The Congress of Sovereigns

[Congress of Sovereigns]

The Congress of Sovereigns

At the time of its conclusion, the second incarnation of the Congress of Sovereigns was an imperialist alliance which consisted of The Land of Kings and Emperors (LKE), United Kingdom (UK) and British Isles (BI). The second incarnation of the Congress was founded on 22nd April 2015.

The second incarnation of the Congress dissolved through joint agreement of the LKE and UK on 10th May 2016. The alliance was dissolved because of severe inactivity in BI (which had manifested in the absence of an offsite forum on the region's World Factbook Entry by the time that the Congress dissolved).

The LKE and UK remain committed to their bilateral alliance through the Treaty of Argyll.

[Josh Sebastian]

STATEMENT ON THE FOUNDATION OF THE CONGRESS OF SOVEREIGNS
23rd April 2015

The Land of Kings and Emperors, The Kingdom of Great Britain and the United Kingdom are pleased to jointly announce the formation of the second incarnation of the Congress of Sovereigns. This announcement follows the ratification of the Treaty of Imperial Fellowship in all three regions.

In light of the dissolution of the third incarnation of the United Imperial Armed Forces, a more diffuse military relationship between the major Imperialist powers is inevitable. However, close liaison on diplomatic and military questions, in support of common objectives, can be maintained outside of any joint military organization. As a diplomatic pact rather than a combined command military structure, the Congress of Sovereigns will facilitate cooperation between three premier Imperialist regions and advance the interests of the Imperialist sphere as a whole.

Our name carries history. The first incarnation of the Congress of Sovereigns came into being in November 2006 with the signing of the Treaty of the Four Realms. The participant regions were The Land of Kings and Emperors, Great Britain and Ireland, The New Inquisition and Empires of Earth. From this monarchist alliance, the diplomatic and military bonds from which the Imperialist sphere has grown were formed, and the CoS also gave rise to a successor organization in 2008-9, the Sovereign Regions Alliance Treaty organization, in which Europeia and Gatesville were also members. In reclaiming the mantle of the CoS, The LKE, KGB and UK are seeking to renew a successful model for partnership between regions with differing degrees of previous involvement in the Imperialist sphere.

Yet this alliance is also about the future. The LKE, KGB and UK enjoy a combined population of over 1,500 nations, have a combined forum post total of 557,610 (spread over current and previous regional forums) and each region controls a strong, credible military force. The Congress of Sovereigns therefore has the resources to collaborate effectively in support of its objectives.

While the LKE was a core member in all three incarnations of the UIAF and has been an established leading Imperialist power since 2006, KGB and UK are also Imperialist powerhouses and constitute emerging powers on the world stage. KGB is, at time of writing, the second-largest Imperialist region in NationStates, after the LKE, and has become a regular contributor to Imperialist military missions. UK has enjoyed a long and distinguished history since its founding in October 2005 (around the same time as the LKE): in this time, UK has successfully transitioned from suffocating membership of the FRA to enjoy a strong network of diplomatic links with likeminded monarchist and Independent regions. The three signatories therefore represent a formidable combination.

All three partners would like to emphasize that the formation of this pact does not imply the loosening of ties with any other ally of any of these regions. On the contrary, this represents a productive effort to expand the parameters of Imperialism as our sphere enters a new era. It should also be added that the Treaty of Imperial Fellowship contains provisions for the addition of both new founding and non-founding signatories, with multiple other regions having expressed interest in joining. The Congress of Sovereigns is the opening to a dynamic future for Imperialist regions.

For the LKE:


Josh Sebastian, Prime Minister of The Land of Kings and Emperors

For the Kingdom of Great Britain:


His Imperial Britannic Majesty George VI, King-Emperor of Great Britain

For the United Kingdom:


Daniel C.A. North, Prime Minister of the United Kingdom

[Klopstock]

Good God. What have I done to deserve this?

Well . . good luck. I guess.

[King Alexander]

What a wonderful day for imperialism. This reincarnation of the Congress is sure to benefit all involved.

[Zemnaya Svoboda]

I have one question: is this congress headquartered in Vienna?

[Zenya]

Me likey a lot

[Onderkelkia]

Good God. What have I done to deserve this?

Well . . good luck. I guess.

Thank you, naturally I recall your contributions to the first Congress well.

I have one question: is this congress headquartered in Vienna?

To achieve affinity with one real-life namesake, we could always arrange that, as Vienna incidentally happens to be a dominion of the LKE Empire.

