Re: (Rejected) International Interventions Regulation Act

Great Eurussia Fri May 09, 2014 10:57 pm

New Tarajan wrote:
Admission that the Article 9 is in favour of the victims, yes. In this case, we are forced to believe Eurussia is trying to protect imperialist countries for their own interests. Thank you.

Eurussia doesn't believe that the victims the author is talking about are the countries seeking the aid of the WA Council, since they in fact, seek the aid of the WA Council itself, who is already bound to protect them through that intervention. And not by interfering on sovereignty issues anymore, just like in Article 9. By the way, we also thank the author for further strengthening our case in challenging the law before the Court of Justice. Your admissions are very helpful.

Spoiler:

We continue to reiterate that with the refusal of the author to remove this unconstitutional provision of the law seeing it as a direct threat to a sovereign state's independence and constitutionally protected sovereignty, Eurussia has no choice but to vote AGAINST the proposal. As we continue to believe that the WA Council have no right to refuse or revoke or even have a say in a voluntary ceded territory being given to another sovereign state. That is a clear breach of sovereignty of a country strengthened by the author's admissions.

We are even more ready to challenge this law before the Court of Justice.

New Tarajan Fri May 09, 2014 11:07 pm

Sorry, but I don't see where I admitted such a terrible violation of sovereignty by Article 9, since my statement meant exactly the OPPOSITE. Please, provide us this supposed admission.

Federation of Antanares Fri May 09, 2014 11:14 pm

Well, I don't understand all these problems for the Article 9. There are a lot of proofs useful for clarify an exchange of land:
- Private messages between the two nations
- Post of the nation that cede the land

Also, if one of the nation is not volunteer, simply can ask the support of the CoJ and the International Community, asking for an intervention and, after the submission of proof to the Court, the CoJ can intervene. It's simple.

New Tarajan Fri May 09, 2014 11:19 pm

Federation of Antanares wrote:Well, I don't understand all these problems for the Article 9. There are a lot of proofs useful for clarify an exchange of land:
- Private messages between the two nations
- Post of the nation that cede the land

Also, if one of the nation is not volunteer, simply can ask the support of the CoJ and the International Community, asking for an intervention and, after the submission of proof to the Court, the CoJ can intervene. It's simple.

So, what are you suggesting?

Federation of Antanares Fri May 09, 2014 11:22 pm

Well, I think the better is change the Article 9. You can simply write that, when happen a change of territory, if the nation where was the intervention are against the cession of the territory, can ask the support of the CoJ and the Council.

New Tarajan Fri May 09, 2014 11:24 pm

Federation of Antanares wrote:Well, I think the better is change the Article 9. You can simply write that, when happen a change of territory, if the nation where was the intervention are against the cession of the territory, can ask the support of the CoJ and the Council.

Very well, then. I ask for an official permission of the Speaker to re-write the Article 9 accordingly to the new request.

Kaevi Fri May 09, 2014 11:30 pm

This may require the voting period to be cancelled and a new one to begin.
Do you wish to do that?

We as a parliament also need to get more members to vote as even with the revision, we may not have enough votes for it to pass.

New Tarajan Fri May 09, 2014 11:39 pm

Kaevi wrote:This may require the voting period to be cancelled and a new one to begin.
Do you wish to do that?

We as a parliament also need to get more members to vote as even with the revision, we may not have enough votes for it to pass.

Yes I wish to do that, thank you (also, we were still at the beginning, so luckily there will be no bad consequence).

About what you said: unfortunately, you're correct.

Great Eurussia Sat May 10, 2014 12:07 am

Federation of Antanares wrote:Well, I think the better is change the Article 9. You can simply write that, when happen a change of territory, if the nation where was the intervention are against the cession of the territory, can ask the support of the CoJ and the Council.

Exactly. But it's too late as the proposal is now on the voting floor.

New Tarajan Sat May 10, 2014 12:23 am

Great Eurussia wrote:
Federation of Antanares wrote:Well, I think the better is change the Article 9. You can simply write that, when happen a change of territory, if the nation where was the intervention are against the cession of the territory, can ask the support of the CoJ and the Council.

