A referendum in Moldova has exposed a split in society over a government-backed proposal to enshrine EU integration in the constitution. Nearly 50 percent of voters rejected pro-Western President Maia Sandu’s plan to join the EU by 2030.
Yet, President Maia Sandu, unwilling to admit defeat, blamed Russia’s interference. Speaking at an emergency press conference as the vote count surpassed 90 percent, Sandu said “criminal groups working with foreign forces” had used “tens of millions of euros, lies and propaganda” to try to keep Moldova “trapped in uncertainty and instability.”
Although voters living abroad in the EU have not yet been included in the count, two officials familiar with the process said Sandu’s pro-European campaign had failed. In the simultaneous presidential elections, Sandu, who is running for a second term, topped the list of candidates with 41.78% of the vote after 98.11% of the ballots had been counted. Her closest rival, Alexandru Stoianoglo, came in second with 26.41%. Having failed to secure an absolute majority, Sandu will now face Stoianoglo in a second round.
Sandu’s failure was also noticed in other countries. Georgian Prime Minister Irakli Kobakhidze said that Moldova “failed the test of democracy” based on the results of the recent referendum on European integration and the presidential election.
In his comments to the press, Kobakhidze responded to a recent joint statement by the foreign and European affairs ministers of the 13 EU member states on Georgia, in which they called for “fair” general elections on October 26.
“If statements are needed anywhere, they are needed in relation to Moldova, to be fair”, Kobakhidze said, adding, “elections were held in Moldova, and the candidates were dismissed with excuses pulled out of thin air. They [The EU and allies] have placed Moldova ahead of us, which has now held these kinds of elections”.
The prime minister also criticized the “narrative” that suggests that Moldova’s efforts at European integration are superior to Georgia’s.
Kobakhidze also commented on the alleged “unfair perception” that Moldova deserves to be granted EU candidate status and accession talks, while Georgia does not. “This is a shame. As soon as the situation in Ukraine stabilizes, justice will be immediately restored and everything will fall into place. I am sure of this,” he concluded.
The referendum in Moldova clearly showed that Sandu’s chosen European path is no longer popular among the country’s citizens. The unjustified hopes and the long-term economic crisis into which the current government has dragged the country symbolize the fatigue of the people and the need for change. Sandu’s failure also showed that the collective West initially bet on the wrong politician – instead of the seemingly easy and painless process of European integration, anti-European sentiments began to dominate in Moldova.
Turkish President Tayyip Erdogan makes a speech during his meeting with mukhtars at the Presidential Palace in Ankara, Turkey, October 26, 2016. Yasin Bulbul/Presidential Palace/Handout via REUTERS
Reuters
Turkey could hold a referendum on whether to continue membership talks with the European Union next year, President Tayyip Erdogan said on Monday, and repeated his warning to Brussels that it needed to “make up its mind” on Turkish accession.
European Union foreign ministers were meeting on Monday to consider shelving membership talks with Turkey over what they see as its lurch away from democracy after a failed coup in July, although there is no consensus for such a move.
In a speech in Ankara broadcast live on television, Erdogan urged Turks to be patient until the end of the year and then said a vote could be held on EU membership.
“Let’s wait until the end of the year and then go to the people. Let’s go to the people since they will make the final call. Even Britain went to the people. Britain said ‘let’s exit’, and they left,” Erdogan said.
He lambasted European Parliament President Martin Schulz, who said this month the detention of opposition politicians and the extent of post-coup purges “call into question the basis for the sustainable relationship between the EU and Turkey”.
“What are you? Since when do you have the authority to decide for Turkey? How can you, who have not taken Turkey into the EU for 53 years, find the authority to make such a decision?” Erdogan said.
“These people makes its own decisions, cuts its own umbilical cord,” he said.
Erdogan also said he would approve reinstating the death penalty – a move that would likely end any hope of Turkish membership in the EU – if parliament passed a law on it, and said that too could be part of a referendum.
Turkey is expected to hold a national vote on constitutional changes next spring, including boosting the powers of Erdogan’s office to create a Turkish version of the presidential system in the United States or France.