However, as it stands, it's not headquartered in Vienna (and neither was the first incarnation of the Congress of Sovereigns in 2006-7 for that matter).

[Lazmac]

Does the Congress of Sovereigns have plans to admit other regions in the future, or should we expect the Congress to be comprised of these three regions for the foreseeable future?

An interesting development. I would wish you good luck but that would be silly, so, congratulations?

[King Alexander]

Does the Congress of Sovereigns have plans to admit other regions in the future, or should we expect the Congress to be comprised of these three regions for the foreseeable future?

An interesting development. I would wish you good luck but that would be silly, so, congratulations?

Admitting other regions is something that we are indeed looking in to, however at current, I believe we have an extremely strong and solid foundation.

[Solorni]

EoE was left out this time around

[Klopstock]

Thank you, naturally I recall your contributions to the first Congress well.

How flattering. I can't remember if it was my idea in the first place, but I certainly remember bringing it into fruition. Naturally Onder, your recollection today makes it all worthwhile now.

Did you simply run out of good imperialist names? Recycling this one seems to be a bit of harbringer of doom don't you think?

[Tim Stark]

The banner for it is using a far more copious amount of bevel and drop shadow than one ever needs, but aside from that it looks interesting. Best of luck to The Land of Kings and Emperors in this endeavor, though I can't say I personally would like to see much military success come from it.

[Onderkelkia]

How flattering. I can't remember if it was my idea in the first place, but I certainly remember bringing it into fruition.

Looking at the discussions concerned (in GB&I Cabinet and the treaty talks), I can confirm the idea for the first Congress originated with r3naissanc3r.

In terms of "bringing it into fruition", you resigned as GB&I Foreign Secretary on 9th November 2006, which was before the discussions on the actual treaty began. You were succeeded by North East Somerset. However, I know it is true that Lucius and you discussed improving LKE-GB&I relations before then.

The particular contribution that I had in mind, on your part, was your role in the GB&I delegation at the August 2007 summit.

Naturally Onder, your recollection today makes it all worthwhile now.

I am glad. It was only polite to recognise your role.

Did you simply run out of good imperialist names? Recycling this one seems to be a bit of harbringer of doom don't you think?

On the contrary, all three regions considered several names, but decided to go with the one which we felt to be most poignant.

As for the possibility that it might be considered a "harbringer of doom", that naturally depends on how you view its Imperialist legacy.

[Klopstock]

Looking at the discussions concerned (in GB&I Cabinet and the treaty talks), I can confirm the idea for the first Congress originated with r3naissanc3r.

That's quite possible. It's also true that I was Prime Minister immediately before R3n's term and we both handled foreign policy matters pretty much as one. GB&I's government was firmly on the "new diplomatic avenues" road at the time. I really couldn't say where the idea came from at this point.

In terms of "bringing it into fruition", you resigned as GB&I Foreign Secretary on 9th November 2006, which was before the discussions on the actual treaty began. You were succeeded by North East Somerset. However, I know it is true that Lucius and you discussed improving LKE-GB&I relations before then.

I remember discussing GB&I-LKE relations with Lucius. As for who had what when, I'm not sure it would have mattered at that point. We were pretty united in foreign policy goals from as early as January 2006 until June 2007. Not as much afterward, of course.

The particular contribution that I had in mind, on your part, was your role in the GB&I delegation at the August 2007 summit.

That was the first thing I had in mind when I saw this thread too.

I am glad. It was only polite to recognise your role.

You're always so thoughtful.

On the contrary, all three regions considered several names, but decided to go with the one which we felt to be most poignant.

As for the possibility that it might be considered a "harbringer of doom", that naturally depends on how you view its Imperialist legacy.

A fair point. I remember having high hopes for the Congress in its various forms. At the time, I thought the actual results were a disappointment, especially following the unraveling of the August 2007 treaty structure. I think SRATO eventually made that next step though.

I certainly don't mind the name being reused. More than anything, I was startled to see this thread in here today!

[Unibot III]

Can I just say... George VI's signature looks gorgeous. That is all.

[Onderkelkia]

That's quite possible. It's also true that I was Prime Minister immediately before R3n's term and we both handled foreign policy matters pretty much as one. GB&I's government was firmly on the "new diplomatic avenues" road at the time. I really couldn't say where the idea came from at this point.

