Forum:Global and regional issues/Eastern Ulethan Organisation of Independent Allies

From OpenGeofiction
Jump to navigation Jump to search
ForumsGlobal and regional issues → Global and regional issues/Eastern Ulethan Organisation of Independent Allies

Discussion before 2022 (not latest version)

This is the discussion page for the setup of EUOIA. The Summarised proposal is what is currently being proposed. Old discussion is what has previously been discussed that lead to the proposal.

Questions that have to be answered:

  • Will there be an EUOIA parliament or not (see the appropriate chapter below)?
  • Where will the suborganisations and institutes be located (as far as they haven't been claimed yet)?

When these questions have been anwered, we can approve the current proposal. As soon as all member states' names are behind approved, the proposal for the EUOIA setup is approved after which we can update the main page of EUOIA.

This proposal is:

Summarised proposal

Based on what is discussed below, I (Rasmus Rasmusson (talk) 19:25, 5 July 2017 (CEST)) propose the following setup for EUOIA (Updated 4 August 2018):

History and purpose

Ifgus's proposal for a general introduction to EUOIA's history (he mentions some nations, but you can of course add/change for yourselves at which point exactly your country joined):

After The World War, Eastern Uletha suffered a huge economic catastrophe, much like the rest of the world. The countries where struggling to become steady again, to stabilize their economy and to rebuild what was demolished. 
In April 20, 1962, Wyster, Mauretia, Mergany, Kojo and Eshein singed the Imperium Treaty which ordered the establishment of the Eastern Ulethan Economic Support Alliance. The the goal of this economic organization was supporting each other economically to rebound from the catastrophe. 
In January 10, 1968, during a meeting of the alliance in Iola, for the fist time the nations started to think about expending the alliance to other fields such and trade, education (Rasmus Rasmusson: I'd prefer 'Scientific cooperation' here), foreign relations, etc. but no decision was made.
In July 3, 1976, during a meeting of the alliance in Bad Stanncatt, the Bad Stanncatt Treaty was singed and ordered on the expansion of the fields that the organization is responsible to and was, in fact, the beginning of the organization as it is today.

The purpose of EUESA > EUOIA:

  • 1962 : EUESA as an economic support system for its member states.
  • 1968 : starting talks about cooperation on field of trade, foreign relations, scientific development, etc., but no breakthrough yet
  • 1976 : founding of EUOIA in Bad Stancatt (Mergany). The purpose of EUOIA is to facilitate cooperation between its member states in several fields through various suborganisations: member states can choose on which level they cooperate with other member states (or not) and therefore which suborganisations they join.


The EUOIA has the following organs:

The Board of Governors

The Board of Governors is the main organ of EUOIA. It consists of two members per member state, who are appointed by the member states in any manner as they see fit. It has as its principal powers:

  • To decide the general action and policy of EUOIA, determine the structure and functions of its organs, and consider any matter relating to friendly relations among the member states;
  • To establish measures to coordinate the activities of the organs;
  • To promote collaboration, especially in the economic, technological, scientific, and cultural fields, between the member states and with other international organisations whose purposes are similar to those of EUOIA.
  • To approve EUOIA’s budget and determine the quotas of the member states;
  • To adopt its own rules of procedure and its agenda.

The BoG convenes at least twice a year, each time in another member state according to a rotating system.

The Secretariat

The Secretariat is the administrative organ of EUOIA and takes care of daily business. It is headed by the organisation’s Secretary General. It’s main tasks are:

  • To carry out those decisions of the BoG of which the implementation has not been assigned to another body;
  • To prepare the meetings of the BoG
  • To transmit to the member states the notice of the convocation of the BoG or any other EUOIA meeting.
  • To serve as a custodian of the documents and archives of EUOIA
  • To submit to the BoG at the first meeting session of each year an annual report on the activities of EUOIA in the past year, and on its financial condition.

The Secretariat will be located in Viljanni Template:MER-coordinates.

The Secretary General is appointed by the BoG for one period of 1000 days; he or she originates from one of the member states. A Secretary General may not have the same nationality as his predecessor.

  • In case a Secretary General dies in office or is otherwise incapacitated during his term, his or her country of origin will appoint an interim Secretary General who will assume the duties of the Secretary General either until the moment that the original Secretary General will be able to resume his or her duties, or until the end of the original Secretary General’s 1000 days term.
  • The BoG, by a two thirds vote of their members, may remove the Secretary General from office, whenever the proper functioning of EUOIA so demands. The member state of origin of the removed Secretary General will appoint an interim Secretary General until the end of the original Secretary General’s 1000 days term.

If the 1000 days term is accepted and the first SecGen's term starts on 1 January 1977 (assuming that EUOIA was founded in its current form in July 1976), the list will be as follows:

name country term start term end remarks
1 1/1/1977 27/9/1979
2 28/9/1979 23/6/1982
3 24/6/1982 19/3/1985
4 20/3/1985 14/12/1987
5 15/12/1987 9/9/1990
6 10/9/1990 5/6/1993
7 6/6/1993 1/3/1996
8 2/3/1996 26/11/1999
9 27/11/1999 22/8/2002
10 23/8/2002 18/5/2005
11 19/5/2005 12/2/2008
12 13/2/2008 8/11/2010
13 9/11/2010 4/8/2013
14 5/8/2013 30/4/2016
15 1/5/2016 25/1/2019
16 26/1/2019 21/10/2021
No Parliament?

I (Rasmus Rasmusson (talk) 19:25, 5 July 2017 (CEST)) am still not convinced that a parliament is needed, especially from the beginning of EUOIA's existence. It depends on the depth of the integration of the member states and whether EUOIA is a super-governmental or an inter-governmental organisation. A parliament can however be created at a later moment; it could e.g. be part of current ongoing discussions.

  • I too don't think we need a parliament. I'd be okay with it being part of current negotiations, but I really think its superfluous. &mdash; Alessa <sub>(talk)</sub> 15:47, 15 August 2018 (CEST)
Let's vote about this! :D<br>
Please fill in your username after 'yes', 'no', 'don't know/undecided':
  • yes, we need a parliament:
  • no, we don't need a parliament: Wyster, Mauretia
  • don't know/undecided:
Other specialised organisations and institutions

Member states don't have to participate in every of these organisations and institutions. In the list below, the provisional locations of each organisation/institute are added as far as they have been claimed. The year of foundation should be added. Please only claim an organisation/institute if your country participates in the cooperation (and if your country was a member of EUOIA at the time of the organisation's foundation; moving around offices if an original host country isn't available anymore for some reason, is possible, but of course rather expensive so it should be avoided). If multiple member states claim the same organisation/institute, we could vote about it.

  • Eastern Ulethan Economic Community (EUEC) > facilitates free trade and other economic issues (free movement, transport, ...), located in Mergany Template:MER-coordinates
  • Eastern Ulethan Defense Association (EUDA) > common defense, located in Eshein Template:MER-coordinates
  • Eastern Ulethan High Court of Justice (EUHCJ) > for e.g. settlement of disputes NOT a judicial union! Located in Wyster? (see Rasmus Rasmusson's question below)
  • Eastern Ulethan Institute for Science and Development (EUISD)
  • Eastern Ulethan Medical and Health Organisation (EUMHO), located in Mauretia Template:MER-coordinates
  • Eastern Ulethan Energy Office (EUEO)
  • Eastern Ulethan Institute for Cultural Cooperation (EUICC) > including sport issues
  • Eastern Ulethan Investment Bank (EUIB) > loans for less developed member states, EUOIA sponsored projects, etc.?
  • Eastern Ulethan Diplomatic Bureau (EUDB) > common embassies etc.
  • Eastern Ulethan Space Agency Federation (EUSAF), if needed, located in Viljanni Template:MER-coordinates

(Since there is no fixed location for the Board of Governors, the building I mapped in Wyster (Template:MER-coordinates) can be used for something else. Can I claim the High Court of Justice for that? -- Rasmus Rasmusson (talk) 11:27, 4 August 2018 (CEST) )

Treaties and agreements

Member states don't have to participate in every of these treaties and agreements.

  • Founding Treaty
  • Free Trade Agreement (to be facilitated by EUEC)

Table of members and membership levels

Please fill about your countries. Instructions are listed on the edit page.

<!-- TO FILL OUT THE TABLE: Please use the template Template:EUOIA table country with the full set of parameters as provided. Use Template:Full to indicate full or nearly full collaboration and Template:Partial for partial collaboration.

TEMPLATE and PARAMETERS: Template:EUOIA table country -->

Template:EUOIA table head Template:EUOIA table country Template:EUOIA table country Template:EUOIA table country Template:EUOIA table country Template:EUOIA table country Template:EUOIA table country Template:EUOIA table country Template:EUOIA table country Template:EUOIA table country Template:EUOIA table country Template:EUOIA table country Template:EUOIA table country Template:EUOIA table country Template:EUOIA table country Template:EUOIA table country Template:EUOIA table country Template:EUOIA table country Template:EUOIA table country Template:EUOIA table foot

Table discussion

Some interesting and good discussion has started to come about here and on the EUDA page. It has made me thing more and more about what role Mauretia is playing/would play in the EUOIA. We all seem to have different desires about what the EUOIA should do. I think this is kind of cool. As much as most of us have developed (or mostly developed) countries, there are still some big differences. What if we allowed for a fluid membership? Even if this is only for the time being, it helps get collaboration off the ground and gives us things that we can incorporate into our mapping. Perhaps this is a good halfway point and compromise for those of us on opposite ends of the spectrum. In this way, the EUOIA can sponsor specific treaties and members can jump in as they wish. Perhaps, to further the compromise, there might need to be a minimum involvement (maybe a minimum of 3 areas to be a member)? I don't think that number should be too high, lest we run people off that we'd rather work with. Membership could be tracked with a simple table on the main article page. In the table a full participant has a green check and a partial participant has a faded check. Does this sound like something users are interested in? Happy mapping. Alessa (talk) 14:55, 22 March 2017 (CET) <small>Restored accidentally deleted comment along with a quick edit to fix grammar after table was moved. &mdash;Alessa (talk) 06:37, 23 March 2017 (CET)</small>

Thanks Alessa for the initiative. If I might ask, what exactly would "common embassies" include? Would that mean that the EUOIA would actually only have one embassy in third countries, which would represent all member countries? Also, open borders would need to be specified; does it mean free movement of goods and people like in the EU, e.g. every citizen of a member state may move to every country and work there without getting a visa, or would it only include a zero tariffs policy?Leowezy (talk) 20:46, 22 March 2017 (CET)
Hi, Leo. According to the discussion below and the embassies listed on the main article, the embassies are those in smaller countries like Myrcia, where it would not be economical for each member to have a separate facility. This doesn't mean that there can't be a separate ambassador at the shared space, and I don't think it is intended to preclude any member country from putting their own if relations would warrant it. For example, Mauretia may not have the means or interaction with Hoppon to place an embassy, but Kojo would given the newly-forming co-cultural bloc. So, Hoppon might have an EUOIA embassy for maybe Teberia and Mauretia separate from Kojo's. That's how I interpret it.
Next, yes, open borders needs to be clarified. In fact, the chart I created was just a mock-up as part of a proposal and not even intended for use! I'm flattered that people jumped right in. I've reorganized it (without changing information or what others put for their country). Of course, some of the things you mention also fall under the purview of sub-organizations like the EUEC or EUDA, and not everything is a potential forfeiture of sovereignty. Alessa (talk) 06:37, 23 March 2017 (CET)
Adding to what I just wrote: I think it's also important to point out that some of the points above presuppose others; for example, a political union would obviously "include" a simple non-aggression pact; A common currency can only be implemented if there's at least some degree of political cooperation, same goes with open borders (that means EU-like free movement of people) etc.Leowezy (talk) 21:16, 22 March 2017 (CET)
Correct. I hope my above comment explains that. I also should add that Mauretia might be willing to partake in a non-aggression pact but not necessarily the EUDA, even though EUDA would likely require the non-agg pact as a prerequisite. Alessa (talk) 06:37, 23 March 2017 (CET)

Thank you all for the discussion, especially Alessa for the table.

