| Spiritus |
(02-26-2017, 04:15 PM)sandaoguo Wrote: @ And that MOU would mean the Cabinet engaging in open deception, because this new government is in no sense the legal successor to the Elemental Republic of Spiritus. Maybe you're comfortable with the Cabinet lying about the nature of a new government in an allied region for the sake of convenience and political expediency, but I'm not.
(02-26-2017, 04:52 PM)Cormac Wrote:(02-26-2017, 04:15 PM)sandaoguo Wrote: @ This isn't really related, but it's a real life connection.. The Articles of Confederation (the governing document of the United States before the constitution) was deeply flawed and needed major improvements. The people of the nation and the state legislators gave the Constitutional Convention only the powers to revise the Articles, not tp replace them. Instead the founding fathers produced a new governing document, and everyone jumped on the bandwagon because it was the better choice. The constitution technically wasn't legally enacted based on the Articles text, but here we are a couple of hundred years later, and no foreign nation objected. So.. If the people of Spiritus don't have any problems with creating a new government, then why should we object? -Griffindor/Ebonhand
-Current Roles/Positions -Legislator 2/24/20- -High Court Justice 6/7/20- -South Pacific Coral Guard 11/17/20- -Minister of Engagement 6/17/22- -Past Roles/Positions -Legislator 7/3/16-4/10/18 -Secretary of State 4/3/20-2/24/21 -Chair of the APC 9/24/16-5/31/17 -Vice-Chair of the APC 6/1/17-4/10/18 -Local Council Member 7/1/17-11/17/17 -Citizen 5/2012-12/2014 and 2/26/16-7/3/2016
Cormac isn't saying TSP should denounce the new governing structure in Spiritus. He's saying the treaty, as currently worded, doesn't support it, which means we should make a new treaty. In other words:
Treaty recognises only the "Elemental Republic of Spiritus" + "Elemental Republic of Spiritus" is dissolved = Treaty that recognises the new government 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 (02-26-2017, 07:03 PM)Kris Kringle Wrote: Cormac isn't saying TSP should denounce the new governing structure in Spiritus. He's saying the treaty, as currently worded, doesn't support it, which means we should make a new treaty. In other words: Exactly. I'm not calling for any change in our partnership with Spiritus, nor objecting to their decision to extralegally dissolve their government and convene a constitutional convention. I was skeptical of that decision at first, but having talked to Tim and heard from other people why they made the decision, I understand it, and it was probably the best decision they could have made under the circumstances. None of my concerns are about their new government and we shouldn't reject their new government -- I just don't want us to cut corners for convenience. An alternative to repealing the Lampshade Accords now and then negotiating a new treaty later would be to instead negotiate a new treaty with the new government in advance of repealing the Lampshade Accords, so that we have a new treaty immediately in place when the old one is repealed. We could even make repeal of the previous treaty a provision of the new treaty, so that repeal is automatic when the new treaty is ratified, and separate repeal votes aren't even necessary by either government. That would be fine. It would be minimal fuss for both parties. It would not lead to any interruption in our partnership. The only thing I'm not okay with is signing a MOU recognizing this new government as a legally enacted successor government under the terms of the current Lampshade Accords, when it is clear this new government was not legally enacted. We shouldn't sign a MOU that is a lie. Lying is not good diplomatic policy.
OK, I agree with Cormac.
Everyone was very quick to jump into action straight away to prevent this. But, legally, its the right thing to do. Personally, I'm all for the new Spiritus. But we really should be doing this correctly. They will understand. Finally, I think the last word should be with the minister for foreign affairs. What the hell did we vote her in for?
John Hills- President of Ausstan
Hey as newly elected MoFA my thoughts are:
1. I have heard the arguments and concur that we don't want to set bad precedents. 2. I am talking to the Spiritus members and should have something on the table for the cabinet soon on how to proceed\timeline. 3. Actually, I appreciate that Legislators are discussing this issue and actually looking at it from multiple angles. I also highly suggest that people check out Spiritus! The are rebooting their government and for those of you who are interested in seeing what it's like to develop a new constitution - it is a great opportunity! 
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 |
| Users browsing this thread: |
| 1 Guest(s) |