2007.a. EKN-i valimiste kandidaadid... ja ideed teretulnud!
Kommentaarid on kirjutatud EWR lugejate poolt. Nende sisu ei pruugi ühtida EWR toimetuse seisukohtadega.
VanemadUuemad
1  2  >
Poisu09 Mar 2007 12:37
Ahh! See on siis tänu EKNile, et Vene väed viidi Eestist välja, et Eesti on NATO liige, ja et Eesti-Kanada vahel on viisavaba rezhiim!! Autori arrogantsus on uskumatu!!
Anonymous10 Mar 2007 19:31
"Uus olustik ei soodusta EKN-i lobby-tööl leida sobivat kõlapinda ...... "

Kes otsib, see leiab...
Uno Raudkivi11 Mar 2007 07:07
Teile teadmiseks teatan, et Euroopa Liit on võimalikuks teinud oma kodanikele küsimuste esitamise, milledele nad lubavad vastuse saata mõne päeva jooksul. 10. märtsil 2007 ma kasutasin seda võimalust ja saatsin EL-le järgmise sisuga inglisekeelse kirja:
----------------------------------------
Subject: A state declaring itself successor to its pre.occupational status

*Question(s):

Estonian Government has adopted a doctrine of keeping the internal policies of the state separate from its external policies. That makes it impossible for its citizens like myself to find out how its foreign service portrays Estonia’s legalistic problems with the Russian Federation to the outside world.

Most disturbing aspect in tackling these problems seems to be that our foreign service attempts to solve these problems by declaring a war of propaganda against the Russian Federation instead of having Estonian Parliament making an internationally recognized legal document a law of the land, which declares the present-day Estonian Republic legitimate successor state to the prewar Estonian Republic established by the Tartu Treaty on Feb. 2, 1920.

This would allow Estonia to follow the example of many West-European countries, who declared legitimacy of succession to their pre-occupational form of governments right after the war.
Estonia, of cource, was denied such opportunity, because of the threatening presence of occupational Russian Federation forces in the country’s territory at the time the Estonian so called “independence of 1991” declaration was signed and its constitution and other laws were written.

As a citizen of Estonia, I have a right to question, why Estonian Parliament, after joining the European Union and NATO, has still failed to make the afore-mentioned declaration the law of the land.

As a citizen of the European Union, I have the right to question, whether or not the European Union would officially consent to give approval to Estonia, in case it shows willingness to comply, to declare itself legitimate successor state to the prewar Estonian Republic?

I am asking this question, because without afore-mentioned declaration, Estonia has no legal means of protecting itself and its citizens against the claims of the Russian Federation that:

1. the USSR had a legal right to populate 1/3 of the illegally occupied region of the Republic of Estonia (Estonian SSR) with Russian nationals and justify this state-initiated migration as a legal immigration into the territory of the present-day Republic of Estonia

2. the Estonian SSR had legitimate claim of succession to the prewar Republic of Estonia.

3. as a logical consequence of 2., Estonia was not occupied , but instead liberated by the USSR in 1940 and in 1944.

Adding additional weight to the importance of this matter, I’d like to emphasize the fact, that without knowing the official disposition of the European Union in this issue, it is impossible to dispel the rumors circulated in Estonia, by the governmental sources and by the newsmedia, that the European Union (even the United States) would oppose this kind of declaration of succession because this would irritate the Russan Federation.
----------------------------------------
See on e-kiri mille sain tõendiks, et nad on minu kirja kätte saanud.
-----------------------------------------
From: noreply@europe-direct.ec.europa.eu
Date: 10. märts 2007. a. 22:07
To: uno.raudkivi@neti.ee
Subject: Receipt acknowledgement from EUROPE DIRECT
***************************************
This is an automated message.
Please do not reply.
***************************************
Reference Number: 3678002
English:
Thank you for your e-mail. We will reply to your enquiry asap.
Kind regards, EUROPE DIRECT
Français:
Nous vous remercions pour votre courrier électronique. Nous nous efforcerons de répondre à votre demande dans les plus brefs délais.
Salutations distinguées, EUROPE DIRECT
Deutsch:
Vielen Dank für Ihre E-mail. Wir werden sie so schnell wie möglich beantworten.
Mit freundlichen Grüßen, EUROPE DIRECT
----------------------------------------
Väga huvitav11 Mar 2007 09:57
Näiss mist sellest saab.
Maxim.11 Mar 2007 13:41
There cannot be complete consent to acknowledging „legitimacy of succession“, for one very simple reason. This issue has been discussed in Estonian internal politics, and it has to do with the fact that Estonia’s breakaway from the Soviet Union was a one-sided decision. In international politics, it could be legitimately argued in the European court of Justice that if Russia hasn’t formally agreed to Estonia’s accession to Independence on August 21st, 1991, then there is reason to doubt the absoluteness of our independence in the first place. If someone can prove beyond any doubt (and showing clearly the particular clause) that Estonia does not need to concern herself with any claim Russia can make against the „near-abroad“, then it would be worth drawing that point to the attention of the Estonian Ministry of Foreign Affairs. Frankly, I doubt if any watertight law can be found, and for that reason we remain at the mercy of Russia, and Russia herself knows that only too well!!
Anonymous11 Mar 2007 14:57
Russia is biding time before making another swoop for control in the Baltics. In the meantime, we are not necessarily building a better future for Estonia. It could be argued that Russia is allowing us more time to build a better future for herself.
oh maxim11 Mar 2007 21:00
you say, august 21, 91, was one sided, ok then august 23, 39 wa salso one sided, and the only mutually agreed upon document is february 2, 20 !
Toomas Merilo11 Mar 2007 22:39
Just nii väga lakooniliselt pole mõtet vastata. Kas igaüks saab viidetest aru?

