A Tale of Common Things

[Nuka-sama]

友好友好條約/The Treaty of Amity and Friendship

1. The Qing Empire grants the East India Company and such agents as it might seem fit to appoint the exclusive right to trade opium with the same.

2. The Qing Empire grants the East India Company and such agents as it might seem fit to appoint the right to build and maintain docks, warehouses &etc in Hong Kong at the discretion of the East India Company and in approved ports at the discretion of the Qing Empire.

3. The East India Company agrees to sell opium exclusively to the state of the Qing Empire and such agents as it might see fit to appoint at approved ports.

4. The East India Company agrees that at least half of the value of the opium sold should be in the form of Chinese goods exchanged at fair value.

5. Personnel of the East India Company, its agents and personnel of its agents are to be tried under British Law where possible.

6. The Qing Empire agrees to waive the tariffs and such laws as might impede the sale of goods to the East India Company and such agents as it might appoint and on opium imported into the Qing Empire under this arrangement.

7. The Qing Empire agrees to pay a price for opium not less than the price for opium that was prevailing prior to the enactment of this treaty.

Signed

道光帝

 

[Masada]

The British Governments notes with interest the Treaty of Amity and Friendship.

 

[Jehoshua]

The Russian Empire finds the Austro-Spanish Treaty directly opposed to the goals of the Berlin Declaration to maintain the "current political status of Spain." The treaty would most likely produce an Hapsburg heir who would inherit a union of both Austria and Spain, an arrangement that would upset the delicate political balance of Europe and be inimical to the goals of peace and stability. Thus if Austria were to renege on its obligations, St. Petersburg would consider its prior diplomatic agreements with Vienna null and void and move for the expulsion of Austria from the Berlin Declaration.

As we have noted already to Britain, the proposed Austro-Spanish Treaty is not opposed to the clause "support the current political status of Spain". Austria maintains the legitimate rights of Isabella II, and in the possibility of Franz-Joseph succeeding Ferdinand I (should he remain childless) he would not become King of Spain. His heir in such an eventuality would become Spanish Monarch, but such an event would result in a personal union (same person being monarch of two nations), rather than a political one. Spain would in such a situation remain a separate monarchy, with a separate government, separate laws with full retention of its separate international identity and legal obligations and domestic and foreign policies. Such a scenario incidentally depends on the Emperor failing to sire an heir, and even if destined is quite some distance in the future. Ergo the current political status is being supported, and in the future the political status of Spain would be retained as independent of Austria in the event of a common individual being heir to both nations thrones so even future concerns of a shift in Spain's political status are unfounded.

We also note that this arrangement yet requires the confirmation of Spain. Should Spain not consent than no such arrangement can proceed. It is not currently a valid legal document. (ooc: and lets be honest, Spain is very likely to backtrack from the arrangement agreed too in the face of international opposition and in light of its fraught domestic scene. That's partly why I decided to bite the bullet and put it out on the thread)

 

[theDright]

We will not stand for the Belgian rebels. They have unrightfully broken their allegiance to the Netherlands, and that will not go unpunished.

OOC: I realize there are treaties for such, but there was a war against them in history and I am going to pursue the war.

Unless the Netherlands wishes to bring down the wrath of Europe on their heads, they will not break the indefinite armistice between the Kingdom of the Netherlands and the Kingdom of Belgium since 1832. The time has come for the Kingdom of the Netherlands to recognize the independence of the Kingdom of Belgium; a recognition long since afforded by every other European state.

OOC: And just because you haven't signed a treaty does not mean it has no effect on you. The last fighting between Belgium and the Netherlands was back in 1832.

 

[Azale]

The British Government requests the opinion of the United States on the Treaty of San Antonio and the political status of the Republic of Texas.

It is a surprisingly quick capitulation. We applaud the spirit of Democracy present within the General. If George III had been as wise as the General from Mexico, many White Men would not have had to die so many years ago.

However, the United States will refrain from making comments on the details of the Treaty until it has been seen by the Mexican Congress. That being said...

