Jump to content
MadonnaNation.com Forums
Sign in to follow this  
XXL

BREXIT / British Politics thread - cont

Recommended Posts

Just now, Kim said:

From the EU OBSERVER. Jesus Christ, is this the stuff you people actually read?

Yes, whats the problem (actually I don't read it, but I stumbled upon this interesting article)? What I have taken out are actually simply facts, explaining the differences between the 2 cases.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, elijah said:

Yes, whats the problem (actually I don't read it, but I stumbled upon this interesting article)? What I have taken out are actually simply facts, explaining the differences between the 2 cases.

None of which has anything to do with, or contradicts the specific points being made here but is in fact a propaganda piece by a "former Kosovan minister" in response to Serbia. He may also want to go back revise the "Catalonia's autonomy was not illegally revoked by Spain" line that he wrote in this article from weeks ago.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Kim said:

None of which has anything to do with, or contradicts the specific points being made here but is in fact a propaganda piece by a "former Kosovan minister" in response to Serbia. He may also want to go back revise the "Catalonia's autonomy was not illegally revoked by Spain" line that he wrote in this article from weeks ago.

In my opinion, it has smith to do with the specific points made here. Actually, as you can see, I was quoting karbatal since I have seen that the two cases are compared here again, which was the reason for me posting the extract of the article at all. Reason being those 2 cases are quite different. For staters, Kosovo was sort of a federation unit of a federation which no longer exists. Catalonia was never close to a federation unit (basically a state), it was always and still is a region within an existing country. But anyways I am posting this article, because obviously in my mind it is relevant.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, elijah said:

In my opinion, it has smith to do with the specific points made here. Actually, as you can see, I was quoting karbatal since I have seen that the two cases are compared here again, which was the reason for me posting the extract of the article at all. Reason being those 2 cases are quite different. For staters, Kosovo was sort of a federation unit of a federation which no longer exists. Catalonia was never close to a federation unit (basically a state), it was always and still is a region within an existing country. But anyways I am posting this article, because obviously in mind mind it is relevant.

Again, the Kosovo example was brought up in an article to illustrate ONE point, that point being that the rule of law argument by one govt is being used and upheld by those who dismissed the SAME rule of law argument by another govt - as it was presented in the exact same fashion

When one illustrates a single point they are not required to go into the semantics of every other possible outcome, consequence, reason, cause, context etc.

Obviously the particular circumstances under which Kosovo became an independent country are unique to that situation. Obviously the article you linked by a Kosovan minister in response to Serbia sticking its beak into the Catalan situation is going to pertain to those issues.

I look forward to you linking us up to the next puff piece propaganda from Tory party head-office about how well the Brexit deal is going next time someone else links us to an article about what a shambles it is. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Kim said:

Again, the Kosovo example was brought up in an article to illustrate ONE point, that point being that the rule of law argument by one govt is being used and upheld by those who dismissed the SAME rule of law argument by another govt - as it was presented in the exact same fashion

I look forward to you linking us up to the next puff piece propaganda from Tory party head-office about how well the Brexit deal is going next time someone else links us to an article about what a shambles it is. 

I don't know if an Article similar to Art. 155 of the Spanish constitution was indeed included within the Yugoslav federation constitution. However facts (not opinions) are indisputable that before Kosovo, Slovenia, Croatia, Bosnia and Herzegovina and Macedonia  have all already seceded from Yugoslavia and were already recognized by the majority of the states (EU included) which leads me to believe 1) no such article existed or 2) it wasn't known who was the successor of Yugoslavia so that this subject would act upon trying to respect it. If such an article existed at all, its evident by the facts that it wasn't respected by at least 4 federal units, so why expect that of Kosovo? Thus the argument of the rule of law being applied differently doesn't seem to be true at all as we are looking at 2 absolutely different situations. So in my opinion the citation of those important facts was quite relevant.

You ll have to keep on looking forward to me posting "the next puff piece propaganda from Tory party head-office about how well the Brexit deal is going", cause I m definitely against Brexit.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, elijah said:

Kosovo had been a part of the former Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, which no longer exists. 

During its existence, Kosovo had the same state attributes as the other federal units, including a constitution, and had its representatives in all federal institutions - in the collective presidency, the assembly, the executive council or federal government, and the constitutional court. 

It also had its own presidency, assembly, government, police, territorial defence, constitutional court, intelligence service, central bank and secretariat for international relations. 

At the federal level, Kosovo had the right to veto, and equal participation - along with other federal units - in all key federal institutions such as: the collective presidency, the federal government and the federal assembly. 

Kosovo's well-defined boundaries - as well as the international borders of the former Yugoslav Federation and those of other entities - were protected by the constitution, and could not be changed without the consent of the federal units, for instance the parliament of Kosovo. 

The dissolution of the former Yugoslavia began with the violent destruction of Kosovo's federal status in 1989 by Serbia, which illegally stripped Kosovo's autonomy through the police duress and military force.

Now, to compare with the Kosovo case, Catalonia's autonomy was not illegally revoked by Spain. 

