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

Peregrinus · 16-04-2014 02:59PM

Richard wrote: »

To be honest I think the current situation where it makes it trivial for anyone to become an Irish citizen but in practice hardly anyone in NI is automatically one means that both unionists and nationalists can claim victory on this one.

I think that was the idea.

Richard wrote: »

Interestingly, from what you say, if two Irish Citizens from ROI who don't hold British (or any other citizenship) have child in NI, that child wouldn't be automatically an Irish citizen.

Yes, provided at least one parent is resident in NI (or any other part of the UK), as opposed to just there temporarily at the time the child is born. The child will be a British citizen from birth, and therefore will not acquire Irish citizenship automatically.

Richard wrote: »

Also it seems that if two Irish citizens, one from NI had a baby in ROI, that baby wouldn't be automatically an Irish citizen even if the parent from NI had never had a British passport unless they had officially renounced British citizenship.

Yes, that's right.

In both cases, of course, the child will be entitled to Irish citizenship.

Peregrinus · 16-04-2014 03:04PM

alaimacerc wrote: »

Citizenship is a matter for governments. It doesn't make sense to say that they're citizens in some abstract sense "that the Irish government doesn't take a position on". (Citizens in the eyes of eternity?)

What I'm trying to say is that the Irish government may say, through its laws, that everyone born in Ireland who has no right to any other nationality is an Irish citizen from birth. (And in fact it does say that.) But it won't say that alaimacerc is a citizen unless and until the question arises; alaimacerc applies for a passport, or tries to vote in a presidential election, or whatever. At that point they'll investigate alaimacerc's circumstances and, on finding that he was born in Ireland with no right to any other citizenship, issue him with a passport. But in doing so they are not conferring citizenship on him; he was a citizen all along. The government just didn't take a position on the question of whether he was a citizen until that question became relevant.

alaimacerc · 16-04-2014 03:54PM

oscarBravo wrote: »

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.

And I'm not too thrilled with the idea that you can simply say "group W that we sympathise with that's currently part of state X that we don't" gets "self-determination", and that "group Y that we don't sympathise with that's currently part of state Z, that we do", well, tough on them for being such nasty people, which appears to be the punchline of what you're saying.

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.

Consistency being the hobgoblin of little minds, and all that, eh?

If one is going to advance either "sovereign integrity" or "self-determination" as absolute principles, then other people are entitled to expect consistent application of [whichever one]. If one is not, that's grand, but then one should dial back on the "shockingly, the following absolute principle (Simpsonseque sotte voce: not an absolute principle) that I advance whenever it suits me, and only then, isn't actually

Characterising apparent cherry-picking as "thinking deeply" would go across better if there were some evidence of actual depth of thought. Yes, we can itemise characteristics of the Crimea situation and characteristics of the Kosovo situation that differ. The question is, is there any sign that those aren't entirely ad hoc -- and worse, post hoc.

oscarBravo · 16-04-2014 04:16PM

alaimacerc wrote: »

And I'm not too thrilled with the idea that you can simply say "group W that we sympathise with that's currently part of state X that we don't" gets "self-determination", and that "group Y that we don't sympathise with that's currently part of state Z, that we do", well, tough on them for being such nasty people, which appears to be the punchline of what you're saying.

If you arrived at that conclusion from what I wrote, you've read an entire novel between the lines. Which is strange, because I didn't write one.

Consistency being the hobgoblin of little minds, and all that, eh?

A foolish consistency, yes. The logical conclusion of the point I was arguing against is that if the people of Atlanta want to declare a sovereign People's Republic of Atlanta, then the rest of the US has precisely zero right to an opinion on the subject.

If one is going to advance either "sovereign integrity" or "self-determination" as absolute principles, then other people are entitled to expect consistent application of [whichever one]. If one is not, that's grand, but then one should dial back on the "shockingly, the following absolute principle (Simpsonseque sotte voce: not an absolute principle) that I advance whenever it suits me, and only then, isn't actually

I don't recall advancing either of those as absolute principles. The idea that either of them is an absolute principle precludes the other as having any validity whatsoever, which strikes me as a false dichotomy. The in-between possibility is that neither is an absolute principle, but that both are principles with individual merits, and that a balance needs to be struck between them that's appropriate for the individual situation.

Characterising apparent cherry-picking as "thinking deeply" would go across better if there were some evidence of actual depth of thought.