(Reporting by Ece Toksabay and Tuvan Gumrukcu; Writing by Nick Tattersall; Editing by Humeyra Pamuk and David Dolan)
When the first results were announced (as there were no exit polls), it became clear that Scotland had lost a once-in-a-generation chance to become independent. This does not mean that Occupied Scotland will stay within the so-called United Kingdom for another 20 or 30 years, but it makes clear that there will be no change for the next 5-6 years for sure.
What was the reason for No-vote to prevail?
Scottish independence leader Alex Salmond and his team underwent a great effort in which a great historical perspective was missing. The Yes-campaign supporters were offered too little of a vision to make of Scotland’s independence their basic need of existence.
Lack of Inspiring Vision & Disregard for Historical and National Identity
As per the details of a presentation elaborated by an outfit of the Yes-campaign , no 1 reason to vote Yes for an Independent Scotland was or should be “Taking Responsibility by moving all Governing Powers to Scotland”; no 2 reason was or should be “Get the Government we choose”, and the minor reasons included financial benefits, irrelevant issues of international affairs (nuclear weapons), and a very weak denunciation of a ‘forced political marriage’ (the innocuous term was coined to describe the nefarious English annexation of Scotland).
A very simple Google search will remove the last doubts about the main reason for which the Yes-campaign failed to gather the support of more than 45% of the voters. If you write “Occupied Scotland” (in brackets), you have around 58000 results only (which is very low a number), and if you search for the contents, you realize that they are mainly historical of nature and they refer to Viking Crusaders, king Edward of England, who was known as the ‘Hammer of the Scots’, and Cromwell! Very scarce links to political analysis and/or editorials can be found in the search.
If Scotland is not viewed by Scots as ‘Occupied by England’, Scots will not find the need to do all that it takes to liberate their country.
This means in other words that, even for Yes-campaign supporters, today’s Scotland is NOT an Occupied country, which is of course very wrong. Certainly, the means and the conditions of Scotland’s foreign occupation are not similar to those attested in Occupied Palestine or Occupied Oromia in Africa, but this reality does not lessen the fact that Scotland has been occupied since 1707, after having been targeted and threatened, aggressed and attacked by England for centuries.
A country is always occupied by an enemy; this is an undeniable fact in World History. There is no such thing as a ‘friendly occupation’. Trying to minimize the inimical character and nature of a foreign occupation does never bode well with the occupied nation’s aspirations and chances to achieve liberation, independence and self-determination.
When a hostile country invades a nation, the occupying forces try to find immoral, corrupt, and idiotic persons that, placing their personal interests above the national interests of their Occupied Land, find it normal, easy and ethical to collaborate with the occupier. Outmaneuvering this plague is by definition one of the major targets and tasks of a national liberation effort.
In the case of Scotland, these catastrophic persons were very active indeed in the last weeks before the referendum, and they intend to remain as such thereafter simply because this issue did not end. The disreputable former prime minister (who was never elected to that post) Gordon Brown is one of them; as he knows how to be a loyal lackey to the City, he has just announced a new Scotland Act to be ready as draft legislation by the end of January 2015 . Gordon Brown, Alistair Darling and their likes know very well that the spectrum of Scotland’s Independence will only become more forceful in the years ahead; and with ridiculous measures of advanced devolution, they try to appease and besot more Scots. These are the enemies who should have been denounced in the most stressed terms.
Unfortunately, First Minister Alex Salmond and the Yes-campaign supporters failed to duly, fully and irrevocably discredit Gordon Brown and his likes as they should. To do so, they should have first properly and adequately presented Scotland as an Occupied Land, and they should have underscored, and focused, on issues of Historical and National Identity. That they did not attempt anything in this direction is clearly shown in their way of presenting the possible reasons to vote No. As per their presentation, no 1 reason is: ‘believing England and Scotland are better off together’. However, for a Scot, this ‘belief’ is tantamount to high treason.
It is exactly the same as if Marshal Philippe Pétain said, after signing the Second Armistice at Compiègne on 22 June 1940, that he ‘believed France and Germany are better off together’. In this regard, it is important to keep in mind that political correctness does not validate (neither does it invalidate) demands for national servility and submission. Simply, national capitulation is a matter of high treason – anytime anywhere.
