Page 2 of 8
Re: Statement from Elwynn
Posted: Mon Aug 30, 2010 11:10 am
by Jonas
What about Elwynnese money in the bank system?
Re: Statement from Elwynn
Posted: Mon Aug 30, 2010 11:13 am
by Kaiser Ometeotl I
Oh yeah. Thanks. Once Elwynn gets set up in the SCUE all funds will be handed over.
Re: Statement from Elwynn
Posted: Mon Aug 30, 2010 1:44 pm
by Gman Russell
we bear no malice toward it
Speak for yourself, my kaiser.
Re: Statement from Elwynn
Posted: Mon Aug 30, 2010 7:21 pm
by Icebreaker
Gman Russell wrote:Icebreaker needs to go away, if he has such a problem with 'fake lands' and such.
AWWWW, THAT'S CUTE. <3
DO TELL THOUGH, WHAT ADJECTIVE WOULD YOU USE TO DESCRIBE LAND THAT ONLY EXISTS ON A MAP, AND IN THE HEARTS AND MINDS OF YOUR FELLOW MICRONATIONALISTS?
Re: Statement from Elwynn
Posted: Mon Aug 30, 2010 10:26 pm
by Aurangzeb Khan
Icebreaker wrote:Gman Russell wrote:Icebreaker needs to go away, if he has such a problem with 'fake lands' and such.
AWWWW, THAT'S CUTE. <3
DO TELL THOUGH, WHAT ADJECTIVE WOULD YOU USE TO DESCRIBE LAND THAT ONLY EXISTS ON A MAP, AND IN THE HEARTS AND MINDS OF YOUR FELLOW MICRONATIONALISTS?
I suppose fictional if you're being polite... fake is I suppose more if you pretend its real, as opposed to a construct that has been haphazardly assembled over the course of a decade (oh that's depressing...).
Re: Statement from Elwynn
Posted: Tue Aug 31, 2010 2:15 am
by Maksym Hadjimehmetov
What will happen with the West Elwynn Dam?
Ashkenatza may have an interest there. As part of the Dam actually lies on legally Ashkenatzi territory and its operation affects the entire north Elwynn River Basin, I feel we have a vested interest in its operation and a legal right to some of its energy. I hope some kind of deal can be worked out with the Elwynnese. They are, I hope, reasonable people.
Re: Statement from Elwynn
Posted: Mon Sep 06, 2010 9:10 am
by Daniel Farewell
Okey. So one issue we would like to resolve is our concern that this is and has all along just been a plot by third party nations to gain lands. That Elwynn is not a viable national entitty, and will just be gobbles up by someone else in a month or so. Shireroth would like a provision allowing us to reclaim Elwynn for it's own protection should it fall into an obvious state of collapse.
Elwynn would not be so pleased with such provision. It undermines our future relationship, which we hope will be good, based on friendship and peaceful resolution of mutual disputes. If such provision existed, Shireroth would look like a bunch of vultures waiting for Elwynn to die.
An "obvious state of collapse" is difficult to assess and define. I propose that we strick it from the treaty.
Next, right now there are various plots afoot, and while I admit we aren't pleased to see Elwynn leave, we bear no malice toward it, and would like this stated both ways. So mutual recognition and support would be another provision we feel prudent. We'd support your claims in the MCS for example, if you support ours. We'd support your entry into any organizations we might be in that you desire to join, and you'd support our entry. This would likely also be nice to include a provision of how citizens acts in each other respective nation. We will see to our people if they should come over there and start harassing your citizens and the nation as a whole, and you would see to the same.
That seems to be reasonable and useful too. We should remain friends; we have shared so much over the years.
Does Elwynn have an concerns it would like addressed?
A few negotiable terms have been worked out with the Elwynnese. I therefore propose that we add to an "amity, peace and understanding" clause the following:
* The Embassy of the Imperial Republic of Shireroth in Haraldsborg, including the Hurmu Archives, will be ceded to the Elwynnese Realm.
* Fort Eluin and Station Terror will be ceded to the Elwynnese Realm.
* The Imperial Republic of Shireroth shall maintain and protect the Elwynnese archive and facilitate access to them.
* There shall be joint control, administration and ownership of the East Elwynn Sluice.
Yours,
Daniel.
Re: Statement from Elwynn
Posted: Mon Sep 06, 2010 9:17 am
by Jonas
With all respect, Lord Farewell, but while you say things as 'undermine future relationships' (on which you have a point, indeed, but...), I can't stop thinking of the threat that could exist near our northern borders if Elwynn would reveal itself as a vassal state (or gets annexed by, let us say, Antica not long after it gained its independence). Don't think I'm accusing you of such things, but I'm still not very sure of the chances of Elwynnese survival on its own. And as several factions have tried to destroy or harm Shireroth, I can't totally trust your intentions.
Perhaps we could agree with something like that this rule is valid for a number of X months, until the storm has laid down and the threat of such action has lowered (or would have less impact on politics).
I'm talking as a normal citizen, not a representative. But I hope you understand my concerns.
Re: Statement from Elwynn
Posted: Mon Sep 06, 2010 11:54 am
by Jacobus Loki
I'd support Jonas' proposal. As we speak, Babkha is negotiating a base on Istvanistan for the purpose of "supporting peacekeeping options in Eastern Benacia". And although Ardy's graphic was edited to remove that wording from the original post, it indicates the desire to interfere in Benacia.
As there is no conflict at present, it shows a desire to foment one.
But to be fair, perhaps we should make the clause bilateral, that Shireroth for the period agreed on shall not yield territory except to Elwynn?
Re: Statement from Elwynn
Posted: Mon Sep 06, 2010 9:51 pm
by Kaiser Ometeotl I
Our stance is not that of a vulture. But of a concerned parents. You have left home and are trying to make it on your own. Very good. But you are young, and there are those that would seek to abuse you standing in the world, your relation with your parents, and honestly, simply take advantage of you. We seek to prevent this. For your sake, as well as ours.
Re: Statement from Elwynn
Posted: Tue Sep 07, 2010 1:49 am
by Jonas
Kaiser Ometeotl I wrote:Our stance is not that of a vulture. But of a concerned parents. You have left home and are trying to make it on your own. Very good. But you are young, and there are those that would seek to abuse you standing in the world, your relation with your parents, and honestly, simply take advantage of you. We seek to prevent this. For your sake, as well as ours.
That's the best way to look to this matter, indeed.

