Ymer: Parliament must bear key burden of dialogue organisation with Serbia

According to him, there are neither strategies nor goals.

It's not a platform at all, it's just a few points. Only one thing is concrete, the one who's going to run the”, Ymer said.

The importance of dialogue on the proper name is more appreciated than it could have for the Republic of Kosovo and political developments. So it is imperative that we reach a political and political consensus and society in general”.

The problem is that it is not known what it will talk about; it is said that dialogue will produce whether it is recognised by Serbia, but there is no strategy for how it will be achieved”.

If this dialogue continues with the old avaz, without assessing what has happened so far and without being sure about the topics, I think we go into dialogue as without head, then the result is harmful”.

The first thing we have to agree to is whether there are red lines with Serbia. One issue that has dragged on for a long time is the discussion of what republic we want. It's not a closed case. The Republic of Kosovo should be of the barbarian citizens”.

The “should not talk to Serbia about the interests of Kosovo Serbs, as Serbia cares about Serbs not being integrated”.

I think Serbia should be dialogueed on issues involving two states, not our internal problems”.

“What will be the role of the Parliament, is popular vote envisioned in this process? If the Assembly is disfellowshipped and is finally included, then it's getting too late”.

“The Assembly must bear the main burden of organising dialogue with Serbia, and this Assembly must remove the platform for what we will discuss”.

“The Parliament would oversee the negotiating team and intervene at each stage if necessary. In such processes there should be each participants”.

“The Assembly must be the body that oversees the process at each step and intervenes every time the positions conflict with the approved platform and Kosovo Constitution”.

“So make sure the final result is not on shift”.

If you now go with the simple majority to approve the platform and then at the end of the process comes the agreement that can't be passed with the simple majority then we'll have a conflict, so this should necessarily be the process first accepted by all and we have to go at maximum care”.

So, I think what's called the platform doesn't look like the platform, there's no strategy and position on different issues. The platform would mean a document in which goals are also envisioned and the way we reach these goals”.

“Ay says we will have a legally binding agreement in which we expect recognition from Serbia. On the platform, we must take care to set topics that are not discussed. Territorial and institutional regulation does not discuss with Serbia”.

“also should not discuss what form illegal structures should take and accept a disfigurement of the Republic of Kosovo worse than Ahtisaari's” plan.