deal on Iraqi constitution

[lord of the mark]

Shiite and Kurdish negotiators have agreed to a deal whereby the new Iraqi constitution will be subject to change by the parliament to be elected in December, subject to referendum.

The Iraqi Islamic Party, one of the leading Sunni Arab parties that had been calling for a no vote, has now accepted the deal and calls for a yes vote. AP, Reuter, BBC all confirm.

[GePap]

Yeah. a three month extension on the chaos.

[Spiffor]

Good Maybe they can broker an actual compromise.

However, parliamentary amendments (depends on the amendment process) might end up with the "tyranny of the majority" in the hands of the Kurds and Shiites. I hope this scenario won't happen.

[Ramo]

It's rediculous the Constitution is being changed by Parliament four days before the scheduled vote. It doesn't look like anyone will get to see the actual Constitution. It's rather like a repeat of the January elections where no one knew who were in each list.

From the WaPo:

As outraged would-be voters protested at still not being shown copies of Iraq's proposed constitution, U.S. and Arab diplomats bore down on Sunnis, Shiites and Kurdish leaders Monday in Baghdad's fortified Green Zone to make last-ditch changes to the charter that would overcome Sunni opposition.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/10/10/AR2005101001680.html

It's important to note that the AMS, which is probably a lot more important than the IIP, has not signed on.

Any word on the actual changes?

[lord of the mark]

there will be a commision that can propose changes, which will have to be approved by parliament, and then by referendum.

But there also seem to be some immediate changes. Language affirming national unity, and mandating the use of Arabic alongside Kurdish in Kurdistan (so they cant pull a Quebec)

Of course the deal is reached at the last minute. That seems to be a cultural thing.

This is the first time that I know of, that any major Sunni party has legitimated the ongoing political process.

Even if AMS does not support, it will be that much harder to argue that a yes vote (the almost certain outcome, now) is illegitimate.

And no, this isnt the "light at the end of the tunnel". But its a good step.

[Colon™]

Is it still the case that a 2/3 majority of all registered voters (rather than 2/3 of actual turn-out) is required to reject the constitution?

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Colon
Is it still the case that a 2/3 majority of all registered voters (rather than 2/3 of actual turn-out) is required to reject the constitution?

no, the Shiites and Kurds gave in on that several days ago, under UN/US pressure.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Spiffor
Good Maybe they can broker an actual compromise.

However, parliamentary amendments (depends on the amendment process) might end up with the "tyranny of the majority" in the hands of the Kurds and Shiites. I hope this scenario won't happen.

the kurds and Shiite are likely to have a smaller majority after December, and the Shiites may well be split.

[Ramo]

This is the first time that I know of, that any major Sunni party has legitimated the ongoing political process.

The IIP supported the January elections for a time (reversing themselves at the last moment), and fielded candidates. IIRC, they have a member in Parliament.

[Ramo]

there will be a commision that can propose changes, which will have to be approved by parliament, and then by referendum.

A simple majority of Parliament? A referendum as in the current vote for the Constitution?

[Zkribbler]

A positive step.

Now, if the US would only adopt an exit strategy.

[Drake Tungsten]

A promising development.

[Odin]

Originally posted by Drake Tungsten
A promising development.

Ain't gonna stop a civil war, though.

[Drake Tungsten]

You'd like that, wouldn't you?

[Odin]

Originally posted by Drake Tungsten
You'd like that, wouldn't you?