  • My intention with common embassies was to simplify the handling of foreign embassies for member states of EUOIA (simplify things is the main purpose of EUOIA for me), so as Alessa explained, there can be a common embassy in a country located. This makes sense in smaller (unimportant :) ) countries far away. The advantage is that not every member has to create hundreds of embassies and take care of them (in the case that the country is "lost", the embassy is illegally occupied by somebody else (I have many embassies in foreign countries, almost each month one gets lost, that's extremely time consuming), ...). A new user who joins EUOIA directly has, without any effort, some representations in other countries. Of course every member is welcome to set up an own embassy if there are special connections to that country (EUOIA shouldn't restrict your possibilities).
  • In my opinion, there will be too much information for such a simple table, it has to be much more detailed in the future: there should be some very general categories and in each category different options (and maybe sub-options). I think it is impossible to establish such a table suddenly, it's a long process to be more and more precise. My intention was that if somebody "hosts" one organization, one should also contribute ideas how to organize this part. At least each organization could have an "informal" group in which everybody is "member". The "Board of Governors" should be mandatory for every member, I see no reason to be part of EUOIA but not meeting other government leaders.
  • Another important issue of EUOIA (at least for me) is that there are no superpowers so far in OGF. Each member country on its own is negligible (sorry guys :) ). However, most countries (mine as well) claim to be the best, strongest, greatest nation on earth, just look at the annoying race in wiki-tables every day. So being part of EUOIA means being part of a strong, well organized "block" that nobody can disregard, no matter how it is really organized inside (e.g. still full sovereignty of each member).

--Mstr (talk) 07:51, 23 March 2017 (CET)

Membership requests

Request for Glaster to participate?

--Yuanls (talk) 15:46, 9 January 2016 (GMT)

Yes, you're very welcome! --Rasmus Rasmusson (talk) 16:54, 9 January 2016 (CET)
Thanks! --Yuanls (talk) 15:48, 9 January 2016 (GMT)

Mergany would like to participate --Mstr (talk) 2:39, 12 February 2016 (GMT)

While I'm certain Rasmus would like to see a new member, I would suggest contacting him through private messaging to confirm that decision, as officially, I have no power to add members, as of now. --Yuanls(talk) 20:37, 12 February 2016 (GMT)
O but yes, you do Yanls! My intention is to make this a very broad organisation, so theoretically every Eastern Ulethan nation is welcome to join, just "apply" on this Talk page. So Mergany is welcome to join as well. I already mentioned my reservations regarding the Mergan names somewhere, but as long as they are accepted by the owners/moderators of OGF I see no reason to refuse Mergany as potential EUOIA member state :) --Rasmus Rasmusson (talk) 21:49, 12 February 2016 (CET)
Thanks a lot! I already improved some names and hopefully I never "lose interest in elaborating [my] country". Is there anything I can contribute to EUOIA at the moment? --Mstr (talk) 23:39, 12 February 2016 (GMT)
Mostly discussion regarding the nature of the organisation; whether it's a low or more intensive profile organisation... --Rasmus Rasmusson (talk) 00:32, 13 February 2016 (CET)
I would prefer an organization containing all matters, maybe not for all members (if they have their own ideas), but seeing EUOIA as a head organization which could take care of all issues the members do not want to take care of and of course promote the cross-linking of infrastructure, economy, ... in eastern Uletha. I'm not sure if I - as a new member - can participate in the discussion of basic decisions: using EUOIA as a word in a sentence, it is very hard to pronounce it (in all languages I know). Replacing the word Organis(z?)ation by Coalition or Partnership or something similar would solve this "problem"? --Mstr (talk) 18:36, 13 February 2016 (CET)
Regarding the pronunciation: I intended it to be something like /youwoya/ or /eewoya/ as pronouncing all five initials separately would indeed be complicated. In Wystrian it will probably become something like Ah Uletha Headhyr Beesse Gacenne (AUHBG), which is not easy to pronounce either. Perhaps it would be the most convenient if /youwoya/ or /eewoya/ is adopted in the languages of all member states, also in order to avoid confusion. (And EUOIA is of course a small joke as only vowels are used, but if it is really troublesome we can change it.)
I agree with the idea of facilitating several issues by separate treaties and leave it up to the member states if they join each of those treaties or not. --Rasmus Rasmusson (talk) 19:19, 13 February 2016 (CET)
Do you think we should advertise the organisation through the User Diary section? It might be a useful way to gain members. Or alternatively we can use private messages to message people who aren't normally available as well (E.g. Hellerick) --Yuanls (talk) 19:27, 13 February 2016 (GMT)
Advertising would speed-up the procedure, but what exactly shall we advertise? What belongs to "eastern" Uletha? other regional unions (economic, military, ...) in order to campare to are so far: South-West Astrasian Economic Alliance (SWAEA), Central Archanta Economic Union, Southern Uletha Economic Cooperation Council -> also in Uletha --Mstr (talk) 20:39, 13 February 2016 (CET)
I would have thought the area of admission would likely be any country north of the latitude of Belphemia and anywhere east of the longitude of Darcodia. --Yuanls (talk) 20:09, 13 February 2016 (GMT)
Let's keep it undefined for now. It would be a pity if we excluded potentially active member states on forehand based on a geographical technicality. We could make the discussion if a country is eastern ulethan enough part of the joining procedure. --Rasmus Rasmusson (talk) 21:15, 13 February 2016 (CET)
I agree, to list the potential nations was only the first idea whom to ask for becoming a member, if there should be advertisement --Mstr (talk) 21:27, 13 February 2016 (CET)

Østermark Would like to participate, although it's a small and poor country with a big chip on its shoulder and, once I get writing more, sanctions against it for its whaling. Plus it's pissed off for having to share its island with the much more powerful Nucia, with which it has mixed relations at best. I would imagine that it would be under constant threat of being kicked out of the EUOIA but desperately wants to be part of it for the benefits. I would also imagine that the other nations involved would also find Østermark's involvement grating, because they contribute as little as they can while taking as much they can. --Demuth (talk) 11:44, 14 February 2016 (CET)

I think Østermark will be an asset to EUOIA as far as I'm personally concerned (Wyster may be less amused if Østermark behaves indeed like you describe); after all, it would be rather boring if all member states are friendly and cooperative :) --Rasmus Rasmusson (talk) 11:53, 14 February 2016 (CET)
Exactly. Stir things up a bit! --Demuth (talk) 12:05, 14 February 2016 (CET)

Orinoco would like to participate --Easky30 (talk)

Belphenia would like to participate for economic reasons. BelpheniaProject (talk) 19:14, 12 March 2016 (CET)

Sãikyel would like to participate. Stara Zagora (talk) 03:14, 16 September 2016 (CEST)

Mauretia would like to be considered for participation, especially if it is for defense, environmental, and economic cooperation. I'm not in favor of a monetary or judicial union at this time, however. Alessa (talk) 02:21, 19 September 2016 (CEST)

Both countries are welcome to join! Please add yourselves to the wiki page. |Yuanls (talk) 08:13, 19 September 2016 (CEST)

Teberia would like to participate, too. --Doktorpixel14 (talk) 15:44, 23 February 2017 (CET)

You're welcome!--Mstr (talk) 06:37, 24 February 2017 (CET) THIS COUNTRY DOESN'T EXIST ANYMORE

Nelavia would like to participate. --Avit (talk) 19:41, 1 March 2017 (CET)

You are welcome to join! Please add your country's name to the list. Yuanls (talk) 20:21, 1 March 2017 (CET) DOES THIS COUNTRY STILL EXIST?

Eshein would like to participate --User:ifgus

Of course! Add your name to the list. -Yuanls (talk) 23:06, 7 March 2017 (CET)

I'm not sure to what degree exactly the cooperation between members is supposed to go; I don't think it would make sense for Kojo to join a EU-like transnational projects, but if it's "just" a very close political alliance of fully independent member states without a common legislature, Kojo would like to apply for membership.Leowezy (talk) 18:04, 19 March 2017 (CET)

Kojo is welcome to join, just add yourself to the list. On the subject of organisation, it does not appear to be as tightly bound as the EU is in real life. Look at talk:Eastern Ulethan Organisation of Independent Allies#organisation for more information. It appears to be a mostly economic union, although it has not been updated for quite a while now. I'm certain that we could clarify this if it was discussed. Yuanls (talk) 19:36, 19 March 2017 (CET)
Welcome Kojo!--Mstr (talk) 21:17, 19 March 2017 (CET)
Welcome aboard! One of the reasons Mauretia is involved is because it is a loose organization. That greatly appeals to me, as opposed to an EU-like group. Alessa (talk) 21:55, 19 March 2017 (CET)

Eelanti would like to participate and it was invited by Mauretia. So is it okay for Eelanti to join? Eevee (talk) 16:06, 3 December 2017 (CET)

Welcome to the EUOIA! Feel free to add yourself to the table of involvement above and the different discussions as you see fit. &mdash; Alessa <sub>(talk)</sub> 16:48, 3 December 2017 (CET)

Aressia can participate? --Jesus Antonio (talk) 03:25, 11 February 2018 (CET)

Esthyra would like to participate. We like an open border and some international trades. --Austinhuang (talk) 04:16, 11 February 2018 (CET)
Esthyra is welcome to join EUOIA. Feel free to add yourself to the table of involvement above and the different discussions as you see fit. Regarding Aressia I noticed that a week after the request was made, Jesus Antonio asked admins to delete the wiki page about Aressia. Is this request still active, or perhaps for another country? -- Rasmus Rasmusson (talk) 13:56, 4 March 2018 (CET)
It's Garzibania now. I'll ask him about his participation. --Austinhuang (talk) 18:26, 4 March 2018 (CET)
Yes, i like to join --Jesus Antonio (talk) 23:16, 12 March 2018 (CET) GARZIBANIA'S PARTICIPATION UNCONFIRMED AS OF 4 AUGUST 2018

