(05-01-2020, 02:48 PM)Jay Coop Wrote: On the second point, we do not see it necessary to rename a ministry that has stood for nearly nine years. In this proposal, Integration could be removed from the mandate of the Ministry of Regional Affairs, but the original ministry will continue to exist under a revised mandate.

MoRA is a catch-all Ministry designed to handle what FA and MA didn't. This is not a catch-all Ministry and is substantially different from what MoRA has been. There has been a lot of opposition around the fact that we are eliminating the central tenant of MoRA which is that all of these things are under one Ministry. If that is the central tenant of MoRA, then MoRA, as we have known it for nine years, ceases to exist. I think that necessitates a name change.

Also, and I can not believe I didn't see this sooner, why are Media and culture still under the same Ministry. Those are the two things MoRA has done with some degree of regularity. What is the point of keeping the two most labor-intensive things in the same Ministry when the whole point is to split up the workload between separate either Ministers or a Minister and an independent Media Dept.?
 

(05-01-2020, 02:48 PM)Jay Coop Wrote: On the matter of senior leadership being in favor of the alternative amendment proposal, it must be made clear that some are not in favor of the amendment per se, but believe that such an amendment is favorable to other proposals.

Wait so are they going to vote for it or not? Because if they aren't going to vote for it that's a big deal because this wording makes it sound like they won't vote for any split. If you aren't going to ever vote for any split, why should you have a say in what a split looks like when you will just vote against? Numbers are what matter here. And this almost makes it sound like maybe your proposal doesn't have the support of the Ministry, they would just see it as less bad. But they still intend to vote against.