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

First Up · 20-03-2014 7:26pm

View wrote: »

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?

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.

So you are suggesting that given the choice of joining the Russian Federation or remaining in the Ukraine under the 1992 Constitution, those who favoured the status quo decided overwhelmingly to opt for Russia, because they preferred the 1998 Constitution to the 1992 version?
Give us a break.

recedite · 20-03-2014 7:43pm

Dannyboy83 wrote: »

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

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

Yes the option was for the 1992 constitution. I was pointing out that the 1998 one is more like a document for setting up a county council. It was drafted in Kiev.
The 1992 one was drafted by the Crimean parliament. Both constitutions refer to the "Autonomous Republic of Crimea" but only the earlier one gives actual meaning to those words, by allowing Crimeans to make their own own independent laws which would be allowed to differ from mainstream Ukraine law.

If you are going to present people with a choice in a referendum, you have to give them the choices they are most likely to want. The fact that the electorate did not, in the end, choose even the 1992 Constitution option (autonomous region under Ukraine sovereignty) proves that they definitely never wanted the 1998 one (controlled region under Ukraine sovereignty)

An important point here is that if they had chosen the 1992 "autonomous republic within Ukraine" option, the Crimeans would have then been free to remain as that, or to hold another referendum, in their own time, to either amalgamate Crimea fully into Ukraine or to join the Russian Federation (providing those countries wanted them)

But by choosing the "join Russia" option in this referendum, they just took a short-cut to that particular end result.

BTW could you translate the words on the ballot paper for us?
I'm curious to know if it specifically mentions the words "as a part of Ukraine" in the 1992 constitution choice.

Jonny7 · 20-03-2014 7:45pm

First Up wrote: »

Well we got the opinion of about 82% of the electorate

Again you are using the word "opinion". We got a result - which no one can verify - and most governments don't recognise

These are, for all intensive purposes, arbitrary figures

There was no option to return to the status quo - little or no campaigning for the other option presented on the ballot (a bizarre choice in itself) and no time allocated for proper information. Heavy propaganda has been in place since the start (which including turning off all the Ukrainian channels and replacing them with Russian and Russian news agencies spreading patently false stories) - likewise troops occupying the country under illegal circumstances

Sergei Aksyonov, Crimea's leader, came to power 2 weeks ago in a very questionable parliament session flanked by pro-Russian militants armed with automatic weapons - he subsequently claimed that the referendum were merely a formality because Crimea was joining Russia

The result is not recognized internationally - and for good reason

If a majority of Crimeans genuinely want to join Russia then this should have been reflected in a genuine vote

recedite · 20-03-2014 8:04pm

Jonny7 wrote: »

Again you are using the word "opinion". We got a result - which no one can verify - and most governments don't recognise

These are, for all intensive purposes, arbitrary figures

I had to laugh when I saw the Sky news anchorman at the scene, muttering something along those lines. And in the background, a huge crowd of people dancing and celebrating. Maybe you think Putin has put something in the drinking water now that causes the people to go out and dance in the streets?

Jonny7 · 20-03-2014 8:41pm

recedite wrote: »

Maybe you think Putin has put something in the drinking water now that causes the people to go out and dance in the streets?

Better than that, Russia has saved them from the nationalist onslaught, the Nazi threat that has been intensively projected on print, radio and TV for weeks

It's not just the fairy-stories - the economy in Crimea, tied with that in Ukraine is dreadful, many will see the union with Russia as a blessing, access to cheap gas, better jobs across the border - in the current economic atmosphere the grass appears to be much greener

But there's no way back from this. They can't potentially wake up with a hangover in several years tied to a economically and politically isolated power and decide they want to split

First Up · 20-03-2014 8:45pm

Jonny7 wrote: »

Again you are using the word "opinion". We got a result - which no one can verify - and most governments don't recognise

These are, for all intensive purposes, arbitrary figures

There was no option to return to the status quo - little or no campaigning for the other option presented on the ballot (a bizarre choice in itself) and no time allocated for proper information. Heavy propaganda has been in place since the start (which including turning off all the Ukrainian channels and replacing them with Russian and Russian news agencies spreading patently false stories) - likewise troops occupying the country under illegal circumstances

Sergei Aksyonov, Crimea's leader, came to power 2 weeks ago in a very questionable parliament session flanked by pro-Russian militants armed with automatic weapons - he subsequently claimed that the referendum were merely a formality because Crimea was joining Russia

The result is not recognized internationally - and for good reason

If a majority of Crimeans genuinely want to join Russia then this should have been reflected in a genuine vote

Nobody except the 135 observers from 23 countries including members of the European and numerous national parliaments who reported no abuses or suspicious practices.
I agree that a longer lead up was preferable but to pretend the result was inaccurate is delusional. The international rejection is not of the result, but the fact that it took place at all. Democracy obviously only applies when it suits.

