do not share his vision.I find myself in a peculiar spot here. My preference is for a Unitary state with strong human rights guarantees,and gradual movement towards embracing our Cypriotness,slowly maturing away from unthinking nationalism which has brought us where we are. My problem with Kifeas' vision is that it gives too much concession to our ethnic identities which will serve to cement our differences instead of encouraging us to concentrate on our similarities.
But i do acknowledge that I am in the minority in thinking thus.The majority of Turkish Cypriots are looking for more concrete protections than what common sense would dictate.Instead of speaking for them I will let them speak for themselves,if they so chose,and dissect Kifeas's proposal.
It is good to know that Kifeas thinks there is room for compromise in looking for a just and lasting 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.
|
|
| Bananiot wrote: |
| Obviously Kifeas is battling with shadows to see if the idea of guaranteed majorities can be bypassed. I think he needs to come up with a better plan. |
The idea of permanent and /or long-term guaranteed majorities in a constitutional and an institutionalised manner is something that can never and should never be accepted by the G/Cs! Not because we intent and /or plan and more importantly because we will ever have a chance in real life to become the majority in the north again, but because the very notion of the issue itself is of very high symbolic significance for us. It is a matter of historical consciousness, and no self-respecting G/C has the right to trade his history.
What I wanted to say with the above is that in many (most) cases, the mere prohibition and /or restriction of something, brings about the exact opposite outcome than what it meant to avoid. People tend to want to purposely break a rule that they feel it unfairly prohibits them from enjoying an otherwise natural right -the right to freely move, settle and exist in any part of their country, without fear of restrictions and /or quotas, than they would naturally want to do if the “unnatural” restrictions did not exist.
I want to ask you something, “clever” solicitor of the Turkish Cypriot “cause.” What if after 50 years, for what ever natural reasons (not because the G/Cs directly or indirectly pushed them out,) the majority of the T/C community finds itself outside the boundaries of the North (T/C) state, be it because many of them decided to move to the south or elsewhere in Europe and /or Turkey? I do not wish this to happen, but lets assume that it happens, what do we do with the North state, do we live it empty and vacant, and even if by that time a significant number of G/Cs have moved there, do we take them out of this state and bring them to the south, so that the balance (guaranteed ration of G/Cs and T/Cs) remains intact? If for example only 100,000 of T/Cs remain in the north, and the rest moves to the south, should we assume that only 20,000 G/Cs should ever be allowed to become residents of the North state so that a hypothetical 80:20 guaranteed ration is kept intact? Will we live the 29% of the territory of Cyprus to be by law permanently inhabited by the 15% of the total population, so that the notion of guaranteed majorities is maintained?
What if we have a tsunami in the south and all the south coast-lines and towns are destroyed permanently, should some of us not have the right to move to the north part of our country, because we will disturb the guaranteed majority balance? |
|
| 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.
|
|
| Viewpoint wrote: |
| All very interesting Kifeas thank you for the posts. I have a few questions...Who will decide if an issue is extra-ordinary? Ultimately this upper house can reject or approve any law prepared and presented by the lower house? Then the 19 to 11max (16 needed to pass a law) balance swing in favor of Greek Cypriots is a recipe for disaster. . |
All these things, i.e. what constitutes an ordinary, or an extraordinary, or an extra-extra ordinary level of Senate decision making, will be decided and agreed in advance and will be part of the federal constitution. For example, changing the constitution itself, as a whole or some of its articles, can be an ex-ex ordinary thing that should require separate majorities of all the subcomponents of the senate.
| Viewpoint wrote: |
| Doesn't the 2 state control depend a lot on the goodwill of the Greek Cypriot community? The possibility for becoming the majority in north will be there, that indicates a big risk for the Turkish Cypriots what do you suggest we do, trust Greek Cypriots? There has to be safety valves in place and as you sound confident that they will not be exceeded then you will have no problems in allowing them to be put in place just in case Greek Cypriots decide to act differently from your predictions. |
The possibility of becoming the majority in the north under normal and natural circumstances is negligible if non-existent. Do not insist on that because I will ask for an I.Q. test first, before I reply to your posts again. Furthermore, you have the option of accepting a reduced territory percentage for the North state, should you want to completely eliminate this 0.1% of insignificant probability that may theoretically exist. I do not suggest you to trust the G/Cs (especially and particularly you,) but I suggest you to trust your common sense only. I am sure there is a little bit left.
As to why we cannot accept permanent majority guarantees, see my previous (above) post and you will understand why. If you want to understand!
Furthermore, if for whatever miraculous reasons we will indeed become the majority in the north, perhaps maybe after 100 years, then you still have your separate community based rights in the federal government, which will protect you from not becoming a minority.
