I'm personally in favor of "Steps On The Road", which ensure a higher barrier for outright secession via different levels for membership and autonomy rather than a binary decision on membership/independence. I also don't want to pressure statelets to integrate if they don't fully want yet, as this is rather bad for stability and cooperation.
A referendum on joining the revivalists is effectively the same thing as an independence referendum, with one critical difference in perception. If we refer to this as a mandatory referendum on membership, we alienate Quebec, if we refer to this as an independence referendum, we please them.
So effectively a membership referendum, with the No-Vote resulting in gradual integration into the revivalist state.
There is a key difference between voting specifically on revivalist membership and voting on Quebec independence: A referendum specifically on membership doesn't allow the formation of a Quebec nation, which is very important for French-Canadians, granting them +2 opinion. Say we conquer Victoria and organize the lands under the "New England Reconstruction Authority". We hold a referendum for membership among French-Canadians and it fails. In this situation we could, legally speaking, simply not create any Quebec Nation, instead integrating the Reconstruction Authority, thus effectively ignoring the referendum. This would be a real dick move and likely cause the formation of terrorist movements in Quebec, with the situation potentially deteriorating in a similar way as Northern Ireland with clashes between pro-separation and anti-separation paramilitaries. The central assurance French-Canadians want is the option to form an independent Quebec and preventing us from forcibly integrating them via loopholes. If your referendum on membership forces the formation of a Quebec state if it fails, it achieves the same effect as the independence referendum regarding the relationship to French-Canadians.
There is a reason why the French-Canadians want reassurances specifically from us. If you take a look at the map on the status screen, currently most of Quebec is under Victorian occupation, with no contending statelets around them. If this occupation ends, it's probably because the Revivalist Council, or the Commonwealth specifically waged war on Victoria and won, resulting in forcing Victoria to give up those areas via peace treaty. Since a revivalist faction would be the one winning the conflict, the revivalist will be the ones with boots on the ground and the legal authority to make decision about how this territory is divided and administered in the future. So we have a say in the existence of Quebec by virtue of controlling this area both legally and militarily. That's why French-Canadians want reassurances from us, since the Revivalists will likely be the ones making decision about the independence of Quebec.
Feel free to suggest a write-in, if you think a membership referendum is superior. I'm guessing what the French-Canadian reaction will be, ultimately the QM decides what the reaction actually is.
Clockworkchaos, we had this discussion before regarding compensation for the locals affected Bandit King. This line of argumentation isn't productive. Practical difficulties with a specific good action are a valid concern and accusing the other of acting egoistic isn't going to make this discussion better or your moral evaluations more persuasive. I would like to note that the ingame governments of the USA are dirt-poor and on the level as developing nations, an economically difficult action means the difference between "everybody has a roof and gets food" vs "half a year of starvation", not "national debt increases by X percent". The Commonwealth is noted as being fairly prosperous for it's trade network and it very nearly had starvation, abated only being spending a quarter of the budget on food. Many smaller statelets are worse off and not situated at the intersection of a trade network. I'm not saying any of this to advocate against reparations where and when possible, I'm saying this because I think your flat dismissal of practical considerations is ill-advised in this discussion. Even if we don't pay right now, there is nothing stopping us from making reparations mandatory once starvation isn't an immediate threat. I would genuinely like to hear your opinion on the topic of Truth and Reconciliation, I would just like to avoid the flat dismissal of practical considerations and the accusations of immorality towards anybody who asks some questions about in-game difficulty of good actions.
I think there is a rather good reason to get the Mexican Revivalists on board. The Northern Mexican Factions are described as being extraordinarily thrilled with the Pan-American Union, while the Mexican Revivalists being really irritated right now. The majority of North Mexico wants integration, while the Mexican Revivalists don't. Say we just ignore them and tell to "make up your mind", the likely result is an integrated Northern Mexico and a smaller southern Mexico, much weaker and much less resistant to foreign pressure. This can easily end up very badly, with the Mexican Revivalists becoming our rival due to perceived territorial grabs. I think we are running a real risk of any Mexican Government becoming a foothold of rival block right across our southern border, unless we at least integrate them as an associate or ally.
My idea would be that each area would be something on the scale of a municipality, not an individual street. I think we can write in some provisions of not separating towns at the border, but placing borders outside of townships. Also, I didn't quote the relevant end of my proposal regarding automatic free movement, dual citizenship and non-aggression, sorry.
I think they will try to retake pre-collapse Mexico either way. I mean, they are referred to as Mexican Revivialists. The question is if they are doing this while still being cooperative with the Pan-American Union, or if they are doing this despite the Pan-American Union integrating Mexican communities. I basically want to ensure that the Mexican Revivalists can unite parts of Mexico, without becoming hostile towards us. This proposal makes them more likely to stay associated, even if they decide to hold the referendum.
If that is your opinion on the subject, fine. We had the conversation already, but I have no issue with you voicing your moral objections again. I would just like to politely ask you not to react to somebody asking the question "Is this practically possible" with the accusation "You want us to act in a way without any principles". Asking a question of "is this possible in-universe" is not the say as endorsing moral irresponsibility. Simon_Jester has raised the possibility of this getting difficult, without even taking a definite moral stance on the subject. Maybe to you those two sound identical, but please try to criticize the judgement of questors for moral opinions they voiced, rather than accusing them for ones you infer.
I'll point out that there was never going to be compensation. Even in the world where we shoot Aubrey and his men dead, not a single cent would have gone back to the people of Utah. The actors in question, no matter how self-righteous they may seem, didn't care one whit for actually giving anything stolen back to the local people. The canon sidestory for what would have happened makes that clear. A massacre, looting, moving on. A righteous one, but no thought was given to anyone but us. The only difference is that more thought is given to our unit morale and how righteous we wanted to feel rather than more practical, physical concerns.
Then tell us how should we rebuild our air force in such little time. and don't Think this is a special circumstance every nation has to do questionable stuff especially during times like this nations with morals that they will not bend will get eaten by ones that don't have any morals in the first place.
Voting moratorium has not yet been lifted. You can post the plan, but remove the x's from the boxes.
No one cared about planes we cant maintain. No one voted to spare Aubrey for the planes. We voted to spare him for his pilots and maintenance crew.
We totally left all those veteran pilots and ground personnel that can be very good trainers behind that the update said we didn't left behind at all yep totally let them behind.........
I am partially at fault for starting this, but could we please not replay the the discussion from the last update right now? It's clogging up the forum with an argument we already had to exhaustion.
