Macedonia & Greece: Name Issue

[Bratot]

Maybe you are missing the point as well.

If there are some international laws by which the IA is invalid than you are suggesting to me to ignore that possibility?

[Rogi]

No, I'm quite certain you have missed the point as evidenced even further by your most recent question.

If you choose to remain ignorant on the matter, that is your prerogative and I have no intention of helping you understand any further, I can only offer you the suggestion to read about natural law.

[julie]

If there is a clause in international law that the interim accord can be nullified, my question is why has this avenue not been pursued by RoM within the last 9 years, and why is RoM waiting on the diaspora for this to occur.
If only it was that simple

And why cant the stupid governments now work as a coalition to pass legislation for this to occur?
Does RoM not have any corporate lawyers, or people relevant to advise in that area, aside from people holding psychology degrees on shifting blame to their diaspora for their incompetence in their inaction!

[Bratot]

If you chose to stay ignorant of the practical solutions based on what international law provides in deffending our interests why would I indulge in explaining them.

And to suggest me what I should read is presuming you have already mastered that subject and able to employ specific examples.

I'm sure there are many others curious to learn from you.

[Boge]

We only have one direction, and this true path was laid before us by our fore fathers, at least the non communist ones. Boys and Girls...Macedonia for the Macedonians!

[protivpropaganda]

You wrote the following:

I see a reason to clarify, that is why I asked you. What is a puppet Diaspora? Who is working for the interests of others?

The first post of this thread is this question:

Macedonians are being brainwashed to avoid saying MACEDONIA...

...by the political establishment in Ramkovist Macedonia, the state institutions under their control, their PUPPET support groups in the Diaspora and those who follow their lead out of ignorance!

Do you agree or disagree?

I disagreed firmly since I see my Macedonian Diaspora as the only trully free Macedonians alive today but did acknowledge the existence of individuals who work for the interests of others out of profit, ignorance and\or malice.
That is why I wrote:

And last but not least we do not have a puppet Macedonian diaspora but individuals who work for the interests of others.

Since your questioning on the subject required rereading my post where I didn't find anything incriminating and after your second questioning I reread the whole thread. I especially concentrated on the question asked in the first post on which I replied to.
I still firmly hold to what I said that my Diaspora isn't a puppet Diaspora and stop acting like a 4 year old pretending you do not know what it means.
But, and a big but it is, I did find out why it needed to be clarified. The question was for "their PUPPET support groups in the Diaspora" (I used copy\ paste this time) not about a puppet Diaspora.

Also, while rereading I got the notion that you guys aren't in good terms with a Macedonian Diaspora organisation called UMD and that the "their PUPPET support groups in the Diaspora" actually refers to them. While I was disagreeing about what I thought was said about Macedonian Diaspora in general I was actually disagreeing with Indigen about his conclusion about the activity of the organisation UMD and when I acknowledged the existence of individuals who work for the interests of others what I was actually refering to was him and others who share his views. LOL LOL LOL
What a way to go for a first post, isn't it?

I can assure you that I have no affiliation to any organisation of the Diaspora past and present and this is the first forum that is comprised only of the Diaspora I have visited.

I can also add another thing beneficial to my case and that is I am a busy man and most of the time I do not have much time to read thoroughly and my writing is by the formula: start-stop-come back to continue- stop- come back to finnish.

Oh please, spare me the drama scene, PP is an acronym like RoM is for Republic of Macedonia, like SoM is for Soldier of Macedon. There was no disrespect or insult intended, you know that already, so stop behaving like a 5 year old.

What? You don't like drama? HMMMMM
Maybe you prefer action movies more.
I prefer a good comedy myself.

In my experience only my friends address me as PP.
Your move (choice).

[Risto the Great]

Bratot, the consistency of your posts on this thread merely confirms you are concerned about the legal ramifications of rejecting the IA. If you feel the Government is empowered to do whatever it wants no matter what the citizens want, then you should be an advocate of a bloody revolution. When I say "bloody" I mean the red stuff.

See why your message is contradictory?

[Bratot]

Risto,

I see no point of me posting anymore, since you are doing that for me, you already got it all by yourself and there is no need anyone to give his thoughts.

Let me know if you disagree with the above:

The principles of sovereign equality of states and the inviolability of their juridical personality, lead to the conclusion that the choice by a state of its own name is a basic, inherent right of the state. This right is not alienable, divisible or transferable, and is a part of the right to 'self-determination' (determination of one's own legal identity), i.e. it belongs to the domain of jus cogens norms. External interference with this basic right is inadmissible.

Interference with matters that are essentially within the domestic jurisdiction of a state, such as the choice of state's name, is also incompatible with the UN Charter, therefore, neither the Greek opposition to Macedonia’s name in UN, nor the intervention of the UN in the matters related to the name of the country, are consistent with the Charter.

