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: The Ir Shalom Conference
Details
Submitted by[?]: HaLeumit Tikvah
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: April 2707
Description[?]:
| This conference is open to all Pontesian and Beiteynuese parties, as well as any foreign parties deemed to have a legitimate interest by at least one Beiteynuese and one Pontesian party. The issues to be discussed will be the status of Tadraki and Endlid, the Pontesian Protectorates, and the future of Pontesi-Beiteynu relations, though the conference will be open to new topics as these are brought up by party representatives. "We apologise for any delays in your journey- as you can imagine, the revolts and counter-insurgency necessary to overthrow a foreign regime can have quite an effect on traffic congestion." -BRC spokesperson Esti Arazi |
Proposals
Debate
These messages have been posted to debate on this bill:
| Date | 14:43:06, January 07, 2009 CET | From | HaLeumit Tikvah | To | Debating the The Ir Shalom Conference |
| Message | "Before we proceed, we would first like to thank the Pontesian Government for its proactive policy in dealing with Beiteynuese refugees during this conflict. It has certainly saved countless lives, and there is not a person in Beiteynu who is not grateful for it. We would like to begin by discussing the Pontesian Protectorates. We do not want to turn this conference into one of shouting over past recriminations, however in this case some of them will unfortunately remain relevant. Beiteynu accepts that its past policy of attempting to block movement and goods to and from the Protectorates was wrong- it harmed both sides economies, and cut both Pntek and Jewish families apart. However, that does not change that these all began as a result of the unilateral annexation of the Protectorates after decades of refusing to abide by the Peace Accord and either draw up a new treaty or return the Protectorates after the treaty expired. It is Beiteynus position that the establishment of the Protectorates has failed in its aim of improving the lives of people in either Pontesian or Beiteynu, and has only succeeded in heightening the tension in the region- both sides absurd military budgets are a testament to that. Moreover, we view the Protectorates as becoming illegal settlements as soon as the Peace Accord expired, and believe that, as they are rightfully and legally part of Beiteynu, they should be returned to Beiteynu. We accept Pontesi will have many pre-conditions under which this can occur, and await suggestion as to what these may be." -Nesi HaMedina Joshua ben Eliezer |
| Date | 16:52:30, January 07, 2009 CET | From |  Nrzi Prta (Democratic Party) | To | Debating the The Ir Shalom Conference |
| Message | It's time to put the conflict behind us and start on a new term. Despite the fact that we're not a part of the current cabinet in Pontesi, we firmly suggest a cooperation on the area that concern the Beiteynese Pntek Native and demilitarization of both sides. We agreed that both nations is in the wrong that leads the escalation of conflict, but reaffirms our decision that resulted from several former Beiteynu cabinet acts that violate the peace accord purpose to ensure ensure equal right for both ethnics. We suggest that the Special Administrative Region sovereignty be return to the Jewish Homeland of Beiteynu, but that the three regions be administered by the Co Pontesi-Beitenyu Peace Committee that shall be form to ensure equal right for both ethnics. The region will be patrolled by the Joint Pontesi-Beitenyu Security Forces and the numbers of Pontesian troops in the area will never exceeded 15,000. Beiteynu shall also included in a treaty several proposal that will ensure that nationality or ethnic doesn't seperate population. If that is agreeable by both side then we could work towards a cut in both sides military budget, restriction of both sides strategic weapon, and possibility of a free trade area as a future Pontesi-Beiteynu Accord. Paul Copeland MP Shadow Prime Minister Democrat Party |
| Date | 17:21:59, January 07, 2009 CET | From | HaLeumit Tikvah | To | Debating the The Ir Shalom Conference |
