IFC Council (IC)

[New Austzeland]

In light of the ongoing controversy in our alliance regarding dual membership, as Secretary General I am issuing a special poll in the Council to decide this crucial matter. I ask all IFC members to vote in this binding poll.

What should the policy of the IFC be when it comes to dual membership with the UL and SACTO?

Option A: We should allow dual membership between the UL/SACTO and IFC, given certain restrictions that will ensure that IFC is not pulled into UL and SACTO conflicts.

Option B: We should not allow dual membership between UL/SACTO and IFC thus continuing the ongoing policy that has always been in place.

----

If option A wins, Resolution 40 will be amended to reflect that change, if option b wins, resolution 40 will be implemented.

The Republic of Zernovyl votes for option A.

[Argentarino]

Lucrezia Catalona, the Ambassador from the Kingdom of Argentarino, silently entered the Council chambers and quietly voted for Option B.

[Elemental North]

“The United Provinces of New Korongo votes in favour of Option A. Also, we feel that the voting period allocated to Resolution 40 was too short for the outcome to be considered truly representative.”

OOC: Are the time stamps on the posts playing tricks on me, or was the voting period less than seventeen hours long?

17.5 hours were given from the time of presentation to the end of voting. In light of as many AYE votes as I have ever seen, and the very likely possibility that 7 more hours of time would somehow magically change people's thoughts on this solid issue-I thus closed the voting. It has been reafirrmed that this has been a complete waste of time by the fact that, low and behold, the EXACT same vote was given through this poll, as was had through Res.40. those that were in favor of Res.40 voted for option B those that weren't and either abstained or voted no, went for option A.

It was a complete waste of time, and does not put us in any a different position with the UL-SACTO conflict except to say that instead of 7 people telling them they are barred from entry, they will now have 9 or 10. And as I explained to the good Secretary General, it does not matter how many of us reaffirm this, it's still square 1 with these people and not the progress we should be making.

If we truly wanted to continue in peaceful negotiations with these people, the Secretary General would introduce a resolution to Council to REPEAL 40. Which I would've happily of sponsored, and that would've passed-because I doubt there's anyone who is 100 percent happy with 40.

I suggested this repeal avenue to the Secretary General privately through T.G, and insisted on it. Instead, for whatever reason he decided to go with this garish public display of disapproval with the UL-SACTO group, which, in the end, will do nothing but hurt our relations further.

For whilst there may be factions within both groups who see this ban as inoffensive and necessary, those factions do not make up the executive leadership. And instead we have nations leading the charge like El Cuscatian, who views this as a blatant affront to his efforts and general disingenuous behavior on our part. Thus, until the leadership in this issue changes on the SACTO-UL side of this, I doubt, and heavily discourage, showing them that not only does our leader not what them in, but overwhelming droves of our members, don't want them in. The last thing you want to do to a leper, remember, is show him just how much of his skin is rotting away....

[Bratislav]

My first duty is to the IFC and its members, and no one else. Given the divisions and rifts Resolution 40 was causing I affirmed that more time was needed to debate and assess this very important policy that would have wide consequences. In light of this I believe holding this poll to assure that the IFC's choice regarding these two possible paths was the right one. The poll directly affects what will be done with Resolution 40. I don't believe it has been a waste of time and look to see more members vote on this so we can have a final decision implemented. I don't care what UL and SACTO think,,,I just want to make sure that a decent portion of our alliance have a say on which policy direction we will take. This policy will have wide security and diplomatic implications for us which should be taken seriously.

[Elemental North]

My first duty is to the IFC and its members, and no one else. Given the divisions and rifts Resolution 40 was causing I affirmed that more time was needed to debate and assess this very important policy that would have wide consequences. In light of this I believe holding this poll to assure that the IFC's choice regarding these two possible paths was the right one. The poll directly affects what will be done with Resolution 40. I don't believe it has been a waste of time and look to see more members vote on this so we can have a final decision implemented. I don't care what UL and SACTO think,,,I just want to make sure that a decent portion of our alliance have a say on which policy direction we will take. This policy will have wide security and diplomatic implications for us which should be taken seriously.

So what you're saying is, is that you don't care what they think, but you want everyone to weigh in on a resolution that will determine what they think of us, because it "will have wide security and diplomatic implications for us which should be taken seriously"?

So your stance is, I don't care what they think of us, even though its important, but I want you all to weigh in because this will determine what they think of us and it's important.

Wow.

[Bratislav]

My first duty is to the IFC and its members, and no one else. Given the divisions and rifts Resolution 40 was causing I affirmed that more time was needed to debate and assess this very important policy that would have wide consequences. In light of this I believe holding this poll to assure that the IFC's choice regarding these two possible paths was the right one. The poll directly affects what will be done with Resolution 40. I don't believe it has been a waste of time and look to see more members vote on this so we can have a final decision implemented. I don't care what UL and SACTO think,,,I just want to make sure that a decent portion of our alliance have a say on which policy direction we will take. This policy will have wide security and diplomatic implications for us which should be taken seriously.

