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: Neutrality Resolution
Details
Submitted by[?]: Rightist 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: August 2227
Description[?]:
Since the current parties that are in power do not care about our time honored traditions of neutrality, we are hereby forced to make the following resolutions. Article I: This will be known as the Neutrality Resolution Article II: This resolution will forbid this nation from engaging in armed conflicts abroad. Article III: This Resolution proclaims that we should do all we can to establish peace warring parties and to offer our services to mediate disputes between nations. Article IV: This Resolution will declare all military alliance treaties null and void. This will not affect the Baltusia treaty as it is not a military alliance due to the fact that we are not obligated to back them up in war. Article V: Any violations of this resolution well be grounds for the immediate resignations of the Foreign Minister, Defense Minister, and articles of impeachment will be brought up before this Tribal Council of the Great Chieftain. Article VI: This resolution shall be binding if passed. |
Proposals
Debate
These messages have been posted to debate on this bill:
Date | 17:53:28, April 07, 2006 CET | From | Atlas | To | Debating the Neutrality Resolution |
Message | We applaud the RP for starting this debate. We might support. Traditionally we are not against military interventions, but our next congress will discuss this proposal with an open mind. |
Date | 18:00:37, April 07, 2006 CET | From | Rightist Party | To | Debating the Neutrality Resolution |
Message | It has been known for over a century that we do not get involved in military conflict but now that we have these people in power who are threatening to upset the traditions of this country, we had no choice but to propose this. |
Date | 21:35:48, April 07, 2006 CET | From | Patriot Party | To | Debating the Neutrality Resolution |
Message | We support the resolution. |
Date | 10:16:17, April 08, 2006 CET | From | Social-Conservative party | To | Debating the Neutrality Resolution |
Message | We will oppose this measure as this is yet another step to isolation of our realm, and a attempt from the opposition to weaken the government. |
Date | 14:12:17, April 08, 2006 CET | From | One Nation Socialist Party | To | Debating the Neutrality Resolution |
Message | opposed. not flexible enough to adapt to foreign goings on. It may be necessary for the safety of tukarali to enter military treaties but this treaty would prevent that. |
Date | 16:28:42, April 08, 2006 CET | From | Patriot Party | To | Debating the Neutrality Resolution |
Message | SCP, how is this a step to Isolationism when this proposal is saying that we are obligated to offer our services to keep the peace between nations using diplomatic means? I guess it is official now that both the SCP and the ONCP are both militant parties who want to drag our nation down through military conflict. This nation has never fought a war and has done its best to keep the peace through diplomacy. That is our reputatoin. Our reputation is one of peace and not one of war. We are a prosperous nation. However, if we get involved in a war, and it goes badly, then our economy no longer means anything. It would be ruined. Not to mention it takes alot of money to actually run the war. People will not be happy with that. So I ask thee why you are opposed to this outside of this isolationist crap that you, SCP, are spouting. |
Date | 19:40:47, April 08, 2006 CET | From | Rightist Party | To | Debating the Neutrality Resolution |
Message | What is wrong with being neutral in world conflict? |
Date | 11:47:41, April 09, 2006 CET | From | Atlas | To | Debating the Neutrality Resolution |
Message | We had our congress and it is clear now we cannot support neutrality. However we are willing to sign a resolution that engages Tukarali in peacekeeping efforts. |
Date | 11:55:57, April 09, 2006 CET | From | Social-Conservative party | To | Debating the Neutrality Resolution |
Message | "Article V: Any violations of this resolution well be grounds for the immediate resignations of the Foreign Minister, Defense Minister, and articles of impeachment will be brought up before this Tribal Council of the Great Chieftain." That is just a trick from the opposition to overthrow the regime. For the treaty is very vague. And not being able to engage in conflicts abroad means that we are not taking our international responsibility, to restore law and order in our neighbouring areas, to try to send in soldiers in a territory ruled by ruthless dictators, where our soldiers marsch in, and liberate the people, or give them food, that is not stolen by the regime. This treaty is nothing more then a declaration that We do not care about the world, we can talk about it, we might even discuss it, but we will not do anything that can cost us anything more then time to make it a better world. |
Date | 19:14:52, April 09, 2006 CET | From | Rightist Party | To | Debating the Neutrality Resolution |
Message | I love how the SCP is trying to paint this as a power grab when it isn't. It is a declaration of Neutrality and one of peacekeeping. We do not believe in fighting in wars that are on the otherside of the planet. We only believe in wars of self defense. We should strive to resolve all conflicts using diplomates and not guns. SCP, we do care about the international community. That is why we support helping those in times of need. That is why we believe in having a strong Foreign Ministry. We have militent parties here who have imperialist ambitions and we do not want to become a target of a coalition of nations who will destroy this nation. This declaration will send a messege to the planet that we shall remain neutral in world conflicts and that we will assist in maintaining peace. Our borders will be open to all nations involved in the conflict, to meet on neutral ground to hammer out a peaceful agreement to end world conflict. So please tell me how this resolution (not a treaty, another lie) is saying that we do not care about the world? |
Date | 20:47:24, April 09, 2006 CET | From | Social-Conservative party | To | Debating the Neutrality Resolution |
Message | This declaration will send a signal that we all sit in circles singing kumbayaa, doing nothing, that we are a weak and feeble nation, not caring for the world enough to sacrifice something for the welfare of the world. You are basicly inviting hostile forces to attack us, for this resolution would make us alone in the world. |
