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: Baltusia and Tukarali Treaty
Details
Submitted by[?]: Patriot Party
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: September 2091
Description[?]:
| I received this letter/treaty proposal from Republic of Baltusia. I am proposing it here because it is long and it needs to be said. Please let me know if anything needs to be added, amended or taken out so I can quickly let them know. Thank you! To: Big Hairy Chief Tanya Davidson From: President Maria Oberman Madam Big Hairy Chief, I am delighted both with your positive response, and with its rapidity. What we propose is primarily an economic treaty, with additional overtures to ensure that both of our nations prosper, and to demonstrate what can be done with co-operation. 1) The economic frontiers between our nations will be without unfair tariffs. 2) Companies from one member state shall be allowed to operate freely within another member state, although their action in any part of any member-state remain subject to all laws and taxes that apply there 3) Citizens be allowed to travel between states with only a passport or other certificate of identity recognized by the destination state, although any member state retains the right to refuse entry to particular individuals on security grounds. 4) Politicians from each member state permitted to engage in free debate in the respective parliments of other member states, although states reserve the right to exclude any politicians whose behavior is objectionable. 5) Military of member states to engage in joint exercises, in order to understand each other, and in preparation for circumstances in which the forces may be required to perform together. Comments, alterations, additions, etc are of course welcomed. It should be noted that at this point, there has been no reply from the Valruzian Federation to my opening message sent to you both. President Oberman |
Proposals
Debate
These messages have been posted to debate on this bill:
| Date | 02:05:07, June 04, 2005 CET | From | Patriot Party | To | Debating the Baltusia and Tukarali Treaty |
| Message | I believe that we should approve of this treaty as is but I am open to suggestions to make this treaty better. |
| Date | 02:23:29, June 04, 2005 CET | From | Democratic Socialists | To | Debating the Baltusia and Tukarali Treaty |
| Message | Villeneuve entered the chamber of the Tribal Council humbly, yet confidently, holding himself tall. He looked around at the assembled delegates, drew in a breath, and began to speak, in low, measured tones. "Honourable Members. I am here at the invitation of Big Hairy Chief Tanya Davidson. I am Joshua Villeneuve, Foreign Minister of the Republic of Baltusia. I speak for myself, and for President Oberman, who regrets that monitoring the events in Gaduridos do not leave her time to attend. "Our Senate is currently considering this same treaty, and I come to you to ask your support, and suggestions. The draft is by no means set in stone, and alterations proposed by either nation will surely be put to the other for consideration. "This treaty was suggested as events in Gaduridos, Kalistan, and Lodamun began to spiral apparently out of control. We believe that our nations have an unparalleled opportunity to show what can be done when nations work together, peacefully and co-operatively, instead of through 'gunboat diplomacy', and bombs. "This treaty, together with open minds and hearts on both sides will help ensure both our nations prosper, economically, politically, and militarily. The economic aspects will allow our nations to become richer, as we work together. The political aspect will command us to consider views we might otherwise not have access to, and give us all the chance to frequently avail ourselves of the privilege to speak as I do now, before another great legislature. The military aspect will make us ready should we ever need to deploy alongside one another, and allow our commanders to better understand each other, and their modus operandii. He paused, and slowly bowed his head, before raising it, and speaking briefly once more. "I will not take any more of your time; I deeply appreciate the opportunity of addressing you. Thank you for your attention." With that, he turned, and left the chamber, to return to Baltusia. |
| Date | 03:03:29, June 04, 2005 CET | From | Calvinist Conservative Party | To | Debating the Baltusia and Tukarali Treaty |
| Message | I (the Economic Minister) am in support. I would, however, move to amend item (1), to read "without excessive tariffs." I believe that nations have the right to profit a little bit off of trade. When it comes to nations instituting ridiculously high tariffs so as to stifle foreign competition, I am opposed. I would also move to add a sixth point to the treaty, namely, to read that (6). The Republic of Baltusia and the United Tribes of Tukarali undertake to defend each other against enemy aggression to the fullest extent of their respective diplomatic and military ability. As an aside, our party only controlling the Economic and Infrastructure ministries, I have not kept up on foreign events. Would someone be so kind as to inform me in regard to the events in Gauridos, Kalistan, and Lodamun? |