The small, and frankly underdeveloped Arcantonie would like to be able to join the EUOIA. This is due to my wishing to broaden economic horizons with other neighbours, however due to Arcan canon the country has been historically isolated as a result of numerous pseudo-civil wars and authoritarian rule. If I were to become a member, it will have probably only been recently eg) post-2000 due to internal politics. --Jake Knight (talk) 10:29, 14 June 2018 (GMT)

Hi, Jake. Sorry I just now saw this request when looking up something on this page. I've added your country to the list! Be sure to fill out how your country fits into the organization using the table above. If you need help with it, don't hesitate to ask. &mdash; Alessa <sub>(talk)</sub> 20:16, 3 July 2018 (CEST)

New discussion on the proposal (if any)

Mauretia affirms the actions and resolutions of the right and honorable dignitary from Wyster and would like under these circumstances to be a founding member (FM). It is in agreement that a parliament is not needed at this time and applauds the ideas put forth. Mauretia respectfully submits the possibility, given the generally peaceful nature of our planet, that one possible motivation behind the EUOIA founding was a peaceful collaborative effort as added above. :) &mdash; Alessa <sub>(talk)</sub> 19:59, 5 July 2017 (CEST)

I believe that the two BoG members from each country shouldn't be its leader but some elected "ambassadors", for instance like in the UN. I'm also siding the BoG will meet, like Alessa said, every other month or even once a month, and that's exactly why I think the leaders shouldn't be in the BoG. The leaders are swamped with governing their country as they can't do this too. With elected ambassadors, this is their only concern and it looks more realistic. with my idea of the BoG, it also needs a speaker, which should be the second most important individual in EUOIA, after the secretary general and the BoG should sit in a permanent place, maybe like Alessa said, in the Secretariat. I think the building Mstr have already mapped can be this building. About the parliament, I agree it's not necessary at the moment. maybe somewhere in the future. About the history, until we won't have an organized timeline we'll stay right where we are so I think that 1962 should be the year and every country will adjust it's history around it, otherwise nothing will happened. Ifgus (talk) 01:51, 23 July 2017 (EEST)

I agree with most of this, except the parmanent place: a rotating system would give the member states the opportunity to "show off" to each other (e.g. present their most modern, most idyllic, most historical meeting locations), so that's why I find that option more attractive. I agree however that this will become too chaotic if meetings are held every two months (what will they talk about btw?) so in that case a host country could be proposed for the duration of six months (like the European Union has); this could e.g. be the native country of the BoG speaker. -- Rasmus Rasmusson (talk) 01:25, 23 July 2017 (CEST)
I see your point and I agree Ifgus (talk) 15:14, 23 July 2017 (EEST)

I think it's tine to vote and decide about the year (unless 1962 had been already chosen) and reason of establishment. I'm currently trying to build Eshein's history and the organization is a big part of it (at least I want it to be) so I think it's time to determine the history of the EUOIA, maybe a simple timeline? --Ifgus (talk) 01:22, 20 September 2017 (EEST)

For me 1962 is OK, unless there are better suggestions. What kind of major events (if any at all, apart from new members joining) will have taken place since EUOIA's creation? -- Rasmus Rasmusson (talk) 08:54, 20 September 2017 (CEST)
I am also okay with 1962, but why did it form? For me, that's the determiner of the year. There seems to be the largest number of founding members if it had been a peaceful streamlining of existing treaties. Here's why I like this idea and the date of 1962: This year serves as an almost midway point between the last major global war and the present but is still in the aftermath of the conflict; countries are going to have their own complicated nexus of treaties and agreements, and the Glaster situation seems to still be very raw. Various eastern Ulethan states are going to be motivated to work together at this time. The EUOIA, if ratified and started in 1962, would be a logical consolidation of these treaties (hence, the tiered, multi-level membership) and done in the spirit of cooperation needed to form such an organization. This frees up users to have whatever treaties they would want with other EUOIA states before 1962. For example, Mauretia and Raiden already had a non-aggression pact and other cooperative efforts. Let's say that Eshein, Mergany, and Teberia were apart of that; then, this five-country treaty easily becomes a cornerstone of the EUOIA non-aggression treaty. Anyway, I'm all in for the 1962 and the peaceful cooperative reason for formation. In honor of the first edit on OGF, I'll have Mauretia's official ratification date be 25 November 1962. &mdash; Alessa <sub>(talk)</sub> 15:37, 20 September 2017 (CEST)
I think 1952 is a sensible year to choose, and Alessa has explained it well. Although this does not affect either Glaster or Agarderia, as they joined later.
Eshein took a part in the war, fighting with Ingeland, therefor it probably needed help recovering from the war. I think the EUOIA may was that help, besides the non-aggression pact, the organization could start as a joint effort of the 5 founding members to help each other recover from the war? Ifgus (talk) 12:38, 21 September 2017 (EEST)

Old discussion


I think all member states need to share a Currency and a license plate, much like the EU. --Ifgus (talk) 17:00, 19 march 2017

I think not. The EUOIA appears to abide by a far looser system than the current EU. However, this information is very outdated and will have to require further discussion. Yuanls (talk) 19:41, 19 March 2017 (CET)
I agree. Any restriction concerning national independency will limit the progress. But I think it does not mean that there must not be a common currency etc. In the case that several contries see it as a benefit (because they are not interested in the effort to have their own currency) they can collaborate of course. There are many issues that are too large for a single nation to handle.--Mstr (talk) 21:16, 19 March 2017 (CET)
I also agree with Yuanls. One of the thing that appeals most to me (and some other users) about the EUOIA is the fact that countries do not have to fork over sovereignty. I know that Mauretia would never agree to a monetary union or a few other things below. From its perspective, the country is a bit too Ulethoskeptic. If you wanted a currency union with some other member states, I'd encourage it. A few countries in Tarephia have already done so. Check the area below: there are some countries that are open to it. Alessa (talk) 23:29, 20 March 2017 (CET)
you should read this
There are many advantages of a shared currency and not just the matter of putting effort in my own currency. I already have one. And if you are still against it, I thunk the rest of the organization's structure should be like EU, a parliament that gets it's power from the governments of the member States. ifgus (talk) 02:27, 21 March 2017 (EET)
Thank you for the link. I can only speak for myself here; but when I started Mauretia, I actually considered this very issue and weighed it carefully. It was part of a series of questions I asked myself about how advanced the country would be, its industries, how its economy would mix with others, etc. With regards to having the EUOIA be like the EU, I and many other users would respectfully disagree. That type of external control is not many of us want. Now, if you mean that the EUOIA has a parliament like the EU does, I think that's a great discussion. Is there some type of decision-making entity? Maybe it would be a council of ambassadors or a rotating semiannual summit? Personally, I'd like to see the EUOIA find its own way and not be modeled off of anything real-world. Perhaps others agree or disagree. I'd be interested to see what people say. Alessa (talk) 03:09, 21 March 2017 (CET)


What should be this organisation's purpose?

Maybe as a counterweight against a powerful, aggressive country? When (or if) I finish Glaster, I am going to try and claim either UL085, UL070B, UL175 or some small island country. Perhaps we should advertise this in the diary section of OGF. --Yuanls (talk) 21:42, 9 January 2016 (GMT)
Country owners helping country owners with expert advice? (Origin) --Austinhuang (talk) 22:32, 10 March 2018 (CET)


Is EUOIA founded now, or was it founded somewhere in the past? If the latter; what has happened since?

Well if it's an alliance headed by Wyster, Glaster (or historically North Glaster) would probably have been involved in it as well. There was a bout of hostility between Ingerland and North Glaster in the 1960s, but I haven't yet explained why. Perhaps this has something to do with it?--Yuanls (talk) 15:50, 9 January 2016 (GMT)
I think The Organization founding time should be somewhere around the world war. It's always a time when organizations like EUOIA are created. Maby EUOIA Fought as one body? or perhaps is was founded as a result of the war, for the "next time"?--Ifgus (talk) 22:55, 27 March 2017 (EEST)
I would not believe this would be quite possible for Agarderia and Glaster. They were heavily supported by both Ingerland and Commonia. Both North Glaster and Agarderia fell to communism after the war. There is also the question of what nation(s) the theoretical alliance fought against. Commonia? UL099? Each other? Many of these questions will require further discussion. Providing that the only power that had significant interests in Eastern Uletha at this time was Commonia, and they were absolutely destroyed following the World War, I do not think your option is quite feasible. Perhaps Eastern Uletha came together afterwards as a sign of unity. Or perhaps their alliance was a part of a preexisting prewar anti-Commonian agreement. Yuanls (talk) 23:41, 27 March 2017 (CEST)
I agree that the post-war period would likely be a good time. But, remember that most of these real-world organizations started small (both in number of countries and scope). The EU was birthed out of the limited-area ECSC (1951 Treaty of Paris). Like Agarderia and Glaster, Mauretia would not likely be a founding member of the EUOIA. I could see it joining in an initial wave of expansion, which would be before Agarderia and Glaster. Therefore, I think a rolling timeline of member countries joining (much like the EU expanding) would be a good thing. This also means that the bureaucracy and lunacy of hoops countries have to jump through would be greater in later years. At the same time, that would easily account for the varying levels of involvement we have in our supertable at the top of the page. For example, Mauretia would not have joined a customs union. It would have joined other pursuits, however. Maybe that by 1975 some of these things came into being and made it worth the effort. This could explain why Mauretia is involved in the research and sciences but not in the military aspects; most potential military ideas would have been unappealing.
All this to say that perhaps pinning the timeline down rigidly when there is still a fluid membership may not be the wisest. For now, I'd endorse some vague statements like "the EUOIA originated out of ideas that spread at the conclusion of the last war." If you're really craving a history for the organization, perhaps something like this will serve as a starting point: "Smaller international agreements were gradually folded into the larger organization and expanded to other potential participants. In this way, the EUOIA gradually grew from an idea of intergovernmental cooperation to a complex umbrella organization that manages and promotes many different tiers of involvement." Cheers. Alessa (talk) 06:02, 28 March 2017 (CEST)

It's been a long time since something happened with EUOIA. I think it's time to start adding stuff to the page so the organization will begin to take shape. otherwise nothing happens. I believe that the first thing we have to do is timeline and to discuss the exact year of establishment and exactly how the EUOIA was created?, which countries started it? Let me know what you think. --Ifgus (talk) 17:00, 6 may 2017 (eest)

