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: CIS Membership (Community Treaty Ratification) Bill
Details
Submitted by[?]: United Liberal Alliance
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: June 2043
Description[?]:
| As Foreign Minister I have been involved in negotiations to form the Community of International States (CIS) an new international organisation committed to free trade, liberty and human rights. The negotiations over this treaty have been more or less concluded and I feel that membership of this organisation is beneficial to Telamon as it allows us to coordinate our foreign policy with other like minded states to give us greater power and authority on the world stage. It also provides a forum for discussion on important issues affecting all members, on issues of foreign policy and civil and human rights. It allows for liberal democracies such as Telamon to come together to provide a united front against totalitarian powers of any sort. Furthermore, I believe that this organisation will become an established part of the international community, and joining at the beginning as a founding member will allow us to ensure that the treaty that is drafted is in our interests which at the moment I believe that it is. All in all I believe that Telamon should join and urge my fellow parties of Parliament to vote in favour of this bill formally ratifying the treaty (any amendments will of course be put before Parliament to ratify before they are made) and allowing me to sign Telamon up to the Community of International States. NB: the Community Treaty can be viewed by going to http://www.takeforum.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=366&mforum=particracy |
Proposals
Debate
These messages have been posted to debate on this bill:
| Date | not recorded |
From | United Liberal Alliance | To | Debating the CIS Membership (Community Treaty Ratification) Bill | | Message | As the description states, we believe that it is in the interests of Telamon to join, particularly for us to be there at the beginning to shape the organisation, rather than having to go through the application process later. Of course if at any time membership is no longer in our interests then the treaty expressly states that we may leave at any time. |
| Date | not recorded |
From | United Liberal Alliance | To | Debating the CIS Membership (Community Treaty Ratification) Bill | | Message | Just a note to say that because of the election scheduled for May 2041, this bill must proceed to voting by August of this year, in order to allow it to pass or fall before the election. I'm sorry if this limits debate somewhat before the actual vote, but debating can still continue during the 8 months that the bill is in the voting stage. |
| Date | not recorded |
From | United Liberal Alliance | To | Debating the CIS Membership (Community Treaty Ratification) Bill | | Message | Oh, and another thing to mention is that the treaty also expressly protects sovereignty and all decisions must be taken by unanimous vote, therefore we cannot be forced to adopt measures we don't want and nothing can be done to undermine our sovereignty and independence. |
| Date | not recorded |
From | | To | Debating the CIS Membership (Community Treaty Ratification) Bill | | Message | Can you guarantee that this organization will not demand tarriffs or duties against any other nations?
Can you guarantee that CIS will never make demands regarding internal affairs? 'Democracy' and 'human rights' are not exactly well defined concepts, and if you know anything about EU politics you know that such words can be misused.
What do you know about how the CIS can be used for offencive purposes, IE what happens if one member state starts or provokes a war against a non-member? |
| Date | not recorded |
From | Partiya Nacionalnogo Progressa | To | Debating the CIS Membership (Community Treaty Ratification) Bill | | Message | I agree with idea of CIS. But... Damned! UCA sign is "Prime Ministers and Party Leader"!!!!
2UCA:Are you stupid? You are "National Servant" and allways was only "National Servant", not a prime ministers, and libertarian and you have majority in "congress of progress", not in parliament. I think, it is very-very incorrect to do what you done.