| Message | "We thank Mr Copeland for his proposal. We feel we can agree to this proposal, though we request more details on how the Co Pontesi-Beiteynu Peace Committee will be formed and selected before we accept it. We are sure we can comply with proposals to ensure equal rights and no segregation for ethnic groups, provided Pontesi will comply with the same proposals. We would also favour restrictions on strategic weapons and work towards a free trade area, however, due to Luthoris intention to send troops maintain its occupation of the majority of Endlid, we do not feel able to make an agreement on military budget reduction until that conflict is over. We would be happy, however, to come to an agreement to demilitarise the border and, as a gesture of our commitment to peaceful relations, I have put forward a bill to begin work to remove what there is of the incompleted minefield along our border." -Joshua ben Eliezer |
| Date | 17:36:59, January 07, 2009 CET | From | Nrzi Prta (Democratic Party) | To | Debating the The Ir Shalom Conference |
| Message | As Pontesi is currently moving towards election, I believe that any detailed negotiation on the treaty should be done after the new cabinet is formed. Regarding the Co Pontesi-Beiteynu Peace Committee, I believe that both sides should provided two representatives (one military and one civilian) to form a Committee of four members to handle all governance of the regions. Paul Copeland MP Shadow Prime Minister Democrat Party |
| Date | 18:24:34, January 07, 2009 CET | From | Alliance of Pontesi Federalists | To | Debating the The Ir Shalom Conference |
| Message | Indeed, the content of these negotiations will unfortunately have to wait for the result of the upcoming elections in Pontesi. For that I must apologize. Marek Rosenfeld Prime Minister of the Federal Republic of Pontesi President of the Solidarity Movement of Pontesian Jews Member of the Executive Council of the Alliance of Pontesi |
| Date | 19:48:32, January 07, 2009 CET | From | HaLeumit Tikvah | To | Debating the The Ir Shalom Conference |
| Message | "Ok, we agree in principle with the Democrat Partys proposal for the Pontesi-Beiteynu Peace Committee, but we'll delay further discussion until after the formation of a new Pontesian cabinet." -Joshua ben Eliezer |
| Date | 20:15:30, January 07, 2009 CET | From | Am Echad, Pays Libre | To | Debating the The Ir Shalom Conference |
| Message | We would like that this Comitte be incharge of ruling over the Protectorates, if they are reensated. OOC: I made maps of the protectorates, I can put this up. |
| Date | 21:00:04, January 07, 2009 CET | From | Holy Knights of St. Richard | To | Debating the The Ir Shalom Conference |
| Message | You could just allow us to have the Kingdom, and we would not need so many troops in it. So you could reduce your troop number. -Field Marshal Noventa |
| Date | 21:23:07, January 07, 2009 CET | From | HaLeumit Tikvah | To | Debating the The Ir Shalom Conference |
| Message | "You could just give us your army, then we could reduce our troop number to zero. Think it over and get back to us, however we would prefer this conference to stay on the topic of Beiteynu- Pontesi relations and issues, so please do not make your desperate pleas to try and stop us taking our land back here." -Joshua ben Eliezer |
| Date | 22:21:51, January 07, 2009 CET | From | Holy Knights of St. Richard | To | Debating the The Ir Shalom Conference |
| Message | Hey only trting to be a good neighbour and keep the peace. If we need a Military boarder for our Kingdom, then so be it. Same thing should go for Pontesi. -Noventa |
| Date | 23:17:39, January 07, 2009 CET | From | Am Echad, Pays Libre | To | Debating the The Ir Shalom Conference |
| Message | We would like it if Pontesi would officially unrecognize the Kingdom and then peace can go on from there. |
| Date | 14:18:35, January 08, 2009 CET | From | HaLeumit Tikvah | To | Debating the The Ir Shalom Conference |
| Message | OOC: I think by default Pontesi wouldn't recognise the Kingdom since it's a new creation. |
| Date | 16:05:22, January 08, 2009 CET | From | Nrzi Prta (Democratic Party) | To | Debating the The Ir Shalom Conference |
