Off-Topic Thread vol. 2

I would suspect the reason why you’ve never heard a Federation Citizen explain why Intaki has the right to secession could very well be explained by that it has never come up in conversation with any that you have encountered, or that you have never asked them.

It is possible that the average Federation Citizen may not be aware of the Intaki Secessionist movement, considering that they have their own concerns and politics at the forefront of their mind within the confines of their member state, likely unaware of what goes on outside of it, or their District. Strewth, many are not even aware that a Federated Union even exists, depending on the area where they live, until the time comes to elect their Senatorial representative or Presidential Candidate.

Of course, when we speak of Intaki, are we referring to the Intaki Solar System, the District, the Intaki Homeworld or those that identify as Intaki or having Intaki ancestry, numbering almost a quarter of the Federal population? Intaki could mean any of those and more, it isn’t a word that is defined by one meaning when the topic of secessionism or independence arises on these forums or in political discourse.

For simplicities sake, and the Federation is anything but simple when delving into it’s intricacies, I shall presume that you are referring to the Intaki Liberation Front’s stated goal of the independence of the Intaki system. The honest answer is, there is not anything preventing a member state from declaring independence from the Federation in theory or in practice. The Federation is an interstellar alliance based in part on the principle of membership and acceptance by mutual consent, not one of conquest or subjugation. I am not aware of any examples of legitimate separation from the Federation (beyond the obvious example, although the legitimacy of it is questionable depending on whom you ask).

As much of an idealist that I am in that I believe that those member states in the Federation have come to adopt the ideals that it espouses out of righteousness, I accept that there is a very realist argument to accepting the Federation’s laws when signing the Charter and agreeing to be bound by the Constitution and Federal Law. One of them is that it is an insurance guarantee of the member state’s sovereignty, as the Federation is bound by contract to render aid and assistance should it be attacked. An attack on one truly is an attack on all, regardless of whether it is the richest core member state or a bootstrap colony on the fringes of Federal space. The economic benefits, development opportunities, freedom of movement, mutual co-operation and the defence of each member state’s way of life and culture; all make membership attractive.

The real question to be asked is: what does a signatory gain by withdrawing from the Union? Sovereignty or ‘regaining control’ over one’s own affairs sounds like an attractive buzzphrase to be used, but the end result of withdrawal would more often that not likely to be detrimental more than beneficial. And quite frankly? The Federation does not nearly have much in the way of direct rule over each member state, contrary to what you may think. Aside from abiding by what obligations they have to as part of the Federation (which could be minimal, if opt-out clauses come into play which many Intaki member states have taken advantage of), it’s presence is barely if at all noticeable.

Except, you know, the Federation Navy.

That’s really not relevant to the legality of doing so, is it? It’s like claiming whether or not I’m better off not cutting off my own foot is relevant to the question of ‘is it legal?’ Either it is, or it isn’t.

Yes, but the bigger question is: does me agreeing to X mean that my great-great-great grandchildren should be forced to be subject to that agreement? Can you really claim to espouse liberty if me agreeing to be bound by something puts shackles on my descendants in perpetuity?

1 Like

Starting to kind of regret that one, though, what with the Empire demonstrating their famous ability to share again.

1 Like

The last time the Federation Navy attempted to prevent the secession of a member state(s), it almost led to the complete dissolution of the Federal Union. Besides the point, the servicemen and women of the Federation Navy are renowned for their professionalism and conduct when it comes to their responsibilities, amongst them recognising the legality of their orders, from the enlisted ranks to the officer corps. That it is common knowledge that senior Federation Navy officers actively lobbied for the overturning of the No-Vote Bill that disenfranchised occupied systems in Federal elections is but a single representation of this understanding of their role in the Federation. Even if they were ordered to by a rogue administration, it is highly likely they would refuse the order as unlawful.

As the right for a colony or other entity to declare independence from a Member State is codified as legally-protected under Federal Law, the right to secede of a member state from the Federation is protected. My point with that question is to explain why Captain Aloga rarely if ever heard of reasons why secession was discussed.