| Date | 04:17:06, June 04, 2005 CET | From | Freedom Party | To | Debating the Baltusia and Tukarali Treaty |
| Message | 1) The economic frontiers between our nations will be without tariffs. I have to concur with the CCP on that. We have had two regions suffer major economic collapses recently. If we remove tariffs, we will stop our ability to prop up the economy in those regions until they are self supportive. *turns to the Economic Minsiter* As Foreign Relations Minister, I too would like to know....I for some reason had no knowledge of this until after it was introduced here, much less been informed of violence anywhere else on the continent. It appears that a Envoy system is needed around here. |
| Date | 04:51:20, June 04, 2005 CET | From | Patriot Party | To | Debating the Baltusia and Tukarali Treaty |
| Message | But this'll make all goods roughly equal. If we have any tariffs at a time like this, it could spell disaster. |
| Date | 05:24:14, June 04, 2005 CET | From | Rightist Party | To | Debating the Baltusia and Tukarali Treaty |
| Message | I think this treaty is workable as it is now. We do have to have allies and this is a start. |
| Date | 10:09:38, June 04, 2005 CET | From | Social Dynamist Party | To | Debating the Baltusia and Tukarali Treaty |
| Message | "1) The economic frontiers between our nations will be without tariffs." The SDP would prefer a rewording to "without unfair tariffs". What we mean by a fair tariff is one which negates a discrepancy in operating procedures or previous taxation. For example, Tukarali has scrupulous environmental legislation - but should an environmentally unfriendly company in another member-state attempt to enter our market, they have the advantage of not having to work to a responsible standard, and will therefore undercut our companies because they are doing the right thing. It is therefore necessary for governments to impose an import tariff on those goods whose production would have incurred penalties, were they produced in Tukarali as they were elsewhere. "2) Companies from one member state shall be allowed to operate within another member state without restriction (actions subject to the national laws of the state within which they are taken)" The problem here is if one country is liberal on one thing, another on another, then companies can abuse this system. For example, a contraceptive factory in a country with low working standards but a ban on sale of contraceptives can sell to a country where contraceptives are in demand but minimum working standards are high, which increases the costs of production. The rules ob both countries are broken by a company by moving its less desirable operations to places where there is no regulation. We suggest that companies operating in one country must abide by the laws of that country wherever it operates, save if two country's laws are insoluble contradictory (X is mandatory and X is banned). "3) Citizens be allowed to travel between states without need for passports." A note: foreign citizens should ideally have some means of identification (though not neessarily a passport) in Tukarali while visiting or working. |
| Date | 10:13:03, June 04, 2005 CET | From | Social Dynamist Party | To | Debating the Baltusia and Tukarali Treaty |
| Message | "4) Politicians from each member state permitted to engage in free debate in other member states." The SDP is very much in support of international debate. "5) Military of member states to engage in joint exercises, in order to understand each other, and in preparation for circumstances in which we are required to act together." Insofar as this refers to training only, we wholeheartedly support. Insofar as this refers to a commitment of supporting troops should any member country declare war, we feel this is an unacceptable loss of accountability. |
| Date | 18:25:20, June 04, 2005 CET | From | Patriot Party | To | Debating the Baltusia and Tukarali Treaty |
| Message | SDP, I sent your recommendations to them. We'll see what comes of it. Thanks for the suggestions. I still think that no tariffs are better but I can probably go with them. I'll wait and see what type of response I get in return. Thanks again. |
| Date | 20:50:18, June 04, 2005 CET | From | Democratic Socialist Party | To | Debating the Baltusia and Tukarali Treaty |
| Message | I'd like to back up the SDP's points. |
| Date | 02:12:44, June 05, 2005 CET | From | Calvinist Conservative Party | To | Debating the Baltusia and Tukarali Treaty |
| Message | "Insofar as this refers to training only, we wholeheartedly support. Insofar as this refers to a commitment of supporting troops should any member country declare war, we feel this is an unacceptable loss of accountability." Are you in favor of mutual-defense? |
