The West Pacific

mr_sniffles

mr_sniffles

TNPer
I would like to call to a vote for a resolution in condemning the recent dictatorial undertakings within the West Pacific. I find our current position of neutrality offensive, while recognizing the West Pacific soveriegnty, we oppose any disillusion of the rights of citizens.

And yes, I know how cabinet feels about this but it's about time someone canvassed how the rest of us feels about it.

When tyranny struck the North Pacific, the West Pacific stood with us. Arm in arm with the great legendary North Pacific Underground. Now the fact that the same agents are oppressing true demcratic people, is revolting. Let the voices of the people ring so loud that they break any walls tyrants may erect against us.
 
You want to make a law? I'm assuming since you opened a thread here. And by doing so you are also trying to bypass the ministers who have agreed on a policy.

Staying out of it is the best way for a region, with members who disagree. But no that's doesn't seem enough for you.

This current stance gave you the freedom to align yourself with wichever side you want, but that isn't enough, you want to drag the whole region into it, contrary to what YOUR elected representatives have agreed.

No word.
 
I agree with Koona. You already where I stand personally on the WPT, and I would love to see TNP issue a statement supporting the WPT, but I recognize that the opinion in TNP is too divided for the region to take any stance other than neutrality.

You are free to go over to TWP and help the GiE (which is quite a misnomer and incredibly unoriginal, but oh well), just as I'm over there with Bluume. But don't try and push TNP to take a stance.
 
I want to pass a resolution in support of the democratic movement within the West Pacific. If it fails then so be it, but I don't think we should wrap ourselves around this cloak of isolation and indifference just because it might be uncomfortable.

These are the same agents working for tyranny and these are the same people who stood with us during our own dark time with these agents. I feel we need a vote and a debate, for your information not all of the cabinet ministers were the ones I voted for.
 
Heft:
I agree with Koona. You already where I stand personally on the WPT, and I would love to see TNP issue a statement supporting the WPT, but I recognize that the opinion in TNP is too divided for the region to take any stance other than neutrality.

You are free to go over to TWP and help the GiE (which is quite a misnomer and incredibly unoriginal, but oh well), just as I'm over there with Bluume. But don't try and push TNP to take a stance.
Click to expand...
What I'm calling for is a vote. If people choose neutrality then so be it but you know how I feel also and this is an outrage to me.

As for going to the WP, foreign occupation is a key problem. Going there would only exacerbate problems.
 
Well before there's too many accusations here, I have to say that from where I stand, I see no harm in letting this debate continue for now. HOWEVER --

The Justices may have an opinion on whether the RA can actually vote on such a statement as sniffles is proposing. I'm not sure that we can.

I'm not sure the RA can even vote on a proposal declaring support for the official Cabinet position on this.
 
I think we should get some legal representation over this.

But to truly question legitimacy, it is a matter of foreign policy. In RL, as a Canadian, the separatists in Quebec desperately try to win recognition from the US and France to curry favour for independence. In NS, we saw the same over the Moldavi affair where most of the NS world rejected his stranglehold over our region. I think we, as Regional Assembly members should vote as to whether this directorate/triumvirate/fascist-rejects are legitimate in their claim to lord over the West Pacific.
 
You can do that as a personaly project, but don't drag the region into it. I don't believe this is a matter that is to be handled by a vote, it sets regional policy which is not the job of this body.
 
Can someone in the Cabinet post the actual motion or statement the Cabinet approved as its action?

The following is only my own personal view as a registered voter and a member of the Regional Assembly, and not soeaking as Chief Justice or for the Court as a body.

In all probability there can be a review of an original Cabinet action the same way there can be a review of a Ministerial action under Article II Section 3:
2) The UN Delegate for The North Pacific, the Prime Minister, any Cabinet Minister, any deputy Cabinet minister, and the Attorney General shall act only in the best interests of the Region. Should any registered voter believe that the actions of the Delegate, the Prime Minister, or any other official in the Regional Government are inappropriate, or would serve the Region better if enacted as permanent law, that Nation may draft a petition, describing the action taken, to be signed by at least one other registered voter, and then posted in a appropriate thread in the Regional off-site forum for the Prime Minister's office. The Cabinet shall review all such petitions. After deciding on the proper action to be taken, whether it is to overturn that action or to adopt that action as permanent law, the Cabinet shall put its decision up for a referendum of the registered voters. If a majority vote is cast by the registered voters (with a quorum of voters participating) in favor of ratification of the Cabinet's decision, it shall be carried out immediately.
Click to expand...
Given the accountability provision of Clause 9 of the Declaration of Rights:
9. Each Nation in The North Pacific is guaranteed the organization and operation of the governmental authorities of the region on fundamental principles of democracy, accountability, and transparency.
Click to expand...
application of the Cabinet Review provisions of Article II Section 3 would be the primary method of accountability and review of the Cabinet action by the registered voters.