Date | 21:26:28, April 09, 2006 CET | From | Rightist Party | To | Debating the Neutrality Resolution |
Message | OOC: I'll make this statement OOC. I'm glad you think that of Switzerland. |
Date | 23:56:12, April 09, 2006 CET | From | Greenish Liberal Democratic Socialists | To | Debating the Neutrality Resolution |
Message | Opposed. We believe in peaceful neutrality, but we oppose this kind of treaty. It is extremely limiting our options by outlawing military pacts. OOC: If I may remind you that Belgium and the Netherlands were neutral when Germany invaded them in WWII.. |
Date | 02:11:58, April 10, 2006 CET | From | Patriot Party | To | Debating the Neutrality Resolution |
Message | OOC: Belgium also didn't give Germany permission to enter the borders either and Germany did it anyway. IC: We support this Resolution as this is what we have always done in the past. No other party has ever denied our neutrality except the newer ones. We never got involved in world conflict but went the peaceful route and we were well accepted because of it. |
Date | 10:44:31, April 10, 2006 CET | From | Social-Conservative party | To | Debating the Neutrality Resolution |
Message | OOC: Tuscany had 600 years of authority, brutality, murder, and war, and they produced geniouses like Michallengelo, and many more. Switzerland had 600 years of Democracy and peace, and what did they produce ? the Cukoo-clock! ;) And Switzerland had been invaded many times historically, but luckily always got Habsburg support in repelling the nasty french :) Concerning Belgium, yes would be same here :D we say "Oh no you don't, you do not invade us, for we are peaceloving", and they do it anyway :D ;) IC: Just because we never had before does not mean we never will. |
Date | 11:37:21, April 10, 2006 CET | From | Atlas | To | Debating the Neutrality Resolution |
Message | If the OOC was a party we would vote for it ! :) |
Date | 14:53:45, April 10, 2006 CET | From | Rightist Party | To | Debating the Neutrality Resolution |
Message | We always have stayed out of it because the war never concerned us. Even when this contentent was on a verge of a war, we stated publicly, publicly mind you, that we are 100% neutral and that if any nation from either side attacked us, we will not be held responsible for what happens to them. We offered up our nation for the peace talks and the issue was settled via peace here on our soil. If any administration is going to fight in a war, our party members shall not fight in it. They will only fight in defense of our country and not for any other nation. |
Date | 05:09:20, April 11, 2006 CET | From | Atlas | To | Debating the Neutrality Resolution |
Message | The RP is clearly undermining the discipline of our army. We would like to hear a reaction from the minister of defense ! |
Date | 11:00:25, April 11, 2006 CET | From | Social-Conservative party | To | Debating the Neutrality Resolution |
Message | Antoine Defencé, Minister of Defence makes it known that he demands that the Rightish party withdraw his remarks. There is nothing wrong with having ambitions of the army having diffirent tasks then they do, but to go out and make the work they are doing now, and the tasks that lie ahead troublesome is at the brink of promoting desertion, and thus High Treason. Every soldier has a duty to the State and the people. They shall abide by their duty wether or not their party wants it so or not. Or should we have it so at the frontlines, where our soldiers fight that we cannot trust our soldier in arms next to us, because he is a member of the Rightish party, and has chosen not to fight ?. No Every soldier knows their duty, and they will perform their duty. But such behaviour as hte RP here is doing is damaging and we would like to hear who exactly made that speech fromt he RP. Do they dare stand up for what they think, and have their name known, and do the right thing and withdraw their remarks ?. We wait and see |
Date | 15:45:12, April 11, 2006 CET | From | Rightist Party | To | Debating the Neutrality Resolution |
Message | Excuse me what? I never would undermind the Army. The ONCP and GLDS have already done that. I support the Army 100% and have always supported giving them the tools they need to do their jobs in defense of Tukarali. I would never take that away hence why we fought so hard to get the defense budget increased. To the defense minister, our forces will fight for the defense of the homeland. They will not fight for another nation's defense. We have stated that quite clear. We are a neutral nation dedicated to peace, not war. Yes we have an army and we give them the tools they need to defend us in our time of need. However, that is all that they shall be used for. We do keep an eye on events on our own contentinet and we do tell the factions that we are open to be used for peace talks. We also tell them, in no uncertain terms, that if a bomb or missile drops on our soil, the consequences will be severe. As to the remarks, I don't see anything wrong with them. I dare say ole boy that if you would like to call me out, I'd be more than happy to meet you on the field of honor. |
Date | 08:25:42, April 16, 2006 CET | From | Social-Conservative party | To | Debating the Neutrality Resolution |
Message | It is not up for Soldiers to choose which battles they shall fight in. Do you want an army where every soldier make individual decisions on wether not to fight or not ? Where a good soldier runs into a house, calls for backup, that is a party member of the Rightish party, and that soldier says "i don't wanna, i want my Mommy !!!!!!!!!!!". No, we want a loyal obedient army ready to serve the Fatherland !. We have enough of your hippie-wishy-washy-socialist-jargong. Stand up for your Fatherland, or prepare to meet me in Court ! |
Date | 18:36:54, April 16, 2006 CET | From | Rightist Party | To | Debating the Neutrality Resolution |
Message | Our soldiers will only fight for the homeland. They will not be deployed overseas to fight in some foreign war that does not concern us. The purpose of an Army is to defend against attacks on your own people. Our people are honorable people but they will not be sent overseas. They will stay here to defend our civilians from attacks by foreigners. |
subscribe to this discussion - unsubscribe
Voting
Vote | Seats | |||
yes |
Total Seats: 215 | |||
no | Total Seats: 117 | |||
abstain | Total Seats: 55 |
Random fact: Each user account may only be used by the player who set it up. Handing over an account to another player is not allowed. |
Random quote: "Politicians are the same all over. They promise to build a bridge even where there is no river." Nikita Khrushchev (1894 - 1971) |