Jonny7 · 20-03-2014 9:07pm

First Up wrote: »

Nobody except the 135 observers from 23 countries including members of the European and numerous national parliaments who reported no abuses or suspicious practices.

You mean "a mixture of anti-western ideologues and European far-right politicians" or recognised international observers?

First Up · 20-03-2014 9:27pm

Jonny7 wrote: »

You mean "a mixture of anti-western ideologues and European far-right politicians" or recognised international observers?

A rather sweeping generalisation but apart from disliking some of their politics, are you also accusing them all of being liars? The OSCE was invited to send monitors, but declined.

Jonny7 · 20-03-2014 10:06pm

First Up wrote: »

A rather sweeping generalisation

Its a who's who of far right party members, anti-Semites, Stalinists, hell we even have a holocaust denier who's banned from Canada in there

Their impartiality is.. dubious to say the least

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HA_1aU_s2N4

None of them appear to be international observers in any official capacity - in fact they seem to be nothing more than a group of staunchly pro-Kremlin (or at least very anti-Western) types flown in by Russia to lend some sort of false credibility to the referendum

Dannyboy83 · 20-03-2014 10:23pm

recedite wrote: »

BTW could you translate the words on the ballot paper for us?
I'm curious to know if it specifically mentions the words "as a part of Ukraine" in the 1992 constitution choice.

You cannot translate directly because it sounds like a drunk 3 year old to us, with no definite article and a shedload of cases.

This hopefully will be close enough, but it's not spot on, sorry.

вы за воссоединение Крыма с Россией "на правах субъекта" российской федераци

You are for the restoration of Crimea with Russia as a legal subject of the Russian federation

("на правах субъекта" - "with the legal rights of" might be a better translation)

вы за воссоединение действия Конституции республики Крым 1992 года и за статус Крыма как части укранны?

you are for the restoration of the Constitution of the Republic of Crimea in the year 1992 and for the status of Crimea as part of the Ukraine?

First Up · 20-03-2014 10:28pm

Jonny7 wrote: »

Its a who's who of far right party members, anti-Semites, Stalinists, hell we even have a holocaust denier who's banned from Canada in there

Their impartiality is.. dubious to say the least

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HA_1aU_s2N4

None of them appear to be international observers in any official capacity - in fact they seem to be nothing more than a group of staunchly pro-Kremlin (or at least very anti-Western) types flown in by Russia to lend some sort of false credibility to the referendum

Pity then that the OSCE didn't take up the offer.
Look, Putin is no saint and there is much about this that should have been done differently and better. But if your argument is based on a belief that Crimea is being forced back into Russia against the will of the great majority of Crimeans, you are on thin ice.
If you looked at the link I posted earlier, you will see how temporary and transient borders and nations across Central and Eastern Europe have been for centuries. There is nothing sacred about lines on maps; all I'm looking for is some consistency in how the world powers deal with whatever local issues and anomalies are being sorted.
I cannot take seriously the bombastic utterances from London and Washington in particular, after the mess they made of Iraq and as for the UN , I hope Ban Ki Moon left Moscow with a very large Kosovo shaped flea in his ear.

sdanseo · 20-03-2014 10:33pm

It's seen as illegitimate by Ukraine because their constitution says all of Ukraine must vote in such a referendum. To me, this is nonsense - if all the people in a given area want independence (or in this case, freedom to change affiliation) then they should have it.

My only reservations would be with the fairness of the vote and the options given to voters - but it does seem that a huge majority of those living there want to join Russia.

View · 20-03-2014 10:40pm

First Up wrote: »

So you are suggesting that given the choice of joining the Russian Federation or remaining in the Ukraine under the 1992 Constitution, those who favoured the status quo decided overwhelmingly to opt for Russia, because they preferred the 1998 Constitution to the 1992 version?
Give us a break.

I am saying the option of allowing the parliament to vote you into Russia is to all intents and purpose identical to voting to join Russia directly. As there was no status quo option (to leave things as they are) this is a forced yes or yes choice.

And there is real reason to be suspicious of the result since there WAS a pro-Russian unification "Russian Unity" party which stood in the last elections in Crimea - they got just over 29 thousand votes out of almost a million total votes (and 3 seats out of 100). Nevertheless, their leader is now the Crimean leader, an amazing electoral fete achieved after "local" militias - the ones driving Moscow registered military vehicles - entered the parliament and persuaded the local Ukrainian Russian government to "voluntarily" resign in his favour.

