Welcome Guest [Log In] [Register]
Welcome to The City State of Q102. We hope you enjoy your visit.


You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free.


Join our community!


If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features:

Username:   Password:
Add Reply
Q102 - Europa Alliance; For Europans' views
Topic Started: Apr 26 2006, 07:20 PM (2,368 Views)
FluffyPinkBunnyGirl
Member Avatar
Temptress
Councillor and Moderator
I agree with Zak, we need constructive criticism from Europa on this, although their comments are helpful.

The article numbering was a small thing to pick up on but unfortunately it's the kind of small thing that we can't overlook. It should have been picked up by us ;)

And as far as military aid goes, as far as I know we havce always offered assistance to allied regions, and the Free Port Act stated that it was not in contravention with alliance treaties already in place. So offering military aid is something I think this alliance should do - that also should have been noticed in the draft reading, my bad :blink:
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Orioni
Member Avatar
Europa Delegate
Diplomat
Pacifist_Cowards
Jun 11 2006, 09:55 PM
The replies as I made them to Tag, over MSN. Please note, this was a draft treaty, but I think O's objections are not relevant to the text in its current state...

Well hurray for me then. :yay:

Zakaroo
Jun 11 2006, 11:20 PM
Can I ask Tag if, instead of just writing comments, couldnt your senate suggest what the alterations might state? Its seems that they have a clear idea about what they want from us, so why not just lay it out on the table??

Well I thought this was going to be a full military treaty, hence the name "alliance". That's why I will refer to some of our other alliances, and parts of their treaties which I think are still (kinda) missing in this one:

  • The Armed Forces of each region will use their command structure to order a defence of either signatory should they come under attack from a 'Raider' group. Beyond the active armed forces of each region, participation in such a venture is purely voluntary.

  • The signatory regions agree to consider assistance for the defence of regions unfairly attacked. However, each region reserves the right to refuse to assist in the endeavours of the other region, whether it be in helping liberate invaded regions or in participating in war in other regions.

  • Both regions will agree to defend one another in the event of a military attack and/or a crashing or griefing invasion. The signatory regions agree to consider assistance for the defence of regions unfairly attacked. Both partners agree to cooperate in the sharing of necessary intelligence information deemed pertinent to their ally's well-being.
I admit that this content is all kinda similar, but I think some ideas regarding mutual defense and the sharing of intelligence (especially regarding threats) should be core items of this alliance treaty.

FluffyPinkBunnyGirl
Jun 12 2006, 12:27 AM
The article numbering was a small thing to pick up on but unfortunately it's the kind of small thing that we can't overlook. It should have been picked up by us ;)

Shame on you / schaam op jou! :P
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Pacifist_Cowards
Member Avatar
Drunkard, orgy-loving part-slav and regional flirt
Member
Considerations noted. I'll let you guys pick it apart some more over there, then I'll re-write it a bit (a lot).
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Tagmatium Rules
Member Avatar
Protonobilissimuspanhyperatus
Diplomat
Zakaroo
Jun 11 2006, 09:20 PM
Can I ask Tag if, instead of just writing comments, couldnt your senate suggest what the alterations might state? Its seems that they have a clear idea about what they want from us, so why not just lay it out on the table?

Wow, Zak. Don't shoot the messenger and all :P

I'm doing the best I can.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Orioni
Member Avatar
Europa Delegate
Diplomat
Tagmatium Rules
Jun 12 2006, 10:00 AM
I'm doing the best I can.

Yes you are, and I'm proud we come from the same region! :yes:

@ PC: It will be the first thing I do after some decent rest/sleep. (I had one exam today, which cost me 5 hours on the train, 1 hour on foot, 3 hours of waiting in line, and 30 minutes of talking. But it as worth it, I think my grades will be good.)
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Tamurin
Member Avatar

Diplomat
Hello.

Short introduction: Tamurin, Senator of Europa.

My comments to the original draft of the treaty:

I've read over the treaty and, well, my thought is: What is this treaty all about? Basically it comes down to sharing information about unwanted members. The rest is administrative stuff without any value. Is this really something we need a treaty about? We could just do that unofficially.

I mean - no military aid, no commitment towards each other...I agree that it's important to keep close with friends, but a treaty should have a little more inside than that.