| Date | 03:50:51, June 05, 2005 CET | From | Patriot Party | To | Debating the Baltusia and Tukarali Treaty |
| Message | Ok! I received a response so I will post the response here. This was the messege I received back from Baltusia Thank you for your message, As we noted to the Senate, the Democratic Socialists can support your changes to points (2) and (3). However, we feel that the changes to point (2) negate the need for the change to point (1) (similarly, if point 1 were to be changed, we would feel point 2 redundant). The objection to point 1 was that companies in one country might have an unfair advantage due to different labour/environmental laws, etc; the altered point 2 demands that companies operating cross-border comply with all necessary laws on both sides - therefore, the need for tariffs to negate the difference becomes irrelevant. We would argue in favour with all your proposed changes (the original point 3 was denounced by one party in our Senate), but if the original point 1 could stand, that would be preferable. Point 5 was opposed by one party in Baltusia, but we are debating with them about it. It would be slightly harder, but by no means impossible to pass the treaty without their support. Your economic minister proposed a point (6), a mutual defense pact. We have reservations about this - our two nations remain entirely independent, and for one nation to guarantee support to the other carries unknown ramifications, which would make this much harder to pass. A clause encouraging mutual defense would be interesting, but we cannot support it whilst it remains compulsory. Best Regards President Oberman This was the letter that I received. I figured I show it to the council so I don't have to go back and forth on it. |
| Date | 05:13:21, June 05, 2005 CET | From | Freedom Party | To | Debating the Baltusia and Tukarali Treaty |
| Message | I have explained why the change to point 1 is an economic issue for us at this time. Hopefully they will see the point of that. As for point 6, we are not ready to enter a mutual defense system. And WHY exactly is an economic minister proposing military proposals? |
| Date | 17:01:16, June 05, 2005 CET | From | Patriot Party | To | Debating the Baltusia and Tukarali Treaty |
| Message | Freedom Party, I was asking myself that same question. |
| Date | 22:37:05, June 06, 2005 CET | From | Inactive | To | Debating the Baltusia and Tukarali Treaty |
| Message | I am against this treaty for the following points: 3) Citizens be allowed to travel between states without need for passports --------- A lapse in their security could be devastating for us 4) Politicians from each member state permitted to engage in free debate in other member states Let them intervene in our affairs? No! As head of the Defence Departmebnt, I support joint excercises, as that will help oiur troops. |
| Date | 22:38:47, June 06, 2005 CET | From | Patriot Party | To | Debating the Baltusia and Tukarali Treaty |
| Message | De Vito. Point 3 has already been addressed. I'm waiting on a response from their head of state and see what they are coming up with. As to point 4, its already been agreed to |
| Date | 23:04:00, June 06, 2005 CET | From | Social Dynamist Party | To | Debating the Baltusia and Tukarali Treaty |
| Message | "Let them intervene in our affairs?" We do not support intervention, nor would the treaty. However, parties from both countries would be welcomed to pffer constructive advice. |
| Date | 23:22:31, June 06, 2005 CET | From | Social Dynamist Party | To | Debating the Baltusia and Tukarali Treaty |
| Message | Regarding points 1 and 2, would it be an idea to reword as follows: "1) The economic frontiers between our nations will be without tariffs, subject to the provisos of point 2. 2) Companies from one member state shall be allowed to operate within another member state without restriction, save for the following: Their actions remain subject to the national laws of either state, and where one member-state's laws are broken, the member state reserves the right to impose tariffs of censure upon such companies." And agree to delay the start date of the treaty until we have reasonable economic stability in currently vulnerable areas. |
| Date | 00:52:01, June 07, 2005 CET | From | Patriot Party | To | Debating the Baltusia and Tukarali Treaty |
| Message | I think I can agree with that. Can the Foreign Minister forward this on to Baltusian Leader? |
| Date | 03:19:49, June 07, 2005 CET | From | Calvinist Conservative Party | To | Debating the Baltusia and Tukarali Treaty |
| Message | The Economic Minister is the foremost politician in our party aside from the Chairman. The suggestion of (6) came from an assemblyman. To clarify on (6), this would not be an alliance; we would not defend the other nation in a war of their own undertaking. When, however, they have been unjustly attacked by an outside aggressor, I think it stands to reason that those who are good neighbors would come to the aid of a just nation in distress. I do not agree to the tariff proviso of point (2). I believe that a nation has the right to impose tariffs on imported goods just as it has the right to tax its citizens. A government however does not have the right to stifle competition with protective tariffs nor tax exorbitantly. |
