(04-06-2021, 03:33 AM)Altmoras Wrote: I support renewing the treaty, but I don't support removing the sunset clause. More treaties should have sunset clauses in general. They force us to regularly evaluate our allies and determine if they are in fact still our allies.

I understand your logic but the situation right now is a bit asymmetrical, as it's only in one of many binding documents. We would reasonably have to renegotiate something like that into all the others as well, which may end up being at different times etc.

As an alternative, I suggest that we do something like a "State of Foreign Affairs" that's issued something between once a term and once a year by the MoFA that goes through all extant binding documents and gives a statement for it to the assembly. I can do that as ministry policy or the Assembly could choose to write that into law as well.

(04-06-2021, 03:33 AM)Altmoras Wrote: I support renewing the treaty, but I don't support removing the sunset clause. More treaties should have sunset clauses in general. They force us to regularly evaluate our allies and determine if they are in fact still our allies.

Good examples of what happens when you don't have sunset clauses are our ill-fated treaties with Balder and Europeia, both of which ended as political footballs those regions used to shitpost at us.

Quote:Yes. It's an important component of FA that regions can make statements against each other if they do bad things. For example, if NPO does what it did in Osiris (which it won't, this is a hypothetical) then TSP can't make a statement condemning it.

If the NPO gets back up to their old tricks we should be repealing the treaty entirely so that clause would be irrelevant.

This ^^

I think having a sunset clause is always a good thing.  No marriage lasts forever, and it's good to be able to move apart amicably instead of going through a messy divorce.  The same is true for countries and regions.  Where you stand with a region in 2021 has to be different than where you stood in 2011 or 2016 because people come and go, and what worked will with Leader X may not work with Leader Y or Leader Z.  

There are no true democracies in a world where people are so scared of the whole 'raider and defender' situation that paranoia clouds every thought, so I won't even address that debate.  My own empirical evidence of only getting 2 votes in the LC contest shows me that the TSP may be many things, but it's not a true democracy when every newcomer is seen as a potential bad apple or a potential Wolf or Warden and thus kept from power.  I'm not judging; this is just a fact.  Therefore, to judge other regions as non-democratic is both hypocritical and silly.  So while I have many problems with NPO, I have no problem with them being draconian and non-democratic.  I don't have any problems with the TSP either, but don't pretend it's better or worse than anywhere else.  It just is what it is.  I support renewing the treaty and the sunset clause.

Democracy means that anyone can stand for election and ask the public to vote for them - it doesn't mean that anyone actually will choose to do so. "I lost the election so the region isn't really democratic" is the oldest and stupidest argument in the book - and the kind of thing which causes people to not want to vote for you.

(04-14-2021, 05:44 AM)Aglet Green Wrote: There are no true democracies in a world where people are so scared of the whole 'raider and defender' situation that paranoia clouds every thought, so I won't even address that debate.  My own empirical evidence of only getting 2 votes in the LC contest shows me that the TSP may be many things, but it's not a true democracy when every newcomer is seen as a potential bad apple or a potential Wolf or Warden and thus kept from power.  I'm not judging; this is just a fact.  Therefore, to judge other regions as non-democratic is both hypocritical and silly.  

I think I addressed this on the RMB, but I'll say it again here.  LC votes tend to be a popularity contest. Just the nature of the game.  So of course, the people that have been around longer and/or have put in more time engaging with the RMB regulars will tend to get majority of the votes.  That's how these things go.  I don't think it's accurate to state that every newcomer is "kept from power" because they didn't get very many votes in an LC election.  People vote for their friends and those that have the best name recognition. That's it.

Aside from that (so I'm not totally off topic!), after reading through this thread, I agree with the renewal of this treaty.  As for the sunset clause, if this treaty is the only one with a sunset clause, I'd say we remove it and then open up a broader discussion on the benefits/drawbacks of instituting a formal annual treaty review process.

I agree with the renewal of the treaty and support keeping the clause at this time. Having a clause gives us more flexibility and leverage for future relations.

(04-14-2021, 05:44 AM)Aglet Green Wrote: -snip-

If you're newer and inexperienced odds are against you regardless if there's any popularity wank going on. Quit complaining. It has nothing relevant to the conversation at hand about the Pax Capricorn. You could have just gave your opinion without the unnecessary stuff.

Where are with this Roavin?

(04-18-2021, 12:12 PM)Moonstar Wrote: Where are with this Roavin?

Thanks for the question, and holding me accountable! Discussions with NPO are complete, and it's with Cabinet right now to sign off (which is necessary as per Article VI Section 6 of the Charter).

Fellow Legislators,

we've concluded our talks with the New Pacific Order. They were enthusiastic to renew Pax Capricorn and were also willing to remove the sunshine clause. Furthermore, we discussed the censure clause and they would have assented to removing it if we preferred, though in this draft we've opted not to.

Shoutout to our ambassador Hya, who took the lead on negotiations with my guidance and did a fantastic job.

The change is the following:

Quote:

Article VI. Sunset Provisions.

Section 1. Every twelve months following the adoption of the treaty, it must be renewed through the process laid out for the adoption of new diplomatic agreements in each region’s laws and regulations.

Section 2. The failure to renew the treaty by either party will suspend the treaty's terms for at most thirty days.

Section 3. Should the treaty not be renewed by both parties by the end of those thirty days, it is to be considered repealed for all intents and purposes.

Chairwoman, as Minister of Foreign Affairs, I hereby declare in good faith that the amendment presented above is the result of a treaty negotiation with majority executive approval for the purposes of Article VI Section 6 of the Charter of the South Pacific, and request that the corresponding assembly procedure is initiated.

-- Roavin, your friendly lampshade-wearing MoFA