Talk:Zagna Pact

From ConPlanet

"These are just (hopefully) helpful suggestions, otherwise personally I do not believe any nation/person would ever agree to join such a pact:

Wow ok... a lot of information. This is only my first draft of it, so improvements are welcome - no one said it's perfect :) (Hashi 08:31, 21 May 2010 (UTC))

Zagna Pact Flag

Does anyone (who's signed onto the zagna pact) have any suggestions for a flag? I was thinking kinda like the EU, UN and ASEAN etc have flags, we could have a flag too that represents our nations. If you have any ideas lemme know :) Of course you would keep your own flag, but this flag would represent the group of countries signed (Hashi 07:10, 23 June 2010 (UTC))

I have come up with this flag. Please let me know what you think :) (Hashi 00:51, 25 June 2010 (UTC))

Option 1 by Hashi

Gendea? XD Phaed 14:11, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Yep. I love the flag and want to use it somewhere on conplanet :P (Hashi 23:22, 27 June 2010 (UTC))

I liked it \o looks good ^^ What would the colours represent?(If it's open for sujestion, maybe the Upper Continent and the Lower Continent and Peace Between Them. Kinda like the Irish flag) User:Biorn

*suggestion. Of course it's open ^^. I think that would work quite well, although it doesn't take into account the eastern continent. Maybe it could represent each of the hemispheres and each of the blues represent the fact that although we're almost the same, we're different in our own ways (the different shades of blue). (Hashi 02:49, 28 June 2010 (UTC))

§P.5

Article Five of Prologue: It would seem dumb to have to notify the 'headquarters' 30 days ahead of time when you could just 'breach' the contract/agreement and get immediate expulsion

You're right, but the point is, it's for the benefit of the other nations, not the nation leaving. If the rules are broken or whatever, then it's in the best interest of those joined to get rid of the offending nation. When if they're leaving peacefully, it gives them time to sort out changing relations and rights with that nation. It's all about priority as I see it. (Hashi 08:31, 21 May 2010 (UTC))

No action taken (Hashi 03:17, 28 May 2010 (UTC))

§1

The whole 'free trade agreement' is unrealistic because countries in the real world tax imports to promote local/countrywide businesses. And the 'using Nithalosian Currency only is ridiculous for the following reasons: your currency has yet to be backed by any real standard(and don't even think about saying your using America's method of not backing anything and resulting in trillions $s worth of deficit), why should we have to trade with your currency why not someone else's, and what would happen if your country was obliterated(the currency would be obliterated with it not to mention the rest of the agreement).

What I meant about the currency, was you have to make your nation able to accept it as a legitimate form of currency. Whether you want to do that alongside your current one or not is up to you. You can liken it to the Euro in this respect. I actually wrote this over 2 months ago while conplanet was still in the planning stages and reading back over it, I've changed my opinion and I do realise I worded the currency bit wrong. Theres no reason the nations can't tax on another basis, I'm just saying you can't tax them simply because it's an import. For example, you might tax them the use of the port space or put a tax on the sale of certain items which you might import. (Hashi 08:31, 21 May 2010 (UTC))

Yes, the wording is confusing.. using "primary trading unit" makes it seem like the pact forces all signing countries to use this currency as the main international currency. Phaed 14:32, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. So this section can be rewritten then and I shall try to keep the underlying focus in mind. (Hashi 22:15, 21 May 2010 (UTC))

rewrote §1.4 and introduced §1.5 (Hashi 03:17, 28 May 2010 (UTC))

§2

Free travel agreement: Why should you, or this board, have any say in if I want to permit foreigners to immigrate into my country?! What if they just are 'waste of space' socialist who doesn't contribute to society in any way,shape, or form? This could have huge negatives to any developing country(as it would lose any citizens it had) and their would be large population niche's in first/second world countries, that don't need more people... This would destroy the 'carrying capacity' control the individual countries already have.

