What specifically about the Crimea referendum is "illegitimate" in the eyes of the in

First Up

Godge wrote: »

Why? What is so special about a single county or a single province? Is this the type of figleaf that people are using to say Kosovo was wrong but Crimea was right?

We should just get rid of Andorra, Lichenstein, the Vatican City, Gibraltar and San Marino because there are bigger counties in Ireland and the UK?

Why would the six counties be the entity up for change, look at a map, joining Donegal to Northern Ireland makes geographical sense?





That has been done to death loads of times, why are you repeating it? There was no status quo option, there were no OSCE monitors, there was a North Korean style referendum.

I am not saying that the result would have been different, it is just not legitimate. It is a bit like having a referendum in West Belfast under the auspices of the Irish army dressed as Provos and deciding the future of Northern Ireland based on two options - independence or reunification with the South, neither of which palatable to the majority of the rest of Northern Ireland.

Have a proper democratic vote with all of the options and the consent of the rest of Ukraine. Remember Northern Ireland only has the option to reunify with the South because the rest of Britain agreed as part of the Good Friday Agreement.

In case there is a misunderstanding, I'm not saying Kosovo was wrong and Crimea is right. I'm saying that either they are both wrong or both right.

recedite

Godge wrote: »

Why? What is so special about a single county or a single province? Is this the type of figleaf that people are using to say Kosovo was wrong but Crimea was right?

We should just get rid of Andorra, Lichenstein, the Vatican City, Gibraltar and San Marino because there are bigger counties in Ireland and the UK?

Why would the six counties be the entity up for change, look at a map, joining Donegal to Northern Ireland makes geographical sense?

I suggested that the minimum size of a secessionist territory should be around the size of a "province" and definitely bigger than a county, and with some extra latitude being given to small islands. Someone said this was "arbitrary" but in fact having a definition is the opposite to arbitrary. "Arbitrary" is when people like Cameron and Obama have no actual definition but apply different rules to suit whatever their own agenda happens to be at the time, as with Kosovo and Crimea.

So Donegal, San Marino etc. are just too small to have their status challenged. If San Marino was currently part of Italy, it would be too small to secede on its own. Same with Donegal. The 6 counties would be the entity up for change simply because it is the entity with a different sovereign currently.

recedite

Choice 2: Are you in favour of restoring the 1992 Constitution and the status of Crimea as a part of Ukraine?

View wrote: »

There was no status quo option as can be seen above hence the referendum - even were it recognised by Ukraine - is not valid.

Can you explain in what way Choice 2 differs from the status quo?

Richard

recedite wrote: »

Can you explain in what way Choice 2 differs from the status quo?

Because if it the 1992 constitution was the status quo, you wouldn't be restoring to anything.

In any case, this wasn't the appropriate time for a referendum - when tempers were high. Any referendum should've followed negotiations.

Here's something to consider. If, in 20 years Crimea voted to become independent or to reunite with Ukraine, would Russia allow it?

Richard

recedite wrote: »

Same with Donegal. The 6 counties would be the entity up for change simply because it is the entity with a different sovereign currently.

I think if there was a big movement in Donegal yearning to rejoin the UK it'd potentially be different, but as things stand saying Donegal should be in NI because it looks nicer geographically is no reason to change its status. Borders aren't usually nice!

Dannyboy83

recedite wrote: »

Can you explain in what way Choice 2 differs from the status quo?

The 1992 constitution was drafted after the USSR imploded.
It gave (& would give) Crimea the option to decide which path to choose, including joining Russia.
That constitution was replaced in 1995.

So
Option 1.
Join Russia outright

Option 2.
Become independent, then have the Crimean Junta join Russia (unless you figure they were going to re-join the 'Ukrainian fascists')

Option 3.
Remain part of the Ukraine Nyevozmozna tovarish

View

alaimacerc wrote: »

Well, there goes the UK Tories' plans for an in-out EU referendum on the basis of their (supposed) renegotiated terms of membership, then. Thanks for clearing that up!

I can't comment on the Tories plans for their suggested referendum since they haven't outlined the various results of a yes or no vote.

