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: Selayan Union Treaty Withdrawal
Details
Submitted by[?]: Socialist Party of Kalistan (SPoK)
Status[?]: defeated
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: January 4406
Description[?]:
| We call for the withdrawal from the Selayan Union. We specifically oppose Article 5, which states: "ARTICLE 5 (Support) If a nation requests support from another nation in the Union with regards to a war with a nation not in the Union, they must support the nation unless it is met with opposition in their home country or the Union Assembly." This article can be construed as obligating Kalistan to participate in foreign wars, which specifically violates Kalistan's traditional position of neutrality, and a number of our other treaties, for example, the Kalistan-Indrala Treaty of Cooperation and Friendship, http://classic.particracy.net/viewtreaty.php?treatyid=3543, which says that we will never advance troops across Indrala's borders. Kalistan is traditionally a neutral nation. The Selayan Union bill potential violates this historical position. |
Proposals
Article 1
Withdraw from the Seleyan Union (SU).
Debate
These messages have been posted to debate on this bill:
| Date | 06:11:59, June 08, 2018 CET | From | Liberal Party of the URK (LURK) | To | Debating the Selayan Union Treaty Withdrawal |
| Message | Whether or not something is "traditional" should not factor into such a decision. We can not hope to look forward to a bright future if we can not get over the past. Furthermore, have you considered that contradictions work both ways; the "Kalistan-Indrala Treaty of Cooperation and Friendship" violates the Seleyan Union Treaty in the same way as the inverse. We should then, therefore, judge the treaty by its merits. Our participation in the Seleyan Union secures, with respect to its other members, open trade, military protections, and international cooperation and goodwill. We would encourage other deputies of the chamber to look to Articles 2, 3, 7, and 9 of the Seleyan Union Treaty. Article 5 simply helps outline what we must contribute to keep this going. Taking into account the benefits, the Seleyan Union Treaty appears overall to be a good deal for us. LURK will vote against this resolution, for the good of the nation both domestically and on the international stage. |
| Date | 06:41:55, June 08, 2018 CET | From | Socialist Party of Kalistan (SPoK) | To | Debating the Selayan Union Treaty Withdrawal |
| Message | We are opposed to all treaties containing collective security provisions. We would be happy to work with the LURK to build free/fair trade treaties with all member nations, but judging this treaty on its merits alone, the collective security provisions of this treaty obligate Kalistan to come to the aid of ANY of the member nations who request our assistance, possibly putting our nation on the hook for other countries' poor foreign policy decision making. Alas, since we have not even conducted a military audit in the last several hundred years, It is the concern of the Socialist Party that we would have to violate this treaty out of sheer unreadiness. If the LURK would like to work with us to conduct a military audit, to see what assets our Republic actually maintains, we would be happy to also revisit this issue at such a date that the audit is completed. But as of now, our Nation is listed internationally as a "middle" power (GRC Military and Economic Ratings, http://forum.particracy.net/viewtopic.php?f=5&t=7929&p=133444&hilit=kalistan#p133444), meaning: "These are nations that are more then able to stand on their own and have the ability to defend themselves against other nations and their influences and can project their own influence to a very limited degree on their neighbors, although they will traditionally ally with greater nations, though more for reasons of cooperation and progress then an inability or worry to defend themselves in the world. Their militaries are usually modern, fairly well sized and trained or a combination of all three." We can project our power in the neighborhood, but have no ability to even project it to the other side of the continent. 200 years ago, we might have, but as we have no more recent information, and matters of our military have been left unattended since the last time the SPoK was active, I sincerely doubt that these rankings are incorrect. That's based on the merits of THIS particular treaty, which nonetheless obligate us to participate anyway, unless there is objection in the Assembly. The Socialist Party will always object, and therefore, the collective security provisions of this Treaty are also noneffective anyway. We urge the Assembly to join us in calling this a bad treaty, and to work with us in concluding a new one more in line with our current capacities, as well as our normal posture as a strictly neutral nation. |
subscribe to this discussion - unsubscribe
Voting
| Vote | Seats | |||||
| yes | Total Seats: 199 | |||||
| no | Total Seats: 154 | |||||
| abstain |
Total Seats: 397 |
| 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: "Politics is supposed to be the second oldest profession. I have come to realize that it bears a very close resemblance to the first." Ronald Reagan (1911 - 2004) |