(06-30-2014, 12:14 PM)Tsunamy Wrote: Personally, I can't stand bickering over semantics. If we think an NAP would have the same effect as a Treaty and the NAP stops dissent, I'd go for the NAP. Or call it an NAP despite it being a Treaty. Whatever.

In any case, I feel ill-prepared to engage much this this debate, so publicly I'm not going to say anything until it gets motioned to a vote.

I prefer going with Treaty because it places our relationship with TRR at the same level as our relationships with regions like Balder, TNI, Europeia, etc. Having a NAP would imply a lower precedence. I'd rather keep it as a Treaty, if possible.

Belschaft wants a non-aggression pact, which doesn't make any sense because TRR isn't aggressive and never will be. Military cooperation already happens. TRR will not accept a treaty that doesn't create a mutual defense obligation, either. An NAP would be nothing but a document saying we won't attack each other. It's not merely a name change for what we already have.

I thought we were all aware that Belschaft was going to oppose this no matter what? Why are any of us considering making changes for him?

I've said so many times that we need to be unified behind this. Don't just give up at the first sign of dissent. We've been building ourselves up for it since the very beginning! If you can't stand the "bickering," then just don't pay attention to the thread! It's incredibly important that Cabinet members don't start throwing out ideas and revisions, especially when it's to assuage the group of people we've known all along would be steadfastly opposed to the treaty. This is not just some Charter amendment. This is a negotiated bilateral treaty, and making changes on our side is only going to throw everything into disarray.

Also, Tsunamy, TNI is at "war" with TRR in name only. It is just run-of-mill R/D rivalry. Like I explained in the Assembly thread, TNI (and the UIAF) declare war against any defender group or region that defends against it. Their "war" with TRR is because the FRA liberated a region TNI took over. Their "war" with the UDL is because the UDL defended a former "colony" of LKE against a raider invasion. When it comes to these people, "war" is a useless term.

(06-30-2014, 01:07 PM)Sandaoguo Wrote: I thought we were all aware that Belschaft was going to oppose this no matter what? Why are any of us considering making changes for him?

We thought that, but I personally never expected him to try and negotiate about it. So why don't we negotiate back instead of trying to force this on everybody?

(06-30-2014, 01:16 PM)Arbiter08 Wrote:

(06-30-2014, 01:07 PM)Sandaoguo Wrote: I thought we were all aware that Belschaft was going to oppose this no matter what? Why are any of us considering making changes for him?

We thought that, but I personally never expected him to try and negotiate about it. So why don't we negotiate back instead of trying to force this on everybody?

Because he's not negotiating, and neither are we 'forcing' this on anybody. He knows very well that TRR will not accept a revision that does away with the military aspects of the treaty.

Seriously guys, please do not flake out on this. We've spent the last month girding ourselves for a political fight. We all knew what were in for. Don't give up now.

I've said previously I'm not going to say anything publicly -- but I'm a bit concerned you're being a bit disingenuous with this. And one hand you're saying that the military elements are minimal and/or unimportant and then on the other hand you're saying they're fundamental to the treaty.

And -- to Arb's point -- it sucks when people try to be reasonable.

Please give me until tonight before any of you guys post. I do want to pursue a treaty, but at the same time I want to make sure that we can have a decent and negotiated debate in the Assembly. It's long overdue.

(06-30-2014, 02:47 PM)Tsunamy Wrote: I've said previously I'm not going to say anything publicly -- but I'm a bit concerned you're being a bit disingenuous with this. And one hand you're saying that the military elements are minimal and/or unimportant and then on the other hand you're saying they're fundamental to the treaty.

Let me just clarify this. I haven't said the military components are minimal. In the Assembly thread, I said military cooperation is ancillary. It's something we already do without a treaty, and NS treaties include it merely because it's tradition.

However, mutual defense is absolutely fundamental. TRR will not accept a treaty without it, and frankly neither should TSP, as we would certainly like to have ensured protection against attack as well.

(06-30-2014, 02:47 PM)Tsunamy Wrote: And -- to Arb's point -- it sucks when people try to be reasonable.

Except that Belschaft and SB aren't being reasonable. Just because they're offering something and calling it an alternative or a compromise doesn't make it reasonable. A non-aggression pact with TRR is pointless and doesn't pursue any of the interests or goals of this treaty. They know that, which is why they're suggesting it. Belschaft has made it clear that he will not support any treaty with TRR so long as we are allied with TNI. So he's being disingenuous when he says that a non-aggression pact would allow us to come back in 6-8 months and consider a treaty.

We all knew beforehand that these were the arguments they were going to make. So I don't get why you guys are starting to change your positions now. That's very frustrating for me, considering I'm the one who is going to suffer the political fallout if the Cabinet isn't united on this treaty.

So, I'm just poking around now ... but is Sedge the VD of TRR?

And -- what you're missing GR -- is that not all of us are as knowledgeable about the FA aspects of this. I'm staying out of the public debate primarily because I don't want to get raked over the coals because of something I misunderstood or something I wasn't told.

Yes, he is. He was appointed VD earlier this year I believe.

Yes, I remain committed to passing a treaty, not a NAP. What I do want to avoid is unnecessary confrontation.

(06-30-2014, 04:23 PM)Kris Kringle Wrote: Yes, he is. He was appointed VD earlier this year I believe.

... is this an important fact?