The UN denies Macedonia the fundamental right to self-determination, which is the pillar of the international order. Macedonia satisfied all four conditions to be admitted in the UN, but two additional ones were added contrary to the accepted interpretation of Article 4(1) of the Charter. Thus Macedonia was admitted in the UN not under its name but a "provisional reference" i.e. derogated legal personality and imposed obligation to negotiate with a neighboring state about its own name.

These additional conditions quite differ from the conditions laid down in Article 4(1) of the Charter: they need to be fulfilled not before the admission, but after it.

According to the ICJ advisory opinion of 1948 23, no "political considerations" can be superimposed on, or added to, the conditions set forth in Article 4(1) that could prevent admission to membership.
Furthermore, forcing a state to use imposed derogated legal personality within the UN system and its relations with other international subjects is in violation with the right of states to non-discrimination in their representation in the organization of universal character, expressed in an unambiguous way in Article 83 of the Vienna Convention on representation of states.

In fact, the dispute over the name appears to be not between Macedonia and Greece, but rather, in an implicit form, between Macedonia and the UN.
In this dispute Macedonia is defending its right to self-determination of its own legal identity.

The Republic of Macedonia was the FIRST STATE (legal subject) to make use of the name MACEDONIA when proclaiming it's independent republic in 1944 as People's Republic of Macedonia and with international rights, rightly defined by “Qui prior est tempore, potior est jure” - applies.This means that the first in time prevails over the others.

[Vangelovski]

Bratot,

Firstly, don't pretend to understand international law. Secondly, no human law, international or domestic, can override natural law.

The Interim Accord is not valid in any sense of the word, especially when you consider:

a) the Macedonian Government of the day rigged the elections and was illegitimate;
b) the contents of the IA are a violation of natural law and therefore illegitimate;
c) this "agreement" was made under duress and is a direct violation of our national sovereignty.

I'm not sure who is giving you "legal" advice ("Prof. D-re" or Meto?) or maybe you are making all this BS up yourself, but you are so far off the mark and have missed so many fundamental points that it is beyond belief. But I am begining to think that its no longer just ignorance but a deliberate attempt to mislead members of the forum.

[Vangelovski]

We are talking about international law, if not we shoudln't even bother to sign any other agreement on a national level wether it regulates some economical, political or cultural issues.

The point is, when you say something is not legal, you are basing that argument on some regulations that regulate, I asked which?

Can civil rights exist within a country withour a strict regulative, how will you ensure respect for our human rights?

How our State is going to secure the rights of its citizens out of its borders?

How will our State defend the interests of our minority?

Not by adhering to the Interim Accord and the Framework Agreement or legitimising the violation of our own rights.

Your answer lies in three concepts – natural law, moral revolution and self-determination.

You need to understand the breadth and depth of what these concepts actually mean.

[Bratot]

I would appreciate if you prove that what I wrote is wrong.

Otherwise, keep your bitching out of this thread.

But I am begining to think that its no longer just ignorance but a deliberate attempt to mislead members of the forum

I share the same opinion about your role on this forum.

[Vangelovski]

I would appreciate if you prove that what I wrote is wrong.

Otherwise, keep your bitching out of this thread.



I share the same opinion about your role on this forum.

Bratot,

How can anyone prove you wrong when you don't accept the existence of some of our most fundamental laws, principles and concepts - the very issues at hand. You live in your own world.

[Vangelovski]

"Prof. D-re" is a UMD man. The pieces of the puzzle are all falling into place now.

[Bratot]

I will repeat for you:

prove that what I wrote is wrong.

Your opinion about me have nothing to do with the logical merits of my arguments or assertions.

Until you prove your allegations against me as correct you are not able to question my credibility, is that clear enough?

Everyone can see your discrediting tactics like the irrelevant association with other persons.

[Risto the Great]

Bratot, the consistency of your posts on this thread merely confirms you are concerned about the legal ramifications of rejecting the IA. If you feel the Government is empowered to do whatever it wants no matter what the citizens want, then you should be an advocate of a bloody revolution. When I say "bloody" I mean the red stuff.

See why your message is contradictory?

Bratot, I know I am repeating myself but please refer to the above again. Because you keep putting legal reasons why Macedonians should not reject the interim accord.

Remember the good old days when Christians could not wear green, Christian churches could not be as high as mosques, when you had to dismount your horse when a Muslim was coming your way, when you could not carry arms, when you could not become a tanner (Mohammed's trade), where Mulsim law was superior to any other? All perfectly valid laws for some people.

My goodness, we would still be tattooing crucifixes on our daughter's foreheads nowadays if we follow your advice.

Thank goodness that devilish rogue Goce Delcev who called many Macedonians as "slaves", "thick" and "weak" helped to do something about it.

Wake up and smell the liberty.