On March 17 2014 05:00 radiatoren wrote: That is meaningless. The tatars and many ukrainians have kept far away from the election. What is more surprising is how 80+ % of the population was said to have voted. That sounds fishy.
Oh please. A substantial majority of Crimea is in favor of rejoining Russia.
If numbers don't convince you, take a look at how they respond to Russian military presence. Seems rather quiet and peaceful for an unwanted military presence.
On March 17 2014 05:00 radiatoren wrote: Either way the vote is unrecognized internationally by the rest of UN security council. The ukrainian constitution doesn't allow this kind of separatist movement. It has to be approved by Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine according to chapter 10 article 135 of the ukrainian constitution. According to chapter 10 article 136 changes of the ministers of the Verkhovna Rada of Crimea has to be approved by Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine and Aksyonov is not so. source
Legitimacy of the vote is not acceptable on those accounts. Even with an ousted president and a local guy elected illegally and under armed occupation it is not really their call. As far as I know Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine is still legitimately elected?
What about the legitimacy of the Ukranian government itself? As I recall, it wasn't democratically elected - it seized power.
I explicitly avoided that issue in my reasoning. Whataboutism?
In principle, do you consider the decisions of an illegitimate government to be legitimate and legal?
Doesn't matter.
You have two ways: either both are illegal, or both are legal.
If you say, the ukrainian gov is illegal and should be adressed - okay. The referendum would be as illegal/void then.
If you say the referendum is legal, it's fine. Ukrainian government would be "as legal". And they voted (legally, in this case) to dissolve the crimean parliament, making the referendum void.
What about your views on legality?
What is this position based on? The Ukrainan government was not democratically elected, but rather grabbed power through force. The referendum is a democratic process, supported by Crimeans and Russia has agreed to respect the decisions of that referendum. There's a difference for you.
Still, the referendum is illegal, since it's not confirm with the constitution.
Understand what i mean? You can't call a illegal referendum (and it is, as was pointed out just a page ago in detail) legal just because you like that outcome more.
It's either legal or illegal, that's what i'm saying. You can't tell people that the ukrainian government doesn't have power because they came to power "illegal", yet demand respect for an equally illegal vote.
Say the Ukrainian government is illegitimate. That would make the previous government legitimate - the one under Yanukovich. Yanukovich said that Crimea has the right to choose by referendum. So there's your legal support for it.
Its not within his powers to do that, but the Parliaments. Neither was inviting a Russian invasion, again the Parliament.
And according to the UN, based on the way Ukraine has conducted itself (i.e. suppressing the Russian language for the ethnic Russian population), Crimea has a legal right to secede.
Would you like to continue, or is that proof enough that this is a political rather than legitimate legal issue?
And according to the UN, based on the way Ukraine has conducted itself (i.e. suppressing the Russian language for the ethnic Russian population), Crimea has a legal right to secede.
On March 17 2014 05:00 radiatoren wrote: That is meaningless. The tatars and many ukrainians have kept far away from the election. What is more surprising is how 80+ % of the population was said to have voted. That sounds fishy.
Oh please. A substantial majority of Crimea is in favor of rejoining Russia.
If numbers don't convince you, take a look at how they respond to Russian military presence. Seems rather quiet and peaceful for an unwanted military presence.
On March 17 2014 05:00 radiatoren wrote: Either way the vote is unrecognized internationally by the rest of UN security council. The ukrainian constitution doesn't allow this kind of separatist movement. It has to be approved by Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine according to chapter 10 article 135 of the ukrainian constitution. According to chapter 10 article 136 changes of the ministers of the Verkhovna Rada of Crimea has to be approved by Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine and Aksyonov is not so. source
Legitimacy of the vote is not acceptable on those accounts. Even with an ousted president and a local guy elected illegally and under armed occupation it is not really their call. As far as I know Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine is still legitimately elected?
What about the legitimacy of the Ukranian government itself? As I recall, it wasn't democratically elected - it seized power.
I explicitly avoided that issue in my reasoning. Whataboutism?
In principle, do you consider the decisions of an illegitimate government to be legitimate and legal?
Doesn't matter.
You have two ways: either both are illegal, or both are legal.
If you say, the ukrainian gov is illegal and should be adressed - okay. The referendum would be as illegal/void then.
If you say the referendum is legal, it's fine. Ukrainian government would be "as legal". And they voted (legally, in this case) to dissolve the crimean parliament, making the referendum void.
What about your views on legality?