I do know that a recent Tory private members bill for a referendum asking "
Should the UK be a member of the EU?" was described as being misleading by their electoral commission (if I recall the correct body). They said the question would need to be "Should the UK REMAIN a member of the EU?" for it to be a fair referendum question.

Likewise, I believe it took three seperate wordings and around 2 months to get the one for the Scottish one right, not 24 hrs as in Crimea.

alaimacerc wrote: »

While somewhat dodgy, this really doesn't seem to be to be the most pressing objection to the plebiscite. If your favoured option isn't on the ballot (and I know mine generally isn't!), you vote for the least-worst option of what remains. Had "pre-'92 autonomy" won the poll, I hardly think this would have been taken as a pretext to join Russia anyway, as some have implied. (Whether the poll itself is a meaningful exercise in the circumstances is a separate question.)

First up a part of a country can't unilaterally decide to operate a seperate "National Constitution" to the rest of a country.

Second, the 92 constitution would as reported leave it to a parliamentary vote in Crimea as to whether or not it remained part of Ukraine and is thus directly contrary to the current Ukrainian constitution.

As such, it is akin to a scenario where FG & Lab decide we should rejoin the UK and give you two options: a) vote to rejoin the UK or b) revert to the Free State 1922 constitution - where FG & Lab will then immediately take a parliamentary vote to rejoin the UK.

As I said, a choice of which limb you want broken not whether you want one broken or not.

View

recedite wrote: »

Can you explain in what way Choice 2 differs from the status quo?

The 1992 constitution is the former Ukrainian SSR constitution. Ukraine replaced it years ago.

There was no status quo option as there was no option to vote for Crimea to continue to operate using the current Ukranian constitution.

Godge

recedite wrote: »

I suggested that the minimum size of a secessionist territory should be around the size of a "province" and definitely bigger than a county, and with some extra latitude being given to small islands. Someone said this was "arbitrary" but in fact having a definition is the opposite to arbitrary. "Arbitrary" is when people like Cameron and Obama have no actual definition but apply different rules to suit whatever their own agenda happens to be at the time, as with Kosovo and Crimea.

So Donegal, San Marino etc. are just too small to have their status challenged. If San Marino was currently part of Italy, it would be too small to secede on its own. Same with Donegal. The 6 counties would be the entity up for change simply because it is the entity with a different sovereign currently.

Quebec is bigger than the British Isles. In fact some of the counties in Quebec are bigger than the British Isles.

What about the US, is California a state or a province in your definition?

Your definition is no less arbitrary than anyone elses in that you have picked it despite its flaws to suit your current argument.

alaimacerc

View wrote: »

I can't comment on the Tories plans for their suggested referendum since they haven't outlined the various results of a yes or no vote.

Granted there's an inherent difficulty in commenting on the detail of a proposal on which no detail exists. One might suspect it's all a ball of smoke designed to placate the euroskeptics; I couldn't possibly comment. But the "plan" in outline is explicitly: negotiate treaty change; put to the electorate the choice, "accept new treaty" or "withdraw

First up a part of a country can't unilaterally decide to operate a seperate "National Constitution" to the rest of a country.

Second, the 92 constitution would as reported leave it to a parliamentary vote in Crimea as to whether or not it remained part of Ukraine and is thus directly contrary to the current Ukrainian constitution.

This is simply the "tsktsk, isn't 'legal' under Ukrainian law" objection. The Ukrainian, EU and US take on "legal" amounts to "Crimean self-determination can't happen", not to "Crimean self-determination could and should have happened in some slightly different manner".

recedite

Godge wrote: »

Quebec is bigger than the British Isles. In fact some of the counties in Quebec are bigger than the British Isles.

What about the US, is California a state or a province in your definition?

Your definition is no less arbitrary than anyone elses in that you have picked it despite its flaws to suit your current argument.

I'd support secession of Californians or French Canadians if that is what they wanted. French Canadians remain because they want to; they have equal status and their language is an official language. In contrast, the first thing the right wing uber-nationalists in Kiev did after seizing power was to withdraw the status of Russian as an official language in Ukraine.
So no govt. jobs or schools for Russian speakers.

alaimacerc

recedite wrote: »

In contrast, the first thing the right wing uber-nationalists in Kiev did after seizing power was to withdraw the status of Russian as an official language in Ukraine.

