SOM is RIGHT this paper has got it WRONG, why would Nick accept billateral use RoM and international RoNM.
Thses SDSM rags run great crap against US, just go to their forums and Face book logs and see what they write against VMRO and all of its supporters, these are real SCUM BAGS karat mayka shayka and they CURSE us, really TWISTED people. this is just a little ploy to start us turning against our leaders, they will call it a miss print.

[QUOTE=sf.;43761]I think it means that each country has an option to recognise Macedonia under this name. No different than the situation now. Don't confuse this with a bilateral agreement with Greece.

I doubt the accuracy of the article though.[/QUOTE]
I know what I read and I am not confused, the article that Volk posted seems to be though. Since when is Gruevski pushing for North Macedonia as an international name and Republic of Macedonia as one for bilateral use? If the opposite was written then it probably would reflect the current situation, but as it isn't, I can only put it down to another pathetic news article by Dnevnik, customarily riddled with lies.

SoM,

Do you know with absolute certainty that Gruevski would not capitulate on the name?

You can never know that with absolute certainty. He is a politician, after all.

I can say though, with a strong degree of certainty, that Gruevski wants to leave a legacy and go down in history as a great Macedonian, definitely not as a traitor who sold Macedonia out.

[QUOTE=Vangelovski;43795]SoM,

Do you know with absolute certainty that Gruevski would not capitulate on the name?[/QUOTE]
Tom, Spolaj Ti (lol, sorry mate, couldn't help it).

On a serious note, no, I don't know if Gruevski will capitulate, the bilateral compromise is capitulation enough, like RtG I have thought about this over and over and have concluded that we shouldn't have to compromise a thing, not even on a bilateral level.

Can you say with certainty that he will capitulate? I know that people have claimed that Gruevski was prepared to accept Macedonia (Skopje) in Bucharest, but I am yet to see evidence of this.

[QUOTE=Soldier of Macedon;43792]I know what I read and I am not confused, the article that Volk posted seems to be though. Since when is Gruevski pushing for North Macedonia as an international name and Republic of Macedonia as one for bilateral use? If the opposite was written then it probably would reflect the current situation, but as it isn't, I can only put it down to another pathetic news article by Dnevnik, customarily riddled with lies.[/QUOTE]


Don't rely on the diagram. Read the full article.

The article actually says that the Macedonian government is pushing for "North Republic of Macedonia" or "Republic of Macedonia - North" or "Republic of Macedonia (North)" for use within INTERNATIONAL organizations and forums, while insisting that the name Republic of Macedonia should remain on the passports and that individual countries can CHOOSE to use it in their bilateral relations with us. That's in line with the sell that we would be replacing the current FYROM reference (for the UN, NATO and EU) with a name that only adds a geographic qualifier to Republic of Macedonia, while keeping the 'constitutional' name for internal use and for bilateral relations with countries who have already recognized us as Republic of Macedonia. The Government has been flirting with that concept for a long time. It went into NATO's Bucharest Summit with it, except that the proposed 'international' name at that stage was Republic of Macedonia - Skopje. The UMD also flirted with the concept publicly before the Bucharest Summit, except that they suggested "something like Democratic Republic of Macedonia" for use within international organizations.

I don't see why the prospect of the Macedonian Government accepting what the article suggests is any more detrimental than the fact that it already accepts an "Interim Accord" and "name negotiations" that give a hostile foreign nation the right to participate in the determination of the identity of our state, and thereby severely undermine the sovereignty and human rights of its citizens.

This passage should clear the confusion created by the diagram in relation to "bilateral" versus "international" use:

[quote]Дури и последната модификација од јули 2009 година (во билатерала да може земјите да избираат кое име ќе го употребуваат независно од препораката) треба да се чита како обид компромисот да се најде во тоа што некои земји поважни за Грција ќе ја прифатат сугестијата, а Атина нема да се бори со Скопје за секоја членка на ОН што го признава нашето уставно име. Тоа е едно и од инсистирањата на македонската страна во преговорите. Новото име (на англиски и француски), со уставното испишано на кирилица, би стоело и на пасошите, како и на другите лични документи што се користат во меѓународна комуникација.

