82
Patti11- Why I don't agree with the NAP with Indonesia
Hey Australia,
Recently, it has well talked about in the media in regards to the Non Aggression Pact (NAP) with Indonesia. Is it a good idea? is it not? Here are my opinions on the matter.
For now, good idea
Australia has lost a large chunk of gold (1800 to be exact) and the Senate wants to keep the Q5 hospital we just built. We would need at least 1 MPP to ward off a threat of war with Indonesia, with more to obviously come if war was declared. Most likely, we would have to rely heavily on our allies to defend us, not good. Thus the NAP with Indonesia, is beneficial for Australia.
What about in the future?
This NAP ties us down for 5 months.
5 months.
5 months ago, noone could predict that MPPs would rise to 100 gold. In 3 months, a new war module will come out. In 5 months, Australia may be one of the world's biggest empires. Who knows if we will need this NAP? Australia may be best of friends, or worst enemies with Indonesia in a couple of months. Australia may stumble on an Indonesian company that contains 16000 gold. eRepublik is a war game and an NAP is one of the most shaky proposals you can propose. Which brings me to my next point:
Was it fair for Cerri to sign the NAP?
Cerri issued the NAP through Executive Order. What this means is, practically no discussion by the senators, and an immediate 24 hour vote. An Executive Order can only be issued in dire, emergency situations, whether this was, is another point of debate, for another article.
As mentioned, this NAP is 5 months long.
Thus:
Is it fair for Cerri to thus sign this NAP, without promising so in her election platform?
Is it fair for Cerri to use an EO, rendering hardly any discussion on the issue, ESPECIALLY without promising so in her election platform?
Is it fair for Cerri to not issue a referendum on the matter? As surely this has massive implications on the future of eAustralia?
Cerri, there is still time not to sign the NAP. Please, let the people decide, or reduce the time the NAP is in place for.
Patti11
Recently, it has well talked about in the media in regards to the Non Aggression Pact (NAP) with Indonesia. Is it a good idea? is it not? Here are my opinions on the matter.
For now, good idea
Australia has lost a large chunk of gold (1800 to be exact) and the Senate wants to keep the Q5 hospital we just built. We would need at least 1 MPP to ward off a threat of war with Indonesia, with more to obviously come if war was declared. Most likely, we would have to rely heavily on our allies to defend us, not good. Thus the NAP with Indonesia, is beneficial for Australia.
What about in the future?
This NAP ties us down for 5 months.
5 months.
5 months ago, noone could predict that MPPs would rise to 100 gold. In 3 months, a new war module will come out. In 5 months, Australia may be one of the world's biggest empires. Who knows if we will need this NAP? Australia may be best of friends, or worst enemies with Indonesia in a couple of months. Australia may stumble on an Indonesian company that contains 16000 gold. eRepublik is a war game and an NAP is one of the most shaky proposals you can propose. Which brings me to my next point:
Was it fair for Cerri to sign the NAP?
Cerri issued the NAP through Executive Order. What this means is, practically no discussion by the senators, and an immediate 24 hour vote. An Executive Order can only be issued in dire, emergency situations, whether this was, is another point of debate, for another article.
As mentioned, this NAP is 5 months long.
Thus:
Is it fair for Cerri to thus sign this NAP, without promising so in her election platform?
Is it fair for Cerri to use an EO, rendering hardly any discussion on the issue, ESPECIALLY without promising so in her election platform?
Is it fair for Cerri to not issue a referendum on the matter? As surely this has massive implications on the future of eAustralia?
Cerri, there is still time not to sign the NAP. Please, let the people decide, or reduce the time the NAP is in place for.
Patti11
Facebook
Twitter
No Nap!
Agreed and voted.
"Is it fair for Cerri to thus sign this NAP, without promising so in her election platform?"
Her platform clearly said we owe nobody anything! if that's the case, was was a condition of the NAP that the eAustralian Public buy out Indo WA companies! Clear evidence the voters were duped!
I voted for you Patti11, I knew you should have contested the election properly.
vote no to NAP
so ... hurry up and bring on the Impeachment vote, Patti11!
no NAP!
Random face - I have started the Impeachment Proposal!
No NAP, stop giving into Indonesian demands, regain your dignity eAustralia.
RandomFace: didnt you want to impeach me? <a href="http://www.erepublik.com/en/Australia/law/15986" target="_blank">http://www.erepublik.com/en/Australia/la[..]5986</a>
too funny
Where is the promised hospital for South Australia? What happened in the senate? Come on!!! Really!! We want that hospital..
Agreed with this article, and voted.
I cannot condemn this NAP strongly enough. It's appeasement by stealth, with no visibility, no consultation, no checks/balances on what is a diplomatic move of potentially limited effectiveness, which will have REAL internal economic consequences at the very time when we can't afford them. It also creates a foreign policy issue if the terms of the NAP prevent our fulfilling our responsibilities to our Sol and EDEN Allies.
If this NAP goes ahead, I'll be lobbying for the Prime Minister to be impeached.