It is amazing how the Ukrainian Russians in the rest of Ukraine seem to lack this Crimean spontaneity - maybe it is the absence of armed militias on their streets that has that effect?

First Up · 20-03-2014 10:47pm

sdeire wrote: »

It's seen as illegitimate by Ukraine because their constitution says all of Ukraine must vote in such a referendum. To me, this is nonsense - if all the people in a given area want independence (or in this case, freedom to change affiliation) then they should have it.

My only reservations would be with the fairness of the vote and the options given to voters - but it does seem that a huge majority of those living there want to join Russia.

I don't think that can be open ended - it would be a recipe for chaos in many places, as minorities endlessly sought their own patch. However some cases are stronger than others. Ukraine's claim on Crimea is one of the weaker ones knocking around yet the world jumps on it because they are moving East rather than West.

First Up · 20-03-2014 10:52pm

View wrote: »

I am saying we the option of allowing the parliament to vote you into Russia is to al intents and purpose ident

If you look at the history of Ukraine's constitutional relationship with Crimea, you will see that there is a lot more to it. But why would those protesting at that "Hobson's Choice" you describe opt for the straight merger with Russia, as they did overwhelmingly?

Jonny7 · 20-03-2014 10:56pm

First Up wrote: »

But if your argument is based on a belief that Crimea is being forced back into Russia against the will of the great majority of Crimeans, you are on thin ice.

It's not my argument. There was no excuse not to have a free and fair vote on the issue. Unfortunately, that didn't happen, and a pro-Kremlin Crimean leader (who attained power by very dubious means) in conjunction with Moscow have held a very questionable referendum to decide the fate of the peninsula

One does not simply ceed from Russia at a later date

all I'm looking for is some consistency in how the world powers deal with whatever local issues and anomalies are being sorted.

Different administrations will take varying courses of action in response to different situations

It's a combination of principles, geopolitics, geography, history, relations between countries - dozens of factors - that's not even touching on the Real Politik

There's no one way to deal with border disputes or international incidents or oppressive autocracies - no matter how "similar" they appear on paper

Therefore the search for consistency will always inevitably lead to the discovery of examples of "hypocrisy" by major powers

View · 20-03-2014 11:01pm

First Up wrote: »

If you look at the history of Ukraine's constitutional relationship with Crimea, you will see that there is a lot more to it. But why would those protesting at that "Hobson's Choice" you describe opt for the straight merger with Russia, as they did overwhelmingly?

And who said they did?

If you have a yes or yes ballot, you aren't really stupid enough to believe you are going to get a No vote, are you?

What do you think was going to happen? All those "local" militia driving "local" military vehicles were going accept a No vote, apologise and go home?

View · 20-03-2014 11:05pm

First Up wrote: »

The OSCE was invited to send monitors, but declined.

The OCSE can only accept invitations from its members. It can't just invade a country at the behest of territories which are suddenly full of armed militias.

alaimacerc · 21-03-2014 12:44am

View wrote: »

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.

None of that was me. How you managed to combine someone else's text and my name and post id when the "quote" function automatically starts with the two consistent is quite the mystery (and no little annoying when one is the person being misattributed-to). Please get your quotes right.

Eggy Baby! · 21-03-2014 12:53am

comongethappy wrote: »

I wonder will Chechnya have an imminent vote as to whether remain a part of the Russian Federation?

A rather bad example. The Chechens saw how their independence worked out after the first Chechen war ended when their country became the number one kidnap capital of the world and their government failed to stop the spread of jihadism throughout the country that caused widespread anarchy. I'd imagine that most Chechens would actually rather to stay in Russia.....

....but I'd agree with you that they would never be given the opportunity to vote as such. Russia is a Federation, after all, and its impossible for individual states to secede from it..

comongethappy · 21-03-2014 1:03am

Eggy Baby! wrote: »

A rather bad example. The Chechens saw how their independence worked out after the first Chechen war ended when their country became the number one kidnap capital of the world and their government failed to stop the spread of jihadism throughout the country that caused widespread anarchy. I'd imagine that most Chechens would actually rather to stay in Russia.....

....but I'd agree with you that they would never be given the opportunity to vote as such. Russia is a Federation, after all, and its impossible for individual states to secede from it..

The merits & competencies of Chechen independence doesn't matter.

If its the will of a people to be free, who are we to judge?

