Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Hi all! We have been experiencing an issue on site where threads have been missing the latest postings. The platform host Vanilla are working on this issue. A workaround that has been used by some is to navigate back from 1 to 10+ pages to re-sync the thread and this will then show the latest posts. Thanks, Mike.
Hi there,
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest

Claim: 'Kyiv is the mother of all Russian Cities'

12357…22

Comments

  • #202
    wretcheddomain
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,094 ✭✭✭wretcheddomain


    recedite wrote: »
    Maybe you missed the philosophical discussion on the "legality" of secession and declarations of independence earlier in the thread.
    Basically my position is that a state should be ruled with the consent of the people, and if a significant number of them want out, then that is their inalienable right.

    Define significant number.


  • #203
    recedite
    Closed Accounts Posts: 13,992 ✭✭✭✭recedite


    Good question. There is no definition. It realpolitik, support or not depends on what the strategic interests of the major powers are.


  • #204
    robindch
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 24,420 Mod ✭✭✭✭robindch


    recedite wrote: »
    There is no definition.
    But in principle, you're happy for anybody who wants to secede from a country to be able to do so without consulting with, or securing the agreement of, anybody else in the country?


  • #205
    old hippy
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 9,441 ✭✭✭old hippy


    jimeryan22 wrote: »
    http://bpc-world.co.uk

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/10390607/Can-we-still-trust-the-BBC.html

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2537886/BBCs-six-year-cover-secret-green-propaganda-training-executives.html


    Yeah sorry you's both must be right and of course people are just "conspiracy theorists"... Hahaha. Yeah right
    (Hope sources are ok for you's this time)

    These sites are anti-BBC, the Mail & Telegraph are well known for their opposition to the BBC. Where is the state run propaganda you keep laughing about???


  • #206
    recedite
    Closed Accounts Posts: 13,992 ✭✭✭✭recedite


    For me personally, it would have to be an area bigger than a county and around the size of a province at the minimum, with a population big enough to sustain its own political structures and economy. Like Iceland. But that's just me; there is no internationally accepted norm for secession because in real life having weapons or friends in high places is what counts.


  • #207
    stevejazzx
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,247 ✭✭✭stevejazzx


    robindch wrote: »
    But in principle, you're happy for anybody who wants to secede from a country to be able to do so without consulting with, or securing the agreement of, anybody else in the country?

    You can make a better argument for it here
    After the 1991 vote, (despite the fall, Crimean essentially had autonomy over it's own land) and not to forget that roughly 60% of the indigenous population are essentially, native Russian.
    article wrote:

    History[edit]
    During the period of the Soviet Union, the Crimean Oblast was a subdivision of the Russian Soviet Federative Socialist Republic until the 1954 transfer of Crimea into the Ukrainian SSR. Crimea became part of independent Ukraine after the dissolution of the Soviet Union, shortly after Crimea had re-gained its autonomy following a 1991 referendum.[28] Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine abolished the 1992 Crimean Constitution[29] and the office of President of Crimea in 1995.[30] Crimea gained a new constitution in 1998 that granted less autonomy; notably, any legislation passed by the Crimean parliament could be vetoed by the Ukrainian parliament.[28]

    Polling[edit]
    Polling by the Razumkov Centre in 2008 found that a majority of Crimeans would like Crimea to secede from Ukraine and join Russia (63.8%), and at the same time to preserve its current status, but with expanded powers and rights (53.8%). Razumkov characterized Crimeans' views as confused, unsteady, and sometimes contradictory and therefore vulnerable to internal and external influences.[31] Polling conducted by the Kyiv International Institute of Sociology (KIIS) in 2013 found that 36% of respondents in the Autonomous Republic of Crimea wanted Ukraine to unite with Russia. A poll by the International Republican Institute in May 2013 found that 67% wanted to remain in Ukraine and 23% wanted unity with Russia.[32] By early February 2014, just days before the ousting of Viktor Yanukovych, a subsequent KIIS poll showed a 41% support for unification of the entire Ukraine with Russia.[33]

    In the days leading up to the referendum, one poll conducted by the German GfK Group found that 70% of Crimeans who intended to participate in the referendum planned to vote to join Russia, while 11% planned to vote to remain part of Ukraine.[34] A poll conducted by the Institute for European Policy Studies found that 80% were in favor of reunification with Russia,[35] while another conducted by the Crimean Institute of Political and Social Research found that 77% were in favour of reunification, and 97% assessed the current situation in Ukraine as negative.[36]


  • #208
    marienbad
    Registered Users Posts: 9,463 ✭✭✭marienbad


    recedite wrote: »
    I would not be so sure of that. If you stop to think where the wealth is actually generated, as opposed to where the most profits are accounted to, you might find that a lot of Dublin's wealth is either parasitic or interdependent.
    If a farmer produces x quantity of kerrygold butter per year, and is paying interest on his farm machinery to a bank headquartered in Dublin, and the butter is exported by Dublin based transport and marketing people, then who is really generating all that wealth? Revenue accountants will record that most of the income is earned in Dublin.

    But nevertheless if they voted to break away would you be ok with that ?


  • #209
    oscarBravo
    Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 28,820 Mod ✭✭✭✭oscarBravo


    recedite wrote: »
    For me personally, it would have to be an area bigger than a county and around the size of a province at the minimum, with a population big enough to sustain its own political structures and economy. Like Iceland. But that's just me; there is no internationally accepted norm for secession because in real life having weapons or friends in high places is what counts.

    It's interesting how you avoid, over and over again, the question of whether those of us outside Dublin should have any say over whether or not Dublin gets to secede from Ireland.


  • #210
    jimeryan22
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 2,170 ✭✭✭jimeryan22


    old hippy wrote: »
    These sites are anti-BBC, the Mail & Telegraph are well known for their opposition to the BBC. Where is the state run propaganda you keep laughing about???

    What are you talking about anti bbc..? Hahaha. Such ****e talk, the first one yeah, but really..,? The independent and telegraph..? Cop on


  • Advertisement
  • #211
    jimeryan22
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 2,170 ✭✭✭jimeryan22


    ninja900 wrote: »
    Eh, no.

    Which ones have ever turned out to be true?


