+- The South Pacific (https://tspforums.xyz)
+-- Forum: Hall of Historical Records (https://tspforums.xyz/forum-8.html)
+--- Forum: Archives (https://tspforums.xyz/forum-141.html)
+---- Forum: Fudgetopia Hall of Government (https://tspforums.xyz/forum-12.html)
+----- Forum: Assembly of the South Pacific (https://tspforums.xyz/forum-91.html)
+----- Thread: [PASSED] The January Accords (/thread-5896.html)
RE: [FA Thing] The January Accords - Kanglia - 01-19-2018
Aside from cosigning onto Glen's thoughts about any potential withdraw mechanisms, I like both the treaty wording and the other two signatories, so no real complaints from me.
Also heavily in favor of the provision allowing the regions to be on the opposite sides of R/D measures so long as it is not openly hostile. Good work guys
RE: [FA Thing] The January Accords - Farengeto - 01-19-2018
As another matter, this leaves redundant treaties with TRR. How does the Cabinet intend to handle those?
RE: [FA Thing] The January Accords - Belschaft - 01-19-2018
I'm generally against multi-lateral treaties, but this is simple enough that it's got no obvious "This is going to collapse in six-months" issues.
My main question would be - considering our existing treaty with TRR - we aren't simply signing a bi-lateral treaty with TEP?
RE: [FA Thing] The January Accords - Tim - 01-19-2018
(01-19-2018, 02:18 PM)Farengeto Wrote: As another matter, this leaves redundant treaties with TRR. How does the Cabinet intend to handle those?
(01-19-2018, 02:19 PM)Belschaft Wrote: I'm generally against multi-lateral treaties, but this is simple enough that it's got no obvious "This is going to collapse in six-months" issues.
My main question would be - considering our existing treaty with TRR - we aren't simply signing a bi-lateral treaty with TEP?
We're just seeing them as non-conflicting treaties that can both exist within the realm of the law.
RE: [FA Thing] The January Accords - Ryccia - 01-19-2018
Full support
RE: [FA Thing] The January Accords - Belschaft - 01-19-2018
(01-19-2018, 02:29 PM)Tim Wrote:(01-19-2018, 02:18 PM)Farengeto Wrote: As another matter, this leaves redundant treaties with TRR. How does the Cabinet intend to handle those?
(01-19-2018, 02:19 PM)Belschaft Wrote: I'm generally against multi-lateral treaties, but this is simple enough that it's got no obvious "This is going to collapse in six-months" issues.
My main question would be - considering our existing treaty with TRR - we aren't simply signing a bi-lateral treaty with TEP?
We're just seeing them as non-conflicting treaties that can both exist within the realm of the law.
That wasn't really my point/question Tim; we already have a treaty with TRR, and bi-lateral treaties are known to be more stable than multi-lateral ones. Why are we signing another treaty with TRR rather than a simpler one with TEP?
RE: [FA Thing] The January Accords - Rikutso - 01-19-2018
I would like to reiterate my earlier question, as I don't feel it's been properly answered.
RE: [FA Thing] The January Accords - Roavin - 01-19-2018
I'm not sure what you want to know, though. Can you give an example maybe?
EDIT: we cleared it up on Discord
Gesendet von meinem TA-1032 mit Tapatalk
[FA Thing] The January Accords - Kris Kringle - 01-19-2018
I will ask a series of questions, not out of cynicism or disagreement (I don't like providing partisan opinions!), simply so we can have information that I think is necessary:
Why do we want a treaty with the East Pacific?
When was this first discussed?
What is the current state of our relationship with them?
What steps have we taken to increase our contact with them in the weeks leading up to this submission?
Why are we signing a treaty with the East Pacific and the Rejected Realms, rather than simply one with the East Pacific?
What strategic value does the Cabinet see in signing this treaty?
What benefits will there be for each area of our government, from military to regional affairs?
What issues surfaced during the negotiations, if any, that the Assembly should know about?
What measures will the Cabinet take to ensure that this treaty will not eventually became a paper alliance?
Inviato dal mio iPhone utilizzando Tapatalk
RE: [FA Thing] The January Accords - Tsunamy - 01-19-2018
Following some of Kris' questions, how active have we been with TRR?
Also, while I appreciate better connecting with TEP, I can't ignore the feeling that there's a bit of an imbalance here. We've long wanted better relations with TEP and forcing a tri-lateral agreement rather than a bilateral one, seems ... almost condescending.
Can we take this proposal to mean that TEP isn't interested in a bilateral treaty with us? And, if not, why?