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: Goodbye to Neutrality 2nd Attempt
Details
Submitted by[?]: Dranish Agrarian League
Status[?]: passed
Votes: This bill proposes the withdrawal from a treaty. It will require half of the legislature to vote in favor[?]. This bill will not pass any sooner than the deadline.
Voting deadline: February 3523
Description[?]:
| Dranland should come out of her shell and embrace the world not just Dovani. Sean Yates MP Vice President |
Proposals
Article 1
Withdraw from the Declaration of Dranish Neutrality.
Debate
These messages have been posted to debate on this bill:
| Date | 13:32:07, July 29, 2013 CET | From | Grand National Party | To | Debating the Goodbye to Neutrality 2nd Attempt |
| Message | Mr Speaker, we urge all parties to reject the war-mongering of the DAL, some of whose members, such as the Governor of Ulbrach, would be unscrupulous enough to send our soldiers to war to assist clerical fascism in Deltaria. We especially ask the PP to reconsider its negative position on the neutrality declaration and wish to point out that the treaty does indeed give us the opportunity to temporarily suspend neutrality if there is imminent danger even beyond Dovani. The Declaration of Dranish Neutrality has been implemented to protect us from warfare and losses of resources and human life ordered by reckless politicians whose concern is not national security, but megalomaniac nation-building and rampant militarism. John Holbrooke President of Dranland |
| Date | 13:38:06, July 29, 2013 CET | From | Democratic Progressive Party | To | Debating the Goodbye to Neutrality 2nd Attempt |
| Message | Mr. Speaker, it's time that Dranland abandoned the foolish policy of self-imposed isolation that has prevented Dranland from playing a full role in the economic community. It is ridiculous to suggest that those who oppose this strict neutrality doctrine are warmongers. It is unbecoming of the President, and degrades his high office. We have no intention of going to war. We have no intention of megalomaniacal militarism. But we believe that Dranland has a role to play on the world stage, and for the government to dogmatically refuse to play that role is stupid, immoral and damaging. We cannot, because we are too ideologically attached to a particular foreign policy doctrine, shut ourselves off from the rest of the world, forbidden from making so much as a comment when, for example, people overseas are being slaughtered and repressed, or when world peace is being threatened. The RfR tells us that they are all for liberty. Is that liberty for Dranians only, or liberty for humanity as a whole? From what we can see, the RfR's attitude is that if you're not Dranish, you can go hang, and that attitude is bigoted and xenophobic. We condemn it, and in doing so, we commend this bill to the House. Adrian Mendiola DPP Chair |
| Date | 14:40:51, July 29, 2013 CET | From | Dranish Agrarian League | To | Debating the Goodbye to Neutrality 2nd Attempt |
| Message | Mr Speaker, We believe that a government should have all options available to it as to how to craft its foreign policy. That is not warmongering or any form of militarism but merely realising that ethical political parties which represent ethical people who would want to hear the government denounce human rights abuses in and out of Dovani. Pres. Holbrooke pretends that Dranland was some sort of warlike, militarist nation before this Treaty was ratified yet he is clearly old enough to know and remember better. If the government that Pres. Holbrooke will form declares neutrality during its term there will be no problem yet the libertarian Mr Holbrooke sees it fit to gag all successor governments and keep them bound to another party's views. This would be like introducing a binding income tax treaty forbidding any successor Governments from lowering taxes. Such a policy is undeniably foolish so why not regard this so called enforced neutrality policy the same? Sean Yates MP Vice President |
| Date | 22:57:23, July 29, 2013 CET | From | Grand National Party | To | Debating the Goodbye to Neutrality 2nd Attempt |
| Message | Mr Speaker, responding to the vile accusations of Mr Mendiola, I can only conclude that it reveals a certain state of desperation if he has to put forward such absurd and vicious accusations as xenophobia in order to challenge my earlier reasonings. Certainly even an ardent neocon like him has to realize that nation states primarily exist to protect their own citizens, and that their purpose is not to police the world and constantly stir tensions and get involved in conflicts that do not affect our national security at all. I also reject his criticism regarding an alleged ideological motive behind neutrality. In fact, his own policy would force us to employ constant ideological bias when dealing with foreign conflicts. Take Deltaria, for example, and answer whether we should side with the czarist authoritarians or the clerical fascists. Neither of them shares our scale of values, and therefore we should simply stay away from this problem in order to concentrate on our core responsibility of protecting our own lands and people. As for Mr Yates' criticism, I can only refer to the many other defining aspects of governmental and political structure that has been permanently established through additional constitutional provisions, such as our election system, our legislative and executive branches and other important institutions any incoming government will administer. Extending this continuity to foreign affairs is certainly not foolish, but intellectually consistent. John Holbrooke President of Dranland |
| Date | 23:24:28, July 29, 2013 CET | From | Democratic Progressive Party | To | Debating the Goodbye to Neutrality 2nd Attempt |
| Message | Mr. Speaker, if the RfR believes that Dranland has no obligations to foreigners when they are being deported, tortured and slaughtered, then what is he if not xenophobic, or at least cruelly apathetic? As for being a neocon, that is an utterly ridiculous charge that I reject absolutely. The simple fact is that I do not intend to go to war - as much as the President, I despise armed conflict. But I believe that Dranland has an obligation to safeguard the rights of others - even if that is just by raising a verbal objection. Is it really such a crime to say "don't kill people", which would violate the neutrality doctrine? Or is neutrality sacrosanct? Adrian Mendiola DPP Chair |
| Date | 23:32:50, July 29, 2013 CET | From | Grand National Party | To | Debating the Goodbye to Neutrality 2nd Attempt |
| Message | Mr Speaker, if we begin to intervene whenever a foreign government commits atrocities against its citizens, there is no justifiable point of stopping. If we intervene in nation A based on the premise of taking action whenever "killing people" occurs, how can we justify not intervening in nation B, C, D, E, etc.? An activist foreign policy is a self-perpetuating folly, and we should not risk turning aggression at our own people solely because we appreciate the feeling of moral superiority that the DPP seems to believe derives from formulating some cheap phrases of condemnation. John Holbrooke President of Dranland |
| Date | 23:39:38, July 29, 2013 CET | From | Democratic Progressive Party | To | Debating the Goodbye to Neutrality 2nd Attempt |
| Message | Mr. Speaker, abandoning neutrality does not mean blind belligerence, which is just as stupid and possibly more so. We will carefully assess the situation to determine whether intervention is appropriate, and then, if it is, what level of intervention. It's not about moral superiority - we have obligations to our fellow people to speak out when they are oppressed, not only if they're Dranish. Furthermore, if we retain this dogmatic policy, we will be unable to form alliance, if the President is worried about national security. It undermines the entire basis of our foreign policy today that we will be totally neutral. The President must abandon his closed-minded policy because he must understand that Dranland cannot have everything it wants, geopolitically speaking, simply by searching within its borders - we must look abroad for many solutions. That means making friends, which cannot occur now. Hiroji Fukuda DPP Vice Chair |
subscribe to this discussion - unsubscribe
Voting
| Vote | Seats | ||||||
| yes |
Total Seats: 252 | ||||||
| no |
Total Seats: 124 | ||||||
| abstain |
Total Seats: 23 |
| Random fact: It is the collective responsibility of the players in a nation to ensure all currently binding RP laws are clearly outlined in an OOC reference bill in the "Bills under debate" section of the nation page. Confusion should not be created by displaying only some of the current RP laws or displaying RP laws which are no longer current. |
| Random quote: "For among other evils caused by being disarmed, it renders you contemptible; which is one of those disgraceful things which a prince must guard against." - Niccolo Machiavelli |