    A little selection for you emu..

    http://www.trueactivist.com/16-conspiracy-theories-that-turned-out-to-be-true/

    http://styleslides.com/25-conspiracy-theories-that-turned-out-to-be-true/3/

    http://www.businessinsider.com/true-government-conspiracies-2013-12


  • #212
    robindch
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 24,420 Mod ✭✭✭✭robindch


    stevejazzx wrote: »
    not to forget that roughly 60% of the indigenous population are essentially, native Russian.
    They're not "essentially, native Russian" - the majority are Ukrainian passport holders, which makes them, in international law, Ukrainians. The ones with Russian passports are Russians. The ones with dual citizenship are, when in Ukraine, counted as Ukrainians, and when in Russia, as Russians (both countries prohibit dual-citizenship which doesn't seem to have worried them); when they're in any other country, they can pick their citizenship as they wish.

    The Russian-speakers are certainly not "compatriots" as the dreadful white-washy Kremlin propaganda has them. That word is used to legitimize the invasion and it's about as convincing as calling Irish-passport holders English because we speak English.

    Nationality is defined by citizenship which is demonstrated by passport or other national identification documentation. That's how international law and international precedent works. If Russian passport holders wish to live in Russia, well, there's plenty of room for them to live there.

    What Russia does not have an option to do is to invade, then hold a rigged election, then annex the place, then destabilize the rest of the country on a manifestly false pretext -- you haven't addressed any of these aggressive actions yet.


  • #213
    robindch
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 24,420 Mod ✭✭✭✭robindch


    jimeryan22 wrote: »
    What are you talking about anti bbc..? Hahaha. Such ****e talk, the first one yeah, but really..,? The independent and telegraph..? Cop on
    "Cop on"? Jim, A+A is a discussion board which tries hard to stick to a reasonably high standard of debate. That means (a) you've to be polite with people who disagree with you and (b) you've to debate, and not just provide a string of links to one day-glo paranoid conspiracy website after another.

    Before you post again, I'd appreciate if you could read the forum charter.

    Thankin' youze.


  • #214
    Brian Shanahan
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,232 ✭✭✭Brian Shanahan


    stevejazzx wrote: »
    You can make a better argument for it here
    After the 1991 vote, (despite the fall, Crimean essentially had autonomy over it's own land) and not to forget that roughly 60% of the indigenous population are essentially, native Russian.

    Just to show how much horse**** the article you quoted is, please read this. I'd trust George Gallup to be unbiased and correct far sooner than I'd trust Putin's mass-murdering neo-Nazi dictatorship.


  • #215
    recedite
    Closed Accounts Posts: 13,992 ✭✭✭✭recedite


    oscarBravo wrote: »
    It's interesting how you avoid, over and over again, the question of whether those of us outside Dublin should have any say over whether or not Dublin gets to secede from Ireland.
    On the contrary, I gave a detailed answer; Dublin is too small, the minimum size would be a province. If Leinster wanted to secede, the other provinces should not have a say (ie veto)


  • #216
    robindch
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 24,420 Mod ✭✭✭✭robindch


    recedite wrote: »
    On the contrary, I gave a detailed answer; Dublin is too small, the minimum size would be a province. If Leinster wanted to secede, the other provinces should not have a say (ie veto)
    Well, conceding briefly for the sake of argument, the meaningless "minimum size would be a province" phrase...

    What about property and other rights? Say, I live in Cork, but have a house and factory in Dublin. Then Leinster secedes then passes a law that property in Dublin can only belong to "ethnic Dubliners" and anything that isn't defaults to the state of Leinster. So I lose my house and factory without any say in the matter.

    That would be fair according to your rules. Is it?


  • Advertisement
  • #217
    recedite
    Closed Accounts Posts: 13,992 ✭✭✭✭recedite


    Brian Shanahan wrote: »
    Just to show how much horse**** the article you quoted is, please read this. I'd trust George Gallup to be unbiased and correct far sooner than I'd trust Putin's mass-murdering neo-Nazi dictatorship.
    Eh.. your post is so wrong its hard to know where to start, but...

    1. That "horse****" is Wikipedia, not the writings of Putin the neo-nazi.

    2.Putin is not a neo-nazi. There are however neo-nazis in the Svoboda party which is in government in Ukraine.
    One prominent party member even gave an interview in early May 2013 to the NPD publication Deutsche Stimme. In an interview conducted by senior NPD member Jens Pühse, Ternopol Mayor Sergei Nadal was asked why Svoboda supports the recognition of descendants of former members of the Ukrainian 14th Division of the Waffen SS as national heroes. "These Ukrainian heroes must be honored irrespective of what has been written about them in the history books of those peoples who were once our enemies," Nadal answered.
    source


    3.You proudly link to an article from "The International Republican Institute"
    which appears to be the voice of Dick Cheney :pac: and his fellow advocates for "regime change" around the world.
    I quote from their website;
    First, IRI works in countries important to U.S. interests, where we can make a difference.
    Second, IRI focuses on three tasks: helping political parties broaden their appeal, ensuring that they rule justly once elected and aiding civil society in guaranteeing democratic governance.
    Third, IRI can help catalyze the efforts of democratic activists in a country – so long as they want change more than we want it for them.
    In other words, exactly the kind of people who were in Kiev stirring things up,and flashing the cash to recruit "activists".


  • #218
    stevejazzx
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,247 ✭✭✭stevejazzx


    Brian Shanahan wrote: »
    Just to show how much horse**** the article you quoted is, please read this. I'd trust George Gallup to be unbiased and correct far sooner than I'd trust Putin's mass-murdering neo-Nazi dictatorship.

    Hi Brian,
    To which article do you refer?
    I referenced a referendum in 1991? and quoted a segment from Wikipedia on it.
    The Crimean vote was overwhelmingly re-establish the Crimean Autonomous Soviet Socialist Republic


    If I have quoted any article that is somehow affiliated with or a mouthpiece for...
    Brian Shanahan wrote:
    Putin's mass-murdering neo-Nazi dictatorship

    ..please point out to me and indeed the people who may be reading this discussion as that's the impression you gave in your last post.

    Thanks,

    Steve


    P.S The Gallup poll to which you refer included 1200 people across a population of 52 million carried out in a time of conflict.
    Considering that a poll carried out at a time like this is even accurate it represents just

    0.0023076923076923075% of the people.




    .


  • #219
    recedite
    Closed Accounts Posts: 13,992 ✭✭✭✭recedite


    robindch wrote: »
    Well, conceding briefly for the sake of argument, the meaningless "minimum size would be a province" phrase...

