On February 19, the Founder, President, and WA Delegate of Spiritus jointly decided to dissolve the Elemental Republic of Spiritus under the Constitution of Spiritus and to initiate a constitutional convention. Neither this dissolution nor initiation of the constitutional convention complied with the constitutional process for amending the Constitution of Spiritus, which is as follows:

Quote:56. The Regional Assembly shall have the power to propose amendments to this Constitution by a two-thirds supermajority vote.

57. Any amendment proposed by a two-thirds supermajority vote in the Regional Assembly shall then go before the citizens of Spiritus in a referendum. If approved by a two-thirds supermajority of the citizens of Spiritus the amendment shall be ratified.

Our treaty obligation under the Lampshade Accords could not be more clear:

Quote:1.2 The South Pacific recognises the Elemental Republic of Spiritus under the Constitution of Spiritus as the legitimate government of Spiritus and resolves to recognise any legally enacted successor government.

My question is simple: Is the Cabinet going to honor our treaty obligation, or is the Cabinet going to do as some have suggested on Discord and recognize a clearly illegal government as a "legally enacted successor government"?

Let me be clear on a few things that don't matter, since they will come up. It doesn't matter if there isn't any opposition to this decision. It doesn't matter if this is best for Spiritus. It doesn't matter that the region is a user-created region with a Founder. All that matters is what the South Pacific agreed to do, which is recognize a specific government under a specific constitution, or a new government created only in compliance with the terms of that constitution, as the legitimate government of Spiritus. Nothing else matters.

If we believe what Spiritus is doing is okay because of the supposedly dire circumstances of their inactivity, that is a separate question. We can repeal the Lampshade Accords, explain to the interim government why we're doing that and that we are open to the possibility of a new treaty in the future, and negotiate a new treaty with the new government if it proves to be the kind of government that would make a desirable ally. What we absolutely should not do is jump through some kind of Orwellian, Balderesque hoops to declare that up is actually down, right is actually left, black is actually white, and an illegal government is actually a legal successor government. That will set a terrible precedent and undermine, even if only in a small way, the South Pacific's role as a champion of democracy and the rule of law.