|
Post by Sir Alexandreu Davinescu on Mar 7, 2015 8:32:02 GMT -6
Sure you can. I mean, to me it seems obvious that we could benefit, though we will never find out for sure unless we tried, but you might still keep to your opinion about it being a waste of time. So , knowing that this the foreign minister is not unlikely to adhere to one of these positions in advance, I might not be convinced by a RUMP minister reporting that there is no benefit to be gained thinking yeah, "well he probably didnt even try" and you might not be convinced by a non RUMP minister reporting benefit, thinking "maybe there's benefit, but what about our time and dignity?" If the MinFor came back with actual information about valuable things to be gained by the ability to go in and out of alliances or whatnot, then this would not just be a waste of time. I have no ideological opposition to the idea, after all... my support for the semi-permeable wall is rooted in my belief that it has saved our country an enormous amount of time and energy that would have been consumed with tedious nonsense. Like Sir Cresti's analogy says, I don't want to be digging up our whole lawn and find nothing. Let's send out someone with a metal detector first. Then I won't just be willing to dig a hole, I'll hand you the shovel myself and cosponsor. Not sure I understand. You want to keep the part about removing the semi permeable wall and apart from that allow MinFor to investigate? Or do you only want to allow MinFor to investigate but nothing else? I haven't looked at specific language yet, but yes, I was thinking about removing the clause that prohibits that sort of investigation and then making it the MinFor's mandate to do that. While I have, as a result of this bill, been spending some time looking around myself (like on micronations.org) and have mostly had my opinion confirmed ("Please join us, we need more citizens!" "I declare an official holiday in my honour!", etc) there might be some nuggets of useful assistance or valuable activity. Based on the context of other bills from 16 years ago in the 25th Cosa, Talossa was flooded with statutes recognizing and then de-recognizing various micronations. The Semi-permeable Wall Act ended all of that. Talossa has changed substantially in those 16 years. We have a Ziu that passes serious bills, we have a king who doesn't sponsor most of those bills, we are mature (for the most part). Why would we go back and pursue the same follies? This is a really good point. Why are we trying to pursue the same follies? Plus, the micronational world is much, much smaller than it used to be. Keeping this law on the book is like laws protecting the US from being subverted by the Prussian monarchy backing up rebel Apaches. Another good point, and I agree: there's not much out there for us.
|
|
Dr. Txec dal Nordselvă
Puisne (Associate) Justice of the Uppermost Court
Fraichetz dels punts, es non dels mürs
Posts: 4,063
Talossan Since: 9-23-2012
|
Post by Dr. Txec dal Nordselvă on Mar 7, 2015 13:21:10 GMT -6
Please stop misquoting me AD. You know as well as I do that my point was that we have no reason to repeat our past mistakes in regards to other micronations and passing bills willy-nilly to bring them into our fold.
|
|
|
Post by Sir Alexandreu Davinescu on Mar 7, 2015 13:25:59 GMT -6
I know, it was a joke! You were clearly expressing disbelief that we would make the same mistakes... I was just turning it around to show that if we take the same path, there's no reason to think we won't make those same mistakes... so why would we want to do so? A lot of people have personal interests in micronations, and writing bills is fun. It seems like a really short hop to people writing bills about those micronations - alliances, ambassadors, fake wars, etc. That's something we can deal with, I'm sure, but there's no reason in the world why we should want to do so by removing the national policy against it unless we know there's something to be gained. Would you be on board with investigating first, Txec, and then uniting behind a future solution based on the results?
|
|
Tráveç Dun
Citizen of Talossa
Posts: 104
Talossan Since: 12-31-2014
|
Post by Tráveç Dun on Mar 12, 2015 12:54:20 GMT -6
Glüc, thanks for your long response. I suppose then what this all comes down to is indeed exchanges of ambassadors or emissaries. I'm still a little worried about harming our nation's dignity if we open up relations with the Grand Duchy of Fartsylvania or what have you, but I can't see any great harm lurking in the wings beyond that. I'm willing to look at anything that might inspire activity and immigration. I'm not entirely ready to commit yet, but I think it could be worth a try. This is not the Talossa of 16 years ago.
