Macedonia & Greece: Name Issue

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts
  • Vangelovski
    Senior Member
    • Sep 2008
    • 8531

    Originally posted by Tomche Makedonche View Post
    no matter what breadcrumbs they may throw at you.
    But its the breadcrumbs that they crave...cause they're free and you can eat them out of bag while sitting at your local café drinking a Heineken that you Australian/American cousin bought for you. Free sh*t people.
    If my people who are called by my name will humble themselves and pray and seek my face and turn from their wicked ways, I will hear from heaven and will forgive their sins and restore their land. 2 Chronicles 7:14

    The Revolution was in the minds and hearts of the people; a change in their religious sentiments, of their duties and obligations...This radical change in the principles, opinions, sentiments, and affections of the people was the real American Revolution. John Adams

    Comment

    • Tomche Makedonche
      Senior Member
      • Oct 2011
      • 1123

      Originally posted by Tomche Makedonche View Post
      For the deal to be put into full effect, Macedonian citizens must support it at the plebiscite
      Again, this will be a NON-BINDING REFERENDUM, basically a glorified survey, which means even if the referendum results with a resounding NO to the agreement from the people, the government has no obligation to act in accordance with those results and can continue to implement the agreement irrespective of the wishes expressed by the majority. That's how much the government and opposition care about what the people actually want and say.
      Last edited by Tomche Makedonche; 06-19-2018, 09:54 PM.
      “There’s a time when the operation of the machine becomes so odious, makes you so sick at heart, that you can’t take part, you can’t even passively take part, and you’ve got to put your bodies upon the gears and upon the wheels, upon the levers, upon all the apparatus and you’ve got to make it stop, and you’ve got to indicate to the people who run it, to the people who own it, that unless you’re free, the machine will be prevented from working at all” - Mario Savio

      Comment

      • Pelagonija
        Member
        • Mar 2017
        • 533

        Originally posted by Tomche Makedonche View Post
        Anyone looking towards DPNE to save them needs to be lobotomised.

        They have no intention of actually doing anything of substance to prevent this agreement going ahead. The only interest they have is to promote the perception that they are against it. Nothing more than that.

        People have to understand that:

        DPNE is not your saviour

        SDS is not your saviour

        They are the corruptive cancers which seek to keep you imprisoned mentally, physically and financially in order to steal your wealth for themselves and have you sell your soul to the lowest bidder.

        So long as either of these two parties continue to hold power, your lives will never change or prosper. if you want a better life for yourself and your children, the only option the people have is to take matters into their own hands and create it for themselves.

        The real decision the people have to make is simply whether they want more of the same (SDS or DPNE) or something better. Anything SDS or DPNE bring with them or try to sell to you (i.e. EU or NATO member) is primarily in the interests of benefiting themselves and strengthening their current elitist positions of wealth and dominance over your society, it is not in the interests of you, the people, no matter what breadcrumbs they may throw at you.

        Again the people have to decide whether it is more of the same or something better, and if it is the latter then they have to stand up together and take it with their own two hands, because no one else is going to give it to you.
        I don’t believe anyone here believes that VMRO or SDS will save anything.

        What I believe is that most people here are hoping VMROs spite and hatred of SDSM will block the process of the name change in the immediate future before the FYROMIANS start driving around with NMK plates..

        Until jobs are no longer tied into political parties the status quo will continue.

        Comment

        • Vangelovski
          Senior Member
          • Sep 2008
          • 8531

          Originally posted by Tomche Makedonche View Post
          Again, this will be a NON-BINDING REFERENDUM, basically a glorified survey, which means even if the referendum results with a resounding NO to the agreement from the people, the government has no obligation to act in accordance with those results and can continue to implement the agreement irrespective of the wishes expressed by the majority. That's how much the government and opposition care about what the people actually want and say.
          There's no constitutional requirement to even have referendum. The government is only required to put it up for 'public debate' (Article 131). 'Public debate' is such a vague term it could encompass everything, but it definitely does not require a referendum.