The President of the United States wishes to grant formal recognition to the Republic of Texas. In addition, he sends his regards in the form of the materiel and blueprints needed to construct a statue in his honor within your capital city.

 

[The_Machine]

The Russian Empire finds the Austro-Spanish Treaty directly opposed to the goals of the Berlin Declaration to maintain the "current political status of Spain." The treaty would most likely produce an Hapsburg heir who would inherit a union of both Austria and Spain, an arrangement that would upset the delicate political balance of Europe and be inimical to the goals of peace and stability. Thus if Austria were to renege on its obligations, St. Petersburg would consider its prior diplomatic agreements with Vienna null and void and move for the expulsion of Austria from the Berlin Declaration.

Spain believes that a Catholic presence in Spain may help pacify traditionalist Carlist revolutionaries. The current political status of Spain will be maintained and the Spanish heirs will come from Queen Isabella II.

 

[The_Machine]

The Kingdom of Spain has decided that the Austro-Spanish Treaty is not in our best interests at this time. The risk for one heir to both the Spanish and Austrian thrones is too great and a Hapsburg ruler is not in the best interest of the Spanish people.

The treaty is not to be signed

 

[qoou]

友好友好條約/The Treaty of Amity and Friendship

1. The Qing Empire grants the East India Company and such agents as it might seem fit to appoint the exclusive right to trade opium with the same.

2. The Qing Empire grants the East India Company and such agents as it might seem fit to appoint the right to build and maintain docks, warehouses &etc in Hong Kong at the discretion of the East India Company and in approved ports at the discretion of the Qing Empire.

3. The East India Company agrees to sell opium exclusively to the state of the Qing Empire and such agents as it might see fit to appoint at approved ports.

4. The East India Company agrees that at least half of the value of the opium sold should be in the form of Chinese goods exchanged at fair value.

5. Personnel of the East India Company, its agents and personnel of its agents are to be tried under British Law where possible.

6. The Qing Empire agrees to waive the tariffs and such laws as might impede the sale of goods to the East India Company and such agents as it might appoint and on opium imported into the Qing Empire under this arrangement.

7. The Qing Empire agrees to pay a price for opium not less than the price for opium that was prevailing prior to the enactment of this treaty.

Signed

道光帝

Signed,
His Excellency The Right Honourable Baron of Auckland, Governor-General of India

 

[DC123456789]

Edited orders.

 

[Masada]

The British Government wishes to query the Mexican Government about the recent Treaty of San Antonio.

(1) Is there any truth to the notion that General Santa Anna is now marching on Mexico City at the head of his army?
(2) Is there any truth to the claim that General Santa Anna was a signatory to the Treaty of San Antonio?
(3) What is the Mexican Governments understanding of the extent of the territories that it has signed away under the Treaty?
(4) Is it true that the Mexican Government has signed away those territories for £250 000?
(5) Has the Mexican Government given thought the capacity of the Texas Republic to make the payments stipulated in the Treaties?
(7) Has the Mexican Government made a separate arrangement with the United States to cover the Texan debts?
(8) Has the Mexican Government engaged with the United States in respect of all the issues raised in the Treaty?
(9) Has the Mexican Government given consideration to opposition that might be raised in the Congress of Mexico to the terms of the Treaty?
(10) Has the Mexican Government given consideration to the cost of financing migration between the Texan Republic and the Republic of Mexico and vice versa?
(11) Has the Mexican Government given adequate consideration to the presence of third party nationals speaking English and/or Spanish and the issues that might arise under the terms of the Treaty?

British Consul-General in Mexico

 

[ChiefDesigner]

It is a surprisingly quick capitulation. We applaud the spirit of Democracy present within the General. If George III had been as wise as the General from Mexico, many White Men would not have had to die so many years ago.

However, the United States will refrain from making comments on the details of the Treaty until it has been seen by the Mexican Congress. That being said...