Blya ty suka ebanaya blya tupaya nahuy. |
| Date | not recorded |
From | United Liberal Alliance | To | Debating the CIS Membership (Community Treaty Ratification) Bill | | Message | I can guarantee that the organisation will not demand or ask for anything that we don't approve of as all decisions must be taken by unanimous vote (i.e. we have a veto). The only impact that the CIS can have on internal affairs is with regards to economic policy in so far as it effects trade, defence policy in so far as it effects our committments to the alliance and yes human and civil rights policies which is I agree a vague term. I envisage states moving down our route of legalising marriage between all adults, guaranteeing citzens the right of assembly etc. which would not adversely impact on us. I cannot guarantee that some members may not seek to misuse these concepts but I feel that this is irrelevent since we may veto any proposals that we dislike or alternatively leave. With regards to tarrifs, I cannot guarantee that in the short term tarrifs (as exist at the moment) will not continue to be imposed on non members. However we will be able to push for these to be removed in the future - building free trade is always a slow process it must start with free trade between members and spread across the world. Of course those states which request the removal of tarrifs and remove theirs on our products I'm sure would have no problem in getting Community tarrifs removed. In the long run I hope that most states will join and so this debate will be more or less academic. With regards to the use of the CIS in offensive action, it is a defensive alliance only working on the principles of collective security - provoking a war against a non-member does not count, but I shall ensure that this is expressly written into the treaty. I believe that it is in our interests to join and that it can only seek to promote better relations between states and develop liberal democracies committed to human rights, liberty and free trade. Finally, I would say with regards to what you say about the EU, whilst undoubtedly there are some elements of the EU in the treaty, this organisation will have no where near the power of and loss of state sovereignty associated with the EU (OOC: you will probably be able to guess that as a Brit I really dislike the EU and so would not want Telamon to join anything resembling it!!!) - I envisage the CIS as far more a cross between the real world UN, WTO & IMF. Certainly we will now hold off on a vote until the treaty negotiations are concluded (it is now too late for a vote before the next election anyway!!) |
| Date | not recorded |
From | United Liberal Alliance | To | Debating the CIS Membership (Community Treaty Ratification) Bill | | Message | PNP, my apologies if you were offended, I realise that it was incorrect of me to label myself in those terms until the constitutional reforms have been passed. I just cannot get used to calling it the Congress of Progress and National Servant - so my sincere apologies for any offence caused!! |
| Date | not recorded |
From | United Liberal Alliance | To | Debating the CIS Membership (Community Treaty Ratification) Bill | | Message | Libertarians - obviously I will not sign anything particuarly on internal, economic or defence affairs that you disagree with or advise me not to as these are of course your main areas of Cabinet responsibility affected by the treaty (OOC: apologies for yet another post!!) |
| Date | not recorded |
From | | To | Debating the CIS Membership (Community Treaty Ratification) Bill | | Message | UCA: No need for apologies. We shall have to read the final treaty before deciding on it. Considering how eg WTO and EU is on the paper made to prevent protectionism, but de facto used to legitimate it we shall have to be extremely isolationalist.
One point that you might want to add to the treaty is that new rules must be ratified by a vote in all parliaments within a year to remain valid. |
| Date | not recorded |
From | United Liberal Alliance | To | Debating the CIS Membership (Community Treaty Ratification) Bill | | Message | The treaty negotiations have basically been completed and several states are now in the process of debating and ratifying the treaty before membership. One - the Republic of Hobrazia has already done so and is now fully a member. As Foreign Minister it is by duty to advise Parliament to ratify this treaty as I believe that it is in our interests to be a founding member of the CIS. It will give us an increased voice in world affairs, allow us to promote free trade, liberty and human rights and will allow us an extra degree of defence. All in all I believe it is a good deal and is an organisation of which the Telamon Commonwealth should be a part. Remember that all its decision must be unanimous, so we cannot be forced into accepting anything that we do not want and of course as a last resort we are free to leave at any time should a situation arise where that is necessary, although I do not believe that it will. |
| Date | not recorded |
From | | To | Debating the CIS Membership (Community Treaty Ratification) Bill | | Message | OOC: I still don't know what to do about this. The bill gives good protection to national souvereignity.
However the CIS is a defense treaty. That means we bind our nation to go to war under certain circumstances. Not even the parliament can legitimately do that. The primary conflict is not between states, but between the state and the people. A war is when both states hammer each other's citizens, and introduce more rules to make troubles for their own. (That is not the purpose of the rules, but their consequence) So both me in real life, and a fundamentalist libertarian (as I play in other bills) should vote no and not be able to compromise.
But this is not reality or real people. It is a war game, and it is better to go to war with as strong a country and alliance as possible. And this alliance must be among the least objectionable alliances that could exist. And there are alliances forming to destroy the free lands, that we should be countering to keep the game fun.
Gah! I should start it all over with a less extreme party. Preferably just copy the ideology of the designers, so that we get a good economy. But that's not fair play.