          All this talk of constitutional procedure is pinning hopes on the very document that is being ignored in the whole process.
          If my people who are called by my name will humble themselves and pray and seek my face and turn from their wicked ways, I will hear from heaven and will forgive their sins and restore their land. 2 Chronicles 7:14

          The Revolution was in the minds and hearts of the people; a change in their religious sentiments, of their duties and obligations...This radical change in the principles, opinions, sentiments, and affections of the people was the real American Revolution. John Adams

          Comment

          • Risto the Great
            Senior Member
            • Sep 2008
            • 15658

            Originally posted by Vangelovski View Post
            The only thing that is not clear to me now is the question of Macedonian ethnicity. The agreement does not mention it anywhere (granted its not something you can actually legislate on). The agreement stipulates our new nationality (which under international law is citizenship). Citizens will now be "Macedonians/Citizens of the Republic of North Macedonia", but the Preamble for example talks about the Macedonian people in an ethnic sense. I'm sure Zaev will interpret 'nationality' at its broadest possible level and include ethnicity, meaning that we will be ethnic Macedonians/Citizens of the Republic of North Macedonia causing a ridiculousness beyond comprehension for all of the obvious reasons.
            This is part of the collective Fyromonian genius narrative though. How to know you're something when everything else you do and say is completely opposite.

            My sons used to play "Opposite game" when they were little kids. Luckily my kids grew out of it. Everything they would say was the opposite of what they did. Fyromseverdonia is still playing the game.
            Risto the Great
            MACEDONIA:ANHEDONIA
            "Holding my breath for the revolution."

            Hey, I wrote a bestseller. Check it out: www.ren-shen.com

            Comment

            • Risto the Great
              Senior Member
              • Sep 2008
              • 15658

              Originally posted by Soldier of Macedon View Post
              Legally it cannot happen according to the below.
              Earlier in this thread, I think I listed what they could actually amend. All of this fails constitutionally. But where there is a will to destroy a nation, there are Fyromseverdonians waiting to do it.
              Risto the Great
              MACEDONIA:ANHEDONIA
              "Holding my breath for the revolution."

              Hey, I wrote a bestseller. Check it out: www.ren-shen.com

              Comment

              • Tomche Makedonche
                Senior Member
                • Oct 2011
                • 1123

                Originally posted by Vangelovski View Post
                There's no constitutional requirement to even have referendum. The government is only required to put it up for 'public debate' (Article 131). 'Public debate' is such a vague term it could encompass everything, but it definitely does not require a referendum.

                All this talk of constitutional procedure is pinning hopes on the very document that is being ignored in the whole process.
                My intention was to point out that the results of the referendum have no legally binding consequence on the process for amending the constitution.

                The Rules of Procedures” also give some further insight on the process of how the assesmbly enacts any change in the constitution. These are detailed in Articles 199 to 209.

                Articles 210 to 215 may also be of interest as they relate to Accountability of the President
                “There’s a time when the operation of the machine becomes so odious, makes you so sick at heart, that you can’t take part, you can’t even passively take part, and you’ve got to put your bodies upon the gears and upon the wheels, upon the levers, upon all the apparatus and you’ve got to make it stop, and you’ve got to indicate to the people who run it, to the people who own it, that unless you’re free, the machine will be prevented from working at all” - Mario Savio

                Comment

                • Rogi
                  Senior Member
                  • Sep 2008
                  • 2343

                  Tomche, Article 73 stipulates that a decision made by referendum is binding.

                  In which case, the Referendum of 1991 (as it is referred to in the Constitution) which also determined the name of the country, is legally binding.

                  It is unclear (to me) whether (and if so, why) a vote in the Assembly (by majority, or two-thirds majority) can be considered more important or of a higher order than a referendum.

                  I would expect that only a Referendum can change a decision made by a referendum.