History is the most difficult issue, since most countries don't have a history and there is no world history. There are many inactive countries in the EUOIA region, so I hope we can get more members in the future. Maybe the EUOIA was founded because of economic reasons? or after a war? I think it is not so important yet, when and how it was founded, because it does not influence mapping. Countries should decide which role they want to play first. --Mstr (talk) 00:18, 7 May 2017 (CEST)
For member states without a history yet, this should be easypeasy: they can just add whatever we decide concerning the international events that created the need to establish EUOIA and add their own national history around it.
Regarding the reason why EUOIA was created, perhaps we should take the name literally: the Independent Allies suggest that there may be or may have been a not so independent organisation, e.g. a powerful (criminal?) economic organisation or ideology that somehow forced/blackmailed entire countries to adopt their system, leaving national governments powerless with democracy remaining in place only as a façade and corrupt politicians ruling the country. This system was eventually toppled by e.g. civil underground organisations and/or revolutions, after which the first 'liberated' countries founded EUOIA.
For this we would need a) a nasty economic system, and b) countries that are willing to adopt this system - at least as a part of their history (let's say that the system was at its height between the 30's and the 60's or so, with the EUIOA being founded e.g. in the 60's).
The advantage of having a non-territorial 'super power' is that countries themselves don't have to be the bad guys (we don't need superpower states) and we don't need to ask countries to play the bad guy role. If we define that the nasty economic system still exists, we don't need to determine which countries (obviously not member states of EUOIA) are still ruled by it; if a third player offers his country to take up that role all the better, but it's not really necessary for our purpose, I think.
Note that introducing an international (criminal) economic organisation as the Bad Guy may cause EUOIA member states having put in place some governmental back-up systems in order to avoid that private economic organisations don't get as much power as the (criminal) economic organisation gained. This means that e.g. libertarian systems will probably be out of the question in the EUOIA member states. If you think this touches too much your liberty to develop your country as you wish, we should find an alternative for the economic part (perhaps a religious sect or something like that?). --Rasmus Rasmusson (talk) 14:33, 6 June 2017 (CEST)

Question about possible formats, moved from above (August 4th, 2018):

The EUOIA was founded in 1962 as (choose between the following by adding your country template behind one or more of the following options, and indicate if your country would have been a founding member (FM) in that scenario or joined later (JL)):

  • a reaction against a dominant military power with an unlikeable ideology (possibly because of a war with said power); Template:Wyster (FM/JL), MauretiaFlag-new.svg Mauretia (FM if Commonia or a few select other places, JL otherwise), Esheinflag.png Eshein (FM)
  • the successor organisation to a dismantled empire to which the founding member states belonged; Template:Wyster (JL), Template:Glaster[(FM), MauretiaFlag-new.svg Mauretia (JL)
  • a reaction against an international criminal syndicate that owned large amounts of assets in the founding member states and had a strong influence on some governments. Military insurrection ensured that the syndicate was thwarted (although it still may exist outside EUOIA) and EUOIA was created as a watch dog. Template:Wyster (FM), Template:Glaster (JL, FM if origin in Commonia), MauretiaFlag-new.svg Mauretia (FM if non-eastern Ulethan origin, JL otherwise), Kojo flag ddtuga.png Kojo (JL), Template:Esthyra (JL)
  • other: write your suggestion below:

I wrote this history paragraph. let me know what you guys think is missing or needs to be changed:

After The World War, Eastern Uletha suffered a huge economic catastrophe, much like the rest of the world. The countries where struggling to become steady again, to stabilize their economy and to rebuild what was demolished. 
In April 20, 1962, Wyster, Mauretia, Mergany, Kojo and Eshein singed the Imperium Treaty which ordered the establishment of the Eastern Ulethan Economic Support Alliance. The the goal of this economic organization was supporting each other economically to rebound from the catastrophe. 
In January 10, 1968, during a meeting of the alliance in Iola, for the fist time the nations started to think about expending the alliance to other fields such and trade, education, foreign relations, etc. but no decision was made.
In July 3, 1976, during a meeting of the alliance in Bad Stanncatt, the Bad Stanncatt Treaty was singed and ordered on the expansion of the fields that the organization is responsible to and was, in fact, the beginning of the organization as it is today.

Ifgus (talk) 22:39, 15 June 2018 (EET)

This is OK as far as I/Wyster am concerned. The World War hasn't been elaborated much yet though (as far as I can tell) but we can use that as a vague background reason for the time being. If it turns out that the idea of the World War doesn't really fit in EUOIA's history, we can always come up with something else. -- Rasmus Rasmusson (talk) 10:41, 4 August 2018 (CEST)
Glastian Unification

If the EUOIA was around at the time, what would its stance be concerning the Glastian unification of 1979? Glaster was properly recognised as an existing nation in 1982. If you want some background information, read Glaster's wiki page. The Third Glastian Civil War page might help as well.

Situation of Glaster

I'd rather have a date from 1959 to 1961, maybe, for extremely convoluted historical and political reasons I will explain below. These reasons are, by all means, canon but are confined to my sandbox pages because of overwikification.

  • Commonian coup in Glaster in October 1947 results in the establishment of the Glastian Social Republic, which collapses the following month from a joint invasion by North Glaster, South Glaster, Latania, Agarderia and Communist Glaster.
  • Communist Glaster now have a section of eastern Agarderia, as well as the northernmost parts of Glaster, under occupation.
    File:Glaster Occupation.png
    Glastian occupation in red
  • Following the very brief Glastian-Agardirian War of 1948, Agarderia regained control of Glastian-occupied territories as a separate autonomous region. It was governed by the now-subordinate government of Communist North Glaster, which was based in Hevaney in Agarderia.
  • The Glastian government had full control of northern occupied Glaster, although Agarderian troops were present there to keep the Glastian government in line.

This takes me up to the end of my current, in-depth, historical planning. What comes next is yet to be written and involves an increase of Glastian nationalism in the early 50s, discontent of the Agarderian military presence and the eventual collapse of the Glastian occupation as a result, and a reunification with North Glaster. There was probably some tense standoff and possibly some small skirmishes between the democratic nations and the Communist-aligned nations of Karamsk, Latania and Agarderia. Neither North or South Glaster could join the EUOIA, unless Wyster was absent, as the Treaty of Mealle from 1828 banned any types of alliance between Glaster and Wyster. As a result, Glaster probably only joined the EUIOA in 1979. Sorry for all of this text, but I hope it helped form some new ideas. Yuanls (talk) 21:30, 5 July 2017 (CEST)

So we can leave 1962 as it is? :) -- Rasmus Rasmusson (talk) 21:35, 5 July 2017 (CEST)
My reading of that makes me think we could leave it at 1962, but discussions and initial treaties could have started as early as 1959. After all, something this big would take time to pull off. Look how long it took the EU to come together, and they had the benefit of foundational organizations already in place. &mdash; Alessa <sub>(talk)</sub> 02:24, 6 July 2017 (CEST)
I agree. -- Rasmus Rasmusson (talk) 12:12, 6 July 2017 (CEST)
I see what you mean and agree with your point. Yuanls (talk) 17:27, 6 July 2017 (CEST)


Sub-organisations, sub-committees, headquarters, office locations, leading officials, ...

Before creating sub-organizations, we need a decision which issues could be covered by the EUOIA. I think it will take some time until we have some more members, but if there are at least 2 or 3 nations, which want to collaborate in an issue under the head of EUOIA, they can do so and EUOIA should provide a framework for it. This should be an ongoing process to give all future members the chance to play their role within the organization (and in order to avoid such a circus like the participation in the OGFIFA World Cup). At the moment there might be a headquarter (including a parliament or not?) and embassies of the members at some place (comparable to the Assembly of Nations in St. Richards), maybe somewhere in Wyster (as the initiating country)? --Mstr (talk) 19:03, 13 February 2016 (CET)
I agree that the sub-organisations (sorry, yes; I prefer the spelling with -s- for aesthetic reasons (I find -z- too 'agressive') and because it's used more often in Europe) should be created only after we have decided what EUOIA does for its member states. We can create a 'wish-list' to which participants can add issues. (see below). The Wystrian capital of Hreawirc could be a sufficiently neutral location for the EUOIA Headquarters; I don't mind if it's located elswhere, as long as the choice of the location is logical), so let's see first if other participants want their countries to take part. --Rasmus Rasmusson (talk) 19:49, 13 February 2016 (CET)
What does your country want EUOIA to be/do?
  • Joint foreign policy: Wyster?, Glaster, Mergany, Mauretia?
  • Joint defense system: Mergany, Østermark, Eshein, Mauretia (but only to some degree)
  • Joint humanitarian aid: Mergany, Wyster, Glaster, Østermark as long as it is the recipient of much of the aid which of course it would squander, Eshein, Mauretia
  • Monetary Union: Wyster, Glaster(Maybe), Mergany (maybe)
  • Open borders: Wyster?, Mergany, Eshein
  • Joint legal system: Mergany (international questions), Wyster (idem), Eshein
  • Economy exchange: Mergany (free access for private companies within EUOIA as far as possible), Glaster, Østermark, Mauretia (but no further than Mergany wants)
  • Sustainability and environment protection: Mergany, Wyster, Glaster, Østermark would be in constant threat of being kicked out for this but I think this should definitely be a purpose, Mauretia
  • Open market within EUOIA with internal market protection against non-EUOIAn markets: Wyster? Glaster
Does this duplicate with the table above? --Austinhuang (talk) 22:32, 10 March 2018 (CET)

First proposals for a EUOIA flag

this proposal includes:

  • 13 yellow/gold rings arranged in a ring (rings symbolize closeness/solidarity, 13 symbolizes ?, gold symbolizes wealth)
  • rising sun (symbolizes the east)
  • blue and white/grey color (blue for confidence, grey for wisdom or white for peace)

--Mstr (talk) 04:53, 21 February 2016 (CET)

Nice! Between these four I'd go for the gold rings + white sun version, as the white stands out better against the blue I think. --Rasmus Rasmusson (talk) 09:45, 21 February 2016 (CET)
Here a revised version of it --Mstr (talk) 00:14, 27 February 2016 (CET)

I added some notes on the main EUOIA page about EUOIA's structure: Board of Governors, Secretariat, Parliament?, with the latter containing a question mark, as I think that a parliament should be created only if EUOIA will affect the member states' citizens' lives directly (e.g. deciding if they can buy plastic bags, what medications are supposed to be healthy, etc.), i.e. when EUOIA turns out to become really influential; but feel free to differ of opinion on this one :) --Rasmus Rasmusson (talk) 10:22, 21 February 2016 (CET)

Foreign affairs

What do you think about EUOIAn embassies in small countries on other continents instead of every country building its own? --Mstr (talk) 23:23, 27 May 2016 (CEST)

That could be practical. I'm not against that idea. --Rasmus Rasmusson (talk) 09:12, 28 May 2016 (CEST)
I agree with the new idea. BelpheniaProject (talk) 10:58, 28 May 2016 (CEST)
totally for it.ifgus (talk) 22:29, 20 march 2017 (EET)
Board of Governors, Secretariat and Parliament? Any more?

Was there any decision concerning different organisations within EUOIA? What do we need? Here are some of my ideas, please comment, complete,...

