I fully support the concept of this.

Like Kris, I'd like to see a discussion of if there should be Assembly confirmation and if so what confirmation.

Like Comfed, I think the idea of "collective responsibility" for the Cabinet should end and that there should be total portfolio flexibility for the Prime Minister.

I want to add something about the GC more generally: I wonder how useful it is to make OPs that list edits to laws in the context of the laws-as-written given that so much of the architecture of our laws is likely to change during the GC.

(07-18-2022, 12:50 PM)The Allied States of Bistritza Wrote: However, I do believe that two Ministries MUST exist as fixed, given the game mechanics: Ministry of Defense and Ministry of Foreign Affairs.

I disagree with this. A Prime Minister could choose to exercise foreign affairs responsibilities themselves, or delegate them to a "Council" in absence of having a single "Minister" of Foreign Affairs. A Prime Minister could choose not to appoint a "Minister" of Defense, instead opting for the governance of the Ministry/SPSF to be done by the SPSF's Officers jointly.

Ultimately, the demands of any given moment will vary wildly, and the Prime Minister should have flexibility to pick the team they need.

(07-18-2022, 12:50 PM)The Allied States of Bistritza Wrote: perhaps codifying an obligation of the Prime Minister (or his appointed subsidiary) to present ''briefings'' to the Assembly on a regular basis.

I disagree with codifying this. What briefings and how they will be presented should be something that Prime Ministers campaign on. Often, they are standard practice, but not always, and that's up to the Prime Minister's decision and the Assembly's demands.

Furthermore, it's incredibly subjective. If the Prime Minister submits two memes to the Assembly, does that count as a 'briefing'? How much communication the Prime Minister does with the Assembly is a difficult question to codify, and is best left to the Assembly as a political and accountability question.

(07-18-2022, 01:03 PM)Bleakfoot Wrote: I wonder whether we should instead codify specific responsibilities (related to game mechanics) that the Prime Minister or a duly appointed minister must fulfil

I'm intrigued by this idea and would be interested in draft language about it.

(07-18-2022, 02:13 PM)Jagged Fel Wrote: Not having stable ministries would imply that their members must change positions regularly, which risks causing disengagement.

I think the status quo disproves this. Lack of flexibility to change things or new energy/platform willpower in Ministries risks disengagement. In the status quo, the Prime Minister has limited-to-no power to shake up and transform Ministries when they may be in dire need of it. If a Ministry is actually working, the Prime Minister is unlikely to restructure it.

(07-18-2022, 02:13 PM)Jagged Fel Wrote: And doesn't the possibility that new ministries appear without their function being governed by the charter risk destabilizing the cabinet?

Can you elaborate on this? How would it "destabilize the cabinet" and what are the consequences of that?

(07-18-2022, 02:13 PM)Jagged Fel Wrote: wouldn't it be better to give power back to the delegate who is potentially "closer" to the nations of the region

The Prime Minister is also elected directly by the members of the region. The distinction between the two would be in the job they are expected/asked to perform, not in the amount of accountability they have to the region.