I could go on forever, but I don't know any more what to vote on this particular thing. Convince me. |
| Date | not recorded |
From | United Liberal Alliance | To | Debating the CIS Membership (Community Treaty Ratification) Bill | | Message | I appreciate your concerns (OOC: you do seem to have backed yourself into a bit of a corner!!!). To provide a sort of International Relations lecture, which I'm sure you neither need nor want but never mind! The international system is obviously made up of sovereign states, if you take a Realist perspective, then there are no real rules in the system and so states will always seek to maximise their power and go to war etc. In order to prevent this there needs to be a balance of power (i.e. form an alliance of states to deter agression). Whilst I think this is valid I subscribe to a more Liberal optimist view in which I feel that we can create international institutions to try to promote peace and prevent war, though war can still occur and that is why we need an alliance. (End of lecture!!!). To address your concerns, yes we are bound to go to war in certain circumstances i.e. if another member is invaded or attacked. However you will notice that the circumstances in which we have to go to war are very limited ie. only once all non military means to halt the conflict have been tried and failed and still the alliance will only go to war if it has the unanimous support of all members - so really we are never compelled to go to war, particularly as in the last instance we can always leave (though this would look bad and other states probably wouldn't trust us in the future). The CIS is far more about international trade and cooperation and about preventing wars (hence references to mediation, sanctions and peace keepers) but we recognise that as you say there are hostile powers who need to be kept in check and we feel that a military alliance (albeit a limited one) is justified on these grounds. So to make it clear, war is bad, but however strange it may seem, it is often by forming defensive alliances and so threatening aggressors with war that war can actually be prevented (these are the principles of the balance of power and collective security). Also, foreign affairs is probably the aspect of politics in which it is least possible to be very idealistic and stick to ideals, in foreign affairs compromises do need to be made and we feel that the compromises in the CIS Treaty actually give us a very good deal by granting us a degree of protection against hostile aggression and at the same time allows us to cooperate in trade and other issues to create a more stable, peaceful, open and liberal international society. At the same time are sovereignty is protected as nothing can be agreed to without our consent (i.e. the vote of the foreign minister of the time) and no changes can be made to the treaty without that same vote and a majority vote of approval in Parliament. As a party you don't need to be any less extreme as many parties (and there are also many historical real life examples) who were extreme in domestic politics were actually quite moderate in foreign affairs (OOC: + the way you vote on this treaty doesn't impact on your electorate, just your personal conscience - oh and also does this mean that in real life you are opposed to Sweden's (that's where you come from right?) membership of the UN, NATO and the EU?) |
| Date | not recorded |
From | | To | Debating the CIS Membership (Community Treaty Ratification) Bill | | Message | OOC is the easy part to answer. I am opposed to EU and NATO membership. UN, not really opposed to membership, but to any coersive action. Whenever Bush says "the UN does not work" I say "the UN still retains some decensy".
On topic: Your lecture only gives half the picture of alliances. Sure they have prevented some wars, but they also make wars worse and maybe create wars that could otherwise have been avoided. A war between two five-state-alliances means ten wartorn nations and thus (on average) is as bad as five non-allance-wars. And WW1 might never had started if certain leaders had not counted on alliances to work. (Serbia would not have wanted war with Austria, and Germany, France etc would not have been involved at all). That is just one example, but it makes a lot of difference.
As for international relations requires compromises, and everything being sovereign states you might want to take a look at this: http://www.antiwar.com/orig/rothbard_on_war.html OOC[It is one of the first texts I ever read about libertarianism, and the one that made me sympathise with it.] Basically a real libertarian does not concede any state agreements as valid. The correct foreign trade policy is to have no tariffs or limitations whatsoever, and that is unilaterally. There is no reason for makeing compromises and limiting this to some arbitrary region (actually this policy can be shown, with a few exceptions, to be Kaldor effective , but that's not the point). The correct policy regarding the military is to not have one, or not put into action anytime there is a risk of injuring civilians or damaging civilian property.
The CIS treaty is probably the best there is, as international treaties go, but it still is nothing but a way to not quite do what should be done and shift the blame away from us.