As opposed to the careful and detailed analysis of each individual situation that leads to the conclusion that self-determination by the majority population of an arbitrarily-chosen geographical area is the only principle that's worthy of any consideration?

Yes, we can itemise characteristics of the Crimea situation and characteristics of the Kosovo situation that differ. The question is, is there any sign that those aren't entirely ad hoc -- and worse, post hoc.

Just so I'm clear, is it your belief that any differences between Crimea and Kosovo are so trivial as to be safely excluded from consideration?

alaimacerc · 16-04-2014 04:36PM

Peregrinus wrote: »

What I'm trying to say is that the Irish government may say, through its laws, that everyone born in Ireland who has no right to any other nationality is an Irish citizen from birth. (And in fact it does say that.) But it won't say that alaimacerc is a citizen unless and until the question arises; alaimacerc applies for a passport, or tries to vote in a presidential election, or whatever. At that point they'll investigate alaimacerc's circumstances and, on finding that he was born in Ireland with no right to any other citizenship, issue him with a passport. But in doing so they are not conferring citizenship on him; he was a citizen all along. The government just didn't take a position on the question of whether he was a citizen until that question became relevant.

I'm not sure the language of "conferring" is helping anyone here. You're using it to linguistically featherbed the proposition that it somehow must be automatic from birth, even though that's not how the law is phrased, and nor is it at all what the GFA implies. And the GFA is key here, since there's international law (something of a polite fiction in many ways, of course, but one with some pertinence to this thread) in this area relating to extra-territorial irredentist citizenship law, which implies the need for treaty agreement with the "subject to claim" state.

For the case of someone with only an entitlement to Irish citizenship, then it's a legal necessity that that be from birth, retroactively determined as necessary, because they're not going to be declared to have been stateless for some period of time. If someone has an entitlement to both, and wants both (or only the Irish one), then I imagine they'd be able to argue similarly, if it came down to it. But that does not mean that someone with such entitlement and doesn't want to take it up (or hasn't thought about it, or might in theory be calculatingly biding their time and making some self-interested calculation) has it "forced" on them.

Quantum mechanical analogies might prove more productive than theological ones. Though both are apt to wreak yer heid.

robindch · 16-04-2014 04:45PM

alaimacerc wrote: »

Yes, we can itemise characteristics of the Crimea situation and characteristics of the Kosovo situation that differ. The question is, is there any sign that those aren't entirely ad hoc -- and worse, post hoc.

Above all, people have a right to self-defence of their homes and lives.

In the case of Kosovo, in the run up to the NATO bombing in 1999, you will recall that the Serbian/Yugoslav Army under the control of Slobodan Milosevic expelled hundreds of thousands of Kosovars from their homes and left thousands dead. NATO bombed Milosevic back to the negotiating table and forced him to stop murdering people.

The Ukrainian government was not engaged in a campaign of ethnic cleansing or murdering thousands of Crimeans, so the comparison between the Kosovo secession and the Crimean "secession" are trivially invidious.

alaimacerc · 16-04-2014 05:06PM

oscarBravo wrote: »

The logical conclusion of the point I was arguing against is that if the people of Atlanta want to declare a sovereign People's Republic of Atlanta, then the rest of the US has precisely zero right to an opinion on the subject.

I'm not sure anyone (even recedite in that case!) is arguing that, either. Historical precedents on that one don't look that great, either (unless one's name is "Duke", I suppose).

I don't recall advancing either of those as absolute principles.

There's a lot of it about, though, so the the general statement seemed necessary. Of course, in practice what tends to happen is that people grandstand about one or the other as if it were an absolute principle, then wave their hands furiously when it's pointed out that they're not really advancing it in the categorical terms their language would reasonably be construed as implying (and then continue in the same vein as before, anyway).

The in-between possibility is that neither is an absolute principle, but that both are principles with individual merits, and that a balance needs to be struck between them that's appropriate for the individual situation.

And if you can come back to me with a procedure or other basis for such "balance-striking" that doesn't smack very much of "dealing yourself a few off the bottom of the deck", please do so.

As opposed to the careful and detailed analysis of each individual situation that leads to the conclusion that self-determination by the majority population of an arbitrarily-chosen geographical area is the only principle that's worthy of any consideration?

As specifically not as opposed to that one, no. That one doesn't even pass the "objective choice of entity" test (poor enough that'd be in itself, even if it did).

