The Micronational Recognition Act of 2008 / DPD

[Mr. Tony Weckström]

The Micronational Recognition Act of 2008 / DPD

WHEREAS The Government of Talossa, while at present do not accept so called micronations, it is hereby proposed, that certain micronations be allowed recognition; these criteria being;

1. The micronation must be at least one (1) year old, since it's establishment.

2. The micronation must own real actual land.



WHEREAS having more than a limited view, amongst only Talossans, it seems as the logical choice to expand the nation of Talossa, by;

1. Establish diplomatic relations with the micronations we choose.

2. The exchange of ambassadors and diplomats between Talossa and the micronation that has received our recognition.

3. Establishment of virtual diplomatic section in Talossa's Governmental Thread Section, where each micronation would have their own virtual embassy, consulate or high commission.

4. The exchange of views, politics, world affairs, cultural exchange, trade, co-operation, treaties of friendship and peace, and to better the common good of Talossa.


WHEREAS Talossa is to the 'outside'-world also considered as a so called micronation, it cannot hurt us having relations with other so called micronations, especially if they live up to our criteria



THEREFORE be it resolved by the Ziu of the Kingdom of Talossa that

1. That this act shall pass.

2. The Secretary of Foreign Affairs or his/her proxy should investigate potential micronations for recognition.



For the 39th Cosa



Tony Weckström
DPD / Member of the Cosa

[Vit Caçeir]

I oppose.

[Flip Molinar]

As do I. I see no benefit for Talossa here.

[Capt. Sir Mick Preston]

Maybe you should expand on why you oppose it, or why you feel it ads no benefit.

Can it be better written, or are you totally against it?

Why?

[Sir Alexandreu Davinescu]

Absolutely oppose.

[Sir Alexandreu Davinescu]

Actually, on reflection I note that this is not a valid bill. Tony, you need to identify the laws you are revoking or changing in a bill. We have a few laws about micronations that this would contradict.

[Vit Caçeir]

Oct 17, 2008 14:40:42 GMT -6 Capt. Sir Mick Preston said:

Maybe you should expand on why you oppose it, or why you feel it ads no benefit.

Can it be better written, or are you totally against it?

Why?

I would suggest that the SoS read the exchange between myself and Ambassador Weckstrom elsewhere on this site.

Several times I have asserted my stance that micronations, more often than not instable brainchildren propped up by generally 1-5 people, serve no beneficial purpose for Talossa. By reading 'Ar Pats', any Talossan citizen could clearly recognize that interactions with micronations led to "wars", "wartime governments", "terrorist attacks", and other antics that harmed the stability and any hope of legitimate statehood Talossa holds.

If we pick and choose which micronations to hold relations with, then we will appear to be 'elitists', or Talossa could very well become a "status symbol" or a "rite of passage" for micronations, neither of which I believe to be an acceptable path for this nation.

I stand by my past comments; I see no reason to try and fix a clock that already works.

[Capt. Sir Mick Preston]

and that, my friend, was exactly what I was asking for.

Challange, react, and make the person who is writing the Bill to defend, refine, and then present to the Ziu a great bill!

If you have problems with the bill, then all means express it!

[Sir C. M. Siervicül]

Oct 17, 2008 22:26:56 GMT -6 Vit Caçeir said:

Several times I have asserted my stance that micronations, more often than not instable brainchildren propped up by generally 1-5 people, serve no beneficial purpose for Talossa. By reading 'Ar Pats', any Talossan citizen could clearly recognize that interactions with micronations led to "wars", "wartime governments", "terrorist attacks", and other antics that harmed the stability and any hope of legitimate statehood Talossa holds.

I agree with you on the bill, but feel compelled to point out that Ár Päts is not an unbiased account of Talossa's history. Generally speaking, the stronger and more emotional the language gets, the less reliable it is. I still think it's an educational read for any Talossan, but you have to read it keeping in mind that there's a lot of opinion and a fair bit of distortion mixed in with the facts.

[Vit Caçeir]

Oct 18, 2008 9:03:28 GMT -6 Sir C. M. Siervicül said:

I agree with you on the bill, but feel compelled to point out that Ár Päts is not an unbiased account of Talossa's history.

Oh, of course. And naturally, the government at the time the book takes place in has to be taken into account as well. There were certainly other factors that led to instability, but I still stand by my belief that interactions with interchangeable, instable one-to-five people states will inevitably lead to unneeded diplomatic fiascos, as they did in the past.

And of course, there ARE exceptions, such as the "Dominion of British West Florida", the "Republic of Molossia", among others, which have proven that they are capable of upholding a defined state and carrying out a democratic process. However, picking and choosing which states to hold relations with would make us appear to be elitists.

Which is why I believe the current policy is the best policy.

[Owen Edwards]

Others may see us as a micronation; we, officially speaking, do not. We are in an inbetween stage, between a landed sovereign state and a micronation. This Bill, apart from technical and legal issues, also undermines so much that is important to our self-perception. No.

[Xhorxh Asmour]

I totally oppose this bill because it contradicts a basic Talossan principle. Talossa is NOT a micronation and should not have ANY relations with micronations.

[Owen Edwards]

(Remember, our peculiar relationship with the Republic of Talossa does not fall within the boundaries of "micronational" relations - it's such a convoluted and strange affair.)

[Deleted]

I'm unconvinced of the benefit this would give the Kingdom.