    What about property and other rights? Say, I live in Cork, but have a house and factory in Dublin. Then Leinster secedes then passes a law that property in Dublin can only belong to "ethnic Dubliners" and anything that isn't defaults to the state of Leinster. So I lose my house and factory without any say in the matter.
    That would be fair according to your rules. Is it?
    No that would not be a fair law. That would be setting Leinster up as some kind of apartheid kleptocracy, which is not at all a characteristic of Leinster. I know there are a few skangers, but most are decent folk.
    Lots of countries have an equivalent to a province; Ukraine for example has its "oblasts".


  • #220
    marienbad
    Registered Users Posts: 9,463 ✭✭✭marienbad


    recedite wrote: »
    On the contrary, I gave a detailed answer; Dublin is too small, the minimum size would be a province. If Leinster wanted to secede, the other provinces should not have a say (ie veto)

    Let me get this straight .Are you saying that Leinster has a right to secede based only on a vote from Leinster residents and the rest of the country having no say in the matter ?


  • #221
    recedite
    Closed Accounts Posts: 13,992 ✭✭✭✭recedite


    marienbad wrote: »
    Let me get this straight .Are you saying that Leinster has a right to secede based only on a vote from Leinster residents and the rest of the country having no say in the matter ?
    Yes. If I want to leave a club* I don't ask the other members whether I'm allowed to.

    * The Mafia, The RCC and the IRA being exceptions; you can never leave those clubs ;)


  • Advertisement
  • #222
    robindch
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 24,420 Mod ✭✭✭✭robindch


    recedite wrote: »
    No that would not be a fair law.
    But I thought you approved of people determining their own future? If Leinster passes a law to protect Leinster people by stealing things from Corkonians, then that's self-determination, isn't it?

    Granted, the example doesn't allow somebody from Cork to determine their future in Dublin, but why should people in Dublin care about that under your rules?


  • #223
    robindch
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 24,420 Mod ✭✭✭✭robindch


    recedite wrote: »
    Yes. If I want to leave a club* I don't ask the other members whether I'm allowed to.
    A dreadful analogy.

    One has the right to resign from whatever club one belongs to. But one does not have a right to fill the clubhouse with friends, hold a rigged referendum, then annex the clubhouse against the wishes of the other members.


  • #224
    recedite
    Closed Accounts Posts: 13,992 ✭✭✭✭recedite


    robindch wrote: »
    If Leinster passes a law to protect Leinster people by stealing things from Corkonians, then that's self-determination, isn't it?
    It would be he same as if Ireland passed a law to seize all property in Ireland owned by British or Dutch citizens, and then expelled them. Unlikely, unfair and unwise.


  • #225
    recedite
    Closed Accounts Posts: 13,992 ✭✭✭✭recedite


    robindch wrote: »
    fill the clubhouse with friends, hold a rigged referendum,
    There you go again with your unfounded allegations. See Steves post a little bit back where he quotes several polls held in Crimea over the years, consistently showing support for secession.
    Anyway, if the clubhouse is already "filled with friends" why bother "rigging the vote"? Make your mind up.


  • #226
    marienbad
    Registered Users Posts: 9,463 ✭✭✭marienbad


    recedite wrote: »
    Yes. If I want to leave a club* I don't ask the other members whether I'm allowed to.

    * The Mafia, The RCC and the IRA being exceptions; you can never leave those clubs ;)

    Well if you truly believe that Leinster can secede as outlined then any discussion with you is pointless.

    I have read a lot of ridiculous outlandish post on boards, probably even posted a few myself , but this is without question the most stupid of the lot.


  • #227
    jimeryan22
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 2,170 ✭✭✭jimeryan22


    robindch wrote: »
    "Cop on"? Jim, A+A is a discussion board which tries hard to stick to a reasonably high standard of debate. That means (a) you've to be polite with people who disagree with you and (b) you've to debate, and not just provide a string of links to one day-glo paranoid conspiracy website after another.

    Before you post again, I'd appreciate if you could read the forum charter.

    Thankin' youze.

    You want to read your own posts before you start talking nonsense, You can't have it both ways.. You say I'm basically rude to say cop on, but yet, you call what you replied to mine polite... Do you...? To just keep saying I'm posting conspiracy theory websites..? That's not very polite is it... Don't forget buddy, that's YOUR opinion...
    And I've read the rules thanks...


  • #228
    Hotblack Desiato
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 35,465 ✭✭✭✭Hotblack Desiato


    recedite wrote: »
    If a farmer produces x quantity of kerrygold butter per year, and is paying interest on his farm machinery to a bank headquartered in Dublin, and the butter is exported by Dublin based transport and marketing people, then who is really generating all that wealth? Revenue accountants will record that most of the income is earned in Dublin.

    I wouldn't be so sure. Kerry Group, for one, is headquartered in Listowel. Back when Quinn Group was a thing, it wasn't headquartered in Dublin either IIRC.

    jimeryan22 wrote: »
    A little selection for you emu..

    Who's emu?

    http://www.trueactivist.com/16-conspiracy-theories-that-turned-out-to-be-true/

    http://styleslides.com/25-conspiracy-theories-that-turned-out-to-be-true/3/

    http://www.businessinsider.com/true-government-conspiracies-2013-12

    Yeah yeah yeah. Governments doing stuff that's secret isn't a conspiracy in the post-internet sense of the word, every government does stuff in secret. By conspiracy I mean the theories which conspiracy theorists are fond of.

    Scrap the cap!



  • #229
    Turtwig
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 26,578 ✭✭✭✭Turtwig


    On the subject of media there is an interesting anthropology study somewhere that showed that people from different cultures had in general different attitudes to stuff that was published. For example, at time of the Danish Mohammed cartoons controversy part of the outrage was indirectly fuelled by the people in some nations believing that state government has full control over everything that is published. Effectively, they could not fathom the idea of a newspaper publishing content independent of state control. They believed it was the Danish State attacking Islam. Really interesting!

    Now, the relevance of this? None! This is thread about Mother Russia not corrupt nature BBC or conspiracy stuff. Please try keep relevant to topic on your hand. If really need nature of BBC discussed, then we can perhaps do it in other thread? Forum charter rules still apply and if thread is more appropriate for CT forum it will be moved there.