Actually, Russian wasn't an "official language" even prior to that point. The February vote was to abolish the status of Russian as even a "regional" language.

recedite

Dannyboy83 wrote: »

The 1992 constitution was drafted after the USSR imploded.
It gave (& would give) Crimea the option to decide which path to choose, including joining Russia.
That constitution was replaced in 1995.

So
Option 1.
Join Russia outright

Option 2.
Become independent, then have the Crimean Junta join Russia (unless you figure they were going to re-join the 'Ukrainian fascists')

There have been a few constitutions in recent years, so the latest one is actually the 1998 one. Check it out here. So in a way, there is no actual status quo, the whole situation has been in a state of flux since the break up of the USSR.
They all call Crimea an "Autonomous Republic" with its own Parliament, but the 1998 one gets rid of the office of President and says that any laws are subservient to Ukraine laws, so no law made in Crimea could allow something that was normally illegal in Ukraine to be legal in Crimea.
This could be something as simple as the legal age for buying alcohol.
So it wouldn't be a very autonomous republic really, would it? Nothing could happen without permission and approval from Kiev.

An honest referendum can only really have two choices, otherwise the vote could easily be manipulated by being splitting the anti side into numerous choices. So I think its reasonable to give the Free State type choice of the 1992 constitution under Ukrainian sovereignty as one option.

If they had chosen that option, it would have required a second referendum to join the Russian Federation (something that would not be allowed to them if they had been bound by the 1998 constitution)

recedite

alaimacerc wrote: »

Actually, Russian wasn't an "official language" even prior to that point. The February vote was to abolish the status of Russian as even a "regional" language.

Well, that's a terrible way to treat the people who use it all the time in the east of the country. You can't expect to hold a country together while treating people like that.

feargale

comongethappy wrote: »

The equivalence you are trying to draw is not valid.
Kosovo voted to become independent, not simply join another nation.

I'm sort of a plague on both your houses re this one. BUT,
why should self-determination be limited to choosing independence and not rule by another country? Instance Northern Ireland 1996, Saar 1956, Gibraltar, Trieste, Sopron.

First Up

Europe's changing borders

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=890_1367106116

Dannyboy83

recedite wrote: »

There have been a few constitutions in recent years, so the latest one is actually the 1998 one. Check it out here. So in a way, there is no actual status quo, the whole situation has been in a state of flux since the break up of the USSR.

The term 'status quo' is just a Latin phrase, meaning 'the existing state of affairs'.
There is always a status quo. Even when things are in flux (and as you correctly stated, they have been)

They all call Crimea an "Autonomous Republic" with its own Parliament, but the 1998 one gets rid of the office of President and says that any laws are subservient to Ukraine laws, so no law made in Crimea could allow something that was normally illegal in Ukraine to be legal in Crimea.
This could be something as simple as the legal age for buying alcohol.
So it wouldn't be a very autonomous republic really, would it? Nothing could happen without permission and approval from Kiev.

I think you misread.

The option was not to return to the 1998 constitution, it was to return to the 1992 constitution.

An honest referendum can only really have two choices, otherwise the vote could easily be manipulated by being splitting the anti side into numerous choices. So I think its reasonable to give the Free State type choice of the 1992 constitution under Ukrainian sovereignty as one option.

That's the point.
A honest referendum should have a yes and no option.
Not a yes and yes option.

As I've already stated, I'm not against Crimea joining Russia, I support their right to reunify.
But legally and democratically.

If they had chosen that option, it would have required a second referendum to join the Russian Federation (something that would not be allowed to them if they had been bound by the 1998 constitution)

The option was to return to the 1992 constitution

Dannyboy83

recedite wrote: »

Well, that's a terrible way to treat the people who use it all the time in the east of the country. You can't expect to hold a country together while treating people like that.

I agree with this.

It was a regressive and stupid measure that was bound to promote hostility.

But it's par for the course in Eastern Europe

http://www.economist.com/node/21549987
Lithuanian law says official documents, such as passports and birth certificates, may be written only in the Lithuanian alphabet, which lacks the letter W and most of the diacritical marks of Polish.

