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: Treaty with Dolgaria
Details
Submitted by[?]: Restoration Party
Status[?]: passed
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: March 2107
Description[?]:
| Given the return of everyone, and DBPs endorsement, we want to repropose: We received the following proposal for a treaty from Dolgaria. We recommend ratification, as it is non-binding and we want to end Valruzia's complete isolation. (OOC the treaty ratification page for FM executive action is not yet fully functional, so we have to vote for it like a draft and then re-enter) --DS FM of VF "The Kingdom of Dolgaria would be happy to sign a non-binding friendship Treaty with Valruzia. Sice our two countries share common values such as freedom, civil liberties and social welfare we must encourage each other to work for the benefit of both our peoples. Strenght lies in Unity, and with a United strenght our two great Nations shall step forward towards the undying Glory of eternal prosperity. Therefore we must cooperate in matters as trade and social problems. Also we need to have a common, debate on the structures of the State to enrich both our knowledges." for His Majesty the King, Alindor I signed Fr. Wilhelm v. Reuss Minister of Foreign Affairs of the Kingdom of Dolgaria |
Proposals
Debate
These messages have been posted to debate on this bill:
| Date | 03:38:34, September 06, 2005 CET | From |  Alliance for Natural Law | To | Debating the Treaty with Dolgaria |
| Message | Don't know. Especially as, once again, we didn't have a chance to discuss it. We're inclined to oppose any treaty that we haven't had a discussion on first. We've been through this once before. This time, give us a good reason to support, and we will, however we will inisist on debate periods in the future. ~The Tetraumvirate Leadership Council, ~Anarchist Party |
| Date | 04:41:26, September 06, 2005 CET | From | Libertarian Party of Valruzia | To | Debating the Treaty with Dolgaria |
| Message | No foreign entanglements! Besides, the treaty seems to want to impede on our sovereignty. "Therefore we must cooperate in matters as trade and social problems." And also, this is an obvious step towards the Restoration. "Also we need to have a common, debate on the structures of the State to enrich both our knowledges." How ironic that a kingdom, Dolgaria, would tell our own Monarchist restorationists of such a plan. Sorry, we cannot support any treaties, unless they are stripped down more so - a bare maximum would be recognition of a nation's sovereignty and the fact that free trade exists between our two nations (more so an affirmation than a right). |
| Date | 09:38:12, September 06, 2005 CET | From | Restoration Party | To | Debating the Treaty with Dolgaria |
| Message | sorrry AP, i should have left on debate more, but seeing as how it was on debate and voted on before i figured that the discussion phase was adequate. To LP points, I specifically requested that Dolgaria moderate the treaty to be 100% and explicitly non-binding. It simply gives our respective govts a reference for negotiations, and announces to the world that we cannot be kicked around as we have friends who can always chose to side with us. As for the restoration, i don't see the relationship here. |
| Date | 22:09:59, September 06, 2005 CET | From | Alliance for Natural Law | To | Debating the Treaty with Dolgaria |
| Message | This is a genuine treaty though, and binding. |
| Date | 12:22:40, September 07, 2005 CET | From | Restoration Party | To | Debating the Treaty with Dolgaria |
| Message | Yes, it's binding in the sense that it's a genuine treaty, but it commits us to no entangling specific actions. a Frame of reference really. |
subscribe to this discussion - unsubscribe
Voting
| Vote | Seats | |||
| yes |
Total Seats: 116 | |||
| no | Total Seats: 48 | |||
| abstain | Total Seats: 37 |
| Random fact: Players who consent to a particular role-play by acknowledging it in their own role-play cannot then disown it or withdraw their consent from it. For example, if player A role-plays the assassination of player B's character, and player B then acknowledges the assassination in a news post, but then backtracks and insists the assassination did not happen, then he will be required under the rules to accept the validity of the assassination role-play. |
| Random quote: "The substance of the eminent Socialist gentlemen's speech is that making a profit is a sin. It is my belief that the real sin is taking a loss!" - Winston Churchill |