United Macedonia Diaspora

[Soldier of Macedon]

That's right, but such an example cannot be viewed in the same light as negotiating on the identity of the nation. It's something that most EU states have done, which means that it is not a condition imposed that they (EU states) have not generally adhere to themselves. On the other hand, no EU state was asked to change their identity as a condition of entry.

Is this requirement manatory? If so, how does one view the case of the UK, who have refused (until now) to exchange their pounds for euros?

[Rogi]

The adoption of the Euro is not mandatory. Though there are a number of things which would require Constitutional amendments.

[Buktop]

Originally Posted by Risto the Great

The "one time" is in fact a number of times. It happened all over this forum. You hinted very heavily and in fact stated that you accept FYROM for the purposes of entry into EU/NATO.

I did from the beginning state that I once supported joining under fyrom, and no longer do, my reasons were stated, and my reasons for not supporting it were also stated.

I always find myself having to go back to find what you said earlier to remind you of what you said. I find I rarely have to do this with other people. They tend to know what they have said. This is what makes dialogue with you so frustrating.

I know exactly what I write and have written, the thing that makes this so difficult is that I cannot hold a conversation with just you, because at least 3 or 4 other people are involved in this discussion and the thread becomes disorganized, especially with all the unnecessary banter in between the substance.

I guess it is good that you have an opinion, but I don't enjoy the fact that you can't stick to one opinion.

I have from the beginning stated my opinion, and have stuck to the same opinion. Can you show me where I haven't? The quotes you provided all stated that I once supported joining under fyrom but no longer do.

What point precisely did you feel it was not a good idea to join EU/NATO under FYROM? Because it still sounds like you have left the backdoor open to let that silly (former) idea of yours back in. Do you disagree? Or have you banished this foolish thought completely? Please be clear and honest with yourself. It seems difficult for you. If you simply said what you believe in a clear and precise way, everybody would understand where you come from and slot you into a particular corner. But instead you have ducked and weaved in such an infuriating manner that many are flabbergasted with your intent.

My opinion changed when the criteria for entry to EU and NATO changed. I have not left any "backdoor" open for fyrom, the idea is not conceivable any more.

I am always clear about what I support and what I don't, people either need to read my posts in their entirety and stop taking my posts out of context of the whole.

But I like Americans. Tell me once and for all you have changed your mind and that you have the self-respect of a good Macedonian who will not accept entry into EU/NATO under FYROM. Please.

Risto, I don't know whether you just skim through my posts or whether you actually read them... How many times do I have to say it? Should I go back and quote my last 10 posts on the subject? I no longer support entering under fyrom!

Don't forget, it was the Diaspora who created Greece 180 years ago. Not the poor peasant victims within Greece. Surely we Macedonians in the Diaspora should lead by example.

It was the philhellene English and Germans who created Greece, and I think TM has highlighted this many times. The Greek diaspora in the 1830's didn't even know they were Greek...

[Dzog]

Originally Posted by Rogi

The original question of this discussion was:


I have a question in relation to this...

In the event that the Republic of Macedonia (not fYROM or any other country with any other name) joined the European Union, would membership to the European Union require changes to the Macedonian Constitution?

For example, the Constitution says the Macedonian currency is the Macedonian Denar, if Macedonia joined the Eurozone, it would require a change to the Constitution, would it not?

So, in this case, would that mean that the Macedonian Government would, at that point, be 'negotiating' or discussing changes to the Macedonian Constitution, with Foreign Governments?

See "Chapter VI: International Relations" of Macedonia's Constitution.

[Buktop]

Originally Posted by Vangelovski

Buktop,

I think we finally agree on something. I don't justify the Patriot Act. In fact, I think the US Government acted beyond its constitutional authority with regards to that Act.

Our original question was "Does the Macedonian Government have the constitutional authority to negotiate with a foreign government, changes to the Macedonian constitution?". Do we now agree that it does not?

You see, we can hold civil discussion.

Depending on the interpretation it can be argued that there are loop holes and poorly worded clauses which would provide such authority. According to republican theory, and democratic principle you are correct, it should not provide this authority. There are no proper checks and balances within the Macedonian government to prevent the misuse or misinterpretation of the constitution. And therefor they give themselves authority.

