The Senate Coffee Shop: This Is Not The Chamber

[Maklohi Vai]

Declaration of Neutrality of Fernão
Sponsor: Beto Goncalves (CTA - Maklohi Vai)
Co-Sponsors:

---

---

An Act of the Senate to secure the future of Fernão on the world stage

BE IT THEREFORE ENACTED by the Head of the State, by and with the counsel of the Government, and the authority of the Senate by virtue of the powers placed upon it by the Law, as follows:

---

---

§1 - From its own free will, conscious of its violent past and hopes for a peaceful future, the Federal Republic of Fernão declares its permanent neutrality and intention to defend that neutrality with all means at its disposal.

§ 2 - To the end of neutrality, Fernão will not permit the construction of foreign military bases or presence of foreign agents on its territory.

Looking for comments and co-sponsors

[Nulla Bellum]

Declaration of Neutrality of Fernão
Sponsor: Beto Goncalves (CTA - Maklohi Vai)
Co-Sponsors:

---

---

An Act of the Senate to secure the future of Fernão on the world stage

BE IT THEREFORE ENACTED by the Head of the State, by and with the counsel of the Government, and the authority of the Senate by virtue of the powers placed upon it by the Law, as follows:

---

---

§1 - From its own free will, conscious of its violent past and hopes for a peaceful future, the Federal Republic of Fernão declares its permanent neutrality and intention to defend that neutrality with all means at its disposal.

§ 2 - To the end of neutrality, Fernão will not permit the construction of foreign military bases or presence of foreign agents on its territory.

Looking for comments and co-sponsors

"I'm reminded of Trotsky, who in one of his less ice-picked moments once said something like "You may not be interested in the war, but the war is interested in you." I'm paraphrasing, but neutrality requires a vacuum, and we're not in a vacuum.

True neutrality requires a complete withdrawal from the world at large, including trade and international aid, as each of those show a form of favoritism or preference of one over another. The entire idea that we'd want to liberate ourselves from involvement in world affairs presupposes that we are not in fact liberated from involvement in world affairs in either our influence in the world or the world's influence upon us. While I doubt our socialist and communist colleagues will repent of the bellicose rhetoric in their canons of class struggle and dictatorship of the proletariat and other such word salads, does this act simply soil paper with ink while we go about pursuing our national interests anyway? We can't, and shouldn't be ashamed of what our nation does in the sight of eyes not in our head. We can't act in the world and be neutral to the world at the same time.

For my fellow libertarians I would venture we agree that housing / basing foriegn agents and militaries on our soil and in our ports is abhorrent, even if we safeguard against those foreign powers acting on our soil or launching attacks on others from or even upon our territory, even if we limit those foreign powers to paying rent.

This act is more a declaration of national sovereignty than of national neutrality. I would prefer we leave our foreign policy options open and open to change as suits our sovereignty rather than bother with a declaration of neutrality that challenges both ourselves and the world at large to respect it at our own peril. My constituents elected me to this body to care about them, not the world." Senator Nullbella, LDP

[Maklohi Vai]

Beto ignores the man in the corner.

[Tectonix]

To what length will you rip us from the world stage? If that means no UN, that's a no to you.

[Davincia]

To what length will you rip us from the world stage? If that means no UN, that's a no to you.

The question remains as to what good the UN has done us so far.

[Tectonix]

To what length will you rip us from the world stage? If that means no UN, that's a no to you.

The question remains as to what good the UN has done us so far.

Um, you know, liberated us?

[Davincia]

The question remains as to what good the UN has done us so far.

Um, you know, liberated us?

Liberation is a relative term.

[Tectonix]

Um, you know, liberated us?

Liberation is a relative term.

Doesn't matter. The UN released us from the oppressive Soetoro regime, and since Agramonte over there is one of his apologists, I doubt I could expect more.

A declaration of neutrality would be disastrous. In a rapidly-globalising society, being left behind would be as bad, if not worse, than being under Soetoro. We would soon end up like every other third-world nation: desperately trying to escape the clutches of poverty, while being consumed by internal conflicts and an ineffective government.

[Maklohi Vai]

To what length will you rip us from the world stage? If that means no UN, that's a no to you.

In what world does neutrality mean not joining the UN? Please.

Liberation is a relative term.

Doesn't matter. The UN released us from the oppressive Soetoro regime, and since Agramonte over there is one of his apologists, I doubt I could expect more.

A declaration of neutrality would be disastrous. In a rapidly-globalising society, being left behind would be as bad, if not worse, than being under Soetoro. We would soon end up like every other third-world nation: desperately trying to escape the clutches of poverty, while being consumed by internal conflicts and an ineffective government.

So instead we should sell ourselves and our economy out to the highest bidder? Right on. A declaration of neutrality does not put us into an economic black hole. It means that we will not involve ourselves in foreign conflicts. That's it.

[Tectonix]

That's exactly why I wanted you to clarify what you meant by 'neutral.' If we wanted to go full Washingtonian neutral, we would've gone that route: no UN, not WTO, no participation in global affairs. Not getting into foreign conflicts is also somewhat vague, though for the most part I am inclined to agree (I ask that you add a clause that allows us to send peacekeepers for UN missions).

[Maklohi Vai]

That's exactly why I wanted you to clarify what you meant by 'neutral.' If we wanted to go full Washingtonian neutral, we would've gone that route: no UN, not WTO, no participation in global affairs. Not getting into foreign conflicts is also somewhat vague, though for the most part I am inclined to agree (I ask that you add a clause that allows us to send peacekeepers for UN missions).

There's nothing in the bill which prohibits peacekeeping forces, so I don't think there's a need to explicitly allow them.

