Article H: Regional Name and EmblemRegional Identity
Section 1
The official name of the government of The East Pacific shall be the “Confederated East Pacific”. “The Confederacy of The East Pacific” or “The Confederated States of The East Pacific” may be used interchangeably with The East Pacific’s official name.
Section 2
The regional symbol of The East Pacific shall be the Mason Compass (without the “G” inscribed in its center), and the regional colors shall be any variant of green and yellow.
Section 3
The East Pacific shall uphold cultural neutrality. The East Pacific shall not limit any nation’s participation in cultural activities based on political ideology, alignment or rivalry.
Section 4
The East Pacific is an unaligned region that serves the interests of its Citizens first and foremost, as such it shall not join any aligned sphere nor endorse any alignment on an official ground.
Hi, a proposal.
I feel like we’ve seen the superiority of the mentality “communities above politics” or in other words, cultural neutrality taking a strong lead for a long while in The East Pacific. Since we’ve always put friendships above business and our most meaningful alliances are those, where community interactions are most intense, I believe it’s fair to say that it is a mentality that we could upgrade from a resolution to a section in Concordat.
As for Section 4 I’m not certain I used the correct wording. If someone has a better wording, go ahead and propose. My main worry is “nor endorse any alignment on an official ground” - what I’m trying to say is that we may not officially say “from this day one we support raiders fully”, but we can still cooperate with them. But maybe section 4 should just end before “nor”.
I hate this Article in its entirety, so against for that, but if you want me to suspend that for now:
Section 3 is entirely too restrictive. We have a resolution for that which we can (and have) cite(d) as reason for upholding the ideal you’re attempting to enshrine here, but if we codify it in the supreme law of the land, then we are not giving the government any flexibility if they want to enact certain strong sanctions. I like it as a resolution. I could maybe accept it as a law. But in the Concordat? TOO strong a statement, imo.
Section 4 is good. We used to enshrine our unalignment somewhere. I like the idea of bringing that back. Having it in the Concordat would make sense.
Unsuspending my undying hatred of a Regional Identity Article in the Concordat over the far more effective and flexible and far less cluttered and annoying Statutory Law, though, this unalignment wold be best enshrined in either the preamble or Article A. To be honest, Section 3 would ONLY make sense in Article A as well, because a provision on event-planning has no bearing on our actual identity but much bearing on Executive operations. Tbh, Sec. 1 and 2 could be moved there while we’re at it too.
Yes you could argue that the event provision ARISES from our identity of, as you mentioned, community over politics, but in that case we might as well put the entire Concordat under Article H because EVERY SINGLE CLAUSE we have wrote and will write is a product of our identity. Certainly, the recent frontier recruitment clause I wrote is a product of our culture.
All that said, I like how I worded it for TMV better, which is to say, for Section 4: “All Governance shall be to the end of serving the community and providing services to its benefit. Unity shall be prioritized over factious devices. Cooperation shall be prioritized over personal interests. The establishment of a regional ideology of any kind shall be prohibited.”
This could also be the place to officially ban Political Parties, although maybe that would be best as a law.