| 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: |
| Q102 - Europa Alliance; For Europans' views | |
|---|---|
| Tweet Topic Started: Apr 26 2006, 07:20 PM (2,367 Views) | |
| Joe Bobs | Jun 16 2006, 03:18 PM Post #61 |
|
Former Delegate of Q102
![]()
|
Goddam Nev is smart. :P |
![]() |
|
| Rekamgil | Jun 16 2006, 04:23 PM Post #62 |
![]()
|
Right, okay, my concern (originally voiced by Orioni) is this: suppose Tag (sorry to keep beating up on you Tag) commits some aggregious offense here in Q102 and is put on trial, found guilty and expelled. A unified code would suggest that Europa is obliged to ban him also. In Tag's case, such expulsion would be a huge blow to our region and it would clearly not be in our best interests to expel him. Again, of course, this is an extreme example and I'm probably splitting hairs, but I want to be clear before moving ahead on Europa's treaty draft. So your extradition idea works better for me. As we all know, we are not federating here... just allying. This suggests, as Nev quite rightly pointed out, that we retain our own legal systems. Our alliance should stipulate that we work collaboratively on such cases and, as I've suggested, share intelligence on potentially troublesome nations. But it is not absolutely necessary that either nation ban a member nation if convicted by the other partner nation (Alhough if we do not ban a nation found guilty by the other, we should be obliged to inform our ally that we have not banned them and offer some explanation as to why). Our alliance, which should stipulate and necessitate the sharing of such information, should protect each other's interests even if we are not automatically expelling nations found guilty in our partner region. It is for the above reasons that I placed emphasis on intelligence sharing, as opposed to joint legal action, in my above post (of June 13). Is Q102 in general agreement here? If so, we shall begin our draft. We are also discussing this in our Senate and have plans to draft our updated treaty version very soon. |
![]() |
|
| Pacifist_Cowards | Jun 16 2006, 05:59 PM Post #63 |
|
Drunkard, orgy-loving part-slav and regional flirt
![]()
|
Sounds fine to me lol. Maybe we can have a proper draft this time, that didn't take 10 minutes... |
![]() |
|
| Rekamgil | Jun 16 2006, 06:26 PM Post #64 |
![]()
|
ya ya smart a$$ :P You must learn the value of saying things with verbosity; that is, trying to take the longest route possible to clearly say what it is you're trying to say so that eveyone involved can clearly understand what it is you mean; in this way one can more effectively (although perhaps not too efficiently) move forward and, in this case, go onto the next step in the treaty process.... he he B) |
![]() |
|
| Pacifist_Cowards | Jun 16 2006, 08:42 PM Post #65 |
|
Drunkard, orgy-loving part-slav and regional flirt
![]()
|
I most humbly appologise for my lack of a verbose post. I hope your most courtious natured person would not be offended if I chose to take the short route in future, that is, the route by which I say what I say in as few words as possible, so less typing time intrudes upon my drinking of cool alcoholic beverages. Sound like John Flippin' Presscott! |
![]() |
|
| Joe Bobs | Jun 16 2006, 10:23 PM Post #66 |
|
Former Delegate of Q102
![]()
|
I think it's fair to say Q102 is in agreement Rekamgil. Let's see the next draft! |
![]() |
|
| Nevareion | Jun 17 2006, 10:59 AM Post #67 |
|
Bringing fabulousness closer
![]()
|
Well more a process to request to expel to the Rejected Realms for crimes commited/legal breaches in the other region is what I was thinking as actual extradtition would be very hard to enforce. It would mean that each region could have the right to have a case heard for crimes commited in their region by a resident of the other. It would also mean that each region would keep its legal independance - so you could be found guilty in one region but not the other if the law was different. It would mean that each region would have a fast track access to the courts of the other. |
![]() |
|
| Rekamgil | Jun 19 2006, 02:05 PM Post #68 |
![]()
|
Noted. Thanks for the clarification. Please check back mid-week for our draft. |
![]() |
|
| Zakaroo | Jun 22 2006, 11:59 AM Post #69 |
|
Priceless National Treasure
![]()
|
looking forward to that, sounds like things are progressing well here which is a good sign ;) |
![]() |
|
| Orioni | Jun 24 2006, 04:45 PM Post #70 |
|
Europa Delegate
![]()
|
(I loved my wireless connection, untill the modem fried.) <insert draft here, writing...> |
![]() |
|
| Haken | Jun 24 2006, 05:10 PM Post #71 |
|
Unofficial Belgian
![]()
|
I like it already. :popcorn: edit: popcorn smiley suited. |
![]() |
|
| Joe Bobs | Jun 24 2006, 06:10 PM Post #72 |
|
Former Delegate of Q102
![]()
|
How about:
Sounds very official. :D |
![]() |
|
| Orioni | Jun 24 2006, 06:57 PM Post #73 |
|
Europa Delegate
![]()
|
There you go.
:P
|
![]() |
|
| Joe Bobs | Jun 24 2006, 07:14 PM Post #74 |
|
Former Delegate of Q102
![]()
|
I preferred mine.
:P joke! Brilliant Orioni. I have one, tiny niggle: Article I will need altering. If, for example, one of the regions had a dramatic change in direction, like they became Nazis or something, then the other region would want to pull out. So it shouldn't require both regions to break up the alliance. |
![]() |
|
| Nevareion | Jun 25 2006, 03:08 AM Post #75 |
|
Bringing fabulousness closer
![]()
|
On the whole I really like the way it is going. Now I wil be difficult, sorry :) ARTICLE I The Q102 constitution treats alliance as an Act of Parliament so Parliament can repeal them - to do otherwise would need a change of Constituional Law. However one region repealling it . Can I suggest: "..should only be dissolved following the Constitutional processes of the regions. Withdrawal require a one calendar month notification of intent to do so to allow both regions time to take into account the effects of disoloving the alliance..." Article II I really like this one. Article III Same point I raised previously. This means that each region is bound by the laws of the other. For example Q102 currenlty does not legally recognise the concept of a state secret. If Eurpoa does (does it? I've no idea!) and someone is found guilty of doing so how can the outcome of a trial apply here unless the Courts are unified? I would rather see a right for the Government of each region to have a hearing by the Courts of the other in order to request the application of the same sentence. That way the laws of each region could be separate but the regions could be confident of their case being heard whether or not a specific law applied. Article IV "The signatory regions agree to consider assistance for the defence of regions unfairly attacked" Until or if the Free Port Act is repealed we are unable to fulfill this part. Article VI Seems fine. Article VIII We would need to pass a separate law to cover this. Also I am a little worried about the freedom of speech aspect here. It would be very hard to judge. Previously we had a law that regarded breaching our neutrality and that issue came up. We decided that we could only really apply it to Government officials, ambassadors or others holding public office. I would prefer to see that here and add puppets. Something like: "If a nation holding public office in either region is seen to be publicly insulting towards, or otherwise derogatory to, this treaty or either of its named regions whether with a nation resident in the regions or with a puppet, they are to be reported to their home region and sanctioned in accordance with the law of their home region." I hope this isn't too awkward but I would also be keen to hear other thoughts on these points. |
![]() |
|
| 1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous) | |
| Go to Next Page | |
| « Previous Topic · The Lobby · Next Topic » |