Actually I think you convinced me to be against. Thanks! |
| Date | not recorded |
From | United Liberal Alliance | To | Debating the CIS Membership (Community Treaty Ratification) Bill | | Message | I'm obviously disappointed that you are against the CIS, however if that is your considered decisions then there is very little that I feel I can do to convince you otherwise. Now I don't want to get into a fully fledged ideological debate on this issue and so I shall try to keep my comments brief (therefore some oversimplification and omissions will inevitably occur). Firstly, alliances are only bad when they become rigid and inflexible, as was the case in WW1 - previously the UK had joined the weaker side and so deterred major wars. Once it became part of one alliance then there was no balancer as both sides were equally matched and so war occured (this is of course only one reason). Secondly I am I believe correct in stating that under the terms of its alliance, Germany was not obliged to go to war on the side of Austria, as it was Austria who invaded the Balkans(this in itself was an imperial pretext as their Archduke was assasinated by a Bosnian Serb - a tenuous excuse for invasion), they simply chose to do so as it gave them the opportunity for imperial expansion (Italy for example stayed out) therefore it was not the fault of alliances (though because they were rigid they did undoubtedly make things worse). However this is not the case with the CIS, which adheres to the principles of collective security. The idea is that the CIS will become like the UN with a majority of states being members. In this way the use of force can be regulated. Contrary to what the article you suggested states (I don't agree that this is the case in reality either but that is not relevent here) the CIS does not escalate conflict as it provides a means for mediation between the states involved. It is only if all non peaceful means were attempted and failed that any form of military action would occur. Secondly, we live in a world of sovereign states whether you like it or not. A state, I believe should incorporate a nation that is a group of people who share a similar cultural heritage and beliefs. You are then electing from amongst yourselves people to protect your interests. After all you cannot buy and own property unless you have a system in which everyone else recognises you right to own that property (the state). Now obviously electing representatives is not ideal as you may disagree with what they do (however direct democracy however preferable is simply not practical in today's world). Therefore, if another state (representatives of people) invades your area then that is a violation of your rights surely. The idea of an international system is to provide some semblance of the order and rule of law present in a domestic system (a kind of however weak, world government). Now, with regards to military it is simply complete fantasy to suggest that we cannot have a military whilst other states do we otherwise have no ability to defend ourselves if necessary. Also, particuarly with modern warfare but throughout history it is not possible to deploy military forces in action without a risk of injuring civilians that is not possible to achieve - there will always be some risk. Today also the question increasingly arises as to what constitutes a civilian (guerrilla warfare & partisans etc.). With regards to trade policy, we want to see a world of complete free trade. That is why we want to see as many states as possible (preferably all) join the CIS, however, nothing in the CIS treaty prevents us from having no tarrifs or limitations on imports from non member countries. Finally, with regards to what the article said (i did only read it quickly so apologies if i misinterpreted any of it) and what you appear therefore to want is isolationism. Now this along with unilateralism (to a lesser extent) i would regard as terribly dangerous. As an historical example, by WW1 the US was undoubtedly the most powerful great power, its intervention in WW1 proved decisive in winning it for the allies. Now, rightly or wrongly in the present system, it is necessary for great powers to provide a leading and so stabalising role (not necessarily act as a world policeman or anything like that however). But after WW1 despite proposing an new international system, the League of Nations, to try to prevent war (like the CIS will do though more similar to UN than LoN) the US did not join and went back into isolation. This created a terrible vacuum which imperialist and expansionist totalitarian powers such as Mussolini's Italy, Japan and Hitler's Germany were able to exploit, so ultimatly leading to WW2, had the US have been involved the possiblity of WW2 would have been reduced (this is obviously a terrible simplification and one sided view of interwar history!!!!). On unilateralism, in a globalised world it is simply not fair nor just to take action which will heavily impact on others, on your own without any form of dialogue, it is necessary to cooperate with other states to provide a stable environment in which trade of goods, peoples, ideas etc. can occur freely and openly. I would also say that it seems to me to be impossible to advocate free trade and isolationism, you cannot have free trade without a degree of interstate cooperation - if you don't believe the state