  • #230
    robindch
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 24,420 Mod ✭✭✭✭robindch


    recedite wrote: »
    There you go again with your unfounded allegations. See Steves post a little bit back where he quotes several polls held in Crimea over the years, consistently showing support for secession.
    And I quoted at least one poll which showed there wasn't.
    recedite wrote: »
    Anyway, if the clubhouse is already "filled with friends" why bother "rigging the /vote"? Make your mind up.
    Uh, filling the clubhouse with your friends is one of the ways of "rigging the vote". The BBC reported that, in the absence of any voting roll, voting officers accepted, for example, a Russian passport as evidence of identity. And CNN reported that Russian soldiers were seen voting. I appreciate the Russian's interest in extending freedom and democracy, but it is a little unfair to allow Russians to vote, even in an event as preposterous as the Crimean joke-referendum.

    BTW, do you want to address the important bit of this debate -- the invasion and annexation of this country and Putin's blind indifference to international law?

    Finally, I just saw this one on VOR a short while ago. Remember Russian claims that there were no Russian army roaming about Crimea before it annexed the province? Well, here's Putin (a) congratulating his troops on bravely resisting provocations to help ensure a fair referendum and (b) talking about how he'll make Crimea a wonderful place to live (only joking, he's just talking about army, navy and police!)


  • #231
    oscarBravo
    Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 28,820 Mod ✭✭✭✭oscarBravo


    recedite wrote: »
    On the contrary, I gave a detailed answer; Dublin is too small, the minimum size would be a province. If Leinster wanted to secede, the other provinces should not have a say (ie veto)

    Fair enough. I think it's a demented worldview, but at least you're consistent (if extremely arbitrary) about it.


  • Advertisement
  • #232
    robindch
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 24,420 Mod ✭✭✭✭robindch


    Jernal wrote: »
    [...] people in some nations believing that state government has full control over everything that is published. Effectively, they could not fathom the idea of a newspaper publishing content independent of state control. They believed it was the Danish State attacking Islam.
    People in countries where the state does control the media have a hard time getting their heads around the idea that many countries value the independence of the media to the extent of referring to it as the Fourth Estate, following the nobility, the clergy and the commons.

    Public-service broadcasters like the BBC -- taxpayer-funded, but controlled by an independent board -- seem to be especially incomprehensible to people familiar only with state-controlled media outlets.


  • #233
    recedite
    Closed Accounts Posts: 13,992 ✭✭✭✭recedite


    robindch wrote: »
    Remember Russian claims that there were no Russian army roaming about Crimea before it annexed the province? Well, here's Putin (a) congratulating his troops on bravely resisting provocations to help ensure a fair referendum...
    Interesting piece, its basically what I was saying before; the "troops without insignia" and the rest of the 25,000 army and navy personnel which have always been stationed in Crimean bases did a good job at either keeping a low profile, or keeping the various armed factions separated and quite possibly preventing a civil war.
    oscarBravo wrote: »
    Fair enough. I think it's a demented worldview, but at least you're consistent (if extremely arbitrary) about it.
    I am the only one sticking my neck out to give a tentative but universal definition of what kind of territory should be allowed to secede and what should not, while everyone else is saying "well it depends on who is asking for secession, and whether we like their sponsors or not. Kosovo good, Crimea bad".
    In other words, my approach is the opposite to arbitrariness.


  • #234
    recedite
    Closed Accounts Posts: 13,992 ✭✭✭✭recedite


    Putin has written a letter to EU leaders outlining what he believes will happen with the gas, if Ukraine continues to take gas without paying for it. He reckons that after Ukraine is put on a pre-pay option, someone will have to stump up the gas money. And if nobody does, Ukraine will get cut off. And if that happens, they will most likely "syphon off" the gas being sent to Germany and EU under other contracts, which is something they have done before. As 50% of Russian gas destined for EU transits through Ukraine, its going to be a major problem for Angela Merkel if a lot of it gets "robbed" before it reaches the end of the pipeline.