As Big O has said, an alliance should include a commitment towards each other. Mutual defense against invaders, sharing of intelligence information etc. Without that we don't need a treaty that just fixes the current status.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Pacifist_Cowards
Member Avatar
Drunkard, orgy-loving part-slav and regional flirt
Member
So noted. I'm sure sharing of intelligence can be added with no real trouble. And I guess mutual aid wold be fine as long as you didn't aske us to "liberate" some unknown region...

*Disclaimer*All comments before were made by PC in a semi-hung over state. They do by no means represent the majority view and/or the official stance of the council and/or parliament.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Zakaroo
Member Avatar
Priceless National Treasure
Administrator
Quote:
 
Posted on Jun 12 2006, 08:00 AM
QUOTE (Zakaroo @ Jun 11 2006, 09:20 PM)
Can I ask Tag if, instead of just writing comments, couldnt your senate suggest what the alterations might state? Its seems that they have a clear idea about what they want from us, so why not just lay it out on the table? 


Wow, Zak. Don't shoot the messenger and all

I'm doing the best I can. 


Tag I didnt mean that in a agressive way, I was just asking if you could see if your senate could add suggestions as to what they want from all this, something which has since been done. You know I think your a legend! I wasnt being 'funny' with you or anything ;)

I think then if someone can write a ammended treaty and then we can all look at it again. I think that as far as the military action goes what Orioni suggested is very fair and also realistic. It states that both sides still have the freedom of choice about helping other nations who have come under attack, e.g. a nations which Europa is friendly with but we're not. However as far as offering assistance to Europa should it ever come under attack and the other way around, I always thought we would do that, same as we do that with our current allies.
Granted our free port limits some actions, however much of the free port has been loosened off and such.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Rekamgil
Member Avatar

Diplomat
Zakaroo
Jun 13 2006, 10:40 AM
However as far as offering assistance to Europa should it ever come under attack and the other way around, I always thought we would do that, same as we do that with our current allies.

^^AGREED!!^^


Hello to Q102,

I'm the newest Europan Senator. Sorry it took me awhile to get in on this conversation but I quit ehonestly counld not find it on your forum :blink: My bad. Tag graciously opened the door for me. I have been keenly interested in this alliance however and have kept abreast of developments in our Senate.

Let me put my cards on the table. I am for an alliance between Europa and Q102 given one or two conditions.

1. On military aid; both regions should agree to assist the other region if they come under unwarranted attack by a third region. This should be a sine qua non of our alliance. I am amenable to the inclusion of other forms of military aid, but I think they ought to be voluntary. However, the two signatory regions must defend against any outside and unprovoked aggression. In short, our alliance should be a compulsory, defensive, military alliance. Any military aid requested above and beyond the needs of immediate defense should remain voluntary (but encouraged). Having read through this thread, I think these terms will be acceptable to many of your delegates here.

To be more specific, the proposed Article III reads thus:
Quote:
 
Article III – Due to existing laws, the giving of military aid is not a necessity of this treaty, though individual nations are encouraged to volunteer their aid if they so wish, and should not be penalised for doing so.


I wish to know your delegates' feeling on making this article rather more compusory as regards the defense (and of course defence only) of each other's regions?

2. On intelligence sharing; to me this is a trickier proposition. Although I feel that allies ought to share information and intelligence openly and freely, I know that there are some that feel that some intelligence is potentially too sensitive to be shared and must remain TOP SECRET ad infinitum. However, I again refer to your proposed treaty:

Quote:
 
Article IV – With consideration for, and authority over, Article II, any nation from either region, who, in any way shape or form, is thought to be disruptive, discourteous or disregarding towards either region or the laws present there, is to be tried in his home region using the procedures in place. The outcome of that trial is to be final in both regions. Puppet nations should be tried in the nation they reside in. The ruling still stands in both regions.


To me this Article is acceptable generally "as is" because it seemingly pertains only to members of either your region or ours. As allies, it is my belief that if the activities of any member or your region or ours becomes disruptive, we must inform the other region in order to spare our ally the trouble of dealing with dangerous and disruptive nations. The sharing of any intelligence from outside our regions, however, and intelligence about past members, should remain voluntary. That is, we agree to henceforth discuss with each other any potential troublemakers that might appear in each other's regions. However, I do believe that with the issue Orioni brought up (that is, if Q102 decided to ban Tag for example, someone we could not afford to ban) there ought to be some sort of clause. Basically, if a member of either region is becoming disruptive but is at the same time a member of the other alliance partner's forum (i.e. is a member of both region's forums) then both regions should be included in determining disciplinary action (or at the very least, consultation should take place).

