We are working on a brand new version of the game! If you want to stay informed, read our blog and register for our mailing list.
Bill: Accord des Nations Amicales
Details
Submitted by[?]: World Wrestling Federation
Status[?]: defeated
Votes: This bill is a resolution. It requires more yes votes than no votes. This bill will not pass any sooner than the deadline.
Voting deadline: May 2474
Description[?]:
| I am being asked if we would like to ratify the Accord des Nations Amicales (http://80.237.164.51/particracy/main/viewtreaty.php?treatyid=481) ... We would like to know how every party feels about this. |
Proposals
Debate
These messages have been posted to debate on this bill:
| Date | 03:00:47, August 24, 2007 CET | From |  World Wrestling Federation | To | Debating the Accord des Nations Amicales |
| Message | I don't like the idea of remaining neutral, but being tied to an alliance of others that may openly declare war. Does that defeat the purpose of remaining neutral?! Are we really a neutral nation? |
| Date | 03:05:48, August 24, 2007 CET | From | World Wrestling Federation | To | Debating the Accord des Nations Amicales |
| Message | The Independent Wantuni Republic and the Republic of Cobura are ratifiers already .. does that make us ratified by proxy by means of the MCTO???? http://80.237.164.51/particracy/main/viewtreaty.php?treatyid=274 |
| Date | 03:47:44, August 24, 2007 CET | From | United Democrats of Jakania | To | Debating the Accord des Nations Amicales |
| Message | "Article 9 An attack using WMD on any member of the Accord may be treated as an attack on all members for the purposes of possible retaliation." I dont like that article, at all. So no, I don't want to support |
| Date | 10:12:01, August 24, 2007 CET | From | Union of Democratic Socialists | To | Debating the Accord des Nations Amicales |
| Message | WWF: The ANA apparently renders all other military alliances null and void (article 2), so I assume the MCTO is no longer effective. UDJ: All article 9 means is that if any member is attacked with WMD, then any nation that wishes to may respond in like manner. It's not binding us to nuke the aggressor. Personally, I like the accord. All countries currently in it are reasonable, responsible governments and it gives us security and another free trade zone. We'd support ratification. |
| Date | 19:00:07, August 24, 2007 CET | From | Partie Patriotique de Kanjor | To | Debating the Accord des Nations Amicales |
| Message | We would like to thank the Supreme Council of United Jakania for considering ratification of the Accord des Nations Amicales. We have noticed a couple of points raised in the discussion which will take the liberty of clarifying: Article 9 is as the SRP states, it was designed to allow nations that do not have a WMD capability to still be covered by the deterrent value of other Accord members arsenals. The Accord is strictly a defensive Alliance and has, in its 107 years of existence never initiated a war. Paul Carnot (Ministre des Affaires Etrangères de Kanjor) |
| Date | 02:31:17, August 25, 2007 CET | From | Scientific Libertarian Party | To | Debating the Accord des Nations Amicales |
| Message | "It is not compatible with any other military alliance, though seperate military arrangements between member nations are permitted, so long as they do not conflict with this treaty." We are already members of the MCTO, and while Cobura and Wantuni are in both the ADNA and the MCTO, Solentia is not, so the treaty including Solentia excludes us until Solentia joins the ADNA. The SOTO may be a concern as well, though perhaps a lesser one, as it is not as strongly a military alliance so much as a peace agreement. Anyway, even if I didn't have this concern, we would probably not sup- Oh, wait, Kanjor. We approve of anything involving either Wantuni or Kanjor (the only nation that responded to Jakania's call to defend Wantuni against Solentia (Jakania itself didn't respond to her own call in that regard)). Okay, so we may or may not support. We'll have to see. |
| Date | 03:16:47, August 25, 2007 CET | From | World Wrestling Federation | To | Debating the Accord des Nations Amicales |
| Message | WWF is currently split on the issue. I was hoping to see a little more polarization here before we made a decision. As it stands we would probably support the issue, but on matters of international treaties we wouldn't want to throw any weight behind it without the support of 5 or more of our parties. Who knows, WWF may have no weight to throw after the upcoming election! |
| Date | 23:49:49, August 31, 2007 CET | From | Progressive Socialist Party | To | Debating the Accord des Nations Amicales |
| Message | Article 7 "Founding members which are signatories of the Accord may exercise a veto over which nations may join the Accord." I think it is a bad start for an alliance when some of its partners have more powers than others. Joining an unequal alliance is not popular with the PSP. Furthermore basing an alliance solely on the french language seems strange. It would make more sense to base analliance on common values and interest. |
| Date | 03:08:15, September 01, 2007 CET | From | Partie Patriotique de Kanjor | To | Debating the Accord des Nations Amicales |
| Message | Just to clarify: It is not based solely on the french language, amongst the current membership are Beiteynu, Darnussia and Cobura none of which are french speaking nations. As to your other point that clause is solely to prevent unsuitable nations from joining, without it, say, Deltaria could become a member (which in fact was a strategy of theirs at the time, they joined the Allied Nations which didnt have a way of keeping them out.). We hope this has clarified the PSPs misapprehensions. Paul Carnot (Ministre des Affaires Etrangères de Kanjor) |
| Date | 03:36:01, September 01, 2007 CET | From | Progressive Socialist Party | To | Debating the Accord des Nations Amicales |
| Message | We never said that the Accord built solely on the French language but article 1 contains a clear reference to the said language. It has to be there for some reason. Furthermore the veto power in article 7 provides for an undemocratic and uneaven cooperation. |
| Date | 03:59:19, September 01, 2007 CET | From | Partie Patriotique de Kanjor | To | Debating the Accord des Nations Amicales |
| Message | We wish to respectfully point out that the PSP did in fact say "Furthermore basing an alliance solely on the french language seems strange" The word 'solely' does seem to be there. The Accord is based on shared values as can be seen by its actions, a commitment to democracy, self determination, cooperation between nations and peace. The veto power can only be used to keep unsuitable nations out, once a nation is in the Accord it has the same rights and responsibilities as all the others. The fact that only founding members (which are signatories) can alone veto is merely an administrative convenience. Paul Carnot (Ministre des Affaires Etrangères de Kanjor) ps. We find it interesting that PSPs line of argument has never been brought up before in any nation which has contemplated joining the Accord. PC |
| Date | 01:06:30, October 21, 2007 CET | From | World Wrestling Federation | To | Debating the Accord des Nations Amicales |
| Message | sending this to a vote for archival reasons |
| Date | 04:29:59, October 21, 2007 CET | From | Jakanian Imperial Party | To | Debating the Accord des Nations Amicales |
| Message | We never liked this treaty, its too much like the MCTO and with that article that would make other military treaties void if it conflicted with this one, so we guess that the MCTO could cause conflict. |
subscribe to this discussion - unsubscribe
Voting
| Vote | Seats | ||||||||
| yes | Total Seats: 0 | ||||||||
| no |
Total Seats: 250 | ||||||||
| abstain | Total Seats: 0 |
| Random fact: All role-play must respect the established cultural background in Culturally Protected nations. |
| Random quote: "The evil of the world is made possible by nothing but the sanction you give it." - Ayn Rand |