                  Comment

                  • Vangelovski
                    Senior Member
                    • Sep 2008
                    • 8531

                    Originally posted by Rogi View Post
                    I would expect that only a Referendum can change a decision made by a referendum.
                    Not in Macedonia. So Skopsko, se e mozno.

                    I think Macedonian politicians were accustomed to being able to easily make constitutional amendments at a whim under communism and that is one of the reasons that the process for amendment was given such a low bar under the 1991 Constitution. The current process is virtually the same as the 1974 Constitution (Articles 439-443)

                    If my people who are called by my name will humble themselves and pray and seek my face and turn from their wicked ways, I will hear from heaven and will forgive their sins and restore their land. 2 Chronicles 7:14

                    The Revolution was in the minds and hearts of the people; a change in their religious sentiments, of their duties and obligations...This radical change in the principles, opinions, sentiments, and affections of the people was the real American Revolution. John Adams

                    Comment

                    • Rogi
                      Senior Member
                      • Sep 2008
                      • 2343

                      Tomche,

                      Also, not only does it not stipulate whether the Referendum will be a consultative one (i.e. a survey), or a binding one (as defined in the Constitution)... The Agreement Zaev has signed with Greece also makes the Referendum an optional condition, only if he chooses for it to take place:

                      "в) Втората страна, доколку така одлучи, ќе одржи референдум."


                      They can change their mind and decide not to hold a referendum at all.

                      Comment

                      • Tomche Makedonche
                        Senior Member
                        • Oct 2011
                        • 1123

                        Originally posted by Rogi View Post
                        Tomche, Article 73 stipulates that a decision made by referendum is binding.

                        In which case, the Referendum of 1991 (as it is referred to in the Constitution) which also determined the name of the country, is legally binding.
                        My understanding is that the intention is to hold a non-binding referendum / plebiscite, perhaps specifically to try and avert any issues which could arise from Article 73. I guess we will know for sure what we are dealing with once parliament ratifies the agreement.

                        In this respect, articles 202 and 204 in "The Rules of Procedures" makes me question why it is generally viewed that only a majority of the assembly is sufficient to initiate the proposal for changing the Constitution and commence "public debate" rather than a 2/3 majority?

                        i.e.

                        Article 202
                        The proposal for initiating a process of changing the Constitution is scrutinised as a whole on an Assembly Session.
                        The decisions for initiating a process of changing the Constitution are adopted by the Assembly by 2/3 majority votes of the total number of MPs.
                        After passing the decisions for initiating a process of changing the Constitution, the Assembly confirms a term in which the Committee on Constitutional Issues or the Government prepares a text of the draft amendment and addition of the Constitution.
                        Article 204
                        In the Assembly, a debate on the draft amendments to the Constitution shall be conducted for each Amendment separately and opinions and suggestions are welcome.
                        The Assembly shall approve the draft of each amendment separately and the draft amendments of the Constitution as a whole, by majority votes of the total number of MPs.
                        The Assembly shall put the draft amendments on a public discussion.
                        The Assembly shall appoint a term for the public debate, the manner of announcing the draft amendments and the term in which the author, as a bearer of the public debate, submits a report on the results of the debate and a text of the Draft-Amendments to the Constitution.
                        Does this mean that we can expect a further "public debate" if the results of the referendum / plebiscite are favourable for the government?, if not, then shouldn't the proposal require a 2/3 majority in the assembly prior to commencing the "public debate" (i.e. referendum / plebiscite)

                        Originally posted by Rogi View Post
                        It is unclear (to me) whether (and if so, why) a vote in the Assembly (by majority, or two-thirds majority) can be considered more important or of a higher order than a referendum.
                        Can't say I've come across an answer to that specifically, it may just be a procedural process (the referendum result obligates a 2/3 majority of the Assembly to reflect the will of the people), I guess depending on whether it is a referendum or plebiscite, if it is the former, we may find that actual point debated and answered
                        “There’s a time when the operation of the machine becomes so odious, makes you so sick at heart, that you can’t take part, you can’t even passively take part, and you’ve got to put your bodies upon the gears and upon the wheels, upon the levers, upon all the apparatus and you’ve got to make it stop, and you’ve got to indicate to the people who run it, to the people who own it, that unless you’re free, the machine will be prevented from working at all” - Mario Savio