Indeed, I appreciate your point that the general turn in GB&I foreign policy occurred prior to the formation of the Congress of Sovereigns (although several directions, apart from, and as well as, this route, were of course on the table). My point was merely that the records show the proposal for a multilateral treaty itself was first suggested by r3naissanc3r after you exited GB&I Cabinet, as you were wondering whether or not you had come up with the specific idea yourself. This idea subsequently became the Congress of Sovereigns in the diplomatic discussions which took place between all four regions.

I of course remember your term as GB&I Prime Minister preceding that of r3naissanc3r, not least because my first term as LKE Prime Minister overlapped with it (as indeed my second term as LKE Prime Minister overlapped with your March to June 2007 term, by which time the Congress was actually in place).

I remember discussing GB&I-LKE relations with Lucius. As for who had what when, I'm not sure it would have mattered at that point. We were pretty united in foreign policy goals from as early as January 2006 until June 2007. Not as much afterward, of course.

Yes, I am sure you're right that "who had what when" wouldn't have mattered in terms of the general policy direction at the stage of November 2006.

However, you commented that you "certainly" remembered bringing it into fruition, which needed clarifying because it was not the case as you were out of office then, although doubtless you contributed by easing the way to the Congress becoming viable by helping to improve LKE-GB&I relations beforehand.

A fair point. I remember having high hopes for the Congress in its various forms. At the time, I thought the actual results were a disappointment, especially following the unraveling of the August 2007 treaty structure. I think SRATO eventually made that next step though.

I think perhaps your expectations of achieving functioning inter-regional bureaucratic structures (perhaps more similar to what ACCEL had) were too high in the context of those four regions at that point in time, which perhaps explains why you were somewhat disappointed. On the other hand, the fundamental success of the first Congress was the strategic, diplomatic and military unity which was achieved between the four regions, which outlasted the CoS itself - of course, whether you think that constitutes a success or something to be applauded depends on your view of the Imperialist sphere and its growth.

Indeed, SRATO did manage to move closer to having formalised institutions in operation above regional level. These were moderately successful, though my experience in my period as SRATO Supreme Allied Commander and general observations from my positions in GB&I and TNI was was that they depended very much on the activity and inclinations of the representatives appointed and whether they were interested in utilising these structures for any purpose - of course, you can say that about any position, but driving impetus at an inter-regional level, with a small number of self-centred regions, is especially hard.

[Klopstock]

My point was merely that the records show the proposal for a multilateral treaty itself was first suggested by r3naissanc3r after you exited GB&I Cabinet, as you were wondering whether or not you had come up with the specific idea yourself.

I appreciate your attention to our forum's records, Onderkelkia. However, threads in the cabinet subforum will be under inclusive when it comes to memorializing foreign policy discussions from that time. Many of the policy discussions occurred on MSN between R3n and myself, and I expect NES too. So did the discussions with Lucius.

However, you commented that you "certainly" remembered bringing it into fruition, which needed clarifying because it was not the case as you were out of office then, although doubtless you contributed by easing the way to the Congress becoming viable by helping to improve LKE-GB&I relations beforehand.

Ahh, we need to define some terms. When I said "bringing into fruition" I wasn't claiming to have drafted, signed, and submitted the treaty for ratification. Is that why you seem so interested in my periods in office? But it was certainly a major task of mine as Foreign Secretary. As it was for GB&I as a whole.

the fundamental success of the first Congress was the strategic, diplomatic and military unity which was achieved between the four regions, which outlasted the CoS itself

I can't agree that the CoS itself was responsible for that development. More accurately, the CoS was meant to formalize the reality of GB&I, LKE, TNI, and EoE forming a fledgling sphere. Dual citizenships and cross-over members drove relations between the four regions more than the treaty process. The NonBrazilianFootBall/Falconio incidents, the Lord Alphanaesa (sp?) affair, and indeed your own later career in Great Britain and Ireland are good examples.

Indeed, SRATO did manage to move closer to having formalised institutions in operation above regional level. These were moderately successful, though my experience in my period as SRATO Supreme Allied Commander and general observations from my positions in GB&I and TNI was was that they depended very much on the activity and inclinations of the representatives appointed and whether they were interested in utilising these structures for any purpose - of course, you can say that about any position, but driving impetus at an inter-regional level, with a small number of self-centred regions, is especially hard.

True enough. I certainly agree that people make policy.