Exactly. But it's too late as the proposal is now on the voting floor.

There's no law forbidding such a move. We'll wait for the decision of the Speaker.

Great Eurussia Sat May 10, 2014 12:31 am

New Tarajan wrote:
Great Eurussia wrote:
Federation of Antanares wrote:Well, I think the better is change the Article 9. You can simply write that, when happen a change of territory, if the nation where was the intervention are against the cession of the territory, can ask the support of the CoJ and the Council.

Exactly. But it's too late as the proposal is now on the voting floor.

There's no law forbidding such a move. We'll wait for the decision of the Speaker.

Yeah there is none, but we can't change a proposal in the middle of a voting period.

New Tarajan Sat May 10, 2014 12:38 am

Great Eurussia wrote:
New Tarajan wrote:
Great Eurussia wrote:
Federation of Antanares wrote:Well, I think the better is change the Article 9. You can simply write that, when happen a change of territory, if the nation where was the intervention are against the cession of the territory, can ask the support of the CoJ and the Council.

Exactly. But it's too late as the proposal is now on the voting floor.

There's no law forbidding such a move. We'll wait for the decision of the Speaker.

Yeah there is none, but we can't change a proposal in the middle of a voting period.

Since few voters expressed already their votes, I ask to the Speaker, as I've already done, to suspend this voting period, change the Article, then immediately start a new voting period.
I wish to count on your support, since I understood that also for you, due to your own admission, this law is commendable and important.

Great Eurussia Sat May 10, 2014 12:46 am

New Tarajan wrote:
Great Eurussia wrote:
New Tarajan wrote:
Great Eurussia wrote:
Federation of Antanares wrote:Well, I think the better is change the Article 9. You can simply write that, when happen a change of territory, if the nation where was the intervention are against the cession of the territory, can ask the support of the CoJ and the Council.

Exactly. But it's too late as the proposal is now on the voting floor.

There's no law forbidding such a move. We'll wait for the decision of the Speaker.

Yeah there is none, but we can't change a proposal in the middle of a voting period.

Since few voters expressed already their votes, I ask to the Speaker, as I've already done, to suspend this voting period, change the Article, then immediately start a new voting period.
I wish to count on your support, since I understood that also for you, due to your own admission, this law is commendable and important.

Yeah but Eurussia suggests to the Speaker to suspend the voting temporarily and seek the unanimous approval of those who voted already if they all want to revise the original proposal. If that is the case, Eurussia won't oppose any revision as it will be a fair procedure for all Member States of the Parliament.

New Tarajan Sat May 10, 2014 12:49 am

Yeah but Eurussia suggests to the Speaker to suspend the voting temporarily and seek the unanimous approval of those who voted already if they all want to revise the original proposal. If that is the case, Eurussia won't oppose any revision as it will be a fair procedure for all Member States of the Parliament.

I agree.

Kaevi Sat May 10, 2014 1:57 am

New Tarajan wrote:
Kaevi wrote:This may require the voting period to be cancelled and a new one to begin.
Do you wish to do that?

We as a parliament also need to get more members to vote as even with the revision, we may not have enough votes for it to pass.

Yes I wish to do that, thank you (also, we were still at the beginning, so luckily there will be no bad consequence).

About what you said: unfortunately, you're correct.

Constitutionally, I'm not sure that I can cancel a voting period as it must last three days.
You are free to have a second attempt with all of the necessary revisions.

This may be better anyway as the long debate/arguing may be distracting to some.

Ireland Sat May 10, 2014 4:24 am

New Tarajan wrote:
Great Empire of Ireland wrote:
Great Empire of Ireland wrote:We vote against
wait i have a question for New Tarajan. Will nations still be able to send its own forces?

Yes of course!

Eurussia, your behavior is uncorrect in front of this Parliament: we are ready to sustain everything to carry this law going on, but the idea to challenge in the Court every law you don't like is unrespectful of the work of this Parliament.

