Myth about "Irish Solution" as it relates to Macedonian national soverignty

[indigen]

FYI: There is NO "REPUBLIC of Ireland" but only IRELAND used at the UN and it is used for short form conventional (short name) and long form conventional (official/formal name)! Thus Todor Petrov and other snake oil salesmen should get their facts right before trying to peddle this IGNORANT and FALSE analogy as a solution to the deconstruction agendas of the VASSALS in Skopje and their "IC" puppet masters!

Ireland
Date of Entry into UN 14 December 1955 ISO Country alpha-2-code IE
ISO Currency Code EUR ISO Country alpha-3-code IRL

English
Short Name ---->Ireland
Formal Name--->Ireland
Adjective/Nationality---->Irish; the Irish; an Irishman
Capital City----->Dublin
Languages--->Irish (Gaelic), English

http://unterm.un.org/dgaacs/unterm.nsf/WebView/1E9A02ACDE207CD485256DC700440A48?OpenDocument

United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (the)

Date of Entry into UN 24 October 1945 ISO Country alpha-2-code GB
ISO Currency Code GBP ISO Country alpha-3-code GBR

English
Short Name--->United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (the)
Formal Name--->the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland
Adjective/Nationality--->(of the) United Kingdom (of Great Britain and Northern Ireland), British
Languages---->English
Capital City London

http://unterm.un.org/dgaacs/unterm.nsf/WebView/D3CD0B82CD74296785256DC700440AAF?OpenDocument

Todor Petrov SMK/WMC misinformation (or disinformation?): "....За Македонците единствено прифатлив компромис е ирската формула: Република Ирска како самостојна држава и Северна Ирска со географска одредница како дел од Обединетото Кралство со Велика Британија - соодветно, Република Македонија како самостојна држава и Јужна Македонија со географска одредница како дел од Република Грција, бидејќи тој дел од Македонија е на југ од Републиката...."

[Bratot]

Each member state in UN can demand in what form wish to be adressed.

As for the official name of Ireland, it states:

1937
Constitution of Ireland:
Article 4

The name of the State is Éire, or, in the English language, Ireland.

http://www.taoiseach.gov.ie/upload/static/256.htm

1948
Republic of Ireland Act
Article 2:
The Republic of Ireland. (Irish: Poblacht na hÉireann)
2.—It is hereby declared that the description of the State shall be the Republic of Ireland

http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/1948/en/act/pub/0022/sec0002.html#zza22y1948s2

Could you explain what would exactly change in our name or nationality with the solution that Petrov offers?

[indigen]

Each member state in UN can demand in what form wish to be addressed.

Then Macedonia must enjoy being called "the former Yugolsav Republic of Macedonia (FYROM)" or "FYR Macedonia" at international events and as its name designation in various international bodies and organisations?

As for the official name of Ireland, it states:

1937
Constitution of Ireland:
Article 4

The name of the State is Éire, or, in the English language, Ireland.

http://www.taoiseach.gov.ie/upload/static/256.htm

1948
Republic of Ireland Act
Article 2:
The Republic of Ireland. (Irish: Poblacht na hÉireann)
2.—It is hereby declared that the description of the State shall be the Republic of Ireland

http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/1948/...l#zza22y1948s2

The official name is simply IRELAND and IS used for all official and DIPLOMATIC purposes. The "Republic of Ireland", as it clearly states, is only a description which points out that the state of Ireland is a republic.

Name

The constitution provides that the name of the state is "Éire, or, in the English language, Ireland." However the state is commonly referred to as the "Republic of Ireland" in order to distinguish it from the island of Ireland as a whole. The name Republic of Ireland came into use after the Republic of Ireland Act defined it as the official "description" of the state in 1949 (the purpose of the act being to declare that the state was a republic rather than a form of constitutional monarchy), it is also the accepted legal name in the United Kingdom of the state as per the Ireland Act 1949. Today while Republic of Ireland is an accepted term for the state, Ireland is used for official purposes such as treaties, government and legal documents and membership of international organisations.
http://www.allembassies.com/ireland.html

Comhairle, a statutory agency responsible for the provision of information, advice and advocacy to members of the public on social service, says on its web site:

