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 United Countries
Details
Submitted by[?]: United Liberal Alliance
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: April 2144
Description[?]:
| This bill asks for the ratification of the <a href="viewtreaty.php?treatyid=130">United Countries</a>. If this treaty is ratified, it becomes binding and will define national law. Parliament shall ratify this treaty to admit Telamon into the United Countries for a period of 10 years. In 10 years time the treaty and operation of the UC shall be reviewed by Parliament and a decision taken as to whether or not it is in Telamon's interests to remain a member. If it is decided that it is then Parliament shall reaffirm Telamon's membership and if not then Parliament shall withdraw Telamon from the UC. |
Proposals
Article 1
Ratify the United Countries.
Debate
These messages have been posted to debate on this bill:
| Date | 11:13:15, November 18, 2005 CET | From | United Liberal Alliance | To | Debating the Ratification of the United Countries |
| Message | As the link doesn't seem to be working, here is the text of the treaty: THE MEMBER-STATES OF THE UNITED COUNTRIES, to save succeeding generations from the scourge of war, which brings untold sorrow to mankind, and to reaffirm faith in fundamental human rights, in the dignity and worth of the human person, in the equal rights of men and women and of nations large and small, and to establish conditions under which justice and respect for the obligations arising from treaties and other sources of international law can be maintained, and to promote social progress and better standards of life in larger freedom, AND FOR THESE ENDS to practice tolerance and live together in peace with one another as good neighbours, and to unite our strength to maintain international peace and security, and to ensure, by the acceptance of principles and the institution of methods, that armed force shall not be used, save in the common interest, and to employ international machinery for the promotion of the economic and social advancement of all peoples, RESOLVE TO COMBINE OUR EFFORTS TO ACCOMPLISH THESE AIMS. AS SUCH, The United Countries shall be an international organization founded upon the sovereignty of its individual member-states. It shall comprise three main divisions, under which will serve various lesser institutions and organizations. It shall comprise the Secretariat, which acts as a ceremonial leader and a guide for the resolution of issues; a General Assembly, which shall comprise the member-states and will participate in the drafting and debating of resolutions; the Security Council, which shall resolve international disputes and serve to prevent the spread of conflict in Terra. |
| Date | 11:17:44, November 18, 2005 CET | From | United Liberal Alliance | To | Debating the Ratification of the United Countries |
| Message | My personal opinion is that the treaty is too vague and i am unsure how the organisation will evolve. I would also prefer to see the CIS developed but despite my efforts this appears not to be happening, as many states flock to join the United Countries (such an awful name!!). Having said this, as many states are joining, it may be prudent to join and seek to bring about clarification and reform within. This might enable us to reform the organisation to are liking and ensure that it goes in the direction that Telamon would want. They are currently holding their first meeting with representatives of any states being entitled to attend. I shall therefore be sending a representative. If of course this didn't happen we can just leave. |
| Date | 16:52:16, November 18, 2005 CET | From | Rationalist Party | To | Debating the Ratification of the United Countries |
| Message | Agreed, with the caveat that we might find clarification |
| Date | 19:26:08, November 18, 2005 CET | From | United Liberal Alliance | To | Debating the Ratification of the United Countries |
| Message | Below is a copy of my correspondence with the Foreign Minister of the Dundorfian Federation which Parliament may be interested in reading (if you can be bothered to wade through it!!!). It may clarify certain questions or points that you (like I) had, although it still doesn't really explain much - i don't think he had actually planned that far in which case it may as i said be advantagous to join and seek to shape it too are interests. United Commonwealth Alliance: Socialist Labor Party: United Commonwealth Alliance: Thank you for your message. Unfortunately I cannot see Telamon joining the United Countries at this time. Firstly, the treaty is so vague that it does not provide any idea of how it might operate. Would the Secutiry council have permanent members as IRL or would states simply be elected to it by the General Assembly? What would the voting procedures of each organisation be? How will it seek to resolve disputes and prevent war etc? - what sort of sanctions can be employed? Without answers to these questions and generally more concrete proposals i cannot at this time suggest to Parliament that we join. It is also the case that currently Telamonian foreign policy is based on its security alliance NATO and what we regard as an international organisation which has (at least some) more teeth in preventing conflict and that is the Community of International States (CIS). I however, you can persuade us that the United Countries will be able to play a major role in world affairs and that it would be in Telamon's interests to join, then i may reconsider. Yours Charles Grey Foreign Minister Telamon Commonwealth "Firstly, the treaty is so vague that it does not provide any idea of how it might operate." This is intentional. We wish to let the members decide upon specific organization once it is formed. "Would the Secutiry council have permanent members as IRL or would states simply be elected to it by the General Assembly?" They would most likely be elected, as there are no superpowers in Terra. "international organisation which has (at least some) more teeth in preventing conflict and that is the Community of International States (CIS). " The CIS is weak, and very few nations treat it with any kind of serious attitude, I'm afraid. I understand your complaints, but wish to explain that the treaty is intentionally vague and unspecific so thtat the members can exercise greater control. Better to let them choose the specifics than to impose them upon nations. I would go into further detail, but I'm afraid I lack free time at this moment. If you have any more questions, don't hesitate to ask. Danke. Gunther Krauss Fremdminister, Staatenbund Dundorf I thank you for your reply and for addressing my concerns. Yes i agree that the CIS is a weak body but that occured by states watering down original proposals and i cannot see it being any weaker than the United Countries. Whilst i do see your point about