Given that there is no subforum for registered voter discussion prior to a formal referral of a matter to a referendum vote, I concur that the RA forum would be an appropriate venue for the discussion.
 
There's a great deal of difference between Moldavi's actions here and the Triumvirate, one being that the Triumvirate holds a great deal more legitimacy among other things. I personally support the triumvirate, especially now that it has created a strong Charter that allows a fairly high level of democracy (at least where feeders are concerned).

I won't keep going, though, because in TNP the issue of dictators is a major one that tends to raise a lot of emotion. Since there are hefty camps for both sides of the situation here, it seems only wisest to maintain the neutral policy we have. To do otherwise would be to risk fundamental division that could ultimately risk the stability of government structure and therefore the hard-won democratic nature of the region.
 
If it's an issue of stability in TNP, then the best thing to do is to not alter the consitution or to refrain from doing so as much as possible.

As per TWP, what goes on over there is their business and unless TWP presents a direct threat to us by their actions, neutrality is the best course of action. Interference in the internal affairs of any region by another regions (unless it is a legitimate defender action on someone's part) is intolerable.

R
 
Romanoffia:
If it's an issue of stability in TNP, then the best thing to do is to not alter the consitution or to refrain from doing so as much as possible.

As per TWP, what goes on over there is their business and unless TWP presents a direct threat to us by their actions, neutrality is the best course of action. Interference in the internal affairs of any region by another regions (unless it is a legitimate defender action on someone's part) is intolerable.

R
Click to expand...
So where were your legendary passionate derailings against the West Pacific during the Moldavi affair?
 
One could argue that assistance from TWP (which was quite a different region a year ago) was actually requested by the NPU, whereas TNP has not been asked to get involved by either side in the current TWP affair.

Also, aside from revealing the identities of the NPD Ministers, TWP had little direct involvement. We took steps to make sure we couldn't be seen as ADN/TWP puppets. I, personally, avoided any real interaction with the ADN for that reason (and then continued that out of simple preference). The "GiE" isn't doing that either.
 
Russo-Princepolis:
a strong Charter that allows a fairly high level of democracy (at least where feeders are concerned).
Click to expand...
What having an appointed Council of Ministers (the only people capable of creating legislation) that serves "at the will and pleasure" of the delegate is a "fairly high level of democracy"?

Right and North Korea's beautiful record on human rights is a shining pinnacle to the rest of the free world.
 
Mr. Sniffles, I have to ask why you feel a need to impose democracy on another region.

NS is a political game, where no particular political stance is given higher favor than the other. They are all valid. Why do you insist that TWP *must* be democratic? Should they not be allowed to find their own way?

Last I checked TNP did not have a stance towards NS that demanded other regions have specific types of governments. Quite the contrary, we believe that all regions have the right to operate as they see fit.

If TNP wants to take a pro stance on certain issues, then that should be made clear via the election of officials with strong stances on issues, or via legislation that directs TNP towards a particular goal. Otherwise, as a feeder, I think it's TNP's mission to educate and help newbies in NS, not spread democracy across the world. (*has a Bush moment* :lol: )
 
Nowhere did I say we were imposing democracy on them but are you declaring that the people of the West Pacific supporting this charter wholeheartedly and want to be lorded over someone who won the luck of a draw in an obscene powerplay?Do you secretly wish Moldavi was in charge of us now, randomly banning us and words like 'democracy' in our forums?

I'm not declaring war on non-democratic nations, all I'm asking of the North Pacific is to allow such a heated matter come to a vote. When is allowing votes on positions seen as democratic tyranny?
 
By condemming the "dictatorial" government, you are in effect supporting the only other option, which would be democracy.

Without really knowing both sides of the argument, I don't think we should be interfering. I admit, I haven't been keeping up on the whole event, I'm not really the type for reading the news (It's usually rather depressing anyway - this proves that). So I personally will vote against any motion to support one side or the other.

Semi-off-topic: I know what our region went through when we had a dictatorial group take over. I fought as hard as any to get us back to where we are now. But that was our region, where I knew I wanted democracy to be in charge. Maybe TWP will be better off with the Triumvate or whatever their name is... maybe they won't be. I can't predict the future. So I personally believe that we let events unfold as they will, and hope that whatever happens turns out to be good for their region. If mass, unjust bannings start to occur, then maybe I'll lean toward one faction or another. But not sooner.
 
