|
Post by Sir Alexandreu Davinescu on Oct 11, 2007 7:56:51 GMT -6
That is not provided for in the bill, but presumably it would be myself as Minister of Stuff, since I deal with "heralding to those over the river". Should the Seneschal choose otherwise, of course, it doesn't make any difference.
|
|
Sir C. M. Siervicül
Posts: 9,636
Talossan Since: 8-13-2005
Knight Since: 7-28-2007
Motto: Nonnisi Deo serviendum
|
Post by Sir C. M. Siervicül on Oct 11, 2007 23:07:50 GMT -6
That is not provided for in the bill, but presumably it would be myself as Minister of Stuff, since I deal with "heralding to those over the river". Should the Seneschal choose otherwise, of course, it doesn't make any difference. Minister of Foreign Affairs would make sense too, since that's the ministry responsible for international relations on a governmental level. After all, national representatives to the United Nations are usually ambassadors, diplomats.
|
|
|
Post by Breneir Itravilatx on Oct 14, 2007 10:52:58 GMT -6
This is something I just thought of, is there already a provision in the legislation for the appointment of an ambassador to the united nations? We would need to have a continuous representative to the organization.
|
|
|
Post by Dréu Gavárþic'h on Oct 14, 2007 11:02:08 GMT -6
I think that's covered here 'and avows that Talossa will meet the obligations which are a part of being a member with full faith and our greatest exertions."
|
|
|
Post by Breneir Itravilatx on Oct 14, 2007 18:11:34 GMT -6
I understand what you are saying Dreu but the terminology seems a bit vague. What specific mechanisms are in place to insure that we will meet those obligations?
|
|
|
Post by Dréu Gavárþic'h on Oct 14, 2007 18:13:43 GMT -6
Perhaps S:reu Davis will alter his bill to include the mandate of the appointment of an ambassador to the UN, should we be accepted (which I highly doubt we will)
|
|
|
Post by Sir Alexandreu Davinescu on Oct 14, 2007 19:45:34 GMT -6
It does not seem necessary to legislate all of the many little things such as ambassadors which will be entailed with joining the UN. That will be the province of the executive branch.
|
|
karyjune23
Former citizen or prospective
Posts: 10
|
Post by karyjune23 on Oct 19, 2007 4:54:48 GMT -6
I live in Denmark now,yea sounds cooler then Indiana
|
|
Vit Caçeir
"I hated being AG so much I fled as far from it as literally possible."
Posts: 810
Talossan Since: 11-19-2007
|
Post by Vit Caçeir on Dec 24, 2007 12:21:22 GMT -6
While I staunchly agree with this measure, I see two problems coming up in the forseeable future....
A.) While the United States of America has (informally) recognized our independence, the French Republic, the current de jure possessor of our Cezembre province, has never done anything to recognize the Kingdom's sovereignty over the island. This may result in some tough negotiations which might result in Talossa being forced to cede Cezembre, if she wishes to join the United Nations.
B.) Talossa's claim on the Pengopats colony violates, according to the United Nations, the Antarctic Treaty of 1961, which states that no new territorial claims will be accepted as long as the treaty is in place. Because this treaty was signed before Talossa achieved independence, it will be hard to defend our claims to our southernmost territory.
In my opinion, in order for this measure to succeed, Talossans will have to sacrifice some of their territorial sovereignty. The question is, are we willing to do that?
|
|
|
Post by Dréu Gavárþic'h on Dec 24, 2007 12:24:29 GMT -6
While I staunchly agree with this measure, I see two problems coming up in the forseeable future.... A.) While the United States of America has (informally) recognized our independence, the French Republic, the current de jure possessor of our Cezembre province, has never done anything to recognize the Kingdom's sovereignty over the island. This may result in some tough negotiations which might result in Talossa being forced to cede Cezembre, if she wishes to join the United Nations. B.) Talossa's claim on the Pengopats colony violates, according to the United Nations, the Antarctic Treaty of 1961, which states that no new territorial claims will be accepted as long as the treaty is in place. Because this treaty was signed before Talossa achieved independence, it will be hard to defend our claims to our southernmost territory. In my opinion, in order for this measure to succeed, Talossans will have to sacrifice some of their territorial sovereignty. The question is, are we willing to do that? One person suggested that we approach a small country that was recognized (San Marino, etc.) with nothing to lose, and attempt to be recognized by them. If we can do that then we are in! That's it! Once one person recognizes us, then other's will have to follow suit. There's just one small problem. That would be the end of Talossa as we know it. No more cybercits, no more King John (unless he moved to the GTA). We would all be remembered, but have no voice in Talossan politics unless we all moved to the GTA.