Niisiis (vabandades, kui tülitan) selgituseks:

2. veebruar 1920 - Tartu Rahuleping

23. august 1939 - Molotovi-Ribbentropi pakt

20. august 1991 (mitte 21. aug) - Eesti NSV Ülemnõukogu “otsustas” Eesti riiklust deklareerida, millega taastati omariiklus de jure kui ka de facto

Ning Maximile, kellel on alati faktid segased: 6. septembril 1991 tunnustas NSVL Balti riikide iseseisvust.
Toomas Merilo11 Mar 2007 22:54
Eelpool tegin viga: taastati De Facto

De Jure on olnud riigi algusest.
Maxim.11 Mar 2007 22:56
The response of Russia to Estonia's Independence is not a carbon copy of their response to aug. 91. That was and is a one-sided decision. Get your own facts straight first, Toomas!
Maxim.12 Mar 2007 04:59
Keegi ei vaidle selle vastu mis riigi siseselt on toimunud. Ka ENSV vastuvõetud otsused EI KAJASTA Venemaa seisukohti, või anna alust et ENSV vastuvõetud otsused automaatselt laienevad kogu NSVL-i eestseisu nimel. EI. Ja miks klamerdutakse Tartu Rahulepingu külge kui meil oleks vähemalt mingi seaduslik alus millele tugineda seoses Eesti teise iseseisvumisega? Sellepärast see jama ongi olemas, sest pole seda alust, ja ongi kõik. Eesti on teinud kõik enda poolt, aga rahvusvahelises mõistes ei ole see 100% tagatis garanteerimaks meie rahu. Kui oleks otsad Venemaag kokku lepitud, siis poleks praegu ei piiri probleemi, poleks ka Pätsu auraha tagastamise probleemi jne jne jne. Aga et see kõik on reaalselt olemas, viitab tegelikult ohtudele ja Eesti geograafilise ning juriidilise ebakindlale alusele, mida ei saa kuidagi üle ega ümber.
Uno Raudkivi12 Mar 2007 17:43
? to Maxim.
Why Estonia (1918), and USA, (1776) had to declare their intensions to become independent countries first and then do their best to reach that goal? Why didn't they go first to study the laws of their oppressors to see if it was legitimate what theY intended to do?
Toomas (not Merilo)12 Mar 2007 18:11
Beautiful! But I doubt that Maximahv will get it.
By the way, would you like to see a photo of Maximahv? You can tell just by his face that his mother was an ape.
Maxim.13 Mar 2007 06:32
With all due respect to you Uno, I think you have overlooked the essential question that has thrust itself to the top of the charts since the day the world was created. And that is; why is big beautiful? Why are the USA, Russia and China always going to be a group of political players playing by their own rules? And as you follow this question further, it becomes evident that contries with similarities group themselves together for all the possible reasons they have done so to date. Little Estonia is only on par with...little Slovenia. That shouldn't surprise anyone, but let me know when China and Estonia are grouped together as allies.
Anonymous13 Mar 2007 08:46
No one has said anything about big being beautiful or anything else. Again, you're trying to divert attention away from your own muddled thinking.

I'll give you a piece of advice, Maxim: you should learn to write clearly. Why? In order to write clearly, you first have to think clearly.
Toomas Merilo13 Mar 2007 09:28
Here again Maxim reveals complete misunderstanding of everything. I don’t even know where to begin, but let’s take a partial stab at it anyway:

Maxim starts an argument (11 Mar 2007 13:41) with “in international politics[sic], it could be legitimately argued in the European court of Justice…” (Let’s just ignore the fact that it is the “Law” not “Politics” that is argued before the courts.)