Point is, there is no chance the Russian Perma-Prez allowing a referendum in any of federations republics.

Easy to join.
Impossible to leave

Sounds great.

alaimacerc · 21-03-2014 1:49am

View wrote: »

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

An uninteresting and disingenuous summary, that I'm at this point tired of repeatedly rebutting.

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

You seem to find it considerably preferable to argue against a cobbled together series of straw men than anything I've actually said. You might want to skip the parts where you try to make out I'm saying "ah sure, 'tis grand, the referendum is perfect in every way" -- the clue being me having expressly said otherwise.

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.

So you're in fact quite happy (in principle, under different circumstances, properly conducted and independently observed, etc, etc), with Crimean unilateral self-determination, and all the earlier banging on about the Ukrainian constitution, treaty obligations, and what-not being the determining factors were just giving us the ol' head fake, then?

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?

Your projection is a little lame. On the off-chance you're suffering from actual target confusion here: I'm the one saying that the (deep) flaws in the process are the flaws in the process. You're the person (at least earlier) arguing the exercise was inherently illegitimate, and repeatedly banging on about the flaws whenever the principle of self-determination was raised.

alaimacerc · 21-03-2014 2:02am

View wrote: »

What do you think was going to happen? All those "local" militia driving "local" military vehicles were going accept a No vote, apologise and go home?

If your concern is intimidation (or indeed outright fraud), then the matter of which options were on the ballot is at best trivial, and more plausibly entirely moot.

You're cycling through your laundry list of objections in a manner where whenever someone addresses one, you immediately transpose to the next, until in due course we're right back where we started. Doesn't seem to speak to your confidence in any of them, much less any actual rigour thereof.

alaimacerc · 21-03-2014 2:04am

Jonny7 wrote: »

Therefore the search for consistency will always inevitably lead to the discovery of examples of "hypocrisy" by major powers

Well, those things, and the actual hypocrisy of the major powers. (And the minor ones.)

alaimacerc · 21-03-2014 2:53am

View wrote: »

I am saying the option of allowing the parliament to vote you into Russia is to all intents and purpose identical to voting to join Russia directly. As there was no status quo option (to leave things as they are) this is a forced yes or yes choice.

Yes, we know you're saying this -- mainly because you say it a whole heckuva lot. This doesn't mean we have to believe it, or more importantly, that any given Crimean voter believed it (much less all of them). I don't even believe you believe they believe this, frankly.

A rational "wants to remain part of Ukraine" voter is going to either a) vote for the "remain part of the Ukraine" option, b) spoil their ballot (by for example not ticking either, or writing "this is a Muscovite stitch-up, none of the above!", etc), or c) boycott the entire exercise as illegitimate. It's difficult to add up the returns in any way to make those total more than 20%. Much less 50%. You're asking us to be believe that there's large numbers of people in category d) that think "well, though one option says 'remain part of Ukraine' and the other says 'become part of Russia', obviously the two are actually equivalent in every way, so I might as well be hung for a sheep as a lamb, and vote on the basis that if it were to be done, better it be done quickly". Ideally amounting to fully 30%+ of the electorate, if this is by itself to have any material bearing on the outcome as regards "which measure actually passes". Or better yet, 60%, since if they're randomly voting between the two "equivalent 'yes'" options, it'd be odd if they were all 'accidentally' voting for the 'Russian-themed' one, and more logical that half would be doing so.

I decline to so believe.

It is amazing how the Ukrainian Russians in the rest of Ukraine seem to lack this Crimean spontaneity - maybe it is the absence of armed militias on their streets that has that effect?

Let's first of all note the matter of the history of the borders. Sixty years ago parts of eastern Ukraine may have been majority ethnically Russian/Russian-speaking (though loss solidly so than Crimea), they were at least already part of the Ukraine SSR.

You might want to be careful about tempting fate, there. Do you think the situation would be improved by UDI or mob rule in Lenin Square in Donetsk? Or might you just be making a reckless rhetorical point, there? And I'm pretty sure that a calm, orderly, best-international-practice (or any other sort of) Kyiv-administered poll on the status thereof isn't exactly on offer there anytime soon.

Though what there does seem to be is a remarkable volte face on their approach to issues of regional autonomy, at least by the "non-ultra" components of the current right-wing coalition. Shame they didn't think of the "more flies with honey" approach in the first instance, as opposed to "throwing red meat to their 'base'."

First Up · 21-03-2014 8:56am

alaimacerc wrote: »

Well, those things, and the actual hypocrisy of the major powers. (And the minor ones.)

