Yes, I get your point, but I genuinely don't understand what purpose including their names serves. Why do we need to recognize the legitimacy of people who might not even be the heads of state in as little as a few months?

Because it is a memorable treaty - each treaty should be memorable and unique where possible. This will be one such thing.

Anyhow, they've (their cabinet) accepted the current draft of the treaty. I've inquired if they'd consent to remove the re-ratification clause citing Uni's concerns. Their cabinet would prefer to keep it and cited the logic below.

Logic for keeping it: In a year, we'll have to think about this relationship again and it'll come to the front of our minds and be fresh. So perfect for laying new foundations and plans to strengthen what we have at that time.

Logic for removing it: Transient TSP politics could see it become a victim.

The Ministry of Foreign Affairs (Sopo, Hile and I) is firmly in favour of keeping it, but I'm happy to pass on Uni's request.

I'm fine keeping the re-ratification clause.

Likewise, if we are re-ratifying it ... the heads of state will at least be somewhat updated. So ... sure. Why not?

I'm not fine with keeping the re-ratification clause and the logic is batshit silly that is being supported by both cabinets. If TSP has a problem with the treaty, we won't need a bloody mandated renewal period to remind us where the repeal button is - to suggest otherwise is just insulting to TSP.

This is bad treaty-making -- there's a reason why re-ratification clauses are not a standard mechanism in treaties: they're an invitation for high octave FA politics which we don't need - we don't need to set a date for a future opportunity to bitch and moan about something; we already do that without scheduling it in.

(03-03-2015, 01:34 AM)Unibot Wrote: I'm not fine with keeping the re-ratification clause and the logic is batshit silly that is being supported by both cabinets. If TSP has a problem with the treaty, we won't need a bloody mandated renewal period to remind us where the repeal button is - to suggest otherwise is just insulting to TSP.

This is bad treaty-making -- there's a reason why re-ratification clauses are not a standard mechanism in treaties: they're an invitation for high octave FA politics which we don't need - we don't need to set a date for a future opportunity to bitch and moan about something; we already do that without scheduling it in.

It is hardly "batshit logic," Unibot. While I was wasn't as open with this in the Assembly ... we already have a grossly inactive treaty with Balder. And our renewal with TNP certainly brought about closer relations.

You're looking at it that something that will be repealed as opposed to something that's to be renewed. It's a mechanism to stop treaties of being "worthless" while at the same requires us to maintain a relationship.

Is it the way TSP has generally dealt with treaties? No.
Is it something that could be useful to our FA going forward? Absolutely.

I did ask them about removing the clause, but they were unwilling - I did give your concerns to them, but I did find myself agreeing with their logic on keeping it; I chose to look at the positives rather than the possible negatives of a renewal. Whatever comes the cabinet/Minister of Foreign Affairs will handle it.

I had planned to wait before presenting the treaty to the Assembly but found out at 4am my time that they'd presented it to their Regional Assembly, which is public to all. So with Tsu's permission, brought it to our assembly.

Quote:I did ask them about removing the clause, but they were unwilling

That's really not comforting to me - doesn't it worry you that Spiritus has been like not at all flexible about the wording of this agreement? Is this what our relationship will be like with Spiritus?

I like the idea. I like that it MAKES us have to pay attention to out allies.
While I kind of understand your concerns Uni, I think that this is a smart idea that brings issues we have with our treaties and allies to the forefront.

Henn, what was your idea?

Of all the things that worry me, that doesn't. I found it manageable. Anyway Cormac is likely to shoot the treaty down over there so you have nothing to worry about.

*shrugs*

Well as that has fallen flat, the Pacific draft will most likely do the same. So I'll leave it for whoever takes over to decide how to do it as I'm not doing a single thing more now unless heaven forbid an ally is couped.

Quote:I like that it MAKES us have to pay attention to out allies.

We shouldn't need to put our treaties in forced jeopardy every 12 months to MAKE our allies pay attention to us, or vice versa.

Quote:I think that this is a smart idea that brings issues we have with our treaties and allies to the forefront.

We could do that without requiring re-ratification, we could have a mandated summit or something of that sort - stuff that's been suggested.