Immigrants would still have to pay tax and land rates to the local government... and as it said, citizenship is not guaranteed under the pact meaning their rights to social welfare in their new homeland is not 100% guaranteed either. So their only option would be to find a job - unless their rich enough (in which case I'm sure you wouldn't say no to them coming in). All this section is aiming to do is reduce the amount of paper work citizens from these nations need to endure to travel between countries. (Hashi 08:31, 21 May 2010 (UTC))

I think that a core value of this pact is openness and equal treatment. If you don't want socialists, ("wastes of space"? refer to many EU countries for successful socialism) then don't sign, and discriminate all you want. Phaed 00:39, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

appended §2.2 and introduced §2.6 (Hashi 03:17, 28 May 2010 (UTC))

Suggestions

You seem to think that boards work best, I will not argue with you there...but without a depth of knowledge about your board I will have to say that as it stands/looks from the readers perspective it would seem you get to choose the leader, as you chose the pact(and all the articles within the pact). Which is why I formally decline your 'offer' to join any such pact containing a majority of these articles." -Shines57

You're right. This is something I haven't thought about yet :) Thinking about it, it would be wise to make it up of x amount of dignitaries from each of the countries who all have equal voting rights within the "board". (Hashi 08:31, 21 May 2010 (UTC))

Maybe we could base this on country population (ex. one representative for 500,000 people). Phaed 14:29, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

That wouldn't work. For example, within the UN, they go on the basis that all sovereign states are treated equally regardless of size or power. So uganda has as much say as germany or australia for example. I think this would be a fairer way to represent the country. Perhaps if we thought of a way to break up what each of the representatives did, then perhaps that would give us an idea of how many are needed per country? (Hashi 22:15, 21 May 2010 (UTC))

added new §P.7 to cover this point (Hashi 03:17, 28 May 2010 (UTC))

§2.2

No citizen of a signed nation will be held up at any border customs control upon entrance to another signed nation, except a single check for import of illegal goods under local legislature.

We are not allowed to "hold up" people who match the description of a reported international fugitive, for example? Phaed 14:35, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Another good point needing to be addressed. Something like "except for a single check for import of illegal goods under local legislature or under suspicion of any other crime that may be against local laws or international law."? That should weed out the fugitives as they're bound to have broken a local or international law at some point to be a fugitive right? (Hashi 22:15, 21 May 2010 (UTC))

fixed (Hashi 03:17, 28 May 2010 (UTC))

§3.4

"No signed nation will take prisoners or create conflict on the basis of race, religion or gender at all. "

If internal conflict counts then why can a foreign power/board control a factor of religion? - Shines57 14:39, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Do you mean why can a foreign power stop internal conflict on the basis of something like religion? If so, seeings it's international peace it's aiming for, I think I meant to specify conflict with another country - I don't think I was clear on that. What you do in your own country is your own choice (as far as this is concerned) :/ (Hashi 22:15, 21 May 2010 (UTC))

No changes made yet (Hashi 03:17, 28 May 2010 (UTC))

Loophole?

We have policies for preventing war, but no policies for mediating and stopping it. Phaed 14:45, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Here are some additions I wrote. It doesn't cover everything yet - I can write the rest a bit later.

Any signing nation involved in a political or militial conflict with a signing and/or non-signing nation(s) may formally request any form of aid from other signing nation(s). The signing nations, after gaining explicit written approval from the Council to send a certain form of aid, may then send aforementioned aid to the requesting nation. The duration, rate, and magnitude of this aid may be proposed by the providing country, but is ultimately decided, finalized, approved, and enforced by the Council.
Thats good, I like it. Would they count as a single article or two? I'll put them into the pact once it's been rewritten to close all the current loopholes. (Hashi 22:15, 21 May 2010 (UTC))
More:
Any signing nation involved in a political or militial conflict with a signing and/or non-signing nation(s) should attempt to make peace with other participants before entering into or continuing with physical conflict.
Phaed 00:12, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
Yeah, this makes sense too... (Hashi 00:24, 22 May 2010 (UTC))
Added §3.7, §3.8 and §3.9 (Hashi 03:17, 28 May 2010 (UTC))

English?