[Onderkelkia]

I appreciate your attention to our forum's records, Onderkelkia. However, threads in the cabinet subforum will be under inclusive when it comes to memorializing foreign policy discussions from that time. Many of the policy discussions occurred on MSN between R3n and myself, and I expect NES too. So did the discussions with Lucius.

My familiarity with the forum records involved stems from work on a joint historical project at the University of GB&I on CoS and SRATO in 2010-11.

The cabinet records are indeed "under inclusive" in the sense that much discussion also took place on MSN conversations, but what they do, however, include is r3naissanc3r coming up with the idea for a multilateral treaty between those regions several days after you left office. It is, of course, theoretically possible that you suggested the idea to him beforehand and he subsequently took it up, but I think it unlikely from the context and my discussions with him.

In terms of the conversations between Lucius and GB&I officials in the period, while as I said you had discussions with him on general LKE-GB&I relations and specifically the question of Lucius making an apology over an earlier incdent of unprofessional behaviour, I can assure you it was r3naissanc3r who first raised the idea with him and handled the negotiations from GB&I's end - your talks with Lucius were directed to bilateral rather than multilateral concerns.

Ahh, we need to define some terms. When I said "bringing into fruition" I wasn't claiming to have drafted, signed, and submitted the treaty for ratification. Is that why you seem so interested in my periods in office? But it was certainly a major task of mine as Foreign Secretary. As it was for GB&I as a whole.

What does "bringing it into fruition" mean then? How is that to be defined? Surely that phrasing implies a key role in its early stages such as handling some aspect of the negotiations for it, actually drafting the treaty, submitting it for ratification or handling some of the initial steps implementing it? I am more than happy to acknowledge your genuine contributions, as indeed I did without prompting on your appearance, but you did none of these activities.

Dealing with the Congress of Sovereigns was indeed a major task of yours as Foreign Secretary subsequently, but you didn't occupy that office again until July 2007, after your second term as prime minister beginning in March and well after the creation of the CoS, so it had nothing to do with "bringing it into fruition", when you posted that you "certainly" remembered doing so. That is simply inaccurate and I find it strange that you are persisting in this claim.

I can't agree that the CoS itself was responsible for that development. More accurately, the CoS was meant to formalize the reality of GB&I, LKE, TNI, and EoE forming a fledgling sphere. Dual citizenships and cross-over members drove relations between the four regions more than the treaty process. The NonBrazilianFootBall/Falconio incidents, the Lord Alphanaesa (sp?) affair, and indeed your own later career in Great Britain and Ireland are good examples.

The "NonBrazilianFootBall/Falconio incidents" and other pre-CoS interactions, as well as the Lord Aphanesia affair, were all sources of tension, not greater cooperation. At the stage when the CoS was created, the only dual citizen between the LKE, GB&I and TNI of any great significance was Fenchurch/Griffin. There had been previous dual citizens (notably Lucius and Falconio), but these connections certainly did nothing to improve relations between the regions. Simply because an overlap of membership exists doesn't make close relations between the regions concerned inevitable - it can equally lead to friction.

At the time of the creation of the first Congress, relations between the regions concerned were actually poor - LKE and GB&I did not even maintain embassies, for instance. Likewise, relations between EoE and the LKE were pretty much non-existent at that stage. It wasn't at all a case of these regions aleady forming a collective group and the CoS merely formalising the situation. As a result of the CoS, contacts between the wider citzenry of these regions increased (especially between GB&I and TNI), which certainly helped to embed political and military ties - but that was a consequence rather than a cause of the first Congress's creation. The existence of the first Congress helped create connections between regions which otherwise would have been distant.

From a position where the relations between these regions were not especially significant and in some cases were bad, the CoS provided the basis for continuing close partnerships. In the life of the first Congress, regular joint military missions involving LKE-GB&I, GB&I-TNI and LKE-TNI began for the first time (including Hethrum and Soviet Union, where we fought the FRA towards the latter end of 2007, as well as joint action for the recovery of Valhalla from the FRA's occupation in December 2006) and, from the perspective of the LKE, TNI and EoE certainly, it became the principal foreign paradigm (it was perhaps less important initially from the perspective of GB&I, as it had other significant links and was a key player in ACCEL). Insofar as GB&I was concerned, the CoS formed part of a wider package involving an intensification of policies which would today be termed Independent and Imperialist, including closer relations with Catlandatopia and Gatesville, as well as military ties to DEN. This was key in creating a common alignment for the sphere.

[Siberian Districts]

It's funny because the LKE flag is just a tad bit larger than the rest.

