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

First Up

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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!

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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,