[QUOTE=Rogi;174305]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.[/QUOTE]

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.

[QUOTE][B]Article 202[/B]
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.[/QUOTE]

[QUOTE][B]Article 204[/B]
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.[/QUOTE]

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)

[QUOTE=Rogi;174305]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. [/QUOTE]

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

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.

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

Slight modification.

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.

Tomche,

DPMNE (it's membership base and central committee) do [B]want[/B] [U]this[/U] 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.

[QUOTE=Rogi;174317]DPMNE (it's membership base and central committee) do [B]want[/B] [U]this[/U] stopped. I'm referring to this particular agreement.[/QUOTE]

Then please explain what they plan on doing to stop it?

I don’t consider refusing to show up for work much of a strategy.

[QUOTE=Rogi;174317]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.[/QUOTE]

Why the need to already set up the expected excuse for failure?

Let me guess, you expect that they will be threatened with The Hague?, well I guess we can all sympathise with that, at least we know they really wanted to try and stop it, but hey, that’s how it goes in the Republic, at least we can look forward to some much needed EU funds, after all everything has a silver lining :)

Its great seeing some Macedonians protest, but more needs to be done (I am aware of the rumour of a huge protest this weekend – lets see what happens and if anyone still cares)

In Brazil the truck drivers recently went on strike through out the whole country, crippling the country, with only essentials like medicine, food and beer (lol) being transported. I wish something like this could happen in Macedonia, the people need to hurt the politicians where it hurts, and that’s things that involve money and the economy.

I know times are hard in Macedonia, but I can assure you people in Brazil live harder and more dangerous lives then the people in Fyrom. Its now or never for Macedonians. No more excuses

I was listening to ABC radio this afternoon and I heard something to the effect of that if the name change agreement isn't ratified, the EU and Greece will be imposing a new economic blockade and that the current border crossings between the two countries would be closed indefinitely. I don't know where they got this information from, but it is a troubling development if true.

I don’t believe that? What for not joining NATO?