    Putin reckons Russia has subsidised Ukraine to the tune of US$ 35billion over the last few years, and its time for the EU to put up or shut up.
    Vlad wrote:
    Ukraine's economy in the past several months has been plummeting. Its industrial and construction sectors have also been declining sharply. Its budget deficit is mounting. The condition of its currency system is becoming more and more deplorable. The negative trade balance is accompanied by the flight of capital from the country. Ukraine's economy is steadfastly heading towards a default, a halt in production and skyrocketing unemployment.
    Russia and the EU member states are Ukraine's major trading partners. Proceeding from this, at the Russia-EU Summit at the end of January, we came to an agreement with our European partners to hold consultations on the subject of developing Ukraine's economy, bearing in mind the interests of Ukraine and our countries while forming integration alliances with Ukraine's participation. However, all attempts on Russia's part to begin real consultations failed to produce any results.
    Instead of consultations, we hear appeals to lower contractual prices on Russian natural gas - prices which are allegedly of a "political" nature. One gets the impression that the European partners want to unilaterally blame Russia for the consequences of Ukraine's economic crisis.
    Right from day one of Ukraine's existence as an independent state, Russia has supported the stability of the Ukrainian economy by supplying it with natural gas at cut-rate prices. In January 2009, with the participation of the then-premier Yulia Tymoshenko, a purchase-and-sale contract on supplying natural gas for the period of 2009-2019 was signed. That contract regulated questions concerning the delivery of and payment for the product, and it also provided guarantees for its uninterrupted transit through the territory of Ukraine. What is more, Russia has been fulfilling the contract according to the letter and spirit of the document. Incidentally, Ukrainian Minister of Fuel and Energy at that time was Yury Prodan, who today holds a similar post in Kiev's government.
    The total volume of natural gas delivered to Ukraine as was stipulated in that contract during the period of 2009-2014 (first quarter) stands at 147.2 billion cubic meters. Here, I would like to emphasize that the price formula that had been set down in the contract had NOT been altered since that moment. And Ukraine, right up till August 2013, made regular payments for the natural gas in accordance with that formula.
    However, the fact that after signing that contract, Russia granted Ukraine a whole string of unprecedented privileges and discounts on the price of natural gas is quite another matter.
    This applies to the discount stemming from the 2010 Kharkov Agreement, which was provided as advance payment for the future lease payments for the presence of the Black Sea Fleet after 2017. This also refers to discounts on the prices for natural gas purchased by Ukraine's chemical companies. This also concerns the discount granted in December 2013 for the duration of three months due to the critical state of Ukraine's economy.
    Beginning with 2009, the sum total of these discounts stands at 17 billion US dollars. To this, we should add another 18.4 billion US dollars incurred by the Ukrainian side as a minimal take-or-pay fine.
    In this manner, during the past four years Russia has been subsidizing Ukraine's economy by offering slashed natural gas prices worth 35.4 billion US dollars. In addition, in December 2013, Russia granted Ukraine a loan of 3 billion US dollars. These very significant sums were directed towards maintaining the stability and creditability of the Ukrainian economy and preservation of jobs. No other country provided such support except Russia.
    What about the European partners? Instead of offering Ukraine real support, there is talk about a declaration of intent. There are only promises that are not backed up by any real actions. The European Union is using Ukraine's economy as a source of raw foodstuffs, metal and mineral resources, and at the same time, as a market for selling its highly-processed ready-made commodities (machine engineering and chemicals), thereby creating a deficit in Ukraine's trade balance amounting to more than 10 billion US dollars. This comes to almost two-thirds of Ukraine's overall deficit for 2013.
    To a large extent, the crisis in Ukraine's economy has been precipitated by the unbalanced trade with the EU member states, and this, in turn has had a sharply negative impact on Ukraine's fulfillment of its contractual obligations to pay for deliveries of natural gas supplied by Russia. Gazprom has no intentions except for those stipulated in the 2009 contract, nor does it plan to set any additional conditions. This also concerns the contractual price for natural gas, which is calculated in strict accordance with the agreed formula. However, Russia cannot and should not unilaterally bear the burden of supporting Ukraine's economy by way of providing discounts and forgiving debts, and in fact, using these subsidies to cover Ukraine's deficit in its trade with the EU member states.
    The debt of NAK Naftogaz Ukraine for delivered gas has been growing monthly this year. In November-December 2013 this debt stood at 1.4515 billion US dollars; in February 2014 it increased by a further 260.3 million and in March by another 526.1 million US dollars. Here I would like to draw your attention to the fact that in March there was still a discount price applied, i.e., 268.5 US dollars per 1,000 cubic meters of gas. And even at that price, Ukraine did not pay a single dollar.
    In such conditions, in accordance with Articles 5.15, 5.8 and 5.3 of the contract, Gazprom is compelled to switch over to advance payment for gas deliveries, and in the event of further violation of the conditions of payment, will completely or partially cease gas deliveries. In other words, only the volume of natural gas will be delivered to Ukraine as was paid for one month in advance of delivery.
    Undoubtedly, this is an extreme measure. We fully realize that this increases the risk of siphoning off natural gas passing through Ukraine's territory and heading to European consumers. We also realize that this may make it difficult for Ukraine to accumulate sufficient gas reserves for use in the autumn and winter period. In order to guarantee uninterrupted transit, it will be necessary, in the nearest future, to supply 11.5 billion cubic meters of gas that will be pumped into Ukraine's underground storage facilities, and this will require a payment of about 5 billion US dollars.
    However, the fact that our European partners have unilaterally withdrawn from the concerted efforts to resolve the Ukrainian crisis, and even from holding consultations with the Russian side, leaves Russia no alternative.
    There can be only one way out of the situation that has developed. We believe it is vital to hold, without delay, consultations at the level of ministers of economics, finances and energy in order to work out concerted actions to stabilize Ukraine's economy and to ensure delivery and transit of Russian natural gas in accordance with the terms and conditions set down in the contract. We must lose no time in beginning to coordinate concrete steps. It is towards this end that we appeal to our European partners.
    It goes without saying that Russia is prepared to participate in the effort to stabilize and restore Ukraine's economy. However, not in a unilateral way, but on equal conditions with our European partners. It is also essential to take into account the actual investments, contributions and expenditures that Russia has shouldered by itself alone for such a long time in supporting Ukraine. As we see it, only such an approach would be fair and balanced, and only such an approach can lead to success.
    source


  • #235
    recedite
    Closed Accounts Posts: 13,992 ✭✭✭✭recedite


    robindch wrote: »
    Well, here's Putin (a) congratulating his troops on bravely resisting provocations to help ensure a fair referendum and (b) talking about how he'll make Crimea a wonderful place to live (only joking, he's just talking about army, navy and police!)
    BTW did you spot that bit in the article saying that the pay rates for Crimean military and other workers in the Crimean bases is to rise by 400%?
    That is a major boost to the Crimean economy.
    The prospect of a 400% pay rise would certainly have got me down to the polling booth pretty quickly.
    Compare and contrast with Kosovo Afghanistan and Iraq, where regime change brought only death and destruction.
    "We need to make the most use of the professionals who served in the Ukrainian bases in Crimea, who worked in law-enforcement and other special agencies and were fulfilling their duty with dignity, and made a personal decision to serve Russia," the president said at a ceremony introducing to him top officers on the occasion of new appointments and the awarding of ranks.

    "They will retain their military rank and service record and have their school diplomas recognized," Putin said.

    "The pay and social status (of the military servicemen) will be brought in line with Russian legislation," the president said. "Currently, our (military) pay is about four times that of Ukraine,"


  • #236
    stevejazzx
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,247 ✭✭✭stevejazzx


    robindch wrote: »
    They're not "essentially, native Russian" - the majority are Ukrainian passport holders, which makes them, in international law, Ukrainians. The ones with Russian passports are Russians. The ones with dual citizenship are, when in Ukraine, counted as Ukrainians, and when in Russia, as Russians (both countries prohibit dual-citizenship which doesn't seem to have worried them); when they're in any other country, they can pick their citizenship as they wish.

    Honestly Robin, this is getting a little silly.
    The Country belonged to Russia for 164 years before Khrushchev gave it to Ukraine for essentially administrative proposes. Ukraine at the time still very much managed entirely from Moscow.
    The Russian population there is dominant. Russians listed as people giving Russian as their native language. The last census shows 57% native Russian

    Distribution_of_ethnic_groups_in_Crimea_2001.png

    The Russian-speakers are certainly not "compatriots" as the dreadful white-washy Kremlin propaganda has them. That word is used to legitimize the invasion and it's about as convincing as calling Irish-passport holders English because we speak English.


