Committee of Neutrality

I would like to ask permission from our government for me to establish the Committee of Neutrality or the Neutrality Committee. This Committee will promote Neutrality in Belgian media and Belgian affairs.

I would also like to inquire who wants to be in this committee. Members of this committee will be screened personally by me. Members of this committee must work for neutrality and post articles for neutrality making it the ideal stance for eBelgium.

Why make this committee?

I believe that we should strive to keep this country alive, persay, thus by making this Committee we can further enforce and support our idea and notion for neutrality to assure our EDEN and PHX friends (or just EDEN for they are most concerned and most involved in our country's politics) that we are indeed neutral.

I also ask the MoFas to send ambassadors that are from the committee or be involved and knowledgeable about neutrality so we can further and further enforce and support our vouch for neutrality.

So... to conclude... ^^ those stuff that sounded like some dead duck, is that we MUST really, like really, focus on neutrality and drive away suspicion. It's not like Im doing anything suspicious since I am not informed about whatever is going on. SO, neutrality, I say neutrality, and most of you will probably agree and we already have agreed to this.

I am not making sense, but still, Vive Neutrality!

What would be the difference in what a MoFA would do and this comittee?

I would be interested in being part of such committee. After recent event the situation got a little out of control and a committee like that would certainly ease the tension between EDEN and Phoenix representatives in Belgium.

If that's not a problem then count me in.

Manong Rizal wrote:
I believe that we should strive to keep this country alive, persay, thus by making this Committee we can further enforce and support our idea and notion for neutrality

I curious on how you would think to enforce that.

Rod Damon wrote:

Manong Rizal wrote:
I believe that we should strive to keep this country alive, persay, thus by making this Committee we can further enforce and support our idea and notion for neutrality

I curious on how you would think to enforce that.

We can't really, just to try to convince people. This is to ease the tension building up around here. I want to convince as many people as I can to side with neutrality.

Maybe you should write up a big article on neutrality. A neutral article. And make it on the behalf of Belgium.

I like this idea! It's something you'll really need a group to accomplish this!

does the umbrella group want neutrality?

jasonalwaysready wrote:does the umbrella group want neutrality?

Ask their CEO who just exiled me to the island of the sun god.

I think that if Belgium wants to be neutral they should join Sol or the Entente alliance. Is there any discussion of that?

can you start to work on this neutrality thing you are proposing. your public article comments are lacking any. also i would like to nominate olv for the neutrality committee, because he is also distinctly lacking any. joining this committee would be the greatest accomplishment of his administration so far.

i already got this pact set up if you and other Belgium players are interested in getting either an alliance with America or Canada. If you want it, just ask me here.

patar333 wrote:i already got this pact set up if you and other Belgium players are interested in getting either an alliance with America or Canada. If you want it, just ask me here.

How is an alliance with America neutral?

Gibberish45 wrote:

patar333 wrote:i already got this pact set up if you and other Belgium players are interested in getting either an alliance with America or Canada. If you want it, just ask me here.

How is an alliance with America neutral?

it's not ^^

If people would be happy with me being in the Neutrality Committee, and that would avoid me to say all the time I am neutral, then count me in too.

Can someone explain to me ,how this committee is any different than what the Mofa would do.

Ask Manong. I'm just open to any good initiative for our country.

So you're applying for this commitee, but you don'"t know what it is?

I really want to do the greatest accomplishment of my administration

jasonalwaysready wrote:also i would like to nominate olv for the neutrality committee, because he is also distinctly lacking any. joining this committee would be the greatest accomplishment of his administration so far.

palodigon wrote:Can someone explain to me ,how this committee is any different than what the Mofa would do.

This committee would basically be the common sense of the goverment :-p

palodigon wrote:So you're applying for this commitee, but you don'"t know what it is?

As I said, the applications will be considered the mailing list. I will establish everything tomorrow, hopefully and publish all the things you need. Please read my articles if you are truly interested because i update everything in my newspaper.

the applicants will be added in a mailing list and will be given information. if they choose to continue or not, it is their choice.

Olv007 wrote:I really want to do the greatest accomplishment of my administration

jasonalwaysready wrote:also i would like to nominate olv for the neutrality committee, because he is also distinctly lacking any. joining this committee would be the greatest accomplishment of his administration so far.

congratulations on your first accomplishment! joining a committee you know nothing of and which may be duplicative!

jasonalwaysready wrote:

Olv007 wrote:I really want to do the greatest accomplishment of my administration

jasonalwaysready wrote:also i would like to nominate olv for the neutrality committee, because he is also distinctly lacking any. joining this committee would be the greatest accomplishment of his administration so far.

congratulations on your first accomplishment! joining a committee you know nothing of and which may be duplicative!

