I honestly see nothing to be gained here, aside from a lapsing of the country into the sort of mindless exchanges of diplomats, disputes over nonsense, fake alliances of the sort mentioned in the Whereases, and so on. Even the bill doesn't really present a solid argument, I think, over why we could possibly want this - it just speaks of "possibilities" to "learn and benefit."
Oh, Come on! You really should know better than this fearmongering about fake wars and stuff.
You've separated into really weird categories. As if cultural ambassadors or community events are the same as hypothetical fake wars and alliances. I'll try to get to each example separately, because that makes much more sense.
Apart from whatever the formal title would be, the general idea of allowing ambassadors between likeminded (micro)nations to accomodate the exchange of ideas, culture and personal contacts seems not at all a bad idea to me. It would be silly to have diplomats discuss territorial disputes or the economy of course. But just have people come here to bring diversity and send people to investigate potential opportunities that can be found in cooperation with other nations, I dont really see what there is against this idea. Currently, this would be impossible. After all, discussing with any nations the possibility of such exchange by the government could be seen as a formal relation. This bill would allow the government to do this, but in no way does it obligates the government to do so, so if we dont have time or interest in a certain nation, thats no problem at all.
This is just a red herring.
No party, no MC, no Senators, no government, is interested in declaring fake wars on other micronations.
Even if they did, THE CURRENT WALL DOES NOT ACTUALLY PREVENT THE GOVERNMENT FROM DECLARING FAKE WAR. Nothing in the current legislation prevents us from declaring fake war on real nations, fake nations, organisations or even vague unspecified container terms
For example. Yes, there are bug nations that seem to enjoy going to "war" with each other, but we have a long cultural and political tradition that would certainly prevent us from engaging in such sillyness. Otherwise it might as well have happened before. No legislation currently prevent any bug nation from declaring war on us. Our response to these things will not change as a result of this will, we will still IGNORE them. You know that this is not going to happen if we pass this bill, so Im dissappointed that you would start about it
The wall does not prevent us from officially recognising a nation. In fact it only deals with non recognised micronations, so I dont really get your point here. What it does prevent us from is to first engage in contact with a nation that would really enable us to find out if recognising them is a good idea. Right now, if some nation that is worthy of official recognition appears the government cannot do anything like exchange ambassadors or negotiate about recognition. We can only recognise them at the risk of finding out later that we were wrong to do so or completely ignore them, which in such case would be quite a shame.
The bill does not force us to do anything. A government can just say no. If the government does not have time to engage in these activities, than nothing is lost by the passage of this bil. If the government does have time, whats the problem. In fact, any formal contacts being an investment is the best way to ensure the government doesnt go overboard with this, when we wouldnt benefit.
Yeah, cause the intense partisan debate that cultural exchange brings along is so much worse than what you and Miestra have going on. (I know sarcasm in an actual debate is pretty deadly, but its very late and come on, seriously?)
It forces nothing. Only if we want to. Currently we get lots of emails from nations, mostly not too serious. I assume the government either ignores this or sends a polite no thanks back. We can keep doing that. And honestly, mst of the "singular secessionists" are pretty easily recognisable.
Im not sure what the exact definition of alliance is (I think there are two Dutch translations), but my main association is military. This is again something that I think no one is really interested it. But if we are really that much more serious than other nations, I really dont think we need this law to prevent us from engaging in this.
Again, not something that anyone here seems really interested in. Im sure the current govenment parties are not really looking to join a club. If the RUMP can promise to do the same, we should be fine.
Events seems a rather broad term. I guess it depends on what the event is to say if this is beneficial. But in there really a reason we should ban the government from any meetings, discussions, cultural events with micronations, especially if the elected government believes Talossa could benefit fromt his
Exactly.
Me neither. Officially recognising? Not what the wall is about. (See above). Joining? Joining what. We are Talossa. Condemning? I dont really see a reason for the government to officially condemn something or someone really ought to be officially condemned. But thats rather obvious right? Not sure where you were going with this.
Depends on what you call official. (One problem with the current law might be that it isnt really clear.) I can imagine that an agreement between ministers of two nations to exchange ideas or ambassadors or even tourist or whatever could be considered official, that informal chatting between two persons behind closed doos is not really going to enlighten the rest of the nation, and that a foreign minister is going to walk against a lot of walls if he has to be constantly careful not to make any agreement official.
Like this one?
I always thought the RUMP quite liked pomp and illusion, like with our detailed non existant army or our numerous official holidays, which you thought was absolutely crucial for the government to announce each time to keep Talossa running
Seriously though, Im sure that active citizens will notice which things actually made Talossa more fun and which are just decoration and judge a government accordingly.
Exactly. Talossa is supposed to be fun and its not the same for everyone. Thats great, right?
No, we don't.
Exactly the opposite of the impression the semi permeable wall gives me.
Generally, this reminds of the scaremongering coming from your party when we proposed that we really shouldnt ban people from being a citizen of a micronation in their sparetime. Talossa would overflow with people who would not shut up about wars and fake alliances. None of that happened. If we are really that awesome, if we are really that attractive, why then are we so very afraid about the smallest possibility of a dent in our image. Shouldnt we be more confident? Shouldnt we trust that our government, elected by the people, can make decisions with regards to foreign policy that dont lead to fake wars and alliances (again, seriously?), but in cultural exchange, learning from each others challenges and potential friendship and activity between two like minded nations. And that if the government slips up and gets involved with bug nations and singular seccesionist who think a micronation is like Europa Universalis, that the people will just elect a new government that doesnt do these things?