Users browsing this thread:

**Jay Coop** · 01-04-2021, 09:45 PM

It's nonsense to claim that our regional sovereignty will be violated by this treaty. If that was the case, then the WALL violates the regional sovereignty of all its member regions, which it doesn't. Where in the treaty would it obligate TSP to vote in line with the other member regions of the PfS and disregard the vote of the people? Nowhere.

4× Cabinet minister /// 1× OWL director /// CRS member /// SPSF

My History

**Belschaft** · 01-04-2021, 09:46 PM

If we’re already in “alignment” with them then would we need a treaty to bind our WA vote?

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

PREVIOUS ROLES

(This post was last modified: 01-04-2021, 10:08 PM by Belschaft.)

***Kris Kringle*** · 01-04-2021, 11:39 PM

(01-04-2021, 09:45 PM)Jay Coop Wrote: It's nonsense to claim that our regional sovereignty will be violated by this treaty. If that was the case, then the WALL violates the regional sovereignty of all its member regions, which it doesn't. Where in the treaty would it obligate TSP to vote in line with the other member regions of the PfS and disregard the vote of the people? Nowhere.

To be fair, any treaty can be, maybe not a violation of our sovereignty, but perhaps a limitation on how we can exercise it. The issue here seems to be that, to some, the terms of this proposed treaty are beyond what they consider to be an acceptable limitation of our sovereignty, regardless of how acceptable WALL or other treaties might be to the regions in them.

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

***Tsunamy*** · 01-05-2021, 12:05 AM

(01-04-2021, 09:45 PM)Jay Coop Wrote: It's nonsense to claim that our regional sovereignty will be violated by this treaty. If that was the case, then the WALL violates the regional sovereignty of all its member regions, which it doesn't. Where in the treaty would it obligate TSP to vote in line with the other member regions of the PfS and disregard the vote of the people? Nowhere.

The question is whether or not a "recommendation" as its listed in the treaty is expected to be binding.

-tsunamy
[forum admin]

**Rebeltopia** · 01-05-2021, 12:12 AM

This was my discussion with Omega yesterday in discord

[Image: c1tIfZ2.png]

"...if you're normal, the crowd will accept you. But if you're deranged, the crowd will make you their leader." - Christopher Titus
Deranged in NS since 2011

One and ONLY minion of LadyRebels
The OUTRAGEOUS CRAZY other half of LadyElysium

POSITIONS! POSITIONS, EVERYONE!!

Quotes

***Tsunamy*** · 01-05-2021, 09:19 AM

I mean, fwiw, I don't actually mind if we have a process for SC voting in the WA. To be the old man here, but when I was delegate I always consulted with the Cabinet on any of the SC proposals before voting. GA votes are, eh, whatever, but SC should probably be more aligned with our security perspective.

As such, if these aren't legally binding (meaning that voting differently won't automatically kill the treaty) and they will help us coordinate with some of our allies — I don't see anything objectionable.

Would still be interested in stats re: voting between us and the charter members, but otherwise, looks good.

-tsunamy
[forum admin]

***sandaoguo*** · 01-05-2021, 10:22 AM

I think the concerns here about TSP’s sovereignty touch on an issue that hasn’t been discussed much, and that is the realities of how TSP can be powerful and influential in the game. We can’t bully our way into that position as a defender region, which is exactly what demanding special treatment would be doing. Diplomacy is the art of inter-regional cooperation, not co-optation. We can’t go to other regions and say, “We think you ought to vote the way we want and enter into a treaty that gives us more power than you.” That’s a pretty ridiculous proposition, but it’s exactly what Belschaft is saying we should be doing. It’s an imperialistic view of diplomacy and unlikely to succeed in winning over anybody.

If TSP wants to grow our power and influence, we have three options: become raider and do it through force alone; stay defender and go it alone, while others band together without us; or stay defender, cooperate with others, build bridges, and grow our power and influence in a way that lifts all boats. A treaty like this is a really significant bridge. While I wish the name was better, the project itself will build strong ties and, if managed effectively, be an institution other regions in the future will aspire to join. It would be a mistake to not do this.

I understand the concerns about losing some level of autonomy over the Delegate’s vote, though the notion that we would lose sovereignty over it is a misrepresentation of the treaty. But it’s important to realize we would have a major seat at the table. An organization like this would open avenues of cooperation beyond Delegate voting—it could be a boon to WA development across the board. And because it could attract new regions over time, it could be a great opportunity to get regions into the broader defender bloc. These are opportunities we would lack in a go-it-alone approach. Not just lack, but actually give away to those who ultimately do move forward with this. Again, I think it would be a big mistake to not pass this treaty.

(This post was last modified: 01-05-2021, 10:25 AM by sandaoguo.)

anjo · 01-05-2021, 11:04 AM

Regarding voting stats, I've gone through the last 25 OWL Votes on SC proposals that actually reached the WA voting floor (that accounts for about the last quarter year) and compared their results to the votes of XKI's and TRR's delegates on them.

The raw results can be found here.

Basically, we had all three vote the exact same way on about 60% of those proposals. In 24% of all cases, there was either XKI or TRR not voting the same as TSP and the other (so though there was a conflict, TSP was with the required three-fifths majority).
The remaining 16% of cases are TSP voting opposed to XKI's and TRR's stance, so we'd have been overruled there. That would've been the case on Commend Kenmoria (TSP against), Condemn The Free Joy State (TSP against), Commend The Red Fleet (TSP for), and Commend Wallenburg (TSP against) for those proposals (links lead to the OWL discussion on the proposal in question if you're interested in the background of our voting stance).

(This post was last modified: 01-05-2021, 11:06 AM by anjo.)

***sandaoguo*** · 01-05-2021, 11:15 AM

Those stats are interesting! Thank you for collecting them Smile

I do think it’s worth mentioning that not every single proposal would end up with a recommendation, in the long run. It’s not mandatory that the organization issue them— just when a signatory requests a debate and the org adopts a recommendation with 60% support.

In the event we do end up on the opposite side of a vote, whether we go with the recommendation, abstain, or vote opposite is a matter of a diplomacy, which is currently the case as well.

***Tsunamy*** · 01-05-2021, 12:49 PM

Thanks Anjo; that's useful. And, really, if the other regions are the outliers, then TSP would be benefiting from the extra voting power if we could pull them this way.

And, as Glen said better, this is opening the potential to more cooperation, but isn't really requiring it — so really want to do have to lose?

I think this deserves a h/t to Omega and the rest of the Cabinet for opening such discussions. I'll be looking forward to voting for this when it comes to that.

-tsunamy
[forum admin]