What is this position based on? The Ukrainan government was not democratically elected, but rather grabbed power through force. The referendum is a democratic process, supported by Crimeans and Russia has agreed to respect the decisions of that referendum. There's a difference for you.
Still, the referendum is illegal, since it's not confirm with the constitution.
Understand what i mean? You can't call a illegal referendum (and it is, as was pointed out just a page ago in detail) legal just because you like that outcome more.
It's either legal or illegal, that's what i'm saying. You can't tell people that the ukrainian government doesn't have power because they came to power "illegal", yet demand respect for an equally illegal vote.
Say the Ukrainian government is illegitimate. That would make the previous government legitimate - the one under Yanukovich. Yanukovich said that Crimea has the right to choose by referendum. So there's your legal support for it.
Its not within his powers to do that, but the Parliaments. Neither was inviting a Russian invasion, again the Parliament.
And according to the UN, based on the way Ukraine has conducted itself (i.e. suppressing the Russian language for the ethnic Russian population), Crimea has a legal right to secede.
Would you like to continue, or is that proof enough that this is a political rather than legitimate legal issue?
Yes, please show me your source that you base this on, or the proof that the Russian language is suppressed.
On March 17 2014 05:04 LegalLord wrote: [quote] Oh please. A substantial majority of Crimea is in favor of rejoining Russia.
If numbers don't convince you, take a look at how they respond to Russian military presence. Seems rather quiet and peaceful for an unwanted military presence.
[quote] What about the legitimacy of the Ukranian government itself? As I recall, it wasn't democratically elected - it seized power.
I explicitly avoided that issue in my reasoning. Whataboutism?
In principle, do you consider the decisions of an illegitimate government to be legitimate and legal?
Doesn't matter.
You have two ways: either both are illegal, or both are legal.
If you say, the ukrainian gov is illegal and should be adressed - okay. The referendum would be as illegal/void then.
If you say the referendum is legal, it's fine. Ukrainian government would be "as legal". And they voted (legally, in this case) to dissolve the crimean parliament, making the referendum void.
What about your views on legality?
What is this position based on? The Ukrainan government was not democratically elected, but rather grabbed power through force. The referendum is a democratic process, supported by Crimeans and Russia has agreed to respect the decisions of that referendum. There's a difference for you.
Still, the referendum is illegal, since it's not confirm with the constitution.
Understand what i mean? You can't call a illegal referendum (and it is, as was pointed out just a page ago in detail) legal just because you like that outcome more.
It's either legal or illegal, that's what i'm saying. You can't tell people that the ukrainian government doesn't have power because they came to power "illegal", yet demand respect for an equally illegal vote.
Say the Ukrainian government is illegitimate. That would make the previous government legitimate - the one under Yanukovich. Yanukovich said that Crimea has the right to choose by referendum. So there's your legal support for it.
Its not within his powers to do that, but the Parliaments. Neither was inviting a Russian invasion, again the Parliament.
And according to the UN, based on the way Ukraine has conducted itself (i.e. suppressing the Russian language for the ethnic Russian population), Crimea has a legal right to secede.
Would you like to continue, or is that proof enough that this is a political rather than legitimate legal issue?
Yes, please show me your source that you base this on, or the proof that the Russian language is suppressed.
On March 17 2014 05:00 radiatoren wrote: That is meaningless. The tatars and many ukrainians have kept far away from the election. What is more surprising is how 80+ % of the population was said to have voted. That sounds fishy.
Oh please. A substantial majority of Crimea is in favor of rejoining Russia.
If numbers don't convince you, take a look at how they respond to Russian military presence. Seems rather quiet and peaceful for an unwanted military presence.
On March 17 2014 05:00 radiatoren wrote: Either way the vote is unrecognized internationally by the rest of UN security council. The ukrainian constitution doesn't allow this kind of separatist movement. It has to be approved by Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine according to chapter 10 article 135 of the ukrainian constitution. According to chapter 10 article 136 changes of the ministers of the Verkhovna Rada of Crimea has to be approved by Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine and Aksyonov is not so. source
Legitimacy of the vote is not acceptable on those accounts. Even with an ousted president and a local guy elected illegally and under armed occupation it is not really their call. As far as I know Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine is still legitimately elected?
What about the legitimacy of the Ukranian government itself? As I recall, it wasn't democratically elected - it seized power.
I explicitly avoided that issue in my reasoning. Whataboutism?
In principle, do you consider the decisions of an illegitimate government to be legitimate and legal?
