FD - Feeder Treaty

mr_sniffles

mr_sniffles

TNPer
The United Feeders Treaty

Preamble

We, the regions of The North Pacific, The East Pacific, The South Pacific, The Pacific and Lazarus, in recognition of the common ground between our regions do agree to the following treaty.


Article I. This treaty recognises all existing governments as the legitimate governing body of their region.

Article II. This treaty reaffirms the sovereignty and independence of each signatory region.

Article III. In the event of a dispute between signatories of this treaty, the other signatories not involved in the dispute agree to remain neutral over the dispute and may provide grounds for diplomatic talks and negotiators to try to resolve the dispute.

Article IV: In the event of a dispute between signatories of this treaty and other regions, the other signatories not involved may provide grounds for diplomatic talks and negotiators to try to resolve the dispute.

Article V: Each signatory region will place an embassy in the regions of the other signatories, in order to further communication between the signatory regions. The embassy will act as a voice of the region within the other, and will respect the laws of foreign soil. This will be done with due process and by request.

Article VI. The signatory regions entering into this treaty agree to encourage their nations to register and participate on each other's forum, so that all signatory regions can get to know each other and so our friendship may be strengthened. Additionally, members of every signatory region shall have an automatic invitation to all festive occasions in all signatory regions.

Article VII. To further facilitate communications between the signatory regions, they hereby agree to the creation of a permanently maintained summit hall. These halls shall provide common and neutral ground for discussion of issues between all signatory regions.

Article VIII. The summit halls shall be hosted by a different signatory region every six months.

Article IX. In the event of a change in government in a signatory region, from the government which signed the treaty, the region will be removed from the treaty. Should they wish to re-sign the treaty, they can be re-affirmed by unanimous vote of the other signatory regions.

Article X. Amendments to this treaty can be tabled in the summit halls, where they shall be decided upon by the appointed representatives of each signatory region.

Signed:

Haor Chall, The North Pacific

Moo-cows with guns, The Pacific

Caer Rialis, The South Pacific

Kangarawa, The East Pacific,

Posul, Lazarus
Click to expand...

Ok, hounds you know what to do.
 
Emperior Matthuis, I think you're voting in the wrong thread. This is a discussion thread.

I asked our Speaker to open a separate thread for discussion in view of the fact that this treaty arriived on the floor of the Regional Assembly without explanation from the Cabinet, the MoEA, or the PM, and without any opportunity for receiving background or explanation for this proposed treaty.

I have several questions that I present to the Government.

First, what is the rationale for this treaty? Why do the participants at the feeder summit, or at least, our representatives to that summit, feel that this particular treaty is necessary? And what of the proposal to have all feeders adopt a common policy on recruitment ads on the RMBs?

Second, I note that The West Pacific refused to sign this treaty, and cited as grounds, events taking place in some of the other regions that attended the summit. Why does the current government feel that being a signatory to this treaty is appropriate, notwithstanding the stated objections of the Foriegn Minister of The West Pacific? Why do we not enodrse the TWP position?

Third, given that under our system, treaties become part of the law of this region, what is the impact and significance of the following passage?

Treaty Article VI:
Article VI. The signatory regions entering into this treaty agree to encourage their nations to register and participate on each other's forum, so that all signatory regions can get to know each other and so our friendship may be strengthened.
Click to expand...

How will this be implemented at this forum? Won't we need a new mask for foreign visitors who are not envoys?

Fourth, in treaty Article IX, we find this:
Treaty Article IX:
Article IX. In the event of a change in government in a signatory region, from the government which signed the treaty, the region will be removed from the treaty. Should they wish to re-sign the treaty, they can be re-affirmed by unanimous vote of the other signatory regions.
Click to expand...

So, what constitutes a "change of government"? Who decides what or when a "change of government" occurs? Since the consequence is the removal of that region from the treaty, and since re-adherence to the treaty is solely by what I can only describe as a "black ball" re-admission approach, it is important that there be a clear statement of what is meant by a "change of government," and who and how that determination will be made.

Finally, I think it is essential that the members of the Regional Assembly have a clear understanding of what it is they are voting on. I have not made any decision on how I will vote, as I like to make sure I understand the intent, impact, purpose and effect of a treaty presented for ratification before casting a vote.

I look forward to answers to these questions, so I can vote on this proposed treaty in an informed manner.
 
Is it just me, or do Article III and IV basically say the same thing? Or at last IV is the second half of III repeated.

I don't like III anyway. From my reading of it, it prevents signatories from stating a position that is anything other than neutral in the event of an argument between two others. I would hope that in a circumstance where (for example) one of the Pacifics decides to invade Lazarus without reason, we would have the NPA in there as soon as possible. This appears to prevent us from doing that.
 
