(07-31-2022, 07:46 PM)HumanSanity Wrote: I did include in the draft the compromise of "these responsibilities much be addressed by a Cabinet minister" (Article VI(3)) which I think addresses concerns about having no Minister for certain responsibilities without overly limiting the PM's discretion.

Hmm, I see. I think I read that with the assumption that the Prime Minister was themselves a Minister as well, but I'm sure we can smooth out kinks in wording like this. Semantically, I do think it would make more sense for the Prime Minister to be a member of the Cabinet if they are meant to be the leader of it.

(07-31-2022, 07:46 PM)HumanSanity Wrote: From my point of view, if the structure of the military is as it is now it makes sense that Generals have to be confirmed by the Assembly, because the Generals have authority in and of themselves to govern the SPSF. (Arguably, in the status quo the PM actually has no authority to direct the SPSF! And Generals also have the authority to override the MoD/govern jointly with the MoD.) In a PM-led model, the PM is the one with the responsibility and who provides civilian oversight, not the Assembly, and this removes the need for confirmation. Despite this, the element of recall can/should remain, as the most direct avenue for public oversight of any given official.

Is this the point of view you hold more generally? The Prime Minister is the leader of the Cabinet, but Cabinet minister nominations must be confirmed, so I'm not entirely sure why being the commander-in-chief of the SPSF means there's no need for confirmation.

(07-31-2022, 07:46 PM)HumanSanity Wrote: I also think that, in all likelihood, PMs would still involve the Cabinet in those decisions, just in an informal/consultative manner instead of in a formal voting process.

I'm fine with informal consultation, as long as it actually happens. I wouldn't even mind if it was codified into law that the Prime Minister must consult with the Cabinet or something, even if that still leaves the door open to varying degrees of consultation, because I do think it is important to at least establish the intent of the Cabinet as an advisory body. With your proposal, the language introducing the appointed Minister positions is oriented around the particular areas of executive responsibility that they must fulfill. That's fine, but I do think the Cabinet can and should do more than just being "responsible for" certain areas of government. I'm sure that what I'm pointing out wasn't your intention with the language — but I do think the language, as it currently stands, overemphasizes the Prime Minister as a decision-maker and other Ministers as administrators. If we really are going to follow through with an appointed Cabinet, I'd really prefer to see it at least established, in the law, as not just as a way for a Prime Minister to pick like-minded people to carry out their agenda, but also to identify people who may serve as good advisors and voices in internal conversations.