The Bel and Tim versions could go as competing, if both are motioned.

Tim's version is short, sweet, to the point. It doesn't give the PM power to set policy directly, but has a veto for anything the executive does which can be overridden if and only if all other Ministers agree - so in usual cases, MoRA MoFA MoMA would have to oppose PM's veto. In case of a MoRA vacancy, as now, MoFA and MoMA can still together oppose the PM's veto. If we were to add a fifth ministry, it would require all of MoRA MoFA MoMA and MoXA (where X is the new mistery ministry) to oppose the PM's veto.

Bel's version is not so short, but very much written in a style that fits well in the style of the Charter. The Prime Minister can both set and veto executive action and policy. A veto, or an order (which isn't possible in Tim's version), will in normal cases work as described in Tim's version: MoRA, MoFA, and MoMA have to all oppose it (if one of them doesn't, that's a tie and the PM's vote counts). In case of a vacancy, however, the Prime Minister only needs one other Minister (so, MoFA or MoMA). In case of a future fifth ministry, only two of MoRA, MoFA, MoMA, or MoXA have to agree with the Prime Minister.

So, to summarize the differences:

• Bel's version fits better stylistically, while Tim's is shorter.
  
• Both versions allow the PM to veto executive action. Bel's version also allows the PM to issue orders, Tim's doesn't.
  
• In "normal" operation, both require a unanimous Cabinet to override a PM's decision. In non-normal or futuristic scenarios, Bel's version tends to favor the PM, while Tim's version tends to favor the collective of the other Cabinet Ministers.
  

I'd be fine with either. I'm probably slightly leaning towards Bel's version.