The lack of an inspiring vision of an Independent Scotland dramatically reduced the scope of the Yes-campaign. National independence is something far higher than mere economic considerations, natural resources exploitation, and cheap anti-nuclear ideology.
What does it matter whether the divorce is going to be ‘messy’ (as per Jill Lawless here: )? And if it is ‘complicated’ to divorce after a 300-year union, it is even more unacceptable to call a foreign occupation merely a ‘union’. Actually, it was not a union; it was a systematic burial of an entire nation, and a sophisticated, yet not brutal, genocide – mainly spiritual, not physical, of character.
Ill-conceived Eligibility
At the practical level, one should however begin pondering about a key issue that, if viewed and considered differently, would change – in and by itself – the result of the referendum automatically.
Who voted for Scotland’s Independence?
For the national independence of a country, only those, who belong to that nation, have a birth right to have a say, and therefore to vote. In this regard, it is paranoid to offer voting right to another nation’s citizens. And it is self-disastrous to offer voting right to the hostile nation’s citizens, who are to be considered as the first enemies of the occupied land, and as the most resolute opponents of the occupied nation’s right and will to achieve national independence.
Quite paradoxically, the 2010 Draft Bill extended the voting right in the referendum to all the British citizens who were resident in Scotland!
This is tantamount to offering the voting right to Nazi soldiers in a referendum held in Occupied France 1940-1944!
Occupiers have by definition no right to decide on anything about the future of the country that they hold captive.
However, a significant number of English, Welsh and North Irish live in Scotland; offering them the voting right in the referendum for Scotland’s independence was indeed the main reason for the calamitous result. According to an estimate, around 500000 English live in Occupied Scotland (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2753400/Revealed-How-half-million-English-voters-living-Scotland-set-block-independence.html). They should have been blocked out of the referendum.
Another paranoid measure was to offer voting right to all the citizens of the 52 other Commonwealth countries and to all the citizens of the 27 other European Union countries who were resident in Scotland. This means that a Sri Lankan, a Nigerian, an Arawakan from Guyana, and a Bulgarian would have a say about the future of a nation to which they did not belong and even did not bother to belong. It should be anticipated that, if invited to participate, these foreigners would only care about per their own interests, and not about the genuine local interests – let alone the interests of Scotland as a nation. As it could be expected, in their majority, they voted against Scotland’s independence.
Another incredible measure was preventing ca. 800000 Scots living south of the borderline between England and Scotland from voting. In fact, all Scottish expatriates did not have a vote, which is a matter of indignation and outrage. As early as January 2012, Elaine Murray, a Labor party member of the Scottish Parliament, demanded that the voting right be extended to Scots living in other parts of the UK, but the debate was opposed by the Scottish government itself! Ridiculous excuses were advanced at the time such as that the UN Human Rights Committee suggested that other nations would question the legitimacy of a referendum if the franchise is not territorial, and the like!
Ill-defined Future
Except the lack of a great vision, the disregard for the National Identity, and the paranoid extension of voting right to the enemies of Scotland’s independence, Alex Salmond and his team made many wrong suggestions and decisions about what Independent Scotland would look like. In fact, they acted as if they intended to minimize as maximum as possible the otherwise shocking dimensions of a secession. This can be really detrimental in politics.
If something, which is shocking by its nature, ceases to be shocking for one reason or for another, people lose their appetite for it and disrespect it altogether. What follows is a list of mistakes ensuing from this very erroneous perception of politics.
If Scotland seceded from England, Elizabeth II would still be the monarch of the kingdom of Scotland. This is preposterous! The Republic of Scotland would be a far clearer vision and a far happier perspective; as such they would motivate a greater number of more enthusiastic supporters. Today, the fact that Scotland and England shared a monarch for almost a century before the two countries ‘united politically’ in 1707 does not matter much. And it certainly does not mean that, after separating from England, Scotland needs to be organized as a kingdom, and not as a republic.
Confiscate Balmoral!
This would be the correct slogan for a passionate debate among only Scots.