The core hypocrisy being that we can do whatever we want (in the name of freedom and democracy of course) but if anyone does something that we don't like - or if some people (e.g. Crimeans) are too silly to be trusted to vote the right way - then we will be sure to tell them what's good for them.

Maybe I should set up a Kosovo/Crimea Solidarity and Friendship Association. They have so much in common......(apart from their friends and enemies.)

Godge · 21-03-2014 10:03am

sdeire wrote: »

It's seen as illegitimate by Ukraine because their constitution says all of Ukraine must vote in such a referendum. To me, this is nonsense - if all the people in a given area want independence (or in this case, freedom to change affiliation) then they should have it.

If Northern Ireland wants independence from the UK to reunite with the South, a referendum is needed on both sides of the border.

recedite · 21-03-2014 10:50am

Jonny7 wrote: »

It's not just the fairy-stories - the economy in Crimea, tied with that in Ukraine is dreadful, many will see the union with Russia as a blessing, access to cheap gas, better jobs across the border - in the current economic atmosphere the grass appears to be much greener

But there's no way back from this. They can't potentially wake up with a hangover in several years tied to a economically and politically isolated power and decide they want to split

OK, so now you are saying they were foolish to vote for the "join Russia" option, because there is no way back.
But they knew that. They also knew wages and salaries would rise.
They decided it was worth the risk, and took the plunge. Their decision.

Earlier you were saying the vote was rigged, or illegal, or invalid etc..
That is not the same at all.

recedite · 21-03-2014 10:55am

Dannyboy83 wrote: »

This hopefully will be close enough, but it's not spot on, sorry.

You are for the restoration of Crimea with Russia as a legal subject of the Russian federation

("на правах субъекта" - "with the legal rights of" might be a better translation)

you are for the restoration of the Constitution of the Republic of Crimea in the year 1992 and for the status of Crimea as part of the Ukraine?

Thanks for that, its very helpful to cut through all the BS and go straight to the source.

I really can't see how anyone can say that is a "Yes and Yes" choice.

hatrickpatrick · 21-03-2014 11:12am

Godge wrote: »

If Northern Ireland wants independence from the UK to reunite with the South, a referendum is needed on both sides of the border.

That makes sense though, as the people of the country who the seceding territory wants to join have as much right to vote on whether they want to take on new territory.

Is a referendum required in Scotland, England and Wales as well if NI ways to secede? If so, that's undemocratic and BS. The referenda should concern the territory which wants to secede and, if applicable, the territory they want to join. Nobody should have the right to tell people they can't have independence though,

Dannyboy83 · 21-03-2014 12:03pm

recedite wrote: »

I really can't see how anyone can say that is a "Yes and Yes" choice.

OK, I think I can see why you're confused now.

Both options offer a change.
Neither option offers a continuation of the current state of affairs.

(The 2nd option sounds confusing because it says 'as part of Ukraine', but the key clause is, restoration of the 92 constitution, as part of Ukraine).

Let me give you an example here:

The Northern Irish receive a referendum
A) Join the UK

Become independent, but as part of the Irish nation (crucially, legally enabling the local government to then join UK)

There is no option C) Remain part of Ireland

First Up · 21-03-2014 12:19pm

Dannyboy83 wrote: »

OK, I think I can see why you're confused now.

Both options offer a change.
Neither option offers a continuation of the current state of affairs.

(The 2nd option sounds confusing because it says 'as part of Ukraine', but the key clause is, restoration of the 92 constitution, as part of Ukraine).

Let me give you an example here:

The Northern Irish receive a referendum
A) Join the UK
Become independent, but as part of the Irish nation (crucially, legally enabling the local government to then join UK)

There is no option C) Remain part of Ireland

That still doesn't explain why 83% of the electorate voted 96-4 to join Russia.

recedite · 21-03-2014 1:00pm

Under the 1992 constitution, they would have had the freedom to;
a) Remain as an autonomous region within Ukraine
b) Integrate with Ukraine (what you correctly call the current "status quo"while agreeing it has not been the status quo for very long)
c) Integrate with Russia

What makes you think "local govt." would go against the wishes of the people? To exercise either b) or c) above they would need to either have another referendum, or have a vote by elected representatives in the Parliament.
Some democratic countries such as Ireland, hold a lot of referendums. Others such as the UK, just go with their elected representatives.
But either way, its a democratic mandate.

Eggy Baby! · 21-03-2014 1:17pm

comongethappy wrote: »

The merits & competencies of Chechen independence doesn't matter.