--Mstr (talk) 21:54, 19 March 2017 (CET)

See below for more discussion: the necessity of some of the mentioned organisations depends on how deeply integrated EUOIA will be. E.g. a parliament, a space agency, perhaps even a central bank don't really seem necessary unless EUOIA will be some kind of European Union. Also I see that I mapped a building for the Board of Governors, but as these are the government leaders of each country who will probably meet only once or twice a year, a separate building just for that seems unnecessary. --Rasmus Rasmusson (talk) 17:41, 5 July 2017 (CEST)
Board of Governors

Under Organisation is written: "The Board of Governors (BoG) is the highest governing level of EUOIA and consists of the government leaders of the member states". However, below that line it is stated in the table that each member states has two seats in the Board of Governors. Since most countries have only one government leader, who is the second person? --Rasmus Rasmusson (talk) 13:29, 5 July 2017 (CEST)

I might be wrong, but I take it to mean that there are two government officials from each country. Whether or not that is the prime minister/president/monarch/etc. is up to the country. At least, that's how I take it. Maybe I'm wrong here. &mdash; Alessa <sub>(talk)</sub> 16:56, 5 July 2017 (CEST)
That could be a possibility.. In the case of Wyster it would probably be the prime minister and the minister of foreign affairs. But I'm curious after other possibilities! --Rasmus Rasmusson (talk) 17:31, 5 July 2017 (CEST)
If this is the case, Mauretia could choose two people from a myriad of options. Here's ten that I thought of just off the top of my head: (1) Cabinet foreign affairs minister; (2) Parliamentarian chair of foreign affairs committee; (3) Permanent unelected envoy (not ambassador level) from the queen; (4) Permanent elected envoy from the queen; (5) A new ambassador to the EUOIA; (6) A sitting ambassador to another EUOIA country (like Viljanni, since that's where the BoG meets); (7) Princess Nura or current heir to the throne; (8) Prime minister; (9) Queen Gabriela herself (doubtful); (10) Some random guy named Yos (Joe)&hellip; a lot of possibilities. &mdash; Alessa <sub>(talk)</sub> 17:48, 5 July 2017 (CEST)
I see your point. In that case it is maybe better to have each member state appoint two random diplomats for its two BoG seats.<br>Btw the BoG doesn't meet in Viljanni; that was the proposed location for the parliament. Wyster was the proposed location for the BoG, but as discussed below two to six meetings per year don't really require a special building for that. They can organise their meetings in a different member state each time. -- Rasmus Rasmusson (talk) 17:53, 5 July 2017 (CEST)
Ah, yes. Thank you for the correction. I was mistaken on which one was the BoG. I agree that a special building really isn't needed then with that few meetings. If there were to be a single, centralized location, it could just be a meeting space in the same building as the Secretariat. That way it's one building. But, I like the idea of rotating meetings! That shares responsibility, travel, etc. among all member countries. Let's add that to the list of clear, concise ideas you propose below. &mdash; Alessa <sub>(talk)</sub> 18:09, 5 July 2017 (CEST)
President, Secretary General

In the info table at the top on the right a President of EUOIA is mentioned; where does this function fit in the organisation? Could (s)he be the president of the Board of Governors? How is (s)he appointed?<br> The name of the Secretary General is also mentioned already; under The Secretariat is written "The Secretariat is responsible for the daily management of EUOIA and is headed by the Secretary General, who is nominated by one of the member states according to a rotating system but who has to be confirmed by the BoG. The Secretary General serves one term of 5 years." In order for the SecGens (including the present one) to be known, we should know when EUOIA was founded and what the rotating system will be.--Rasmus Rasmusson (talk) 13:44, 5 July 2017 (CEST)

I'm also confused as to how these fit in also. I feel like we've just (hurriedly) copied an EU-like model instead of going through the hard process of figuring out our own system. For example, I'm very concerned about why there is both a BoG and a parliament. Considering we have a flexible and rolling membership, I don't see what roles these would have. For example, let's assume that the president is really the figurehead of the BoG. I do think having a point person be the leader of the BoG could be a good idea, but it won't always work right. Why would a president from Agarderia be willing to lead discussions, speak with other nations, and craft resolutions for the EUDC when Agarderia isn't even a participant in that part of the organization? Mauretia would be needed for things relevant to non-aggression, so why would other countries want its votes tipping the scales in other EUDC discussions? With a decentralized system, having a single strong, outspoken president is not going to fit this model. What about the Secretariat? What role would that even serve? The same goes for parliament. To me parliament seems useless and an overreach into sovereignty, to be honest. Are there any ideas of how we might make something more creative and fitting to our different membership levels? &mdash; Alessa <sub>(talk)</sub> 16:56, 5 July 2017 (CEST)
I agree with most of this; a parliament isn't necessary until a deep political integration of the member states is wanted by the member states - which doesn't seem the case at the moment. <br>The same for a president - as head of the BoG or in another form: I have the impression that this function will be exactly the same as that of the Secretary General, so I propose that we remove it. <br>Technically speaking the BoG doesn't need a fixed president; it convenes probably just once or twice a year for policy making, adopting resolutions etc., so they can appoint a president of each meeting at those moments. <br>The Secretariat however is the daily organisation of EUOIA: it has mostly administrative tasks and doesn't make policies (that is the BoG's task), but the Secretary General is EUOIA's face to the world. --Rasmus Rasmusson (talk) 17:28, 5 July 2017 (CEST)
That makes sense, Rasmus. I think the BoG is sufficient too. I also really like your idea of a president that can be a figurehead on a meeting-to-meeting basis. In reality, the "president" is just the person who governs the meetings. That seems logical. I'd imagine that without a parliament that met regularly, the BoG would want to meet a little more than twice a year. There may not be a lot of integration between the countries, but not a lot gets done in just two meetings. Maybe every other month? That would be six meetings a year. I'd imagine emergency meetings could be called as needed. As for the Secretary General, I agree about the duplication and support removing it unless it is the head of the Secretariat. It seems needless. Also, thanks for clearing up the Secretariat for me. I still wonder, however, if a Secretary General from one country can really be a good face-to-the-world if it's not representing all aspects of the EUOIA. Maybe they can. Maybe I just don't trust politicians. :) &mdash; Alessa <sub>(talk)</sub> 17:37, 5 July 2017 (CEST)
The president of BoG would be the one who chairs the meetings; probably he or she is appointed at the start of every meeting, so he or she is not someone who can be the 'face' of EUOIA. That's why I prefer to keep the Secretary General for that. A Secretary General's foremost task is to represent EUOIA by the way, and not his or her country of origin, so it doesn't really matter if his or her country of origin doesn't participate in all aspects of the EUOIA. The table at the top of this page suggests that it will be really difficult to find countries that participate in all aspects anyway :) -- Rasmus Rasmusson (talk) 17:45, 5 July 2017 (CEST)
Good thinking, Rasmus. I like this a lot. I'm curious to see what others think about it. It's logical and fits our flexible needs. Of course, we'd have to figure out how the EUOIA Secretary General is decided, how long a term is, when members joined etc. That brings us back to your original questions. Sorry for the round-about, but we've had a good discussion! :) &mdash; Alessa <sub>(talk)</sub> 17:52, 5 July 2017 (CEST)
Thanks, I've had some experience with fictional organisations in the past :) <br>Seeing as there is a lot of confused information on this page and on the main site, I will see if I can summarise it in something that is better readable with some clear propositions; I've still a few holiday days left :) -- Rasmus Rasmusson (talk) 17:58, 5 July 2017 (CEST)
Great, Rasmus. If you're willing to pull all the bureaucratic items together into something small, go for it. Let me know if you need me to do anything. &mdash; Alessa <sub>(talk)</sub> 18:10, 5 July 2017 (CEST)</text>

What is the status of EUOIA?

In the old wiki, we had EUOIA. Now that the old wiki is going, I'm wondering what is the status of EUOIA? Will it still be a thing? There seems to be very few mentions of it in the current wiki and of course most of the old information will be gone soon so even if it still shows on the map somewhere, there's very little information around. Unsigned comment by Eevee (talk).

Honestly, I'm not sure how much interest there is in the EUOIA at this point in time. Perhaps there is some?
If there is interest in the EUOIA, there are two options that are possible for active regional collaborations: A collab page can be made (such as Collab:Eastern Ulethan Organisation of Independent Allies that is for regional collaboration, discussion, and coordination; also, if there is a desire for an in-universe article, the EUOIA page can be made in the main namespace. We only ask that EUOIA article (not collab page) be reserved for in-universe and on-map documentation like an encyclopedia entry; user-to-user coordination and collaboration should be in a collab page. Feel free to ask me directly if you have other questions. — Alessa (talk) 21:52, 21 February 2022 (UTC)
Izaland would be now interested in an active role in EUOIA now, since in the meantime I have been mapping it significantly, and probably Izaland would also be the major economy in Eastern Uletha. (by Izaland - 10:41 JST 21 February 2022 [sorry, I don't know how to use the signature in the wiki])
Eelanti is still interested in EUOIA as well and could have some role in it too. So I guess if there are a few others it could still be a thing. I'm not sure how to reach other people best to see if there is interest. (Signature is "~~~~" btw) — Eevee (talk) 01:52, 22 February 2022 (UTC)
I can't think of any major influence on my mapping that came from being part of EUOIA; so unless that changes, i.e. by having communal military bases or hosting foreign ones, a common nomenclature for nature reserves (like EU's FFH) or what not, the EUOIA would for the most part still be a wiki-sided project with few reflections on the actual map. That doesn't mean Kojo wouldn't be part of a new EUOIA, but I'd personally prefer if we thought about the mapping-side of things first.Leowezy (talk) 09:06, 22 February 2022 (UTC)
It definitely should be visible on the map. But that does require some collaboration first. The EU for example has many different office buildings in different countries. As an example, the European Chemicals Agency in Helsinki. So it definitely could include many map based things in addition to potential parliament buildings, courts, EUOIA embassies etc. But that would be for the community to decide. The old EUOIA had some suborganisations, but we probably would need an active core to EUOIA to get the basic stuff decided, so that it could be mapped as well. — Eevee (talk) 20:41, 22 February 2022 (UTC)
For what it's worth, my country, Kara, would be interested in a EUOIA although it wasn't a member before (it didn't exist 😉) Anonymous21 (talk) 14:41, 10 March 2022 (UTC)
From my side there is also interest in a new EUOIA. There was some cooperation ongoing, we built a rail transport corridor across the islands from the south to the north of Eastern Uletha, electricity lines and so on. --Mstr (talk) (talk) 17:55, 2 July 2022 (UTC)
Neberly wasn't part of EUOIA before, but should it come back i would like it to be a member too. Antoon (talk) 16:45, 4 July 2022 (UTC)
As there seems to be growing interest in this, how should we continue our discussions and find new members? Mstr sentt me a message and I shared some thought and ideas with him already. In my view active discussions on the area, it's relationships, collaborations and geopolitics could help mapping a lot (even when it's not a literal building for EUOIA). It could make the region more coherent and realistic. --Eevee (talk) 20:50, 4 July 2022 (UTC)
Another point is that all OGF members may not follow the forum discussions or they might not even have a wiki account. So some interested people may not see this discussion.--Eevee (talk) 20:52, 4 July 2022 (UTC)
I realy think it could be a fun idea to collab on. the EU has a lot of influence in mapping, borders, buildings, highways etc. IRL, so it makes sense that out EU-like organization would too. Ifgus (talk) 23:39, 03 August 2022 (EEST)