As for whether the agreement is perpetually binding, I am personally not aware of the preconditions or processes for secession of a member state as it is not something I have looked into with vigour, although I would definitely know it would require almost unanimous agreement within the member state’s population and not just executed on the whims of leadership. Accession to the Union is definitely undertaken with the long-term in mind when the compact between member state and Federation is agreed. That compact does not prevent departure. If it did, the Federation would not be the interstellar alliance based on consenting parties. The Further Federation Act, which could be seen as the basis of discontent from disaffected parties hailing from the historic metropole of Placid (Intaki), was partly brought about because of the threat of non-represented entities at the time declaring independence.

I reiterate my earlier point that member states are required, expected even, to be self-sufficient in their affairs and have significant autonomy and agency in how they govern themselves, whilst abiding by certain guidelines set by the Federation. That the Federation would attempt to prevent a secession of a member state is almost guaranteed, sure, but not because it desires to exert some fantasy of imperial power. If a member state were to attempt secession, it is a signal of failure to the Federation in that it is not maintaining the standard expected of it when the member state ascended to the Federation.

And? Have there been any legal changes that would mean they’d act differently?

It is? Would such an order be unlawful now, even though it wasn’t then? Having a vote in Federal Elections isn’t the same as having the right to leave.

No, that doesn’t follow. Being allowed, through the Federal legal system, to emancipate oneself from, for example, neglectful parents isn’t the same as being able to declare yourself no longer subject to Federal law. Similarly, being able to declare independence within the Federal system from a Member State isn’t the same as being able to declare independence from the Federal system. Even the Further Federation Act, by making it possible to opt-out of certain Federal laws1, sets the precedent that opting out of all Federal laws (ie: secession) is not allowed. Especially since it came into being during a war about whether or not the Caldari could secede.

Except for the way historically, it has. Or has the Federation offered full reparations to the descendants of those harmed or driven into exile by the starvation blockade of Caldari Prime?

1. Also, a clear list of which laws could be opted-out of upon passage, and which ones that have been passed in the centuries later would be handy, you know?

1 Like

I have observed that on The Summit, there is often a disproportionate number of pilots whose call-signsstart with an ‘A’. Could this be among the reasons why?

I am not sure, but I do find that most Capsuleer callsings are a bit weird. Conversations would be much less awkward if people just used their name instead.

Is posting on topic allowed or do you have to post off topic which makes it not offtopic which makes it ontopic which is not offtopic which makes it …

Correct! Posting things on-topic here is off-topic here, which means it must be moved to here so it can be off-topic, which is on-topic for here. :wink:

Don’t be so hard on yourself. You were never all that defective. :wink:

1 Like

You’re too kind!


Remind me. What are your politics nowadays? I recall you were focused on seizing territory for a sovereign warclone state of some sort. I also feel like you’ve taken interesting positions, re: the Triglavian Collective. Care to educate me?

1 Like

I… if I may interject, this is a bit of a misnomer, really. While indeed Mr. Eskola-Fae is affiliated with the Bosena Accords and Round Table Assembly(much less so these days, but he remains a member of the Trade Congress, and not in a major control stake), the conception around Avalon is a bit more nuanced than just ‘seize territory to make’. A great deal of it was, prior already gifted for use, and repurposed to fill the Avalon dream…

Though I think perhaps discussion of Avalon shouldn’t be used as a bludgeon on either side of tthe aisle of argumentation.

Ms. Brezia-Acustmargo, I appreciate your desire to cool the conversation. Admittedly, I haven’t dug into the half-decade of proclamations by Mr. Eskola-Fae to find references. At the same time, I feel like I’m not without basis for believing that he has, at various points, indicated a desire to seize that independent enclave if it wasn’t given. This tracks with his comments on the years that were, at best, dismissive of the various empires, if not actively hostile, which dovetails nicely with his current association with Varyazi Clade and their operations on Skarkon supporting Collective interests.