Hersfold:
If mass, unjust bannings start to occur, then maybe I'll lean toward one faction or another. But not sooner.
Click to expand...
They've already mass banned twice, they've instituted a laughable for its incredulousness "Charter", suspended the forum for a while, and all the token effects of what we've gone through.
 
Erastide:
mr_sniffles:
Do you secretly wish Moldavi was in charge of us now, randomly banning us and words like 'democracy' in our forums?
Click to expand...
:rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

Hold on, let me catch my breath and I'll get back to answering your points.
Click to expand...
Ok I admit that was way too theatrical. I'm ready to admit, it's more than just recognizing legitimacy to me. The whole NPD thing was really harsh, while we've been better for it in the end with this new government and all; to see this happen again with the same agents just really peeves me. Moldavi screwed us up, he screwed us up bad. Not to say that bad wasn't stirrup-able with UPS and GB, but his regime was the longest with the largest unwavering support. We truly fought until the very bitter end. And I know that this isn't the NPD again but it just reeks of it.

My only point is that when things were absolutely dark for the North Pacific, when we had a rogue delegate with an endorsement count of around 750, the West Pacific stood with us. That's my only point. Abidee Abidee that's all folks.

Until the Cabinet makes its statement, I will remain quiet.
 
First of all, I know this is a passionate issue, so let's not let the debate get too out of hand here. No one wants any ugly incidents here.

I have to sound off as my personal opinion here. First of all, if the Cabinet is indeed crafting a statement of neutrailty, I would support that wholeheartedly -- I would understand where they're coming from on this. I'm not entirely sure who this new ruling faction in TWP is, so I'm no expert, but I find a problem with the "neutrality for the sake of neutrality" argument.

If we truly believe the goings-on in TWP are things that result from opinions within their own region, then neutrality is proper. But I find it disturbing that many have advanced the argument that we should not impose our preferences on TWP. This statement, of course, is true -- but suppose many in TWP do not want the current ruling faction in power. We would not be "imposing our preferences" on TWP if we supported those people. I assume that sniffles has the history correct that TWP stood with us during darker days (I hadn't yet joined TNP during that time). If so, clearly TWP supported what the majority of people HERE wished for -- a democratic system. If a majority of TWP supports a democratic system and the current rulers are not giving them that, AND given that we have such links with TWP, then I suggest it would be folly of us not to even DEBATE this issue.

Indeed, I strongly disagree those who suggest that it is only a matter of personal opinion and does not need debate. Discussing this issue certainly does no one harm. Furthermore, it was suggested in a previous post that those who disagree with TWP's ruling clique should go over and help their "underground" movement. That seems to me to be putting the cart before the horse. Individual nations can interfere in TWP's business by helping them but the entire TNP region can't debate whether we like the TWP developments (something which is far LESS interfering)? I fail to see the logic behind that argument.

Having said that, I'm not sure if this would warrant something on the level of a "Cabinet/Ministerial" review as quoted by the CJ. I guess those provisions could apply, but it would certainly be a new application of those sections of the Constitution.

I'm wondering whether (in theory) the RA could vote on a simple declaration of support/agreement with the official Cabinet stance. This wouldn't be a review per se, but just something that says we agree with the Cabinet. If the declaration does not pass, then no harm is done. It would sort of be a way to express displeasure inherently. That is, if the declaration does not pass, then that would let people know that there is a significant number who do not agree with the Cabinet position (although I am sure that everyone on these forums would RESPECT and abide by that position). This is somewhat less offensive and direct than having a proposal saying we DISAGREE with the Cabinet stance.

EDIT: An idea -- the above paragraph may well merit some discussion as an issue for general debate, not just for this situation. It would clarify the limitations of the RA in any kind of foreign policy situations.
 
As far as I can ascertain, the conference held in TWP settled on a Constitutional Monarchy model for their government by way of a majority vote!! This conference was then taken over by a vocal group seeking to impose "democracy" despite the results of the convention!!

This vocal group is now calling itself "Government in Exile" despite it never being the government and it not being exiled!!

As I said, this is what I have determined from TWP's forum and I have not heard anything to the contrary backed with evidence!!

Hence, leaping to the side of any group claiming to be in exile and supporting democracy would be a dangerous step without first researching the events in detail!! From the information I have read, the "government in exile" group were the ones who decided to ignore democratic process when it delivered a result not to their liking!!

As the factions are from TWP, I believe it is an internal matter best sorted out by the government and citizens of TWP!!

It seems some are yearning for another fight to "liberate" a feeder from "tyranny", but I do not believe this to fit the criteria!! A group of people barging in from other regions will do little to remedy the situation but much to worsen it!!
 