Thanks! I'm so happy. I have to tell my wife. She will be so proud about me...

I propose we try to get the eUS and Hungery to sign something like this:

"If at rollover on any day where a resistance war could be started in any of the 3 original Belgians regions and wasn't, each of the signed countries must pay 3x the cost of starting the most expensive resistance war currently possible in Belgium into the BNB within 24 hours or be fined 7x that cost to be taken out of their central bank, in return the government of Belgium agrees not to join the EDEN or PHOENIX alliance or their successor alliances."

Ragoth wrote:I propose we try to get the eUS and Hungery to sign something like this:

"If at rollover on any day where a resistance war could be started in any of the 3 original Belgians regions and wasn't, each of the signed countries must pay 3x the cost of starting the most expensive resistance war currently possible in Belgium into the BNB within 24 hours or be fined 7x that cost to be taken out of their central bank, in return the government of Belgium agrees not to join the EDEN or PHOENIX alliance or their successor alliances."

Pretty aggressive, but we pulling that off could be really hard. Nonetheless, prepare a contract and let's use it if we can. ;P Also, include that if we fail on keeping our promises, we must pay fees as well.

You do realize that if we were to actually implement that, they'd think we are having a laugh. No one would take us serious.

DemetriusA wrote:You do realize that if we were to actually implement that, they'd think we are having a laugh. No one would take us serious.

... LOl

dude, if I can sell a picture book to a blind women I can sell this to EDEN and PHOENIX. And I have sold picture books to blind women.

Ragoth wrote:dude, if I can sell a picture book to a blind women I can sell this to EDEN and PHOENIX. And I have sold picture books to blind women.

Wow.

First of all, Ragoth and Manong : THIS IS NOT YOUR JOB. Let MoFA take care of that. Don't bypass him, if he agrees that you work on it : fine. But it is his job to stay in touch with the different countries, not congress.

And, indeed, it is quite ridiculous to ask to sign something like this as YOU CAN NOT START A RW IN BELGIUM ! I really laughed when reading it (no offense).

You may talk about a PTO, but Admins will never endorse it as you will never prove it is the government that acts (as Armies are not really part of the game and not official).

Apotygma wrote:First of all, Ragoth and Manong : THIS IS NOT YOUR JOB. Let MoFA take care of that. Don't bypass him, if he agrees that you work on it : fine. But it is his job to stay in touch with the different countries, not congress.

And, indeed, it is quite ridiculous to ask to sign something like this as YOU CAN NOT START A RW IN BELGIUM ! I really laughed when reading it (no offense).

You may talk about a PTO, but Admins will never endorse it as you will never prove it is the government that acts (as Armies are not really part of the game and not official).

Indeed.

Aight, this contract is very clear in what it would cover and is specifically worded to deal with more or less all of the points you brought up (except for the fact that I havn't put in the parts about definitions yet or ratification). Basically what it says is that if a resistance war COULD be started but was NOT then Hungry and the eUS have to pay a fine. This means that it gives both of those countries incentives to start resistance wars in eBelgium. It would also give them incentives to make sure there is no need for resistance wars in eBelgium. The entire point of it is that it does not matter why the resistance war is needed or even whether one of them is the cause, just if we get invaded, they better make sure resistance wars get started by somebody, and if not, they have to.

As for ratification contracts between countries are valid if ratified by congress which the full contract would include, along with obligations on our part about remaining neutral.

As for the MOFA being his duty WE DON'T HAVE A MOFA we have two, one dedicated to each alliance but we don't have an over all one, so this is in fact falls under the portfolio of nobody, so since that being the case I'm making it my business.

-Ragoth
Congress Member for Walonia
State Secretary of Finance and This Thing

Ragoth wrote:Aight, this contract is very clear in what it would cover and is specifically worded to deal with more or less all of the points you brought up (except for the fact that I havn't put in the parts about definitions yet or ratification). Basically what it says is that if a resistance war COULD be started but was NOT then Hungry and the eUS have to pay a fine. This means that it gives both of those countries incentives to start resistance wars in eBelgium. It would also give them incentives to make sure there is no need for resistance wars in eBelgium. The entire point of it is that it does not matter why the resistance war is needed or even whether one of them is the cause, just if we get invaded, they better make sure resistance wars get started by somebody, and if not, they have to.

As for ratification contracts between countries are valid if ratified by congress which the full contract would include, along with obligations on our part about remaining neutral.