Please note that while you are more than free to debate and express your views on this treaty, only an overwhelming number of nay votes will change the language and HC's hair colour to white with aggravation.
 
What is the meaning of that?

Constitution:
B - Political, diplomatic, or military relationships shall only be established by agreement or treaty. Either the Minister of External Affairs or the Prime Minister has the power to submit a proposal to accede to or withdraw from any agreement or treaty relationship with another region, or multi-regional organization, to the Speaker for approval of such proposed action by a majority of the Regional Assembly in a referendum with a quorum participating. The voting period for the referendum shall be for five consecutive days. Should the action be approved, action to implement the proposal shall be taken by the Prime Minister, the Minister of External Affairs, or the Cabinet of the Regional Government, as appropriate in the circumstances.
Click to expand...

If a majority is overwhelming, then yes that requires an overwhelming number of votes to block. Ditto on to pass. Note that it also requires a quorum-- 20 votes to be cast.
 
mr_sniffles:
Article I. This treaty recognises all existing governments as the legitimate governing body of their region.
Click to expand...
Well, there's one rather gaping loophole in that clause there. It says "all existing governments". This does NOT specify all signatories or even all existing feeder governments. Therefore it means all existing regional governments, from that of the Lexicon to the new dictatorship in Equilism. And this doesn't run out-- it's a permanent extension of recognition to ALL existing regional governments. Is this reasonable for the North Pacific to do?

Article III. In the event of a dispute between signatories of this treaty, the other signatories not involved in the dispute agree to remain neutral over the dispute and may provide grounds for diplomatic talks and negotiators to try to resolve the dispute.
Click to expand...

This, as JAL has been saying, means that if, to take a random example, The Pacific were to invade Lazarus, TNP would be barred from aiding Lazarus. (Or vice versa). Does this noble region wish to give up its freedom of action to such an extent?
 
Grosseschnauzer:
Emperior Matthuis, I think you're voting in the wrong thread. This is a discussion thread.

I asked our Speaker to open a separate thread for discussion in view of the fact that this treaty arriived on the floor of the Regional Assembly without explanation from the Cabinet, the MoEA, or the PM, and without any opportunity for receiving background or explanation for this proposed treaty.

I have several questions that I present to the Government.

First, what is the rationale for this treaty? Why do the participants at the feeder summit, or at least, our representatives to that summit, feel that this particular treaty is necessary? And what of the proposal to have all feeders adopt a common policy on recruitment ads on the RMBs?
Click to expand...

Well, the Feeder Summit forums are publically viewable, so everyone can see the discussions that have taken place for the whys and wherefores. Also, I refer you to my election campaign for this term, as this was one of the things I ran on.


Second, I note that The West Pacific refused to sign this treaty, and cited as grounds, events taking place in some of the other regions that attended the summit. Why does the current government feel that being a signatory to this treaty is appropriate, notwithstanding the stated objections of the Foriegn Minister of The West Pacific? Why do we not enodrse the TWP position?
Click to expand...

Firstly, we are TNP not TWP. Why should we endorse the TWP position? Timings of other events and this summit were not helpful, it has to be said, and we have tried to find ways of working things out with TWP, both in public and in private. Unfortunately they have refused to accept any compromise. Deciding to sign the treaty on our part was the least worst option as things stand. As the region hosting the summit, and a region which as managed to build up the political and diplomatic strength to be able to successfully host such a summit, we'd be a laughing stock if we ourselves pulled out, on TWP's coattails.

Further more, let me just explain, that despite what JAL has said, this treaty was not a choice between TWP and the NPO. It was a choice between TWP and TSP, TEP and Lazarus.

Third, given that under our system, treaties become part of the law of this region, what is the impact and significance of the following passage?

Treaty Article VI:
Article VI. The signatory regions entering into this treaty agree to encourage their nations to register and participate on each other's forum, so that all signatory regions can get to know each other and so our friendship may be strengthened.
Click to expand...

How will this be implemented at this forum? Won't we need a new mask for foreign visitors who are not envoys?
Click to expand...

Just for your information, that article is taken from our standard embassy agreement. I don't see why a new mask would be necessary, the normal mask is fine.

Fourth, in treaty Article IX, we find this:
Treaty Article IX:
Article IX. In the event of a change in government in a signatory region, from the government which signed the treaty, the region will be removed from the treaty. Should they wish to re-sign the treaty, they can be re-affirmed by unanimous vote of the other signatory regions.
Click to expand...