They do. The lawless nature of Chechnya spilled over into Russia and that led to the second Chechen war...Chechen based jihadis actually invaded Dagestan (Russian territory)...what did you expect the Russians to do? Allow a lawless wahhabi state which hated them to exist on their doorstep and churn out suicide bombers at Moscow?

Additionally, there was no legal basis for Chechenya to secede because it was not an autonomous SSR within the USSR. It was a part of the RSFSR, unlike Ukraine or Belarus or whatever.

Notably, Crimea was a part of the RSFSR before it was transferred to the Ukrainian SSR (With no legal basis. This was a purely symbolic exchange to mark the 300th anniversary of the Treaty of Pereyaslav which bound Ukraine to Russia for many centuries) without the consent of the inhabitants. Again, like I've said before, Putin is reaping the seeds that the Soviet sowed...

Dannyboy83 · 21-03-2014 1:26pm

recedite wrote: »

Under the 1992 constitution, they would have had the freedom to;
a) Remain as an autonomous region within Ukraine
b) Integrate with Ukraine (what you correctly call the current "status quo"while agreeing it has not been the status quo for very long)
c) Integrate with Russia

That's not correct -

Option 2 on the ballot paper explicitly revokes Your First option a) Remain as an autonomous region within Ukraine

That is why the '92 constitution was replaced with the '95 and '98 constitution (as you pointed out)

In May 1994, the Crimean parliament voted to restore the May 1992 Constitution.

In September 1994 President of Crimea Yuriy Meshkov and parliament decided to write a new Constitution.[1]

On 17 March 1995 the Verkhovna Rada abolished the May 1992 Constitution (and the post of President of Crimea).

From June till September 1995 Ukrainian President Leonid Kuchma governed Crimea under a direct presidential administration decree.

In October 1995 the Crimean parliament adopted a new Constitution which was not recognized by the national (Ukrainian) authorities until April 1996 when significant amendments where suggested.

A fifth draft law of the October 1995 constitution was ratified on 21 October 1998 at the second session of the Crimean Verkhovna Rada (parliament).

The Verkhovna Rada confirmed this constitution on 23 December 1998.
(Article 135 of the Ukrainian Constitution provides that the Crimean Constitution must be approved by the Ukrainian parliament.[12])

It came/has been in effect (since) 12 January 1999.[1]

Now do you see where you're getting confused?

You're assuming that Option 2 offers membership of Ukraine under the 98 constitution (the status quo).
Unfortunately, it explicitly says part of the Ukraine under the 92 constitution.

1. Establish what the status quo is (98 Constitution as part of Ukraine)
2. Offer that as an option (no amendment)

First Up · 21-03-2014 2:15pm

Dannyboy83 wrote: »

That's not correct -

Option 2 on the ballot paper explicitly revokes Your First option a) Remain as an autonomous region within Ukraine

That is why the '92 constitution was replaced with the '95 and '98 constitution (as you pointed out)

Now do you see where you're getting confused?

You're assuming that Option 2 offers membership of Ukraine under the 98 constitution (the status quo).
Unfortunately, it explicitly says part of the Ukraine under the 92 constitution.

1. Establish what the status quo is (98 Constitution as part of Ukraine)
2. Offer that as an option (no amendment)

So how different would the result have been if the 98 constitutional position had been an option?

Dannyboy83 · 21-03-2014 2:27pm

First Up wrote: »

So how different would the result have been if the 98 constitutional position had been an option?

The end result would still have been the same in my opinion.
Just much closer.

Crimea would have rejoined Russia (and rightfully so imo)
But it would have been legal and democratic.
And if terrorists would start blowing up Crimea in future, Russia would have the moral high ground.

The world needs a strong and democratic Russia.
It's imperative.
Not just economically, but to maintain global peace.

They also have among the most beautiful languages, and a fantastic culture.
The rest of the world should know about it.

Instead, we're back to suspicion. Everybody loses.

First Up · 21-03-2014 2:44pm

Dannyboy83 wrote: »

The end result would still have been the same in my opinion.
Just much closer.

Crimea would have rejoined Russia (and rightfully so imo)
But it would have been legal and democratic.
And if terrorists would start blowing up Crimea in future, Russia would have the moral high ground.

The world needs a strong and democratic Russia.
It's imperative.
Not just economically, but to maintain global peace.

They also have among the most beautiful languages, and a fantastic culture.
The rest of the world should know about it.

Instead, we're back to suspicion. Everybody loses.

