The CoT Debate
Day 2,129, 08:17
•
Published in Canada 
•
by
•
by SaraDroz
Two Questions
First let us identify what people are moaning about here and I can see two clear issues which should separated and addressed independently. The first is expressed by this comment by Leo Balzac; "Wrong, not consulting the population in general is a BIG deal...". The second by this comment by Addy Lawrence; "A lot of players are focused on the future and their visions of the future do not include CoT." So basically the two questions are A. Was the process correct? and B. Was the decision correct?
The Process
"Not consulting the population in general is a BIG deal...". Is it? I suppose each must judge for themselves but past ePresidents have invaded occupied eFrance or eUK etc thus committing us to war and potential wipe without 'consultation with the populace in general'. You might argue that such a 'consultation' should take place but isn't that why we elect Congress? While a good argument could be made that the Congress debate may have been better carried out in public there is no 'legal' obligation for this. Politically it may have been wiser to 'consult' but the 'law' does not demand it. Due process was clearly followed. If you do not like it vote in new representatives and require that you be consulted.
The Correct Decision?
Some people seem to be inherently anti CoT or anti eUSA. It would be interesting to hear an alternative alliance arrangement from those who would reject CoT membership but I have seen none. We should presumably have allies and unless someone makes a case for an alternative it is not easy what, if any, options may be open. I welcome the case for an alternative, I am not entirely 'sure' about CoT myself but those who reject it need an alternative plan.
When the President first announced the CoT application I asked if it precluded other alliance and it does not as long as those countries are not at war with CoT allies. I cannot therefore see therefore why this stop us MPPing eChina for example (which in my opinion would be wise to guard against Hun invasion from the West). Should a conflict of interests occur then let Congress debate what should be done and - if requested by sufficient numbers or thought politically wise - let the debate be public.
Of course nobody can really say whether CoT membership will be good or bad for eCanada; only the future can tell that. I would argue that right and wrong are misplaced in such a debate; if you have an alternative speak out but if not let us make the best of the allies we are now committed to.
I would finally comment that Brolliance, which purely for geographical reasons must be the guarantee of the security of both eCanada and eUSA, was never dependent on eUSA and eCanada being in the same alliance. Brolliance is not, or should not be, dependent on CoT membership.
Is impeachment due? Clearly not. No law has been broken and we now have allies. Politically more 'consultation' would clearly have been wise in the process but this is easy to say in retrospect. As to the right/wrong debate we await a coherent alternative policy and the onus on those who dislike this policy to present the alternative.
First let us identify what people are moaning about here and I can see two clear issues which should separated and addressed independently. The first is expressed by this comment by Leo Balzac; "Wrong, not consulting the population in general is a BIG deal...". The second by this comment by Addy Lawrence; "A lot of players are focused on the future and their visions of the future do not include CoT." So basically the two questions are A. Was the process correct? and B. Was the decision correct?
The Process
"Not consulting the population in general is a BIG deal...". Is it? I suppose each must judge for themselves but past ePresidents have invaded occupied eFrance or eUK etc thus committing us to war and potential wipe without 'consultation with the populace in general'. You might argue that such a 'consultation' should take place but isn't that why we elect Congress? While a good argument could be made that the Congress debate may have been better carried out in public there is no 'legal' obligation for this. Politically it may have been wiser to 'consult' but the 'law' does not demand it. Due process was clearly followed. If you do not like it vote in new representatives and require that you be consulted.
The Correct Decision?
Some people seem to be inherently anti CoT or anti eUSA. It would be interesting to hear an alternative alliance arrangement from those who would reject CoT membership but I have seen none. We should presumably have allies and unless someone makes a case for an alternative it is not easy what, if any, options may be open. I welcome the case for an alternative, I am not entirely 'sure' about CoT myself but those who reject it need an alternative plan.