So what you're saying is, is that you don't care what they think, but you want everyone to weigh in on a resolution that will determine what they think of us, because it "will have wide security and diplomatic implications for us which should be taken seriously"?

So your stance is, I don't care what they think of us, even though its important, but I want you all to weigh in because this will determine what they think of us and it's important.

Wow.

I'm saying that important policy decisions that greatly affect how the IFC functions should be given consideration with respect to all our members, at least the majority. What is most important to me is that IFC members are okay with a given policy than what UL/SACTO believe. I know you disagree with me, but I believe the poll was fair given the extraordinary circumstances and resolution 40 is still pending execution or possible changes given the result of this poll.

[Elemental North]

So what you're saying is, is that you don't care what they think, but you want everyone to weigh in on a resolution that will determine what they think of us, because it "will have wide security and diplomatic implications for us which should be taken seriously"?

So your stance is, I don't care what they think of us, even though its important, but I want you all to weigh in because this will determine what they think of us and it's important.

Wow.

I'm saying that important policy decisions that greatly affect how the IFC functions should be given consideration with respect to all our members, at least the majority. What is most important to me is that IFC members are okay with a given policy than what UL/SACTO believe. I know you disagree with me, but I believe the poll was fair given the extraordinary circumstances and resolution 40 is still pending execution or possible changes given the result of this poll.

Then I yield to your will, and that of my members.

:THE LEGISLATION WILL BE PLACED INTO AN EDIT/DEBATE SESSION FOR THE NEXT 7.5 HOURS:

During this time all necessary avenues may and must be explored, all meetings may be rapped up, and all conferences and discussions with UL-SACTO delegates can be completed. From there Res. 40 may be amended as many times as thought necessary. At the conclusion of the 7.5 hour deadline, we will re-open voting and Delegates may either change the vote they have already issued or leave them the same, Delegates who did not receive the chance to vote in the previous voting session, may cast their initial vote. The second voting session will be called to a close at this time (2:00 P.M PST) tomorrow. Any Delegate at that time who did not vote, or give his/her say, will then have to hold their peace. This will be the only extension given. This is done at the behest of key members of this Council.

[Libraria and Ausitoria]

Given that plenty of people like to sleep for 8 hours, having only 7.5 hours for amendments is ridiculous. How do you expect anyone to conduct three-way diplomacy in 7.5 hours when there are about half a dozen people with the power to interfere in SACTO's foreign policy, to say nothing of the UL's? What's the hurry anyway? Why not go for 7.5 days?

[Bratislav]

ONGOING RESULTS

OPTION A: 8
OPTION B: 3

Total Members voted: 11 out of 30 Full IFC Members (active roster of IFC members, minus observers, and minus me).

[Bratislav]

I'm saying that important policy decisions that greatly affect how the IFC functions should be given consideration with respect to all our members, at least the majority. What is most important to me is that IFC members are okay with a given policy than what UL/SACTO believe. I know you disagree with me, but I believe the poll was fair given the extraordinary circumstances and resolution 40 is still pending execution or possible changes given the result of this poll.

Then I yield to your will, and that of my members.

:THE LEGISLATION WILL BE PLACED INTO AN EDIT/DEBATE SESSION FOR THE NEXT 7.5 HOURS:

During this time all necessary avenues may and must be explored, all meetings may be rapped up, and all conferences and discussions with UL-SACTO delegates can be completed. From there Res. 40 may be amended as many times as thought necessary. At the conclusion of the 7.5 hour deadline, we will re-open voting and Delegates may either change the vote they have already issued or leave them the same, Delegates who did not receive the chance to vote in the previous voting session, may cast their initial vote. The second voting session will be called to a close at this time (2:00 P.M PST) tomorrow. Any Delegate at that time who did not vote, or give his/her say, will then have to hold their peace. This will be the only extension given. This is done at the behest of key members of this Council.

"We respect the PM's work in this matter. While disagreements are natural in a democratic organization, the unity of our alliance can move use forward past such differences. Even though a disagreement arose between the Secretary General and PM regarding the conduct of Resolution 40's voting, such things will not impede us, and the PM and Secretary General continue to be a solid team. "

"Given the poll ends in affirmation of option A, I will draft Resolution 40-B which will reflect the policy espoused in option A and will amend the resolution as such and thus repeal the implementation of the original Resolution 40. "

[Emmerian Republic]

Emmeria will vote for Option A

[Mizrad]

Mizrad will vote for option A

[United States of Devonta]

Option A

[Elemental North]

Devonta, you're vote will count, despite it being past deadline.