'The names of political entities and other terms can often be quite contentious. The Irish and British governments have agreed to use the official names by which each state describes itself. (This agreement was made at the same time as the British-Irish Agreement). The correct name for this country is Ireland, not the "Republic of Ireland".'
http://alt-usage-english.org/ireland.html

Main article: Names of the Irish state

The official name of the country is Ireland for documents written in English and Éire for documents written in Irish. EU institutions follow the same practice, as the names of EU member states must be written and abbreviated according to the Interinstitutional Style Guide, and neither "Republic of Ireland" nor "Irish Republic" should be used when referring to the country.[16][17] Since Irish became an official language of the Union in 2007, name plates for the state at EU meetings read as Éire – Ireland, as used on Irish passports.[note 4] Article 4 of the 1937 Constitution of Ireland states that "The name of the State is Éire, or, in the English language, Ireland."

# ^ European Union Interinstitutional Style Guide.
# ^ Constitutional Law of 15 EU Member States (edition 6), L. Prakke, C. A. J. M. Kortmann, Hans van den Brandhof, J. C. E. van den Brandhof, Kluwer, 2004, ISBN 90-13-01255-8, Pg.43
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republic_of_Ireland

Names of the Irish state


The front cover of an Irish passport showing the name of the state in its two official languages.

There have been various names of the Irish state, some of which have been controversial. The constitutional name of the contemporary state is Ireland,[1] the same as the island of Ireland, of which it comprises the major portion. However, in 1949 it formally declared itself a republic and was described in statute as the Republic of Ireland.[2]

Great Britain and Northern Ireland, which had remained within the United Kingdom and constitutes one sixth of the territory of the island, objected to the political implications of the adoption of the name Ireland on the basis that it constituted an irredentist claim to sovereignty over the entire island of Ireland.[3] However, that name was internationally recognised by the early 1960s and since the end of the 1990s has been accepted by the United Kingdom also.[3]

Historically the island has been called Ireland, Éire in Irish, and Hibernia in Latin.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Names_of_the_Irish_state

Could you explain what would exactly change in our name or nationality with the solution that Petrov offers?

The aim of the thread topic is/was to shed light on the subject (as per MTO aims regarding truth) that has been distorted for a long time now and if we were to apply the "Irish Solution" to RoM, we would simply be Macedonia for all official and diplomatic purposes and I would fully support that outcome!

[Bratot]

So, you dispute the name "Republic of Macedonia"?

If you are able I would ask you to further explain the differences when we use Macedonia only and Republic of Macedonia, how does their meaning differ in aspect of the same country?

I still cannot understand where Petrov has done wrong, could you explain based on his citation you provided?

[fyrOM]

So, you dispute the name "Republic of Macedonia"?

If you are able I would ask you to further explain the differences when we use Macedonia only and Republic of Macedonia, how does their meaning differ in aspect of the same country?

I still cannot understand where Petrov has done wrong, could you explain based on his citation you provided?

I could be wrong, but the way I understand it, Only the name Macedonia is right and Republic of Macedonia would be a sell-out because of a technicality - and like most things the devil is in the detail.

For instance, you want to be Bratot and your language Bratotski hence you should demand your name be registered Bratot and not Mr Bratot even though when I want to write to you I might use, "Dear Mr Bratot...".

The error in registering your name as Mr Bratot would be that the Mr part becomes part of your official name hence you are forever Mr Bratot and the name Bratot (no Mr) is free to be claimed/registered by someone else, eg Greece, and hence preventing even you from using your own name Bratot (no Mr), and hence your language becomes Mr Bratotski and Not just Bratotski, which like your name Bratot, can likewise be usurped and registered as some Greek dialect.

I know it sounds like a technicality, and as I said I could be wrong, but that is my understanding of what indigen is saying and my own understanding of the mater and I Do agree with him. As in the Republic of Ireland case, the Republic part is Only used as a reference to note they are a republic and likewise in the example above, If your name was registered Only as Bratot, then the Mr part can be used as an identifier that you are a man and Not part of your actual name allowing you to register your identity as Bratot and your language as Bratotski (which it is) and Not as Mr Bratotski, which it isn't.