Doesn't matter.
You have two ways: either both are illegal, or both are legal.
If you say, the ukrainian gov is illegal and should be adressed - okay. The referendum would be as illegal/void then.
If you say the referendum is legal, it's fine. Ukrainian government would be "as legal". And they voted (legally, in this case) to dissolve the crimean parliament, making the referendum void.
What about your views on legality?
What is this position based on? The Ukrainan government was not democratically elected, but rather grabbed power through force. The referendum is a democratic process, supported by Crimeans and Russia has agreed to respect the decisions of that referendum. There's a difference for you.
Still, the referendum is illegal, since it's not confirm with the constitution.
Understand what i mean? You can't call a illegal referendum (and it is, as was pointed out just a page ago in detail) legal just because you like that outcome more.
It's either legal or illegal, that's what i'm saying. You can't tell people that the ukrainian government doesn't have power because they came to power "illegal", yet demand respect for an equally illegal vote.
Say the Ukrainian government is illegitimate. That would make the previous government legitimate - the one under Yanukovich. Yanukovich said that Crimea has the right to choose by referendum. So there's your legal support for it.
Its not within his powers to do that, but the Parliaments. Neither was inviting a Russian invasion, again the Parliament.
And according to the UN, based on the way Ukraine has conducted itself (i.e. suppressing the Russian language for the ethnic Russian population), Crimea has a legal right to secede.
Would you like to continue, or is that proof enough that this is a political rather than legitimate legal issue?
Oh that one again.
Newsflash. That was never signed into law.....
Go read some more Putin controlled news sites. I'm sure they will provide your daily dosage of fantasy land and the upcoming return to the glory of the USSR
Seems like, Crimea is now Russian subject. Tons of problems, hello. More taxes, hello. Crimean kids in universities for free - hello. Oh fuck. At least i can go to Crimea now and not be fucked by borders securities because i'm not looking like as in passport.
On March 17 2014 05:40 oo_Wonderful_oo wrote: Seems like, Crimea is now Russian subject. Tons of problems, hello. More taxes, hello. Crimean kids in universities for free - hello. Oh fuck. At least i can go to Crimea now and not be fucked by borders securities because i'm not looking like as in passport.
Dont worry, youll be fucked in the traditional post-Soviet way anyway:
On March 17 2014 05:25 zeo wrote: Congratulations to the people of Crimea, over 93% of the 80% that went to vote are against the self proclaimed government in Kiev.
Flamebating should be a bannable offense. Just putting that out there.
In other news Serbia is fucked for the next 4-5 years.
Why? Didnt the party that you are member of implode? Or do you think the new government will re-take national press as they did under Milosevic?
Because people who now got absolute power are bunch of incompetent idiots who couldnt run a small village yet a lone a country. And we are not fucked for next 4-5 years,we are just fucked,permanently.
On March 17 2014 05:25 zeo wrote: Congratulations to the people of Crimea, over 93% of the 80% that went to vote are against the self proclaimed government in Kiev.
Flamebating should be a bannable offense. Just putting that out there.
In other news Serbia is fucked for the next 4-5 years.
Why? Didnt the party that you are member of implode? Or do you think the new government will re-take national press as they did under Milosevic?
All the idiots and leeches in the party broke off and took half our votes, and are now courting Vucic who has around 50% of the vote in the parliamentary elections. It is a realistic possibility that the only opposition in the country will have 6% of the vote in parliament. Vucic already has most of the press under his boot.
On March 17 2014 05:25 zeo wrote: Congratulations to the people of Crimea, over 93% of the 80% that went to vote are against the self proclaimed government in Kiev.
Flamebating should be a bannable offense. Just putting that out there.
In other news Serbia is fucked for the next 4-5 years.
Why? Didnt the party that you are member of implode? Or do you think the new government will re-take national press as they did under Milosevic?
All the idiots and leeches in the party broke off and took half our votes, and are now courting Vucic who has around 50% of the vote in the parliamentary elections. It is a realistic possibility that the only opposition in the country will have 6% of the vote in parliament. Vucic already has most of the press under his boot.
Are you a different Zeo? Complaining about press under someones boot while spouting propaganda that has been proven false and Photoshopping Hitler into pictures Oo
On March 17 2014 05:25 zeo wrote: Congratulations to the people of Crimea, over 93% of the 80% that went to vote are against the self proclaimed government in Kiev.
Flamebating should be a bannable offense. Just putting that out there.