Poltsamaa:
As far as I can ascertain, the conference held in TWP settled on a Constitutional Monarchy model for their government by way of a majority vote!! This conference was then taken over by a vocal group seeking to impose "democracy" despite the results of the convention!!

This vocal group is now calling itself "Government in Exile" despite it never being the government and it not being exiled!!
Click to expand...
Damn, I almost hit the EDIT button instead of QUOTE, but I caught myself heh heh.

Well Polts, this information would certainly put things in a new light. If this is really true, and a majority of real TWP'ers voted for that, then that's the end of it.

I haven't read the TWP forums myself, but I'll probably cruise over there sometime soon and see how things stand since this is a hot issue. From what I have heard from everyone here, though, it does seem that there is no dictatorship-in-the-style-of-Moldavi going on over there. Whether there is a dictatorship and whether the current government has rubbed some people the wrong way are two different things entirely.

EDIT: As I said before, however, I believe discussion on this is valuable not simply for this one sake but for the sake of getting any opinions on RA-Cabinet interplay on foreign policy issues.
 
Well it is a bit different from the NPD (I was on the sidelines back than), but this group calling themself exiles, are not really exiled, it's elf imposed exile, despite the fact that they till keep hanging around the WPT's board, bitching a groaning.

There were n purges, no real ones, since the nations ejected were cleared frm the ban list after one uptade, and this loss of UN endoes did not effect their statnding.
 
Poltsamaa:
As far as I can ascertain, the conference held in TWP settled on a Constitutional Monarchy model for their government by way of a majority vote!! This conference was then taken over by a vocal group seeking to impose "democracy" despite the results of the convention!!

It seems some are yearning for another fight to "liberate" a feeder from "tyranny", but I do not believe this to fit the criteria!! A group of people barging in from other regions will do little to remedy the situation but much to worsen it!!
Click to expand...
Actually the information I gathered was from St.Paul's coverage of it, first off while the constitutional monarchy proposal was initially supported once a weak presidential system was considered the conference was shut down by the organizers who now make up the current government.

Well it is a bit different from the NPD (I was on the sidelines back than), but this group calling themself exiles, are not really exiled, it's elf imposed exile, despite the fact that they till keep hanging around the WPT's board, bitching a groaning.

There were n purges, no real ones, since the nations ejected were cleared frm the ban list after one uptade, and this loss of UN endoes did not effect their statnding.
Click to expand...

If this was the case then the NPD would've been a legitimate government also and we were just whiners. After all, we were all banned too and let back in to avoid griefing rules. Many of our nations continued to return to the North Pacific even after Moldavi kicked us out, are you calling Flem, me, Free4all, Honeysheep, Heft, and countless other proud loving North Pacificans just a bunch of whiners who couldn't stop "bitching and groaning"?

If you feel that public dissent is the problem in the West Pacific then it's obvious what your position is on democracy itself. It seems you have no problems with people stating their views as long as they agree with everyone else. The most disturbing thing about the arguments of both Polts and Koona is not that you have a problem with what the dissenters think but how they think.

The grand distortments of both your views is rather extreme, even the PRP which supports the regime has taken a more objective view of the crisis.
http://s4.invisionfree.com/thepacific/inde...?showtopic=3342

Your arguments effectively cut out any opposition, no matter if they were natives or not. No matter if they've been proven as effective leaders of the region or not. No matter how much support they actually have in the region. No matter what the ultimate goal in suspending the constitution these people claimed to have and the recent actions they have. Simply those with power and agree with you are right, everyone else... well to hell with them. Given Polts former sympathies, this comes as no surprise.
 
Is it surprising that Polts and several others would support the current WP gov't and not the rebellion? no. Is it wrong in any way for them to think like that? no. People are allowed to believe/think what they like in TNP. We guarentee everyone the right to give their input and thoughts into the matter.

Personally, given that Eli has brought several people in from *outside* TWP, I doubt I would personally support his gov't. On the other hand, I have no desire whatsoever to join a rebellion. But my personal feelings, or anyone else's, shouldn't be what guides a decision on what TNP should do. The most I would ever support would be a statement that TNP hoped The West Pacific's citizens were given the right to choose their own government. And even that's going a bit far.

Don't know how to state this more clearly. TNP has, to my knowledge, no explicit foreign policies. We have no goals or desires to enforce freedom in other regions. Yes, TWP supported us when we were under the rule of tyrants. However, that gov't is so far gone now that saying one side represents the old TWP is foolishness. The current feeling in the Cabinet is a desire to remain neutral. If voters disagree with that, perhaps they should pay attention to the elections and elect people that represent their views. :P
 
Hold on one moment.