Very simply, Ms. Brezia-Acustmargo, I appreciate your desire to cool the conversation. I may suggest, however, that there are more worthy or less questionable parties to champion on these forums.

This very much gives me the sense that you weren’t genuinely asking but looking for ammo. Thankfully for you I love to hear myself wax poetic, especially when its necessary to clarify my position in relation to the warclone community in Skarkon.

Avalon as a general concept for a warclone homeland has existed in one form or another since the numerous Purges leading up to the amendment of the infomorph act to include clone soldiers. Unfortunately the actions of the DEDs Red Troop in Molden Heath proved that alone wasn’t enough and that we needed to make our own institutions to defend our own right to existence. While plenty of people have contributed to the idea of Avalon and shaped it, I feel like its a bit of an injustice to ignore the fact that I founded the Bosena Accords and helped give a name to the same general sentiment.

Mr. Eskola-Fae is affiliated with the Bosena Accords and Round Table Assembly(much less so these days, but he remains a member of the Trade Congress, and not in a major control stake)

Moreover, yes, I stepped down from my position specifically in good faith to support a neutral party to administer the institutions that we had built up to that point without any sort of conflict of interest. However part of the Accords remaining neutral and its continued existence in Pochven, given its specific material circumstances, necessitates having an agent to act as a diplomat to Triglavian-allied forces in the region. From time to time, I opt to act as that diplomat no different from any organizational envoy. That role shouldn’t be downplayed, but I’m also far from speaking on behalf of the Avalon project any more than a single Senator can be said to embody the entire Gallente political sphere.

Blah blah stipulation stipulation. To your point though.

Didactically wrong. Even in the days of Molden Heath our stated intent was never, at any point, to “seize territory from the empires.” The goal of Avalon was to build our own institutions and consolidate territory acquired legally with invitation from the Thukker tribe. Land that we (with the exception if Skarkon which occupies an entirely different material position and should not be compared to) no longer lay claim to now that the invitation was retracted when we came into conflict with the corrupt Krusual-Thukker dominated Efrit regime that openly worked with criminal elements now confirmed to be a core element of the Deathless network. Criminal elements that were operating on what was at the time our rightful land and were in the right to combat no different than a stopping a burglar in your own home. The fact that some of those burglars were, after the fact, secretly working for the RSS doesn’t change that or make it our responsibility for the consequences that followed.

Territories in Skarkon weren’t “seized” but areas the warclone community already settled and developed that fell into our lap as our responsibility when the very same corrupt Efrit regime prosecuted us, refused calls for a united front against the invasion, and ultimately failed to stop the system from falling. Given Svarog’s goals of resource extraction over assimilation and development, our presence has created zones of stability on the planet where we exist mostly unhindered. That applies to mortals under our ward by their own choice as well.

Even by the most damning interpretation Avalon was never an aggressive campaign of expansion but squatting in our own home after the landlord unjustly retracted our lease, in the worlds shittiest part of town.

As for my personal philosophy, if we are already here then it would behoove us to get friendly with our new neighbors. Especially considering they seem to shoot us far less often than the previous sheriff.

I would argue that I am still very much a work in progress as far as my combat skills are concerned, however these words do carry weight coming from such a battle-hardened and distinguished combatant as yourself.

I will endeavour to make sure that I live up to them.


How broadly do you apply that principle Ms Cora?
Niarja and Raravoss were not the first, or most egregious thefts.

While I agree with you, I don’t think trying to give back the rest of Athra will really achieve much right now. You guys do get to keep some of what you’ve stolen from other nations.

I suppose we’ll see. If I ever do follow their examples and start trying to tear down the efforts of those I’m supposed to consider brethren, then I will accept all the accusations of fragility you throw at me.

Fragility of ego comes in all sorts of flavors, and doesn’t require tearing down the efforts of others.

For example, being incapable of admitting error, because your self-image is too inextricably linked to a faith.