[Tectonix]

That's exactly why I wanted you to clarify what you meant by 'neutral.' If we wanted to go full Washingtonian neutral, we would've gone that route: no UN, not WTO, no participation in global affairs. Not getting into foreign conflicts is also somewhat vague, though for the most part I am inclined to agree (I ask that you add a clause that allows us to send peacekeepers for UN missions).

There's nothing in the bill which prohibits peacekeeping forces, so I don't think there's a need to explicitly allow them.

Very subjective. When you say neutrality, and for instance you mean it in a Washingtonian way, that could be considered as a prohibition. After all, you are taking the side of the UN in the conflict, no matter how morally righteous your actions are. Precisely way I desire some disambiguation on this matter if we are to move this forward in any way.

[Ainin]

Washingtonian neutrality is not a reasonable interpretation of the word "neutrality" outside the United States.

[Nulla Bellum]

There's nothing in the bill which prohibits peacekeeping forces, so I don't think there's a need to explicitly allow them.

Very subjective. When you say neutrality, and for instance you mean it in a Washingtonian way, that could be considered as a prohibition. After all, you are taking the side of the UN in the conflict, no matter how morally righteous your actions are. Precisely way I desire some disambiguation on this matter if we are to move this forward in any way.

Does membership in the UN require the commitment of Fernão military forces to their endeavors / command authority or require Fernão to allow foreign militaries under UN control to base here?

Seems to me the quick route to asserting Fernão sovereignty AND neutrality would be to withdraw from the UN and other binding treaties. Fernão will do what it wants with whom it wants whenever it wants. No need to make a narrow and inflexible set of foreign policy agendas into the law of the land.

[Tectonix]

Washingtonian neutrality is not a reasonable interpretation of the word "neutrality" outside the United States.

Again with the subjectivity. Just define it, and be done with it. For such a subjective term as "neutrality," you need that stuff defined.

[Maklohi Vai]

There's nothing in the bill which prohibits peacekeeping forces, so I don't think there's a need to explicitly allow them.

Very subjective. When you say neutrality, and for instance you mean it in a Washingtonian way, that could be considered as a prohibition. After all, you are taking the side of the UN in the conflict, no matter how morally righteous your actions are. Precisely way I desire some disambiguation on this matter if we are to move this forward in any way.

But there's no bloody ambiguity unless you create it.

[Tectonix]

Very subjective. When you say neutrality, and for instance you mean it in a Washingtonian way, that could be considered as a prohibition. After all, you are taking the side of the UN in the conflict, no matter how morally righteous your actions are. Precisely way I desire some disambiguation on this matter if we are to move this forward in any way.

But there's no bloody ambiguity unless you create it.

In your mind, not in others.

[Maklohi Vai]

But there's no bloody ambiguity unless you create it.

In your mind, not in others.

Sure, not everyone reads it the same way. I'm willing to take the chance that most people won't jump to conclusions that aren't based off the text.

[Tectonix]

In your mind, not in others.

Sure, not everyone reads it the same way. I'm willing to take the chance that most people won't jump to conclusions that aren't based off the text.

Look, MV, this is pretty simple. Just add in the second section exactly how far the neutrality will go, and add something like "the following will not be done by the Federal Republic", followed by stuff like foreign interventions, etc.

[Ainin]

This is a non-issue based on a strenuous bad-faith reading of the text. Something tells me that it won't be changed.

[Tectonix]

MV has now flat-out rejected any suggestions to add even the simplest of boundaries for how far this declaration of neutrality will go. Due to this, any person can have any interpretation of what 'neutral' means, and trying to suggest otherwise is simply disingenuous. Such vagueness will only open the floodgates to prohibit Fernão from any and all international entities that may be seen as "anti-sovereign" or "distasteful," and as good as MV's intentions are, I cannot in good conscience allow such a piece of legislation to dictate Fernão's future.

Opposed in the strongest of terms.

[Beta Test]

No honestly what the actual fuck are you talking about

"The state of not supporting or helping either side in a conflict, disagreement, etc.; impartiality."

That's the Oxford definition of neutrality. Peacekeeping forces by their own definition are impartial, so there is literally no ambiguity in the bill.

[Maklohi Vai]

Something tells me that it won't be changed.

He's right.

[Roosevetania]

Declaration of Neutrality of Fernão
Sponsor: Beto Goncalves (CTA - Maklohi Vai)
Co-Sponsors:

---

---

An Act of the Senate to secure the future of Fernão on the world stage

BE IT THEREFORE ENACTED by the Head of the State, by and with the counsel of the Government, and the authority of the Senate by virtue of the powers placed upon it by the Law, as follows:

---

---

§1 - From its own free will, conscious of its violent past and hopes for a peaceful future, the Federal Republic of Fernão declares its permanent neutrality and intention to defend that neutrality with all means at its disposal.

§ 2 - To the end of neutrality, Fernão will not permit the construction of foreign military bases or presence of foreign agents on its territory.

Looking for comments and co-sponsors

I will consider sponsoring if it is clarified that we mean military conflicts.

[Nulla Bellum]

MV has now flat-out rejected any suggestions to add even the simplest of boundaries for how far this declaration of neutrality will go. Due to this, any person can have any interpretation of what 'neutral' means, and trying to suggest otherwise is simply disingenuous. Such vagueness will only open the floodgates to prohibit Fernão from any and all international entities that may be seen as "anti-sovereign" or "distasteful," and as good as MV's intentions are, I cannot in good conscience allow such a piece of legislation to dictate Fernão's future.

Opposed in the strongest of terms.

Let's co-author a bill making the introduction of foreign policy neutrality bills in the Senate a felony.

Seriously though, the good in the bill is way overshadowed by the repugnant. Fernão's foreign policy should not be shackled by inarticulateness.