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

It's casual- Sharikan
The Gameplayer also known as Kangly/Kang/Kangles

Reply

As another matter, this leaves redundant treaties with TRR. How does the Cabinet intend to handle those?

Reply

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?

_{Minister of Media, Subversion and Sandwich Making}
^{Associate Justice of the High Court and Senior Moderator}

---

PREVIOUS ROLES

Former Delegate (x2.5)
Former Member of the Committee for State Security
Former Chief Justice of The High Court (x3)
Former Minister of Foreign Affairs (x2)
Former Chair of the Assembly (x3)
Former Minister of Security (x2)
Former Local Councillor (x2.5)
Former Forum Administrator
Former Minister of Media

Reply

As another matter, this leaves redundant treaties with TRR. How does the Cabinet intend to handle those?

 

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.

[Image: Lj1SunN.png]
Formerly Banned For Still Unspecified "OOC Toxicity"

Reply

Full support

Deputy Regional Minister of the Planning and Development Agency(March 8-May 19, 2014)

Local Council Member(April 24-August 11)

Court Justice of TSP(August 15-December 7)

Quotes

"The 1% is like a 1% battery charge. It will die out if it is not charged(the charge is the 99%). But if you don't charge it, it will die for sure, sooner or later"
- Me (2001- Present)

"Change is the world's blood"
- Me (2001-Present)

[Image: 9ehfkQV.png]

Reply

As another matter, this leaves redundant treaties with TRR. How does the Cabinet intend to handle those?

 

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?

_{Minister of Media, Subversion and Sandwich Making}
^{Associate Justice of the High Court and Senior Moderator}

---

PREVIOUS ROLES

Former Delegate (x2.5)
Former Member of the Committee for State Security
Former Chief Justice of The High Court (x3)
Former Minister of Foreign Affairs (x2)
Former Chair of the Assembly (x3)
Former Minister of Security (x2)
Former Local Councillor (x2.5)
Former Forum Administrator
Former Minister of Media

Reply

I would like to reiterate my earlier question, as I don't feel it's been properly answered.

---

Wintreath Thane of Diplomatic Officers
Fmr. Local Councillor (9/9/15 - c. 10/15)

---

Discord:Katie#3933

Reply

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

(This post was last modified: 01-19-2018, 03:20 PM by Roavin.)

Reply

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

Former Delegate of the South Pacific
Posts outside High Court venues should be taken as those of any other legislator.
I do not participate in the regional server, but I am happy to talk through instant messaging or on the forum.

Legal Resources:
THE MATT-DUCK Law Archive | Mavenu Diplomatic Archive | Rules of the High Court | Case Submission System | Online Rulings Consultation System

(This post was last modified: 01-19-2018, 03:30 PM by Kris Kringle.)

Reply

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?

-tsunamy
[forum admin]

Reply