As for the MOFA being his duty WE DON'T HAVE A MOFA we have two, one dedicated to each alliance but we don't have an over all one, so this is in fact falls under the portfolio of nobody, so since that being the case I'm making it my business.

-Ragoth
Congress Member for Walonia
State Secretary of Finance and This Thing

I still say you give it a try. I wanna see your "contract". Maybe we can ask MoFa about it too.

My humble opinion is that we want to remain neutral to avoid being invaded by a superpower. Blackmailing them into paying gold for our "neutrality" seems like a surefire way to get invaded. It would be cheaper for them to run us over and occupy our regions then to pay this exorbitant fee to have us remain neutral.

Gibberish45 wrote:My humble opinion is that we want to remain neutral to avoid being invaded by a superpower. Blackmailing them into paying gold for our "neutrality" seems like a surefire way to get invaded. It would be cheaper for them to run us over and occupy our regions then to pay this exorbitant fee to have us remain neutral.

I agree with that wholeheartedly, but maybe we can ask Ragoth to make a less-aggressive treaty with more peaceful and diplomatic terms.

I try to be polite and eloquent on most occasions but Ragoth (edit). You're article is poorly written and you attack the people doing the most good in Belgium. To put it to you in a way you'll understand..... help out or stfu!

edit by innos: no insulting please - first warning

Ok maybe people are misunderstanding this, the contract would be freely entered into by members of both major alliances, they would agree to this because it would create penalties for both sides if we were invaded, thus both sides would have an interest in us staying independent as long as we were neutral. With this in play they could stop worying that we might join the other side.

Ragoth wrote:Ok maybe people are misunderstanding this, the contract would be freely entered into by members of both major alliances, they would agree to this because it would create penalties for both sides if we were invaded, thus both sides would have an interest in us staying independent as long as we were neutral. With this in play they could stop worying that we might join the other side.

If I dont have to stress it even further, I am interested, or some of us might be too, so show us.

I think that Ragoth's article attacking Manong for providing food to newbs and attacking the BfB for simple noting that EDEN is the larger PTO threat (while never endorsing Phoenix) proves that he is far too incompetent to write a binding contract. He would, however, be an excellent choice for CT (chief troll)

I Preamble
The Purpose of this treaty is to both guaranty the neutrality and sovereignty of eBelgium and at the same time assure the members of both Major Alliances that eBelgium is not in danger of being occupied by the other alliance through a system of penalties to both side in the event of Belgian occupation by any party.

II. Definitions:
The Belgian Treasury is defined as the organisation designated through contract to act as the treasury for the government of eBelgium. Referred to henceforth as the "NBB"

Signed countries refers to members of a Major Alliance which have signed this contract.

Major Alliance refers to the EDEN and PHOENIX alliance and any possible successor alliances created for belligerent actions.

III Ratification
The Treaty shall be considered ratified by a country when it is signed by a designated representative of said country and voted in favor of by a majority of that country's congress members.

IV Legality
This treaty shall come into effect when ratified by the governments of Belgium and at least one member from each Major Alliance.

V Body
If at server reset on any day where a resistance war could be started in any of the 3 original Belgians regions and wasn't, each of the signed countries must pay 3x the cost of starting the most expensive resistance war currently possible in Belgium into the NBB within 24 hours or be fined 7x that cost plus the cost of a trial to be taken out of their central bank and put into the NBB.

In return the government of Belgium agrees not to join a Major Alliance or declare war against a member of a Major Alliance, and in this event the treaty will be considered to be voided.

Um and yeah lets focus on this one now not the article that I may or may not have written when I had just come back from having a fight with my girl friend and have all ready apologized to manong about and corrected and just focus on this contract.

Ok I still dont see why either alliance would care to sign such a contract. That would be great if they did, but why would they? If one alliance invades the other will fight back regardless of a contract. We are trying to avoid being the battlefield not get paid for it. The contract looks fine I just don't see why they would be interested.

And Ragoth we can all relate to having a bad day, it's good that you removed the personal insult to Manong who does nothing but help out btw. But please remember in the future that your public attacks make us look divided and only encourage those in EDEN (or Phoenix ) who truly believe PTOing us is only to keep the other alliance out. You make us look weak. Discussion on the forum would have been much less damaging than a public advertisement.

point 1: the reason I suspect this contract might work is that the alliances only care about belgium because the other might take it, if they both agreed not to, they could focus their resources on other things so it would be in their interest to sign.

point 2: healthy and public debate is the bread and butter of democracy, public attacks on policy of a political party you are not in is what politics is, the pto'rs are going to be more suspicious if there was not any public debate.

