Users browsing this thread:

Awe · 07-20-2016, 12:15 PM

Pursuant to what I've proposed previously, that the MoFA provide time for mandated discussion prior to the formal dissolution of a Treaty, I would like to put forth the following amendment:

Quote:7. The Minister of Foreign Affairs holds the sole power to initiate treaty negotiations with other regions, groups, and organizations, but may designate officers to handle those negotiations. Upon completion of a treaty negotiation, the Minister must present it to the full executive for majority approval, before submitting it to the Assembly for ratification.

8. Should a treaty be dissolved by either party, the Minister of Foreign Affairs shall put the matter up for five days of mandated discussion in the Assembly, after which the treaty shall be dissolved

9. The Minister of Foreign Affairs will be responsible for establishing standards for the creation and maintenance of consulates and embassies.

EDIT: Changed it to five days of mandated discussion after noticing that most of our treaties require five days notice before the treaty is dissolved.

[Image: 9ehfkQV.png]

the island league

Former Offices

RP Information

(This post was last modified: 10-15-2016, 12:05 PM by Omega.)

~~Wolf~~ · 07-20-2016, 12:25 PM

If I'm reading the law correctly, it's the Minister of Foreign Affairs' responsibility to put this up for discussion, so why didn't Glen post this?

ProfessorHenn · 07-20-2016, 12:26 PM

Motion.

ProfessorHenn
Legislator

(This post was last modified: 07-20-2016, 12:56 PM by ProfessorHenn.)

***sandaoguo*** · 07-20-2016, 12:31 PM

(07-20-2016, 12:25 PM)Wolf Wrote: If I'm reading the law correctly, it's the Minister of Foreign Affairs' responsibility to put this up for discussion, so why didn't Glen post this?

... This is a proposed amendment.

Awe · 07-20-2016, 12:31 PM

(07-20-2016, 12:25 PM)Wolf Wrote: If I'm reading the law correctly, it's the Minister of Foreign Affairs' responsibility to put this up for discussion, so why didn't Glen post this?

I thought of this

[Image: 9ehfkQV.png]

the island league

Former Offices

RP Information

**Belschaft** · 07-20-2016, 12:37 PM

I'm heavily opposed to this; there's no point having an assembly debate, if at the end of that debate it doesn't change anything. Say that the MoFA does put up the discussion... what happens if the Assembly turns out to oppose the decision?

_{Minister of Media, Subversion and Sandwich Making}
^{Associate Justice of the High Court and Senior Moderator}

PREVIOUS ROLES

**Seraph** · 07-20-2016, 01:35 PM

I believe that the threat of potential recall by an Assembly that disagreed with the decision would make it very unlikely that the MoFA would choose to go against the grain of the debate.

Also, second.

Founder of the Church of the South Pacific [Forum Thread] [Discord], a safe place to discuss spirituality for people of all faiths and none (currently looking for those interested in prayer and/or "home" groups);
And The Silicon Pens [Discord], a writer's group for the South Pacific and beyond!

Yahweo usenneo ir varleo, ihraneo jurlaweo hraseu seu, ir jiweveo arladi.

Salma 145:8

translate

(This post was last modified: 07-20-2016, 01:35 PM by Seraph.)

**Belschaft** · 07-20-2016, 01:41 PM

(07-20-2016, 01:35 PM)Seraph Wrote: I believe that the threat of potential recall by an Assembly that disagreed with the decision would make it very unlikely that the MoFA would choose to go against the grain of the debate.

Also, second.

Except, that's not the case in this amendment; the debate happen after the treaty has already been dissolved.

This isn't the MoFA being required to consult, it's the MoFA being required to inform.

_{Minister of Media, Subversion and Sandwich Making}
^{Associate Justice of the High Court and Senior Moderator}

PREVIOUS ROLES

***Tsunamy*** · 07-20-2016, 02:16 PM

Quote:8. Should the Cabinet wish to dissolve a treaty, the Minister of Foreign Affairs shall put the matter up for five days of mandated discussion in the Assembly, after which the treaty may be dissolved at the will of the Cabinet.

How's this?

-tsunamy
[forum admin]

Drugged Monkeys · 07-20-2016, 02:17 PM

(07-20-2016, 12:26 PM)Cathalea Wrote: Motion.

(07-20-2016, 01:35 PM)Seraph Wrote: I believe that the threat of potential recall by an Assembly that disagreed with the decision would make it very unlikely that the MoFA would choose to go against the grain of the debate.

Also, second.

"2. Debate on Charter amendments will last for a minimum of two weeks, unless the Council on Regional Security acknowledges that the amendment addresses an immediate and perilous issue that threatens the security of the region."

Please allow the proper time for debate before trying to motion Charter Amendments to vote.

(07-20-2016, 12:37 PM)Belschaft Wrote: I'm heavily opposed to this; there's no point having an assembly debate, if at the end of that debate it doesn't change anything. Say that the MoFA does put up the discussion... what happens if the Assembly turns out to oppose the decision?

I see the issue on both sides of this discussion.
If we inform the assembly, and discuss the dissolution, the treaty is done either way.
1. If the assembly agrees, the treaty will end.
2. If the assembly disagrees, the treaty will end.
3. In either case, the party on the other end of the treaty will see it as an end to the relationship, because the elected Cabinet no longer sees the relationship as valuable/useful/meaningful.

Should we require it to be a unanimous decision amongst the Cabinet?
Should it then have to pass through the Delegate? or CoA? or Local Council? All?
Could we require at least 3 of the 4 Steps being approved?

I'm putting forward these ideas because clearly we have opposition on all sides, and I think we can come to a compromise somewhere.
But I do not think putting the matter before the assembly is the way to go. It creates a situation that has the same result for approval or disapproval.

Semi-Unretired