Re: Statement from Elwynn
Posted: Wed Sep 08, 2010 9:43 am
by Aurangzeb Khan
As far as we are concerned therefore however retrocession will not be on the table as it is not a proposition that
Adurellion is prepared to accept.
However I do not propose to allow that to become a sticking point. Here then is what I suggest.
Article 1
The High Contracting Parties agree that the common frontier between them shall be demarcated as outlined in Item A of the attached schedule and that this border shall be deemed inviolable by the High Contracting Parties for so long as both remain extant. Alterations and adjustments to the common frontier while both High Contracting Parties are extant shall only be achieved through mutual consent.
Article 2
The High Contracting Parties undertake to refrain from any interference whatsoever in each other's internal affairs. They will settle any dispute between themselves in a peaceful way in accordance with the established norms of international relations and diplomacy.
Article 3
The High Contracting Parties agree that they will co-operate for their security and defence and for the promotion of trade and greater cultural cooperation. Such measures as they agree to take to give effect to this co-operation, including in the arena of international organisations, may form the subject of special agreements with each other.
Article 4
The High Contracting Parties declare that the dispositions of the present agreement are not in contradiction with any of the international obligations contracted by either of them with any third State or States. They do not derogate from and cannot be interpreted as derogating from, the said international obligations.
Article 5
This agreement remains in force for a period of twelve months renewable for other twelve-month periods. Either High Contracting Party may withdraw from the pact by notifying the other parties in writing of its desire to do so six weeks before the expiration of any of the above-mentioned periods, in which case the pact remains valid for the other parties.
Article 6
This agreement shall be ratified by the High Contracting Parties and ratifications shall be exchanged at Eliria as soon as possible. Thereafter it shall come into force from the date of the exchange of ratifications.
Schedule
Item A.

Re: Statement from Elwynn
Posted: Wed Sep 08, 2010 11:14 am
by Kaiser Ometeotl I
Perhaps we should put in a section concerning SCUE money. Right now all Elwynn accounts are still listed as Shireroth. I have no issue in handing this money over, and any other funds directly linked with Elwynn.
I am willing to drop the Retro-cession topic as a bad idea, and apologize if this has caused any hard feelings or concerns about the nature of Shireroth's relationship with Elwynn.
Further, we would encourage the Elwynn government to formally join the SC and SCUE.
Re: Statement from Elwynn
Posted: Wed Sep 08, 2010 11:36 am
by Jacobus Loki
We should put them on the friendly nations drop-down list.
Re: Statement from Elwynn
Posted: Wed Sep 08, 2010 12:49 pm
by Jonas
Kaiser Ometeotl I wrote:Perhaps we should put in a section concerning SCUE money. Right now all Elwynn accounts are still listed as Shireroth. I have no issue in handing this money over, and any other funds directly linked with Elwynn.
I am willing to drop the Retro-cession topic as a bad idea, and apologize if this has caused any hard feelings or concerns about the nature of Shireroth's relationship with Elwynn.
Further, we would encourage the Elwynn government to formally join the SC and SCUE.
Your Niftiness, I urge you to amend this treaty with an article about the dam. This is, as said before, an unique symbol on the Micras map that has always belonged to Shireroth. We should discuss, atleast, a joint ownership. As symbol of our friendship.
Ardy, while I know you want to finish these discussions, this is really something which I want to talk about. We could agree that it's a demilitarized zone, so you can be sure that we can't stab Elwynn in the back.