    I find the above statement without merit. What do you mean exactly that they are not compatriots? They have voted overwhelmingly in the past in support of joining with Russia
    wiki wrote:
    In the days leading up to the referendum, one poll conducted by the German GfK Group found that 70% of Crimeans who intended to participate in the referendum planned to vote to join Russia, while 11% planned to vote to remain part of Ukraine.[34] A poll conducted by the Institute for European Policy Studies found that 80% were in favor of reunification with Russia,[35] while another conducted by the Crimean Institute of Political and Social Research found that 77% were in favour of reunification, and 97% assessed the current situation in Ukraine as negative.[36]
    Robindch wrote:
    What Russia does not have an option to do is to invade, then hold a rigged election, then annex the place, then destabilize the rest of the country on a manifestly false pretext -- you haven't addressed any of these aggressive actions yet.

    I have actually, numerous times.
    My stance (as stated previously) is that you are absolutely correct on the illegality of Russia's actions in respect of the Crimean referendum and with regard to the current threat of invasion. However my issue has been to contend that you have tunnel vision with regard to the situation.


    On the crisis overall
    The US has been proven to be involved quite heavily in the recent uprising through donations fronted through miscellaneous billionaires and subsequent overthrow of an officially elected president and in the shaping current administration.
    The US clearly have designs on future energy pipeline and strategical military bases around the area.

    The above is the main reason for the current standoff between Russia and NATO countries particularly the US and been a direct contributory factor in Russia's actions. Claiming, as you have earlier in this thread, that Russia has manufactured its enemies 'out of thin air' you appear to be either heavily under-read on the topic or heavily biased.
    Deplore Russia by all means, you are entirely right to do so because in an ideal world they would seek deeper political resolutions to this predicament without resorting to their bullying military might however you do yourself no favors in ignoring the geopolitical situation as I have already pointed out.
    The US created the 'WMD threat' out of thin air in order to go into Iraq - we know that;
    they are now strategising plans for future energy which involve Syria and Ukraine among other countries. Russia, whose natural resources are great in this area are protecting their future. I deplore and indeed am worried about Putins psychosis as much as you but I'm certainly not going to swallow a manifestly disingenuous script about how the US want to aid Syrian and Ukrainian democracy and how the villain Russia is the worlds only major threat.


  • #237
    oscarBravo
    Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 28,820 Mod ✭✭✭✭oscarBravo


    recedite wrote: »
    I am the only one sticking my neck out to give a tentative but universal definition of what kind of territory should be allowed to secede and what should not, while everyone else is saying "well it depends on who is asking for secession, and whether we like their sponsors or not. Kosovo good, Crimea bad".
    In other words, my approach is the opposite to arbitrariness.
    The fact that your approach is different from other approaches you consider arbitrary doesn't make it not arbitrary.

    It also doesn't make it not demented. The idea that a country can be torn apart because a minority of its population feel that they can better themselves by ****ing over their compatriots doesn't sit right with me. I think it's the sort of nonsense that results from the determination to find a consistent set of rules to apply to all geopolitical situations in order to avoid (a) having to think too deeply about what's actually going on in each case and (b) defend against largely pointless accusations of hypocrisy from people who insist on conflating situations that, in reality, don't have all that much in common.


  • #238
    recedite
    Closed Accounts Posts: 13,992 ✭✭✭✭recedite


    oscarBravo wrote: »
    The fact that your approach is different from other approaches you consider arbitrary doesn't make it not arbitrary.

    It also doesn't make it not demented....

    I don't think you understand what either dementia or arbitrariness really mean.


    Anyways.....
    Here's a map of Russian gas pipelines through Ukraine. I reckon the one running on a north/south axis just east of Lugansk is likely to rejoin Mother Russia pretty soon; the Ruskis could hardly allow that to fall into the hands of a Nato-philic Ukrainian regime.


  • #239
    robindch
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 24,420 Mod ✭✭✭✭robindch


    recedite wrote: »
    BTW did you spot that bit in the article saying that the pay rates for Crimean military and other workers in the Crimean bases is to rise by 400%? That is a major boost to the Crimean economy. The prospect of a 400% pay rise would certainly have got me down to the polling booth pretty quickly.
    So, on the one hand, we have a nuclear-armed state invading and annexing a major province of a neighboring country on a false pretext, destroying the peaceful military and political understanding that's prevailed in Europe for 25-odd years. And, on the other hand, to balance this dangerous development, the invading state is increasing the wages of the military there.

    I'm not getting a sense that you view the relative risks and benefits very clearly.


  • #240
    recedite
    Closed Accounts Posts: 13,992 ✭✭✭✭recedite


    I think the same pay rises would apply generally for all federal jobs, but Putin happened to be directing this speech towards the military personnel.

    I mentioned before that the concept of nationality is very weak or even alien to most citizens in former soviet republics. They are not used to thinking of themselves in terms of being either Ukrainian or Russian, and this choice is being forced upon them since the 1990's. They have lived for decades in a system with a single currency, a single lingua franca that could be used anywhere within the USSR, and free university education if done through the Russian language, and frequent postings of government/civil service/ military personnel from one republic to another. Sure, those on the western fringes of the USSR and those in Islamic areas resented soviet hegemony, but for most it was just "normality".
    The EU is only just beginning to be introduced to common currency and merged economies.
    Whether someone chooses to label themselves as Russian or Ukrainian, or Kazakh might well have more to do with money than we in the West might like to admit.


  • Advertisement
  • #241
    robindch
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 24,420 Mod ✭✭✭✭robindch


    stevejazzx wrote: »
    The Country belonged to Russia for 164 years before Khrushchev gave it to Ukraine for essentially administrative proposes. Ukraine at the time still very much managed entirely from Moscow.

    The two issues that concern me most about the rapidly deterioration situation are (a) Russia's doing almost everything it can to destabilize their neighbour and (b) it's merry disregard for international law. I've no problem with any place seceding from any place, so long as it's done peacefully, fairly and legally. That's not what's happening here.
    Yes, indeed. And before that 164 years, it was, I believe, Tatar. And for the last 60-odd years, it's been part of Ukraine. And most importantly, it's been part of Ukraine in international law and according to all the treaties, memoranda and every other piece of international legal paraphernalia.
    stevejazzx wrote: »
    The Russian population there is dominant. Russians listed as people giving Russian as their native language.
    And are English-speakers here in Ireland, actually English? Or, are we Irish, because we hold Irish passports?