So I made this table with (what I think are) all the territories in East Uletha that we can use to track who's on interested in the project. And for people who don't know about the EUOIA idea, we can contact them (just leave a note in the right column) and see if they're interested. Maybe this will help with gauging interest? Anonymous21 (talk) 04:05, 6 October 2022 (UTC)

Status ID Code Owner Contacted - Interested in EUOIA
reserved UL18a admin
available UL18b admin
owned UL18c Reviriegu
reserved UL19a admin
available UL19b admin
available UL20a admin
owned UL20b ndgid
reserved UL20c admin
available UL20d admin
owned UL21a SwissCrusader Interested
owned UL21b SwissCrusader Do not add (unstable country)
archived UL21c admin
owned UL21d jak
owned UL21e jak
owned UL21f Sarepava
owned UL21g Halvarda
owned UL21h Halvarda
owned UL21i Halvarda
owned UL22a antoon Interested
owned UL22b SwissCrusader Interested
available UL22c admin
owned UL22d Rasmus Rasmusson
owned UL22e Yuanls Interested
owned UL22f Anonymous21 Interested
owned UL22i SwissCrusader Interested
owned UL23a theCubic
owned UL23b / Eelanti Eevee
reserved UL23c admin
available UL23d admin
owned UL24b tars
owned UL24c julijahaller
owned UL24d julijahaller
owned UL24e julijahaller
owned UL24i mstr
owned UL24j mstr
collaborative Collab:Viljanni mstr
owned UL24l TheMapper27
owned UL24m ifgus
owned UL25a Jasmetk0
reserved UL25b admin
marked for withdrawal UL25c elabo
reserved UL25d admin
reserved UL25f admin
reserved UL25g admin
reserved UL25h admin
collaborative Collab:Midistland admin
available UL26b admin
available UL26c admin
available UL26d admin
available UL26e admin
available UL26f admin
reserved UL27a admin
available UL27b admin
owned Reeland tule00 Interested
available UL27d admin
reserved UL27e admin
reserved UL27f admin
reserved UL27g admin
owned Laurentia fauxcartograph
owned Steilerberg tule00 I think better not, as it's a very small country (and maybe even a tax haven?)
available UL28a admin
owned UL28b Distel
owned UL28c reCharged
owned UL28d geoboi
marked for withdrawal UL28e CaribbeanIslandMapper
owned UL28f Stara Zagora
owned UL28g Chrisi LE EO
available UL28h [1]
owned UL29c Gubble
owned Westway acv
owned UL29h APP6A
owned Lantia nehalem501 Interested to join
available UL29j admin
owned UL29k sjk23
owned UL29l MarcustheMapper
owned UL30a admin
reserved UL30b admin
reserved UL30c admin
marked for withdrawal UL30d Trellux
reserved UL30e admin
reserved UL31a admin
owned UL31b Leowezy
owned UL31c drgtgd
owned UL31e / Izaland Izaland Terramorphing Committee Interested
available UL32a [2]
owned UL32c Easky30
owned UL32d BelpheniaProject
collaborative Collab:Niulutan-Riu admin
archived UL33b admin
owned UL33c BelpheniaProject
owned UL33d deltanz
reserved Collab:Suvuma BMSOUZA
owned UL33f BMSOUZA
available UL33g admin
owned UL33h BMSOUZA
owned UL33i Easky30
available UL33j admin
owned UL33k Marcello
owned UL33l Lithium-Ion
owned UL33m Lithium-Ion

Starting a "new" EUOIA or reanimate the old one?

As Eevee already mentioned, I've tried to find out the interest in an EUOIA successor organization. Since there have been much more users responding with "yes" than not responding or saying "no", I tried to set up a first idea here (feel free to edit, add content, etc.). It is based on the outcome of the responses, which told me that there are different levels of contribution, independency of the nation and topics which should be addressed. So, it seems to be plausible to, lets say, start with some treaties which are essential for every member nation to ratify. Additionally, there could be more precise agreements, where only those join who are interested in. I think, before it is moved from a sandbox to a separate page, we should discuss and finalize the name of the organization.--Mstr (talk) (talk) 21:54, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

For me, the old name "Eastern Ulethan Organisation of Independent Allies" is in general okay. It was Rasmus Rasmusson who came up with the name. The main advantage is that EUOIA is well known on the OGF planet. To have "Independent" in the name seems to be important for some/most nations who would like to use EUOIA to extend their sphere of influence, but do not want the EUOIA to be a "European Union" with parliament, council, ... . "Eastern Ulethan" should be in the name as well or does the region have other (well established) names? I'm a little bit struggling with "Allies", since, to mee as non-native speaker, it sounds like a military context. If it is so, the organization might have started as military alliance (is there an already defined history of wars in our region?) or we replace it by another word (so that we are able to pronounce its abbreviation), e.g. "associates". I'm very interested in what you think. --Mstr (talk) (talk) 22:08, 12 December 2022 (UTC)
I have the same feeling about the use of the word "allies", probably it points to the fact that the EUOIA is a direct consequence of a possible past World War. However the name is already quite mainstream in my head, so I think we could go ahead with this. Izaland would like to participate, although it would have a high degree of independence, either economic and commercial, compared to other smaller E.Ulethan nations. --Izaland Terramorphing Committee (talk) 14:54, 14 December 2022 (UTC)
I would like to join the old or new organisation --Julijahaller (talk) 20:24, 12 January 2023 (UTC)
For what it's worth, I'm a native English speaker (from the US), and the word "allies" definitely has a military connotation to me, but it can also be used in other contexts (like "political allies"). So it could be okay. -- Anonymous21 (talk) 00:17, 14 January 2023 (UTC)
Thank you, your answer is quite useful! Is there any RW organization with "allies" in its name not dating back to a non-military origin? We do not have to avoid the military origin, it however makes it much harder to establish a historical background as soon as there is no consistent history of wars...--Mstr (talk) (talk) 18:44, 14 January 2023 (UTC)
Now that you mention it, I can't think of any RW organizations with "allies" in it. You're right :) -- I agree that we shouldn't use the "allies" unless it has some sort of military origin. — Anonymous21 (talk) 19:57, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

I think we should start from scratch. Start forming an organization (I'm fine with keeping the acronym) and people that want to join/contribute are more than welcome --Ifgus (talk) 23:16, 20 January 2023 (UTC) I am also interested in Nuen joining the organization, and agree to all the treaty ideas below except common currency. Gubble (talk) 21:53, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

Treaty Ideas

As we figure out what we want treaty-wise for the EUOIA we could put ideas in this table

Treaty Name Main Points Proposed by (signature block) Discussion
Mutual Protection Treaty
  • Members will participate in joint military exercises
  • Any member state that attacks another member state will be immediately removed from the Organisation
  • If any member state is attacked by another military power all other members will aid in a military response ("an attack on one is an attack on all")
  • If any member becomes aware of an imminent threat on another member state, the threatened member state must be notified as soon as possible
Anonymous21 (talk) 00:20, 14 January 2023 (UTC)
Human Rights Agreement
  • Each member state must protect the human rights of citizens of all members (except when rights must be waived to protect national security)
  • Human rights are defined as:
    • The freedoms of speech, the press, expression, belief, worship, peaceful assembly, and safe and peaceful protest
    • Rights to participate in free, fair, and democratic elections for all adult citizens (excluding incarcerated individuals and felons as determined by each member state)
    • Right to a trial by an impartial jury consisting of peers
    • Freedom from slavery or involuntary servitude
    • Freedom from discrimination on the basis of race, color, biological sex, gender identity, sexual orientation, religion, political views, marital status, nationality, cultural background, medical history, ability, and ethnicity.

(please add/suggest more)

Anonymous21 (talk) 00:37, 14 January 2023 (UTC)
  • okay, would exclude some forms of government--Mstr (talk) (talk) 18:44, 14 January 2023 (UTC)
  • Basically would exclude dictatorships, monarchies without a constitution and/or elected parliament, anarchies, etc., I think that's what we would want? Or are we talking a group that takes anyone in East Uletha (personally, I would prefer that we have basic "ground rules") -- Anonymous21 (talk) 06:08, 15 January 2023 (UTC)
  • fine by me --Ifgus (talk) 23:16, 20 January 2023 (UTC)
  • it was just a comment. In the past/for the old organization, this point was not clear. But in my point of few, it turns everything much more complicated and questionable if, e.g. anarchies, can join. Looking at NATO and EU, you might exclude some of its members--Mstr (talk) (talk) 14:55, 21 January 2023 (UTC)
  • agreed --Antoon (talk) 11:34, 22 January 2023 (UTC)
  • This would probably exclude Blönland because the monarch retains extensive powers and it has a privileged nobility system, with some seats in the parliament being hereditary and nobles having additional legal rights. CaribbeanIslandMapper (talk) 12:01, 16 February 2023 (UTC)
Fundamental Services Agreement
  • Each member state must ensure, to the greatest extent possible, that all of its citizens and permanent residents have access to:
    • Emergency services, including police, fire, and paramedic services
    • Clean drinking water
    • Emergency healthcare
    • Free primary and secondary education for all resident minors
Anonymous21 (talk) 00:42, 14 January 2023 (UTC)
Collective Agencies Agreement
  • Each member state must participate in funding for agencies for the following purposes:
    • Epidemiological and emerging disease prevention and response
    • Identification of and response to threats from foreign adversaries
    • Climate, environmental protection, and sustainability
    • Preservation of human rights and democracy both within and beyond the Organisation
    • Foreign diplomatic relations
Anonymous21 (talk) 00:52, 14 January 2023 (UTC)
Open Borders Agreement
  • Free travel between all member states
Anonymous21 (talk) 00:52, 14 January 2023 (UTC)
  • visa free travel could be a first step, no borders and free trade could be additional treaties which does not have to be ratified by all members--Mstr (talk) (talk) 18:44, 14 January 2023 (UTC)
  • It doesn't seem like there a lot of members that share physical borders, so a group-wide open borders might be impractical or not very helpful. -- Anonymous21 (talk) 06:08, 15 January 2023 (UTC)
  • but freedom of movement is applicable. countries that share land borders doesn't need checkpoints and other countries can have citizens of any member state come live in them. It can create interesting mapping influences -- Ifgus (talk) 23:16, 20 January 2023 (UTC)
  • currently Izaland has border controls at all the boundaries, so for now I think that a visa free policy could be enough. --Izaland Terramorphing Committee (talk) 15:23, 21 January 2023 (UTC)
  • visa free i can agree with; complete open borders would be a step to far for now --Antoon (talk) 11:34, 22 January 2023 (UTC)
  • Blönland has border control on every border CaribbeanIslandMapper (talk) 12:01, 16 February 2023 (UTC)
Founding agreement (better, e.g. historic name should be found) must be ratified by a member to join
  • no military agression against other members
  • acceptance of borders (naval and on land) between member states
  • visa-free travel for citizens of member states (border controls still active)
  • acceptance of economic zones and interests of each member state, participation within national laws possible
  • common representation abroad by EUOIA offices/embassies if no member representation available
  • ...