Marginally closer I'd say but we are agreed on the outcome.
For sure it could have been handled better, although no process that allowed Crimea decide it's future would have been acceptable to Kiev. Whether the "West" could have been brought on board is debatable- even if it could, the process would have taken months if not years and things on the ground would have been potentially nasty.
The Russian speakers in Crimea were never going to quietly accept the downgrading of their language and what that might lead to.
Ukraine is a very divided country and this is not helping. But like you I have sympathy for the Russian position and I find much of the western reaction deeply hypocritical.
It should be recognised that the people most affected - the Crimeans - seem to be the happiest of anybody. That should tell us something.
And I'm still waiting for someone who is condemning Crimea to also condemn what happened with Kosovo.

Dannyboy83 · 21-03-2014 3:01pm

First Up wrote: »

Marginally closer I'd say but we are agreed on the outcome.
For sure it could have been handled better, although no process that allowed Crimea decide it's future would have been acceptable to Kiev.

That's the thing.
I thing Kiev would have sold Crimea in a heartbeat, & the Russian economy would have benefited, not suffered.

Whether the "West" could have been brought on board is debatable

The West only had right to intervene when it became illegal and undemocratic.
Belgium and the little countries etc.

Otherwise the Monroe doctrine applies.
When the referendum was announced, I said the US should butt out, because I believed it would be democratic.
I didn't think Russia could lose, so I didn't believe they had any reason to rig this.

- even if it could, the process would have taken months if not years and things on the ground would have been potentially nasty.

Ukraine is screwed.
I think they would have agreed to sell the place in a matter of weeks

The Russian speakers in Crimea were never going to quietly accept the downgrading of their language and what that might lead to.

Or worse; potentially being made non-citizens, like in Latvia.

Ukraine is a very divided country and this is not helping. But like you I have sympathy for the Russian position and I find much of the western reaction deeply hypocritical.

Yep, that's why I'm disappointed in the Russians.
They are too absolute.

It's ok to criticize your country and your policies.
In fact, it's essential. That's how reform happens.

Edward Snowden is doing more to help reform the US than Obama.

Russia had a chance to show the West - "We can handle our own affairs - butt out".
Instead they walked themselves straight into an international incident.

It should be recognised that the people most affected - the Crimeans - seem to be the happiest of anybody. That should tell us something.

The Russians are thrilled certainly.
There are reports that the Tatars are being forcibly removed from their lands and Turkey is threatening to intervene if they are maltreated.

And I'm still waiting for someone who is condemning Crimea to also condemn what happened with Kosovo.

Kosovo isn't on my radar.
Those people have been killing each other for generations.
And will continue to.

Russia and Ukraine were blood brothers. It's a tragedy.

Godge · 21-03-2014 3:17pm

Eggy Baby! wrote: »

...what did you expect the Russians UK to do? Allow a lawless wahhabi Catholicstate which hated them to exist on their doorstep and churn out suicide bombers at MoscowLondon?

Amazing if you just change the locations.

That sentence could be used to justify internment and Bloody Sunday if it also justifies Russian intervention in Chechnya.

djpbarry · 21-03-2014 4:38pm

recedite wrote: »

I had to laugh when I saw the Sky news anchorman at the scene, muttering something along those lines. And in the background, a huge crowd of people dancing and celebrating. Maybe you think Putin has put something in the drinking water now that causes the people to go out and dance in the streets?

There were big crowds of drunken people in London dancing around the place on Paddy’s Day. Does that mean the whole of London is Irish?

djpbarry · 21-03-2014 4:38pm

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

Is a referendum required in Scotland, England and Wales as well if NI ways to secede? If so, that's undemocratic and BS. The referenda should concern the territory which wants to secede and, if applicable, the territory they want to join. Nobody should have the right to tell people they can't have independence though,

Suppose London wanted to become independent from the rest of the UK (we’ll ignore for a moment that in many ways, it already is). Should the rest of the UK not have their say on such a matter?

djpbarry · 21-03-2014 4:38pm

alaimacerc wrote: »

You seem to find it considerably preferable to argue against a cobbled together series of straw men than anything I've actually said.

…

So you're in fact quite happy (in principle, under different circumstances, properly conducted and independently observed, etc, etc), with Crimean unilateral self-determination….

Who has objected to Crimean self-determination in principle?

And you’re accusing others of constructing straw men?

djpbarry · 21-03-2014 4:39pm

First Up wrote: »

I don't think that can be open ended - it would be a recipe for chaos in many places, as minorities endlessly sought their own patch. However some cases are stronger than others. Ukraine's claim on Crimea is one of the weaker ones knocking around...