    As above, national citizenship is defined by what passport you hold (notwithstanding the dual citizenship issue). It's specifically not defined by what language one speaks.
    stevejazzx wrote: »
    I find the above statement without merit. What do you mean exactly that they are not compatriots?
    Perhaps I should have been a bit clearer. The term "compatriot" is used by the Russian state today to refer to Russian-speakers in other countries. The term has no meaning in international law that I'm aware of and its continued usage is inflammatory - basically stating that people who speak Russian are Russian (does that make me "a compatriot" - god forbid!) and creating the pretext that Russia will need in order to invade the country in order to "protect" its citizens, compatriots, Russian-speakers - delete as needed as the terms appear interchangeable.
    stevejazzx wrote: »
    The US created the 'WMD threat' out of thin air in order to go into Iraq - we know that;
    Yes, I entirely agree -- I protested in just about every protest march here in Dublin against that illegal, disastrous and lethal invasion. Just as I'm strongly objecting to the equally illegal if not yet, equally-disastrous invasion of Ukraine. The fact that the US does something illegal (albeit under a different administration and president), does not excuse criticism of Russia for doing something illegal too.

    BTW, I see that the Russian state-controlled station, Rossiya 1, has announced that by attempting to eject armed militants from government buildings in the east of the country, Ukraine has, in effect, declared "civil war" (the Beeb's tweet at 12:37) - I can't help but wonder if that turns out to be the pretext the Russians want for the tens of thousands of Russian troops massed on the Russian side of the border to launch a full-scale invasion. Watch that space, I suppose :(

    http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-27008054


  • #242
    stevejazzx
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,247 ✭✭✭stevejazzx


    robindch wrote: »
    And are English-speakers here in Ireland, actually English? Or, are we Irish, because we hold Irish passports?

    As above, national citizenship is defined by what passport you hold (notwithstanding the dual citizenship issue). It's specifically not defined by what language one speaks.

    The point with regard to them listing Russian as their native language was just to bolster the point about them being native Russians and was not intended to exclusively define their nationality. What's important however, lest we get sidetracked, is that I claimed that ~60% of Crimea's population are essentially of ethnic Russian origin and you disagreed. I presented Census information to this regard that you haven't yet addressed.

    Robindch wrote:
    BTW, I see that the Russian state-controlled station, Rossiya 1, has announced that by attempting to eject armed militants from government buildings in the east of the country, Ukraine has, in effect, declared "civil war" (the Beeb's tweet at 12:37) - I can't help but wonder if that turns out to be the pretext the Russians want for the tens of thousands of Russian troops massed on the Russian side of the border to launch a full-scale invasion. Watch that space, I suppose

    http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-27008054

    I did mention that I expected nauseating Russian propaganda to follow.
    Sometimes you'd think they'd just skip the foreplay and get on with but there still seems be a market for thinly disguised propaganda on both sides of the fence and the Americans are by no means anyone's inferior with regard to producing it and subsequently finding people to believe it. The Russians, rather more sinisterly still believe that they can whip up a mass psychosis through it's casual deployment something I think you referred to earlier, rather accurately if may say so as an unlimited flag waving type of howling nationalism.


  • #243
    robindch
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 24,420 Mod ✭✭✭✭robindch


    stevejazzx wrote: »
    The point with regard to them listing Russian as their native language was just to bolster the point about them being native Russians and was not intended to exclusively define their nationality. What's important however, lest we get sidetracked, is that I claimed that ~60% of Crimea's population are essentially of ethnic Russian origin and you disagreed. I presented Census information to this regard that you haven't yet addressed.
    I didn't disagree with the 60% figure -- though I believe it's a shade less, but let's go with it for the sake of argument. The figure refers to "ethnic Russians" which is a phrase which has little or no meaning in international law or international relations, and bear in mind again, I'm looking at this from the perspective of international law and international expectations.

    I'm sure there are many people in Crimea who believe that they are Russian, despite their being born in "Ukraine". But regardless of their beliefs about themselves, in international law, they have acquired Ukrainian citizenship and that makes them Ukrainian. If they wish to live in Russia, there is a legal process by which they can do so. If they wish to live in Ukraine, well, they can stay where they are. If they wish to become Russians, by which I mean citizens of the RF, then there's a legal, internationally recognised process for that too.

    What is illegal and dangerous, is for Russia to invade, rig a referendum, strip existing citizenship from the current authority and impose a different one. The legal way to do this is to follow the Ukie Constitution and whatever legal process that it recommends for secession and if Crimea had convincingly followed that, well, I'd wish them the very best in the blessed, peaceful paradise that is modern-day Russia.

    Do you accept the specific illegality of Russia's actions?
    stevejazzx wrote: »
    [...] there still seems be a market for thinly disguised propaganda on both sides of the fence and the Americans are by no means anyone's inferior with regard to producing it and subsequently finding people to believe it
    I agree - the propaganda that's coming from the two sides is nauseating. Though in my experience of both, the stuff that's coming from the Russian side is noticeably easier to disprove and contains noticeably more imputation of motive and future action - to be a bit more specific, the Ukie side tends to be more "X happened and here's a (possibly fake) photo/video", while the Russian side is "X is (evil-quality Y) (and if not stopped, might do Z to our, uh, compatriots)".

    I haven't really followed much of the US media on this and the response of the US government is so pisspoor, that I wouldn't expect much comment anyway. I do assume that at most, perhaps 10% of the US population could locate Ukraine on a map of Eastern Europe, and significantly fewer actively give a flying fuck about the place.


  • #244
    old hippy
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 9,441 ✭✭✭old hippy


    jimeryan22 wrote: »
    What are you talking about anti bbc..? Hahaha. Such ****e talk, the first one yeah, but really..,? The independent and telegraph..? Cop on

    You didn't actually link to the Independent, though. You linked to a spurious crank ridden anti-BBC site and the Mail and the Telegraph who have been pursuing their agenda against the BBC for decades.

    Back on topic, it's clear that Russia are determined to expand their interests into Eastern Ukraine. After that, who knows? Georgia?