When the President first announced the CoT application I asked if it precluded other alliance and it does not as long as those countries are not at war with CoT allies. I cannot therefore see therefore why this stop us MPPing eChina for example (which in my opinion would be wise to guard against Hun invasion from the West). Should a conflict of interests occur then let Congress debate what should be done and - if requested by sufficient numbers or thought politically wise - let the debate be public.
Of course nobody can really say whether CoT membership will be good or bad for eCanada; only the future can tell that. I would argue that right and wrong are misplaced in such a debate; if you have an alternative speak out but if not let us make the best of the allies we are now committed to.
I would finally comment that Brolliance, which purely for geographical reasons must be the guarantee of the security of both eCanada and eUSA, was never dependent on eUSA and eCanada being in the same alliance. Brolliance is not, or should not be, dependent on CoT membership.
Is impeachment due? Clearly not. No law has been broken and we now have allies. Politically more 'consultation' would clearly have been wise in the process but this is easy to say in retrospect. As to the right/wrong debate we await a coherent alternative policy and the onus on those who dislike this policy to present the alternative.
Facebook
Twitter
Discord
Comments
Strength and Honour
We really need new alliances, a bunch of countries have been curb stomped for years now while others have had golden age so long that they can't remember how it is to actually defend themselves.
I believe the pro-US/brolliance citizens far outnumber any anti-US citizens. Since I started this game last September (after the drama and wars occurred) I've seen countless people hoping for a friendship with the US and many people wondering why we weren't close allies like historically in real life.
I think if we look back to this article we can see the massive amount of love for the eUS, and thus we should begin a new era in our relationship with them as presented to us this month.
http://www.erepublik.com/en/article/-us-aim-taking-the-war-to-two--2255537/1/20
I am not anti-US. I thoroughly enjoyed the Brolliance when it existed. It doesn't exist. eCan has always wanted to be eUS's ally but eUS has not reciprocated. Heck, they couldn't even rent us a grain or fruit region when we were getting along.
In the recent past, when eUS needed help, they showed interest in eCan being their ally, that is not the same thing as a Brolliance.
IMO, eCan is now eUS's booty call, and I'm not interested in being someone's booty call. Booty calls are not long-term relationships, they are quick fixes of fun; an indulgence if you will. eCan needs more than that.
eCan is a small player in a big player's game. eUS has proven in the past that eCan's protection is not on their list of international priorities, and I don't blame them.
Fair enough. Maybe I'm just naive or too optimistic, but I see this as a chance to at least become friends again. For sure I don't think they'd have been interested in co-operation had they not gotten into trouble with TWO, but it seems they now realize differently.
We have a 3 month trial period to see if our relationship improves. We have not been allies for at least 18 months. They did not owe us anything during that time but US citizens did a lot for us. Now we are allies let us see what happens. If there is a chance of going back to old days it is worth trying. We have always existed at the pleasure of the USA. If we were join an enemy alliance that courtesy certainly would no longer apply.
Remember when we got Alaska and US got one of ours. If just did not work out for us, because citizens were starting RW's and US two clickers could not be controlled. Both nations wasted to much damage to make it practical. It is possible for them to rent from us but the other way around did not work. I cannot remember it being a consideration since.
Welcome back! )
Ty 🙂
Well stated, Sara.
Congratulations on writing the most logical article about this.
P. Magee
thank you for your complimentary remark
well thought and explained. thank you
I guess if we are in a trial membership, let's see how it goes and if it doesn't work we shake hands and go our separate ways.
I never thought I'd say it but, well said SaraDroz
Here's a question for Sara
Does the Carpet match the drapes?
Lets start pooling CC to find out
"I would finally comment that Brolliance, which purely for geographical reasons must be the guarantee of the security of both eCanada and eUSA, was never dependent on eUSA and eCanada being in the same alliance. Brolliance is not, or should not be, dependent on CoT membership."
Voted hard for this paragraph alone
Good read and I'm from the anti american side of things. I have no problem having a good relationship with USA if they shown sincere signs of actually wanting one.
Till then I'll be on any other battlefield watching there plight.