[Josh Sebastian]

It's funny because the LKE flag is just a tad bit larger than the rest.

This is purely a function of linking to the images gained by copying each of the three regional flags. We're looking to get appropriate sized equal flag images for all three at some point.

[Klopstock]

My familiarity with the forum records involved stems from work on a joint historical project at the University of GB&I on CoS and SRATO in 2010-11.

That's all well and good. But I made and was a part of those records because I was actually there, Onder.

I find it strange that you are persisting in this claim.

I've never "claimed" anything at all. You've recycled the name of a GB&I alliance for contemporary use. Much like the LKE has recycled numerous GB&I policies, practices, and ideas since its founding and modified them for it's own ends. Being a former member of GB&I who worked on the CoS at some length, that certainly got my attention.

The "NonBrazilianFootBall/Falconio incidents" and other pre-CoS interactions, as well as the Lord Aphanesia affair, were all sources of tension, not greater cooperation.

You're unlikely to forge closer relations with a region without some degree of tension. And as I remember it both of those incidents (or series of incidents in NBF/Falconio's case) eventually worked themselves out to the satisfaction of all parties. Even you.

At the time of the creation of the first Congress, relations between the regions concerned were actually poor [ . . .] The existence of the first Congress helped create connections between regions which otherwise would have been distant.

At the time of it's creation Lucius had had an unfortunate incident in GB&I. I think he called us a "has been region" and resigned from our parliament after a prospective government fell apart. That was unfortunate coming from the LKE's monarch. Similar incidents were continuous between GB&I and LKE for quite some time, but it was cross-over memberships that sustained the relationship.

In the life of the first Congress, regular joint military missions involving LKE-GB&I, GB&I-TNI and LKE-TNI began for the first time (including Hethrum and Soviet Union, where we fought the FRA towards the latter end of 2007, as well as joint action for the recovery of Valhalla from the FRA's occupation in December 2006)

As you perfectly well know those three . . . "operations" (I would call them griefing expeditions) caused enormous controversy within GB&I and collectively poisoned GB&I-LKE and GBI-TNI relations. Even at the time of their occurrence a majority in GB&I opposed such actions. You would have been better served citing our joint warzone mission that involved TNP.

Insofar as GB&I was concerned, the CoS formed part of a wider package involving an intensification of policies which would today be termed Independent and Imperialist

You're really going for it aren't you? Maybe the clique of members who belonged to the Imperialist Club in GB&I agree with that view. Then again, like you many are now heavily invested in modern imperialist regions. Maybe that's why my presence here has attracted so much of your angst and attention? My interest here was really more historical. I certainly had no intention of undermining imperialist dogma.

At any rate, it's become apparent that my presence here is seen as a threat by the imperialist sphere. That wasn't my intention, but I think it'll be better for us all if we simply agree to disagree at this point and give the new CoS it's thread back. You're welcome to contact me elsewhere if really want to debate the history of the first CoS, Onder.

[Onderkelkia]

That's all well and good. But I made and was a part of those records because I was actually there, Onder.

It is a matter of fact that you were not in the GB&I cabinet thread I am referring to - not least because it was started after you resigned.

I'm aware you that you were GB&I Foreign Secretary in the period prior to this, but that is not the same thing as being there at the time the idea was proposed and negotiations occurred. On the other hand, I actually was there in the period of the negotiations, because I was LKE Crown Prince at the time.

I've never "claimed" anything at all.

You made the following claim, specifically that you "certainly [remembered] bringing it into fruition":

How flattering. I can't remember if it was my idea in the first place, but I certainly remember bringing it into fruition.

This statement was simply inaccurate, as the conception for the Congress of Sovereigns was proposed by r3naissanc3r after you resigned from GB&I Cabinet, indeed after you announced a leave of absence, and you held no government office in GB&I until several months later.

I have no desire to talk down your contribution. I began, upon seeing you in this thread, by thanking you for it. Your role in mid-2007 was relevant.

However, whether it was through a lapse of memory or another motivation, it is factually incorrect to claim you instigated or created the organisation.

You've recycled the name of a GB&I alliance for contemporary use. Much like the LKE has recycled numerous GB&I policies, practices, and ideas since its founding and modified them for it's own ends.

