Colombians reject historic FARC peace deal

Well it's been a year of shock results but this is something else.

A conflict that has lasted for a half a century and seen hundreds of thousands of lives lost was believed to have been brought to an end with a so called historic peace deal between the Columbian government and the FARC leaders now looks like it's all out the window after the Colombian people votes 50.24% to reject the peace deal.

There was talk of Nobel peace prizes for the leaders but now who knows what will happen with the govt saying they have no plan B if the deal is rejected.


http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-latin-america-37537252

Call Me Jimmy

Who rejects peace, honestly?

darkpagandeath

Something something brexit response should not be allowed to vote..

The_Valeyard

Well f*ck that.

Was their a low voter turn out or genuine reasons I am not aware for voting against this?

The_Valeyard

Call Me Jimmy wrote: »

Who rejects peace, honestly?

Certainly not John Lennon

tomwaterford

Surly they'll have a recount?

GLaDOS

This is a farce

The_Valeyard

LETHAL LADY

Very violent country, the narcos are still running the show there it seems.

milehip

Call Me Jimmy wrote: »

Who rejects peace, honestly?

Coked up warmongers?

The Wolverine

I was looking into it and the most aggravating points seems to be

1. There is a serious distrust due to the fact that FARC were in negotiations years ago too and an area they had agreed to demilitarise was seceretly used by them to rearm and regroup to continue their war

2. Under a special legal framework for trying war crimes those who confess to crimes (from all sides) will not serve prison sentences but will take part in acts of "reparation", including clearing land mines, repairing damaged infrastructure and helping victims. Those against the deal see FARC literally getting away with murder and other crimes

3. FARC fighters who give up arms will get a payment thats 90% of the minimum wage to reintegrate which has been labeled a salary

Then fact FARC follows a Marxist ideology has some people worried of the threat of them turning them into another Venezuela as they will be allowed enter as a political party.

mynamejeff

The Wolverine wrote: »

I was looking into it and the most aggravating points seems to be

1. There is a serious distrust due to the fact that FARC were in negotiations years ago too and an area they had agreed to demilitarise was seceretly used by them to rearm and regroup to continue their war

2. Under a special legal framework for trying war crimes those who confess to crimes (from all sides) will not serve prison sentences but will take part in acts of "reparation", including clearing land mines, repairing damaged infrastructure and helping victims. Those against the deal see FARC literally getting away with murder and other crimes

3. FARC fighters who give up arms will get a payment thats 90% of the minimum wage to reintegrate which has been labeled a salary

Then fact FARC follows a Marxist ideology has some people worried of the threat of them turning them into another Venezuela as they will be allowed enter as a political party.

didnt we vote for the goodfriday agreement that allowed many horrific murderers bombers and assorted scumbags out for jail only for them to jump into criminality and drug dealing ?

Peregrine

mynamejeff wrote: »

didnt we vote for the goodfriday agreement that allowed many horrific murderers bombers and assorted scumbags out for jail only for them to jump into criminality and drug dealing ?

And politics.

The Wolverine

mynamejeff wrote: »

didnt we vote for the goodfriday agreement that allowed many horrific murderers bombers and assorted scumbags out for jail only for them to jump into criminality and drug dealing ?

I know but people are different what one group or person accepts others won't I suppose.

AndyPandy123

Really an absurd result. This was 4 years in the making and today's result will put all of the work done into question.

wes

The voters will have to live with there decision. That is democracy at the end of the day.

skywanderer

Its ok, Bertie Ahern said they can have an another referendum and 100s of thousands of jobs to go with it. If ever there was an insult to Democracy it was the Lisbon and Nice treaties. Similarly the liberals trying to force in abortion something which Ireland has rejected before

wes

skywanderer wrote: »

Its ok, Bertie Ahern said they can have an another referendum and 100s of thousands of jobs to go with it. If ever there was an insult to Democracy it was the Lisbon and Nice treaties. Similarly the liberals trying to force in abortion something which Ireland has rejected before

The 2nd vote on the treaty's were a bit dodgy, but people could have rejected them a 2nd time, but didn't. I fail to see how the 2nd decision is some how less valid in either case, as changes were made.