You are all hence forth on notice: that there is now an eBelgian in congress who is NOT in your political party and as an opposition member it is my sworn duty to point out everything i disagree with you about and think did wrong and why I think that makes you a bad person

eBelgium politics just got fun!

There are very few bad persons around here, Ragoth, only some who take bad decissions every once and a while. Don't we all?

Well, altough I understand the logic of the contract you propose, I too would say it's a bit aggressive (not the formulation but the spirit of it) - it's too demanding coming from a nation that has little to give in return. Maybe a non-aggression contract with key nations would be a bit more advised?

I Preamble
The Purpose of this treaty is to both guaranty the neutrality and sovereignty of eBelgium and at the same time assure the members of both Major Alliances that eBelgium is not in danger of being occupied by the other alliance through a system of penalties to both side in the event of Belgian occupation by any party.

II. Definitions:
The Belgian Treasury is defined as the organisation designated through contract to act as the treasury for the government of eBelgium. Referred to henceforth as the "BNB"

Signed countries refers to members of a Major Alliance which have signed this contract.

Major Alliance refers to the EDEN and PHOENIX alliance and any possible successor alliances created for belligerent actions.

III Ratification
The Treaty shall be considered ratified by a country when it is signed by a designated representative of said country and voted in favor of by a majority of that country's congress members.

IV Legality
This treaty shall come into effect when ratified by the governments of Belgium and at least one member from each Major Alliance.

V Body
If at server reset on any day where a resistance war could be started in any of the 3 original Belgians regions and wasn't, each of the signed countries must pay 3x the cost of starting the most expensive resistance war currently possible in Belgium into the BNB within 24 hours or be fined 7x that cost plus the cost of a trial to be taken out of their central bank and put into the BNB.

In return the government of Belgium agrees not to join a Major Alliance or declare war against a member of a Major Alliance, and in this event the treaty will be considered to be voided.

It is not legal or will never be endorsed. Why?

1 - You don't name parties (this is just for the form)
2 - Governments don't start RW's (which in this case isn't even possible). If you come with such a treaty they will just laugh at us... You can always try but I can assure you : nobody will take your seriously. And, if you could : a government can ask a citizen to open it, but it is not because that he is a citizen that he is supported by the government. You have enough independante PTO groups around (like Lukamancro's) that have a certain citizenship, but that are not recognized by the governments.

And, even if the citizen is recognized : how are you going to prove it? Impossible.

And to continue :

point 1: the reason I suspect this contract might work is that the alliances only care about belgium because the other might take it, if they both agreed not to, they could focus their resources on other things so it would be in their interest to sign.

The Alliances don't spend ressources here (or only the eUS does if I see the number of Americans). Both have people with citizenship, they don't need more than that.

You are all hence forth on notice: that there is now an eBelgian in congress who is NOT in your political party and as an opposition member it is my sworn duty to point out everything i disagree with you about and think did wrong and why I think that makes you a bad person

Opposition is fine, just don't say nonsense... please ?

Don't all forget the Treaty of Chinisau!

1) We can rewrite this to name parties, it would take 30 seconds
2) notice how the treaty does not specify that the government has to start the resistance war, just they get fined if it doesn't start? This was specifically formulated to get around those problems.
3) Between the eUSA, Poland, Croatia, the eUK and the UNL both major alliances have spent resources in this country, relating to elections.

Ragoth wrote:1) We can rewrite this to name parties, it would take 30 seconds
2) notice how the treaty does not specify that the government has to start the resistance war, just they get fined if it doesn't start? This was specifically formulated to get around those problems.
3) Between the eUSA, Poland, Croatia, the eUK and the UNL both major alliances have spent resources in this country, relating to elections.

Again, why would they sign this? As Apotygma pointed out they don't spend resources here other than a few votes. Many of those in congress got in with 3 votes only! How is that spending resources? Our neutral stance is so that we don't get occupied, and you want to go making demands of payment. I'm pretty sure the general consensus is that this is not a good idea.

On a side note, I'm not sure how "idiot" was insulting but "incompetent" was not, but regardless I apologize. I was upset about the tone of your article at the moment. I am happy to have open debate about these subjects, I wish we would debate about how to remove the constant EDEN PTO.

Think of it like cold war era missile limitation treaties, if just one party signs it yes then it is bad for that party, but if both sign it then it puts them on equal footing yet spares them having to spend resources.

And the major alliances are spending resources here, primarily people would could be doing things else where, primarily people, with 50+ regions some foreign nations are very vulnerable to pto's and they would much rather those players be available domestically, plus all those players now in our congress can not fight at home.