  • #245
    robindch
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 24,420 Mod ✭✭✭✭robindch


    old hippy wrote: »
    Back on topic, it's clear that Russia are determined to expand their interests into Eastern Ukraine. After that, who knows? Georgia?
    More likely stirring up tension in Transnistra - some pro-Ukrainian tweets have indicated that Kishinev has been hosting to an above-average number of fit, military-looking men over the last few days. Transnistra is already Russian in all but name - I visited it a few years back; it's yet another Russian-sponsored frozen-conflict shithole - the Gazprom bank and dilapidated 1970's highrise with multi-story photos of a Putin and Medvedev smiling down on the main street tell you all you need to know about the place.

    In broader terms, the following -- badly drawn, apologies, lack time -- map shows one possible gameplay.

    1 Crimea
    2 East Ukraine including Donetsk and perhaps Kharkov
    3 Certainly Kharkov and Odessa
    4 Transnistra

    All of this land is within Putin's grasp so long as European countries and the US continues to wave their umbrellas at him with becoming languidity.

    303145.png


  • #246
    robindch
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 24,420 Mod ✭✭✭✭robindch


    In completely unrelated news, the Russian deputy defense minister in charge of defense and space industries has said that Russia intends to invade the moon:

    http://voiceofrussia.com/news/2014_04_11/Russia-plans-to-get-a-foothold-in-the-Moon-Dmitriy-Rogozin-5452/

    I seem to remember that the US declared that the moon was claimed for "All Mankind", but I wonder how this will stand up if Russia claims it for itself. Possession, as the Ukrainians are finding out, is nine-tenths of the law.


  • Advertisement
  • #247
    recedite
    Closed Accounts Posts: 13,992 ✭✭✭✭recedite


    robindch wrote: »
    I'm sure there are many people in Crimea who believe that they are Russian, despite their being born in "Ukraine". But regardless of their beliefs about themselves, in international law, they have acquired Ukrainian citizenship and that makes them Ukrainian.If they wish to live in Russia, there is a legal process by which they can do so.
    I find this opinion a bit strange. I can see it makes sense in a strict legalistic sense, but I am still uneasy with it. If you applied this logic in N.Ireland, then everyone born there would be "British", whether they liked it or not, and plenty of them would find that label offensive. If you then went on to suggest that anyone not happy with their Britishness should go and live in the Republic, you'd be skating on very thin ice indeed.
    robindch wrote: »
    ...Russia intends to invade the moon:

    http://voiceofrussia.com/news/2014_04_11/Russia-plans-to-get-a-foothold-in-the-Moon-Dmitriy-Rogozin-5452/

    I seem to remember that the US declared that the moon was claimed for "All Mankind", but I wonder how this will stand up if Russia claims it for itself. Possession, as the Ukrainians are finding out, is nine-tenths of the law.
    According to the link, they aspire to setting up a permanent base on the moon. It says nothing about claiming ownership of the moon. I'd imagine the situation will be similar to the way different countries currently have bases in Antarctica, with nobody actually owning it.


  • #248
    Absolam
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,913 ✭✭✭Absolam


    recedite wrote: »
    If you applied this logic in N.Ireland, then everyone born there would be "British", whether they liked it or not, and plenty of them would find that label offensive. If you then went on to suggest that anyone not happy with their Britishness should go and live in the Republic, you'd be skating on very thin ice indeed.
    Isn't everyone who's born in Northern Ireland British whether they like it or not? I know people born in N.I. used to be allowed to choose to be Irish as well (as the Republic of Ireland claimed all of Ireland, all those born on the island were Irish citizens and could get an Irish Passport), but not since Ireland renounced the constitutional claim to the North; now they're only British unless they apply for and are granted Irish citizenship. Whether or not they find it offensive, I'm pretty sure it's factual?


  • #249
    riffmongous
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 12,812 Mod ✭✭✭✭riffmongous


    Absolam wrote: »
    Isn't everyone who's born in Northern Ireland British whether they like it or not? I know people born in N.I. used to be allowed to choose to be Irish as well (as the Republic of Ireland claimed all of Ireland, all those born on the island were Irish citizens and could get an Irish Passport), but not since Ireland renounced the constitutional claim to the North; now they're only British unless they apply for and are granted Irish citizenship. Whether or not they find it offensive, I'm pretty sure it's factual?
    What's factual is that they are British citizens (or subjects or whatever), but they are Irish, not British (referring to ethnicity or culture), it's a tricky issue on how you label or identify someone, or they identify themselves.

    Culture and ethnicity both have serious flaws if you use them (what makes someone Irish for example? What most people would agree on clearly doesn't apply to everyone) but I still prefer using them to citizenship, as citizenship is so arbitrary and potentially fast changing that I don't think it's so useful to use.


  • #250
    robindch
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 24,420 Mod ✭✭✭✭robindch


    recedite wrote: »
    If you applied this logic in N.Ireland, then everyone born there would be "British", whether they liked it or not, and plenty of them would find that label offensive.
    This isn't about legitimate or illegitimate offense-taking - it's about legal realities.
    recedite wrote: »
    If you then went on to suggest that anyone not happy with their Britishness should go and live in the Republic, you'd be skating on very thin ice indeed.
    Again, I'm talking strictly about the legal realities. If somebody in the North is unhappy with being a British subject, then they're welcome to apply for Irish citizenship and if they meet the requirements, I'm sure the government here will confer it. They can stay in the North if they want to, or -- owing to free movement in the EU -- can move into the Republic too. This is how citizenship works.

    BTW, the UNHCR has issued a report on events in Ukraine over the last few months - the report is here:

    http://www.ohchr.org/Documents/Countries/UA/Ukraine_Report_15April2014.doc

    ...and it notes that there were "credible allegations of harassment, arbitrary arrest, and torture targeting activists and journalists who did not support the referendum" in Crimea, that "the OHCHR delegation received many reports of vote rigging" and that "the referendum held on 16 March 2014 had no validity".


  • #251
    robindch
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 24,420 Mod ✭✭✭✭robindch


    Latest is that the Ukrainian government has launched a military operation to recover control of Kramatorsk airfield - twitter suggests multiple deaths - Ukrainian military also entering Sloviansk, no reports yet. Russia claims that Ukraine is on the brink of civil war. One tweeter has reported that Russia is preparing to launch a full-scale invasion in order to protect, uh, well, I'm not quite sure, but the twitter suggestion of "their people" might be accurate, since multiple tweets have suggested, with quite a lot of (possibly fake) photographic/video evidence, that the unrest in the east has been led by Russian soldiers.

    *chucks bottle of vodka into the bin*


  • Advertisement
Advertisement