Main | About | Tutorial | FAQ | Links | Wiki | Forum | World News | World Map | World Ranking | Nations | Electoral Calendar | Party Organizations | Treaties |
Login | Register |
Game Time: September 5573
Next month in: 00:59:19
Server time: 19:00:40, November 24, 2024 CET
Currently online (2): ImperialLodamun | Mindus | Record: 63 on 23:13:00, July 26, 2019 CET

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 South Ocean Treaty Organisation ( SOTO )

Details

Submitted by[?]: One Nation Conservative Party

Status[?]: passed

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: May 2166

Description[?]:

This bill asks for the ratification of the South Ocean Treaty Organisation ( SOTO ). If this treaty is ratified, it becomes binding and will define national law.

Proposals

Debate

These messages have been posted to debate on this bill:

Date13:08:46, December 29, 2005 CET
FromOne Nation Conservative Party
ToDebating the Ratification of the South Ocean Treaty Organisation ( SOTO )
MessageFriends, this treaty will ensure that our developing nation shall be protected from all threats, it is especially significant as our defence capablities are so limited presently.

Date17:34:19, December 29, 2005 CET
FromFriedrich Hayek Party
ToDebating the Ratification of the South Ocean Treaty Organisation ( SOTO )
MessageWe support

Date19:20:19, December 29, 2005 CET
FromPnték Prsakij Prta (Phalangists)
ToDebating the Ratification of the South Ocean Treaty Organisation ( SOTO )
Messagenope

Date19:30:08, December 29, 2005 CET
FromOne Nation Conservative Party
ToDebating the Ratification of the South Ocean Treaty Organisation ( SOTO )
MessageDo you have a reason?

Date20:45:38, December 29, 2005 CET
FromTHEM
ToDebating the Ratification of the South Ocean Treaty Organisation ( SOTO )
MessageAbsolutely not. We will not surrender our military powers to satanist aggressors.

Date21:05:02, December 29, 2005 CET
FromPnték Prsakij Prta (Phalangists)
ToDebating the Ratification of the South Ocean Treaty Organisation ( SOTO )
MessageWe do not see the need to align ourselves with an organisation that attacks merchant shipping without the slightest provocation.

Date21:30:09, December 29, 2005 CET
FromSeeYainHell Party
ToDebating the Ratification of the South Ocean Treaty Organisation ( SOTO )
Messagefrom a Nationalist slant, such a treaty could be seen as a temporary nonaggression pact which is to be cast aside in a sneak attack (Hitler and Stalin's) or a flimsy League Nations to build arms behind. If your goals are met the military will be strong and there will be no need to worry about mere paper. On the otherhand, until you are strong, the treaty removes the impediments of premature inteference with your plans from outside nations. Isn't this a win win for every party involved if they stick to their plans?

Date21:35:04, December 29, 2005 CET
FromTHEM
ToDebating the Ratification of the South Ocean Treaty Organisation ( SOTO )
MessageThe possibility of a sneak attack on a nation involved in the SOTO is 0 considering that Selucia doesn't exist, and no other nations have provoked our ire. We already have the support of the Axis Powers, so any allied nation foolish enough to attack us will be met with considerable force.

Date00:17:58, December 30, 2005 CET
FromOne Nation Conservative Party
ToDebating the Ratification of the South Ocean Treaty Organisation ( SOTO )
MessageThe Axis are weak, Deltaria is governed by a liberal coalition and the remaining significant axis powers have signed a cease fire with the Selucian Empire. The stability of this developing nation rests on the oral agreement with the axis and this SOTO treaty. Si Deus pro Nobis, Quis contra nos? - If God is for us, who can be against us? if we sign the SOTO agreement and continue amicable relations with Deltaria then we can not only improve our defence capabilties but no one shall harm us unpunished.

Date00:41:21, December 30, 2005 CET
FromFriedrich Hayek Party
ToDebating the Ratification of the South Ocean Treaty Organisation ( SOTO )
MessageThe idea Selucia doesnt exist is ridiculous.

Why ally with Axis Powers? We should be neutral but lean against the former government of Deltaria that imposes slavery and other vile measures

Date12:03:04, December 30, 2005 CET
FromPnték Prsakij Prta (Phalangists)
ToDebating the Ratification of the South Ocean Treaty Organisation ( SOTO )
MessageWe should be neutral? So thats why the FHP want us to sign up to the SOTO?

Date12:35:27, December 30, 2005 CET
FromFriedrich Hayek Party
ToDebating the Ratification of the South Ocean Treaty Organisation ( SOTO )
MessageArticle 1: #1 Non-aggression between SOTO members


Sounds good to me, pretty neutral too

Date17:12:12, December 30, 2005 CET
FromPnték Prsakij Prta (Phalangists)
ToDebating the Ratification of the South Ocean Treaty Organisation ( SOTO )
MessageBetween SOTO members, but obviously not with non-SOTO members, as has been illustrated by SOTO attacks on merchant shipping.

Date19:26:27, December 30, 2005 CET
FromOne Nation Conservative Party
ToDebating the Ratification of the South Ocean Treaty Organisation ( SOTO )
MessageIf it would place your mind at rest Phalanx, we can pass a law in Pontesi restricting our actions without consulatation with Parliament in regards to SOTO. SOTO will be an agreement that will be beneficial to the national defence of Pontesi, it will be possible not to partake in actions such as attacking merchant shipping, something this country disagrees with.

Date21:54:50, December 30, 2005 CET
FromFriedrich Hayek Party
ToDebating the Ratification of the South Ocean Treaty Organisation ( SOTO )
MessageWe would welcome such an addition.

Date11:16:06, December 31, 2005 CET
FromPnték Prsakij Prta (Phalangists)
ToDebating the Ratification of the South Ocean Treaty Organisation ( SOTO )
MessageIt still means that our "friends" would be carrying out actions in our name, whether or not Pontesian forces are actively engaged.

subscribe to this discussion - unsubscribe

Voting

Vote Seats
yes
   

Total Seats: 61

no
 

Total Seats: 23

abstain
   

Total Seats: 0


Random fact: In Culturally Protected nations, it is the responsibility of players to ensure the candidate boxes on their Party Overview screens are filled in with appropriate names. If a player is allotted seats in a Cabinet bill and has not filled in names for the relevant candidate position, then the program will automatically fill in the positions with names which might not necessarily be appropriate for the Cultural Protocols.

Random quote: "A politician who is poor is a poor politician." - Carlos Hank Gonzalez

This page was generated with PHP
Copyright 2004-2010 Wouter Lievens
Queries performed: 72