| [Awe/Tsu] Amendment to Article VI of the Charter |
I don't see any reason at all why the CRS or Delegate should have a say, to be honest. The CRS is domestic security. The Delegate is basically a figurehead.
The answer to "we shouldn't have an Assembly vote because they're pointless" shouldn't be "let's make this as impossible as we can."
(07-21-2016, 10:58 AM)sandaoguo Wrote: I don't see any reason at all why the CRS or Delegate should have a say, to be honest. The CRS is domestic security. The Delegate is basically a figurehead. I think the idea is to have some sort of check in the process. However, I fear any movements in this direction will simply expand the number of people considered to be "in the Cabinet."
-tsunamy
[forum admin]
I do see, if this is the amendment that goes through, some merit to at least the CRS having some power here, given that they are the body for Regional Security which would include threats from abroad, not just at home. These threats could occur or be enhanced by leaving a treaty with another region, so it would be important for them to at least submit an opinion to the Cabinet on the topic.
An eye for an eye just makes the whole world go blind.
~Mahatma Gandhi
While treaty dissolutions certainly affect our regional security, they are essentially a matter of policy and politics. It would be a mistake to involve an ideally apolitical CRS into a purely political matter.
Former Delegate of the South Pacific
Posts outside High Court venues should be taken as those of any other legislator. I do not participate in the regional server, but I am happy to talk through instant messaging or on the forum. Legal Resources: THE MATT-DUCK Law Archive | Mavenu Diplomatic Archive | Rules of the High Court | Case Submission System | Online Rulings Consultation System
We elect a MoFA for a reason. And that's to deal with relations with other reasons. While I feel the MoFA has the responsibility to start treaty negotiations and have them approved by the Assembly, How about treaty dissolution is STILL the MoFA's responsibility AFTER a 5 day discussion with the Assembly. Then cabinet or MoFA gives the assembly 5 days notice a treaty is about to be dissolved and let the discussion happen, but leave the final decision with the MoFA.
But what happens if the Assembly says "no" and the MoFA still does it QD? What is the point of asking the Assembly if it can be ignored?
I think we already have a perfectly logical and effective process in place, with the Assembly having to dissolve treaties just as they have to ratify them. I see no reason for us to change that process. There's a general agreement here that the Cabinet shouldn't have this unilateral power, so the logical thing to do is keep things exactly as they have been for thirteen years - it's not like we've had any problems with the extant system. Minister of Media, Subversion and Sandwich Making
Associate Justice of the High Court and Senior Moderator ![[Image: B9ytUsy.png]](https://i.imgur.com/B9ytUsy.png) (07-21-2016, 01:10 PM)QuietDad Wrote: We elect a MoFA for a reason. And that's to deal with relations with other reasons. While I feel the MoFA has the responsibility to start treaty negotiations and have them approved by the Assembly, How about treaty dissolution is STILL the MoFA's responsibility AFTER a 5 day discussion with the Assembly. Then cabinet or MoFA gives the assembly 5 days notice a treaty is about to be dissolved and let the discussion happen, but leave the final decision with the MoFA.That is my point exactly Sent from my MI NOTE LTE using Tapatalk
It should still be the MoFA's decision, but it doesn't do any harm to give the Assembly a heads up that something is going on. When I ran the SPSF, there was a few times I would go do a joint op with an army and get grief that the region had issues. The Assembly would not have the right to vote anything. I'm just saying the MoFA gives 5 days notice and give the Assembly a few days to digest and discuss it. Maybe even change the MoFA's mind or get a depupty assigned if t's just and issue between people.
(07-21-2016, 11:56 AM)Tsunamy Wrote:(07-21-2016, 10:58 AM)sandaoguo Wrote: I don't see any reason at all why the CRS or Delegate should have a say, to be honest. The CRS is domestic security. The Delegate is basically a figurehead. The best check is probably just to require Cabinet unanimity, which is required for entering into a treaty anyways. The whole argument behind this amendment (/ not having the Assembly vote) is that no matter what 'check' there is, the only thing that really matters is the Cabinet's opinion, since they're the only one who actually conducts foreign policy. The other best check is the one we've always had: recalls and new elections. My issue with bringing the Delegate and CRS into it is that they play no role otherwise. They aren't required for creating a treaty, and they have a tangential relationship to foreign policy at most. It's just more veto points that don't really have the actual power of veto. I can also imagine Delegates thinking, "Well, maybe I should poll the region on this..." And that's just a recipe for chaos. |
![[+]](/images/collapse_collapsed.png "[+]")
RP-Government Information
| Users browsing this thread: |
| 1 Guest(s) |