Re: Statement from Elwynn
Posted: Wed Sep 08, 2010 2:12 pm
by Harvey Steffke
Jacobus Loki wrote:We should put them on the friendly nations drop-down list.
And maybe get an Unfriendly Nations drop-down list, consisting only of Antica

Re: Statement from Elwynn
Posted: Wed Sep 08, 2010 3:50 pm
by Jacobus Loki
Unfriendly? Really?
Re: Statement from Elwynn
Posted: Wed Sep 08, 2010 9:49 pm
by Kaiser Ometeotl I
Oh yeah. Ric said he wanted the damn under joint control. I would agree to this.
Re: Statement from Elwynn
Posted: Thu Sep 09, 2010 1:28 am
by Jonas
Kaiser Ometeotl I wrote:Oh yeah. Ric said he wanted the damn under joint control. I would agree to this.
Then it's perhaps better that we write it down in the treaty, to avoid arguments in the future.

Re: Statement from Elwynn
Posted: Thu Sep 09, 2010 2:11 am
by Jonas
And we should edit that map (the image, I mean), as some of our county borders aren't dotted lines.
Re: Statement from Elwynn
Posted: Thu Sep 09, 2010 9:16 am
by Kaiser Ometeotl I
Minor detail. But I'll look to fixing it.
Re: Statement from Elwynn
Posted: Sat Sep 11, 2010 5:08 am
by Aurangzeb Khan
Regarding the East Elwynn Sluice ownership and water/hydroelectric rights could be shared 50/50 between Elwynn and Shireroth. For the West Elwynn Dam to be placed under Shirerithian ownership as a demilitarised enclave (water and hydroelectric rights slip 33.3/33.3/33.3 between Ashkenatza, Elwynn and Shireroth) I would expect territorial compensation through the instigation of a similar regime in either Echo or Vijayanagara which would become a free port in association with Elwynn.
Re: Statement from Elwynn
Posted: Tue Sep 21, 2010 12:49 pm
by Daniel Farewell
What does his Niftiness say?
Re: Statement from Elwynn
Posted: Tue Sep 21, 2010 1:04 pm
by Daniel Farewell
Your Niftiness,
Having been declared the president of the Elwynnese Realm, I have the honour of giving you the proposal of our two governments ratifying the present pact as drafted by Ardashir Khan, after which a secondary treaty would be negotiated for other matters.
Daniel Rais Adurellion
Re: Statement from Elwynn
Posted: Tue Sep 21, 2010 2:42 pm
by Kaiser Ometeotl I
I see no reason no to put them into the same treaty. I'm fine with the sluice arrangement.
Re: Statement from Elwynn
Posted: Wed Sep 22, 2010 4:36 am
by Jonas
I still think that we need to redraw that map. The Shirerithian county, left of Shirekeep, doesn't even have a name. And the border lines aren't correct.

Re: Statement from Elwynn
Posted: Wed Sep 22, 2010 10:06 am
by Kaiser Ometeotl I
What's wrong with the border lines? Internal names and borders can be dealt with independent of the treaty as they are a domestic matter.
Re: Statement from Elwynn
Posted: Wed Sep 22, 2010 10:33 am
by Jonas
Kaiser Ometeotl I wrote:What's wrong with the border lines? Internal names and borders can be dealt with independent of the treaty as they are a domestic matter.
I'm quite sure that we had dotted lines, Your Niftiness. It can easily be changed, I don't see why we should make a separated claim (to correct a 'mistake' made by the first change) and lose time.
I would change it myself if my borders didn't always end up pretty horrible...

Re: Statement from Elwynn
Posted: Wed Sep 22, 2010 10:38 am
by Kaiser Ometeotl I
Okey. I fixed the dotted lines on my map, I'll upload it later..
And as for the free port mentioned for the dam, I don't see that as that equitable. A city for a dam?
Re: Statement from Elwynn
Posted: Wed Sep 22, 2010 10:40 am
by Jonas
Perhaps he just means the port.