Perhaps one way to allay some fears would be to raise the requirements needed for wars and treaties? Since everyone seems against engaging in things like that.
|
|
Glüc da Dhi
Secretary of State
Posts: 6,112
Talossan Since: 5-14-2009
|
Post by Glüc da Dhi on Mar 13, 2015 18:28:26 GMT -6
Not sure I understand. You want to keep the part about removing the semi permeable wall and apart from that allow MinFor to investigate? Or do you only want to allow MinFor to investigate but nothing else? I haven't looked at specific language yet, but yes, I was thinking about removing the clause that prohibits that sort of investigation and then making it the MinFor's mandate to do that. While I have, as a result of this bill, been spending some time looking around myself (like on micronations.org) and have mostly had my opinion confirmed ("Please join us, we need more citizens!" "I declare an official holiday in my honour!", etc) there might be some nuggets of useful assistance or valuable activity. I'm sorry. Its most likely entirely my own fault, but that still is completely unclear to me. Do you want to get rid of the wall now AND task the minister with finding out what might be gained or do you just want to task the minister with doing so, but keep the wall (restrictions of formal relations with micronations.)
|
|
|
Post by Sir Alexandreu Davinescu on Mar 13, 2015 18:35:07 GMT -6
I would like to keep the restrictions on formal relations, while tasking the MinFor with investigating. Frankly, I think he will come back and say, "There's really not much out there of interest." If he comes back and says, "We can learn a lot from Nua Molo Principality, and I spoke to the Prince of High Kungfu and he told me about cheap hosting, and really we're missing out," then you can be damn sure I'll be happy to eat my words and co-sponsor a bill to open up formal relations.
|
|
Glüc da Dhi
Secretary of State
Posts: 6,112
Talossan Since: 5-14-2009
|
Post by Glüc da Dhi on Mar 13, 2015 18:49:50 GMT -6
Honestly that doesnt seem like much of a compromise. If a government investigates this and comes to the conclusion that nothing can be gained, then it probably wont start these formal relations. Nothing is lost. If you really would be convinced by a government that investigates this and believes something can be gained, then what exactly is the problem with passing this? Rather, I think its more likely that neither of us is going be convinced. Because it still would cost time. Meanwhile, MinFor will be hindered in its enquiries by not actually being allowed to engage in any formal relations. Rather than having another ideological debate in the ziu about whether we lose our dignity by any form of cultural exchange each time some case of cooperation is proposed, I believe we should give our elected government some flexibility to have a foreign policy.
|
|
Glüc da Dhi
Secretary of State
Posts: 6,112
Talossan Since: 5-14-2009
|
Post by Glüc da Dhi on Mar 13, 2015 18:53:41 GMT -6
Perhaps one way to allay some fears would be to raise the requirements needed for wars and treaties? Since everyone seems against engaging in things like that. Yeah, that sounds reasonable. Not sure how to go about that though. When I have time I will try to find a way to encorporate these suggestions in the bill. Help with this is welcomed of course.
|
|
|
Post by Txosuè Éiric Rôibeardescù on Mar 14, 2015 11:30:09 GMT -6
Marco polo... that is all
|
|
Lüc da Schir
Senator for Benito
If Italy wins a Six Nations match I will join the Zouaves
Posts: 4,125
Talossan Since: 3-21-2012
|
Post by Lüc da Schir on Mar 17, 2015 1:34:30 GMT -6
I'm still a little worried about harming our nation's dignity if we open up relations with the Grand Duchy of Fartsylvania or what have you It's entirely preposterous even to suppose that any elected government would engage in such relations with blatantly bogus micronations. The piece of law we seek to remove is an unnecessary restriction which quite frankly smells like bigoted prohibitionism. If anything, I'd add a provision that requires the consent of the Ziu to begin talks with a micronation, or a provision narrowing the scope of the relations with a micronation. Nobody around here is really into wasting time with, say, Fartsylvania and I'm fully confident any future government wouldn't want that, especially since his actions will be scrutinised by the people in the next General Election.
