The Multiverse Affairs OOC

[Southeast Marajarbia]

So is it time for the peace negotiations to begin in Brunswick?

I think so

[English Realm]

Let's word it as 'dispute'. In fact, a very toxic dispute by the looks of it. I'm going to pick a side. Soon.

Hey England

Hello there.

[Meretica]

Mandatory spending is a serious matter, if an economically weak nation is forced to spend a large part of its money on the military it's forced to push other things (education, healthcare, jobs) out of the way which does more harm to the economy in the long run. Demanding contributions will always do more harm than good, which is why the UF doesn't demand contributions from members without their consent. There are nations that are too weak to protect themselves, and they don't deserve to be overrun by dangerous terrorists or potential enemies. Nations have to care for and nurture one another if they are to survive and meet their full potential. Otherwise, it's just one strongman leading a group of strongmen-- and that's what happened in both World Wars if you'll recall.

GSA attempted to force the belligerents of the Drone Wars to accept a white peace with Vikanias when that deal wouldn't have been approved by their governments. This either shows that GSA is ignorant of how peace treaties are approved in other countries despite having it explained in NATO or GSA wanted things done their way-- an attempted national sovereignty violation either way that was prevented because several nations left NATO to stop GSA from essentially taking over foreign affairs. Had GSA succeeded, this would have set a dangerous precedent that what America asks for supersedes what a nation's legislature approves.

How's that for an example?

[GreaterScotland]

Hey England

Hello there.

I made this nation because Great Scottish Empire has a pretty bad economy

[Free Metropolitan France]

So is it time for the peace negotiations to begin in Brunswick?

Let's do it, shall we? C'mon buddies. GSA, SM, Janpia, Sealand strive together for peace.

[Meretica]

Now, if you'll excuse me, I have to shower, eat, and prepare for a funeral today.

[Janpia]

I'd argue that requiring that 2% GDP goes to military funding is the most basic form of this, but let's dig into some history, shall we?

Isnt there like the same on UF? Infact, its much more higher because of that certain law afaik. Correct me if Im wrong on that one.
And just incase your gonna say whataboutism, the NATO 2% contribution is required incase theres a nation that joined, but cant defend itself. Think of it as a fee for your protection. NATO is an organization after all. You cant just join and do no contrubutions

And sure, what other accusations you have on NATO?

Just a copy pasting this one from UF Boardroom

Establishment of the Federal Military Force

A BILL
To Establish a Joint Military Force to Protect and Defend the Member Nations of the United Federation Against Threats, both Foreign and Domestic, to Help Ensure the Peace is Kept Among the Nations of the World

Sponsor: Meretica


SECTION 1: SHORT TITLE
This Act may be cited as the "EFMF Act" for future reference.

SECTION 2: Donation of Soldiers
Member nations are expected to allow at least a portion of their military or several volunteers to serve as part of the protective military force of the United Federation. Each nation shall be asked to send a minimum of 15,000 soldiers or volunteers to help ensure regional peace and stability. Nations are encouraged to send more soldiers and/or volunteers to help keep the peace through a combination of strength and diplomacy.

SECTION 3: Funding
The Federal Military Force (FMF) shall be funded by a combination of donations and taxes imposed on non-member nations; the size of these tariffs shall be left to Financial Caucus.

Totally unrelated, but I remember also asking to lower the required troops since its just too big in my opinion. Isnt this the same as destroying national sovereignty?

[The Territories of Sealand]

So is it time for the peace negotiations to begin in Brunswick?

I think so

Ok, I'll be preparing the negotiations.

[Janpia]

Mandatory spending is a serious matter, if an economically weak nation is forced to spend a large part of its money on the military it's forced to push other things (education, healthcare, jobs) out of the way which does more harm to the economy in the long run. Demanding contributions will always do more harm than good, which is why the UF doesn't demand contributions from members without their consent. There are nations that are too weak to protect themselves, and they don't deserve to be overrun by dangerous terrorists or potential enemies. Nations have to care for and nurture one another if they are to survive and meet their full potential. Otherwise, it's just one strongman leading a group of strongmen-- and that's what happened in both World Wars if you'll recall.