So, what constitutes a "change of government"? Who decides what or when a "change of government" occurs? Since the consequence is the removal of that region from the treaty, and since re-adherence to the treaty is solely by what I can only describe as a "black ball" re-admission approach, it is important that there be a clear statement of what is meant by a "change of government," and who and how that determination will be made.
Click to expand...

That was discussed in the treaty thread, if you'd care to look. It was decided that the best thing to do was keep the treaty as flexible as possible, to take into account the numerous different ways things change. In the event of a change of government which we, for example, considered a major change in terms of this treaty, we would enter into discussions with the other signatories.

Finally, I think it is essential that the members of the Regional Assembly have a clear understanding of what it is they are voting on. I have not made any decision on how I will vote, as I like to make sure I understand the intent, impact, purpose and effect of a treaty presented for ratification before casting a vote.

I look forward to answers to these questions, so I can vote on this proposed treaty in an informed manner.
Click to expand...

The treaty is a diplomatic treaty, designed to encourage closer relations between the signatory feeder regions and to also support diplomatic dialogue to solve any issues that arise between us, rather than deal with them in the manner that they have done before.


Naturally, I disagree with this treaty. My general reasoning is already known, but I'll try to get more specific after Gross's questions are answered.
Click to expand...

Naturally, that's because you are wrong.

Is it just me, or do Article III and IV basically say the same thing? Or at last IV is the second half of III repeated.
Click to expand...

III is inter-feeder, IV is with regions outside the treaty, hence the slightly different wording.

I don't like III anyway. From my reading of it, it prevents signatories from stating a position that is anything other than neutral in the event of an argument between two others. I would hope that in a circumstance where (for example) one of the Pacifics decides to invade Lazarus without reason, we would have the NPA in there as soon as possible. This appears to prevent us from doing that.
Click to expand...

This is why it was changed from two signatories to signatories. This way we could be come involved in support of TSP invading Lazarus, or whatever, and we'd become one of the signatories involved in the dispute then. Again, as I stated above, the treaty is designed to be flexible, otherwise it would be worthless if it fell apart the moment anyone did anything.

Please note that while you are more than free to debate and express your views on this treaty, only an overwhelming number of nay votes will change the language and HC's hair colour to white with aggravation.
Click to expand...

Nay votes won't change the language. We just won't be a signatory. I urge people to place that in context.
 
It forces all regiosn to recignize each other as the legitimate governing institutions of their region. We can give the recognition de facto through their control and thus negotiate and have embassies, but I am not sure the NPO has ever really proven their ability to be legitimate rulers...especially after their Purge.
 
Romanoffia:
Zemnaya Svoboda:
OPArsenal:
Article I. This treaty recognises all existing governments as the legitimate governing body of their region.
Click to expand...

This article is a piece of shit.
Click to expand...
Well.............

I guess so. Is there any way to get just that part changed now?
Click to expand...
I think the implication is that it applies to the governments who are signators of the document.
Click to expand...

That is the implication. Technically it should probably say something like "all existing governments of the signatory regions" but I messed up (although in all fairness no one pointed it out during the discussions, probably working on the assumption that was what it meant). It can be changed, as there is provision for changes to be made, but that would require us to be a signatory.

Just to make that clearer, the only way we can effect changes to the treaty is by being a part of it. Savvy?

And, by the way as far as Article I and VI are in all the embassy agreements we have. So as far as we're concerned we recognise all the current existing governments, of these regions, as legitimate.

F&P don't talk such crap. No one has been "forced", everyone bar TWP agreed to it and TWP left. So there was no "forcing" of any issue. It might have been better if TWP had presented alternatives and actually said what all their issues with it were, but they instead just chose to leave. Nothing I can do about that. With Ivan no longer delegate in the NPO, I don't know whether their stance will change or not.
 
:yes:

Yep, ignoring my earlier mis-reading, I have no major problems with it. The wording could need a little sharpening up to please everyone, but the implications sound.

Hopefully this will lead the way to more meaningful agreements with our fellow feeders in the future. (Not that this isn't meaningful I mean its laying the ground work for future agreements, not meaning to rubbish your work HC... :shifty:)

Personally I'd prefere us sign up, be it successful or not. Worst case is it falls apart and it'd be better if it failed despite our efforts than because of them.
 
There are grammatical errors abound in this treaty. If I may...

The United Feeders Treaty

Preamble

We, the regions of The North Pacific, The East Pacific, The South Pacific, The Pacific and Lazarus, in recognition of the common ground between our regions, do agree to the following treaty.


Article I. This treaty recognises each existing government (removed plural) as the legitimate governing body of its region.

Article II. This treaty reaffirms the sovereignty and independence of each signatory region.