:VOTING ON THIS ISSUE IS NOW CLOSED:

The voting here stands at:

:AN OVERWHELMING MAJORITY IN FAVOR OF OPTION A:

The Res. numbered 40, is hereby ordered amended to reflect this development.

It is so ordered.

[Bratislav]

Devonta, you're vote will count, despite it being past deadline.

:VOTING ON THIS ISSUE IS NOW CLOSED:

The voting here stands at:

:AN OVERWHELMING MAJORITY IN FAVOR OF OPTION A:

The Res. numbered 40, is hereby ordered amended to reflect this development.

It is so ordered.

Resolution 40 will hereby be amended per option A. We thank the PM and all members for their efforts in this process.

[Elemental North]

Devonta, you're vote will count, despite it being past deadline.

:VOTING ON THIS ISSUE IS NOW CLOSED:

The voting here stands at:

:AN OVERWHELMING MAJORITY IN FAVOR OF OPTION A:

The Res. numbered 40, is hereby ordered amended to reflect this development.

It is so ordered.

Resolution 40 will hereby be amended per option A. We thank the PM and all members for their efforts in this process.

You're very welcome. We're glad to be done with it. We have alot of work ahead of us Brat. We gotz to stickz togetherz #powerteam

[Bratislav]

Resolution 40 will hereby be amended per option A. We thank the PM and all members for their efforts in this process.

You're very welcome. We're glad to be done with it. We have alot of work ahead of us Brat. We gotz to stickz togetherz #powerteam

Of course,,,I am happy we finally have this issue over with. After resolution 40 is amended, the Bratislavian Minister of Defense will give a speech to the Council regarding the situation in fellow IFC State, Zernovyl (New Austzeland).

[Bratislav]

We ask the PM to ammend point 4 in resolution 40 with the following:
4) It is affirmed that dual memberships between the IFC and all other military alliances will be allowed given that the dual memberships do not in any way harm or undermine the IFC. Said nation must still respect the duties and philosophy of the IFC in light of any such dual membership. Said nation also must assure the IFC that their dual membership will not drag the IFC into the conflicts of other alliances and furthermore will not endager the security of our community of nations. Any violation of these points will put said nation's membership status in the IFC under risk. Regardless of what dual memberships IFC Member States have, the IFC remains neutral with respect to other military alliances.

[Elemental North]

We ask the PM to ammend point 4 in resolution 40 with the following:
4) It is affirmed that dual memberships between the IFC and all other military alliances will be allowed given that the dual memberships do not in any way harm or undermine the IFC. Said nation must still respect the duties and philosophy of the IFC in light of any such dual membership. Said nation also must assure the IFC that their dual membership will not drag the IFC into the conflicts of other alliances and furthermore will not endager the security of our community of nations. Any violation of these points will put said nation's membership status in the IFC under risk. Regardless of what dual memberships IFC Member States have, the IFC remains neutral with respect to other military alliances.

Granted. The bill shall be amended.

[Elemental North]

The legislation as it now stands:

The Republic of Bratislav The United Democracies of Elemental North Secretary General of the Coalition, Dimitri Sledan Prime Minister of the Coalition, Preston Seward -Reaffirmation of the I.F.C Neutrality Policy- [Resolution Number: 40] .._____________________________________________... This resolution reaffirms that long-standing neutrality policy that the International Freedom Coalition has held regarding the United Left and SACTO Alliances. The following points are affirmed: .._____________________________________________... :REAFFIRMATION OF THE IFC NEUTRALITY POLICY: 1) The IFC does not and will not take any official position in support or against either the UL or SACTO Alliances. The only exception to this will come if either alliance attacks a fellow IFC Member State in which case the IFC will respond to protect our given member state against said alliance. 2) The IFC remains a defensive military organization that operates by the notion of collective defense of its members. The IFC as an alliance does not and will not take offensive actions against any external states or alliances. The IFC stands for the well being of its members and the maintenance of security and stability in the IFC Community. 3) Members of the IFC have the right to make their own independent decisions when it comes to their military and foreign policy, and the IFC has no right to interfere with such sovereign decisions. With respect to this, IFC cannot be held responsible for the independent actions of its member states, because the IFC does not have the power or sovereignty to allow or disallow such decisions. The IFC Alliance does however advice that all member states avoid actions that could destabilize and bring danger to our community. If a given member state, continues reckless actions that bring the Alliance into danger and undermine our security and stability, said member-state could be sanctioned and even removed from the Alliance given proper legal mechanisms. 4) 4) It is affirmed that dual memberships between the IFC and all other military alliances will be allowed given that the dual memberships do not in any way harm or undermine the IFC. Said nation must still respect the duties and philosophy of the IFC in light of any such dual membership. Said nation also must assure the IFC that their dual membership will not drag the IFC into the conflicts of other alliances and furthermore will not endager the security of our community of nations. Any violation of these points will put said nation's membership status in the IFC under risk. Regardless of what dual memberships IFC Member States have, the IFC remains neutral with respect to other military alliances. 5) IFC is open to having frank and cordial relations with both the UL and SACTO, and as an alliance does not in any way intend to impede or harm the actions and objectives of both the UL and SACTO. In reply to... .._____________________________________________... Signed, [Secretary General Dimitri Sledan & Prime Minister Preston Seward]

[Bratislav]

Perfect. I am assuming this resolution can be implemented now and we have finalized the resolution for good.