Additional agreements can be proposed and ratified between members to intensify the level of cooperation.

Mstr (talk) (talk) 18:44, 14 January 2023 (UTC)
  • might be based on a precursor agreement, e.g. a fishery agreement--Mstr (talk) (talk) 18:44, 14 January 2023 (UTC)
  • Like it --Anonymous21 (talk) 06:08, 15 January 2023 (UTC)
  • I think we should start from there. If we establish a timeline it will be easier to build the organization around it and will allow new members to know when their country entered the organization --Ifgus (talk) 23:16, 20 January 2023 (UTC)
  • it could be also something planned before the big war, maybe during the second industrial revolution? --Izaland Terramorphing Committee (talk) 15:23, 21 January 2023 (UTC)
  • What is the time period of the "big war"? Is it like 1940s-1950s ish? -- Anonymous21 (talk) 21:19, 21 January 2023 (UTC)
  • Maybe we start with this and then add individual treaties that individual states can opt out of? -- Anonymous21 (talk) 21:19, 21 January 2023 (UTC)
  • There is so far no consensus on the big war and how it impacted the region. So my idea was to start without considering the war... --Mstr (talk) (talk) 22:28, 21 January 2023 (UTC)
  • So then let's not worry about the war for now -- Anonymous21 (talk) 06:17, 22 January 2023 (UTC)
  • agreed --Antoon (talk) 11:34, 22 January 2023 (UTC)
Eastern Common Market (Ecomar)
  • free trade agreement between members
  • common representation of economic interests abroad
-> potential lost of national autonomy (economic sector)
  • coordinated trading strategy
-> potential lost of national autonomy (economic sector)
  • ...
Mstr (talk) (talk) 18:44, 14 January 2023 (UTC)
  • This could be helpful, my only concern is that labor could become dominated by a country or countries with lower costs, which could hurt everyone else's manufacturing sectors. So I do think we should establish some sort of minimum wage (probably relative to local cost of living) to mitigate that. Other than that, I'm good with it. -- Anonymous21 (talk) 06:08, 15 January 2023 (UTC)
  • fine by me --Ifgus (talk) 23:16, 20 January 2023 (UTC)
  • supposing Izaland would be one of the largest economies in EUOIA, I would see it as quite protective towards its economy and market. --Izaland Terramorphing Committee (talk) 15:23, 21 January 2023 (UTC)
  • Probably a step to far for me --Antoon (talk) 11:34, 22 January 2023 (UTC)
EU Transportation Normalization Act
  • normalization of means of transport (as far as possible)
Mstr (talk) (talk) 18:44, 14 January 2023 (UTC)
  • So are we thinking like standardized rail gagues here? -- Anonymous21 (talk) 06:08, 15 January 2023 (UTC)
  • fine by me --Ifgus (talk) 23:16, 20 January 2023 (UTC)
  • I had planned a kind of Pan-East-Ulethan railway network, including long distance passenger trains. I am very interested in helping in the transport sector, among the others --Izaland Terramorphing Committee (talk) 15:23, 21 January 2023 (UTC)
  • I think a collective rail network would be very beneficial and visible on the map, sounds like a really good idea. -- Anonymous21 (talk) 06:17, 22 January 2023 (UTC)
  • probably can agree on (don't know the details) --Antoon (talk) 11:34, 22 January 2023 (UTC)
  • most nations use standard gauge, there might be Karolia with another gauge. What about the electric current? Mergania switched, I think in 2017, after discussion with Reeland from 15 kV 16.7 Hz to 25 kV 50 Hz, Izaland uses 3000 V DC. I think we will fail in "standardization" here. It will be rather to provide some information.--Mstr (talk) (talk) 15:19, 22 January 2023 (UTC)
Global Education Act
  • free and easy exchange of students, set up school exchanges and student exchange programs
  • exchange with other countries outside the organization under the same conditionsempty
Mstr (talk) (talk) 18:44, 14 January 2023 (UTC)
  • I've never thought of that idea, but that seems like something that would help prepare students to participate in the group and global economies. I like it! -- Anonymous21 (talk) 06:08, 15 January 2023 (UTC)
  • fine by me --Ifgus (talk) 23:16, 20 January 2023 (UTC)
  • A kind of Erasmus program? We should then find an alternative name to call this international student mobility system. But the idea is nice! --Izaland Terramorphing Committee (talk) 15:23, 21 January 2023 (UTC)
  • agreed --Antoon (talk) 11:34, 22 January 2023 (UTC)
EU Nuclear-Weapon-Free Zone
  • establishment and enforcement of a nuclear weapon free zone in Eastern Uletha
Mstr (talk) (talk) 18:44, 14 January 2023 (UTC)
  • Makes sense unless there are other significant and/or opposing powers that have nuclear weapons, then maybe we would want the group to have nuclear capabilities that can be used only by the authorization of all members? But at the same time there are probably other big states (Federal States of Archanta) that we would be generally aligned with that have nuclear weapons. -- Anonymous21 (talk) 06:08, 15 January 2023 (UTC)
  • since nuclear balance would be hard to work out, it is better to assume for the first step that besides the FSA there is no other nuclear power. If you start to consider all countries which claim to have nuclear weapons, you can stop any other action...--Mstr (talk) (talk) 14:55, 21 January 2023 (UTC)
  • agreed --Antoon (talk) 11:34, 22 January 2023 (UTC)
  • Blönland had a nuclear program in the 20th century and it was certainly not completely shut down but is continued covertly. CaribbeanIslandMapper (talk) 12:01, 16 February 2023 (UTC)
Research collaboration

possible field of collaboration

  • antarctic expeditions
  • aerospace / space agency
Mstr (talk) (talk) 18:44, 14 January 2023 (UTC)
  • Definitely -- Anonymous21 (talk) 06:08, 15 January 2023 (UTC)
  • fine by me --Ifgus (talk) 23:16, 20 January 2023 (UTC)
  • of course; I had already started thinking about something in this field for Izaland. It would keep its own national programs, as well as collaborations with the larger EUOIA agencies --Izaland Terramorphing Committee (talk) 15:23, 21 January 2023 (UTC)
  • agreed --Antoon (talk) 11:34, 22 January 2023 (UTC)
Common currency
  • Shared currency to support economies of all members
Anonymous21 (talk) 06:08, 15 January 2023 (UTC)
  • This could be especially helpful because none of the members have huge economies, which would probably make this more beneficial to all members and would reduce the risk of economic troubles in one country causing a significant downturn in all members. -- Anonymous21 (talk) 06:08, 15 January 2023 (UTC)
  • on board with that. our small-ish economies can benefit from that --Ifgus (talk) 23:16, 20 January 2023 (UTC)
  • would be not the first step, but for members who are interested okay --Mstr (talk) (talk) 14:55, 21 January 2023 (UTC)
  • Izaland would keep using Etsi, one of the main world's financial markets (similarly to the UK using the Pound when it was in the EU) --Izaland Terramorphing Committee (talk) 15:23, 21 January 2023 (UTC)
  • Disagree for now; I like Neberly to have it's own currency --Antoon (talk) 11:34, 22 January 2023 (UTC)
  • Re: Antoon - At this point I think this would be something that some members join in if they want to but they don't have to -- Anonymous21 (talk) 00:58, 23 January 2023 (UTC)
Mutual aid and security treaty
  • Nations agree to come to the aid of other member nations in the event of natural disasters or other humanitarian crises.
  • Nations agree to collaborate in matters of national and international security.
  • Criminals of member nations are not given refuge in other member nations.
  • This might overlap with the mutual protection treaty?
Gubble (talk) 21:53, 22 January 2023 (UTC)
empty row for copy&paste
empty row for copy&paste
empty row for copy&paste
empty row for copy&paste
How to Set up Treaties
Proposal yes no don't know discussion/comments
We should set up a single "founding" treaty and then we can add additional treaties from there Anonymous21 (talk) 21:53, 16 March 2023 (UTC) Yes, but it really depends on what this founding agreement includes... shouldn't go too far, should not exclude countries or projects which do not participate at the moment, but should also provide a good basis for further collaboration--Mstr (talk) (talk) 14:05, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

Re: Mstr -- I agree -- Anonymous21 (talk) 00:58, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

We just do individual treaties on different subjects. The EUOIA would be a set of treaties involving mostly the same countries, but with some variation. Anonymous21 (talk) 21:53, 16 March 2023 (UTC) I'm kind of thinking here about how the real-world EU has treaties like the Schengen Area (open borders) and Eurozone (using Euro as currency) that involve most (but not all) EU members and include some other European states as well. - Anonymous21 (talk) 21:53, 16 March 2023 (UTC)


The acronym "EUOIA" should be kept since it is well known.

yes no don't know Discussion
Based on the difficulties we seem to be having with finding a new name that fits the acronym, maybe we could change the acronym to something like EUU (East Ulethan Union). But I would still prefer to keep the old acronym if we can find a name that still flows well. -- Anonymous21 (talk) 06:25, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

"Independent" in the name is important for me.

yes don't know no Discussion
  • For my country (Izaland) I would like it to have a certain degree of independence, so probably if the EUOIA does not go beyond what is not the EU in RW it would be ok.Izaland Terramorphing Committee (talk) 15:23, 21 January 2023 (UTC)
  • Antoon (talk) 11:39, 22 January 2023 (UTC)
  • I think it acts as a great "filler" word if we're trying to keep the current acronym but other than that is kind of pointless lol (Anonymous21 (talk) 20:22, 14 January 2023 (UTC))
  • Agreed with Anonymous21, not crucial but I don't mind it --Tule00 (talk) 13:07, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

"Allies" should be replaced.

yes don't know no Discussion
Izaland Terramorphing Committee (talk) 15:23, 21 January 2023 (UTC) Gubble (talk) 21:53, 22 January 2023 (UTC) I personally like the idea that the organization was formed to replace a previous alliance, after an as-of-yet unwritten major war. Gubble (talk) 21:53, 22 January 2023 (UTC)
The reason why I want to leave the military origin is because it will be very difficult to establish something based on an unwritten history. Do you have any ideas how to circumvent this? So far, there was neither a war nor we do know anything about different roles in it. But I'm open to constructive ideas how to deal with it--Mstr (talk) (talk) 23:13, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

"Eastern" should be replaced with "East"

yes don't know no discussion
Anonymous21 (talk) 06:36, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

