Isaac MatthewII Posted May 13, 2012 Author Report Share Posted May 13, 2012 "The clause would allow for assistance by aid, military aid is highly recommended but it encompasses all forms of aid. As for the teriffs, that can be adjusted. Agreed? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shadow hawk Posted May 13, 2012 Report Share Posted May 13, 2012 "As such the case, then I believe we can agree to that." Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Isaac MatthewII Posted May 13, 2012 Author Report Share Posted May 13, 2012 (edited) Alright, any other signatures? In response to the Greenlandic delegates question, I dont see an issue with allowing a status of entering the alliance with limited responsibilities assuming you understand it comes with limited defense. All in order to get to know the signatories a bit more in the hopes you sign as a full member in time. Does this sound reasonable? This offer extends to Cuba and Mexico as well. Edited May 13, 2012 by Isaac MatthewII Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Californian Posted May 15, 2012 Report Share Posted May 15, 2012 (edited) [quote] The North American Defense Union For the purposes of a united, peaceful continent and increased regional cooperation and prosperity, we the nations of North America hereby agree to this treaty of mutual defense, civility, intelligence, aid, and trade. Article I. Peace and Civility All signatories agree to act with civility and respect towards one another. In the event of a disagreement, the nations in question are strongly encouraged to amicably resolve all conflicts without the use of violence. Any conflict may be brought before the other members of the North American Defense Union, who may act as impartial arbitrators to resolve the dispute. All signatories agree to a pact of non-aggression with other member nations. Violation of this article is grounds for expulsion from the Union and appropriate action will be taken. Article II. Mutual Defense All signatories agree to provide adequate and reasonable help, including military and economic support, in the event that an aggressive action is taken against any of the signatories of this treaty. For the purposes of this treaty, an aggressive action is defined as an unprovoked violation of a signatory’s sovereignty from an external, hostile threat. All signatories agree to refrain from providing assistance in internal national conflicts unless help is specifically requested by that nation’s government. Article III. Intelligence Sharing All signatories agree to share all intelligence that may directly or indirectly threaten either the Union or a fellow signatory of this treaty. Article IV. Trade and Aid All signatories agree to promote economic measures such as lower tariffs and trade borders with fellow signatories of this treaty. Although free-trade between member nations is not required, it is encouraged. Any signatory may request military and economic aid. Other signatories are encouraged to provide aid at a discounted rate to those that request it, though this is not required. Article V. Joining the Union Any nation located primarily in North America is eligible to join the Union. A nation will only be admitted by a unanimous vote from all existing signatories. Article VI. Leaving the Union Any signatory that wishes to exit the treaty may provide at least seventy-two hours (72) hours of notice before officially leaving the North American Defense Union. Any signatory that violates this treaty or fails to uphold its responsibilities may be expelled. Evidence must be brought forward and a unanimous vote must be taken. Article VII. Amendments Amendments may be made to the treaty at any time with a 2/3 agreement between all signatories. [/quote] New Greenland has drafted changes. It specifically defines 'aggressive action' for mutual defense. It also provides more leeway, especially towards economic measures as a result of this treaty. With these changes, New Greenland will sign the treaty. While nations such as Mexico are currently close allies, I believe that working with all nations present for the greater unity of North America is the correct path. Edited May 15, 2012 by Californian Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aiden Ford Posted May 16, 2012 Report Share Posted May 16, 2012 West Virginia has no problems with these changes, however it must consult with the American Commonwealth before fully ratifying such a treaty. Their Response shall be our own. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Isaac MatthewII Posted May 16, 2012 Author Report Share Posted May 16, 2012 While there are only a few changes mostly wording if this makes the Greenlandic delegates comfortable North Carolina can agree. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MostGloriousLeader Posted May 16, 2012 Report Share Posted May 16, 2012 "I must say I have similar concerns with the Mexican delegate. Most of our nations aren't really too familiar with each other. The treaty put forth will bind us to the defense of nations we have little to no positive ties with. However, we feel this is an opportunity for American nations to expand their relationships with each other and seems like a probable step in the right direction for a more unified America. We are much more inclined towards the revisions made by the representative from New Greenland which would allow a more flexible response in dealing with such issues. As such we would support this new version over the initial one". Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Voodoo Nova Posted May 16, 2012 Report Share Posted May 16, 2012 "In light of the new draft, Mexico will be able to look further in to ratifying this treaty. North American unity is a goal which is shared amongst all of our nations. Whether this treaty remains in effect in the years ahead, or if it fades away, this will be the stepping stone needed to begin bringing this continent together." Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shadow hawk Posted May 16, 2012 Report Share Posted May 16, 2012 "With the draft by New Greenland, I feel that it betters the previous version with how flexible it is. Tho with previous conferences and how they turned out, from what I believe, I have to concur with Mexico that this treaty will be a stepping stone should it fade away like the others have. I believe that if this draft were to go in effect, that we would enjoy the benefits of this more then the previous, as nations could use money from tariffs to better their lands. Tho, of-course, such tariffs as stated in the draft won't be very high, but enough to probably cover some costs in running a nation. I believe that we would also enjoy the modified Article II, as I concur with the Commonwealth, Greenland, and Mexico." Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JEDCJT Posted May 17, 2012 Report Share Posted May 17, 2012 With the support and approval of the others, Vilhjálmsson would duly affix his signatures to the draft, becoming the first to sign. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
supercheese Posted May 17, 2012 Report Share Posted May 17, 2012 "We are willing to sign this new draft, now that it adds flexibility." Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Isaac MatthewII Posted May 17, 2012 Author Report Share Posted May 17, 2012 The president wondered why the delegates didnt say this in the first place. One more signature, the forum will be open for little while longer while we wait for signatures. OOC:24 hours Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MostGloriousLeader Posted May 17, 2012 Report Share Posted May 17, 2012 President Bronson printed off the second proposal and signed it then faxed it off to the other delegates. "Perhaps we should find a central location for this new organization to act as a headquarters or at least an agreed upon meeting place for delegates from all signatories. At least we should meet to sign this document in person. I personally feel that physical interaction is more reliable and meaningful rather than this videoconferencing". [quote][i]David Bronson[/i] [b]President of the American Commonwealth[/b][/quote] OOC: Remember this is a video conference, its gonna be a bit hard to pass around a paper. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Californian Posted May 17, 2012 Report Share Posted May 17, 2012 I agree with Mr. Bronson from the Commonwealth. Due to its central geographical location and status as a former US military installation, I suggest making the NADU headquarters in Fort Riley, Kansas. It's currently administered as part of the American Protectorate and we can make the Fort as well as surrounding area NADU-controlled land. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Isaac MatthewII Posted May 17, 2012 Author Report Share Posted May 17, 2012 North Carolina agrees with a base in Kansas. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shadow hawk Posted May 17, 2012 Report Share Posted May 17, 2012 "I shall concur and agree with a base in Kansas as well." Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MostGloriousLeader Posted May 17, 2012 Report Share Posted May 17, 2012 "The American Commonwealth has no objection with the proposed site for a headquarters". Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Voodoo Nova Posted May 17, 2012 Report Share Posted May 17, 2012 "A base located in Kansas would allow this organization to be able to ensure interests are kept secure across the continent. Mexico shall suggest a secondary base, located on the east coast, to allow us to better respond to threats towards other signatories as well." Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Isaac MatthewII Posted May 17, 2012 Author Report Share Posted May 17, 2012 (edited) "North Carolina would propose the base be in Fort Bragg, Fayetteville, being a signatory and being a historically important and large military base in the east coast." Edited May 17, 2012 by Isaac MatthewII Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JEDCJT Posted May 17, 2012 Report Share Posted May 17, 2012 "We support Fayetteville as a secondary base." Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Generalissimo Posted May 18, 2012 Report Share Posted May 18, 2012 (edited) From one of Procinctia’s many embassies Doctor Hugo was viewing proceedings of the Republic of North Caronlina’s video conference “Procinctia-In-Exile apologies for the late attendance. Someone might have misconnected our video output to the old 75 baud modem. . . Reviewing the conversation so far. . . Procinctia-In-Exile fully supports the proposed North American Defense Union. All of Procinctia’s North American Territories will be entirely open to North American Defense Union forces.” Edited May 18, 2012 by Generalissimo Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
supercheese Posted May 18, 2012 Report Share Posted May 18, 2012 (edited) "We also agree to both bases and their positions." Edited May 18, 2012 by supercheese Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Isaac MatthewII Posted May 19, 2012 Author Report Share Posted May 19, 2012 (edited) "The period of signing has ended, thank you all signatories, a line will be open between our nations at all times through a direct line. Thank you for your time and God bless. All that havnt agreed yet may join by the normal manor of joining outlined in the treaty." Edited May 19, 2012 by Isaac MatthewII Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.