Nah, fair point…..it just seems somewhat strange. But surely by banning any party, you still become undemocratic…especially if that party has a large support.
I agree with you, Stainsey, that banning parties does dent democratic legitimacy. But given Russia's huge historical interference in Ukrainian politics, and the fact that it had invaded Crimea, it was inevitable that a fledgling democracy like Ukraine would use emergency powers legislation to ban any party that took instructions from Russia.
So expanding on this……if The U.K, goes to war with Ireland (unlikely I know), would we ban Sien Fein ? And if we did then could we call ourselves a democracy ? Surely by the act of banning a political party which has large support from British subjects, you cease to become a democracy.
Or you could say Ukraine took the opportunity to ban parties who’s policies they don’t agree with……depending what way you look at it.
It would depend on so many different facts in respect of Ireland, it's impossible to make a meaningful comment. Note though that old Soviet Block countries do ban communism. Just looked at Bulgaria. Communist party banned. The Nazi Party was banned in Germany. Undemocratic or historically unavoidable?
Again fair points……however I stand by the fact that surely banning a Political party, however much I disagree with its aims, surely means you could not in essence call yourself “democratic”. I guess this is just a matter of opinion.
Maybe we need to look at exactly what ''banning' means in different countries Goldie. In Germany a party can be prevented from taking part in elections if they are not Verfassungstreu (ie. true to the constitution) - Britain doesn't have a constitution of this kind and so it doesn't arise. In order to take part in an election a party should abide by the existing constitution of that country - the KPD (Communist party of Germany) was also banned here in the 1950s and 60s. First level banning bars a party from participation in elections (if the problem is only a constitutional one), second level banning would effectively bar all members from any jobs in public service (some teachers in Germany who were also KPD members lost their jobs despite not bringing their politics into the classroom). The third level would see a party designated as a criminal organization where proven membership alone would be enough to be convicted. All far right wing groups do is to change their names in order to get round this. I don't know what level the bans were in the Ukraine - I know that one of the first acts after the Maidan uprising was to scrap the constitution and so I don't know if there was an existing constitution at that time - at any rate the argument that the Crimean referendum wasn't constitutional was a false one because the first act of the coup in Kiev was to scrap their existing constitution. .
Ukraine planning a counter-offensive to liberate Crimea - "We will only stop when we restore our country to its 1991 borders." Ukraine LIVE: Zelensky's army gears up to liberate Crimea in Black Sea counteroffensive (msn.com) Of course all the weapons we send are purely defensive.
Sure, there are different types of "ban" throughout Europe and wider, Cologne. The extent of each ban determined by recent history, I imagine. As to the Crimean referendum, my understanding is that it was declared unconstitutional because of the presence of Russian military forces in the country.
Northern Ireland Protocol: Rishi Sunak to meet Ursula von der Leyen for talks Published 17 minutes ago Share Related Topics Brexit please log in to view this image IMAGE SOURCE,GETTY IMAGES By Lauren Turner BBC News Rishi Sunak is to hold face-to-face talks with the European Commission president as he tries to secure a new Brexit deal for Northern Ireland. The PM and Ursula von der Leyen said they will meet in the UK on Monday to discuss the "complex challenges" of the Northern Ireland Protocol. The UK wants to change the protocol, which sees some goods checked when entering from the rest of the UK. Dominic Raab earlier said Britain and the EU were "on the cusp" of a deal. In a joint statement, Mr Sunak and Ms von der Leyen said they had "agreed to continue their work in person towards shared, practical solutions for the range of complex challenges around the Protocol on Ireland and Northern Ireland". A deal has been expected for days, with recent talks focusing on its presentation and delivery. Both Tory and Labour MPs have been told by their respective whips to come to Parliament on Monday. What is the Northern Ireland Protocol? Analysis: DUP's moment of truth The Northern Ireland Protocol was agreed under former PM Boris Johnson as part of the process of the UK leaving the European Union. It sees Northern Ireland continue to follow some EU laws so that goods can flow freely over the border to the Republic of Ireland without checks. Instead, goods arriving from England, Scotland and Wales are checked when they arrive at