So said, New Tarajan votes IN FAVOUR.

Thank you and we confirm our vote against

Talanzaar Sat May 10, 2014 4:51 am

We vote against

Great Eurussia Sat May 10, 2014 7:26 am

Kaevi wrote:
New Tarajan wrote:
Kaevi wrote:This may require the voting period to be cancelled and a new one to begin.
Do you wish to do that?

We as a parliament also need to get more members to vote as even with the revision, we may not have enough votes for it to pass.

Yes I wish to do that, thank you (also, we were still at the beginning, so luckily there will be no bad consequence).

About what you said: unfortunately, you're correct.

Constitutionally, I'm not sure that I can cancel a voting period as it must last three days.
You are free to have a second attempt with all of the necessary revisions.

This may be better anyway as the long debate/arguing may be distracting to some.

Thank you. However, have you considered our suggestion?

Kaevi Sat May 10, 2014 7:38 am

Great Eurussia wrote:
Thank you. However, have you considered our suggestion? It seems that the nations' voting doesn't even care about the proposal since they are voting against it.

Very well, the nations that voted prior to the said proposal (Ireland, Kaevi, Zackalantis, Eurussia, New Tarajan, Texania) shall vote on the future of Article 9. I will begin the special voting session when the author, New Tarajan, delivers the final proposal to parliament stating what the revision entails.

New Tarajan Sat May 10, 2014 8:16 am

Kaevi wrote:
Great Eurussia wrote:
Thank you. However, have you considered our suggestion? It seems that the nations' voting doesn't even care about the proposal since they are voting against it.

Very well, the nations that voted prior to the said proposal (Ireland, Kaevi, Zackalantis, Eurussia, New Tarajan, Texania) shall vote on the future of Article 9. I will begin the special voting session when the author, New Tarajan, delivers the final proposal to parliament stating what the revision entails.

Thank you.
Here is the new text of Article 9 (I'll implement it in the draft once the special voting session will be concluded):

"In case a country where the intervention took place suffers from pressure or influence of any kind by another country participating or contributing to the intervention, which it believes to be against its own constitutional rights, then the country which is victim of such moves could request the intervention of the CoJ in order to render null and void the results of that pressure or influence.
The CoJ, in the judgement of the case, shall be free to implement any kind of ruling it will believe to be necessary in order to uphold peace, stability and order, in the respect of the Constitution."

Kaevi Sat May 10, 2014 8:33 am

A new version of Article 9 within Section II of the the International Interventions Act seeks the unanimous approval of the following individuals: Ireland, Kaevi, Zackalantis, Eurussia, New Tarajan, and Texania.

This change is proposed in order to ensure the sovereign rights on every nation during times of an international intervention. Please read the following proposed version of Article 9:

"In case a country where the intervention took place suffers from pressure or influence of any kind by another country participating or contributing to the intervention, which it believes to be against its own constitutional rights, then the country which is victim of such moves could request the intervention of the CoJ in order to render null and void the results of that pressure or influence.
The CoJ, in the judgement of the case, shall be free to implement any kind of ruling it will believe to be necessary in order to uphold peace, stability and order, in the respect of the Constitution."

The special voting session for Article 9 Section II of the International Interventions Act has been initiated. This period will last three days or until all of the selected nations have voted by May 12, 2014. The revision will only go forward with unanimous approval and does not reflect the whole proposed act.

Please refer to the current draft to seek a comparison and be sure to consider only Article 9 when deliberating, as this vote is not for the proposal as a whole.

Kaevi Sat May 10, 2014 8:35 am

Kaevi agrees to the proposed revision to Article 9 of Section II.

Zackalantis Sat May 10, 2014 2:44 pm

UKZ votes IN FAVOUR of the proposed revision to Article 9 of Section II.

Ireland Sat May 10, 2014 3:04 pm

We withhold our vote on the proposed Amendment

Husqvarnia Sun May 11, 2014 12:54 am

Husqvarnia will ABSTAIN from voting on the revised amendment.

Sponsored content

(Rejected) International Interventions Regulation Act