1. It was an equal alliance of EoE, the LKE, GB&I and TNI. Just because the initial proposal to create a multilateral treaty between these four regions originated from the GB&I Government (after you left it) does not mean that it is a "GB&I alliance" over which GB&I has exclusive ownership forever more. The name and the content of the treaty were decided in mutual discussions (indeed, I specifically recall attending that conversation with Lucius).

2. The King of GB&I was aware of the proposal to recreate the Congress of Sovereigns before this was launched. He gave his full consent and support.

3. As for your wider derisory suggestions that "the LKE has recycled numerous GB&I policies, practices, and ideas since its founding and modified them for it's own ends", I cannot address any specifics because you have not listed any, but the tenor of your comments is that the early LKE directly copied things over from GB&I. While a separate region founded by Caruba/NonBrazillian Football (called Great Britain and Northern Ireland) did that (indeed I myself recall drawing the existence of that region to the attention of NES at the time), the early LKE never copied anything so flagrantly. This is simply a lie.

4. GB&I was, of course, a great inspiration for the LKE, TNI and other like-minded regions. That is something which GB&I can be proud of, as it was in many respects the birth centre for both the modern Imperialist and Independent traditions (as the text of the Independent Manifesto indirectly refers to).

Being a former member of GB&I who worked on the CoS at some length, that certainly got my attention.

Earlier, you commented that you "certainly don't mind the name being reused". Was that an honest remark, because it certainly does not sound that way?

While in a different period to you, I was a servant of GB&I in multiple cabinets myself and currently hold membership in the Privy Council and the House of Lords, the two remaining institutions which were not closed down when the region resolved to close. I would not do anything to dishonour it.

You're unlikely to forge closer relations with a region without some degree of tension. And as I remember it both of those incidents (or series of incidents in NBF/Falconio's case) eventually worked themselves out to the satisfaction of all parties. Even you.

Those incidents worked out themselves to the satisfaction of "all parties" only with the creation of the CoS and in some cases later, not before. The Congress of Sovereigns provided an imperative to overlook these issues. Without that framework, the tensions left un-managed would have led to the opposite result.

The point is that relations between the Congress of Sovereigns signatories were far from warm prior to its creation.

You earlier said that the first Congress's purpose was "to formalize the reality of GB&I, LKE, TNI, and EoE forming a fledgling sphere". The fact is that sphere was not in existence before the CoS was created: LKE and GB&I did not even have embassies, while LKE and TNI each had little do with EoE.

At the time of it's creation Lucius had had an unfortunate incident in GB&I. I think he called us a "has been region" and resigned from our parliament after a prospective government fell apart. That was unfortunate coming from the LKE's monarch.

It was the "earlier incdent of unprofessional behaviour" I referred to above. I am not defending that and Lucius subsequently apologised for it.

Similar incidents were continuous between GB&I and LKE for quite some time, but it was cross-over memberships that sustained the relationship.

The only cross-over member of significance between GB&I and the LKE in November 2006, when CoS was created, was Griffin. Lethen was actually in the LKE under a false persona, Legio Vitrix, but that was in fact as a spy for GB&I - that is literally how bad the two regions' pre-CoS relations were.

There were a small number of previous dual citizens who had left LKE or GB&I prior to that point - but it is what these individuals who were the source of the incidents concerned, not the solution - i.e. Lucius with his foolish remarks and Falconio's conduct as NonbrazillianFootball. They didn't sustain anything.

It was concerted diplomatic efforts, manifested in the Congress of Sovereigns, that resolved these problems and channelled these issues productively.

As you perfectly well know those three . . . "operations" (I would call them griefing expeditions) caused enormous controversy within GB&I and collectively poisoned GB&I-LKE and GBI-TNI relations. Even at the time of their occurrence a majority in GB&I opposed such actions. You would have been better served citing our joint warzone mission that involved TNP.

Soviet Union was initially a GB&I-led operation, with LKE and TNI in support, so it can hardly be said that the LKE and TNI forced GB&I into doing anything. The Government of GB&I instigated them. Moreover, these operations were perfectly in line with GB&I's own historical military activity in 2005.

You say there was a "majority in GBI" opposed to them - I don't know the precise proportion, as I was not focused in GB&I at the time, but judging the character of a region by a count of those who are most vocal at one moment in time is not especially productive anyway.

On the other hand, there was a determined faction opposed GB&I's involvement in invasions, some of who had links to the FRA. In particular, this group included you and Donchatyrit. Donchatyrit was subsequently convicted of treason for leaking information on Soviet Union to the FRA and banished for it.