As for abortion, the first decision was along time ago. It isn't democracy if you only get to vote once. There is imho a great deal of demand for the 8th to be repealed.

That was pretty much the only good news of any consequence this year and now it's turned to shlt. Looks like voters got riled up by trivial details and missed the bigger picture.. I hope the newspaper editors who fuel this hate feel guilty.

https://www.reddit.com/r/worldnews/comments/55kjlt/no_colombians_reject_peace_deal/d8bh4yq

Zones that voted yes: http://i.imgur.com/9wLpW7b.jpg
Zones most affected by FARC: http://www.las2orillas.co/wp-content/uploads/2015/02/mapa-.png

511

wes wrote: »

The 2nd vote on the treaty's were a bit dodgy, but people could have rejected them a 2nd time, but didn't. I fail to see how the 2nd decision is some how less valid in either case, as changes were made.

We went into recession shortly after the 1st one (yes, we knew it was coming) and as the unemployment rate rose, we were promised a return to economic prosperity if we signed the treaty. Of course, the unemployment kept rising for the next 2 - 3 years. They exploited the recession to manipulate the people into signing it.

Now were stuck with an undemocratic body in the EU Commission, while every country, bar Ireland, UK and Denmark, are forced to take in migrants as per the treaty.

murpho999

LETHAL LADY wrote: »

Very violent country, the narcos are still running the show there it seems.

On what do you base that statement and how can you say it's still run by narcos if the people have just democratically said no?

o1s1n

skywanderer wrote: »

Its ok, Bertie Ahern said they can have an another referendum and 100s of thousands of jobs to go with it. If ever there was an insult to Democracy it was the Lisbon and Nice treaties. Similarly the liberals trying to force in abortion something which Ireland has rejected before

Talk about trying to shoe horn something completely unrelated to the OP into the conversation.

LETHAL LADY

murpho999 wrote: »

On what do you base that statement and how can you say it's still run by narcos if the people have just democratically said no?

The Ross Kemp's Extreme World documentary shown last week would suggest it is. Pretty horrific stuff going on there.

murpho999

LETHAL LADY wrote: »

The Ross Kemp's Extreme World documentary shown last week would suggest it is. Pretty horrific stuff going on there.

Still has nothing to do with a democratic referendum.

HensVassal

Call Me Jimmy wrote: »

Who rejects peace, honestly?

Depends on what's in the peace deal. If it's a one-sided con job with dozens of stipulations that jerk around the other side then it's bound to fail. Also those who want a conflict to continue routinely reject peace deals.

murpho999

murpho999 wrote: »

On what do you base that statement and how can you say it's still run by narcos if the people have just democratically said no?

Narcos have everyone in their pocket. The likes of Escobar used to pump money into slum areas to get them on side. As Murphy said in Narcos 'Asking Colombians to give up Escobar was like asking Chicago to give up Michael Jordan'

Pro Hoc Vice

The_Valeyard wrote: »

Well f*ck that.

Was their a low voter turn out or genuine reasons I am not aware for voting against this?

Many felt that low or non sentences to be imposed on rebels was a step too far.

Dyr

mynamejeff wrote: »

didnt we vote for the goodfriday agreement that allowed many horrific murderers bombers and assorted scumbags out for jail only for them to jump into criminality and drug dealing ?

The UVF aren't really active south of the border though.

Bambi

Bambi wrote: »

The UVF aren't really active south of the border though.