These are only preliminary thoughts on this issue, so please pick them apart at your leisure.

Of course, I agree with your delegates that the next major step ought to be that we Europans set about drafting a revised treaty for your perusal. We have had a good deal of conversation in this thread so far that we can probably incorporate some more "updated" opinions and ideas.

Please do not take any of my suggestions as set in stone, they are only suggestions for your perusal and comment. If my tone is matter-of-fact, it is only because I wish to be clear.

Anyway, have a good day all. I look forward to finalizing an alliance treaty!
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Joe Bobs
Member Avatar
Former Delegate of Q102
Member
Quote:
 
Also as far as the military thingy, I though we were now willing to offer such assistance given the fact that some of the free-port has been removed ans also these would be our allies, and the impression I was always under was that we offer support to allies, but not to say 'friendly regions' unless a exception.


I agree!

I like Orioni's suggested ammendments too. They read well and I think they should be included.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Republic of Aaronyne
Member Avatar

Member
Rekamgil
Jun 13 2006, 11:39 PM
1. On military aid; both regions should agree to assist the other region if they come under unwarranted attack by a third region. This should be a sine qua non of our alliance. I am amenable to the inclusion of other forms of military aid, but I think they ought to be voluntary. However, the two signatory regions must defend against any outside and unprovoked aggression. In short, our alliance should be a compulsory, defensive, military alliance. Any military aid requested above and beyond the needs of immediate defense should remain voluntary (but encouraged). Having read through this thread, I think these terms will be acceptable to many of your delegates here.


i totally agree if either region is invaded the other region must help. That is a major element of our treaties so far. As you may see we have twice now assisted Lazarus anyway we can with their invader problems.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Rekamgil
Member Avatar

Diplomat
Excellent. For the record, I personally (and I don't think anyone in our Senate) has any problem with your so-called Lazurus incident. In our Senate I had to ask certain questions in the best interests of Europa. But Tag answered them satisfactorily. Now that I have read through your forums I am completely satisfied. Please do not think that the Europan Senate has any problem with the way in which your region handled any past alliance issues. We trust you. If we did not, we would not be here discussing an alliance!

Let's all be friends! :yay: And beat off any bastard invaders that want to disrupt either of our peaceful existences!


EDIT re: post below: V V V Thanks Zakaroo V V V
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Zakaroo
Member Avatar
Priceless National Treasure
Administrator
lol, well said.

As far as lazarus goes, just so your getting to hear it from the horses mouth so to speak, in our treaty with them it states that the heads of government or someone similar must ask for assistance (basically someone from lazarus) the first time this didnt happen, we were only told about them being invaded by a third party ans tbh werent sure what to believe. However they recently asked for aid and we did help however we could, granted it wasnt much, but our security councillor was absent sooo...however you have my word that should you guys come under attack, and want our help, we would offer however we could ;) just wanted to sort that out, so you know for sure :)
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Nevareion
Member Avatar
Bringing fabulousness closer

An independant judiciary would be compromised by this:
Quote:
 
Article IV – With consideration for, and authority over, Article II, any nation from either region, who, in any way shape or form, is thought to be disruptive, discourteous or disregarding towards either region or the laws present there, is to be tried in his home region using the procedures in place. The outcome of that trial is to be final in both regions. Puppet nations should be tried in the nation they reside in. The ruling still stands in both regions.

as it takes no account of differences in law or legal system. Effectively this clause creates a unified legal code as the result of a verdict in one region is made binding on the courts of the other. As a Judge I would rather see an extradition clause of some sort where one region can request the expulsion of a member for crimes commited but must petition the courts of the other region in order to do so.[/judge]
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Tagmatium Rules
Member Avatar
Protonobilissimuspanhyperatus
Diplomat
Do you mean literally an extradition process?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous)
Go to Next Page
« Previous Topic · The Lobby · Next Topic »
Add Reply