Gubble (talk) 21:53, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

In my opinion, "Eastern Ulethan" sounds kind of clunky and "East Ulethan" would mean the same thing. And, at least here in the U.S., we just put the "an" ending on the last word in a place name in this context (eg. North Dakotan for someone/something from North Dakota, West Virginian for someone/something from West Virginia, etc.). So because "East Uletha" is a specific thing - a continent in this case - I think it would make the most sense to use "East Ulethan Organization ..." rather than "Eastern Ulethan Organization". -- Anonymous21 (talk) 06:36, 22 January 2023 (UTC)
Thanks, a very useful hint from a native speaker. When I try to find a name/expression, I google to find if it exists or not. Regarding organization names of this type, I found, e.g. Southern African Development Community, Association of South Eastern Asian Nations. --Mstr (talk) (talk) 14:47, 22 January 2023 (UTC)
Yeah, I'm speaking from my experience as a native speaker from the US. It could be different around the world. From what I understand though, it usually has to do with whether the "South", "East", etc. is part of the name of the place. For example, "Southern African" would refer to something from the southern part of Africa, while "South African" would refer to something from the specific country of South Africa. So my reasoning is that "East Ulethan" refers to something from the continent of East Uletha while "Eastern Ulethan" refers to something from the eastern part of Uletha. In all honesty, it's kind of splitting hairs and most native speakers would know what you mean either way, but that's just the way I think of it as a native speaker. -- Anonymous21 (talk) 00:58, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

Old name:

  • Eastern Ulethan Organisation of Independent Allies

Some ideas for the new name:

  • East(ern) Ulethan Organization of Independent Associates --Mstr (talk) (talk) 19:09, 14 January 2023 (UTC)
  • Eastern Ulethan Organisation for Independence and Accord --Anonymous21 (talk) 20:22, 14 January 2023 (UTC)
"independence" a little bit too pronounced --Mstr (talk) (talk) 14:39, 21 January 2023 (UTC)
  • Eastern Ulethan Organisation for International Accord --Anonymous21 (talk) 20:22, 14 January 2023 (UTC)
I like this as well Izaland Terramorphing Committee (talk) 15:23, 21 January 2023 (UTC)
  • Eastern Ulethan Opportunity and Intermutuality Alliance --Anonymous21 (talk) 20:22, 14 January 2023 (UTC)
  • Eastern Ulethan Organization of Intergovernmental Affiliates/ Associates --Ifgus (talk) 23:16, 20 January 2023 (UTC)
I like it --Mstr (talk) (talk) 14:39, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

Other issues

Flag proposals

Flag By Comments
Rising sun symbols the East, green color to differ from any kind of EU flag
Rising sun symbols the East, green color to differ from any kind of EU flag
Rising sun symbols the East, green color to differ from any kind of EU flag
Mstr (talk) (talk) 19:09, 14 January 2023 (UTC) too similar to the Japanese imperial banner in my opinion --Ifgus (talk) 23:16, 20 January 2023 (UTC)
I added a second, slightly modified version, so the similarity is less.--Mstr (talk) (talk) 14:35, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

To me, the 3rd flag doesn't make a lot of sense as far as the shapes. Is that supposed to be a sun? If so, why doesn't it have rays on its left side as well? -- Anonymous21 (talk) 22:42, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

Flags are not pictures, so they do not have to show more than some symbols ... it was somewhat inspired by the Alormen flag, which I do like.--Mstr (talk) (talk) 00:40, 22 January 2023 (UTC)
An orange sun with 8 yellow rays on a blue background
An alternate version of the rising with more colors
Anonymous21 (talk) 05:50, 15 January 2023 (UTC) yellow-orange combination is unusual
compass cardinal directions pointing towards the east with maritime colors to symbolize connection to the sea
EUOIA proposal flag2.png
Ifgus (talk) 23:16, 20 January 2023 (UTC) the symbol reminds me of NATO, the triangle is close to FSA

I agree that it looks far too close to NATO flag; the central compass is basically a double copy of the NATO compass -- Anonymous21 (talk) 22:42, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

Rising sun in the east with ocean and land
Another version with two mountains
Another version with a small change (one ray of sun in the bottom right)
Anonymous21 (talk) 22:36, 21 January 2023 (UTC) Of these three, my personal favorite is the 2nd one -- Anonymous21 (talk) 22:38, 21 January 2023 (UTC)
Are there any RW flags like these? Do we have any recognizable mountains in the region?--Mstr (talk) (talk) 00:40, 22 January 2023 (UTC)
I can't think of any obvious RW flags like it; I came up with the design on my own. And there are mountains, but no prominent ones, so that's a good point. -- Anonymous21 (talk) 06:25, 22 January 2023 (UTC)
Stylized shape of East Uletha with sun
Stylized shape of East Uletha with sun
Antoon (talk) 11:21, 22 January 2023 (UTC) I'm not a designer of flags, but i hope it makes clear my idea: the stylized shape of East Uletha with the sun that comes back from other proposals. Maybe someone else can make a better version. Antoon (talk) 11:21, 22 January 2023 (UTC)
The idea is clear! Thank you for your contribution, it illustrates the shape of the east very well. By the way, I can also see an "E" in the flag... --Mstr (talk) (talk) 14:08, 22 January 2023 (UTC)
I like your idea! -- Anonymous21 (talk) 01:17, 23 January 2023 (UTC)
My take on Antoon's design
Anonymous21 (talk) 00:11, 25 January 2023 (UTC)
My proposal: a rising sun (without rays) from the ocean, and a blue color to symbolize the color of the sea, ad well as to recall the RW EU flag; simple and recognizable
Izaland Terramorphing Committee (talk) 13:29, 24 January 2023 (UTC) Ooh, that's cool! I like it! - Anonymous21 (talk) 00:11, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

LOVE it as well! only concern is why two shades of orange? --Ifgus (talk) 17:31, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

Thank you! The soft orange line would represent a sunrise tint on the sea, but it could have the same colour of the sun. Do you think it is better?--Izaland Terramorphing Committee (talk) 00:19, 26 January 2023 (UTC)
In my opinion maybe we could make the orange line a bit more yellow so you can easily tell them apart? But I still really like it! -- Anonymous21 (talk) 05:45, 26 January 2023 (UTC)
Thank you for the proposal! Maybe two issues: One "requirement" discussed in the past was that it should not resemble RW institutions, in this case the EU. That's why I tried to not use blue as in the old wiki. And the flag porposal is quite close to Izaland's flag, which is not a problem in general, but wouldn't be realistic from a historical point of view if there is no reason for it. EUOIA flag proposal by ITC.svg Izaland flag.png EUOIA flag proposal by ITC.svg Izaland flag.png EUOIA flag proposal by ITC.svg Izaland flag.png EUOIA flag proposal by ITC.svg Izaland flag.png --Mstr (talk) (talk) 00:53, 11 February 2023 (UTC)

Just to show how the flag proposals look like in the wiki:
EUOIA flag proposal01.png EUOIA
EUOIA flag proposal01b.png EUOIA
EUOIA flag proposal01c.png EUOIA
EUOIAflagproposal02.png EUOIA
EUOIA proposal flag.png EUOIA
EUOIA proposal flag2.png EUOIA
EUOIA Flag Idea.png EUOIA
EUOIA Flag Idea Other Version.png EUOIA
EUOIA Flag Idea Other Version 2.png EUOIA
EUOIA proposal Antoon Flag.png EUOIA
EUOIAflag3.png EUOIA
EUOIA flag proposal by ITC.svg EUOIA
[[File:|28px]] EUOIA
[[File:|28px]] EUOIA
Flag TCC.svg xxx
Ingerish Commonwealth Flag.png xxx
ASUN flag.svg xxx


Would we want some sort of EUOIA anthem? I wrote one for Kara. -- Anonymous21 (talk) 01:16, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

could be a nice touch, but from which country came the poet? ;) --Ifgus (talk) 23:16, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

Founding Treaty

Since we seem to at least be on board with the idea of creating a founding treaty, what if we start there?

Founding Treaty Drafts

Here are some ideas for the main points of the founding treaty

  • Creates the EUOIA (what the acronym means TBD) from the following countries:
    • Brevinfeld
    • Neberly
    • Boscunis
    • Glaster
    • Kara
    • Alved
    • Reeland
    • Izaland
  • Allows other countries to join the union with approval from all other members.
  • Two kinds of treaties:
    • Mandatory treaties (includes the Founding Treaty)
      • Membership in the EUOIA will be revoked if any member state knowingly and intentionally violates any Mandatory Treaty
      • Must be approved by all member states and must be explicitly designated a mandatory treaty at time of ratification
      • Provisions of mandatory treaties (including the Founding Treaty) may be changed with the approval of all member states
    • Opt-in treaties:
      • Member states are encouraged, but not obligated, to participate in opt-in treaties
      • Member states may leave an opt-in treaty at any time
      • Additional members can be added to opt-in treaties with the approval of all members of that specific treaty
      • Each treaty must include at least 50% of member states to be an official EUOIA treaty
        • Member states are free to make treaties with other member states, but a treaty must include at least 50% of member states to be officially administered and endorsed by the EUOIA
      • A treaty is considered opt-in unless otherwise stated
        • For example, a member state could opt out of a treaty initially including all member states unless the treaty is explicitly designated a mandatory treaty.
      • Provisions of opt-in treaties may be changed with the approval of all members of that treaty
  • Common Defense
    • An attack on any member state is considered an attack on all member states.
    • A military attack from a member state to another member state is grounds for immediate expulsion from the EUOIA.
    • If any member becomes aware of a credible threat to another member state, that information must be shared with all other member states as soon as reasonably possible

This is just a brainstorming list. If you have any thoughts, comments, ideas, etc. please leave them below

-- Anonymous21 (talk) 01:15, 11 February 2023 (UTC)

Free Association / Observer-type membership

Blönland is interested in cooperating with its neighbors but is neither qualified nor wishing to join the EUOIA as a full member.

  • It has a strong monarch with executive powers, and the throne is inherited only through the male line (unlike most other monarchies where it probably is equal primogeniture)
  • It has a nobility system with legal hereditary privileges, including hereditary seats in the parliament
  • It consists of two culturally distinct regions that were historically separate countries (Blönland proper and Remsfalen-Lüningen) which have different religions (Catholic and Protestant), significant autonomy with devolved government on both sides, and certainly different opinions about joining the EUOIA. The north wants to become closer to the western neighbor Remsfalen (to which it used to belong in the past) and joining would allow fishermen to fish along the coasts of the neighbors (rather than the relatively short coast of Blönland). The south is more isolationist and protectionist (it has a strong industry and fears that joining the common market would endanger it), and many people still have negative opinions on Izaland.
  • It has very conservative values and there are official state churches, and many will see the EUOIA as too liberal. Men and women still have different rights according to law, for example.
  • The King might be personally opposed because he doesn't want to do what would feel like giving up his country's independence.

So, is there a type of observer or limited membership that Blönland can apply for, with provisions for military participation, visa free travel but opting out of the human rights treaty (because it contradicts Blönnish law) for example, and allowing trade tariffs? CaribbeanIslandMapper (talk) 12:01, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

Sorry for the slow response. That's something we could talk about; it would probably look like a partial alliance but without the full membership, as you were saying. - Anonymous21 (talk) 00:07, 6 March 2023 (UTC)