| Date | 03:30:13, June 07, 2005 CET | From | Rightist Party | To | Debating the Baltusia and Tukarali Treaty |
| Message | Economics Minister. You dont have the authority to talk about military alliances. Only the Foriegn Minister, Head of State, or the Defense Minister can do that. I believe that you have clearly overstepped your bounds in that case. |
| Date | 04:41:12, June 07, 2005 CET | From | Patriot Party | To | Debating the Baltusia and Tukarali Treaty |
| Message | CCP, stay out of the military business. That is De Vito's job not yours. Stick to economics. |
| Date | 09:33:12, June 07, 2005 CET | From | Social Dynamist Party | To | Debating the Baltusia and Tukarali Treaty |
| Message | Any party should be able to make a suggestion, but any suggestion made to another country should come with the proviso that it is not government position unless the party holds the appropriate cabinet seat. |
| Date | 02:07:32, June 08, 2005 CET | From | Freedom Party | To | Debating the Baltusia and Tukarali Treaty |
| Message | I will deliver the suggestion to Baltusia. I will withdraw all suggestion on point 6 as our head of state has said that it did not come from the appropriate ministers. |
| Date | 05:12:24, June 08, 2005 CET | From | Calvinist Conservative Party | To | Debating the Baltusia and Tukarali Treaty |
| Message | Very well, the Economics minister won't speak about it, I'll just have another member of my party do it. |
| Date | 05:14:30, June 08, 2005 CET | From | Calvinist Conservative Party | To | Debating the Baltusia and Tukarali Treaty |
| Message | Besides, if you are to hold to that, stay out of economics! You've been meddling in that plenty. |
| Date | 05:17:58, June 08, 2005 CET | From | Calvinist Conservative Party | To | Debating the Baltusia and Tukarali Treaty |
| Message | Is a minister the only member of a party? |
| Date | 16:25:01, June 08, 2005 CET | From | Rightist Party | To | Debating the Baltusia and Tukarali Treaty |
| Message | CCP, you have a problem with that. The Patriot Party is the Head of State and therefore she can meddle in economics affairs. |
| Date | 03:14:43, June 09, 2005 CET | From | Calvinist Conservative Party | To | Debating the Baltusia and Tukarali Treaty |
| Message | ONE PERSON in the Patriot Party is the Head of State. ONE PERSON in the Calvinist Conservative Party is the Economics Minister. Perhaps 3WA should not have introduced the Gambling Bill because that is economic grounds? Perhaps the DSP should not have introduced the Cloning Bill because that is the jurisdiction of the Health Minister? |
| Date | 04:54:53, June 09, 2005 CET | From | Rightist Party | To | Debating the Baltusia and Tukarali Treaty |
| Message | THey are just ministers. However, when it comes to major policy decisions, the leader of the country can and shall get involved wether those people like it or not. |
| Date | 02:02:10, June 12, 2005 CET | From | Calvinist Conservative Party | To | Debating the Baltusia and Tukarali Treaty |
| Message | As can all members of the Tribal Council. |
| Date | 17:17:03, June 13, 2005 CET | From | Nationalist Free-Market Republican Party | To | Debating the Baltusia and Tukarali Treaty |
| Message | I will not support this treaty. Allowing people to travel without passports is spitting on our National Security! Anyone who supports this treaty with that clause still present has no regard for our National Security and is a borderline traitor! Also, I refuse to allow foreign polititions to enter in debate in our Council. We are a soverign nation! Allowing foreign government officials to debate within the Tribal Council is clearly unacceptable. The Tribal Council is for the United Tribes of Tukarali, NOT for another nation! I refuse to support this bill -- as should all of you -- if this clause that sells out our National Soveregntiy is still present in the treaty. |
| Date | 18:25:44, June 13, 2005 CET | From | Social Dynamist Party | To | Debating the Baltusia and Tukarali Treaty |
| Message | Allowing citizens of a friendly country to enter ours does not constiture the activity of traitors, unless we have reason to believe that the borders of the country in question are particularly poorly-guarded. "if this clause that sells out our National Soveregntiy is still present in the treaty" This clause does not threaten our sovereignty in the least - we are merely allowing foreign delegates to address the house, not giving them any say in voting. |
| Date | 04:28:07, June 14, 2005 CET | From | Nationalist Free-Market Republican Party | To | Debating the Baltusia and Tukarali Treaty |