GSA attempted to force the belligerents of the Drone Wars to accept a white peace with Vikanias when that deal wouldn't have been approved by their governments. This either shows that GSA is ignorant of how peace treaties are approved in other countries despite having it explained in NATO or GSA wanted things done their way-- an attempted national sovereignty violation either way that was prevented because several nations left NATO to stop GSA from essentially taking over foreign affairs. Had GSA succeeded, this would have set a dangerous precedent that what America asks for supersedes what a nation's legislature approves.

How's that for an example?

2% GDP means you must contribute just 2% even if it is small. Isnt the average GDP percentage of every country is around lower than 4% atleast?

[English Realm]

Mandatory spending is a serious matter, if an economically weak nation is forced to spend a large part of its money on the military it's forced to push other things (education, healthcare, jobs) out of the way which does more harm to the economy in the long run. Demanding contributions will always do more harm than good, which is why the UF doesn't demand contributions from members without their consent. There are nations that are too weak to protect themselves, and they don't deserve to be overrun by dangerous terrorists or potential enemies. Nations have to care for and nurture one another if they are to survive and meet their full potential. Otherwise, it's just one strongman leading a group of strongmen-- and that's what happened in both World Wars if you'll recall.

GSA attempted to force the belligerents of the Drone Wars to accept a white peace with Vikanias when that deal wouldn't have been approved by their governments. This either shows that GSA is ignorant of how peace treaties are approved in other countries despite having it explained in NATO or GSA wanted things done their way-- an attempted national sovereignty violation either way that was prevented because several nations left NATO to stop GSA from essentially taking over foreign affairs. Had GSA succeeded, this would have set a dangerous precedent that what America asks for supersedes what a nation's legislature approves.

How's that for an example?

Forced is a hard way to put it. NATO does not force you- many nations do not reach the 2%, and they don't suddenly get kicked out of NATO. And how are you going to run a multinational defence coalition primarily against a growing superpower without at least asking countries to fund their militaries?

It should also be noted that NATO will still defend you even if you do not reach that 2%.

[Meretica]

Isnt there like the same on UF? Infact, its much more higher because of that certain law afaik. Correct me if Im wrong on that one.
And just incase your gonna say whataboutism, the NATO 2% contribution is required incase theres a nation that joined, but cant defend itself. Think of it as a fee for your protection. NATO is an organization after all. You cant just join and do no contrubutions

And sure, what other accusations you have on NATO?

Just a copy pasting this one from UF Boardroom

Establishment of the Federal Military Force

A BILL
To Establish a Joint Military Force to Protect and Defend the Member Nations of the United Federation Against Threats, both Foreign and Domestic, to Help Ensure the Peace is Kept Among the Nations of the World

Sponsor: Meretica


SECTION 1: SHORT TITLE
This Act may be cited as the "EFMF Act" for future reference.

SECTION 2: Donation of Soldiers
Member nations are expected to allow at least a portion of their military or several volunteers to serve as part of the protective military force of the United Federation. Each nation shall be asked to send a minimum of 15,000 soldiers or volunteers to help ensure regional peace and stability. Nations are encouraged to send more soldiers and/or volunteers to help keep the peace through a combination of strength and diplomacy.

SECTION 3: Funding
The Federal Military Force (FMF) shall be funded by a combination of donations and taxes imposed on non-member nations; the size of these tariffs shall be left to Financial Caucus.

Totally unrelated, but I remember also asking to lower the required troops since its just too big in my opinion. Isnt this the same as destroying national sovereignty?

Allow me to forgive you for your ignorance. This proposal would have been discussed and voted on, and you'll also note that it says "expected," not "required." Members nations would have been "asked"-- not "mandated"-- and were "encouraged"-- not "commanded"-- to send more. Member nations didn't have to send any at all if they didn't want to.

[English Realm]

Just a copy pasting this one from UF Boardroom

Establishment of the Federal Military Force

A BILL
To Establish a Joint Military Force to Protect and Defend the Member Nations of the United Federation Against Threats, both Foreign and Domestic, to Help Ensure the Peace is Kept Among the Nations of the World

Sponsor: Meretica


SECTION 1: SHORT TITLE
This Act may be cited as the "EFMF Act" for future reference.

