| Declassified: Belschaft & NK |
I'm hesitant to adopt that language because the requirements aren't only about security issues. It could be that the legislator isn't a resident anymore, or that they were caught with multiple accounts. What this would do is allow the Chair to more formally check that legislators continue to meet all requirements, one such requirement being not having been declared a security risk by the Committee.
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
The only problem being for the nitpicky, they will ask the same question : Who determines so does the CRS or cabinet make a recommendation to the Chair? Or what is the process here? The Chair can't be making unilateral decisions or have a loophole because we've had, less mature chairs.
Escade ~ Positions Held in TSP ~ Delegate | Vice Delegate Minister of Regional Affairs, | Minister of Foreign Affairs | Minister of Military Affairs ~ The Sparkly One ~ My Pinterest
I think it makes sense for the Chair to check whether legislators continue to meet the requirements; that's what they already do with voting activity. All the proposal would do is say that they also need to keep an eye out for any declarations like the one the CSS would issue regarding Belschaft.
What's key here is that we wouldn't be removing someone's legislator status, merely rendering them ineligible for continued status; it would be the Chair's job to remove that person from the list. Farengeto hasn't made this argument, but I think this is more elegant and less intrusive than outright removing someone. 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 (03-06-2017, 10:50 PM)Escade Wrote: The only problem being for the nitpicky, they will ask the same question : Who determines so does the CRS or cabinet make a recommendation to the Chair? Or what is the process here? The Chair can't be making unilateral decisions or have a loophole because we've had, less mature chairs. Given that the chair already has to make these judgements when accepting, so we already have to place those expectations on them. For everything except the security threat (which is done by the CRS) there's not really any restrictions on who can raise the issue with the Chair. Kris is also correct that from a legal standpoint we're not revoking anyone's legislator status. This EO basically says if that you fail to meet the already existing eligibility requirements you can lose it at any time. Saying it like that almost makes it sound obvious but it's not so clear in the actual law. This isn't going to be or supposed to be a complete security law, just a reasonably logical interpretation of an existing law that would hopefully prevent the debate from shifting from Belschaft to criticizing a significant EO. Legislator removals limit the damage one can do in the short term without the personal fallout of a ban. We can later propose a proper security law that can be handled in the Assembly, again limiting the issue of the legality of enacting it. Even if an EO is technically legal, any ambiguity in its legality will easily become an issue in the Assembly. I'm also not the best writer so my draft is more one example, if we want to pursue the idea I encourage anyone to propose their own wording.
Frankly, I don't want and don't think you guys want, to have me be the one who has to take action against Bel. This legislator requirement solution requires me specifically, as chair, to suspend Bel's status. Rather than it being a joint CRS-Cabinet decision.
Bel is going to fiercely challenge ANYTHING we do.
Yeah that was my other thought that if you as Chair have to do this it will be a different situation and people internally and externally will react to it differently.
Escade ~ Positions Held in TSP ~ Delegate | Vice Delegate Minister of Regional Affairs, | Minister of Foreign Affairs | Minister of Military Affairs ~ The Sparkly One ~ My Pinterest
Whatever we end up doing, it needs to be all of us together, not just one or two of us.
So.... what's our decisions?
1. Release the dossier 2. Release the dossier + EO 3. Release the dossier + propose law (rather than EO) ?
3 for me
Semi-Unretired
3 for me too.
Chief Supervising Armchair
|
![[+]](/images/collapse_collapsed.png "[+]")
Hello
| Users browsing this thread: |
| 1 Guest(s) |