| Message | Foreign officials have no right whatsoever to interfere IN ANY WAY with the legislative process of Tukarali, and I refuse to allow this to happen. Also, all citizens of foreign nations should be required to have passports with them. National Security is something this party will NOT COMPROMISE IN ANY WAY! When borders are entirely open, this is an open invitation for terrorists and other foreign militants to enter Tukarali. All foreign persons MUST have a passport on them, or they should be deported and banned from ever entering this nation again. |
| Date | 22:59:58, June 14, 2005 CET | From | Social Dynamist Party | To | Debating the Baltusia and Tukarali Treaty |
| Message | "interfere IN ANY WAY with the legislative process of Tukarali, and I refuse to allow this to happen." This does not constitute interference. How in the world does allowing them to address us interference? If anything, it removes the bureaucracy involved in sending messages through one minister or another. |
| Date | 23:20:48, June 14, 2005 CET | From | Freedom Party | To | Debating the Baltusia and Tukarali Treaty |
| Message | I have had no response from Baltusia in days, even with my attempt to prod something. Big Hairy Chief, have you heard anything? |
| Date | 23:23:09, June 14, 2005 CET | From | Freedom Party | To | Debating the Baltusia and Tukarali Treaty |
| Message | YAY a response. They want with regards to point 3, some sort of photo ID (perhaps the ones that we already require our citizens to have) to be allowed to pass back and forth. Sounds fair to me. |
| Date | 01:15:24, June 15, 2005 CET | From | Rightist Party | To | Debating the Baltusia and Tukarali Treaty |
| Message | Here here. |
| Date | 02:20:25, June 15, 2005 CET | From | Patriot Party | To | Debating the Baltusia and Tukarali Treaty |
| Message | It sounds fair to me too Freedom Party. Thanks for keeping us updated. |
| Date | 18:51:14, June 20, 2005 CET | From | Nationalist Free-Market Republican Party | To | Debating the Baltusia and Tukarali Treaty |
| Message | Photo IDs are easily faked. I will not support this treaty unless passports be required for incoming foreigners. |
| Date | 00:42:49, June 23, 2005 CET | From | Freedom Party | To | Debating the Baltusia and Tukarali Treaty |
| Message | oops, not my job anymore to keep you updated. Since someone saw fit to shove me out of the government. ;) |
| Date | 00:02:08, June 24, 2005 CET | From | Rightist Party | To | Debating the Baltusia and Tukarali Treaty |
| Message | FP, since this was your treaty to start with, work with it please. |
| Date | 16:33:13, June 24, 2005 CET | From | Social Dynamist Party | To | Debating the Baltusia and Tukarali Treaty |
| Message | RP, if you do not wish to take over the duties of the Foreign Office, then resign. Why on earth are we paying the foreign minister if he refuses to negotiate treaties? |
| Date | 21:06:23, June 24, 2005 CET | From | Freedom Party | To | Debating the Baltusia and Tukarali Treaty |
| Message | nope Righist, you yourself accused me of doing nothing, and now that you have my job, I am going to hold you accountable to your own standards. |
| Date | 13:44:59, June 29, 2005 CET | From | Republican Party | To | Debating the Baltusia and Tukarali Treaty |
| Message | We shouldn't agree they terms. Republic of Baltusia is rulled by Socialists. It's against an axiom: "Never trust socialist". We oppose. |
| Date | 13:45:24, June 29, 2005 CET | From | Republican Party | To | Debating the Baltusia and Tukarali Treaty |
| Message | "Better death than Red". |
| Date | 19:36:18, June 29, 2005 CET | From | Democratic Socialist Party | To | Debating the Baltusia and Tukarali Treaty |
| Message | DEAD, not death. Gotta make it rhyme, like the Red under the Bed. Anyway, I'm a socialist. |
| Date | 19:15:50, July 21, 2005 CET | From | Patriot Party | To | Debating the Baltusia and Tukarali Treaty |
| Message | I have just sent a messege to try and ressurrect this treaty. Hopefully we can ressurect it. |
| Date | 23:34:52, July 22, 2005 CET | From | Republican Party | To | Debating the Baltusia and Tukarali Treaty |
| Message | What with this bill? Let us vote or cancel this debate. |
| Date | 01:22:07, July 23, 2005 CET | From | Social Dynamist Party | To | Debating the Baltusia and Tukarali Treaty |
| Message | Um, we need the co-operation of Baltusia before there's any point voting. |
| Date | 00:19:36, July 31, 2005 CET | From | Progressive Conservative Party | To | Debating the Baltusia and Tukarali Treaty |
| Message | Message Bill: Treaty with the United Tribes of Tukarali: Discussion We have suggested this treaty be ratified by the Baltusian Senate in preparation for possible protection against the Independent Republic of Lodamun. (Who have started costruction of WMD and B/CW's) http://82.238.75.178:8085/particracy/main/viewbill.php?billid=11526 |
| Date | 03:41:30, July 31, 2005 CET | From | Rightist Party | To | Debating the Baltusia and Tukarali Treaty |
| Message | We also feel that this should be ratified by this Tribal Council. The Question is, is it good as is now? |