Just so I'm clear, is it your belief that any differences between Crimea and Kosovo are so trivial as to be safely excluded from consideration?

Not at all; they're large; by all means consider them. But I'm fairly consistently exasperated at foghorn pronouncements that entirely erase their (and other) points of similarity. "It's completely illegitimate to make a military intervention in a sovereign state, conduct a plebiscite under armed occupation, break the domestic law of that state, and change preexisting international borders. Except when we do it. Those are the only times." And that's pretty much where Kerry, Cameron, and other trite invokers of "parent-entity illegality" find themselves.

alaimacerc · 16-04-2014 05:09PM

robindch wrote: »

The Ukrainian government was not engaged in a campaign of ethnic cleansing or murdering thousands of Crimeans, so the comparison between the Kosovo secession and the Crimean "secession" are trivially invidious.

Only if you're proposing "strict territorial integrity up to the point of incipient genocide" as the new "absolute" standard, for all future cases. As against "it's the absolute standard, until our next exception". Otherwise, as I say, seems distinctly ad-and-post hoc.

robindch · 16-04-2014 05:46PM

alaimacerc wrote: »

Only if you're proposing "strict territorial integrity up to the point of incipient genocide" as the new "absolute" standard, for all future cases.

The Russian government claimed that significant abuses were occurring, but produced no evidence. And some of the people whom Putin said were being attacked -- like the Jewish community -- released statements to the effect that they certainly were not being attacked.

As I said, the situations were quite different: Kosovo had undergone perhaps a year's worth of massacres before NATO bombed it. Crimea had no significant issues until the Russians invaded and caused the problems that they said they were there to stop.

Peregrinus · 16-04-2014 05:53PM

alaimacerc wrote: »

I'm not sure the language of "conferring" is helping anyone here. You're using it to linguistically featherbed the proposition that it somehow must be automatic from birth, even though that's not how the law is phrased, and nor is it at all what the GFA implies.

I was wrong in my initial post, where I failed to make the proper distinction between people who are citizens from birth, and people who are entitled to citizenship from birth. But there is indeed a class of citizens from birth; everyone born on the island of Ireland with no entitlement to any other citizenship. And while a particular individual may not be identified as a member of the class until he applies for a passport or similar, he doesn't become a citizen when he is identified as such; rather, he is identified as such because he is already a citizen - he has been since birth.

Given the way that class is defined, it has no members who are also citizens from birth of another state, so the question of imposing Irish citizenship on the citizens of another state doesn't arise. But there does remain the curious anomaly that someone born in a part of the UK in circumstances which do not entitled him to UK citizenship may be an Irish citizen from birth, though I suspect the number of people in that situation is very small. But there certainly can be people in that class, since birth in the UK does not, on its own, entitle anyone to UK citizenship; further circumstances are required.

robindch · 16-04-2014 06:18PM

robindch wrote: »

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

Ah, there we go - Odessa's the next little green man tourist destination:

http://voiceofrussia.com/news/2014_04_16/Anti-Maidan-in-Odessa-announces-creation-of-its-own-People-s-Republic-2813/

recedite · 16-04-2014 10:09PM

Peregrinus wrote: »

I was wrong in my initial post, where I failed to make the proper distinction between people who are citizens from birth, and people who are entitled to citizenship from birth. But there is indeed a class of citizens from birth; everyone born on the island of Ireland with no entitlement to any other citizenship. And while a particular individual may not be identified as a member of the class until he applies for a passport or similar, he doesn't become a citizen when he is identified as such; rather, he is identified as such because he is already a citizen - he has been since birth.

I'm inclined to agree with alaimacerc here that we are getting into the quantum mechanics of Irish citizenship.
I think you are correct that when the person is first observed or identified by the State as a citizen by birth (as opposed to by naturalisation, when it is conferred by El Presidento at a big ceremony) it is applied retrospectively. Citizenship as a birthright is applied retrospectively, ie it is deemed that the person was always a citizen. That is distinct from naturalisation.
But I can't see where you get the basis for making this distinction between the class of people you call "everyone born on the island of Ireland with no entitlement to any other citizenship" and the others. What is the rule, or law, that you are invoking here? How are they any more "automatically" citizens than those who make the choice? I'm comparing to "undeclared" citizens (those born in N. Ireland who have not already got a British passport, but would be entitled to get one if they so wished)

recedite · 16-04-2014 10:20PM

robindch wrote: »

Ah, there we go - Odessa's the next little green man tourist destination:

http://voiceofrussia.com/news/2014_04_16/Anti-Maidan-in-Odessa-announces-creation-of-its-own-People-s-Republic-2813/

Transniestria also attempting to seize the moment.
Carp diem, as they say, and these guys have certainly been waiting a long, long time for their moment.