| Message | OOC: Nope, we didn't recognise them since they never ask us for any recognition. I doubt they will get any with a current cabinet anyway. |
| Date | 00:38:11, January 11, 2009 CET | From | HaLeumit Tikvah | To | Debating the The Ir Shalom Conference |
| Message | "We understand that Pontesi now seems to have agreed on a new cabinet, and would like to continue with negotiations, however we emphasise participation from all Pontesian parties, not just those currently in Government, is encouraged." -Joshua ben Eliezer |
| Date | 04:53:47, January 11, 2009 CET | From | Nrzi Prta (Democratic Party) | To | Debating the The Ir Shalom Conference |
| Message | We agreed with Gush Yehudit Le'shalev and we will present a draft of current Ir Shalom Agreement for parties from both nations consideration. Paul Copeland MP, Shadow Prime Minister |
| Date | 06:25:50, January 11, 2009 CET | From | Am Echad, Pays Libre | To | Debating the The Ir Shalom Conference |
| Message | Here are the maps of the Cities (blue are Jewish Settelemnts in our outside the cities) Givat Aliyah (the Island is the Jewish Settelement) http://i217.photobucket.com/albums/cc201/Funnington/maps/f7b79df8.jpg http://i217.photobucket.com/albums/cc201/Funnington/maps/b9f7b81e.jpg Natashem http://i217.photobucket.com/albums/cc201/Funnington/maps/e3db5b71.jpg http://i217.photobucket.com/albums/cc201/Funnington/maps/04a70b29.jpg Y'seah http://i217.photobucket.com/albums/cc201/Funnington/maps/0b542ab2.jpg http://i217.photobucket.com/albums/cc201/Funnington/maps/a99f2f36.jpg |
| Date | 07:48:12, January 11, 2009 CET | From | Nrzi Prta (Democratic Party) | To | Debating the The Ir Shalom Conference |
| Message | First Draft: Ir Shalom Agreement on Givat Aliyah, Y'Seah, and Nantashem. The Federal Republic of Pontesi and the Jewish Homeland of Beiteynu shall enter into a mutually beneficial treaty. This Treaty is formed in a hope of a peaceful co-existent of both nations. Signatories: The Governments of Pontesi and Beiteynu. ARTICLE I: The Federal Republic of Pontesi hereby recognize the sovereignty of Jewish Homeland of Beiteynu over Givat Aliyah, Y'Seah, and Nantashem. ARTICLE II: Both signatory of this treaty hold legitimate sovereignty over their own claimed territory. ARTICLE III: Neither signatory shall threaten another via their military or through an aggressive economic policy. ARTICLE IV: The Governing of Givat Aliyah, Y'Seah, and Nantashem shall be the responsibility of Pontesi-Beitenyu Peace Committee consisting of two representatives from each signatory. ARTICLE V: The security of Givat Aliyah, Y'Seah, and Nantashem shall be the responsibility of Joint Pontesian-Beiteynu Security Forces. ARTICLE VI: The Joint Pontesian-Beiteynu Security Forces shall consist of 15,000 troops from Federal Republic of Pontesi’s military force and another 15,000 troops from the Jewish Homeland of Beiteynu’s military force. The Joint Pontesian-Beiteynu Security Forces shall fall under the command of Pontesi-Beitenyu Peace Committee. ARTICLE VII: Beiteynu shall work to ensure equal rights between Pntek and Jewish Populations. ARTICLE IIX: Both nations remain sovereign in all matters of internal and external affairs, and neither nations will infringe upon the other’s sovereignty. ARTICLE IX: Both signatory of this treaty shall meet again in Lerna in 15 years for discussion on the progress of the area, possibility of a free-trade area between both signatory and possibility of reduction of military budget to 50% or less of overall budget. Signed, President of Pontesi Signed, Nesi HaMedina Hadash(a) of Beiteynu |
| Date | 08:16:03, January 11, 2009 CET | From | HaLeumit Tikvah | To | Debating the The Ir Shalom Conference |
| Message | Our only request is that Pontesi have the same requirements to ensure equal rights between its Jewish and Pontesian population. Other than that we find this treaty acceptable, and thank the representative from the Democrat Party for their work in drafting it. |
| Date | 09:46:47, January 11, 2009 CET | From | Nrzi Prta (Democratic Party) | To | Debating the The Ir Shalom Conference |