На тој начин, уставното име би останало за домашна употреба и за земјите што би решиле да продолжат да ни се обраќаат со тоа име, но исклучиво во билатералните односи.[/quote]

[quote=Soldier of Macedon;43798]Tom, Spolaj Ti (lol, sorry mate, couldn't help it).

On a serious note, no, I don't know if Gruevski will capitulate, the bilateral compromise is capitulation enough, like RtG I have thought about this over and over and have concluded that we shouldn't have to compromise a thing, not even on a bilateral level.

Can you say with certainty that he will capitulate? I know that people have claimed that Gruevski was prepared to accept Macedonia (Skopje) in Bucharest, but I am yet to see evidence of this.[/quote]

My proof is in what Aleksandrov just pointed out - Gruevski has already capitulated by accepting the Interim Accord. We criticise UMD for exactly the same - I think DPMNE needs the same treatment. Meto, for example, only came to the conclusion that "Democratic Republic of Macedonia" would be "acceptable" because he first accepted the Interim Accord as "legitimate" and, therefore, accepted that Greece's problem with our name/identity as a "legitimate" grievance which in turn needs a "legitimate" solution. Gruevski is only one step behind our "enlightened" Wiz Kid.

[QUOTE="Aleksandrov"]The article actually says that the Macedonian government is pushing for "North Republic of Macedonia" or "Republic of Macedonia - North" or "Republic of Macedonia (North)" for use within INTERNATIONAL organizations and forums, while insisting that the name Republic of Macedonia should remain on the passports and that individual countries can CHOOSE to use it in their bilateral relations with us. [B]That's in line with the sell that we would be replacing the current FYROM reference (for the UN, NATO and EU) with a name that only adds a geographic qualifier to Republic of Macedonia, while keeping the 'constitutional' name for internal use and for bilateral relations with countries who have already recognized us as Republic of Macedonia[/B].[/QUOTE]
But that is not in line with the statements made by Gruevski and Ivanov, who have made it clear that only a bilateral solution with Greece is acceptable. The Dnevnik article is typically in the Dnevnik 'style', uncorroborated statements and creative journalism at its worst.
[QUOTE="Vangelovski"]My proof is in what Aleksandrov just pointed out - Gruevski has already capitulated by accepting the Interim Accord. We criticise UMD for exactly the same - I think DPMNE needs the same treatment.[/QUOTE]
Tom, the Interim Accord was accepted by the Macedonian government prior to Gruevski's time, the latter adopted the status quo when he took office. This in itself is acceptance and I am not making excuses for him, but there is a difference. The UMD have taken a few steps further and advocated for three names at one stage (international, bilateral, and keeping the actual name for all other uses), and Meto still finds the 'democratic' prefix acceptable, the same prefix he backed for international use. While there is more than enough proof that demonstrates Meto's sentiments, I am yet to find any information relating to Gruevski's acceptance of anything other than a bilateral name with Greece.

Do either of you guys have anything to corroborate the suggestion that Gruevski was ready to accept Macedonia (Skopje) at Bucharest, and for what purpose (bilateral, international, etc)?

[quote=Soldier of Macedon;43855]But that is not in line with the statements made by Gruevski and Ivanov, who have made it clear that only a bilateral solution with Greece is acceptable. The Dnevnik article is typically in the Dnevnik 'style', uncorroborated statements and creative journalism at its worst.