Brian Shanahan · 16-04-2014 11:57PM

Richard wrote: »

That's because it's referring to the legal definition of "British Citizen" i.e. Citizen of the UK. There is no Northern Irish Citizenship, neither is there English, Scottish or Welsh citizenship.

To be strictly legal, there is no such animal as a "British citizen". Legally all British passport holders are subjects of the crown, because, in constitutional terms, the UK is still technically an absolute monarchy.

Ok, this is a technicality, but then again technically correct is the best form of being correct.

Brian Shanahan · 17-04-2014 12:06AM

recedite wrote: »

Transniestria also attempting to seize the moment.
Carp diem, as they say, and these guys have certainly been waiting a long, long time for their moment.

So let me get this straight, so while arguing that the Ukraine has no right to stop Crimea joining Russia partly because Ukrainian rule was imposed on Crimea c. 50 years ago, you're also arguing for the right to self determination of an area where the orginal inhabitants were expelled and Russian settlers imposed, at the point of a T-34, only a scant few years before?

Peregrinus · 17-04-2014 01:41AM

recedite wrote: »

I'm inclined to agree with alaimacerc here that we are getting into the quantum mechanics of Irish citizenship.
I think you are correct that when the person is first observed or identified by the State as a citizen by birth (as opposed to by naturalisation, when it is conferred by El Presidento at a big ceremony) it is applied retrospectively. Citizenship as a birthright is applied retrospectively, ie it is deemed that the person was always a citizen. That is distinct from naturalisation.
But I can't see where you get the basis for making this distinction between the class of people you call "everyone born on the island of Ireland with no entitlement to any other citizenship" and the others. What is the rule, or law, that you are invoking here? How are they any more "automatically" citizens than those who make the choice? I'm comparing to "undeclared" citizens (those born in N. Ireland who have not already got a British passport, but would be entitled to get one if they so wished)

Citizenship is a legal construct, so someone is a citizen if the law says he’s a citizen, and he’s entitled to become a citizen if the law says he’s entitled to become a citizen.

Section 6(3) of the Irish Nationality and Citizenship Act 1956 (as amended) says this:

“A person born in the island of Ireland is an Irish citizen from birth if he or she is not entitled to citizenship of any other country.”

There’s a second (overlapping) group who are citizens from birth. Under s. 7(1):

“A person is an Irish citizen from birth if at the time of his or her birth either parent was an Irish citizen or would if alive have been an Irish citizen.”

(S. 7(3) modifies that slightly; if you’re born outside the island of Ireland and your Irish citizen parent(s) were also born outside the island of Ireland, then you’re only a citizen from birth if certain other conditions are satisfied.)

Those are the only two groups who, under the Act, have citizenship from birth. Other people born in the island of Ireland are (mostly) “entitled to be an Irish citizen” under s. 6(1), though there are a few carve-outs there too; if you’re born in Ireland but both your parents are non-nationals then s. 6A sets out some further conditions that must be satisfied before you are “entitled to be an Irish citizen”.

Under s. 6(2), a person who is “entitled to be an Irish citizen” actually becomes an Irish citizen (with retrospective effect) if, directly or through their parents, they do “any act that only an Irish citizen is entitled to do”.

Note that what converts your entitlement into actual citizenship is not anything the state does; it’s something you (or your parents) do. So if you apply for an Irish passport and are granted one, your entitlement is converted to citizenship when you apply, not when the passport is granted. This is distinct from naturalisation by grant of a certificate under s. 14, where it is the act of the Minister which results in citizenship being conferred on you.

The net result is that Irish law recognises three groups of people:

1. People who are citizens from birth - (most) children of Irish citizens, and (all) people born on the island of Ireland who would otherwise be stateless.

2. People who are entitled to be citizens - most other people born on the island of Ireland. They become citizens with retrospective effect when they exercise their entitlement.

3. People who are neither citizens, nor entitled to be citizens. They can become citizens by naturalisation (or by the grant of citizenship as a token of honour under s. 12, but that is fairly rare). Their citizenship is not retrospective.