K-9

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

Ah, I misunderstood the referendum then, I assumed that restoring the 1992 constitution would effectively keep the status quo but having just read up on it, it simply gives the government the right to make the decision. So the referendum was basically "join Russia or let the government decide who we join".

That's pretty messed up, certainly. Seems bizarre that they'd do it that way as well, given that from what I've read the referendum would almost definitely have carried the motion to join Russia, so why did they feel the need to set up an incomplete referendum to do it? Jet seems like if the choices had been to join Russia or remain part of Ukraine, they'd be joining Russia anyway without accusations of a rigged referendum...

If that's the case it would be worrying as a small group of hardline Russian nationalists basically took over the Crimean parliament at gunpoint. I don't think it qualifies as a functioning parliament at the moment.

recedite wrote: »

We don't know what orders the Ukrainian troops were getting from Kiev recently. Maybe Kiev would have ordered them to take control of public buildings from civil authorities and expel the Russians. I'd say they were quite glad to be able to report back "We'd love to do that, but we can't get near our weapons at the moment, so we'll just have to sit tight here for a while"

It would seem from recent developments that the Ukranian seemed to have little or no orders from Kiev, the Ukranian troops showed remarkable restraint in fairness to them.

sparkling sea

I admit from the off that I don't know a huge amount about the Crimea, that said I was disgusted at the behaviour of senior members of the Svobada party and the assult on the Ukrainian TV boss, it was the antithesis of democracy IMO.
Democracy does not appear to exist in the Ukraine and by extension in Crimea.
The coup in the Ukraine was hardly democratic and members of Svobada were involed in this coup that is extremely worrying, if I lived in Crimea I'd be terrified.
I'd have to question why the people in the Ukraine where not given a chance to vote out their President.

If a TV boss cannot exercise the right to freedom of speech in the Ukraine and by extention Crimea then I doubt very much an ordinary citizen can.

I know Russia had agreed to Crimea being part of the Ukraine but I haven't a clue which party in all this is more at fault, Russia or Ukraine (and the west).
One thing is for sure people are being silenced by all sides, and its very difficult to gauge what most people in Crimea actually want

View

alaimacerc wrote: »

Granted there's an inherent difficulty in commenting on the detail of a proposal on which no detail exists. One might suspect it's all a ball of smoke designed to placate the euroskeptics; I couldn't possibly comment. But the "plan" in outline is explicitly: negotiate treaty change; put to the electorate the choice, "accept new treaty" or "withdraw

Well the obvious point that you ignore is that the Tories are proposing this for AFTER the next election, hence, the UK are free to opt for the status quo by electing another party to power. The people of Crimea did not have such an option and they could have had it since Ukraine is holding parliamentary elections on May 25th (which will be monitored by the OCSE).

alaimacerc wrote: »

This is simply the "tsktsk, isn't 'legal' under Ukrainian law" objection. The Ukrainian, EU and US take on "legal" amounts to "Crimean self-determination can't happen", not to "Crimean self-determination could and should have happened in some slightly different manner".

No that isn't the case. Normal dmocratic procedure is to secure majority support for proposals and then seek to effect democratic change accordingly. As the Ukrianian constitution can be changed by parliamentary vote (and indeed regularly is), changing it would be more straightforward than changing ours for instance.

As such, it is a case of "Crimean self-determination could and should have happened in some slightly different manner" if standard democratic procedures were followed in free and fair elections, not one where the area is dominated by "unidentified" military personnel driving "local" military vehicles with Reg plates from Moscow (which is as about as close to Crimea as Gibraltar is to us).

Dannyboy83

sparkling sea wrote: »

I know Russia had agreed to Crimea being part of the Ukraine but I haven't a clue which party in all this is more at fault, Russia or Ukraine (and the west).
One thing is for sure people are being silenced by all sides, and its very difficult to gauge what most people in Crimea actually want

Fault depends on perspective.
I consider myself a neutral observer and see fault on both sides.

I condemned Bush/USA for this "With Us or against us" behaviour during the Iraq invasion, and the American dupes.
It now has to be applied equally to Russia and the Russian dupes.
I'd be a hypocrite if I didn't.