This declaration may be translated into local tongues, however, only the English version of the pact is signed and to be held legally true to avoid loss of meaning in translation.

Why English? I wasn't aware it even existed in our conworld. How about an IAL or our own equivalent of English? Phaed 20:12, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Cause everyone speaks and understands English :P Being a pact originally between Nithalosia and Seret, I would think it would be written in one of those official languages? We could come up with an IAL between us - if you guys sign anyway. (Hashi 22:15, 21 May 2010 (UTC))

Sure - it could be written initially in some intermediate between the two languages, and then translated as the other countries join. And yes, I do plan to join :P Phaed 00:09, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

I have _planned_ a mixed pidgin of the two languages already called Seretian Nithalos, but that won't be done for ages. May never be... (Hashi 00:24, 22 May 2010 (UTC))

This article has been removed for now until a suitable replacement is written (Hashi 03:17, 28 May 2010 (UTC))

I know I'm new here, but might I sujest you use a comercialy popular language? Since the two countries that united in the first Zagna Pact had diferent language why not adopt an external language as a mediator for the two people as a way to show neutrality in the first agreement? Kono Mai for what I heard is a well used international langauge(at least thats what is said on its topic) so I would vote on using it as our "lingua franca". What do you guys think? User:Biorn

That could be feasable. But remember, there is two versions of the Zagna pact. The first was between

Independent Seret and

Nithalosia but was totally rewritten when

Independent Seret became part of

Nithalosia (which means also taking on Nithalosian as their national language as the pact was rewritten. The other problem then is, what was the official language of the pact between the period when it was written for the second time, and the year that kono mai joined (which by the way hans, hasn't been added yet)? Why not take an EU approach and have multiple official languages? But then we would still need a single lingua franca for the reason that indiscrepencies in the texts could be had due to holes in the translations and to have a standard to refer to. What do you think? (Hashi 07:15, 21 June 2010 (UTC))

Yes, I was thinking of maybe Kono Mai's language being already a lingua franca at the time the original Zagna Pact could be in it so that they would maintain inpartiality. And after that they could translate it into their own tongues but the original one would be considered the official one. It would be a way of them showing that the two countries were in equal grounds, Nithalosia not considering itself superior to Seret(I don't know if it considered, but in a diplomatic negociation people don't tend to show it if they can muster it xD) That's what I think at least. What do you guys think? User:Biorn

throws in his 2c* English, in ConWorld, could be used as an IAL (perhaps under a different name) and could remain the original language of the Zagna Pact as it is translated into the languages of the member states. Ketsuban 01:07, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Hypothetically, this option would be ideal, but we don't really have the time or patience to really create an IAL. I think English should just be used (for our benefit). This way it's also a neutral language to us all... (Hashi 07:17, 23 June 2010 (UTC))

True, but couldn't we make English the official one for us and make it a conworld language the official one for them? Like, for us it will be english, so that we can understand it and all, but in their history and in the text itself it would say that the official one would be a conworld language. This way we maintain our understanding of the pact and it still stays accurate to the reality of the Conworld. What do you guys think? User:Biorn

+1 :P Phaed 14:12, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

More general pact policies

The Pact, its Council, and the members of its Council are responsible for keeping a general peace in the world, whether this requires avoidance of conflict or involvement. The decisions of the Council, once recorded, should be known as final and binding for every signing nation of the Pact.

No particular person, being, or entity shall lead and preside over the Council, its members, and/or representatives of the Pact's signing countries: each represented country shall have equal opportunity and voice at any meeting of the council and during any form of communication or diplomacy.

Phaed 00:15, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Yes, these should go in too... (Hashi 00:24, 22 May 2010 (UTC))

Added §P.8 and §P.9 (Hashi 03:17, 28 May 2010 (UTC))