|
|
|
Post by Sir Alexandreu Davinescu on Dec 24, 2007 12:29:28 GMT -6
While I staunchly agree with this measure, I see two problems coming up in the forseeable future.... A.) While the United States of America has (informally) recognized our independence, the French Republic, the current de jure possessor of our Cezembre province, has never done anything to recognize the Kingdom's sovereignty over the island. This may result in some tough negotiations which might result in Talossa being forced to cede Cezembre, if she wishes to join the United Nations. B.) Talossa's claim on the Pengopats colony violates, according to the United Nations, the Antarctic Treaty of 1961, which states that no new territorial claims will be accepted as long as the treaty is in place. Because this treaty was signed before Talossa achieved independence, it will be hard to defend our claims to our southernmost territory. In my opinion, in order for this measure to succeed, Talossans will have to sacrifice some of their territorial sovereignty. The question is, are we willing to do that? You make excellent points, but this is something that will have to be resolved with negotiations when we come to that point. There is little we can do to prepare; we will have to cross that bridge when we come to it, no sooner. If Talossans do not want to join the UN if it comes at such a price, then we will not do so. Clearly, no such change (or really any change of import) will occur without further legislation, but this bill puts us further along the road to international recognition. Doubtless, there will be many such roadblocks on the way, but we will strive.
|
|
Vit Caçeir
"I hated being AG so much I fled as far from it as literally possible."
Posts: 810
Talossan Since: 11-19-2007
|
Post by Vit Caçeir on Dec 24, 2007 12:37:39 GMT -6
That would be the end of Talossa as we know it. No more cybercits, no more King John (unless he moved to the GTA). We would all be remembered, but have no voice in Talossan politics unless we all moved to the GTA. Not necessarily, Citizenship is granted by the government of a nation, not based on territorial residence (unless such an act is signed into law). For example, if we were given de jure recognition by the United States, residents of the G.T.A. wouldn't essentially lose their American citizenship, they'd just be recognized as foreigners, unless they applied for (or were granted) Talossan citizenship.
|
|
Vit Caçeir
"I hated being AG so much I fled as far from it as literally possible."
Posts: 810
Talossan Since: 11-19-2007
|
Post by Vit Caçeir on Dec 24, 2007 12:42:22 GMT -6
You make excellent points, but this is something that will have to be resolved with negotiations when we come to that point. There is little we can do to prepare; we will have to cross that bridge when we come to it, no sooner. If Talossans do not want to join the UN if it comes at such a price, then we will not do so. Clearly, no such change (or really any change of import) will occur without further legislation, but this bill puts us further along the road to international recognition. Doubtless, there will be many such roadblocks on the way, but we will strive. I see your point, and I'm willing to fight for this cause 'till the bitter end. If there is one North American unrecognized state that deserves independence, it's Talossa. Even if it's "partial sovereignty", like that of the Native American Tribal Nations, we've shown with our resilience and determination that we are different than our American counterparts. I'll do anything I can to help make the dream of U.N. membership a reality, provided the Talossan citizenry consents.
|
|
|
Post by Dréu Gavárþic'h on Dec 24, 2007 12:48:01 GMT -6
You make excellent points, but this is something that will have to be resolved with negotiations when we come to that point. There is little we can do to prepare; we will have to cross that bridge when we come to it, no sooner. If Talossans do not want to join the UN if it comes at such a price, then we will not do so. Clearly, no such change (or really any change of import) will occur without further legislation, but this bill puts us further along the road to international recognition. Doubtless, there will be many such roadblocks on the way, but we will strive. I see your point, and I'm willing to fight for this cause 'till the bitter end. If there is one North American unrecognized state that deserves independence, it's Talossa. Even if it's "partial sovereignty", like that of the Native American Tribal Nations, we've shown with our resilience and determination that we are different than our American counterparts. I'll do anything I can to help make the dream of U.N. membership a reality, provided the Talossan citizenry consents. Bravo, Éovart! Bravo! It's times like these when I remember how much I love Talossa and the people in it!
|
|
|
Post by Owen Edwards on Dec 24, 2007 16:59:37 GMT -6
I remind my fellow citizens of an observer at the UN - the Knights of St John.
Territorial integrity, in our case a difficult proposition, need not be the basis of involvement in the UN.
|
|