PS: VP, sorry for the tone, but I am totally and completely pissed off with Bananiot!
Last edited by Kifeas on Thu May 11, 2006 12:47 pm; edited 2 times in total |
|
| 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.
|
|
| Birkibrisli wrote: |
My problem with Kifeas' vision is that it gives too much concession to our ethnic identities which will serve to cement our differences instead of encouraging us to concentrate on our similarities.
But i do acknowledge that I am in the minority in thinking thus.The majority of Turkish Cypriots are looking for more concrete protections than what common sense would dictate.Instead of speaking for them I will let them speak for themselves,if they so chose,and dissect Kifeas's proposal.
|
Brother, I am not emphasising this aspect because this is how I or the rest of the G/Cs do necessarily want this to be the case. I am emphasising this because the T/Cs want this to be the case and /or the basis of our relationship in this country. |
|
| Back to top |
|
Viewpoint
Warnings : 2
Mukhtar/is
Joined: 14 Aug 2005
Posts: 971
Location: Lefkosa/Nicosia
|
|
Kifeas
| Quote: |
The possibility of becoming the majority in the north under normal and natural circumstances is negligible if non-existent. Do not insist on that because I will ask for an I.Q. test first, before I reply to your posts again. Furthermore, you have the option of accepting a reduced territory percentage for the North state, should you want to completely eliminate this 0.1% of insignificant probability that may theoretically exist. I do not suggest you to trust the G/Cs (especially and particularly you,) but I suggest you to trust your common sense only. I am sure there is a little bit left.
|
This is very good example of what makes what you have to say worthless, less of the above bullshit and more of addressing my question would be more beneficial to us all.
You are expecting me to leave it chance when I have the opportunity to put in place safe guards that would encourage my community to accept what you are suggesting. Anyone who has ulterior future motives talks like you so think again Kifeas and put your oracle superiority complex in the bin. |
|
| 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.
|
|
| Viewpoint wrote: |
Kifeas
| Quote: |
The possibility of becoming the majority in the north under normal and natural circumstances is negligible if non-existent. Do not insist on that because I will ask for an I.Q. test first, before I reply to your posts again. Furthermore, you have the option of accepting a reduced territory percentage for the North state, should you want to completely eliminate this 0.1% of insignificant probability that may theoretically exist. I do not suggest you to trust the G/Cs (especially and particularly you,) but I suggest you to trust your common sense only. I am sure there is a little bit left.
|
This is very good example of what makes what you have to say worthless, less of the above bullshit and more of addressing my question would be more beneficial to us all.
You are expecting me to leave it chance when I have the opportunity to put in place safe guards that would encourage my community to accept what you are suggesting. Anyone who has ulterior future motives talks like you so think again Kifeas and put your oracle superiority complex in the bin. |
I do not think you do really have such an opportunity, nevertheless you will still need our consent, which we do not intent to give for the reasons I already explained above. As I said, you can accept a territory closer to your population ratio, i.e. 20% for example instead of 29%, in which case you will completely eliminate any such probability. If you want, we can make a federation on the basis of all the traditional (historical) T/C ownership areas, towns and villages, in which case no G/C will come and live there, but in such a case it will have to be multi-zonal federation since some part will be in Pafos, some in Nicosia, some part in Lefke, some part in Larnaca, etc. |
|
| Back to top |
|
cypezokyli
Ministerial
Joined: 20 Dec 2005
Posts: 2344
|
|
common vp.
when there is an article saying the Greek Cypriots dont want to return , or Greek Cypriots dont want to live next to Turkish Cypriots , or Greek Cypriots want partition , you come along and say : i predicted that.
and then you start with these secret plans of greekification of Turkish Cypriots.
imo , for more than a couple of decades (at least) , i dont believe that the Greek Cypriots wouldnt even reach the point in being contrained even by the stupid restrictions of the AP. remember the arguments about the realities , and the years of living apart ?
besides , noone is challanging the Turkish Cypriot communal rights. |
|
| Back to top |
|
Viewpoint
Warnings : 2
Mukhtar/is
Joined: 14 Aug 2005
Posts: 971
Location: Lefkosa/Nicosia
|
|
| So that gives me the impression that Greek Cypriot do deep down harbour intentions of becoming the majority in the North State, otherwise placing symbolic upper limits should not cause them any loss of sleep as they never intend to exploit this possiblity. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
All times are GMT + 3 Hours
Goto page 1, 2, 3 ... 9, 10, 11 Next
|
| Page 1 of 11 |
| |
 
 
Link Partners
3212 Attacks blocked
|
Register 
Log in 
Album 
Home