G. KATROUGALOS: Thank you, Mr. President. Mr. President, esteemed colleagues, I shall provide answers to the questions that were put to the government. Indeed, the Greek people expect arguments from us, and not cries. Everybody notes the historical importance of the times. And precisely for this reason, we must discuss in substance and notprocedure. I shall provide answers to any questions that the parliamentary representatives posed to the government, in the order that these questions were raised. Clearly, I am submitting the Verbal Note in both languages, Greek and English, for the minutes and for distribution. With regard to the request made for the full text of the Constitution I remind -and I am speaking especially to my colleague, Mr. Loverdos- that in all constitutional orders, as well as our own, revisions are adopted by resolution, a special text of the constitutional order, always at the order of the President of Parliament. This is the main difference in democracies compared to monarchies, where the Head of State had been a key factor in the constitutional process. For comparison, I simply refer you -because from now on I am not going to say anything without referring to specific dates or documents– to our own Resolution of 6 April 2001 passed by the 5th Revisional Parliament. To facilitate the Parliament, I shall ask, tomorrow also, at the next Committee meeting, that we have a comparative table outlining how the Articles stood before, and how they stand after. Each MP, starting today, may study the Verbal Note in its official translation in Greek. The second question that was raised pertained to the letter by former Minister Kotzias. I assure you that Nikos would be especially pleased to be present today, to defend an Agreement which is, to a great extent, his own achievement, and which nobody expected that the Hellenic Republic would be able to negotiate so successfully. Mr. Mertzos, the former President of the Society for Macedonian Studies best stated what the agreement achieved: It heals wounds, and does not create new ones. It will arise from the discussion that, in essence, as a result of the Prespa Agreement, we gained, we did not cede. But let’s talk about the issues that were raised. Nikos Kotzias will be present in the Plenary, and he shall refer to everything. Issues were raised pertaining to the constitutionality of the Agreement. In accordance with Article 100 of the Regulation -I told you that, going forward, when we discuss the Regulation, we must speak precisely, with a reference to the Article- objections pertaining to constitutionality are examined by the Plenary of the Parliament and they shall be examined there, should they be raised. And that should be the objective of all of us. For all substantive and procedural or constitutional issues raised to be discussed in the Plenary of the Parliament, with sobriety and clarity. With regard to constitutionality, not of our own legal order but the legal order of the neighbouring country, which Mr Loverdos raised, it is clear that here, we are solely examining issues of constitutionality related to our own legal order. Despite this, I mention, once again addressing my colleague, that from the combined force of Articles 26 and 27 of the Vienna Convention, there are no grounds, based on domestic law, to challenge an obligation which arises from an International Treaty. And as you shall see, through the Verbal Note, expressly and in a manner that is binding to it, the Skopjan Government assures us that constitutional order has been observed. Now with regard to the question of issues related to the competence of this Committee, I repeat what the issue is: for a substantive discussion to take place in the Plenary of the Parliament. I remind something, and it is important, that the Interim Accord, which practically had the same content and settled a name issue included articles which are the same as those contained in the Prespa Agreement, such as Article 13 for example, which I hear, despite the fact that we continuously refute this, that it supposedly cedes rights that are different to those that the Law of the Sea grants to the neighbouring country. The Interim Accord, I repeat, never came for discussion and ratification before the Plenary of the Parliament. We wish, first of all - because we respect Democracy and the parliamentary principle - for this Agreement to be discussed. Let me put it otherwise; we only have something to gain from this discussion. I wonder, therefore, who would want to thwart the discussion in the natural forum of democracy, which is the Plenary. And let's assume that you turned down, Gentlemen of New Democracy, a debate of your Leader with the Prime Minister. Wouldn’t you wish for the possibility to at least exist for these things to be discussed at the temple of Democracy, at the Plenary of the Parliament? How can someone else wish the opposite? With regard to what you said, sometimes, I