[Bratot]

I feel that this has to be explained well, because this matter confuses many Macedonians as they don't see practical difference when someone use first or second form.

This is not a new case, it exist since the Yugoslavian federation where the name of the federation was SFRJ (socialistic federative republic of yugoslavia) and its member states had names including their political description as 'People's Republic of' or 'Socialistic Republic of'.

[Vangelovski]

Bratot,

Didn't you once claim that countries could not simply inform the UN about what name they wanted to be called - or did that just refer to Macedonia?

Haven't you been following the conversations about short and long form conventional names and how it relates to Macedonia?

[George S.]

Isn't it funny how we can't call ourselves what we want.The un calls us fyrom,the eu wants us to change our name to something that greece will accept.Nato expects the same of us prior to joining.So the macedonian govt is running around capitulating.I think they don't want us to be macedonian or to use the word macedonia.WE should refuse to join such organizations who have sided with greece.Do we need to be part of such racist organizations? i don't think so.We should stand up to these people & say we are macedonians & that's what we are.Self identification should be the criteria.

[Bratot]

Bratot,

Didn't you once claim that countries could not simply inform the UN about what name they wanted to be called - or did that just refer to Macedonia?

Haven't you been following the conversations about short and long form conventional names and how it relates to Macedonia?

As there isn't any other such example it's obviously that just for Macedonia they apply different rules and additional demands.

We are not treated equally since the very beggining of our application to UN.

I remember there was some thread but I believe it wouldn't be bad if we repeat such threads, because this issue is still causing confussions.

I would like to have it fully comprehensive for everyone. It will be much easier to pass on later.

[Vangelovski]

As there isn't any other such example it's obviously that just for Macedonia they apply different rules and additional demands.

We are not treated equally since the very beggining of our application to UN.

I remember there was some thread but I believe it wouldn't be bad if we repeat such threads, because this issue is still causing confussions.

I would like to have it fully comprehensive for everyone. It will be much easier to pass on later.

I'd like to say you're confused, but I'm not so sure. You claim that states can simply inform the UN of any name changes (which is correct), but this practice does not apply to Macedonia (which is nonsense).

Your persistence on pursuing an idiotic, expensive and drawn out process of pleading to an illegitimate and unaccountable international “court” for the ability to inform an organisation that our name is simply Macedonia is becoming more incomprehensible as time goes on, particularly when one takes into account general practice within this particular organisation (and any other organisation), the current ICJ case and the fact that the absurdity of your proposal has been repeatedly explained to you.

[indigen]

Todor Petrov SMK/WMC misinformation (or disinformation?): "....За Македонците единствено прифатлив компромис е ирската формула: Република Ирска како самостојна држава и Северна Ирска со географска одредница како дел од Обединетото Кралство со Велика Британија соодветно, - Република Македонија како самостојна држава и Јужна Македонија со географска одредница како дел од Република Грција, бидејќи тој дел од Македонија е на југ од Републиката...."

ROUGH GOOGLE TRANSLATE:
Todor Petrov SMK/WMC misinformation (or disinformation?): ".... To Macedonians, the only acceptable compromise is the Irish formula: Republic of Ireland as an independent country and Northern Ireland with a geographical determinant as part of "The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland" respectively, - the Republic of Macedonia as an independent country and Southern Macedonia with a geographical qualifier as part of Greece, because that part of Macedonia is to the south of the Republic ...."

So, you dispute the name "Republic of Macedonia"?

I dispute the validity of the "Irish Formula (Solution)" claim, as I have clearly stated it is a MYTH!

I still cannot understand where Petrov has done wrong, could you explain based on his citation you provided?

Petrov "has done wrong" by using the "Irish formula (solution)" as an analogy to push through his "compromise" agenda and I merely proved that it is all a myth. Thus Petrov is either misinformed due to ignorance of the facts or he is running a purposeful disinformation agenda trying to hoodwink the general Macedonian populace in order to condition them into accepting a name change. I am hoping it is due to his ignorance of the facts but time will tell what is the real truth.

If you are able I would ask you to further explain the differences when we use Macedonia only and Republic of Macedonia, how does their meaning differ in aspect of the same country?