The writers of the Constitution of Macedonia were former communist party leaders, and it would not surprise me if they purposely, as Dzog stated, created the relevant clauses concerning the changing of the constitution to maintain some sort of hold over the country.

For the purpose of clarity, the government should not have this power.

[Vangelovski]

Originally Posted by Rogi

The original question of this discussion was:


I have a question in relation to this...

In the event that the Republic of Macedonia (not fYROM or any other country with any other name) joined the European Union, would membership to the European Union require changes to the Macedonian Constitution?

For example, the Constitution says the Macedonian currency is the Macedonian Denar, if Macedonia joined the Eurozone, it would require a change to the Constitution, would it not?

So, in this case, would that mean that the Macedonian Government would, at that point, be 'negotiating' or discussing changes to the Macedonian Constitution, with Foreign Governments?

Rogi, regardless of what the issue is, my view is that they do not have the right to negotiate changes to the constitution. If Macedonia were to join the Eurozone, which is not mandatory, I'm sure they would open it to public debate - not because the Macedonian Government necessarily wants to abide by democratic and republican principles, but because they know it would be an easy "win" for them.

[Vangelovski]

Originally Posted by Buktop

You see, we can hold civil discussion.

Depending on the interpretation it can be argued that there are loop holes and poorly worded clauses which would provide such authority. According to republican theory, and democratic principle you are correct, it should not provide this authority. There are no proper checks and balances within the Macedonian government to prevent the misuse or misinterpretation of the constitution. And therefor they give themselves authority.

The writers of the Constitution of Macedonia were former communist party leaders, and it would not surprise me if they purposely, as Dzog stated, created the relevant clauses concerning the changing of the constitution to maintain some sort of hold over the country.

For the purpose of clarity, the government should not have this power.

So we don't agree and we're now back to stage one.

[Rogi]

Dzog, I have read Articles 118-121 and do not see an answer to the specifics of my question within those articles?

They only discuss association, dissociation and the processes for membership of international organizations or ratifying international agreements, but not about the Constitutional changes, if required, to the Macedonian Constitution.

Perhaps, in such cases it is Article 131 which comes into play, which gives the Assembly the power to make Constitutional amendments, at will.

I understand this ongoing discussion, but the more I read and study the Macedonian Constitution (and I have now read it well over 50 times) it seems like the Constitution gives the Assembly absolute and unlimited power and even gives each member immunity. It is absolutely flawed.

[Buktop]

Originally Posted by Phoenix

What do you mean by these two statements Buktop...?

When it comes to our identity and sovereignty, I don't believe that there should be any distinction between the diaspora or the Macedonians in the Republic, we all hold equal weight as Macedonians.

In a previous post Risto The Great highlighted the fact that greek independence was formulated outside of modern greece by people of diverse ethnic background, surely as Macedonians whether we are in the Republic or the diaspora we have that same ability.

On one hand you apologise for the diaspora and the Macedonian citizens for not having a voice when it comes to constitutional matters but on the other hand you make statements advocating the power of the people against the governments...WTF is that all about?

Phoenix, are you a citizen of the Republic of Macedonia? Were you eligible to participate in the 2004 referendum? We are discussing matters of Government that represent the citizens of the Republic. Those who do not hold citizenship do not have the actual authority to interfere in Government matters, but can try to influence outcomes.

The Diaspora has it's functions as well, and I believe it should initiate a campaign to register Macedonians for citizenship, this way they can affect the course of the government. As a charitable organization though, organizations such as UMD, AMHRC etc... are not allowed to advocate one party or candidate over the other or they will lose their non-profit status.

Phoenix, there are two ways for the Diaspora to actually influence government policy one is through a lobby group, and only then can you bribe politicians to push Diaspora agenda within the government policy, the other is to become a citizen.

[Rogi]

Vangelovski, they may open it to public debate and referendum.

However, according to the Constitution, specifically Article 131, they do not need to - the Assembly can make any and all amendments at will.

Therein again lies the flaws of the Constitution which does not have any checks and bounds to prevent abuse of power.

It does seem more and more that in Macedonia, if it is not specifically illegal, then it is legal and if it is not specifically Unconstitutional, then it is allowed by the Constitution.