SECTION 2: Donation of Soldiers
Member nations are expected to allow at least a portion of their military or several volunteers to serve as part of the protective military force of the United Federation. Each nation shall be asked to send a minimum of 15,000 soldiers or volunteers to help ensure regional peace and stability. Nations are encouraged to send more soldiers and/or volunteers to help keep the peace through a combination of strength and diplomacy.

SECTION 3: Funding
The Federal Military Force (FMF) shall be funded by a combination of donations and taxes imposed on non-member nations; the size of these tariffs shall be left to Financial Caucus.

Totally unrelated, but I remember also asking to lower the required troops since its just too big in my opinion. Isnt this the same as destroying national sovereignty?

Allow me to forgive you for your ignorance. This proposal would have been discussed and voted on, and you'll also note that it says "expected," not "required." Members nations would have been "asked"-- not "mandated"-- and were "encouraged"-- not "commanded"-- to send more. Member nations didn't have to send any at all if they didn't want to.

'Expected' is much more forceful, even if not forceful enough, than 'encouraged'.

[Greatest States Of America]

Mandatory spending is a serious matter, if an economically weak nation is forced to spend a large part of its money on the military it's forced to push other things (education, healthcare, jobs) out of the way which does more harm to the economy in the long run. Demanding contributions will always do more harm than good, which is why the UF doesn't demand contributions from members without their consent. There are nations that are too weak to protect themselves, and they don't deserve to be overrun by dangerous terrorists or potential enemies. Nations have to care for and nurture one another if they are to survive and meet their full potential. Otherwise, it's just one strongman leading a group of strongmen-- and that's what happened in both World Wars if you'll recall.

GSA attempted to force the belligerents of the Drone Wars to accept a white peace with Vikanias when that deal wouldn't have been approved by their governments. This either shows that GSA is ignorant of how peace treaties are approved in other countries despite having it explained in NATO or GSA wanted things done their way-- an attempted national sovereignty violation either way that was prevented because several nations left NATO to stop GSA from essentially taking over foreign affairs. Had GSA succeeded, this would have set a dangerous precedent that what America asks for supersedes what a nation's legislature approves.

How's that for an example?

Is that an example??
Might I represent a true story?
So what happened was that SO-Meretica-Vikanias got into each other and were at each other throats. NATO members cannot go to war with each other, can they?
It'd be a violation of Articles 4 and 5. So what I did that I proposed expulsion of them then when other nato members called me to suspend them I agreed and proposed suspending their membership till they sort out their problems. Quick forward, Roy Davis was elected as meretica president. He was the epitome of Ronald Reagan. He came to Brussels got into a debate and argument with an American representative when he told them to cease the war and come to peace they flat out in Regan style rejected and left nato. The Vikanias nuked Esterton, Galapagos happened. Since then they are crying the rant of national sovereignty is it a violation of sovereignty?

[Greatest States Of America]

Allow me to forgive you for your ignorance. This proposal would have been discussed and voted on, and you'll also note that it says "expected," not "required." Members nations would have been "asked"-- not "mandated"-- and were "encouraged"-- not "commanded"-- to send more. Member nations didn't have to send any at all if they didn't want to.

'Expected' is much more forceful, even if not forceful enough, than 'encouraged'.

These are the things they refuse to acknowledge.

[Meretica]

Mandatory spending is a serious matter, if an economically weak nation is forced to spend a large part of its money on the military it's forced to push other things (education, healthcare, jobs) out of the way which does more harm to the economy in the long run. Demanding contributions will always do more harm than good, which is why the UF doesn't demand contributions from members without their consent. There are nations that are too weak to protect themselves, and they don't deserve to be overrun by dangerous terrorists or potential enemies. Nations have to care for and nurture one another if they are to survive and meet their full potential. Otherwise, it's just one strongman leading a group of strongmen-- and that's what happened in both World Wars if you'll recall.