Like Vangelovski explained, it has been discussed in a number of other threads and I am not sure this is the right topic to discuss it under.

The following is one of those thread topics:

http://www.macedoniantruth.org/forum/showthread.php?t=2858

Further info on how countries of the world are identified and that many long-established states only recently joined the UN and thus clearly showing that the UN is NOT essential to a state's existence or identity, as some misguided people seem to think it is.

Member States of the United Nations

http://www.un.org/en/members/

Growth in United Nations membership, 1945-present

http://www.un.org/en/members/growth.shtml

UN Member States - On The Record

http://www.un.org/depts/dhl/unms/cms.shtml#aMemStates

https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/mk.html

Country name:
conventional long form: Republic of Macedonia
conventional short form: Macedonia
local long form: Republika Makedonija
local short form: Makedonija
former: People's Republic of Macedonia, Socialist Republic of Macedonia

---------------
Country name:
conventional long form: Hellenic Republic
conventional short form: Greece
local long form: Elliniki Dhimokratia
local short form: Ellas or Ellada
former: Kingdom of Greece

https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/gr.html

-------------

Country name:
conventional long form: Commonwealth of Australia
conventional short form: Australia
Government type:
federal parliamentary democracy and a Commonwealth realm

https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/as.html

---------------

Country name:
conventional long form: French Republic
conventional short form: France
local long form: Republique francaise
local short form: France
Government type: republic

https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/fr.html

---------------

Country name:
conventional long form: Republic of Albania
conventional short form: Albania
local long form: Republika e Shqiperise
local short form: Shqiperia
former: People's Socialist Republic of Albania

-------------------
Country name:
conventional long form: Italian Republic
conventional short form: Italy
local long form: Repubblica Italiana
local short form: Italia
former: Kingdom of Italy
Government type: republic
---------------------
Country name:
conventional long form: Republic of Turkey
conventional short form: Turkey
local long form: Turkiye Cumhuriyeti
local short form: Turkiye
Government type: republican parliamentary democracy
-----------------
Thesaurus: conventional

adjective

1. Generally approved or agreed upon: accepted, orthodox, received, recognized, sanctioned.
2. Conforming to established practice or standards: button-down, conformist, establishmentarian, orthodox, straight, traditional. Slang square.
3. Fond of or given to ceremony: ceremonious, courtly, formal, punctilious. See courtesy/discourtesy.

http://www.answers.com/main/ntquery?s=conventional+&gwp=13

--------------

It would seem that countries have official names, i.e. conventional long form, and conventional short form names by which they are identified and ONLY MACEDONIA has a "CONSTITUTIONAL NAME".

A more appropriate and thorough discussion on the name issue might be found at the following topic thread: In case you don't know ... it is war!

[fyrOM]

Vangelovski, generally it is clearly difficult to disagree with you as you obviously know a lot of things, but like the saying goes, "the devil is in the detail", and it is easy to miss a little point which can count for a lot as in indigen's correct assessment of the deficiencies in Todor Petrov's "Irish solution" - I often find myself reminded of a saying my dad once told me, "edna nula nekogas praj edna kula" [one zero sometimes (can) make(s) one tower]. When looking at something, and wondering what to do, it is easy to look at what others have done and to think to do the same.

Bratot,

Didn't you once claim that countries could not simply inform the UN about what name they wanted to be called - or did that just refer to Macedonia?

Haven't you been following the conversations about short and long form conventional names and how it relates to Macedonia?

(Still to Vangelovski)
Ofcourse you are right in saying other countries have simply informed the UN of what they want their name to be and likewise, so long as Macedonians can speak, Macedonia should be able to do exactly the same thing and just declare to the world and UN what name she wants to be known by.

Here's the bitch.

So long as one can speak anyone, including you, can call themselves WHATEVER they want to BUT this right (and it is a right) is only half the equation for a name to be declared valid because validity is only achieved by whatever criteria have been defined, accepted, and met.

You choose to call yourself Vangelovski at the MTO, and this name has been accepted by the MTO, and continue in your activities here expressing your views. People will then think that the person called Vangelovski said this or that, be it controversial or not. All looks well.