I disagree with both the NAP, and the method with which Cerri has gone about it. I am concerned, however, that the two matters may get confused. Any impeachment should deal with the manner in which Cerri has gone about the NAP. It should not be voted on by senators based on whether they agree with the NAP itself.
no NAP
Speak Up Cozza - we need your guidance.
Christal - I'm glad to say, after I complained that it was running late, the vote finally (yesterday) was out up for the Q5 Hospital in SA.
By tomorrow we will know if it has passed.
May I clarify some spin on this article...
This was put by our PM to 24 HOUR vote - SENATE voted on the NAP, not Cerri. Spin point one. Don't question just your PM over this decision - it would have been more wrong, not to bring this to senate at all..
Also Patti - I would have expected more from you. PM's seem to systematically make decisions that impact on future governments. Or does the recent support you have to Operation Two Fold Bay, and subsequent orders to join alliances not prove this? Spin point two.
If senate, which I note from the recent declassified discussions were in fact discussing this as long as 11 days ago - not agreed or felt uncomfortable - they should then vote NO! As is their right when a choice is brought to them. Spin point three.
By the way, I remain undecided about the companies issue - but, now you have made me serious about it - I do happen to understand economics - you may view my thoughts on the matter here:
<a href="http://forum.auserepublik.com/viewtopic.php?f=22&t=4441&start=15" target="_blank">http://forum.auserepublik.com/viewtopic.[..]t=15</a>
^^ What He Said
Hmmmm yeah... Good points Ranger. There may have been limited visibility, but limited IS better than none - the PM needs to have some Executive control after all. Impeachment may not be appropriate after all.
Still, gotta say I'm still concerned about the Economics of this. And I'm not happy about potentially leaving Malaysia to the wolves.
*needs to stay more informed about politics*
NAP? Eww.
Okay i'm gonna say no NAP but I'm a noob so explain.... MPP...NEW war module!
I agree with Ranger.
I'm American, and so probably I should just shut up.
But as an American, I do know what it's like to have your country all or almost destroyed.
Fortunately for the US, our period of occupation was much shorter than what you endured.
Maybe I'm way off here, but is it possible that this 5 month NAP idea is a bit of Stockholm Syndrome?
Australia has current MPP's with the US, Canada, Spain, Croatia, and Greece. Many of these countries (and others) contributed their elite mobile forces that aided the liberation of WA. This should be a sign of our commitment to our Australian allies. If Indonesia goes nuts on Australia, we'd be there in a flash.
Again, I'm only American, but a 1 month NAP with Indo while you decide your nation's course seems to make more sense than locking yourself into a 5-month commitment.
Jon Barack Bluejacket
The terms of the NAP look fairly uninspiring. Combine this with the other outbreaks of fail over the last few weeks and it is hard to get excited about eAustralia's future.
"eRepublik is a war game"
Patti, while War is one part of this game, it's not the WHOLE game. There are other aspects, ones that usually appeal to the more mature players, from what I can see.
Binda33
Hi patti
"Yes I did not tell the senate about Op TwoFold Bay, but look at the time frame I had to make my decision. Less than an hour. I had serious consequences if all failed as well."
Your own article, here:
<a href="http://www.erepublik.com/en/article/pms-desk-day-710-2-months-in-the-making-1011117/1/20" target="_blank">http://www.erepublik.com/en/article/pms-[..]1/20</a>
Is inconsistent with this. In fact, such a plan was in motion and I quote:
"Op Twofold began at the beginning of September, just before the PM elections, with me and DA (Derek Apollyon) and included the full plan of 1. joining EDEN, then 2. using that to either pressure Indo to give us WA, or take it by force."
Hence you had more than one hour.
"Ranger, I ask you this question. Should Cerri be making a decision that ties the country down for 5 months, without a referendum of some sort? Or at least making the issue public, so the people can contact their Senators?"
Should the Prime Minister be making a decision which ties the country down for longer, in an alliance, without a referendum of some sort? Or, making the issue public, so it can be discussed with their senators, in less than a 22 minute timeframe?
GOOD QUESTION.
"Hence you had more than one hour."
Op TFB never involved RWing WA first. It was joining of EDEN first. The decision to go for the RW had to be made on the spot, as I woke up and found if the wall was low.
Oh thats not fair ranger, you didn't answer my question. I'll go first, but you have to answer mine then
"Should the Prime Minister be making a decision which ties the country down for longer, in an alliance, without a referendum of some sort? Or, making the issue public, so it can be discussed with their senators, in less than a 22 minute timeframe?"
For one, we didn't join an alliance in that discussion. To join EDEN it requires a 66% 'yes' vote from the senate, PLUS a 'yes' 66% vote from the public. Yes I did however do it for an MPP, which is something which lasts for 1 MONTH (not 5) and again, the time frame was small. Did we know what Indonesia would do after we took 1 of their most valued regions from their grasp? No.
Your turn
Tennis anyone?