The difficulty is not figuring out who is more at fault, it's getting the Russians to acknowledge any share of the fault.

Russians believe they can cancel out the aggressive seizure of Crimea by comparing it to the American seizure of Iraq, while the rest of the world (except Belarus) looks at both cases and says "No, actually one doesn't justify the other - in fact, they're both unjustifiable".

djpbarry

First Up wrote: »

If you can point to someone complaining about Crimea who is also exercised by Israel's constant annexation of Palestinian land or the farce that was/is Kosovo, I'll be happy to exclude them.

You say that like such an individual would be difficult to find?

First Up wrote: »

Russia hasn't "annexed" Crimea. Crimea voted to secede from Ukraine.

No, some Crimeans voted to secede from Russia, in the midst of a Russian occupation.

djpbarry

recedite wrote: »

I suggested that the minimum size of a secessionist territory should be around the size of a "province" and definitely bigger than a county, and with some extra latitude being given to small islands. Someone said this was "arbitrary" but in fact having a definition is the opposite to arbitrary.

No it isn’t – a definition can be entirely arbitrary. For example, international borders are defined, but they’re entirely arbitrary.

djpbarry

iradzen wrote: »

where did you get this info? ??
why Russians do not have free media? ? ?
they do have access to internet, satellites, radio and telephone,
they do travel all over the world, all my friends in Russian and Belarus able to go on holidays or business in Europe, and when they do - they do not close they eyes and years...

British people have all kinds of information freely available at their fingertips, but a sizable number will still believe any old nonsense they read in a tabloid newspaper.

First Up

djpbarry wrote: »

You say that like such an individual would be difficult to find?
No, some Crimeans voted to secede from Russia, in the midst of a Russian occupation.

As I say, I'm waiting for such a person to identify themself. You tell me if that will be difficult our not.

The vote to secede was pretty overwhelming and I've not seen anyone seriously claim that it did not reflect the majority sentiment. Crimea was in Russia for hundreds of years and in Ukraine for sixty. It was gifted to Ukraine when both countries were part of the Soviet Union, not as a transfer to an independent sovereign state. It has been an autonomous region of Ukraine in recognition of it's distinct heritage, language and orientation.
The disputing of the referendum is over whether it should have taken place, not of the result.

First Up

alaimacerc wrote: »

Actually, Russian wasn't an "official language" even prior to that point. The February vote was to abolish the status of Russian as even a "regional" language.

The significance of this seems to have been missed - or glossed over. Ukraine had eighteen recognised regional languages - everything from German to Yiddish. To remove Russian - the mother tongue of 20% of the total population and of 60% of the population of Crimea can only be interpreted as vindictive hostility by the Kiev government. It was a serious mistake.

alaimacerc

First Up wrote: »

The significance of this seems to have been missed - or glossed over. Ukraine had eighteen recognised regional languages - everything from German to Yiddish. To remove Russian - the mother tongue of 20% of the total population and of 60% of the population of Crimea can only be interpreted as vindictive hostility by the Kiev government. It was a serious mistake.

I believe the measure abolished all regional language recognition.

First Up

alaimacerc wrote: »

I believe the measure abolished all regional language recognition.

With the other seventeen languages spread among less than 5% of the population, I don't think that is fooling anyone.

alaimacerc

View wrote: »

Well the obvious point that you ignore is that the Tories are proposing this for AFTER the next election, hence, the UK are free to opt for the status quo by electing another party to power. The people of Crimea did not have such an option and they could have had it since Ukraine is holding parliamentary elections on May 25th (which will be monitored by the OCSE).

Obvious if you're cherry-picking your rationalisations wherever they can be had, perhaps. Governments (that one included) do things they didn't put into their manifestos, and they do also offer "no option of the status quo" referenda. Are you really going to say "nah, no analogy or comparability whatsoever unless the two happen simultaneously"?

If the number of people voting "yes for union with Russia" is remotely representative (and I stress "if"), it's in any event pretty moot what other options were or were not on the ballot

No that isn't the case. Normal dmocratic procedure is to secure majority support for proposals and then seek to effect democratic change accordingly. As the Ukrianian constitution can be changed by parliamentary vote (and indeed regularly is), changing it would be more straightforward than changing ours for instance.

