This is the first article I am seeing where congress calls it a multilateral treaty. Then why the hell it has ben termed deal all these days? If it is called multilateral treaty as per my knowledge of International law then why should there be a voting in parliament. Just go and sign and then ratify later where there is enough time. Like Patent treaty was signed many years before but was ratified very much later.There never need be any voting at all. So also many of the treaties and conventions all over the world are signed by the soverign head or President. Why make fuss about resignation, elections and what not to create panic in the market. It appears that there is something fishy of vote bank, to capture share market and not the real nuclear deal. There may be an intention to have an election hatched out by many parties. Students of International law will laugh when they hear that a government falls if a treaty is not ratified. Ratification can be done anytime in future and need not be immediate. In a multi lateral many nations are involved and not one.
RE:A wrong English useage called 'Nuclear Deal'
by Bharat Kr on Jun 25, 2008 08:03 PM Permalink
Congress is trying to placate Left by saying multi-lateral deal, and throwing muds here and there. The fact is that, there is no multilateral deal here, without deal with USA. Congress has run out of all options, only option left is to resign and seek fresh election. N-deal will bring no votes, people will vote based on price rise, inflation, farmers suicide, unemployment, terrorism etc issues.
