When I travel abroad, the first thing I always do, besides getting my shots (can't trust those dirty foreigners to not be carrying the plague) is to find my nation's embassy. While I'm there, I feel safe, because I have free reign to do whatever I want. Yes, I sit around naked, using my nether regions to play billiards, while chatting up the ambassador that represents me. In hindsight, I probably should have worn a cup. They don't call me Calvin "Got Kicked in the Balls by an Ambassador" Coolidge for nothing, after all.
Recently, word has come out of the Octagon that the ERN has raided Canada, a region we have had an embassy with for six years, making it one of our oldest embassies. Naturally, there's a lot of issues with this invasion, that Europeians are angrily protesting. However, before we get into that, let's understand this act, concerned with such a vital part of this issue.
This act's goal is, as it states, "to promote formality and due diligence in regard to the creation, maintenance, and removal of embassies in and of Europeia". This is soon followed by a few disclaimers, that state
It'd probably be a good idea to keep those in mind when we discuss the Canada issue. The first section of the act that we'd like to focus on are the definitions, aptly put under the title, "Definitions". It is important to establish these beforehand, as I well know. I can't even tell you how many times I've had to correct someone who defines Taylor Swift as a pop singer, when she is clearly a pop/country singer (I've corrected people 22 times). With that in mind, let's examine these sections.
So, off-site is on a forum, and on-site in on NationStates. Not too tough to remember. However, if you find yourself forgetting which is which, just think of it like this: off-site has an f, for forum, and on-site has an n, for NationStates. If you like to remember things in a more exciting manner, think of it like this: I get off on forums, while NationStates turns me on. Let's talk about the off-site embassies first, because that is what comes first in the act, under the appropriately titled section, "Off-Site Embassies"
This makes it seem pretty easy to get this kind of embassy, actually. All you have to do is request it, then get the approval of one person, either the President or an appointed deputy. Kind of like on Halloween, where you ask one person to either give you candy or suffer the consequences, except you are asking one person to give you an embassy... or suffer the consequences. Moving on to on-site embassies, under the title "On-Site Embassies"
Clearly, this is the tougher embassy to achieve. Approval must be granted from two sources now, instead of one, and you must already have an off-site forum to receive approval. Using my Halloween example from earlier, it would be as if I went to somebody's door asking for candy, and they told me I would only get candy if someone else in their house agreed it would be a good idea to give me candy, and I had to have stopped by their house last year, as well. Eventually, I decided it was too much trouble, so I made him suffer the consequences and junk-punched the man where he stood, but that's not the point. The point is, that's the end of the act. So, now we are free to move on to greener pastures, or, knowing Canada, moose pastures.
On August 2, Grand Admiral Common-Sense Politics released a short statement that the ERN has pledged reinforcements to UIAF, and its allies, after they seized the delegacy of the region Canada. Almost immediately, Europeians began to protest, most visible was Ogastein, new Minister of Foreign Cultivation and Canada native. He was outraged that the ERN "tricked" Canada, and felt that embassies represented friendship, and that act was a betrayal of that friendship. CSP defended the ERN's actions by saying that this raid helps Europeia, as we would get more sway with UIAF, since we helped them out with this, and pointed out that we have no treaty with Canada that would mean this action is forbidden. Associate Justice OnderKelkia weighed in, saying that Canada had ties to defender regions, which operate against UIAF interests, and therefore action had to be taken, to test Canada's neutrality. Others worried that this sends our allies a negative message, that we could attack any of our allies, regardless of whether they have an embassy with us, or for how long. HEM gave another view, when he said that any region that has an embassy with us must know that we have an active military that conducts raids, and any region that has a problem with that should reconsider their relationship with us. Meanwhile, Calvin Coolidge would like to add that Canada's got 99 problems, but a moose ain't one.
All of these viewpoints have been clashing for the past few days, with little resolution coming out of it. A discussion thread was opened in the Grand Hall over the "Value of the Navy" and CSP received a "Nay" in his re-confirmation vote, so far the only Minister from this current bunch to receive one. Regardless of which opinion comes out on top, this discussion is providing us with a lot of information on a topic that doesn't usually receive much light, being the ERN. Hopefully, we all come out of this a littler wiser about this subject, and more willing to discuss such an important topic.