Another mistake of the Scottish government was to promise Scottish citizenship to non-Scottish, British citizens living in Scotland, as well as to Scotland-born Britons who live elsewhere. Although this measure showed a certain magnanimous spirit, it would not change in anything the vicious vote intension of the English residents in Scotland. So, as they should never be given a voting right, they should never be promised Scottish nationality.
In a materialistic world, mass media-guided, brainless and thoughtless populations are forced to consider economic issues as vitally important for their otherwise valueless lives. However, assuming that political pragmatism is necessary, one understands the reason economic issues are dealt with great concern by politicians, advocates, activists and campaigners.
But then it was a terrible mistake for Alex Salmond and his team to announce that the pound sterling would remain Scotland’s official currency after a Yes-victory in the referendum. Global mass media tried to portray an Independent Scotland as a small country in a dangerous global environment. Mark Carney, the Governor of the Bank of England, stated even that ‘a currency union is incompatible with sovereignty’ in an indirect form of blackmailing. Yet, the only real economic danger is for Scotland to remain within a financially collapsed state, like England that has a 10 trillion external debt to serve. In reality, escaping from bankrupt England should have been reason good enough even for English residents in Scotland to vote in favor of Scotland’s independence. In this regard a clear language should have been articulated in total opposition to the global mass media and the criminal gangsters of the City.
In fact, there have been bloggers and writers who saw this reality, like Ian R. Crane (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=muiZCgC7QB4) and Ellen Brown (https://www.globalresearch.ca/a-public-bank-option-for-scotland/5402542). Ian R. Crane was very right in demanding an independent Central Bank of Scotland, a new currency for Scotland, strict currency controls for at least the first 3 years of Scotland’s independence, nationalization of the energy sector, and Scotland’s immediate withdrawal from EU and NATO. And Ellen Brown was quite correct in her prediction: “If Alex Salmond and the SNP [Scottish National Party] are serious about keeping the Pound Stirling as the Currency of Scotland, there will be no independence”.
In fact, in the atmosphere that enveloped the referendum, there was too much of material concern and a very weak expression of national idealism; this does not constitute the correct combination to speak to the soul of the Scots. Another language will be needed in this regard in perhaps 5 or 10 years. What language? Pure Scottish! As the great Scottish poet and lyricist Robert Burns (1759 – 1796), the national poet of Scotland, put it: “We are bought and sold for English gold. Such a parcel of rogues in a nation”!
Turkey has no intention to become a member of the European Union (EU), according to Krasimir Karackachanov, leader of Bulgaria’s nationalist VMRO party.
VMRO leader Krasimir Karakachanov has insisted that Turkey does not intend to become an EU member state. Photo by darik news
In his words, the country opposes European integration because “this entails granting rights to the Kurdish minority, giving up control of the press and the islamization of society”.
“Turkey has chosen the way of Islam and that is a fact- the headscarves, their religious approach to problems, etc. “, VMRO leader says, emphasizing on what he describes as Turkey’s marked foreign policy orientation towards the East over the past years.
“Many experts have confirmed that Turkey is pursuing a neo-osmanism policy. This does not mean conquest; it means maintaining an economic and cultural footprint in the territories of the former Ottoman Empire. This is a very clear indication of Turkey’s orientation, which is not towards EU integration”, Karakachanov has said.
He has also stressed VMRO’s dissatisfaction with the yet unresolved issue of compensations that Turkey owes to the descendants of the Bulgarian refugees from Eastern Thrace.
“Not a single government has raised the question in Bulgaria-Turkey relations”, according to Karakachanov.
Krasimir Karakachanov has been endorsed to run for President in the upcoming October elections by VMRO’s unit in Sofia.
According to some estimates, Turkey owes a compensation of some USD 10 B to the descendants of the Bulgarians, who left their estates in Eastern Thrace as well as in Asia Minor in 1913-1920. These include over two million decares of agricultural land, homes, and other property.
Turkey’s EU accession has been a contentious issue in Bulgaria, with nationalist parties Ataka and VMRO acting as firm opponents.