the treaty being intentionally vague, how do you propose that members decide its specifics - if by unanimous vote then very little will get done and if not then things will be imposed upon states. Also, with regards to the General Assembly and Security Council, how much power will these 2 organisations have? IRL the General Assembly really has no real power at all with all major decisions being taken by the Security Council. In this way, although as you have stated, all members of the SC will be elected, surely then decisions will be imposed upon other member states? or will the operation and relative powers of these 2 orgs be different? if so how? With regards to elections to the SC, how will these be conducted - by unanimous or majority vote (simple or two thirds)? how large will the SC be? Will any countries be able to be elected or will their be requirements? and will there be either a formal or informal rule about geographical representation i.e. to ensure all continents are represented fairly? I thank you in advance for addressing these questions and please do feel free to take your time in replying to them Yours Faithfully Charles Grey Foreign Minister Telamon Commonwealth "how do you propose that members decide its specifics - if by unanimous vote then very little will get done and if not then things will be imposed upon states. " This could indeed be a problem. I doubt that a unanimous vote is necessary (2/3 is usually sufficient), but some procedural matters may require a mere majority. "Also, with regards to the General Assembly and Security Council, how much power will these 2 organisations have?" They will have equal (or roughly equal) power, but in different areas of decision. Unlike the RL UN, the Council need not be uber-powerful, as its members are not superpowers militarily. "In this way, although as you have stated, all members of the SC will be elected, surely then decisions will be imposed upon other member states?" No more than the General Assembly's decision would be imposed, though this could change depending on specific situations. The Council would be a military committee, so its decisions will likely bear more 'weight' than the Assembly's. "With regards to elections to the SC, how will these be conducted - by unanimous or majority vote (simple or two thirds)? how large will the SC be? " This, I really have not planned. It must be decided by the members, I should think. "Will any countries be able to be elected or will their be requirements?" I doubt that there will be requirements. "will there be either a formal or informal rule about geographical representation i.e. to ensure all continents are represented fairly?" Should enough countries join, I will create a formal rule of regional representation. Majatra, Selata, and Artania wouold probably receive, say, 2, while the other continents would get 1 each. I hope I have been able to answer these questions sufficiently. If not, by all means send me more. Danke! |
| Date | 19:31:41, November 18, 2005 CET | From |  Federation Under Crazy Killers -- United | To | Debating the Ratification of the United Countries |
| Message | I dont like it. I vote no. |
| Date | 19:46:00, November 18, 2005 CET | From | Conservative Party of Telamon | To | Debating the Ratification of the United Countries |
| Message | I agree...so long as it's vague, it's not much of a treaty. It's like saying "Sign this treaty to get world peace!", without indicating any steps, that would help achieve that goal. |
| Date | 21:54:18, November 18, 2005 CET | From | Kommunistische Arbeitspartei | To | Debating the Ratification of the United Countries |
| Message | The point is to let the members craft it from within. |
| Date | 06:25:51, November 19, 2005 CET | From | Federation Under Crazy Killers -- United | To | Debating the Ratification of the United Countries |
| Message | Well, you guys start crafting it, then we'll consider it again. |
| Date | 10:49:49, November 19, 2005 CET | From | United Liberal Alliance | To | Debating the Ratification of the United Countries |
| Message | I agree with your points. You will note that i am still sceptical. However, the point is that yes it needs to be crafted, but if we wait and let others craft it then it may take a direction that we do not like - whilst we don't have to join it, it could become a 'threat' later. However if we join, we can then seek to craft it in a manner of our liking and seek to shape it. Obviously then if it becomes something that we don't like we can just leave (don't forget that leaving treaties has now been implemented so it isn't difficult to leave if we don't like it) |
| Date | 16:18:46, November 19, 2005 CET | From | Rationalist Party | To | Debating the Ratification of the United Countries |
| Message | I appreciate the UCA's efforts in answering the questions we have. I would support a move to enter into this agreement, and see if we can't get some clarity once the organization begins to develop. I would propose that this would be a trial period of no more than ten years, at which point this body would evaluate the improvements that have been made, and decide if we should continue or not. |
| Date | 18:57:39, November 19, 2005 CET | From | Federation Under Crazy Killers -- United | To | Debating the Ratification of the United Countries |
| Message | I'd rather Telemon become a superpower and take over the world.... |
| Date | 20:09:29, November 19, 2005 CET | From | United Liberal Alliance | To | Debating the Ratification of the United Countries |
| Message | We would be happy to agree with the Rationalist's proposal. Parliament shall agree to Telamon entering the United Countries for a probationary period of 10 years in which the Foreign Ministry shall endevour to seek clarity as to the structures and goals of the organisation and to shape it to Telamon's interests. In 10 years time Parliament shall review the agreement and withdraw if it does not believe membership to be in Telamon's interests. What do others think about this? |
| Date | 21:47:43, November 19, 2005 CET | From | Conservative Party of Telamon | To | Debating the Ratification of the United Countries |
| Message | LOL@ IP. ( I agree with you sorta...;p) And i suppose your rational is acceptable UCA, so long as it doesnt hurt our interests at the end, i see no reason why not to join it. |
| Date | 13:24:57, November 20, 2005 CET | From | United Liberal Alliance | To | Debating the Ratification of the United Countries |
| Message | Right, well i shall put it to a vote then |
subscribe to this discussion - unsubscribe
Voting
| Vote | Seats | ||||
| yes |
Total Seats: 125 | ||||
| no | Total Seats: 50 | ||||
| abstain | Total Seats: 80 |
| Random fact: Discuss flag designs at the Flag Designs thread: http://forum.particracy.net/viewtopic.php?f=5&t=37 |
| Random quote: "Politics is the system of depriving the proletariat of their power." - Karl Marx |