Article III. In the event of a dispute amongst signatories of this treaty, the (removed "other" - unnecessary) signatories not involved in the dispute agree to remain neutral over the dispute and may provide grounds for diplomatic talks and negotiators to try to resolve the dispute.

Article IV: In the event of a dispute amongst signatories of this treaty and other regions, the (removed "other" - unnecessary) signatories not involved may provide grounds for diplomatic talks and negotiators to try to resolve the dispute.

Article V: Each signatory region will place an embassy in each of the other signatory regions in order to further communication amongst the signatory regions. The embassy will act as a voice of the region within the other (removed unnecessary comma) and will respect the laws of foreign soil. This will be done with due process and by request.

Article VI. The signatory regions entering into this treaty agree to encourage their nations to register and participate on each other's forum, so that all signatory regions can get to know each other and (removed an unnecessary "so") our friendships may be strengthened. Additionally, members of each signatory region shall have an automatic invitation to all festive occasions in all signatory regions.

Article VII. To further facilitate communications amongst the signatory regions, they hereby agree to the creation of a (removed "permanently" - redundant) maintained summit hall. This hall shall provide common and neutral ground for discussion of issues amongst the signatory regions.

Article VIII. The summit hall (removed plural) shall be hosted by a different signatory region every six months.

Article IX. In the event of a change in government in a signatory region (removed unnecessary comma) from the government that signed the treaty, the region will be removed from the treaty. Should it wish to re-sign the treaty, it can be re-affirmed by unanimous vote of the other signatory regions.

Article X. Amendments to this treaty can be tabled in the summit halls upon which they shall be decided by the appointed representatives of the signatory regions.

Signed:

Haor Chall, The North Pacific

Moo-cows with guns, The Pacific

Caer Rialis, The South Pacific

Kangarawa, The East Pacific,

Posul, Lazarus

:P
 
What about the issue with Article I? Treaties should be explicit about what they mean, and not say things despite what people understand of them.
 
Regarding "between", "among" and "amongst", couresty of Yahoo! Dictionary:

PREPOSITION:

  1.
        1. In or through the position or interval separating: between the trees; between 11 o'clock and 12 o'clock.
        2. Intermediate to, as in quantity, amount, or degree: It costs between 15 and 20 dollars.
  2. Usage Problem Connecting spatially: a railroad between the two cities.
  3. Usage Problem Associating or uniting in a reciprocal action or relationship: an agreement between workers and management; a certain resemblance between the two stories.
  4. In confidence restricted to: Between you and me, he is not qualified.
  5.
        1. By the combined effort or effect of: Between them they succeeded.
        2. In the combined ownership of: They had only a few dollars between them.
  6. As measured against. Often used to express a reciprocal relationship: choose between riding and walking.

ADVERB:

    In an intermediate space, position, or time; in the interim.


IDIOMS:
in between

    In an intermediate situation: My roommates disagreed and I was caught in between.

in between times

    During an intervening period; in the meantime: has written several books and teaches in between times.

ETYMOLOGY:
Middle English bitwene, from Old English betwonum; see dwo- in Indo-European roots

OTHER FORMS:
betweenness (Noun)
Usage Note:
According to a widely repeated but unjustified tradition, "between is used for two, and among for more than two." It is true that between is the only choice when exactly two entities are specified: the choice between (not among) good and evil, the rivalry between (not among) Great Britain and France. When more than two entities are involved, however, or when the number of entities is unspecified, the choice of one or the other word depends on the intended sense. Between is used when the entities are considered as distinct individuals; among, when they are considered as a mass or collectivity. Thus in the sentence The bomb landed between the houses, the houses are seen as points that define the boundaries of the area of impact (so that we presume that none of the individual houses was hit). In The bomb landed among the houses, the area of impact is considered to be the general location of the houses, taken together (in which case it is left open whether any houses were hit). By the same token, we may speak of a series of wars between the Greek cities, which suggests that each city was an independent participant in the hostilities, or of a series of wars among the Greek cities, which allows for the possibility that the participants were shifting alliances of cities. For this reason, among is used to indicate inclusion in a group: She is among the best of our young sculptors. There is a spy among you. Use between when the entities are seen as determining the limits or endpoints of a range: They searched the area between the river, the farmhouse, and the woods. The truck driver had obviously been drinking between stops.
Click to expand...
Note that there is no mention of "amongst."
 
But nevertheless, amongst is proper whereas between is not, even if amongst is not contemporary. Among would be the correct contemporary word.

I can change all my amongsts to amongs if you like :P
 
it gets me an extra $10... ;)

no really it was more so a comment on the source of that dictionary postzilla. That came from yahoo.

and FTR, I use amongst often.

((btw..I love the deus ex quote, and game, and everything about it))
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top