| Date | 23:52:42, August 01, 2005 CET | From | Social Dynamist Party | To | Debating the Baltusia and Tukarali Treaty |
| Message | Right, this should flesh out the wording a little, and make the treaty more practical. Any objections? Tomorrow, I'll put it to Baltusia, cabinet bill pending, February 2089 1) The economic frontiers between our nations shall be without unfair tariffs. 2) Companies from one member state shall be allowed to operate freely within another member state, although their actions in any part of any member-state remain subject to all laws and taxes that apply there. 3) Citizens shall be allowed to travel between member states with only a passport or other certificate identity recognised by the destination state, although any member state retains the right to refuse entry to particular individuals on security grounds. 4) Representatives of political parties are invited to engage in free debate in the respective parliaments of other member states, although states reserve the right to exclude any politicians whose behaviour is objectionable. 5) The armed forces of member states are to engage in joint exercises, in order to understand each other, and in preparation for circumstances in which the forces may be required to perform operations together. |
| Date | 23:55:40, August 01, 2005 CET | From | Social Dynamist Party | To | Debating the Baltusia and Tukarali Treaty |
| Message | (please read "of" before "identity") - Nora Walker, SDP Foreign Affairs Representative |
| Date | 01:26:47, August 02, 2005 CET | From | Patriot Party | To | Debating the Baltusia and Tukarali Treaty |
| Message | Considering you are not the foreign minister yet SDP, you don't have that authority. I, on the other hand, being Head of Government, do have said authority and I'll do it soon. |
| Date | 22:38:22, August 02, 2005 CET | From | Social Dynamist Party | To | Debating the Baltusia and Tukarali Treaty |
| Message | "cabinet bill pending," Please read. |
| Date | 23:01:42, August 02, 2005 CET | From | Social Dynamist Party | To | Debating the Baltusia and Tukarali Treaty |
| Message | And the BHC, not the Head of a Government (especially one without the support of the Tribal Council) has alternative authority over such issues. |
| Date | 00:22:27, August 05, 2005 CET | From | Progressive Conservative Party | To | Debating the Baltusia and Tukarali Treaty |
| Message | We now inform you that due to the Democratic Socialists refusal to bring the bill to vote, the Liberal Libertarian Party has reformed the bill which is entitled Baltusia-Tukarali Treaty 2089. http://82.238.75.178:8085/particracy/main/viewbill.php?billid=12173 Thank you for your patience. |
| Date | 00:24:31, August 05, 2005 CET | From | Progressive Conservative Party | To | Debating the Baltusia and Tukarali Treaty |
| Message | Our new wording is: 1) The economic frontiers between our nations shall be without unfair tariffs. 2) Companies from one member state shall be allowed to operate freely within another member state, although there actions in any part of any member-state remain subject to all laws and taxes that apply there. 3) Citizens shall be allowed to travel between member states with only a passport or other certificate of identity recognised by the destination state, although any member state retains the right to refuse entry to particular individuals on security grounds. 4) Representatives of political parties are invited to engage in free debate in the perspective parliments of other member states, although states reserve the right to exclude any politicians whose behavior is objectionable. 5) The armed forces of member states are to engage in joint exercises, in order to understand each other, and in preperation for circumstances in which the forces may be required to perform operations together. |
| Date | 03:20:20, August 05, 2005 CET | From | Patriot Party | To | Debating the Baltusia and Tukarali Treaty |
| Message | I believe that covers it. |
| Date | 14:22:15, August 05, 2005 CET | From | Patriot Party | To | Debating the Baltusia and Tukarali Treaty |
| Message | Ok, I just saw that Baltusia moved this to a vote. Should I do the same? |
| Date | 22:29:42, August 05, 2005 CET | From | Patriot Party | To | Debating the Baltusia and Tukarali Treaty |
| Message | The Tribal Council has Approved the Treaty. |
subscribe to this discussion - unsubscribe
Voting
| Vote | Seats | |||||
| yes |
Total Seats: 229 | |||||
| no |
Total Seats: 43 | |||||
| abstain |
Total Seats: 22 |
| Random fact: When it comes to creating a Cultural Protocol in a Culturally Open nation, players are not necessarily required to provide a plausible backstory for how the nation's cultural background developed. However, the provision of a plausible backstory may be a factor in whether Moderation approves the Cultural Protocol if players in surrounding nations question its appropriateness for their region of the game map. |
| Random quote: "I like to pay taxes. With them I buy civilization." - Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr. |