noemon wrote:Why do Bulgarians have the right to self-determine as Macedonians but Greeks do not? If history belonged in the past we would not be studying it but we would all opt for collective amnesia. You know there should be a limit of non-sense.
As Greek Macedonians want to be known as Macedonians, I will address them as such. And so does everyone else I suspect.
As for History, I never said we shouldn't learn it. Just it should remain in the past. Do you think France should be able to rename Germany because it unsuccessfully invaded it in 1939?
Shared? Letting them have it, does not constitute sharing but them monopolising it. You are confused yet again and at the end of the day Greece and Greeks have no obligation to recognise this country that has already attempted an invasion. We can just sit on it forever and prevent them from joining any organisation that we are parts of. They invent a name, rebaptize themselves, invade Greek Macedonia, they fail, but we should let them have it because we are more "aggrieved"? What kind of logic is this is truly beyond me. A thief getting arrested for trying to steal your house is also an aggrieved party but we do not share our house with him just because he is aggrieved from his failed robbery.
So what's the issue then? If you are happy to let them have the name, let them have it. But your language is similar to how an Israeli recognises Palestine. Your solutions are similar also.
The Skopjan president huffing and puffing was already a given, that is the normal process that the agreement has to go through. It will be put into a referendum in Skopje.
I hope you are right, but I don't even see it passing parliament actually. But if indeed this can be resolved by adding 'Northern' to the title then it will be a great day for the Balkans and Greece - along with the legitimisation of self determination a referendum would generate of course.