First of all, sniffles, that last line about Polts' former sympathies is out of line and uncalled for. No one has made that kind of personal attack on you in this debate. I just posted in my campaign thread that it is a credit to the RA members that I have not had to do any moderation here in the RA in the past term. I kindly request that you do not make me do my first.

That was the "moderator portion" of my post. Secondly, I think that heaving veiled insults about people's stance on democracy is somewhat harsh. sniffles, simply because they do complain about the state of affairs does not necessarily mean that other regions must jump in to aid them. At the same time, koona, even if the "Exiles" don't represent a significant majority, they have the right to complain.

The ultimate goal of this debate was (from sniffles' viewpoint) to pass some sort of resolution from the RA. I have said that I am not certain we can pass the kind of thing you would want us to pass. If you see anything in the Constitution that supports your argument, please post that. This is the stumbling block in my opinion. IF the RA could actually do what sniffles suggests, then it's a different ballgame altogether. Then we move into the question of whether we should craft such a resolution. But at this stage, I have allowed this debate because it's on a pertinent issue. If it devolves on either side into a shouting match, then considering the lack of action the RA can take, this thread would cease to be productive.

At the same time, sniffles, you could re-read Grosse's post and take action in that way (keeping in mind that he disclaimed that it was his personal opinion).
 
I respectfully disagree with such a well articulated and thought out argument. (Erastide)

However I did not once say that Polts could not think that way, just the opposite. They've been telling us and using as many torches and pitchforks they can find to steer us away from not only debate but from questioning authority at every turn.

So (erastide) your position is to take it out on the ministers come election day? Btw, are you running for re-election? :P
 
I agree Wiz, that my language of "bitch and groan" might have been excesive, but it is my opinion that they are not helping themselves, and why it is within their right to complain, calling people like Eli, Ivan and Uni names doesn't exactly qualifies as critisism.

If we really want to be fairon what Sniffles is suggesting than we'd had to make room for all three possibilities, support the GiE, support the WPT or remain neutral, but I believe, for this descition there needs to be a clear majority.
 
For information, there is a really interesting article on the situation in the West Pacific that has been written by The Red Factions.

It can be found HERE (CLICKY)

Whilst it is not complete, and is still awaiting input from Eli, it provides one of the best overviews of the international sutuation that I have seen.

F>
 
flemingovia:
For information, there is a really interesting article on the situation in the West Pacific that has been written by The Red Factions.

It can be found HERE (CLICKY)

Whilst it is not complete, and is still awaiting input from Eli, it provides one of the best overviews of the international sutuation that I have seen.

F>
Click to expand...
It seems pretty clear to me. Thanks for sharing.
 
Wizardofoz01:
Having said that, I'm not sure if this would warrant something on the level of a "Cabinet/Ministerial" review as quoted by the CJ. I guess those provisions could apply, but it would certainly be a new application of those sections of the Constitution.
Click to expand...

I wanted to briefly respond to this because I suspect there may be a misunderstanding of my earlier post.

The provision I quoted (Article II Section 3 of the Constitution) listed every Cabinet-level office by title or by reference to "Cabinet Minister(s)" more generally (as defined in the Constitution) except for the Speaker (who of course is not a member of the Cabinet.) Every voting member of the Cabinet is included within those offices listed in Article II, Section 3.

Whether one wants to view the Cabinet review clause as being triggered by a separate petition as to the act of each individual Minister (and the Prime Minister) who participated in the action, or by a single petition as to the same group as a collective body, to me is immaterial.

It still results in the availability of that review process as to that Cabinet action, and still results in the availabililty of a review referendum of the registered voters as to the action. Because of that, I stated my belief that the discussion in the RA forum was an appropriate venue for this discussion until and unless a formal petition is filed and the matter is taken to a referendum. At that point, a formal debate thread in the Voting Forums area would be more appropriate since the issue would involve all registered voters, and not just those registered voters who are currently members of the Regional Assembly.
 
mr_sniffles:
Russo-Princepolis:
a strong Charter that allows a fairly high level of democracy (at least where feeders are concerned).
Click to expand...
What having an appointed Council of Ministers (the only people capable of creating legislation) that serves "at the will and pleasure" of the delegate is a "fairly high level of democracy"?

Right and North Korea's beautiful record on human rights is a shining pinnacle to the rest of the free world.
Click to expand...
Oh, and PS-

The Council of ministers and delegate can be overridden by a majority of the Council of Nations, something akin to our RA only with slightly higher activity requirements. It is a democratic republican constitutional monarchy with a strong executive. There are checks on delegatoral and Council powers, though power is centralised to allow the government to operate efficiently.

Just my :2c: on that.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top