As before, this is simply saying "if Ukraine wants to know Crimea's opinion, it'll give it to them". Is there some lack of clarity about what self-determination means, here?

As such, it is a case of "Crimean self-determination could and should have happened in some slightly different manner" if standard democratic procedures were followed in free and fair elections, not one where the area is dominated by "unidentified" military personnel driving "local" military vehicles with Reg plates from Moscow (which is as about as close to Crimea as Gibraltar is to us).

Again, if you're going to deny the legitimacy of any unilateral Crimea vote to determine its status (and that's expressly what you, the EU, and the US are all saying, let's be clear), harping on about what the nasty ol' Rooskies did (whether to "facilitate" this, or to "fix" it, depending on your point of view) is just a besides-the-point guilt by association exercise.

alaimacerc

Dannyboy83 wrote: »

But it's par for the course in Eastern Europe

I don't think that Lithuania is "par for the course" when it comes to language rights; more like, bottom of the heap for the entire continent. (No small feat when you're sharing a landmass with the "wipe them all out" French.) And yes, it does seem to be pretty much the model Ukrainian nationalists look to be following.

Of course, they'd claim (in each case) this was "necessary to redress the historic wrong of Russian imperialism". And we know how well "redressing historic wrong" measures generally work out...

alaimacerc

recedite wrote: »

An honest referendum can only really have two choices, otherwise the vote could easily be manipulated by being splitting the anti side into numerous choices.

There's no difficulty with multi-option referenda in principle, as long as they use single transferable votes, rather than "first past the post". (i.e. you ask people to rank "status quo", "1992 constitution", and "union with Russia" in order of preference, then you eliminate the least popular alternative in the first round, and transfer its second prefs to the remaining two.)

More straightforward and providing better clarity to hold separate referenda on each measure, though. At worst, two at the same time; better, sequentially.

View

alaimacerc wrote: »

Obvious if you're cherry-picking your rationalisations wherever they can be had, perhaps. Governments (that one included) do things they didn't put into their manifestos, and they do also offer "no option of the status quo" referenda.

There is no cherry picking there. In a democracy a referendum always has to have a status quo option to be valid - if the electorate can't reject an option to change then they don't have a democratic choice about whether or not they want to change.

alaimacerc wrote: »

As before, this is simply saying "if Ukraine wants to know Crimea's opinion, it'll give it to them". Is there some lack of clarity about what self-determination means, here?

Only on your side - most people don't regard a ballot with a forced choice about which change you want as being democratic, much less allow for self-determination.

alaimacerc wrote: »

Again, if you're going to deny the legitimacy of any unilateral Crimea vote to determine its status (and that's expressly what you, the EU, and the US are all saying, let's be clear), harping on about what the nasty ol' Rooskies did (whether to "facilitate" this, or to "fix" it, depending on your point of view) is just a besides-the-point guilt by association exercise.

There is no guilt by association there, it is just clear guilt.

The only reason to rush a vote as happened is the Ukrianian elections scheduled for May 25th (and due to be monitored by the OCSE) might not produce a pro-Russia majority in Crimea. Hence the rush to a "join Russia or let the parliament vote for you to join Russia" referendum.

First Up

View wrote: »

There is no cherry picking there. In a democracy a referendum always has to have a status quo option to be valid - if the electorate can't reject an option to change then they don't have a democratic choice about whether or not they want to change.




Only on your side - most people don't regard a ballot with a forced choice about which change you want as being democratic, much less allow for self-determination.







There is no guilt by association there, it is just clear guilt.

The only reason to rush a vote as happened is the Ukrianian elections scheduled for May 25th (and due to be monitored by the OCSE) might not produce a pro-Russia majority in Crimea. Hence the rush to a "join Russia or let the parliament vote for you to join Russia" referendum.

For a Crimean election not to produce a pro Russian outcome would fly in the face of demographics and of every election in Crimea (parliamentary and presidential) held since Ukraine's independence.

Jonny7

First Up wrote: »

The vote to secede was pretty overwhelming and I've not seen anyone seriously claim that it did not reflect the majority sentiment.