|
|
|
Post by Sir Alexandreu Davinescu on Mar 17, 2015 6:04:48 GMT -6
Honestly that doesnt seem like much of a compromise. If a government investigates this and comes to the conclusion that nothing can be gained, then it probably wont start these formal relations. Nothing is lost. If you really would be convinced by a government that investigates this and believes something can be gained, then what exactly is the problem with passing this? Rather, I think its more likely that neither of us is going be convinced. Because it still would cost time. Meanwhile, MinFor will be hindered in its enquiries by not actually being allowed to engage in any formal relations. Rather than having another ideological debate in the ziu about whether we lose our dignity by any form of cultural exchange each time some case of cooperation is proposed, I believe we should give our elected government some flexibility to have a foreign policy. Why would the MinFor need to be able to engage in alliances or whatever in order to investigate? What conceivable gain would the Kingdom of Talossa gain by encouraging the Government to engage in such? While our dignity is a minor concern, it ranks lower on my list of priorities than a lot of things we're discussing. A short list of other reasons why this is a bad idea might run as follows: - The Minister for Foreign Relations usually has very little to do. If we open up the possibility of sending envoys and accepting ambassadors and entering alliances and declaring fake war, then we open up the possibility for him to create his own activity and to make himself important - while gaining us nothing.
- I think there is pretty much no reason to do this, since I don't think the micronational world has much to offer us. No one has been able to suggest differently in any real terms... instead, I just hear that ideological debate of which you speak. But "We want this just because we want it" is not a convincing reason to change a policy that has set Talossa apart and above for so long. Let's have some specifics.
- As revealed by the debate over the bar on micronational citizenship, many Talossans have or had an interest in micronations. Whether or not Talossa got into an alliance or supported those other micronations in a "war" or whatever would become a political test or a test of friendship.
It is my belief that any MinFor instructed to investigate what can be gained from micronational alliances or envoys or embassies will come back with a pretty empty report, so I am entirely willing to support - in advance! - a bill to open up micronational relations if I am wrong. I would also expect that any MinFor who got this job would have to be one that supported the idea, so they would do their best work. There wouldn't be any point otherwise, and if I'm wrong, I actually want to know! I've looked at LOSS and micronations.org. I don't think that there is a wealth of knowledge or special tricks to be found, out there. I think that it's mostly a lot of squabbling and make-believe. If I'm wrong, then that would be awesome. If it helps Talossa, I am in favor of it. Let's investigate first!
|
|
|
Post by Sir Alexandreu Davinescu on Mar 18, 2015 7:55:41 GMT -6
To illustrate, I see a lot of this on micronational forums and interactions ("His Lordship Richard I, by the Grace of God, Lord of Mercia, GUM Delegate, and Ruling Lord of the Region of Clyro, King Richard I of Kothellond (Tsardom of Nolland region), King of Baneheilde, Member of the House of Peers of Kothellond, Member of the Congress of the Tsardom of Nolland, Lord High Admiral of the Tsardom of Nolland, General of the National Guard of the Tsardom of Nolland, Companion of Honour of the Tsardom of Nolland, Delegate of the Würtige Imperial Council, MP of Würtige Parliament, Foreign Affairs Minister of the Würtige Empire, Member of the Eternal Empire of New Winterdown Imperial Assembly, ex-President of the Confederate States of Prosperity, Knight of the Sovereign Military Order of Sealand, Hero of Somster, Member of the Most Honourable Order of the Throne of Sandus, Knight of the Order of Adammia, awarded the Invictus Cross (Archland), OGC.") Even the information that might be helpful, like this discussion of currency, ends up without actually giving us much. I might be wrong, but the lack of specifics or solid reasons on behalf of this bill's advocates make me doubt it. Maybe I'm just looking at the wrong place? Or at the wrong people?
