[IRS] Recovery of granted territory
Moderator: Staff
Re: [IRS] Recovery of granted territory
Batavia is no longer capable of upholding its treaty obligations due to the fact that it has been subsumed into a union state, and thus is no longer sovereign. Its sovereign government has failed. Those treaty obligations include a closed border against Stormark. If there are Storish persons speaking on behalf of Batavian affairs and Storish persons holding court within it, then Batavia has failed to keep the border closed.
Also, Section 6 of the second treaty extends the duration of the original treaty. By your argument, if there is no duration in Section 3 of the second treaty, then there is no limit and it is extended into perpetuity.
Also, Section 6 of the second treaty extends the duration of the original treaty. By your argument, if there is no duration in Section 3 of the second treaty, then there is no limit and it is extended into perpetuity.
-
- Posts: 563
- Joined: Tue Mar 24, 2009 9:33 am
Re: [IRS] Recovery of granted territory
Apparently, you still can't read the pact.
Where has your interpretation of "careful contact on all matters" gone?
Of course, it's nonsense that if a Storish speaks for my side of things, we would have opened the border for Stormark.
If a deadline is extended, but the deadline is incorrectly referred to, the original text applies. That original text specifies 12 Norton years and that is over.
Where has your interpretation of "careful contact on all matters" gone?
Of course, it's nonsense that if a Storish speaks for my side of things, we would have opened the border for Stormark.
If a deadline is extended, but the deadline is incorrectly referred to, the original text applies. That original text specifies 12 Norton years and that is over.
Arky
Re: [IRS] Recovery of granted territory
If a treaty is extended for N/A years, then there will never be a time in which N/A years have passed
-
- Posts: 563
- Joined: Tue Mar 24, 2009 9:33 am
Re: [IRS] Recovery of granted territory
That's the strangest reading of matters ever. I'm not gonna keep going back and forth.
Our positions are:
1. The Kingdom of Batavia has become a member of a supranational union, which has registered itself on the MCS map under a single name and flag;
2. Shireroth has excluded Batavia from the customs union, which has now been reinstated, but still it was a violation of the treaty;
3. Shireroth did not behave on the basis of peace, friendship and good neighbourliness. This public display, as well as the exclusion of the King as a guest for the funeral of the late Kaiser Ayreon IV;
4. If Shireroth accuses Batavia of crossing the border with Stormark, prove it. If anyone speaks for the Batavian cause, then of course that is not a border crossing;
5. This discussion proves that there is no question of careful contact. But also, for example, the lack of a reaction to the last proposal for a subsequent treaty on the part of Shireroth;
6. The extension of the validity period is incorrectly linked to an article, which of course does not lead to an infinite extension;
So: Let's appoint a neutral arbitrator to mediate this case.
Our positions are:
1. The Kingdom of Batavia has become a member of a supranational union, which has registered itself on the MCS map under a single name and flag;
2. Shireroth has excluded Batavia from the customs union, which has now been reinstated, but still it was a violation of the treaty;
3. Shireroth did not behave on the basis of peace, friendship and good neighbourliness. This public display, as well as the exclusion of the King as a guest for the funeral of the late Kaiser Ayreon IV;
4. If Shireroth accuses Batavia of crossing the border with Stormark, prove it. If anyone speaks for the Batavian cause, then of course that is not a border crossing;
5. This discussion proves that there is no question of careful contact. But also, for example, the lack of a reaction to the last proposal for a subsequent treaty on the part of Shireroth;
6. The extension of the validity period is incorrectly linked to an article, which of course does not lead to an infinite extension;
So: Let's appoint a neutral arbitrator to mediate this case.
Arky
Re: [IRS] Recovery of granted territory
thus it is no longer a sovereign state with a functioning, independent government, but has been made a dependency of a union state. I'm glad we agree1. The Kingdom of Batavia has become a member of a supranational union, which has registered itself on the MCS map under a single name and flag;
Re: [IRS] Recovery of granted territory
Reading the Pact of Benacium it is pretty clear that the FBE is a federation, not a supranational union like the EU.
-
- Posts: 563
- Joined: Tue Mar 24, 2009 9:33 am
Re: [IRS] Recovery of granted territory
octavius wrote: ↑Mon Jun 08, 2020 8:42 pmthus it is no longer a sovereign state with a functioning, independent government, but has been made a dependency of a union state. I'm glad we agree1. The Kingdom of Batavia has become a member of a supranational union, which has registered itself on the MCS map under a single name and flag;
Be informed:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supranati ... onal_union
The Franco-Batavian Empire is a supranational union, based on a treaty. Not on a constitution. The union doesn't have a head of state, but a head of the union. Like any supranational union, there are equal agreements about what the union takes care of and what the members themselves are responsible for.
So both the Pact, its ratification, its temporality, the Micraswiki article, the fact that I am not a Kaiser of the Franco-Batavian Empire but only of Francia and King of Batavia, and so on show that the Franco-Batavian Empire is a supranational union. Not a confederation or federation.
Arky
Re: [IRS] Recovery of granted territory
Just like King-Emperor Arkadius said.
The Franco-Batavian Empire is a supranational union, just like the EU, except it calls itself an empire, has one foreign policy, one territorial policy and one military, as well as one head of the union (NOTE: NOT a head of state). God, I wish people really just would read what the Pact says.... And yeah! The Pact isn't a constitution, because we call it a Pact, not a constitution. That makes it a treaty. It's really quite simple.
The Franco-Batavian Empire is a supranational union, just like the EU, except it calls itself an empire, has one foreign policy, one territorial policy and one military, as well as one head of the union (NOTE: NOT a head of state). God, I wish people really just would read what the Pact says.... And yeah! The Pact isn't a constitution, because we call it a Pact, not a constitution. That makes it a treaty. It's really quite simple.
Re: [IRS] Recovery of granted territory
I just saw the child porn on Franco-Batavia's shared wiki with Stormark.
As Franco-Batavian foreign commisisoner, I am appalled by this, and I apologise wholeheartedly to the community for it.
As a small token of good will, I endorse the claim.
As Franco-Batavian foreign commisisoner, I am appalled by this, and I apologise wholeheartedly to the community for it.
As a small token of good will, I endorse the claim.
-
- FMS Staff
- Posts: 21547
- Joined: Sun Jun 24, 2007 7:37 pm
- Location: Cherry Trees, Craitland
- Contact:
Re: [IRS] Recovery of granted territory
What is the status of this claim now?
Re: [IRS] Recovery of granted territory
good question
Re: [IRS] Recovery of granted territory
withdrawn after consultation with the IAC
-
- FMS Staff
- Posts: 21547
- Joined: Sun Jun 24, 2007 7:37 pm
- Location: Cherry Trees, Craitland
- Contact:
Re: [IRS] Recovery of granted territory
WITHDRAWN