[Libraria and Ausitoria]

Looking at the details of the resolution, and comparing it with what was actually discussed, and noting the vast exposition on questions of sovereignty that only serve to confuse the issue (if the IFC says that members can do whatever they like, how can the IFC expel members for actions, and if it cannot expel its members, how can it maintain any semblance of cohesion? We did agree that it was the acts of members that were important, not their notional membership!) and also noting a whole host of grammatical and typographical errors, might I propose some modifications?

The Republic of Bratislav The United Democracies of Elemental North The Imperial Commonwealth of Libraria and Ausitoria Secretary General of the Coalition, Dimitri Sledan Prime Minister of the Coalition, Preston Seward Foreign Minister, Alexias Stella -Reaffirmation of the I.F.C Neutrality Policy- [Resolution Number: 40] .._____________________________________________... This resolution reaffirms that long-standing neutrality policy that the International Freedom Coalition has held regarding the United Left and SACTO Alliances. The following points are affirmed: .._____________________________________________... :REAFFIRMATION OF THE IFC NEUTRALITY POLICY: 1) The IFC does not and will not take any official position in support or against either the UL or SACTO Alliances. The only exception to this will come if either alliance attacks a fellow IFC Member State in which case the IFC will respond to protect our given member state against said alliance. 2) The IFC remains a defensive military organization that operates by the notion of collective defence of its members. The IFC as an alliance does not and will not take offensive actions against any external states or alliances. The IFC stands for the well being of its members and the maintenance of security and stability in the IFC Community. 3) Members of the IFC have the ability to make their own decisions when it comes to their military and foreign policy. Therefore the IFC cannot be held responsible for the actions of its member states taken outside the purview of IFC Foreign Policy, which the IFC should from time to time discuss in Council and revise. If a given member state carries out reckless actions that bring the Alliance into danger and undermine our security and stability, or wages war against fellow IFC members, that member-state may be sanctioned and perhaps removed from the Alliance by Acts of the Council. 4) It is affirmed that dual memberships between the IFC and all other military alliances will be allowed on the understanding and implicit condition that dual memberships do not in any way harm or undermine the IFC, and that the said nation continues to respect the duties and philosophy of the IFC despite any such dual membership. Nations taking up dual membership in other alliances should assure the IFC that their dual membership will not drag the IFC into the conflicts of other alliances and furthermore will not endanger the security of our community of nations. Any violation of these points will put said nation's membership status in the IFC at risk. Regardless of what dual memberships IFC Member States have, the IFC remains neutral with respect to other military alliances. 5) IFC is open to having frank and cordial relations with both the UL and SACTO, and as an alliance does not in any way intend to impede or harm the actions and objectives of both the UL and SACTO. .._____________________________________________... Signed, [Secretary General Dimitri Sledan & Prime Minister Preston Seward & Foreign Minister Alexias Stella]

[Bratislav]

Thank you for the grammatical corrections. The resolution simply implied that if said nation does harm to the IFC and puts our members in danger then their membership will be put in risk. This is a normal provision for any alliance, how can an alliance do nothing if one of its members is harming the alliance and putting it in danger? Our members can do what they please however that being said actions that put our wellbeing in danger cannot go unchecked.

[Libraria and Ausitoria]

And there we are in full agreement with you. Perhaps it was simply the clouded grammar, but before our corrections, the wording - particularly in section 3 - seemed to imply that the IFC should not, in essence, limit its members at all, which would make a cohesive alliance impossible. Our changed wording should ensure that the balance can be maintained; and I hope we have your support there?

[Bratislav]

And there we are in full agreement with you. Perhaps it was simply the clouded grammar, but before our corrections, the wording - particularly in section 3 - seemed to imply that the IFC should not, in essence, limit its members at all, which would make a cohesive alliance impossible. Our changed wording should ensure that the balance can be maintained; and I hope we have your support there?

Your wording makes it much more clearer, thank you. That is what I meant to say essentially but the grammar clouded the meaning in a way. I believe resolution 40 is ready for implementation, as Secretary General I am ready to sign this into law.