believe, that a problem exists with regard to reading. Article 29 (5) refers to the constitution of the sections of Parliament, not of Committees. Article 31 (3) and (5), in conjunction with Articles 70 and 72 of the Constitution, in reality grants the President of the Parliament carte blanche, super-privileges to appoint the members of the Parliamentary Committees. And to his credit, the President of the Parliament decided to hold a drawing of the names of those independent MPs who were not initially members of the Committee. And he agreed, moreover, for the name of Mr. Danellis to be removed. Clearly, he will speak about this issue himself later on. The issues that pertain to Article 74 (2) to which the honourable President, Mr Kammenos, mentioned, precisely pertains to referral, from the Committee to the Plenary for discussion of the bills. And as Mr. Pafilis very correctly stated, this always takes place, in the context of the introductory consultative functions that the Committee possesses, even if the Committee should decide otherwise, something that I assure you, as it appears from its composition, it will not decide this time. Subsequently, another issue was raised by Mr. Loverdos. The question raised was why doesn’t it come for ratification together, the Protocol of Accession to NATO together with the Prespa Agreement? This is one of the great advantages of the Agreement. We proceed towards ratification of the Agreement, provided that all the procedural steps have preceded, as well as a vote on amending the Constitution in the neighbouring country. This is, dear colleagues, what had never occurred before. In other words, without a war, for a country to agree to change its name and its Constitution, without having any other obligation beyond that which arises from an international treaty. The reason for which the Protocol of Accession does not come before us today is for the simple reason that it does not exist. Because, in order for it to exist, we must have ratified the Agreement. Therefore, this is, I am telling you, an achievement. The Agreement indeed says “together,” but precisely because it is impossible for the Protocol of Accession to exist if ratification by the Hellenic Parliament has not preceded, and I repeat, this is one of the great procedural achievements of the Agreement; only once we have concluded ratification and we have notified NATO of this, through our own Verbal Note, can the relevant procedure then begin. Indeed, the original text says “together.” This meaning of “together,” because otherwise a logical paradox exists, is for a vote on the two texts to be carried out as soon as possible, and this is in fact what will occur. Everything that was heard about concession of national sovereignty is clearly unfounded. This Agreement is not subject to Article 29 (2) and (3) of the Constitution. Finally, I don’t believe that any other issues were raised that fall under the competence of the Government.——————————————————————————————————————Introductory intervention by Alternate Minister of Foreign Affairs Giorgos Katrougalos during the 2nd day of discussionsG. KATROUGALOS: As it has been explained numerous times and is clearly referred to in the Verbal Note, the Agreement does not refer to ethnicity, but rather to nationality. Moreover, in all the international texts, from the Universal Declaration to the European Convention on Nationality, the term “ithagenia” is explicitly rendered with the term “nationality” and does not indicate the national integration of the individual. The Agreement cannot regulate issues related to a people or to a nation. The reason is simple: States recognise States, not people. Issues of nationality are legal issues that pertain to the relationship of the citizen with the State while, on the contrary, issues of national identity and integration into an ethnicity are issues of conscience and self-determination. In International Law no generally established characteristics exist, nor accepted general definitions for a nation or people. The right to self-determination is a right based in jus cogens and cannot become the subject of a contractual arrangement. Consequently, Greece does not recognise, nor would it be able to recognise a “Macedonian nation” or “people” through this Agreement. At the same time, on the basis of International Law, our country could not intervene in issues of self-determination of the neighbouring country’s citizens. The agreement nonetheless specifies that our neighbours accept that they have no relationship to Greek history and Greek cultural heritage. For this reason, is it expressly stipulated in Article 7(4) that both sides recognise that the official language and the other attributes (in other words cultural, ethnic etc.) of FYROM are not related to ancient Hellenic civilisation or the history, heritage, culture, or modern day features of Greek Macedonia.
 |
| READ THE ORIGINAL POST AT www.mfa.gr |