As for your reference to "griefing expeditions", your condemnation is noted, but that does not change the fact that these missions happened.

The point was, in fact, that the CoS facilitated these operations, which is true - an example of GB&I, LKE and TNI cooperation, setting the tone for the future of all three regions' military activity and for the development of the Imperialist sphere. The fact that you don't like this doesn't change it.

You're really going for it aren't you? Maybe the clique of members who belonged to the Imperialist Club in GB&I agree with that view. Then again, like you many are now heavily invested in modern imperialist regions. Maybe that's why my presence here has attracted so much of your angst and attention? My interest here was really more historical. I certainly had no intention of undermining imperialist dogma.

At any rate, it's become apparent that my presence here is seen as a threat by the imperialist sphere. That wasn't my intention, but I think it'll be better for us all if we simply agree to disagree at this point and give the new CoS it's thread back. You're welcome to contact me elsewhere if really want to debate the history of the first CoS, Onder.

I am not "really going for" anything. I have no problem with your presence; I greeted you perfectly amicably, thanking you for your contribution. A hostile element has been introduced to this discussion with your second post and you have only become more directly hostile with each of your responses since.

The "clique of members" you refer to as agreeing with me would go beyond the members of the Imperialist Club: it would in fact include all members of the GB&I Monarchy and indeed the vast majority of its governments in the period since when you and some other individuals began raising concerns.

[Klopstock]

It is a matter of fact that you were not in the GB&I cabinet thread I am referring to - not least because it was started after you resigned.

I'm aware you that you were GB&I Foreign Secretary in the period prior to this, but that is not the same thing as being there at the time the idea was proposed and negotiations occurred. On the other hand, I actually was there in the period of the negotiations, because I was LKE Crown Prince at the time.

I recognize that you have a significant, current interest in downplaying my role in the CoS. That's fine; it really doesn't bother me and I understand your present political calculation. I can also understand why you want to downplay the role of a defender and former FRA member in light of LKE and TNI policy toward the FRA and defenders. I understand your agenda and have no qualms with it. Politics is politics.

As for your wider derisory suggestions that "the LKE has recycled numerous GB&I policies, practices, and ideas since its founding and modified them for it's own ends" [ . . .] This is simply a lie.

Again, I understand your interest in holding this position now. However, we both know this isn't true. And while they may not feel able to say so here and now, the others from that era know it as well.

Being a former member of GB&I who worked on the CoS at some length, that certainly got my attention.

Earlier, you commented that you "certainly don't mind the name being reused". Was that an honest remark, because it certainly does not sound that way?

Certainly. The name got my attention as I hope you can appreciate. As I said in my initial post:

Well . . good luck. I guess.

If you guys think it's a good idea to reuse the name then go ahead. I'm surprised that you do, but that's my affair.

Soviet Union was initially a GB&I-led operation [. . .] [m]oreover, these operations were perfectly in line with GB&I's own historical military activity in 2005.

You might not know this but the government that initiated Soviet Union had the stuffing knocked out of it in the region at large. The operation caused serious damage to Fenchurch/Griffin's standing for some time. Her successor shared a similar fate.

On the other hand, there was a determined faction opposed GB&I's involvement in invasions, some of who had links to the FRA. In particular, this group included you and Donchatyrit. Donchatyrit was subsequently convicted of treason for leaking information on Soviet Union to the FRA and banished for it.

And not me. The attempt to go after me didn't turn out well for you did it? I served a third term as Prime Minister afterward.

A hostile element has been introduced to this discussion with your second post and you have only become more directly hostile with each of your responses since.

Hostile? I seem to have significantly underestimated the effect my presence here would have on you. Perhaps I naively figured that your previous enmity towards me had diminished over the years. Obviously that was mistaken.

---

And with that, I'm going to stop posting here. I feel that the length and nature of this discussion does a discourtesy to KGB and UK, and don't wish for that to be the case. I wish the British sphere in NS well -- off the battlefield, of course.

[Onderkelkia]

I recognize that you have a significant, current interest in downplaying my role in the CoS. That's fine; it really doesn't bother me and I understand your present political calculation. I can also understand why you want to downplay the role of a defender and former FRA member in light of LKE and TNI policy toward the FRA and defenders. I understand your agenda and have no qualms with it. Politics is politics.

None of this addresses, in the slightest, the facts I have presented in relation to your role in the CoS; it merely makes imputations about my motivations.