Peregrinus · 17-04-2014 01:53AM

Brian Shanahan wrote: »

To be strictly legal, there is no such animal as a "British citizen" . . .

There certainly is. British Nationality Act 1981 s. 1:

"A person born in the United Kingdom . . . shall be a British citizen if at the time of the birth his father or mother is—

(a) a British citizen; or

(b) settled in the United Kingdom"

British nationality law distinguishes between citizens and subjects. A British subject is anybody born in a British posession who hasn't since lost British subject status. But you lose British subject status when you acquire the citizenship of any Commonwealth country (including citizenship of the UK, which means that British citizens are not British subjects). It's no longer possible to acquire British subject status, and since the status is not inheritable the class of British subjects is closed, and is declining as nature takes it's course. The bulk of the surviving British subjects are in fact Irish citizens born in the Republic before 1949.

17-04-2014 09:44AM

Just to get away from the citizenship debate, but am I the only one amazed at how weak the Ukrainian military response has been, for better or worse.

Peregrinus · 17-04-2014 09:51AM

I think it comes down to some combination of two things. One, the Ukrainian government is horribly reluctant to deploy the Ukrainian armed forces against Ukrainian citizens. Two, the Ukrainian government is horribly afraid that, if they try to deploy the Ukrainian armed forces against Ukrainian citizens, the armed forces, or a signficant chunk of them, will refuse.

Absolam · 17-04-2014 09:53AM

And the fact that once they are deployed, Russia will happily 'liberate' the country from their military oppressors.

Peregrinus · 17-04-2014 09:55AM

Yes, that too.

robindch · 17-04-2014 10:27AM

riffmongous wrote: »

[...] am I the only one amazed at how weak the Ukrainian military response has been [...]

To add to the above, it seems that Yanokovich slashed the Ukrainian defence budget during his tenure and I've seen unconfirmed reports that the country only has around 6,000 soldiers available. Also, it seems that the interim government in Kiev has not delivered clear instructions to its military either concerning what it is to do, the rules of engagement and so on.

BTW, Putin's doing a live Q+A at the moment - the level of cynicism is off the scale.

17-04-2014 10:37AM

robindch wrote: »

To add to the above, it seems that Yanokovich slashed the Ukrainian defence budget during his tenure and I've seen unconfirmed reports that the country only has around 6,000 soldiers available. Also, it seems that the interim government in Kiev has not delivered clear instructions to its military either concerning what it is to do, the rules of engagement and so on.

BTW, Putin's doing a live Q+A at the moment - the level of cynicism is off the scale.

It seemed to be the same during the Crimea crisis, from a lot of accounts the soldiers trapped in the bases claimed to have been effectively abandoned, no orders and no logistics.

The threat of soldiers defecting certainly is real, but in a country as big as ukraine surely there are army units that consist mainly of ethnic ukrainians (raised in the west of the country) which could be deployed? One of the soldiers interviewed said he was from Dnipropetrovsk, which is far too close to the trouble region.

alaimacerc · 17-04-2014 12:38PM

riffmongous wrote: »

The threat of soldiers defecting certainly is real, but in a country as big as ukraine surely there are army units that consist mainly of ethnic ukrainians (raised in the west of the country) which could be deployed? One of the soldiers interviewed said he was from Dnipropetrovsk, which is far too close to the trouble region.

There's obviously something to this, but when it comes down to deploying your military units on much the same doctrine as that employed by the Roman Empire, "democratic will and consent of the people" is evidently quite some ways *thataways*.

recedite · 17-04-2014 12:43PM

riffmongous wrote: »

One of the soldiers interviewed said he was from Dnipropetrovsk, which is far too close to the trouble region.

Indeed the soldier may well consider himself to be an "ethnic Russian" as well as a "Ukrainian citizen".

There are three main problems for the military commanders in Kiev;

1. Its not easy to convince soldiers to use weapons against their own people.
Often an insecure ruling elite will establish a separate military force which can be used for this purpose, and may even be deployed against the regular army. They are usually better paid than the regular army, get political and idealogical "education" and swear loyalty to the head of state, as opposed to the state itself. Historical examples would be the Praetorian Guard (Rome), Republican Guard (Iraq) Waffen S.S. (Germany). Even if Kiev was forming such a force, it would take time to gather and equip, and then it would have to travel long distances eastwards across the country.