Monaghan and Dublin bombings 1974?? Or the Miami showband massacre? Granted they haven't been active on the same level but unionist groups have form

murpho999

Deleted User wrote: »

Narcos have everyone in their pocket. The likes of Escobar used to pump money into slum areas to get them on side. As Murphy said in Narcos 'Asking Colombians to give up Escobar was like asking Chicago to give up Michael Jordan'

You do realise that that was actually a fictionalized version of what happened based loosely on what happened. It does not mean that Murphy said that.

Also, Escobar died in 1993 so not relevant to today.

The truth is that people in Ireland do not know the real reason behind the no vote but I have read up on it today and it seems that the people are not happy that the war criminals will get off scot free and allowed to enter politics and also receive a sort of salary.

So they have rejected the deal, and now it's up to FARC and the Colombian government to negotiate a better deal. Seems fair enough to me.

murpho999

murpho999 wrote: »

You do realise that that was actually a fictionalized version of what happened based loosely on what happened. It does not mean that Murphy said that.

Also, Escobar died in 1993 so not relevant to today.

The truth is that people in Ireland do not know the real reason behind the no vote but I have read up on it today and it seems that the people are not happy that the war criminals will get off scot free and allowed to enter politics and also receive a sort of salary.

So they have rejected the deal, and now it's up to FARC and the Colombian government to negotiate a better deal. Seems fair enough to me.

I do realise that indeed. Nevertheless I think the sentiments remain true. Colombia are an unequal society where a small percentage owns most of the wealth so I'd imagine it wouldn't be a task for renegade groups to get people to go against the political system as in most countries

I see where the electorate are coming from in a way because I think they are damned whatever way they vote. If these dangerous people get into power than god knows what will happen. There could be bloodshed either way

Drakares

Zones that voted No: http://i.imgur.com/9wLpW7b.jpg
Zones that are affected by the war: http://www.las2orillas.co/wp-content/uploads/2015/02/mapa-.png

what an absolute disgrace.

BalcombeSt4

mynamejeff wrote: »

didnt we vote for the goodfriday agreement that allowed many horrific murderers bombers and assorted scumbags out for jail only for them to jump into criminality and drug dealing ?

The Loyalist majority voted against it becuse their undemocratic fascists who want a majority to be ruled by a minority.

GeneralVanilla

fryup wrote: »

maybe they were high on cocaine ??

No, no.
Rule 4 sir. They know better.

(10 crack commandments)

BalcombeSt4

Deleted User wrote: »

Monaghan and Dublin bombings 1974?? Or the Miami showband massacre? Granted they haven't been active on the same level but unionist groups have form

I think he meant the post-1994 ceasefire drug dealing UVF. Although they were pretty active with Dublin gangsters like thier mate Martin Cahill.

Atoms for Peace

mynamejeff wrote: »

didnt we vote for the goodfriday agreement that allowed many horrific murderers bombers and assorted scumbags out for jail only for them to jump into criminality and drug dealing ?

There wasn't really an alternative, say what you like about SF and Gerry Adams but they did bring a lot of people into the mainstream that would have otherwise probably thrown their lot in with the dissidents if they hadn't had anything to lose.
The remaining fringe elements now have no political or moral legitimacy, with little community support with the switch to the ballot box as well the vote in the good Friday agreement.

BalcombeSt4

Atoms for Peace wrote: »

There wasn't really an alternative, say what you like about SF and Gerry Adams but they did bring a lot of people into the mainstream that would have otherwise probably thrown their lot in with the dissidents if they hadn't had anything to lose.
The remaining fringe elements now have no political or moral legitimacy, with little community support with the switch to the ballot box as well the vote in the good Friday agreement.