Tom, the Interim Accord was accepted by the Macedonian government prior to Gruevski's time, the latter adopted the status quo when he took office. This in itself is acceptance and I am not making excuses for him, but there is a difference. The UMD have taken a few steps further and advocated for three names at one stage (international, bilateral, and keeping the actual name for all other uses), and Meto still finds the 'democratic' prefix acceptable, the same prefix he backed for international use. While there is more than enough proof that demonstrates Meto's sentiments, I am yet to find any information relating to Gruevski's acceptance of anything other than a bilateral name with Greece.

Do either of you guys have anything to corroborate the suggestion that Gruevski was ready to accept Macedonia (Skopje) at Bucharest, and for what purpose (bilateral, international, etc)?[/quote]

[SIZE=3][COLOR=#000000][FONT=Calibri][/FONT][/COLOR][/SIZE]
[SIZE=3][COLOR=#000000][FONT=Calibri]Spolaj ti SoM :)[/FONT][/COLOR][/SIZE]
[SIZE=3][COLOR=#000000][FONT=Calibri][/FONT][/COLOR][/SIZE]
[SIZE=3][COLOR=#000000][FONT=Calibri]Gruevski’s exact position on the name issue is unclear – he speaks of a ‘red line’ that we all supposedly know, yet he’s never made any public statement as to what that ‘red line’ actually is. He has supported the idea of a different name for bilateral use with Greece and has never denied reports that he is willing to accept the use of a different name for international organisations as long as countries that have recognised our name are allowed to continue to do so bilaterally. His silence is just as abhorrent as Meto’s public speculation on specific names. [/FONT][/COLOR][/SIZE]

[FONT=Calibri][SIZE=3][COLOR=#000000]That aside, Gruevski has accepted every capitulation to date as “reality”. Some of these capitulations (allowing a foreign government to dictate the terms of the Macedonian constitution, accepting the legitimacy of an agreement, reached with an extremist group, which is designed to dismantle the Macedonian state and perpetuating the moral and intellectual decay of Macedonian society by maintaining that we cannot survive without a big brother) are, in my view, just as detrimental as Gruevski accepting a name change. Each of these issues on their own are capable of bringing about a long and painful end for the self-governance of the Macedonian people (though one could argue that we have already lost the ability to govern ourselves).[/COLOR][/SIZE][/FONT]

[QUOTE=Phoenix;43780]How much trust can you put in the hands of a politician...?

I'm clinging to the belief that this decision goes beyond any measure of what could be considered 'normal politics', this is a decision that will ultimately change the history of the Macedonian people with possible implications to historical and cultural ties and it could finally sever all relationships with our kin throughout the diaspora.

A decision to persue this path is an immense burden on any man, a decision that will equate to outright treachery and the trade of our identity, I can't believe that any man in Macedonia will willingly place his neck on the chopping block like this...[/QUOTE]

Phoenix
Hit the nail on the head!
"Trust a politician"? - not likely, we have 20 years of proof!

This decision will change Macedonia and Macedonians - detrimentally, just what the Greeks want - sever all relationships, drive a wedge between us, keep us separate or detached from our kin. This is what they have done since 1913 and continue to do and they will keep trying to do it politically/socially/ internationally. Keeping us divided in any way shape or form is their objective because it is easier to manipulate smaller sectionalised groups than it is one unified people/voice.

Not just placing his neck on the chopping block, placed into a position of ultimate scrutiny, placed into a position of being able to demonstrate his integrity, unify the Macedonian people, placed in a position of being able to say "I stood up for Macedonia, I stood up for our identity, I did not give in, I did not sell us out, i did not trade or barter or negotiate my identity or that of my people" - not too many people have this opportunity or burden (depending on how you look at it)!
WALK AWAY FROM NEGOTIATING OUR NAME! STOP ERODING OUR IDENTITY! WHO ARE THE GREEKS GOING TO ARGUE WITH IF WE STAND FIRM AND REFUSE TO NEGOTIATE? READ THE UNITED NATIONS CHARTER ON SELF DETERMINATION - THEN QUOTE IT TO GREECE ANY TIME THEY WANT A DISCUSSION!