| Message | Second Draft: Ir Shalom Agreement on Givat Aliyah, Y'Seah, and Nantashem. The Federal Republic of Pontesi and the Jewish Homeland of Beiteynu shall enter into a mutually beneficial treaty. This Treaty is formed in a hope of a peaceful co-existent of both nations. Signatories: The Governments of Pontesi and Beiteynu. ARTICLE I: The Federal Republic of Pontesi hereby recognize the sovereignty of Jewish Homeland of Beiteynu over Givat Aliyah, Y'Seah, and Nantashem. ARTICLE II: Both signatory of this treaty hold legitimate sovereignty over their own claimed territory. ARTICLE III: Neither signatory shall threaten another via their military or through an aggressive economic policy. ARTICLE IV: The Governing of Givat Aliyah, Y'Seah, and Nantashem shall be the responsibility of Pontesi-Beitenyu Peace Committee consisting of two representatives from each signatory. ARTICLE V: The security of Givat Aliyah, Y'Seah, and Nantashem shall be the responsibility of Joint Pontesian-Beiteynu Security Forces. ARTICLE VI: The Joint Pontesian-Beiteynu Security Forces shall consist of 15,000 troops from Federal Republic of Pontesi’s military force and another 15,000 troops from the Jewish Homeland of Beiteynu’s military force. The Joint Pontesian-Beiteynu Security Forces shall fall under the command of Pontesi-Beitenyu Peace Committee. ARTICLE VII: Both signatory shall work to ensure equal rights between Pntek and Jewish Populations. ARTICLE IIX: Both signatory remain sovereign in all matters of internal and external affairs, and neither nations will infringe upon the other’s sovereignty. ARTICLE IX: Both signatory of this treaty shall meet again in Lerna in 15 years for discussion on the progress of the area, possibility of a free-trade area between both signatory and possibility of reduction of military budget to 50% or less of overall budget. Signed, President of Pontesi Signed, Nesi HaMedina Hadash(a) of Beiteynu |
| Date | 09:47:37, January 11, 2009 CET | From | Nrzi Prta (Democratic Party) | To | Debating the The Ir Shalom Conference |
| Message | We have complete the second drafts of the treaty and awaits input from other parties. |
| Date | 21:14:45, January 12, 2009 CET | From | HaLeumit Tikvah | To | Debating the The Ir Shalom Conference |
| Message | As we have stated, we are in full support of this treaty. If there is no further input from the other parties, we suggest it is put up for ratification. |
| Date | 00:01:23, January 13, 2009 CET | From | Am Echad, Pays Libre | To | Debating the The Ir Shalom Conference |
| Message | I agree. |
| Date | 09:06:49, January 14, 2009 CET | From | Nrzi Prta (Democratic Party) | To | Debating the The Ir Shalom Conference |
| Message | If there is no more suggestion or objection then could either Pontesi Foreign Minister or Beiteynu Foreign Minister draft this treaty so that it could be present to each nation parliament for consideration? Paul Copeland MP, Prime Minister |
| Date | 23:35:24, January 14, 2009 CET | From | Am Echad, Pays Libre | To | Debating the The Ir Shalom Conference |
| Message | One more comment Some of the lands given to the commitee are under kingdom hands. |
| Date | 14:35:29, January 15, 2009 CET | From | HaLeumit Tikvah | To | Debating the The Ir Shalom Conference |
| Message | OOC: Are you sure? I think Givat Aliyah was the most Eastern city in Endlid so wouldn't be affected? I don't know, I don't have the map of it. If it is, then we can at least agree in principle the region should be governed by the committee. By the way, does anyone know if the Beiteynu-Pontesi-Barmenistan region has a name? It seems like geographically it should but I've never heard of one. IC: We have drafted the treaty here: http://classic.particracy.net/viewtreaty.php?treatyid=1338 |
| Date | 15:04:24, February 04, 2009 CET | From | HaLeumit Tikvah | To | Debating the The Ir Shalom Conference |
| Message | OOC: I don't think there's going to be any more progress on this as things currently stand, an unfulfilled dream I guess. Moving to archive. |
subscribe to this discussion - unsubscribe
Voting
| Vote | Seats | |||
| yes | Total Seats: 25 | |||
| no | Total Seats: 0 | |||
| abstain | Total Seats: 175 |
| Random fact: Real-life places should not be referenced in Particracy. |
| Random quote: "Democracy is a pathetic belief in the collective wisdom of individual ignorance." - H. L. Mencken |