"Op TFB never involved RWing WA first. It was joining of EDEN first. The decision to go for the RW had to be made on the spot, as I woke up and found if the wall was low."
Semantics. If you already made the decision to join EDEN in September, and actioned this through capitalising on a RW in October, it has the same effect. The fact you approved this without any form of executive council - War Council? The dPM? - indicates you followed through with a decision already made - then, took credit for it referencing a plan enacted 2 months prior. One hour or not.
"For one, we didn't join an alliance in that discussion. To join EDEN it requires a 66% 'yes' vote from the senate, PLUS a 'yes' 66% vote from the public. Yes I did however do it for an MPP, which is something which lasts for 1 MONTH (not 5) and again, the time frame was small. Did we know what Indonesia would do after we took 1 of their most valued regions from their grasp? No."
Um, we signed the in game version of an alliance by signing MPPs - you are arguing that is valid, and a vote on forum before actually signing is not. Democracy Fail.
Even if an MPP lasts 2 weeks, the in effect decision lasts beyond your term. I know you know this. (I am not saying this is a bad thing patti - but, you are trying to split hairs - and that's my job for a living mate).
You are definitely right in one regard - we don't know what will happen in 5 months. However, senate was aware of the proposal brought forth by the PM - and voted on it. Ergo, regardless of how you play this, it was by far more democratic than your actions.
And, I'm a big one for democracy
The senate voted on it as Cerri indicated it was an emergency - we got suckered into a poor deal.
Again... in an "EMERGENCY" situation, why not put a One Month NAP forward?
Anything longer than a month, should be considered a long-term piece of legislation and treated as such.
"Semantics. If you already made the decision to join EDEN in September, and actioned this through capitalising on a RW in October, it has the same effect. The fact you approved this without any form of executive council - War Council? The dPM? - indicates you followed through with a decision already made - then, took credit for it referencing a plan enacted 2 monthsprior. One hour or not."
Never planed to join EDEN through RW.
"Um, we signed the in game version of an alliance by signing MPPs - you are arguing that is valid, and a vote on forum before actually signing is not. Democracy Fail."
In game alliances don't mean much long term ranger.
"Even if an MPP lasts 2 weeks, the in effect decision lasts beyond your term. I know you know this. (I am not saying this is a bad thing patti - but, you are trying to split hairs - and that's my job for a living mate)."
Yes it has lasting affects but they are not forced on the future PM. They do not have to re-sign
"it was by far more democratic than your actions.
And, I'm a big one for democracy "
Yes it was, but if your so big on democracy, don't you agree it could go further, with a referendum or a normal senate discussion
I also agree with ranger
ranger is wise.
Perhaps but then again, if I did that, I would think the Brilliance should have also.
I'm never gonna give them up, never gonna let THEM down...
Patti11 is wiser!
NO NAP!!!
Sorry for spam
<a href="http://www.erepublik.com/en/company/0nly-90-wellnes-workers-207009" target="_blank">http://www.erepublik.com/en/company/0nly[..]07009</a>
no NAP
Patti, I'm sure you're aware that I'm NOT the deputy minister of defence.
War can be a big part of the game if you want it to be. It's really up to the individual if they want to follow that path.
and binda - to use some buddhism here -
The only way to possibly win again eIndo, is to deny her BATTLE
Unles Crowded, you have a spare 1000 eAusralians in the wings?
??
??????????????????????????????
???????????????????????????????????????? ???????????????????????????????????????? ???????????????????????????????????????? ???????????????????????????????????????? ???????????????????????????????????????? ???????????????????????????????????????? ??????????????????????
Another great scroll down the page to make a comment:
The future is not ours to see ...
Que Sera, Sera
The proportionality seems set for the possible future:
We alone cannot ever defeat eIndo.
Personally, I don't think Australia should get an NAP (especially one that has such a long term) with Indonesia. Reasons have been raised, debated, reraised and redebated.
But hey, I'm not eAustralian, so what I think doesn't matter
thats fair enough Vikta, but what do you think of the process made to pass this NAP?
I personally don't think an EO should have happened in the first place to be honest.The senate should have just voted for it normally, i disagree with any NAP if it involves giving money to the eIndo's.I trust Patti as well.
Be warned though it is possible that Russia and Indo might do a joint strike
eIndo should have been told to give back all companies etc as a sign of good faith(I remember when eNSW was under eIndo rule)and only aft the finalization of that will we consider even discussing their proposal. Such a NAP is in direct conflict with currant allies were doooomed.Best pack our bags.
Indonesia is on its way down in regards to world power. We'd be better off finding friends to support us than to ostracize ourselves from those who would support us in our hour of need.
WoW nice avatar D.D.
Help support the REVOKE-ing of the NAP
<a href="http://forum.auserepublik.com/viewtopic.php?f=133&t=4511" target="_blank">http://forum.auserepublik.com/viewtopic.[..]=4511</a>
Patti's a bro. O7
Why Australia?
You know we would help you in an instant...
why would you do this ;_;