GSA attempted to force the belligerents of the Drone Wars to accept a white peace with Vikanias when that deal wouldn't have been approved by their governments. This either shows that GSA is ignorant of how peace treaties are approved in other countries despite having it explained in NATO or GSA wanted things done their way-- an attempted national sovereignty violation either way that was prevented because several nations left NATO to stop GSA from essentially taking over foreign affairs. Had GSA succeeded, this would have set a dangerous precedent that what America asks for supersedes what a nation's legislature approves.

How's that for an example?

Forced is a hard way to put it. NATO does not force you- many nations do not reach the 2%, and they don't suddenly get kicked out of NATO. And how are you going to run a multinational defence coalition primarily against a growing superpower without at least asking countries to fund their militaries?

It should also be noted that NATO will still defend you even if you do not reach that 2%.

There are plenty of ways to provide funds-- tariffs, taxes, economic incentives, donations from larger nations. If a nation can't protect itself, what do you want it to do? Starve its people in favor of buying guns? A lot of good that'd do come harvest...

[Greatest States Of America]

Mandatory spending is a serious matter, if an economically weak nation is forced to spend a large part of its money on the military it's forced to push other things (education, healthcare, jobs) out of the way which does more harm to the economy in the long run. Demanding contributions will always do more harm than good, which is why the UF doesn't demand contributions from members without their consent. There are nations that are too weak to protect themselves, and they don't deserve to be overrun by dangerous terrorists or potential enemies. Nations have to care for and nurture one another if they are to survive and meet their full potential. Otherwise, it's just one strongman leading a group of strongmen-- and that's what happened in both World Wars if you'll recall.

GSA attempted to force the belligerents of the Drone Wars to accept a white peace with Vikanias when that deal wouldn't have been approved by their governments. This either shows that GSA is ignorant of how peace treaties are approved in other countries despite having it explained in NATO or GSA wanted things done their way-- an attempted national sovereignty violation either way that was prevented because several nations left NATO to stop GSA from essentially taking over foreign affairs. Had GSA succeeded, this would have set a dangerous precedent that what America asks for supersedes what a nation's legislature approves.

How's that for an example?

Forced is a hard way to put it. NATO does not force you- many nations do not reach the 2%, and they don't suddenly get kicked out of NATO. And how are you going to run a multinational defence coalition primarily against a growing superpower without at least asking countries to fund their militaries?

It should also be noted that NATO will still defend you even if you do not reach that 2%.

My right honourable friend is absolutely right. NATO will defend you even if you don't spend 2%.

[Southeast Marajarbia]

Allow me to forgive you for your ignorance. This proposal would have been discussed and voted on, and you'll also note that it says "expected," not "required." Members nations would have been "asked"-- not "mandated"-- and were "encouraged"-- not "commanded"-- to send more. Member nations didn't have to send any at all if they didn't want to.

'Expected' is much more forceful, even if not forceful enough, than 'encouraged'.

I'm sorry, but who are you? You are not only on a brand new account, but you seem to be familiar with this RP group.

[Meretica]

Okay, now before I get pissed and just decide to nuke everyone, I'll be getting ready for this funeral. Here I thought RPing would make me feel better, but I guess not. See y'all later.

[Free Metropolitan France]

I don't think any nation is starving on NS.

[The Territories of Sealand]

Seeing the controversy of the part about national sovereignty violations, that section has been rephrased, though the meaning is still the same. A new rule was also added, regarding making the treaty. With that said, negotiations between NATO and the UF have begun.

[Greatest States Of America]

Has king Isle gone mad? He's bringing NATO into direct conflict with him unnecessarily.

[Southeast Marajarbia]

Seeing the controversy of the part about national sovereignty violations, that section has been rephrased, though the meaning is still the same. A new rule was also added, regarding making the treaty. With that said, negotiations between NATO and the UF have begun.

I will join in a bit.

[Meretica]

Has king Isle gone mad? He's bringing NATO into direct conflict with him unnecessarily.

TKI's always been... I'll deal with that later, my toast is burning.

[Greatest States Of America]

Has king Isle gone mad? He's bringing NATO into direct conflict with him unnecessarily.

TKI's always been... I'll deal with that later, my toast is burning.

Better watch your toast out.

[The Military State of the Galapagos]

Can somebody tell me what’s going on here, I went to sleep and woke up to this