If I was making a calculated attempt to downplay your role in the CoS, I would have either ignored your first post or responded to it differently. Instead, I expressly acknowledged your role, saying "Thank you, naturally I recall your contributions to the first Congress well." I was glad to acknowledge your role.

You claimed to have brought the CoS into fruition. This is not true, as you left the GB&I Government before it was proposed, never mind implemented. The original idea was a proposal, (made after you had resigned as Foreign Secretary and had been replaced by North East Somerset), made by r3naissanc3r to have a multilateral treaty with LKE, EoE and GB&I, with TNI as a possible addition - with the addition being then agreed to. Then the nature of the alliance, including the name, were negotiated all four treaty partners on an equal basis. It is simply untrue to say you as an individual created it.

I acknowledged the actual extent of your role in the matter from the outset, including attempts improve LKE-GB&I relations prior to your resignation in November 2006 and subsequently your efforts, when CoS was in force, from March to August 2007, to expand and build on the existing framework.

From the posts here, it is apparent that is you who is uncomfortable coming to terms with the CoS as it was, namely the foundation for the growth of the Imperialist sphere. You did make a contribution to that process, perhaps unwittingly, in the period up to the summer of 2007. You should be proud of it.

Again, I understand your interest in holding this position now. However, we both know this isn't true. And while they may not feel able to say so here and now, the others from that era know it as well.

If you had cited any specifics, I could consider them, but I am afraid I am quite genuinely at a loss to identify what you believe the LKE recycled. Our two regions shared a monarchical and a parliamentary system of government (although the LKE electoral system was very different, as was the functioning of its judiciary and executive), but the British Parliament is a well-known real life institution. Aside from politics, LKE culture and society was totally different.

There were flagrant attempts to rip-off GB&I (e.g. such as Caruba's GB&NI region as I referred to above, which as I said I reported to NES at the time).

GB&I was, of course, a major influence on the LKE, in the same way that the LKE was an influence on Europeia or TNI. That does not mean that Europeia and TNI are recycled versions of the LKE, or that Europeia and TNI copied from the LKE. We are talking about a natural process of evolution.

I have been at the forefront of acknowledgin GB&I as an inspiration and model for the growth of the Imperialist sphere. The LKE very clearly brought something distinctive and influential to the table, as was recognised at the time, but acknowledging that is not to deny the seminal importance of GB&I.

Certainly. The name got my attention as I hope you can appreciate.

Given your (vehement and unjustifiable) complaints about the name being recycled, I'm struggling to believe this.

You might not know this but the government that initiated Soviet Union had the stuffing knocked out of it in the region at large. The operation caused serious damage to Fenchurch/Griffin's standing for some time. Her successor shared a similar fate.

I'm aware that were some contemporary political disagreements in December 2007, but the governments led by Fenchurch/Griffin and Gililand were in fact the governments; the decisions they took were perfectly valid. Any domestic opposition was relatively insignificant by mid-2008 I can assure you from my own experience as First Sea Lord and GB&I was engaged fully in joint operations along the lines of those pioneered first during the Congress of Sovereigns.

And not me. The attempt to go after me didn't turn out well for you did it? I served a third term as Prime Minister afterward.

I don't know who you mean by "you", but I never attempted to prosecute you or block your political progress in GB&I.

Donchatryit confessed to espionage regarding Soviet Union on behalf of the Founderless Regions Alliance in November 2008. He was dealt with then.

Hostile? I seem to have significantly underestimated the effect my presence here would have on you. Perhaps I naively figured that your previous enmity towards me had diminished over the years. Obviously that was mistaken.

What "previous enmity" would be? Prior to this thread, I have no recollection of us ever having a dispute; we rarely spoke after mid-2007.

In any case, don't flatter yourself that your presence is the issue here: As I say, I greeted you amicably, with the following:

Thank you, naturally I recall your contributions to the first Congress well.

It is not your presence, but your subsequent posts attempting to undermine the CoS and attack the LKE which I have taken issue with.

And with that, I'm going to stop posting here. I feel that the length and nature of this discussion does a discourtesy to KGB and UK, and don't wish for that to be the case.

Your attempt to use this thread, in a vain attempt to air your resentment over the fact that GB&I took a different political direction to the one you might have preferred, is what was discourteous. The length of this discussion is merely a product of what you posted; I have merely replied to your points in turn.

[Rogue Bear]

Oh whoops. Apparently we took something that mattered? Sorry about that old chaps.

The beans were delicious by the way.