After a visit of Turkish PM Erdogan to Sofia in early October, at which Bulgarian PM Borisov declared principled support fro Turkey’s EU accession, the nationalists from Ataka – who are actually at odds with VMRO, a more marginal nationalist formation – showed up in Parliament with special T-shirts saying “No to Turkey in the EU”, and warned that the issue could cause problems between them and GERB.
The Bulgarian Parliament, however, rejected calls by VMRO and Ataka to put Turkey’s bid to join the EU to a referendum.
via Bulgaria: Bulgarian Nationalist Party Claims Turkey Opposes EU Integration – Novinite.com – Sofia News Agency.
ARE THE constitutional amendments approved by a referendum in Turkey last Sunday “a turning point” for Turkish democracy, as Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan declared? Are they “another important step by Turkey on the road towards Europe,” as the German foreign minister put it? Or do they open the way to a “civilian dictatorship” by Mr. Erdogan and his Islamist Justice and Development Party, as the leader of the opposition is warning? Perhaps the most salient — and worrisome — characteristic of Mr. Erdogan’s government after nearly eight years in office is that the answer is not obvious.
After a polarizing campaign that became more a referendum on his government than on the 26 proposed constitutional reforms, Mr. Erdogan was rewarded with a decisive victory: 58 percent of voters approved the changes in a charter that had been imposed by the military after a 1980 coup. Many of the changes are indisputably liberal and will strengthen democracy in a Muslim country that is a NATO member and has aspired to join the European Union. For example, military officers will be subject to civilian trials; the rights of women, the elderly, handicapped people and children will be enhanced; restrictions on unions will be lifted; and individuals will have greater privacy rights and the ability to appeal to the Constitutional Court.
But the constitutional package, which was presented to voters for a single, up-or-down vote, also contains a sweeping reorganization of the Constitutional Court and Turkey’s other top judicial body, the Supreme Board of Judges and Prosecutors. Each would be expanded, and the power of appointment would be shifted to the president and legislature. Until now, Turkey’s judiciary has been a bastion of secularism and thus of resistance to Mr. Erdogan. The Constitutional Court struck down his initiative allowing women to wear head scarves in state schools and came within one vote of outlawing his party.
Now Mr. Erdogan will have the power to place his appointees in a dominating position. The opposition charges that the courts will become merely another arm of the ruling party — which, it claims, is carrying out a “creeping coup” against the secular state. While some of the critics’ rhetoric may be exaggerated, Mr. Erdogan’s actions give cause for concern. In the last several years his government has used questionable tax charges to lean on opposition media. Sprawling investigations of alleged coup plotters have swept up not just military officers but also businessmen and journalists.
Mr. Erdogan’s constitutional reforms conspicuously did not include greater protections for freedom of speech and religion, or for the Kurdish minority. But the prime minister, who now is heavily favored to win reelection next year, has promised a more complete constitutional rewrite. If he still wishes to move Turkey toward the West, Mr. Erdogan will have to pursue those reforms while resisting the temptation to strip the judiciary of independence.
Turkey’s hopes of joining the EU have been boosted by Sunday’s vote to curb the influence of the military and to enhance the parliament’s role in appointing judges, say German media commentators. But they add that more fundamental constitutional reform is now needed.
Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan got a strong boost on Sunday when 58 percent of voters backed his package of reforms of the country’s military-era constitution. The changes are aimed at bringing Turkey more in line with European Union standards and helping the country’s bid to join the bloc. They have also strengthened Erdogan ahead of a general election next year.
Erdogan said the result meant the country had “crossed a historic threshold toward advanced democracy and the supremacy of law.” The reform was held on the 30th anniversary of the coup in which the army seized power in 1980. It makes the military more accountable to civilian courts and hands parliament more power to appoint judges.
The European Commission and United States President Barack Obama welcomed the result. A White House statement said the president “acknowledged the vibrancy of Turkey’s democracy as reflected in the turnout for the referendum that took place across Turkey today.”
German Foreign Minister Guido Westerwelle called the vote “an important step on Turkey’s path to Europe” but added that the outcome of accession negotiations remained open.