                        Comment

                        • Rogi
                          Senior Member
                          • Sep 2008
                          • 2343

                          As I see it,

                          Zaev can force this through in the following way, I certainly don't see any of the below as being impossible or even unlikely -

                          1. The President is in some way incapacitated (such as an assassination or an event causing mental impairment). His role is then assumed by the Speaker, allowing the Parliamentary ratification to be signed, and;

                          2. Eleven (11) of the Fifty-One (51) VMRO-DPMNE Coalition Members of Parliament are blackmailed or bribed to vote in support. (therefore establishing a 2/3 majority)

                          3. A Decision is made by Zaev NOT to hold a referendum (whether it would be binding or otherwise), which is is free to do under the agreement signed with Greece.


                          With the above 3 conditions met, Zaev can force the name change, capitulation and end of the Macedonian state and beginning of the anti-Macedonian police state which under the agreement must remove all mention of Macedonia (in Government, Business and in preventing individuals). Essentially doing to its' own people what Greece did to the Macedonians in Greece.



                          The only way I see this being stopped is -

                          1. Ensuring the safety and ensuring an unwavering position of the President, or;

                          2. Ensuring a "No" position and maintaining that as an unwavering position of all 51 VMRO-DPMNE coalition Members of Parliament, regardless of blackmail or threat, or;

                          3. An increasing level of riots, sufficient that a civil war is called, forcing the President to call in the Army and ultimately declaring Martial Law.

                          Comment

                          • Risto the Great
                            Senior Member
                            • Sep 2008
                            • 15658

                            Ensuring the safety and ensuring an unwavering position of ALL PresidentS.

                            Slight modification.
                            Risto the Great
                            MACEDONIA:ANHEDONIA
                            "Holding my breath for the revolution."

                            Hey, I wrote a bestseller. Check it out: www.ren-shen.com

                            Comment

                            • Tomche Makedonche
                              Senior Member
                              • Oct 2011
                              • 1123

                              As Vangelovski pointed out, this is the Republic we are talking about, anything can be forced through, as we have already witnessed many times before.

                              I believe I read somewhere in an article today that if the President hinders the process, the intention of SDS is to implement the necessary process to have him removed from office (elevating Xhaferi to that position until elections), which by the way also requires a 2/3 majority from my understanding. So I don't think we have any assassinations planned, because there really is no need for them.

                              You need to stop thinking that DPNE actually want this stopped. They are key to all of this and will play their part in seeing the necessary numbers are there whilst employing continuous misdirection on their supporters and the public.

                              And on the odd chance some of their ministers do somehow accidentally create a temporary stumbling block, SDS will just find a way to pass it anyway.
                              “There’s a time when the operation of the machine becomes so odious, makes you so sick at heart, that you can’t take part, you can’t even passively take part, and you’ve got to put your bodies upon the gears and upon the wheels, upon the levers, upon all the apparatus and you’ve got to make it stop, and you’ve got to indicate to the people who run it, to the people who own it, that unless you’re free, the machine will be prevented from working at all” - Mario Savio

                              Comment

                              • Rogi
                                Senior Member
                                • Sep 2008
                                • 2343

                                Tomche,

                                DPMNE (it's membership base and central committee) do want this stopped. I'm referring to this particular agreement.

                                That doesn't mean every single individual who is a Member of Parliament for the VMRO-DPMNE party or its' coalition members, will be unwavering and able to withstand the threats, blackmail and pressure they're likely going to receive on a very individual and personal level over the coming weeks and months.

                                Which is why I don't think #2 (and #1) of my previous post in terms of stopping the agreement, are viable given the way things go in Macedonia.
                                Last edited by Rogi; 06-20-2018, 02:00 AM.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X