The Catalan people did not face the violent repression, crimes against civilians and ethnic cleansing by Spain - the way Serbia did in Kosovo toward Albanian majority. 

The events in Kosovo between 1989 and 1999, caused by Serbia, were characterised as a humanitarian catastrophe and a serious threat to international peace and security - something that fortunately did not happen in Catalonia. 

Kosovo's independence is also a result of the dissolution of the former Yugoslavia, which was confirmed by UN Resolution 777.

In Kosovo, there were almost 1 million people forced to flee the country and some 25,000 people killed by the Serbian regime. This was not the case in Catalonia.

Kosovo citizens from the Albanian majority - or 93 percent of the population - were committed to gaining independence. This is not the case in Catalonia, where there is division between proclaiming independence and mediating with Madrid.

The factors mentioned above, regarding Kosovo, are not found in any other cases - including Catalonia - making Kosovo's independence completely unique and also in line with norms in international law.

https://euobserver.com/opinion/139340

what's this biased BS??

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
38 minutes ago, elijah said:

I don't know if an Article similar to Art. 155 of the Spanish constitution was indeed included within the Yugoslav federation constitution.

No you don't know, do you...

38 minutes ago, elijah said:

However facts (not opinions) are indisputable that before Kosovo, Slovenia, Croatia, Bosnia and Herzegovina and Macedonia  have all already seceded from Yugoslavia and were already recognized by the majority of the states (EU included) which leads me to believe 1) no such article existed or 2) it wasn't known who was the successor of Yugoslavia so that this subject would act upon trying to respect it. If such an article existed at all, its evident by the facts that it wasn't respected by at least 4 federal units, so why expect that of Kosovo? Thus the argument of the rule of law being applied differently doesn't seem to be true at all as we are looking at 2 absolutely different situations. So in my opinion the citation of those important facts was quite relevant.

You ll have to keep on looking forward to me posting "the next puff piece propaganda from Tory party head-office about how well the Brexit deal is going", cause I m definitely against Brexit.

LOL.

And how did Slovenia, Croatia, Bosnia Herzegovina and Macedonia secede from Yugoslavia? That's right, by holding independence referendums and legally seceding.

And how did Kosovo gain its independence from Serbia? That's right - international intervention,  Nato bombing campaign, U.N. administrative mandate, UDI.

Sound familiar? So what's YOUR preference?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Kim said:

No you don't know, do you...

LOL.

And how did Slovenia, Croatia, Bosnia and Herzegovina and Macedonia secede from Yugoslavia? That's right, by holding independence referendums and legally seceding.

And how did Kosovo gain its independence from Serbia? That's right - international intervention,  Nato bombing campaign, U.N. administrative mandate, UDI.

Sound familiar? So what's YOUR preference?

And I ll be glad to hear more information on an Art. similar to Art. 155 of the Spanish constitution so that we could see if there are even any grounds for discussing "different application of the principle of the rule of law". If no law existed, it is irrelevant and inapplicable in Kosovo case.

Actually I made the effort and I saw that the 1974 Yugoslav Constitution explicitly granted to the federal units the right to secede which means that the 2 cases are totally different and we have zero ground to talk about  "different application of the principle of the rule of law". Thus the referendums in Yugoslavia u mentioned were constitutional. It further proves my point.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, elijah said:

And I ll be glad to hear more information on an Art. similar to Art. 155 of the Spanish constitution so that we could see if there are even any grounds for discussing "different application of the principle of the rule of law". If no law existed, it is irrelevant and inapplicable in Kosovo case.

Actually I made the effort and I saw that the 1974 Yugoslav Constitution explicitly granted to the federal units the right to secede which means that the 2 cases are totally different and we have zero ground to talk about  "different application of the principle of the rule of law". Thus the referendums in Yugoslavia u mentioned were constitutional. It further proves my point.

*groan*

Serbia, which at this point was already independent having seceded in 2006. Kosovo as part of Serbia declared UDI in 08. They did this while under a UN administrative mandate which supposedly still recognised the territorial integrity of Serbia under UN Security Council Resolution 1244. The legal focus therefore was on the legality or otherwise of the unilateral action of the Provisional Institutions of Self-Government having power to declare independence or not.

Serbia was confident enough in it's legal stance to take the question of the legality of the UDI to the international court of justice which decided that whether the declaration was in fact an official act of the Provisional Institution was unclear; in the end determining the UDI was issued by "representatives of the people of Kosovo" acting outside the normal Provisional Institutions of Self-Government. The Serbian argument was that the Kosovo Provisional Institutions had exceeded the authority given to them by the Constitutional Framework. 

The international court (rightly) declared that the UDI was not illegal but stated it didn't "feel that it is necessary" to address "whether or not Kosovo has achieved statehood" or "whether international law conferred a positive entitlement on Kosovo unilaterally to declare its independence." 

Clear as mud then.

As we know, Kosovo remains a disputed territory and partially recognised state.

