| TRR treaty |
Well. We did negotiate a NAP with Lazarus when Milograd was their Chairman, and we have negotiated a treaty with the region where Milograd is residing. I'd say that isn't so relevant to our relationship with the region itself.
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
(06-30-2014, 04:20 PM)Tsunamy Wrote: 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. If there's anything you want to know, I can explained it for you. I just don't want anybody in the Cabinet to think, "Well, they're calling this a compromise, and compromise is good, so why don't we accept it?" There is one big bottom line in this. TRR will not accept a treaty that doesn't include mutual defense if either of us is attacked. Without that, a treaty is worthless to them. It's the only thing that we're not already doing. That does mean that, if TNI decides to attack TRR directly again, then we will have to make a decision. But we will have to make a decision whether or not there's a treaty with TRR. We will have to decide if we're okay with a military organization violating GCR sovereignty, in a silly war that is nothing more than basic R/D rivalry. Regarding Sedge, it's just something I think we're going to have to get over. Yes, the Devonitians coup was bad. But we also created an ironclad alliance with the military group that wantonly attacked TRR. There are two sides to the history of bad relations. But new people are in charge in TSP and in TRR. This is an opportunity to put the past behind us.
I thought only Charter amendments needed five days of voting?
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
Yeah, I suppose that is the case!
Quote:Section 3 - Ministry of Foreign Affairs It's been a while since we've voted on a treaty...
It has been a while since we voted on a treaty -- so I wasn't aware of the timetables.
While this is floating the law a bit, I'm tempted to keep the voting open the full five days. I don't really want to shorten the dates after they have been announced. Thoughts? It looks like it will pass either way.
-tsunamy
[forum admin]
Personally I should shorten it, but it won't be the end of the world if you keep it at five days.
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
Eh... I would just change the date to 3 days, since that's what the Charter says. I don't like introducing more variables into passing this treaty. :\
Alright. It's done. I don't like really like it, but I updated it accordingly.
-tsunamy
[forum admin]
GR -- this passed, as I posted in the voting thread. I don't know if the TRR is still voting or if it can be posted in the FA documents? I'll leave that for you.
-tsunamy
[forum admin] |
| Users browsing this thread: |
| 1 Guest(s) |