Northern Irish ports. Critics, including Northern Ireland's Democratic Unionist Party (DUP), feel this undermines the nation's position within the rest of the UK as well as impacting trade. The DUP has complained about what it calls a "democratic deficit" with Northern Ireland being subject to EU rules while not having a say on them. Deputy Prime Minister Mr Raab earlier told the BBC the government had "made great progress" in its talks with the EU. He said the EU had "moved" on some issues, saying: "If there are any new rules that would apply in relation to Northern Ireland, it must be right that there is a Northern Irish democratic check on that." He said one approach could be an "intelligence-based" rather than "tick box" approach for goods "which effectively means, they look at what is happening in the Republic with goods that go to Northern Ireland in case there's a risk of them going into the wider single market - and if we can achieve that, it will be a massive win." please log in to view this image IMAGE SOURCE,REUTERS Image caption, Ursula von der Leyen will travel to the UK for Monday's talks Taoiseach (Irish Prime Minister) Leo Varadkar said he had been in contact with Ms von der Leyen on Sunday and "very much" welcomed her meeting with Mr Sunak. He tweeted: "We should acknowledge the level of engagement between the UK Gov, the European Commission and the NI parties in recent months." His deputy, Micheal Martin, said "very significant progress" had been made, adding "a great effort" had been made to resolve issues. "I would hope it can be brought to a conclusion, but that's a matter for the UK and EU negotiating teams to call," he said. The government has not confirmed if MPs would get a vote on any deal, but said they would be able to "express" their view. Mr Sunak has been under pressure from some Conservative MPs over the role of EU law and the European Court of Justice in settling trade disputes. Mark Francois, who heads the European Research Group of Eurosceptic Tory MPs, earlier said EU law needed to be "expunged" from Northern Ireland, bringing it in line with England, Scotland and Wales. He told Sky News on Sunday that he had yet to see the detail of the deal and it would be "incredibly unwise" to bring in any new deal without giving MPs a vote. "If they've got a deal they're proud of, show us the text. Let us run it by our lawyers. Let us fully understand what it means. Then, at that point, we might be ready to vote on it." DUP leader Sir Jeffrey Donaldson has previously said: "The objective in London and Brussels should be to get this right rather than rushed. The wrong deal will not restore power sharing but will deepen division for future generations." But former Prime Minister John Major urged Conservative and DUP MPs to not let concerns over the European Court of Justice get in the way of easing trade and restoring the devolved government in Northern Ireland. He told BBC Radio 4's Westminster Hour: "Their involvement would be tiny... occasional involvement of the ECJ really ought not to stop an agreement being made. "They talk of democracy. Democracy is thrown away when that [Northern Ireland] Assembly is not sitting. We need them back." please log in to view this image What is the Northern Ireland Protocol? The Northern Ireland Protocol is a trading arrangement, negotiated during Brexit talks. It allows goods to be transported across the Irish land border without the need for checks. Before Brexit, it was easy to transport goods across this border because both sides followed the same EU rules. After the UK left, special trading arrangements were needed because Northern Ireland has a land border with the Republic of Ireland, which is part of the EU. The EU has strict food rules and requires border checks when certain goods - such as milk and eggs - arrive from non-EU countries. The land border is a sensitive issue because of Northern Ireland's troubled political history. It was feared that cameras or border posts - as part of these checks - could lead to instability. The UK and the EU agreed that protecting the Northern Ireland peace deal - the Good Friday agreement - was an absolute priority. So, both sides signed the Northern Ireland Protocol as part of the Brexit withdrawal agreement. It is now part of international law. please log in to view this image
Russia sent troops into Crimea before their 'referendum'. Ukrainians refused to vote if it was at gunpoint so boycotted it. Anyone that trusts an election 'supervised' by Russia needs help
This is just the start...Once more territories are taken back the numbers will skyrocket. The Hague will be busy for years.
So should we support Ukraine in re-taking Crimea by force, effectively becoming the aggressor in the current conflict? I'd say not.
And of course, would it stop there…..there will be many in Ukraine who would like to see Russia punished for its crimes…..so would that mean “tanks on Red Square” as has already been spoken of ?