should be involved then that really is tantamount to suggesting that there should be no state at all and that is anarchism - an ideology which I hugely dislike and over which I have had many heated debated with a friend and am therefore not prepared to debate here!!!!! Finally, foreign policy should always be about consensus - you are right that the CIS is the best treaty there is. We must be engaged in the international system and the CIS is really an attempt to create a kind of UN, it allows hopefully for the global promotion of peace, prosperity, free trade, liberty, human rights and the rule of law, whilst providing the facilities and ability to maintain this (personally I believe it is a little too weak but there is nothing more I can do to build consensus), it allows for the beginning of a movement away from an international system towards a global international society. If you feel you must vote against this then that is your perogative. |
| Date | not recorded |
From | United Liberal Alliance | To | Debating the CIS Membership (Community Treaty Ratification) Bill | | Message | Apologies for the excessively long post - didn't realise that it was going to be quite that long!! but what do you expect after all I am a student of history and international relations, so I spend my time writing long essays debating issues, and foreign affairs/foreign policy is of considerable interest to me!!!!!! |
| Date | not recorded |
From | United Liberal Alliance | To | Debating the CIS Membership (Community Treaty Ratification) Bill | | Message | that's as maybe. Though first of all as I say I think I actually describe myself as centre right rather than centrist. Secondly, with regards to some of the issues - cannabis was only legalised for medicinal purposes, I voted to ban torture, I voted to provide pollution guidelines to industry, I proposed education for prisoners and allowing them to work (prisoner welfare), I proposed giving state legal aid to poor people, I proposed publiv service broadcasting. Obviously I would say that many of these are modest proposals and are more left than right wing (whereas on most economic issues I am right wing i.e. small government and privatisation and on civil rights I am radical). I personally it does have to be said, do not actually regard 'gay marriage' as that radical - it is simply allowing everyone regardless of sexuality to live their life. If I as a Roman Catholic (although not the church itself) can be happy with gay marriage then what's the problem? This is about giving freedom to individuals to live their lives |
| Date | 10:31:04, April 27, 2005 CET |
From | United Liberal Alliance | To | Debating the CIS Membership (Community Treaty Ratification) Bill | | Message | you didn't appear in the very long posts, just at the end when the PNP made a comment. On a seperate note may I enquire as to why you have voted no? This treaty is a good deal for Telamon and protects our sovereignty (I must say I'm suprised after all you have said in the past that you are voting the same way as the Libertarians!!!!!!!) |
| Date | 14:00:44, April 27, 2005 CET |
From | | To | Debating the CIS Membership (Community Treaty Ratification) Bill | | Message | UCA: Probably TCP is pissed that the treaty mentions human rights, but does not include the right to robbery of those who don't agree with your politics ;-> |
| Date | 14:09:51, April 27, 2005 CET |
From | United Liberal Alliance | To | Debating the CIS Membership (Community Treaty Ratification) Bill | | Message | No idea what decides how far to the right a post appears!! Anyway, it's too late now for theTCP to change their vote and unless the Selhurst Park DP log on and vote (unlikely as they don't seem to have been particularly active) then this bill is going to be defeated by 1 vote. This I find very distressing and disappointing (& also frustrating). Particularly because as the author of the treaty and really creator of the CIS I don't believe that it will negatively affect our sovereignty and I do believe it is of positive benefit to our nation (I believe that multilateralism is the way forward). But nevermind, although it is a shame to see something that you have created and 'worked for' destroyed before it is given a chance I suppose that that is politics!! |
| Date | 15:30:04, April 27, 2005 CET |
From | United Liberal Alliance | To | Debating the CIS Membership (Community Treaty Ratification) Bill | | Message | yes, there is still another month or so before the deadline, but it looks unlikely that this will be passed. We will have to wait until after the next election, and hope for the best. I think that this is so ridiculously close and so important for Telamon that I might propose a bill for early elections in order to allow the voters to decide what they want. |
subscribe to this discussion -
unsubscribeVoting
| Vote |
Seats |
| yes | Total Seats: 62 |
| no | Total Seats: 21 |
| abstain | Total Seats: 0 |
| Random fact: Did you know you can change the official name of your nation? All you need to do is draw up a new name that is in accordance with the Nation Renaming Guide, pass a bill proposing the name change with a two-thirds majority and then post a request to Moderation on the "Renaming Requests" thread. You can change city and region names in this way too. |
| Random quote: "Sometimes democracy must be bathed in blood." - Augusto Pinochet
|