The Lampshade Accords [The South Pacific-Spiritus] |
Let's face it, guys. This is a defender treaty. In the history of TSP, we've had far more governments overtly or implicitly anti-defender. Having this treaty put on the chopping block every year, to be saved only by a supermajority, is reckless. I have no clue why Spiritus would even accept that clause during negotiations. I certainly wouldn't have done so. And I don't think we should be introducing such gambling into what are supposed to be long-term relationships.
Even without that clause, what's to stop anti-defenders from putting it up for repeal anyways? Either way it could still happen, so your argument is moot.
The offending clauses must be removed or watching this fail will be amusing.
Darkstrait :ninja:
Former Justice, Former Local Councilor, Roleplayer, Former SPSF Deputy for Recruitment, Politically Active Citizen, Ex-Spammer Supreme, and Resident Geek "Hats is very fashion this year."
I actually think I'm still a citizen of Spritus and do think they would make a great ally (they have a lot of fun people there).
However, the treaty has a bit too many loopholes that Kris and Tac have pointed out. I will take a look at the Spiritus side of the debate when I have time this week. Our treaties should be valuable to our allies and to us. Unibot, if the re-ratification period was changed to two years would that work for you? Escade ~ Positions Held in TSP ~ Delegate | Vice Delegate Minister of Regional Affairs, | Minister of Foreign Affairs | Minister of Military Affairs ~ The Sparkly One ~ My Pinterest
I don't see anything wrong with this treaty at all. I mean I don't like the wording of it meaning I just think you could use simpler words but I think it's good enough.
Europeian Ambassador to The South Pacific
Former Local Council Member Former Minister of Regional Affairs Former High Court Justice
If Spiritus wants to change it we should. We need an update on their discussion so we can progress.
FA will be speaking to Spiritus' FA minister sometime tomorrow and comparing feedback. We will then work on suggested amendments from both sides and try to make a document that works.
Excellent, good to hear.
|
Users browsing this thread: |
2 Guest(s) |