To conclude, this act deals with the formalities of setting up and taking down both off-site and on-site embassies, providing a good lead-in to our discussion on the recent raid of Canada. I hope this article has provided some good information, but, as always, I encourage those who want to find out more to look at the Law Index, or to check out the topic in the Octagon, "Get Ready for Some Contraversy". Until next time, this is Calvin Coolidge, looking for a good jockstrap.
Recently, word has come out of the Octagon that the ERN has raided Canada, a region we have had an embassy with for six years, making it one of our oldest embassies. Naturally, there's a lot of issues with this invasion, that Europeians are angrily protesting. However, before we get into that, let's understand this act, concerned with such a vital part of this issue.
This act's goal is, as it states, "to promote formality and due diligence in regard to the creation, maintenance, and removal of embassies in and of Europeia". This is soon followed by a few disclaimers, that state
It'd probably be a good idea to keep those in mind when we discuss the Canada issue. The first section of the act that we'd like to focus on are the definitions, aptly put under the title, "Definitions". It is important to establish these beforehand, as I well know. I can't even tell you how many times I've had to correct someone who defines Taylor Swift as a pop singer, when she is clearly a pop/country singer (I've corrected people 22 times). With that in mind, let's examine these sections.
So, off-site is on a forum, and on-site in on NationStates. Not too tough to remember. However, if you find yourself forgetting which is which, just think of it like this: off-site has an f, for forum, and on-site has an n, for NationStates. If you like to remember things in a more exciting manner, think of it like this: I get off on forums, while NationStates turns me on. Let's talk about the off-site embassies first, because that is what comes first in the act, under the appropriately titled section, "Off-Site Embassies"
This makes it seem pretty easy to get this kind of embassy, actually. All you have to do is request it, then get the approval of one person, either the President or an appointed deputy. Kind of like on Halloween, where you ask one person to either give you candy or suffer the consequences, except you are asking one person to give you an embassy... or suffer the consequences. Moving on to on-site embassies, under the title "On-Site Embassies"
Clearly, this is the tougher embassy to achieve. Approval must be granted from two sources now, instead of one, and you must already have an off-site forum to receive approval. Using my Halloween example from earlier, it would be as if I went to somebody's door asking for candy, and they told me I would only get candy if someone else in their house agreed it would be a good idea to give me candy, and I had to have stopped by their house last year, as well. Eventually, I decided it was too much trouble, so I made him suffer the consequences and junk-punched the man where he stood, but that's not the point. The point is, that's the end of the act. So, now we are free to move on to greener pastures, or, knowing Canada, moose pastures.
On August 2, Grand Admiral Common-Sense Politics released a short statement that the ERN has pledged reinforcements to UIAF, and its allies, after they seized the delegacy of the region Canada. Almost immediately, Europeians began to protest, most visible was Ogastein, new Minister of Foreign Cultivation and Canada native. He was outraged that the ERN "tricked" Canada, and felt that embassies represented friendship, and that act was a betrayal of that friendship. CSP defended the ERN's actions by saying that this raid helps Europeia, as we would get more sway with UIAF, since we helped them out with this, and pointed out that we have no treaty with Canada that would mean this action is forbidden. Associate Justice OnderKelkia weighed in, saying that Canada had ties to defender regions, which operate against UIAF interests, and therefore action had to be taken, to test Canada's neutrality. Others worried that this sends our allies a negative message, that we could attack any of our allies, regardless of whether they have an embassy with us, or for how long. HEM gave another view, when he said that any region that has an embassy with us must know that we have an active military that conducts raids, and any region that has a problem with that should reconsider their relationship with us. Meanwhile, Calvin Coolidge would like to add that Canada's got 99 problems, but a moose ain't one.
All of these viewpoints have been clashing for the past few days, with little resolution coming out of it. A discussion thread was opened in the Grand Hall over the "Value of the Navy" and CSP received a "Nay" in his re-confirmation vote, so far the only Minister from this current bunch to receive one. Regardless of which opinion comes out on top, this discussion is providing us with a lot of information on a topic that doesn't usually receive much light, being the ERN. Hopefully, we all come out of this a littler wiser about this subject, and more willing to discuss such an important topic.
To conclude, this act deals with the formalities of setting up and taking down both off-site and on-site embassies, providing a good lead-in to our discussion on the recent raid of Canada. I hope this article has provided some good information, but, as always, I encourage those who want to find out more to look at the Law Index, or to check out the topic in the Octagon, "Get Ready for Some Contraversy". Until next time, this is Calvin Coolidge, looking for a good jockstrap.