What if another person approaches the MTO and says they are called Vangelovski and their views differ from yours and other people who know them are constantly bothering them because of what you have written on the MTO, unbeknown falsely accusing them of harboring your views and they do not want such (your) statements linked to them as they besmirch their good name? Should you have a right to continue expressing your views? Should the MTO allow you to continue expressing your views? Should you keep using the ID Vangelovski? and Why?

There is the right to speak (I think, in your opinion, God given) but by law we taper this right with laws such as incitement to violence ect to prevent anybody from saying literally anything they want. Laws are only what we make AND accept to be true and by virtue of our COLLECTIVE POWER (and Not God) we create, declare and accept them to be true (eg that incitement to violence ect is wrong) and are prepared to take action (fine/jail/execute) against the offender to prevent them from doing so. Who says we are right to do this to you? - God? the Pope? the President? the Law? the people? anyone else? and why?

The simple answer is the WILL of the people to collectively form/create/accept this LAW empowering the parliament to enact it as Law and empower the security forces to take action against you. It all begins with the COLLECTIVE will of the people and MOST importantly, the AND COLLECTIVE ACCEPTANCE by the people - otherwise without this collective AND ACCEPTANCE by the people we have no law and instead civil war to establish what WE will call right. For instance had the South won convincingly over the North in the American (USA) Civil War slavery could still be Law and Right even to this day regardless of what you think God says is right. But did you Not have a RIGHT to speak? I hope I can covey the concept that "RIGHT" is ONLY what WE collectively choose to LET you have - a collective consensus needs to be reached.

To make my point thus far I have said "WE", but Who is this "WE"?? It depends on the scale of the FORUM to whom the matter relates. It can be as little as a family or as large as the whole world.

In a Jewish or Muslim household the family may choose not to have a Christmas Tree and an Icon with a small burning, oil lantern before it. If an individual in that family decided they now wanted to do these practices they may express their views (ie speak) to the family and could face a family fight (re Civil war) and punishment (withdrawal of resources/physical harm/expulsion) to prevent the practice being established in the family. But what if the scale of the forum increases in scale to the whole World?

An individual may have decided to call himself a Macedonian and the members of his family agreed. Further this agreement was extended to his village, town, tribe/country. Are they Macedonians?

A neighboring tribe might see the people calling themselves Macedonians and choose to call them Macedonians when referring to them. Are the first group still Macedonians?

Another person might meet this neighbor tribe and in discussion hear the neighbour refer to those people down there as Macedonians. What if that third person said that he had met another tribe just over that mountain who claim to be Macedonians. Are the first tribe still Macedonians?

What happens if these tribes/countries decide to create a new world forum called the United Nations. Who gets to be a member and under what name? For Most countries the answer is simple - they declare they choose to be a member of the UN and declare whatever name they want to be known by and how they wish to be addressed eg Ireland declaring their name to be Ireland and declaring they want to be referred to by others as the Republic of Ireland. Looks really easy and most countries do the same without any problem. Now Macedonia decides to join the UN and declares her intention to join and also declares her name is Macedonia. Doesn't/shouldn't Macedonia have exactly the same right to speak (God given isn't it?) and make declarations, even those about what her name is and how she would like to be addressed ie name is Macedonia and want to be referred to as Republic of Macedonia? Why should there be a problem? Didn't Ireland (and others) do the same first?

The "WE" I have been refereeing to in all of the above is now the collective known as the United Nations. What happens if the WE says we do not accept your declaration of the name you want to be called by and hence we do not accept your declaration to join the UN. Repeating, until you are blue in the face, that you have the right to speak (God given?) and declare anything accounts for Nothing if the second part of the "valid equation" (ie we collectively accept your declaration) does not happen. In all of your speaking of "RIGHTS" you miss the tiny point, "WE don't HAVE TO accept your declaration. The "HAVE TO" (or lack there of) is the be all and end all to the whole question of "RIGHTS" for individuals, groups ,clubs, tribes and nations. So long as there is a "WE" there always IS a need for agreement. The motive for that agreement may or may not be God.