The President of the United States wishes to grant formal recognition to the Republic of Texas. In addition, he sends his regards in the form of the materiel and blueprints needed to construct a statue in his honor within your capital city.

The Republic of Texas thanks the United States for her aid and friendship. Once elections have been held, a minister of our government will be promptly dispatched to Washington.

Said minister has been asked, by David Burnet speaking as a private citizen, what kind of statue he would like. Is the president a fan of equestrianism?

 

[Immaculate]

The British Government wishes to query the Mexican Government about the recent Treaty of San Antonio.

(1) Is there any truth to the notion that General Santa Anna is now marching on Mexico City at the head of his army?
(2) Is there any truth to the claim that General Santa Anna was a signatory to the Treaty of San Antonio?
(3) What is the Mexican Governments understanding of the extent of the territories that it has signed away under the Treaty?
(4) Is it true that the Mexican Government has signed away those territories for £250 000?
(5) Has the Mexican Government given thought the capacity of the Texas Republic to make the payments stipulated in the Treaties?
(7) Has the Mexican Government made a separate arrangement with the United States to cover the Texan debts?
(8) Has the Mexican Government engaged with the United States in respect of all the issues raised in the Treaty?
(9) Has the Mexican Government given consideration to opposition that might be raised in the Congress of Mexico to the terms of the Treaty?
(10) Has the Mexican Government given consideration to the cost of financing migration between the Texan Republic and the Republic of Mexico and vice versa?
(11) Has the Mexican Government given adequate consideration to the presence of third party nationals speaking English and/or Spanish and the issues that might arise under the terms of the Treaty?

British Consul-General in Mexico

The Republic of Mexico thanks the British Consul-General for his interest in the treaty. We also wish reiterate our willingness to engage with the British on a wide range of topics of interest to both nations. Our doors are always open to the questions or concerns of the British Consul-General in Mexico.

Lets see if we can't answer your immediate questions.

1) No.
2) Yes; Indeed I was instrumental in its authorship.
3) These have been outlined in the treaty.
4) The exact price (and its implications) are a matter for Texan and Mexican authorities.
5) Yes.
6) Why is there no sixth point?
7) (See point 4- except include the USA in that list)
8) The Republic of Mexico has approached the United States of America vis-à-vis the treaty of San Anatonio. Because this conversation was a private one between myself and the President of the United States of America, it behoves us not to share its contents on the world stage without the knowledge or approval of the US government.
9) Congress has indicated it will support the treaty. (OOC: check out the history of the Mexican congress at this point and you’ll see why I can say that with absolute confidence.)
10) Yes.
11) Yes. You can rest assured, that in terms of the British nationals doing work in Mexico, no one will be relocated that doesn’t want to be. British nationals will not be endangered in any way as a consequence of this treaty.

Antonio de Padua María Severino López de Santa Anna y Pérez de Lebrón

 

[Dachs]

In addition, he sends his regards in the form of the materiel and blueprints needed to construct a statue in his honor within your capital city.

lurker's comment: You are very good at roleplaying Andrew Jackson. Props, sir.

 

[Immaculate]

Will there be a wiki?

 

[Azale]

lurker's comment: You are very good at roleplaying Andrew Jackson. Props, sir.

I wish I could run for a third term

 

[Thlayli]

You, uh, you can, technically.

 

[Jehoshua]

ooc: might be a bit late with orders, but will have them in within 12-15 hours at the latest.

 

[Masada]

The Mexican Government's answers are not satisfactory. The Mexican Government will be held to account if any British citizens, their dependents, or property are harmed as a result of any wrinkles arising from this ill-conceived Treaty.

It is also the recommendation of the Consul-General that Mexico represents a significant risk and that it should not advanced further monies until it's house has been put in order.

 

[Masada]

The Netherlands is warned that if it breaches the terms of its armistice with Belgian there will be consequences.

 

[Frozen In Ice]

What consequences would that be, as Prussia was told at least that the British wouldn't intervene? We would like to know at least if your position on this has changed.