More importantly, Maxim erroneously injects the European Court of Justice (ECJ) into potential matters between Russia and Estonia. The ECJ only has jurisdiction in matters of internal EU law among members of the EU: It is there only to ensure that the law is observed in the interpretation and application of the Treaties of the European Union.

Insofar as I know, Russia is not a member of the EU… but perhaps Maxim has a premonition here and is confusing today’s reality with his vision of the future.

Furthermore, Maxim takes the position that big and powerful countries only ally themselves with big and powerful countries. He states “it becomes evident that contries with similarities group themselves together for all the possible reasons they have done so to date. Little Estonia is only on par with...little Slovenia. That shouldn't surprise anyone, but let me know when China and Estonia are grouped together as allies.” (13 Mar 2007 06:32)

Here, Maxim, you’re really on the ball … or would be, were it not for the inconvenient existence of an alliance you are obviously unaware of: NATO. Yes, Maxim, the USA and Estonia are allies,.

You’re still batting 100%, Maxim… if nothing else, you are consistent.
Anonymous13 Mar 2007 12:20
I wonder what the 100% batty Maxim will have to say in response to Toomas Merilo's factual and logical comment. Respond, he will -- because, like a child, he likes to play "last tag" (even though he's about 50).
He may try to change the topic, as he often does, or he'll let loose with an emotional, irrational outburst. We've seen that before. Or he might say "better luck next time". That's his way of saying, "you'll never penetrate my head with a fact or a reasoned comment".
Maxim.13 Mar 2007 13:08
The day that the US President comes literally banging down the door of the US Ambassador to Estonia, requesting an immediate resolution to some knotty problem concerning world politics, I think it will be time to put all our arguments aside. Until then, neither you nor I really know the reason why Estonia is on the backfoot and even backpedalling politically just to keep up with whatever the hell it is that is going on around her. Also, Toomas, I don't think you've sufficiently answered the problem as the where the heck does one fine a document carrying the same weight as the Tartu Peace Treaty that was signed by both Estonia and Russia in 1991. I and many readers would love to know who signed it on behalf of both parties, and if so, why are we still clinging to the Tartu PT as if it were one of the remaining straws onto which to clutch. Really and truly, Toomas, these issues have been discussed as far back as the 90's in Estonian journalism, particularly in Luup. Where were you then???
Maxim.13 Mar 2007 13:20
Most Estonians view NATO with more than just a slight degree of scepticism. This is because we are not certain whether come crunch time with mother Russia, NATO will put out all its forces to protect one of its so-called subject states. The issue of NATO is made even more unclear with Finland's complete rejection of any thought of joining NATO. At best there must be a political gulf existing somewhere that holds Finland back from considering admission into NATO. The simple answer to this is-Russia. Russia holds sway in Finland's interests, and I hardly imagine it ends there. Russia's oil trade has uped her bargaining power throughtout Europe, and not even Toomas Merilo can do anything to turn the tide on that one!
Huviline13 Mar 2007 13:29
Ma arvan et need küsimused mida Maxim teile järjest esitab on niivõrd rasked teile vastata, et lihtsam on teil süüdistada Maximit millegis muus kui et vaeva näha ja oma peaga mõelda.
to Huvuline13 Mar 2007 13:46
Teil on Maximi lõhn juures.

Juhul kui eksin, mainiks ainult nii palju et Maximile on tõepoolest raske vastata kuid mitte sellepärast et tema jutus oleks fakti ega loogikat -- temal on soomuspea.
Jah!13 Mar 2007 14:53
...ja selles soomuspeas asub kiiks.
Toivo Tamm13 Mar 2007 00:35
KAS ASI NII HULL ONGI, ET >>>Uus olustik ei soodusta EKN-i lobby-tööl leida sobivat kõlapinda tähtsatel küsimustel.
UUs kõlapind võiks ju olla praegusest punaroosa valitsuse eelarvetissist sõltumatud MTÜ-d jt. Kodanikuühiskonna loodud ja veel loomist ootavad instrumendid (uued veebilehed, ajakirjandusväljaanded jms.). Et Eesti on üsna “internet i-seerunud”, siis on lihtne nende suunitluse ja toetamise mõttekuse üle selgust saada ka tuhandete kilomeetrite kauguselt.
Et Eestile igakülgne abi ja toetus ära kulub, selles ei maksa väliseestlastel hetkegi kahelda. Olemasolevate parteide valimiseelete lubaduste - loosungite ja riigi probleemide vahel haigutavat kuristikku valguvad allikad vajavad materjale, mis võimaldavad hetkel kehtivat arengumaist seadusandlust võrrelda ja analüüsida, leida üles neis olevad korruptsiooni “juustuaugud” ja neid auke ( kõigil võimalustel ja tasanditel) mõnitada. Alles siis saab hakata nõudma riigikogult tegusid kui on teada, kuidas ja mida nad meie veidra ja lääpas riigi normaliseerimiseks peaksid tegema :)
_________________________

http://www.e-hydepark.com/new/...