It was a sham election, the result of which is not recognised internationally

View

First Up wrote: »

For a Crimean election not to produce a pro Russian outcome would fly in the face of demographics and of every election in Crimea (parliamentary and presidential) held since Ukraine's independence.

Well, there would have been no problem in securing a majority on May 25th and/or holding a referendum to Council of Europe standards then, would there?
And no need for the "unidentified" military personnel driving non-Ukrianian registered military vehicles for that matter.

As it is, the diagram on p7 of this thread would appear to show a little over 20% of the people surveyed favoured joining Russia a year ago.

As the SNP is finding in Scotland turning an overall majority in an election to a majority in a referendum is tough work - but, I guess they forgot to produce the yes or yes ballots.

First Up

Jonny7 wrote: »

It was a sham election, the result of which is not recognised internationally

It was a referendum, not an election. What does "sham" mean?

alaimacerc

View wrote: »

There is no cherry picking there. In a democracy a referendum always has to have a status quo option to be valid - if the electorate can't reject an option to change then they don't have a democratic choice about whether or not they want to change.

Only on your side - most people don't regard a ballot with a forced choice about which change you want as being democratic, much less allow for self-determination.

It's fruitless to argue that the lack of a "true" status quo option invalidates the path to remaining in Ukraine that was on offer, and that wasn't voted for. But that evidently isn't going to stop you repeatedly asserting it anyway, it seems.

There is no guilt by association there, it is just clear guilt.

Which procedural guilt you're determined to spread all over any possible Crimean self-determination: hence the "by association" part.

The only reason to rush a vote as happened is the Ukrianian elections scheduled for May 25th (and due to be monitored by the OCSE) might not produce a pro-Russia majority in Crimea. Hence the rush to a "join Russia or let the parliament vote for you to join Russia" referendum.

You're missing the point suspiciously systematically. At what point in your "wait until Ukraine decides what to do with Crimea" scenario and timeline does any form of Crimean self-determination happen? If you just cut to the "it doesn't, and I don't care" chase, it'll save us a lot of time, I think.

Dannyboy83

First Up wrote: »

What does "sham" mean?

govno

iradzen

Dannyboy83 wrote: »

How old are you?
Do you any memory of being in Russia? Any personal experience?

No Western Media have convinced me.

I have formed this opinion based on my experience, and my Russian friends and family. Chysty Russki

Loads of personal experience,-:)- I was born and raised in USSR , not Russia ... and I had been living in Belarus, Moscow and I had been visiting Ukraine and Crimea quite often...
and I do know for sure, that all the stories about Russian "occupation" and Crimean people afraid to vote under Kalashnikov's- complete bull****... excuse my french...

It looks, like western people do not realise, how connected is Russian and Ukranian economy at the moment, and if Ukraine won't keep good relationships with Russia- they are in deep troubles...
Meantime, Russia will survive without Ukraine easily...
millions of Ukranians are working in Russia, and their families are depend on their salaries...
Did you see any ukraians goods in your shops here? No.
They only can sell their products in Russia...
Ukraine is trying to seat on 2 chairs for more then 20 years now - they have cheap discounted gas and huge market in Russia and at the same time they are barking on it - do you think it is normal?

It was Ukranian government, who put Ukraninans in this situation- not Putin.
and I personally and loads of my russian-ukranian-belarussian friends are happy, that Putin took Crimea back- at least people over there will have chance to get back to normality...
young people in Ukraine, especially on the West brain washed- they do beleive, that they'll join EU and will get jobs and good salaries strait away.
Would you beleive in this?
I can see 50 % of young unenployed Spaniards happy meeting Ukranian jobseekers.

First Up

View wrote: »

Well, there would have been no problem in securing a majority on May 25th and/or holding a referendum to Council of Europe standards then, would there?
And no need for the "unidentified" military personnel driving non-Ukrianian registered military vehicles for that matter.

As it is, the diagram on p7 of this thread would appear to show a little over 20% of the people surveyed favoured joining Russia a year ago.

As the SNP is finding in Scotland turning an overall majority in an election to a majority in a referendum is tough work - but, I guess they forgot to produce the yes or yes ballots.

