Users browsing this thread:

southern bellz · 07-28-2014, 02:17 PM

In the comments on the cabinet TNI statement, a post saying that unless we were following cabinet communications for the past months then we can't comment on the situation.

Should we as the assembly legislate a required assembly debrief by the cabinet so we can gain more insight into how the cabinet is representing us?

The 16th Delegate of The South Pacific

**Belschaft** · 07-28-2014, 02:35 PM

The Assembly possesses the legal power to compel the release of all cabinet documents in relation to a particular matter by the simple expedient of passing a law compelling such.

_{Minister of Media, Subversion and Sandwich Making}
^{Associate Justice of the High Court and Senior Moderator}

PREVIOUS ROLES

***sandaoguo*** · 07-28-2014, 05:50 PM

Article 8 of the Code of Laws outlines the process of automatic Cabinet communications declassification. According to that schedule, threads started in May will be up for mandatory declassification in January, unless the Cabinet at that time decides it is too early to release the thread without serious security implications.

The Sunshine Provisions article was passed so that Cabinet communication would be published regularly, but not in a way that threatens the security of the region. Additionally, having a mandatory law with defined time periods prevents the politicization of the process.

I see a few people here who are upset over the loss of the TNI alliance, and want to engage in a political fight to assign blame. The Cabinet can provide a debriefing of our interactions with TNI, if it is requested by the Assembly. Although I'm not sure what more information would be gleaned from that, because we put everything in the recent statement. (And TNI unilaterally leaked the Cabinet's official complaint to them anyways, even though it was classified.) We can also give a timeline of TRR negotiations, but that would not reveal anything other than how long negotiations took.

(This post was last modified: 07-28-2014, 05:51 PM by Tsunamy.)

southern bellz · 07-28-2014, 07:19 PM

This is not about declassification of the events that happened about TNI.

This is about our delegate responding to people commenting on the issue (which you have already dismissed as illegitimate) by saying unless we know what the cabinet has done we shouldn't be commenting on the situations. If that is the stance of the delegate, then I believe the cabinet has the obligation to inform the assembly what they are doing (in general) so we are able to comment.

***Kris Kringle*** · 07-28-2014, 07:26 PM

Thank you for taking my comments wildly out of context.

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

***sandaoguo*** · 07-28-2014, 07:42 PM

(07-28-2014, 07:19 PM)southern bellz Wrote: (which you have already dismissed as illegitimate)

I haven't "dismissed as illegitimate" anything. Nobody here is stupid. You, HEM, and Belschaft are very angry about what happened with TNI, because you guys have been long-time advocates of the treaty. (Though Belschaft's case is special, given his flip-flops on it.) The narrative that's developing here is that you guys believe the Cabinet somehow nefariously mislead the region into repealing the TSP-TNI Treaty through the backdoor. I'm not sure exactly what it would take for you guys to believe otherwise.

Belschaft's idea is purely political and would severely damage long-term Cabinet-Assembly relations.

Regarding accountability, we have just held elections. Discussions about the TSP-TNI relationship have occurred numerous times. There was a lengthy discussion about with the vote on the TSP-TRR Treaty, which passed with a single dissenter. The accusation that the Cabinet has been keeping the Assembly in the dark is false.

If you want monthly updates on what the Cabinet has been doing, that's a different story. That's something Kris and Escade have been working on for a while.

(This post was last modified: 07-28-2014, 07:52 PM by Tsunamy.)

southern bellz · 07-28-2014, 10:28 PM

(07-28-2014, 07:42 PM)Sandaoguo Wrote:
(07-28-2014, 07:19 PM)southern bellz Wrote: (which you have already dismissed as illegitimate)

If you want monthly updates on what the Cabinet has been doing, that's a different story. That's something Kris and Escade have been working on for a while.

I'm cutting out the parts about TNI because I am mostly uneducated in what happened. I do have a question in the statement thread that remains unanswered if you wish to answer it. I do not want to splinter the issues.

This second part is what I am mentioning, from what I have seen, I think these type of updates can avoid confusion. A lot of what happens is obviously closed off and for good reasons, but I think 90% of what goes on in the cabinet can be sumarized and presented to the assembly. I think formalizing this process into law is something we should consider.

***Tsunamy*** · 07-29-2014, 12:38 AM

So, I moved this thread because I think this a more appropriate place for this discussion.

Second, in all fairness, I do believe you are taking Kris' point of context. If you're going to accuse of Cabinet of wrongdoing, I'd prefer you (general, not individual) have the proper facts before doing so.

That said, as I've requested from HEM in the other threads, I'd like to see these logs because if these missions were suggested and/or communicated, I hadn't been privy to them.

Finally, if we want to compel a monthly update or what not, it's certainly not going to help conspiracy theories. The argument will just move from "The Cabinet won't tell us" to "The Cabinet is hiding it from the report."

-tsunamy
[forum admin]

(This post was last modified: 07-29-2014, 12:39 AM by Admin.)

Ditortilla · 08-01-2014, 03:46 PM

Did anyone consult the Region before entering into this treaty - or any others for that matter - after all it is their futures we are mortgaging with these negotiations

***Kris Kringle*** · 08-01-2014, 04:15 PM

The region was obviously consulted. The was a debate thread and a vote.

Mortgaging their futures? Don't be dramatic.

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

(This post was last modified: 08-01-2014, 04:15 PM by sandaoguo.)