|
|
Miestrâ Schivâ, UrN
Seneschal
the new Jim Hacker
Posts: 6,635
Talossan Since: 6-25-2004
Dame Since: 9-8-2012
Motto: Expulseascâ, reveneascâ
Baron Since: Feudal titles are for gimps
Duke Since: Feudal titles are for gimps
|
Post by Miestrâ Schivâ, UrN on Mar 21, 2015 20:23:09 GMT -6
When it comes to legal restrictions, walls and fences, the correct question should not be "why not?" but "why". So every Liberal should support this bill.
These restrictions were enacted as part of a campaign of personal harassment against myself and the other ex-Talossans in Penguinea, in 1998. King Robert I actually wanted to declare it treasonous for any Talossan citizen to communicate with us (!!! complete cult tactics there) but thankfully that part of the "Wall" was voted down. This bill, no matter its practical effect here and now, is a memento of a fascist-like stain on Talossan history and I want it gone. This is another example of kneejerk conservatism on behalf of its opponents.
|
|
|
Post by Sir Alexandreu Davinescu on Mar 21, 2015 20:52:01 GMT -6
Well, I have given a lot of reasons why the strictures still make a lot of sense, even if much of the motivation behind them originally was pretty crazy. One problem is that it's a serious slippery slope issue... and that's the real danger here. Even I don't expect even this Government to start sending off ambassadors, joining alliances, and so on. I don't expect anyone to have to waste much time on it very soon, either. The people interested in passing this are especially going to be leery of doing any of those things after I have repeatedly brought them up here, lest they prove me right. The real issue is that in a year or two, when someone wants their brother's micronation to be officially recognized. And they're good friends with a few people, and those people feel bad about it and don't see the harm, and so a bill is sponsored. Debate starts over whether or not it's a good idea, and maybe it's voted down or up or whatever. But it becomes a point of contention. This bill would open up questions: - What sort of micronations does Talossa endorse/recognize?
- What sort of alliances might Talossa enter into?
- Where might we send ambassadors? Which micronations are worthy of ambassadors? When should they be "recalled?"
And so on. The reducto ad absurdum here is that we launch a fake war tomorrow and start spitting out ambassadors like sunflower seed shells. But that's not what concerns me. It's the slippery slope. And yeah, it wouldn't be the end of the world if we started in on that nonsense, and politicians no longer had to concentrate on improving Talossa but could crow about joining the Northumbrian Croquet Alliance. In the most likely scenario, we'll just waste some significant fraction of our time and we'll seem just a little sillier. The danger here is that we'd waste that time and not even the proponents of this bill seriously seem to think that we stand to gain anything.
|
|
Glüc da Dhi
Secretary of State
Posts: 6,112
Talossan Since: 5-14-2009
|
Post by Glüc da Dhi on Mar 26, 2015 18:26:33 GMT -6
Some possible additions:
1. "War against any nation, micronation or organisation can only be declared by the Ziu"
2. "The government will not lend any Political, Diplomatic, Military or Economic support to a foreign war without the consent of the Ziu."
3. "Treaties with any nation, micronation or organisation, with the exception of agreements limited to:
a) The exchange of ambassadors; b) The exchange of tourist visa; c) Agreements about diplomatic contacts or meetings d) The organisation of or participation in international cultural or diplomatic events; or e) The exchange of knowledge, culture or ideas,
but always including any agreement that
a) has the force of law in Talossa; b) relates to the recognition of a foreign nation; c) relates to forming or joining any kind of alliance,
will only be valid upon ratification by the ziu."
4. "The government shall not have any formal relations with any blacklisted nation, according to Lexhatx A 9.2"
Thoughts, comments, suggestions, harsh criticism?
|
|