Everyone forgets it was the Loyalists who brought down the Sunningdale peace deal in 1973 with strikes, an intimmidation campaign of Protestants & a terror campaign in the border areas & the South.. If Sunningdale had succeded it would have been irrelevant what the IRA did, they wouldn't have been able to justify their war to poor working class areas if the areas were getting their fair share.
In 1974 Nationalists in the North faced into years of isloation from the South, British indifference to their plight & aggressive posturing from a triumphalist Unionist camp which included lethal Loyalist death squads. In this atmosphere the IRA were well able to justify their existence as the army of a beleaguered people.

skywanderer

skywanderer wrote: »

Its ok, Bertie Ahern said they can have an another referendum and 100s of thousands of jobs to go with it. If ever there was an insult to Democracy it was the Lisbon and Nice treaties. Similarly the liberals trying to force in abortion something which Ireland has rejected before

Lucinda is out of a job these days. She should get herself over to Bogotá, marching around with a placard that says, "Sí para los trabajos".

fryup

murpho999 wrote: »

The truth is that people in Ireland do not know the real reason behind the no vote but I have read up on it today and it seems that the people are not happy that the war criminals will get off scot free and allowed to enter politics and also receive a sort of salary.

So they have rejected the deal, and now it's up to FARC and the Colombian government to negotiate a better deal. Seems fair enough to me.

exactly, in fairness none of us know the in & outs of the political situation in Columbia...we're just outsiders looking in

maybe they had good reason to vote against it...maybe it was a case of peace at a price like you have in the north with the IRA i.e.releasing of prisoners and turning a blind eye to cross-border smuggling and the like

Blud

Would Ireland have voted for the Good Friday agreement if it had included a clause saying that the IRA or UVF were guaranteed 10 seats parliament unelected?

I doubt it.

Junkyard Tom

o1s1n wrote: »

Talk about trying to shoe horn something completely unrelated to the OP into the conversation.

Listen; we're just not a large enough economy to need a nuclear power station and the economics of nuclear power are suspect to say the least.

BalcombeSt4

Blud wrote: »

Would Ireland have voted for the Good Friday agreement if it had included a clause saying that the IRA or UVF were guaranteed 10 seats parliament unelected?

I doubt it.

If "IRA" was taken out and UVF left in Loyalists probably would have voted for it.

Duffy the Vampire Slayer

Many of the people who voted 'No' hadn't a notion what was actually in the peace agreement. They listened to scaremongering from right-wing politicians. Ridiculous rumours of Colombia becoming a communist dictatorship. Many of those criticizing 'impunity' now, were linked to death squads 15 years ago.

fryup

BalcombeSt4 wrote: »

If "IRA" was taken out and UVF left in Loyalists probably would have voted for it.

and if IRA were taken out republicans would have rejected it

CruelCoin

The culprits behind so many killing and bombings getting away scot free, the rebels themselves given free cash and business support, the rebels leaders granted over-representation in the parliment, and it goes on and on.

Its a monstrous deal.

Peace would be great, but not at any cost.

Pro Hoc Vice

CruelCoin wrote: »

The culprits behind so many killing and bombings getting away scot free, the rebels themselves given free cash and business support, the rebels leaders granted over-representation in the parliment, and it goes on and on.

Its a monstrous deal.

Peace would be great, but not at any cost.

What do you think is a good price for the war then?

mynamejeff

for those who misunderstood

The murderers and bombers that were excused from prison to start a life of crime I was referring to the IRA as well as the uvf but mostly the IRA

Duffy the Vampire Slayer

People who criticize the deal often seem to think that the government have a big bag of different agreements to pick from.

BalcombeSt4

fryup wrote: »

and if IRA were taken out republicans would have rejected it

I think your confused. IRA was out of the GFA and nationalists still voted for it. It was the loyalist majority who rejected. A nationalist majority & unionist minority passed it.

Either way it proved time & time again violence worked.

BalcombeSt4

CruelCoin wrote: »

The culprits behind so many killing and bombings getting away scot free, the rebels themselves given free cash and business support, the rebels leaders granted over-representation in the parliment, and it goes on and on.

Its a monstrous deal.

Peace would be great, but not at any cost.

Like the thousands of Americans who savaged Vietnamese & Korean women & childern with chemical weapons.

Depp

FARC need to be eradicated not turned into a political party, they're on a par with isis