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: Ratification of the Telamon-Lodamun Friendship Treaty
Details
Submitted by[?]: The Liberal Party
Status[?]: defeated
Votes: This bill proposes for the ratification of a treaty. It will require two-thirds of the legislature to vote in favor[?]. This bill will not pass any sooner than the deadline.
Voting deadline: August 2572
Description[?]:
Proposals
Debate
These messages have been posted to debate on this bill:
| Date | 23:10:15, May 03, 2008 CET |
From | Lodamun Libertarian Party | To | Debating the Ratification of the Telamon-Lodamun Friendship Treaty | | Message | We dont really agree with #1 and #4 but we support #2 and #3
#5 we are a bit unsure off, as we would like to know how exactly this is supposed to be achieved.
Also in generally we dont really want to get entangled in to many treaties, so we are sceptical to this treaty. |
| Date | 23:16:03, May 03, 2008 CET |
From | The Liberal Party | To | Debating the Ratification of the Telamon-Lodamun Friendship Treaty | | Message | Well, we need to help each other, that' sthe purpose of the treaty. This is more of an economical treaty, not military. The monetary help in case of emergencies is at the discretion of the other country. We don't have to give the money. |
| Date | 23:20:35, May 03, 2008 CET |
From | The Liberal Party | To | Debating the Ratification of the Telamon-Lodamun Friendship Treaty | | Message | #5 has as its purpose to allow both governments, officialy, to work together in problems that concern both countries. The prosperity part is very clear, we help each other economically by having trade agreements. It also has the purpose of reaffirming the statement about amendments to the treaty. |
| Date | 23:34:49, May 03, 2008 CET |
From | Lodamun Libertarian Party | To | Debating the Ratification of the Telamon-Lodamun Friendship Treaty | | Message | There is nothing that says the monetary help is at the discretion of the other country, according to the language of #4 if we could we would have to give support.
As for #5 we want to know a bit more concrete how it is to be achieved, and also how much would this cost?
Also #3 unrestricted means unregulated too, so we would need to remove any regulations we have on our general trade policy (which we support, so we have no problem with that) |
| Date | 23:53:40, May 03, 2008 CET |
From | The Liberal Party | To | Debating the Ratification of the Telamon-Lodamun Friendship Treaty | | Message | We determine if we can, that being Parliament, if we say we can't, we can't.
#5 won't cost a dime. Both governments are going to work together just like we have been doing, or at least how I have been doing it for the last decade or so.
On #3 it means unregulated, so we don't have to change our laws because this treaty only makes it unregulated for Telamon not other countries. Let's just say that Telamon is an exception to our regulations. |
| Date | 00:00:50, May 04, 2008 CET |
From | Lodamun Libertarian Party | To | Debating the Ratification of the Telamon-Lodamun Friendship Treaty | | Message | Our we could just say that Telamon is a clear indication of government policy on the subject, It certainly has been a policy strongly favored by the finance minsiter. And on #5, how exactly have we been working together? I havent notice anything like that the last decades. So we will just talk with out doing anything? Cause doing stuff cost money, only talking is free |
| Date | 02:59:09, May 05, 2008 CET |
From | Conservative Ordo Malleus (COM) | To | Debating the Ratification of the Telamon-Lodamun Friendship Treaty | | Message | The parties in Telamon appear to favor this treaty. However, it is our hope that Lodamun does not ratify it. Telamon has sponsored an international peace treaty and asked Lodamun to participate. Lodamun turned down the MCSI. When the time comes available my party will vote to strike the Telamon-Lodamun Friendship Treaty to encourage Lodamun to join the MCSI.
Friendship with Lodamun is greatly appreciated but we do not desire 1 on 1 treaties with other nations to show that we look on them as brothers. The MCSI more than accomplishes that. Additionally, there are several articles of the Telamon-Lodamun Friendship Treaty that are unsuitable. They have been mentioned by the Lodamun Libertarian Party in regards to Articles 1, 4, and 5.
-Roger Evars
Special Assistant to Prime Minister Raxney
COM Deputy Chairman
Commandant COM Militia |
| Date | 19:28:42, May 05, 2008 CET |
From | Rightful Radical Party | To | Debating the Ratification of the Telamon-Lodamun Friendship Treaty | | Message | Telamon will soon ratify this treaty even if there isn't a 2/3 majority yet, but, it will be made, I assure you. The COM are our dear friends but we don't agree in some perspectives of view. Telamon desires nothing more than friendship with Lodamun, and all other activities that become of that will be God-blessed. We have no intentions to harm Lodamun. May I remind Mr Evars that his party proposed a "1 on 1" treaty with the God-forsaken Likatonia, and it was national law which wasn't ratified from the other side (Likatonia). If we could do that, then this treaty 100% efficient.
Vojislav Krkljus
President of Telamon |
| Date | 21:51:01, May 06, 2008 CET |
From | The Liberal Party | To | Debating the Ratification of the Telamon-Lodamun Friendship Treaty | | Message | It is very dissapointing. I see parties complain everyday about why Telamon withdrew from our treaty. Now that they have ratified this treaty, you don't want to. My question is, what is the problem with having this treaty? This treaty has other clauses aside from free trade. Even if we changed our laws, this treaty would continue and the free trade would continue if in the future we change the laws. |
| Date | 05:17:57, May 07, 2008 CET |
From | Pariah Idealism | To | Debating the Ratification of the Telamon-Lodamun Friendship Treaty | | Message | I don't mind that you voted no URP, It just seems silly that we are not ratifying a treaty that was made by our own country and yet another country finds this treaty good enough to ratify. I do not wish to be ungracious and rude to Telamon in anyway, voting against this treaty kind of shoves a "Lodamun ditched you!" sign in their face. However, you do not need to see it this way as it is my interpretation. |
| Date | 06:58:08, May 07, 2008 CET |
From | The Liberal Party | To | Debating the Ratification of the Telamon-Lodamun Friendship Treaty | | Message | You don't reject friendship and you are voting no for a friendship treaty. That seems odd to me. This will send a bad message to to other countries and especially to Telamon. They ratified a treaty tat we proposed, the least we could do is return the favor. |
subscribe to this discussion -
unsubscribeVoting
| Vote |
Seats |
| yes | Total Seats: 69 |
| no | Total Seats: 81 |
| abstain | Total Seats: 0 |
| Random fact: For more information on Particracy's former colonial nations, check out http://forum.particracy.net/viewtopic.php?f=5&t=6640 |
| Random quote: "Power always has to be kept in check; power exercised in secret, especially under the cloak of national security, is doubly dangerous." - William Proxmire |