Which leads back to the original point Craig Murray makes in his article, that it's an unalienable right for the people of Kosovo and Catalonia and any other people to their own self determination.

So I ask you again, should Catalonia be given a democratic referendum on their own future or not?

I guess you'll be waiting for a Catalonian UDI or a civil war to see what happens when Spain defends it's "rule of law" to the court of human rights? Alternatively, give them their fucking referendum.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Kim said:

*groan*

Serbia, which at this point was already independent having seceded in 2006. Kosovo as part of Serbia declared UDI in 08. They did this while under a UN administrative mandate which supposedly still recognised the territorial integrity of Serbia under UN Security Council Resolution 1244. The legal focus therefore was on the legality or otherwise of the unilateral action of the Provisional Institutions of Self-Government having power to declare independence or not.

Serbia was confident enough in it's legal stance to take the question of the legality of the UDI to the international court of justice which decided that whether the declaration was in fact an official act of the Provisional Institution was unclear; in the end determining the UDI was issued by "representatives of the people of Kosovo" acting outside the normal Provisional Institutions of Self-Government. The Serbian argument was that the Kosovo Provisional Institutions had exceeded the authority given to them by the Constitutional Framework. 

The international court (rightly) declared that the UDI was not illegal but stated it didn't "feel that it is necessary" to address "whether or not Kosovo has achieved statehood" or "whether international law conferred a positive entitlement on Kosovo unilaterally to declare its independence." 

Clear as mud then.

As we know, Kosovo remains a disputed territory and partially recognised state.

Which leads back to the original point Craig Murray makes in his article, that it's an unalienable right for the people of Kosovo and Catalonia and any other people to their own self determination.

So I ask you again, should Catalonia be given a democratic referendum on their own future or not?

I guess you'll be waiting for a Catalonian UDI or a civil war to see what happens when Spain defends it's "rule of law" to the court of human rights? Alternatively, give them their fucking referendum.

But before that Miloshevich stripped Kosovo of its de facto federal unit status according to the Yugoslav 74 constitution and federal units did have the right to secede. So again indeed its "clear as a mud" and shows that the two cases are totally different. Add to that the fact that there was ethnic cleansing going on and we are looking at totally different situations.

As for Catalonia and should Catalonia be given a democratic referendum on their own future or not I think that should be a question for the Spanish constitutional court to decide on within their constitutional order. From what I ve read on the matter, they don't have legal grounds to organize such a referendum. There is also lack of any other logical reason why they should secede from Spain, even if its illegal to secede from it. There is no ethnic cleansing or ill treatment that puts the Catalans in danger: actually Catalonia is one of the most prosperous Spanish regions. If they were oppressed it would have been the opposite. I believe the Catalans have been subjected to severe propaganda and some Catalan politicians have been probably paid to spread lies and negativity towards other Spaniards. So in their case, no, I don't think there should be such a referendum at present. In any case, if they continue to desire to secede and block Spanish economy and continue to act like spoiled brats, maybe in the end they will be granted such a referendum.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
28 minutes ago, promise to try said:

so now I have to read this thread too to understand what happen in catalonia???:lol:

On the contrary.  The more we read the more we get lost :lol:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, karbatal said:

On the contrary.  The more we read the more we get lost :lol:

this is like dynasty and the colbys????? which one is dynasty and which is the other?:lol:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, promise to try said:

this is like dynasty and the colbys????? which one is dynasty and which is the other?:lol:

I only know that you and me are the ones cleaning the stables.  Just wait and see that after all this passes,  these politicians will be loaded and we will face a worse economy. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But I would say that Catalonia is the Colbys.  More modern and trendy... Until the argument evolves to aliens and the series are cancelled.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, karbatal said:

I only know that you and me are the ones cleaning the stables.  Just wait and see that after all this passes,  these politicians will be loaded and we will face a worse economy. 

we live in Delta Ro!!! it seems we are going to clean a lot of  shit hore now, yes.seat is thinking about moving, some other brands want to move away from spain, some pp people are mentioning 155 for the basque country too... this is not the colbys!!!! this will be the titanic!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, karbatal said:

But I would say that Catalonia is the Colbys.  More modern and trendy... Until the argument evolves to aliens and the series are cancelled.

catalonia has always been very trendy, right?? at least during the last decades they had that touch

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

http://www.itv.com/news/utv/update/2017-10-29/stormont-talks-set-to-resume-on-deadline-day/

James Brokenshire has already shown he's weak for having it drag on this long. Almost 10 months is farcical. It honestly wouldn't surprise me if he extended the deadline again because they're "close to an agreement" only to be still sitting here in January with nothing. We'll be back at the polls again soon

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Playing hard ball with Theresa May!

“Before we move to phase two talks on trade, we want taken off the table any suggestion that there will be a physical border, a hard border, new barriers to trade on the island of Ireland,” he told reporters. “If we have to wait until the New Year, if we have to wait for further concessions, so be it.”

http://www.newsletter.co.uk/…/brexit-varadkar-demands-commi…

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×