<<<<<<< valitsevast kaosest ei päästaks ÜHEGI OLEMASOLEVA rakukese valimine. Sest ÜKSKI rakukene pole oma programmides, loosungitel ega lippudel lubanud AMETNIKE TAASRIIGISTAMIST ega SEADUSANDLUSE KORRASTAMIST. Ilma MILLETA aga - ei muutu MISKI. Peale jagajate ja valitsejate.

Valimisretoorika ja triangel, mis EI SISALDA neid kaht nö. pisikest NÜANSSI on riigi arengu seisukohalt – ümmargune NULL.

KOGU retoorika, mis on keskendunud RAHVUSLUSELE, RELIGIOONI UPITAMISELE, EI TEA MILLE KONSERVEERIMISELE, st. KONSERVATIIVSUSELE, seksiostjate arreteerimisele, koerakakajunnide taunimisele, sookvootidele, globaliseerumisele, tuuleenergiale jne. - ON ÜMMARGUNE NULL.

ON TÄPSELT SENI, kuni RIIGIS puuduv KÕIKI MAKSUMAKSJAID ühesuguselt kohtlev riigi- (ja VÄGA OLULINE, et ka OMAVALITSUS-) ametnik. KES ei eelista riigihangetel ega eelarvesummadega siblides OMI valijaid ja sponsoreid, vaid arvestab RIIGI JA KÕIGI MAKSUMAKSJATE huvidega.

On täpselt seni kuni puudub SEADUSANDLUS, mis paneb AMETNIKULE riigi huvides tegutsemise KOHUSTUSE (töökohustuse) ning kehtestab TALLE SANKTSIOONID kui see nii ei TOIMI.
Tiritamm13 Mar 2007 15:43
Toomas Merilo is an informed observer of the Estonian scene. He is also logical and articulate. Yet I doubt that even he can make sense of the syntactic chaos that Maxim has created in his most recent comments. They are works of art.

What do you think Toomas? Are you up to it? Huviline (aka Maxim) doesn't think so. I'm doubtful, in spite of my high regard for your abilities.
Toomas Merilo13 Mar 2007 23:14
It is with the greatest of sadness, that I have to report total failure. I even tried to cheat (I had an external agency help). All to no avail. Here it is:

Statement from CSI – Etobicoke:

We have thoroughly analyzed Maxim’s last two transmissions and, despite having utilized the latest available technology, find no Signal… only Noise. S/N ratio = 1E-06
Maxim.14 Mar 2007 03:48
Toomas, you are putting up a smokescreen before your community. Tell the truth-is there or is there not a treaty from the year 1991between Russia and Estonia, and if there is, who signed it and does it have the same weight as the Tartu Peace Treaty. And I already know that NO answer will be forthcoming, because your just bluffing, and the Canadian Estonian community should know that too. If I am wrong, then come out with some solid answers please!
to Maxim14 Mar 2007 06:39
LAST TAG!!!
Ahto Männik14 Mar 2007 11:48
Uno Raudkivi-114 Mar 2007 12:04
I have not yet received an answer ftom European Union. I am not worried, I will get it in due time. I don't think they are like Estonia from where I have attempted unsuccessfully to receive an answer for many yeas to a simple question concerning the unsettled status of my Estonian citizenship.
Here I repeat the queestion I asked Estonia in my "Kiri saadetud Euroopa Liitu".
"As a citizen of Estonia, I have a right to question, why Estonian Parliament, after joining the European Union and NATO, has still failed to make the afore-mentioned declaration (of succession to prewar EV) the law of the land"
To receive an answer to this one seems even more difficult because it involves local politics which I attempt to explain in my comment (in Estonian) to an article "Julia Boman: Kuidas on vene vähemus Eestis probleem?" in Estonian newapaper Postimees (Mar. 13, 2007):
Continued => Uno Raudkivi-2
Uno Raudkivi-214 Mar 2007 12:18
Postimees, 13. märts 2007
"Julia Boman: Kuidas on vene vähemus Eestis probleem?"
Julia Boman, Tartu Ülikooli ja Robert Schumani Ülikooli doktorant
http://www.postimees.ee/130307...

Vt. Kommentaar
Uno Raudkivi 13.03.2007 23:37
“Miks Eestis on olemas venekeelse vähemuse probleem? Küsimus on oluline ja seda saab seletada minevikule viidates. Aga kas see on põhiline?”, küsib Julia Bouman.
Olen veendunud, et see on põhiline. /.../
Kommentaarid sellele artiklile on suletud.
SÜNDMUSED LÄHIAJAL

Vaata veel ...

Lisa uus sündmus