2. Its easy to send in highly mobile special forces to secure an airport or TV station. But to subdue a whole population, a large contingent of infantry is required, and also brutal tactics against civilians.

3. No.2 above will invite a Russian military response, and they are waiting nearby in their thousands, just across the border.

alaimacerc · 17-04-2014 12:46PM

Brian Shanahan wrote: »

To be strictly legal, there is no such animal as a "British citizen". Legally all British passport holders are subjects of the crown, because, in constitutional terms, the UK is still technically an absolute monarchy.

Ok, this is a technicality, but then again technically correct is the best form of being correct.

Yes, and there's about three things technically wrong in the above! In addition to the one originally at hand that's been pointed out, the idea that there's a UK constitution, and that its monarchy is an absolute one. These latter two are almost mutually contradictory, in any case. And in the event, neither is in any useful sense true.

alaimacerc · 17-04-2014 12:56PM

recedite wrote: »

II'm comparing to "undeclared" citizens (those born in N. Ireland who have not already got a British passport, but would be entitled to get one if they so wished)

I'm not entirely sure of the details of this, but I don't think the UK uses the "entitlement" nuance, but it does allow formal renunciation of citizenship, so it's satisfying the gist of the GFA text by means of "opt out" rather than "opt in". (I'm guessing Seamus Heaney hadn't availed of this when he pulled "my passport's green" on the Brits, though.)

alaimacerc · 17-04-2014 01:17PM

Peregrinus wrote: »

But there does remain the curious anomaly that someone born in a part of the UK in circumstances which do not entitled him to UK citizenship may be an Irish citizen from birth, though I suspect the number of people in that situation is very small. But there certainly can be people in that class, since birth in the UK does not, on its own, entitle anyone to UK citizenship; further circumstances are required.

Nor does the Irish law, any more! Of the post-2005, this would only be children whose parents are people with neither British nor Irish citizenship, not meeting the UK test for "settled" status, but who do meet the RoI "residency" test. It's possible that this is a non-empty set in practice, or at least not void in theory, but not entirely clear, either. That's as much as I can manage right now in the middle of a lunchtime slump on the basis of google-grade research!

Prior to 2005, this was certainly true, as there was at least one "notorious" precedent-setting case using it.

17-04-2014 01:19PM

recedite wrote: »

Indeed the soldier may well consider himself to be an "ethnic Russian" as well as a "Ukrainian citizen".

There are three main problems for the military commanders in Kiev;

1. Its not easy to convince soldiers to use weapons against their own people.
Often an insecure ruling elite will establish a separate military force which can be used for this purpose, and may even be deployed against the regular army. They are usually better paid than the regular army, get political and idealogical "education" and swear loyalty to the head of state, as opposed to the state itself. Historical examples would be the Praetorian Guard (Rome), Republican Guard (Iraq) Waffen S.S. (Germany). Even if Kiev was forming such a force, it would take time to gather and equip, and then it would have to travel long distances eastwards across the country.

2. Its easy to send in highly mobile special forces to secure an airport or TV station. But to subdue a whole population, a large contingent of infantry is required, and also brutal tactics against civilians.

3. No.2 above will invite a Russian military response, and they are waiting nearby in their thousands, just across the border.

Yes sure it might not be easy to assemble trustworthy units, but what they did instead, sending in fully equipped units who were likely to sympathise with the opponents wasn't just amateur but foolish, handing over military hardware and soldiers, coupled with the length of time it took to organise even this poor response it only strengthens the position of the separatists.

They would have been better off with no military response than what they did do so far.

Brian Shanahan · 17-04-2014 09:36PM

alaimacerc wrote: »

Yes, and there's about three things technically wrong in the above! In addition to the one originally at hand that's been pointed out, the idea that there's a UK constitution, and that its monarchy is an absolute one. These latter two are almost mutually contradictory, in any case. And in the event, neither is in any useful sense true.

When I said "in constitutional terms" I didn't mean that the UK has a constitution, because it doesn't, but in terms of its legislative and judicial form (which is generally shortened to constituional).

And no it is not true in a useful sense at the moment, but if for example a second Oswald Mosely came along, a one that was competent and charismatic for a change, he could use the lack of any legal or constitutional constraints to inaugurate a regime that would make some that we're not supposed to compare any other government with look like a bunch of LoLcats.

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

Comments