Article 73:
Article 157 forbids the territory of Ukraine from being altered via a constitutional amendment, which in Ukraine is voted on exclusively by the legislature. Article 73 specifies that alterations to the territory of Ukraine are to be conducted via an All-Ukrainian referendum.
No, not jus the US. I posted this several posts up from the one you quoted, so it’s possible you missed it:
Emphasis re-added in a more visible form. If Crimeans don’t care whether their secession actions are recognized internationally, then good for them. But Crimea River if companies don’t want to do business there, people don’t want to travel there, and countries don’t want offer them economic assistance when needed.
It seems you are ignoring that the only valid opinion poll of actual Crimean opinion, undertaken less than a month prior to Russian invasion, put “pro-joining-Russia” sentiment at far below half. Baffling.
Good catch, HA.
No, I’m not ignoring that and I’m not saying the Crimean referendum was valid. But I have no doubt that the Kiev coup/whatever and perceived Western meddling would have pushed that number up higher. Western meddling helped bring this crisis to a head and wasn’t “praiseworthy”.
I have no doubt that my party will win the next election, too. Which is why I think we should not bother holding it. Since I already know.
And how are 1.5 million Crimeans going to demand the legislature to issue a referendum for seccession in the first place let alone win one. There’s no way that 'ALL of Ukraine" would vote to let Crimea go back to Russia or become fully independent.
You might want to recall the Crimea perspective that developed ‘after’ the legislative coup as a result of the popular uprising and violent protests taking place in Kiev. The chain of events and crisis allowed Crimeans to consider their legal bondage to the broken Ukrainen Constitution to be dissolved.
Not having a constitutional and practical path to independence, Crimea sought independence by defiant and illegal declaration plus requested Russian military assistance to back them up. And they have succeeded in that declaration.
[QUOTE=Batistuta]
Is it so hard to understand that some of us are against large military invasions of innocent countries, regardless of who invades whom? Iraq was wrong, yes. Crimea is essentially blood-less, but still wrong.
[/quote]
I’m unclear what the position posters such as RedFury and Rune actually hold on invasions. Perhaps they can elucidate, rather than crowing about the actions of their favourite Slavic strongman? I’d have thought stated opposition to the Iraq invasion would have been based around some deep-seated moral principle, presumably also applying to Crimea and hence expressed in the same vigorous terms they reserved for the Iraq invasion, not mere opposition to invasions carried out by the West, with news of a Russian annexation being joked away with accusations of Western hypocrisy and impotency with regards an expansionist kleptocracy on the edge of Europe.
There’s a process for it in the Constitution:
I don’t see a mechanism there for the legislature to block a referendum.
Any particular evidence for that view? I’m not taking it on faith.
Letting the nation have a say in what happens to the nation is hardly oppressive or unreasonable; it’s how the United States, and other federal systems, are set up.
That might a Crimean perspective, but it’s not the perspective. Recall what’s been proferred in this thread: Russian intervention preceding an official request, the sharp contrast in the earlier polling data and the referendum result, the suspect nature of the referendum (no status quo option, some observers filtered out, reports of 2.5 million ballots printed for 1.5 million voters, etc), that new elections for Ukraine are scheduled for May…they point to an alternative perspective, in which Russia used a pretext to seize a strategically useful region.
OK, that’s not remotely what I said. Have fun locked in the old my side-your side mindset.
You can see that this doesn’t allow Crimea to initiate a referendum on it’s own though, right? Even if every single person in Crimea signed the petition. Canada and the UK have a much lower threshold for separation.
Yes. I posted it because NotfooledbyW offered Articles 134 and 157 as “a cite where the Ukraine Constitution actually ‘forbids Crimea’ from seceding”. It does no such thing, as Article 72 makes clear.
The U.S. threshold is higher, as a state seceding would require a Constitutional amendment: Either a supermajority vote by Congress, or a national convention requested by at least 34 states, then ratification by at least 38 states.
Is there some level of difficulty where the whole process can be justifably skipped, without any sort of honest attempt made? How are we to know what that level is?
Say what you will about the Ukranian parliament’s removal of Yanukovych, while the procedure was only partially followed, at least it’s a power the parliament has, and they made an effort to exercise it legitimately.
I am pointing out that your “no doubt” isn’t worth anything as evidence.
What is? Actual polling data, and actual, unbiased voting results. The former is against you and the latter does not exist.
I think the ‘it is hard for Crimea to legally go its own way so Russia had to step in and help’ is the most appealing argument of the pro-Russian bloc.
However, it doesn’t fully convince me. Catalonia and the Basque Country arguably have pro-independence majorities, but the Spanish constitution does not allow for a self-determination vote. Would that allow France to send its tanks across the border? I have to say no. Internal issues should be solved internally
Is your answer to that “No”? I could see it being pointless to try at some point, though I would hope for some jostling for changes to make it less difficult before any unilateral action. Let me be clear, the referendum in Crimea wasn’t legit, imho. This wasn’t the culmination of years of popular calls for separation. It was held under foreign occupation. It didn’t allow a vote for the status quo.
However, the events in Kiev emboldened and in all likelihood swelled the ranks of pro-russian elements. This made it easier for Russia to make their move. Both of these things were made easier by the West’s stirring of the pot.
Canada’s laws ain’t that different.
It is clear a province cannot do it on its own - only with the supervision of federal parliament, who vets the questions, engages in negotiations, requires a “supermajority” in any referendum, can veto the results if the Act is not followed, etc.
From the Act itself:
All a referendum does is trigger a review by parliament. It is up to parliament te decide if the evidence (including referendum results) justifies “negotiations”.
In short, in both Canada and Ukraine what is necessary for seperation is the consent of the country as a whole. A constituent part cannot do it by itself: all a local referendum does, is start the process.
That consent is determined differently: in Canada, it is through parliament; in Ukraine, through an all-Ukraine referendum.
As long as there is some sort of democratic process, then my answer is indeed “No”.
I don’t disagree with any of that, except to note that the pot-stirring was pretty weak stuff, as far as these things go.
Different countries have different processes to allow a region to break off. I don’t see that the Ukrainian process is particularly more onerous. And I can’t see that “Russian Speakers” were horribly oppressed in Crimea so that they had to exit ex-constitutionally.
Does anyone here really not see this as basically a blatant land grab by Russia? Whether they had fears of encroaching NATO or not. It was an illegal land grab with absolutely no attempt to pursue a legal avenue.
My deep seated principle in opposition to the US invasion of Iraq is that international law was working in perfect order to deter and remove any need or pretext for invasion. There have been few examples of diplomatic means such as the obvious case of disarming Iraq by the peaceful means of UN inspections.
The flagrant violation of international law and disregard for peaceful diplomacy backed by the threat of military force that was demonstrated in 2003 is an atrocity of historical significance. And that atrocity should not be compared to the military backing of a bid for independence or separation that took place in Crimea.
There is little if anything in common between the two events that can or should be compared.
To Capt S Party:
I thought I made it perfectly clear that I don’t want to live in a unipolar World. One where the US & its allies go romping around and basically do as they please; international law or not.
And as NfBW, makes it clear in his last post, there’s simply no comparison in what the US did and what Russia has done in Crimea and what the US did – and mantains – in Iraq. “Illegitimacy” many times in the eyes of the beholder, and while, again, I don’t condone invasions, there’s a far cry from what Russia did in Crimea to what the US has done in the past decades all over the place. I simply want someone to stand-up to the worldly bully and make it think that they can’t “rule the world.”
And as shown and proven, they can’t. Which, IMO, is a good thing.
The end.