In other news Serbia is fucked for the next 4-5 years.
Why? Didnt the party that you are member of implode? Or do you think the new government will re-take national press as they did under Milosevic?
All the idiots and leeches in the party broke off and took half our votes, and are now courting Vucic who has around 50% of the vote in the parliamentary elections. It is a realistic possibility that the only opposition in the country will have 6% of the vote in parliament. Vucic already has most of the press under his boot.
will he suspend EU integration? You keep calling them euro-taleban and whatnot but I am pretty sure the Germans have had enough populists no? And then wont he just lose support because of it?
On March 17 2014 05:25 zeo wrote: Congratulations to the people of Crimea, over 93% of the 80% that went to vote are against the self proclaimed government in Kiev.
Flamebating should be a bannable offense. Just putting that out there.
In other news Serbia is fucked for the next 4-5 years.
Why? Didnt the party that you are member of implode? Or do you think the new government will re-take national press as they did under Milosevic?
Because people who now got absolute power are bunch of incompetent idiots who couldnt run a small village yet a lone a country. And we are not fucked for next 4-5 years,we are just fucked,permanently.
why permanently? and arent the people who are now in charge the same people who were in charge before, just now without a coalition and with opposition divided?
On March 17 2014 05:40 oo_Wonderful_oo wrote: Seems like, Crimea is now Russian subject. Tons of problems, hello. More taxes, hello. Crimean kids in universities for free - hello. Oh fuck. At least i can go to Crimea now and not be fucked by borders securities because i'm not looking like as in passport.
Oh, it's good, thanks. I like КВН, that's pretty fun to play in it sometimes.
Hello, Crimeans! Hope we will be friends like we always were. Sorry, Ukraine, feel bad for you. Hope you won't mess up and after 25th May elections we will be friends again. Love you.
I'm curious: do you seriously believe that Crimea isn't in favor of returning to Russia?
Its impossible to know, the only poll has been conducted under a military occupation, with Ukrainian media blocked out, and moved up from May 25 to March 30 to today. And obviously your individual anecdotes that -- while we all value deeply -- maybe dont reflect the statistical rigor people have come to expect.
That is meaningless. The tatars and many ukrainians have kept far away from the election. What is more surprising is how 80+ % of the population was said to have voted. That sounds fishy.
Either way the vote is unrecognized internationally by the rest of UN security council. The ukrainian constitution doesn't allow this kind of separatist movement. It has to be approved by Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine according to chapter 10 article 135 of the ukrainian constitution. According to chapter 10 article 136 changes of the ministers of the Verkhovna Rada of Crimea has to be approved by Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine and Aksyonov is not so. source
Legitimacy of the vote is not acceptable on those accounts. Even with an ousted president and a local guy elected illegally and under armed occupation it is not really their call. As far as I know Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine is still legitimately elected?
If you want to go by the Ukrainian constitution, would't that make the current government not legitimate and Yanukovich still de facto president?
It is the endless question of who is legitimate. My reasoning doesn't mention the government at all, but the parliament, which I assume is unanimously recognized as legitimate. The one problem with my arguments would be if 2010 constitution had significantly different status of Crimea.
It is just a pretty common russian line of argumentation to call the ukrainian constitution on issues regarding the legitimacy of the current government and president. This is just a reminder that the Crimea referendum falls on that argument too.
On March 17 2014 05:25 zeo wrote: Congratulations to the people of Crimea, over 93% of the 80% that went to vote are against the self proclaimed government in Kiev.
Flamebating should be a bannable offense. Just putting that out there.
In other news Serbia is fucked for the next 4-5 years.
Why? Didnt the party that you are member of implode? Or do you think the new government will re-take national press as they did under Milosevic?
All the idiots and leeches in the party broke off and took half our votes, and are now courting Vucic who has around 50% of the vote in the parliamentary elections. It is a realistic possibility that the only opposition in the country will have 6% of the vote in parliament. Vucic already has most of the press under his boot.
will he suspend EU integration? You keep calling them euro-taleban and whatnot but I am pretty sure the Germans have had enough populists no? And then wont he just lose support because of it?
He can do whatever the fuck he wants now, more than 80% of parliament will be under his control.
I'm curious: do you seriously believe that Crimea isn't in favor of returning to Russia?
I believe most people dont give a shit.
That explains the low turnout in the vote.
Maybe, just maybe I dont believe the turnout was as high as it was reported. You know that little thing called voter fraud. I heard Russia is pretty good at it.
EPT