I'd like to say you're confused, but I'm not so sure. You claim that states can simply inform the UN of any name changes (which is correct), but this practice does not apply to Macedonia (which is nonsense).

Your persistence on pursuing an idiotic, expensive and drawn out process of pleading to an illegitimate and unaccountable international “court” for the ability to inform an organisation that our name is simply Macedonia is becoming more incomprehensible as time goes on, particularly when one takes into account general practice within this particular organisation (and any other organisation), the current ICJ case and the fact that the absurdity of your proposal has been repeatedly explained to you.

I know you are going to say this piece is long, and I wish it wasn't, but the "Irish solution" is too good an example to pass highlighting the simple point you keep missing, ie the "WE DON'T HAVE TO" and disprove your position . When you start thinking of the UN as a school playground where the kids make up their own rules to rule themselves and there is NO teacher to say, "But Miss" to, the sooner you will understand this point. Edna nula nekogas praj edna kula.

Whether or not Macedonia had a chance to have the name recognised as Macedonia in 1991 or upto the IA is another question and bit mute because we are not there now and need to look at what to do from our given now position.

[Bratot]

I'd like to say you're confused, but I'm not so sure. You claim that states can simply inform the UN of any name changes (which is correct), but this practice does not apply to Macedonia (which is nonsense).

I'm talking about double standards. If you disagree with me than please explain to me why we become members of UN under the reference althought we applied under our name, since we should enjoy the same rights.
And also you can point out in which other case a state was obligated to fulfill additional criteria after became a member state of UN.

Your persistence on pursuing an idiotic, expensive and drawn out process of pleading to an illegitimate and unaccountable international “court” for the ability to inform an organisation that our name is simply Macedonia is becoming more incomprehensible as time goes on, particularly when one takes into account general practice within this particular organisation (and any other organisation), the current ICJ case and the fact that the absurdity of your proposal has been repeatedly explained to you.

If I go into this discussion again with you there will be no different development than we already saw.

However, I think I explained my opinion as a gentlemen and didn't forced anyone to agree with me.

Don't try to do that on me, I do have my personal opinion and I don't think it's necessary both of us to agree on everything.

I respect your opinion, your understanding of the general issues, but I simply don't have to obediently agree with you on everything you say.

I will avoid to discuss this matter on this forum, so we don't get into repeatable conflicts.
So please, don't provoce me either.

If you think it will help you and this forum, to make me leave, just say it clear enough and I will respect that.


Now I would really like to see this thread of Indigen to be developed in right manner, without defocussing and to have myself and many other Macedonians who read us or those to whom I will pass on the message in Macedonian to understand it correctly.

[Bratot]

I dispute the validity of the "Irish Formula (Solution)" claim, as I have clearly stated it is a MYTH!


Petrov "has done wrong" by using the "Irish formula (solution)" as an analogy to push through his "compromise" agenda and I merely proved that it is all a myth. Thus Petrov is either misinformed due to ignorance of the facts or he is running a purposeful disinformation agenda trying to hoodwink the general Macedonian populace in order to condition them into accepting a name change. I am hoping it is due to his ignorance of the facts but time will tell what is the real truth.


Like Vangelovski explained, it has been discussed in a number of other threads and I am not sure this is the right topic to discuss it under.

The following is one of those thread topics:

http://www.macedoniantruth.org/forum/showthread.php?t=2858

A more appropriate and thorough discussion on the name issue might be found at the following topic thread: In case you don't know ... it is war!

But where did Petrov offered in his solution a name change?

He is saying only that on the Greek part of Macedonia should be applied the Irish formula, so their part would become officialy "South Macedonia" as a part of Greece.

If you think in perspective, it's the same reason what the Irish side prefered in their case because it's indicating that that teritorry of "North Ireland" is belonging to Ireland.

That's the reason they demanded to be called only 'Ireland', like the whole island.

[Risto the Great]

Bratot,
You give way too much credence to the notion that Greece is somehow justified in referring to itself as Macedonia. I have said it before, if Greece renames itself as Macedonia, things may get complicated. But, as it stands, there is only one nation called Macedonia .... and it is the correct one. The last remaining remnant of the people who fought for an independent Macedonia.