Erdogan’s Islam-rooted Justice and Development Party (AKP) has clashed repeatedly with Turkey’s highest courts, which see themselves as guardians of the country’s secular values. The opposition accused the AKP of trying to seize control of the judiciary as part of a back-door Islamist coup.
German media commentators say the referendum will help Turkey’s EU aspirations, and that Erdogan’s critics are wrong to claim that Turkey will be turned into an Islamic dictatorship as a result of the reform now approved.
But they add that the reform must just be a first step and that Turkey needs more fundamental constitutional change based on a broad compromise between the government, opposition and other major groups in society. So far Erdogan, self-assured after almost eight years in power, seems uninterested in taking that step. He should change his mind to tackle the growing impression that the AKP has become too authoritative and self-serving, German media commentators say.
The Berlin daily Der Tagesspiegel writes:
“The reforms won’t turn Turkey into an Islamic dictatorship, as Erdogan’s critics claim. On the contrary, they will make the country more democratic, even though Turkey has a long way to go before it reaches EU levels. To get there one thing above all has to happen. In this moment of triumph Erdogan should drop his ambition to do everything unilaterally. He could thereby hand Turkey an important gift — a new political culture.
“Erdogan’s victory is also a success for Turkey’s EU aspirations. Brussels had supported the reforms despite some objections, and the curbs to the army’s power were especially important to the EU.”
“The long and hard-fought campaign leading up to the referendum made clear how deeply large parts of the Turkish population mistrust the AKP. Many Turks no longer regard the AKP, which has now been in power for almost eight years, as a force for reform but as a party which polarizes people and focuses mainly on its own advantages. Few believe the AKP wants to turn Turkey into an Islamic theocracy. But many believe it is becoming more authoritative.”
“Basically all parties in Ankara agree that Turkey needs more than just repairs to the current constitution. Before the vote the opposition suggested bringing all parties and important associations together to talk about a completely new constitution. Erdogan himself spoke about the need for a new constitution. But so far the prime minister, so certain of his power and ability to enact change, has shown no inclination to accommodate the other parties. He should do so now.”
The left-wing Frankfurter Rundschau writes:
“The reform is a rebuff to the army’s self-proclaimed right to seize power whenever it sees fit as guardian of the republic. And it subordinates a justice system that had grown into a state within a state. For many older Turks the day of the referendum awakened bad memories because it was held on the 30th anniversary of the military coup. More than half a million people were imprisoned during the dictatorship and more than 500 sentenced to death, and hundreds died of torture. Many Turks will have voted in favor of constitutional change for that reason.
“The outcome of the referendum may be seen as a success for Erdogan, but that is not decisive. It isn’t Erdogan who has won, but Turkish democracy. But this reform is only a first step. The ‘generals’ constitution’ that is geared towards protecting the state from its citizens rather than strengthening the rights of citizens must now be comprehensively overhauled.”
The conservative Die Welt writes:
“Most of the points in the constitutional reform are indeed in line with European standards. But the government’s portrayal of the referendum contains four significant misconceptions.”
“Firstly, the 1980 coup also brought benefits to the country. It is true that 65,000 people were arrested, many tortured and 27 executed. But in each of the three preceding years some 1,200 to 1,500 people had been killed by political terrorism. That stopped after the coup, so the generals saved lives. At least 750,000 weapons were confiscated. The constitution — made legitimate by a referendum — that is now being ‘overcome’ ensured greater stability by keeping smaller parties out of parliament. Tough reforms stabilized the economy. This, too, is a legacy of the generals: stability and prosperity, the foundation for democratic reforms.”
“Secondly, the reform isn’t ‘overcoming’ the undemocratic aspects of the constitution: the 10 percent hurdle for parliamentary representation remains in place. It excludes whole groups of society from political representation.
“Thirdly, this isn’t a change of system but a transition of power within the system. By taking over the appointment of judicial staff and undermining the power of the army the government is trying to take over the lower-ranking long-term positions of power.
“The fourth misconception is a self-delusion. The AKP is dreaming of running the country as permanently as the army once did. But every party that gets the necessary majorities will be able to use these reforms in the same way to take over the state. What Turkey needs, but isn’t trying to achieve, is a separation of state and ideology.”