A year ago their language hadn't been de-legitimised, nor the president they elected run out of town and replaced by a government led by a party with Neo-fascist leanings.
Yes, they could have waited and would have been better advised to do so, but it was a volatile and emotive period and decisions were taken under strained circumstances.
But the result would not be different.

Jonny7

iradzen wrote: »

if Ukraine won't keep good relationships with Russia- they are in deep troubles...

So they have a choice of being poor or being poor and ****ed by Moscow?

This may be why many want closer ties and deals with the EU.

First Up

Dannyboy83 wrote: »

govno

I mean in what way was it a sham or govno?
Are you saying people didn't vote as claimed? Or that they voted under duress? Or that there was a majority that would have voted no but were afraid to?
Or just that they shouldn't have been allowed to vote at all?

Jonny7

First Up wrote: »

It was a referendum, not an election. What does "sham" mean?

Sham - not legit

It wouldn't have been a difficult process to organise a legitimate vote

First Up

Jonny7 wrote: »

Sham - not legit

It wouldn't have been a difficult process to organise a legitimate vote

I agree it was unnecessarily hasty but "not legit" and "sham" are different things. The former depends on if you believe the opinion of the people of Crimea matters: the latter implies fraud or coercion and I don't think anyone is seriously claiming that.

Dannyboy83

First Up wrote: »

I mean in what way was it a sham or govno?
Are you saying people didn't vote as claimed?

Yes, the voter turn out was 123%

Or that they voted under duress?

Yes, the Tatars didn't vote as a result of duress.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=URmTfpfUklA

Or that there was a majority that would have voted no but were afraid to?

No, there was no option to vote 'No'.
Only A) Join Russia or 92 Constitution

Or just that they shouldn't have been allowed to vote at all?

I was in favour of a legal and democratic vote, with the option for Crimea to reunite with Russia.

Evidently - that did not happen.

Jonny7

First Up wrote: »

The former depends on if you believe the opinion of the people of Crimea matters

We didn't get their opinion on the matter, and it's very dangerous territory to start presuming otherwise.

View

alaimacerc wrote: »

It's fruitless to argue that the lack of a "true" status quo option invalidates the path to remaining in Ukraine that was on offer, and that wasn't voted for. But that evidently isn't going to stop you repeatedly asserting it anyway, it seems.

When your only options are yes or yes, it isn't a democratic decision.

An option to change your constitution (in an unconstitutional manner) is NOT a status quo option.

alaimacerc wrote: »

Which procedural guilt you're determined to spread all over any possible Crimean self-determination: hence the "by association" part.

No I am not. I have no problem with proper democratic procedures such as those laid down by the Council of Europe in their "best practices" guides.

You though seem to have a real problem with the idea of properly conducted democratic decisions.

alaimacerc wrote: »

You're missing the point suspiciously systematically. At what point in your "wait until Ukraine decides what to do with Crimea" scenario and timeline does any form of Crimean self-determination happen? If you just cut to the "it doesn't, and I don't care" chase, it'll save us a lot of time, I think.

Very simply, when self-determination takes place following proper democratic procedures and without the presence of large numbers of military driving around in foreign registered military vehicles.

YOU are the one who rejects that idea since you are prepared to ignore democratic norms. What part of "free and fair" upsets you so much?

First Up

Jonny7 wrote: »

We didn't get their opinion on the matter, and it's very dangerous territory to start presuming otherwise.

Well we got the opinion of about 82% of the electorate (the 123% story was put to bed days ago but is still being peddled by some).

View

First Up wrote: »

A year ago their language hadn't been de-legitimised, nor the president they elected run out of town and replaced by a government led by a party with Neo-fascist leanings.

The government is led by a political party which is allied with the European People's Party of the main Christian Democratic parties in Europe. Just how nutty left wing are you if you regard them as neo-facist?

alaimacerc wrote: »

Yes, they could have waited and would have been better advised to do so, but it was a volatile and emotive period and decisions were taken under strained circumstances.
But the result would not be different.

With an actual No option on the ballot the result would almost certainly have been different - it is fair to assume at least one person would have voted no.

And, of course, if the decision was hasty, there is still time to participate in the election of May 25th, isn't there?

But, of course, that isn't going to happen, is it? The "free" choice is Russia or Russia.