Has the Government Had Enough of Jacobi?
Gartoro
Well, at least eleven members of congress think it's time our Prime Minister stepped down and let someone else move into 24 eSussex Drive.
The motion was tabled by Tantis, who is particularly unhappy with Jacobi's performance. When asked for his reasoning behind the decision, he had this to say:
"NAP with UK, Jacobi pretty much signed us to Peace. He posted the NAP in congress, and pretty much I'm not asking you for your opinion type of way, we told him how we felt and he ignored us, PEACE is all over this and we are pretty much sitting ducks."
"The Treaty states we cant retreat any where near UK territory, when you read the Treaty the biggest loop allows UK to trade Regions with its allies, so Iran and Hungary makes a push into our regions and then trade them to UK, we cant do nothing about that, it isnt going against the treaty."
"And of course UK is signing MPPs with Iran and Hungary, their allies. Jacobi should have made the rest of the NAP better, like congress asked, if he can't respect us and even fix something to help Canada he isn't the leader that we originally voted for, if he wants to throw his career away then let him. But if he can't fix a damn NAP after congress asked him he doesn't deserve any good treatment. The Country hates him for helping France he doesnt care. Many congressman have talked about an impeachment but don't have the balls to propose one or ask for one. If your willing to call and impeachment for not proposing an embargo, but when he doesn't even confide in us for something simple like that, can we confide in him for anything else?I don't."
So far, the majority of those who have voted (at last count, 26) are confident in the Prime Minister's ability to lead eCanada. But, as we all know, things like this just don't go away. And without the complete confidence of Congress, Jacobi may find it increasingly difficult to keep things under control.
Gartoro,
Editor and Publisher.
Comments
My thanks Gartoro for publishing this article, I am still coming to speed on this issue, and this quote from Tantis is very interesting and useful in gaining understanding on what's going on here...
Cheers,
AR1ARX
Is a NAP a function of the game (coded into the game) or is it more of a gentleman's agreement between nations? Exactly how would a NAP be enforced, or regulated?
Perhaps a better view of Tantis, and the reason why he did this.
I am sorry, but all of Canada was against this NAP proposal.
An NAP is a Gentleman's Agreement, we are in for 6 months, breaking it cost us 5000gold. So now we have to sit and wait to be taken off the map, in order for us to fight back. No Canada, no treaty. As long as Jacobi is in charge Treaty stands. As long as WD stands it might stand as well since he pretty much worships the pot that Jacobi pisses in.
The only problem I see with the contract is the "currently held regions" phrase. might have been better to say "sovereign" to mean all original Canadian territory. Or, "On this date Sept 18th, 2009" As currently could mean that in the future UK could take and hold NWT for 6 months. It could also mean regions held in the future. As currently is a present tense meaning it could apply to all future days.
Only other problem is that the summation paragraphs wording means something different from the contractual terms.
IE. "Neither country may take possession of the others currently held territory." vs, "if original territory is taken"
Reading this NAP, it does seem woefully ill-planned. Even a clause stating that neither country could take possession of any regions within either's homeland would have solved much of these problems.
While an impeachment now would be more of a problem than a solution, this contract is going to be a world of hurt for Canada.
Make that 12 congressmen. I voted "yes" to the impeachment. But unfortunately it won't pass. Maybe Tantis should have made his case clearer to all of congress, then maybe it would have worked. I'm down for proposing this again, as long as Tantis informs all the others of why they should vote "yes".
Signed,
Octavian_F
Foolish, foolish foolish.
I would LOVE saskatchewan to be in UK hands. LOVE Nunavut to be in UK hands.
Can you not see? Are those who vote yes blind?
Can you not see the magic in front of you?
I have just sent a message to the Prime Minister requesting that he explain his stance on the NAP and the allegations that he ignored those in congress when he went ahead and posted it without taking their opinions into consideration.
I hope to get a response soon.
Here you go, folks:
http://www.erepublik.com/en/article/jacobi-congress-is-leaky-as-a-sieve--945144/1/20" target="_blank">http://www.erepublik.com/en/article/jaco[..]/1/20
Excellent, Gartoro, Jacobi posted an equally cryptic and unsatisfactory message indicating that EDEN supported the treaty, but has yet to elaborate, I hope he takes you up on your offer and gives a detailed and satisfactory explanation for his actions, so that not just MPs, but the citizenry, can fully understand the events unfolding.
Cheers,
AR1ARX
Can no one understand why I may not be super forthcoming in public about this?
It secures our borders. That is necessary.
Do I need to explain further than that?
@Jacobi: No need to explain. I believe you.
I voted "yes" for other reasons. 😉
Where can one see the text of this agreement? Before commenting in a vacuum it would be nice to have some information. Is the agreement in force, was it presented as a fait accompli? Does it require congressional approval?
http://www.erepublik.com/en/forum/topic/126310/the-halifax-accords/1" target="_blank">http://www.erepublik.com/en/forum/topic/[..]ds/1
It's not all that bad. Might come down to an admin ruling in the worst case scenario due to bad wording.
It does appear to be a pretty sound contract. However, the undemocratic way in which it was approved goes against everything this eCountry stands for. Congress needs to have a more active role in such decisions. Otherwise, what are we voting for?
You're voting for people who get to vote on taxes and such.
You voted on me to handle foreign affairs.
@Jacobi: So what you're saying is that the PM's ONLY role (or the reason we vote for him) is to handle foreign affairs? Interesting..
P.S. what about foreign ministers and ambassadors?
Actually, I haven't voted for anyone, yet, as I've only been on this game since day 656. 😉