Claiming a region to be part of your country because, well, it’s part of your country, is somehow a weak claim?

First Up wrote: »

That still doesn't explain why 83% of the electorate voted 96-4 to join Russia.

Well, I can certainly think of one scenario that explains why “official” figures show virtually every single Russian in Crimea not only voted, but voted for the same option on the ballot paper.

I’m genuinely amazed that several posters are trying to argue that there is nothing in any way suspicious about the referendum result.

Jonny7 · 21-03-2014 4:50pm

recedite wrote: »

OK, so now you are saying they were foolish to vote for the "join Russia" option, because there is no way back.
But they knew that. They also knew wages and salaries would rise.
They decided it was worth the risk, and took the plunge. Their decision.

I pointed out the potential benefits and drawbacks.

They didn't take any decision.

If Svodoba pushed for a vote in Kiev in 2 weeks, with their own "observers", their members operating, running and recording the vote - it wouldn't be a real election/vote either, we both know that

First Up · 21-03-2014 5:20pm

Jonny7 wrote: »

I pointed out the potential benefits and drawbacks.

They didn't take any decision.

If Svodoba pushed for a vote in Kiev in 2 weeks, with their own "observers", their members operating, running and recording the vote - it wouldn't be a real election/vote either, we both know that

Of course they took a decision. You just don't like the way it was done, or what they decided. Pretending that the pro Russian sentiments of the great majority of Crimeans (Russian and Ukrainian) are not an obvious and frequently expressed reality is just nonsense. The other day you were quoting the ridiculous 123% voter thing, even though it was already clearly explained and acknowledged as just a mistake by a news agency and not something ever claimed by the Crimean authorities.
If you want to argue, please find something more sensible to base it on.

Jonny7 · 21-03-2014 5:48pm

First Up wrote: »

Of course they took a decision. You just don't like the way it was done, or what they decided.

They didn't take any decision - the referendum is not generally viewed as valid

We all know it's highly possible a majority of people in Crimea would like a union with Russia, how big or small that majority is? we have no idea. It could even be a minority as projected in previous survey's in 2013 and 2011

I don't have an issue with the people of Crimea having a genuine referendum to join the country - I do have a problem with a false/dubious referendum under those conditions

I'm not the only one, virtually the entire international community does

Pretending that the pro Russian sentiments of the great majority of Crimeans (Russian and Ukrainian) are not an obvious and frequently expressed reality is just nonsense.

Which isn't my position - I am interested in the truth, not a false referendum

The other day you were quoting the ridiculous 123% voter thing

No I wasn't that was another poster

, even though it was already clearly explained and acknowledged as just a mistake by a news agency and not something ever claimed by the Crimean authorities.
If you want to argue, please find something more sensible to base it on.

As above

First Up · 21-03-2014 6:06pm

Jonny7 wrote: »

They didn't take any decision - the referendum is not generally viewed as valid

We all know it's highly possible a majority of people in Crimea would like a union with Russia, how big or small that majority is? we have no idea. It could even be a minority as projected in previous survey's in 2013 and 2011

I don't have an issue with the people of Crimea having a genuine referendum to join the country - I do have a problem with a false/dubious referendum under those conditions

I'm not the only one, virtually the entire international community does

Which isn't my position - I am interested in the truth, not a false referendum

No I wasn't that was another poster

As above

OK - you are absolved on the 123%

Opinion polls are not referenda and the ones you mention weren't conducted after the Russian language had been downgraded, or the president they elected run out of town. Two opinion polls running up to last week's vote showed huge majorities voting yes.

But it's good that you favour a "legitimate" referendum. Do you think that Kiev might agree?

Jonny7 · 21-03-2014 6:25pm

Polls can produce wild results, especially based on emotive conditions and other factors - as evidenced in Crimea - the swing is as much as 40% or 50% in the space of one year

On paper, and internationally, Crimea is still an autonomous part of Ukraine - in reality, it's Russian

Ukraine has no choice but to accept, I highly doubt any sane people in that country want to go down the Georgian route

First Up · 21-03-2014 6:59pm

Jonny7 wrote: »

Polls can produce wild results, especially based on emotive conditions and other factors - as evidenced in Crimea - the swing is as much as 40% or 50% in the space of one year

On paper, and internationally, Crimea is still an autonomous part of Ukraine - in reality, it's Russian

Ukraine has no choice but to accept, I highly doubt any sane people in that country want to go down the Georgian route

Well a poll in 2008 showed 65% support for joining (sorry - re-joining) Russia but the one that mattered was last week's.

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

Comments