Printable View
Not for much longer imo. Once old lizzie carks it, no-one here, exceopt maybe for a few expatriate poms will want charlie as the monach. I'll have a guess and say if the current government is returned in the next election a republic will once again be on the cards.Quote:
Originally Posted by Rollo
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rollo
I'm not sure what the Baltic has to do with this. It''s probably just as well that you don't answer any questions in the Geography thread :p .
Last time I looked at an atlas the Baltic was a small area of water between Sweden and Finland :p .
Provided the model is correct (which is most likely the reason why the 1999 referendum failed) then when the referendum is called Australia would probably vote for it. Australia was created with a vote in the first place, and they're reasonable enough to change a government system also with a vote.
This is fair and reasonable.
I do not feel that the EU has eroded national identity to too great an extent. Its member countries are all still individual sovereign states.Quote:
Originally Posted by ioan
I agree very much with the first part of that. But let's not forget that one man's terrorist is another's freedom fighter. After all, Nelson Mandela was dubbed a terrorist by some (many, you could say.)Quote:
Originally Posted by ioan
And Menahem Begin WAS a terrorist.....Quote:
Originally Posted by BDunnell
http://www.rense.com/general21/pastzionist.htm
First, it's not fair to say " archaeologists say " but "SOME historics say ".Quote:
Originally Posted by Rudy Tamasz
I know this theory, it's associated with the name of Robert Roesler and it's very dear to the magyar iredentist circles. The idea is to demonstrate that romanians imigrated after hungarians conquered Transylvania, and to justify once again the politics of forced magyarization in Transylvania after the instauration of the Austro-Hungarian dualism and the lack of rights for romanian nation.
The theory is infirmed by many historics and I need a few forum pages to demolish it, it's too boring for you, the forumers.
But it happen to be an aromanian myself, so I know and speak this dialect and I can say with the hand on my heart that it's different of the daco-romanian spoken at the north of Danube. The argument " a silentio " may be also applied to albanians. In that period we don't have a written document about them for 1000 years but none of their neighbours will say they landed there from the sky. :laugh:
Etc.etc.etc.
In brief: in the feudal period, until the turkish domination, the romanian voievods were vassals either to hungarian or polish kings. In the XII th century hungarian kings brought in Transylavania szekely ( their origin is unknown but they were magyaraized. these days they are asimilated to the magyar minority ) and szasz as colonists. The first on military purpose, to defend the borders, the second were of german origin and came to build cities and spread handicrafts ( and they really did an excellent job. they were always a quiet minority and these days they live in small number cos most of them took advantage of their origin and went back to Germany ). These 2 communities enjoyed privilleges unlike romanians who were othodox and refused to be converted to catholicism. Some romanian nobles left for Moldova or Wallachia, only a few converted, many of them lost privillegies and got paupered. In these conditions the Dieta ( who ruled the region ) was formed mainly by magyars. After a big riot in 1437, the "winners", the magyar nobility, the szekely and the szasz from the cities had an agreement and formed "Unio trium nationum ". Romanians who were anyway the majority were excluded and treated as " tolerated nation ".Quote:
Originally Posted by Rudy Tamasz
It's interesting what happened during the ottoman autocracy. Unlike the states in region ( Greece, Bulgaria, Albania, Serbia, Hungary ) who became pashalycs ( meaning a turkish administration ) all three romanian principates enjoyed a semi-independence having their own governor and lots of rights on condition to pay a tribute in gold and horses.
The story is longer but now I have to go to a "new pensioner "party.
I didn't mentioned the union under Michael the Brave. In my opinion it was more of his personal will than the will of people.
Dear gadjo_dilo and ioan, it is clear that you know Roman history much better than I do. I posted some history stuff here just to show how many different views on history there can be, even staying within the borders of scientific accuracy and excluding outlandish theories. If you select facts skillfully enough for crafting nationalistic myths, you can justify virtually anything with history. Anybody can say with a good deal of scientific backing that "we lived here forever and spoke the same language for the last 2,000 years and we were much bigger and lost some of our territories because of the worldwide conspiracy against us but we'll reclaim those at the first chance".
I indulged in this little exercise on debating skills because our discussion on independence has veered off into history and ethnology, which are of secondary importance to the issue. What matters is not a battle won or lost 500 years ago and the percentage of a certain ethnic group in a country's population. What matters is how strong is a political case for independence made by an aspiring people. How viable is the territory economically? How well are they able to govern themselves? Will they respect human rights in their new state including the rights of minorities and dissenters? Will they be a pain in the a$$ for the security of the region etc.?
When we regard these aspects I think Kosovo's independence is half-baked at best. It is a real shame that the international community opted to accept it so hastily instead of brokering a truly long-term solution to the problem. True, after what happened it is next to impossible to force Serbs and Kosovars live in one state, but there still was some room for negotiating. Now Europe will have to deal with consequences. The first thing EU will do now is roll out a billion euro in subsidies to Kosovo, which shows the degree of sustainability of the new country. Let's see what happens next.
All very interesting, stimulating points.Quote:
Originally Posted by Rudy Tamasz
One question is what a truly long-term solution to the Kosovo problem would be. I am unsure as to whether there was any truly sustainable option other than independence. I would also say that the international community, including the EU, would do best to try and ensure that its new member, the independent Kosovo, treats the Serb minority on its soil in an appropriate, non-discriminatory manner. If it does so, the potential for future conflict is surely lessened. The economic aspects may be more problematic, and I agree that Kosovo can't keep on having money thrown at it.
But you know how it is in politics. There's no place for philosophical questions. It's not about people's aspirations but always the interest of powerful states. Unimportant states may have desires for hundred years,if their dreams don't met with a poweful state interest they can dream in vain.Quote:
Originally Posted by Rudy Tamasz
I admit I didn't read a history book since I was in school. Last night I browsed one as I didn't want to make a fool of myself on the forum and I'm still shocked realising that every important moment in our history ( good or bad ) was posible only because X or Y had its own interest in that matter, some things we really wanted never happened cos there wasn't in the interest of X and sometimes parts of the country were "sold" to another country because X wanted to hit/ thank Y.