Formal Discussion on Embassy Documents

wizardofoz01

wizardofoz01

TNPer
Submitted for Formal Discussion by GoalVA:

Section 2 of Law 9:
B. Once such an embassy document is composed and approved by the MoEA, either the MoEA or the Prime Minister must submit the document to the Speaker for approval by the registered voters under Article II section 4 of the Constitution and to authorize creation of the embassy.

H. The Minister of External Affairs or the Prime Minister submit a proposal to the Speaker to withdraw from a treaty or other agreement which in order to be effective, must be approved at a referendum of the registered voters of the region. may withdraw the region from a treaty should the terms be breached.
Click to expand...

Article II:
B. Political, diplomatic, or military relationships shall only be established by agreement or treaty. Either the Minister of External Affairs or the Prime Minister has the power to create, change or remove basic treaties. The creation, change or removal of a Mutual Defence Treaty, or any other Military treaty short of an Alliance or Entente must have the support of a majority vote by the cabinet. Proposals for the creation, change or removal of any documents dealing with alliances or ententes (as in a coalition) must be submitted submit a proposal to accede to or withdraw from any agreement or treaty relationship with another region, or multi-regional organization, to the Speaker for approval of such proposed action by a majority of the registered voters in a referendum with a quorum participating. The voting period for the referendum shall be for five consecutive days. Should the action be approved, action to implement the proposal shall be taken by the Prime Minister, the Minister of External Affairs, or the Cabinet of the Regional Government, as appropriate in the circumstances.

E. Provisions for the establishment of embassies, consulates, and interest sections by treaty or agreement shall be established in the North Pacific Legal Code. Such provisions of law may provide for establishment of consulates or interest sections on request of another region or multi-regional organization, but no embassy may be established except by a formal treaty or agreement that is subject to approval by referendum as provided in this Section.

F.  Negotiators can reject any proposal deemed unsuitable, before it is presented for vote (should that be required.)
Click to expand...
 
Fedele posted:

I like this. Gives the minister more control over their ministry. The people didn't vote them into that position because they didn't trust their judgement.
 
Roman posted:

There is a certain merit to giving the minister an increased level of autonomy - it tends to cause a devolution, or rather a further distribution of authority withing the government itself. Devolution and distribution of power is good, IMHO, for the most part.

On the whole, giving the minister more autonomy has no constitutional remifications at all considering all treaties, etc., would still be approved in the normal way.

Romanoffia
 
GoalVA posted:

Just out of curiousity, what is the procedure for bringing this to a vote?

It's been a while since anyone replied.
 
(I posted)

I have a feeling people are gone for Thanksgiving -- err, those of us in the US.. Except for me.

The usual procedure (and tehre's usually more debate than this) is that, once debate has come to what seems to be a close, then the Speaker schedules the vote.

Goal, if you agree with this, I would like to schedule this for a vote in early December. That is probably the time when most people will be around -- back from THanksgiving for those of us in the US, but not yet Christmas (or any other religious or secular holiday one celebrates instead).

At the same time, this is really last call for comments (ie, within the next few days I will be moving on this
 
Grosse posted:

I have serious reservations that military defense treaties would not be approved by the registered voters at a referendum.

It could create a circumstance where a Cabinet majority could put the region into an military arrangement early in the three month term and implement it with military action without any input or support of the majority of registered voters. The engagement would not violate the provision as written, but could easily go against the majority view of the region as a while without any meaningful input or recourse.

That is a dangerous effect of this proposal as it is currently written.
 
LL posted:

If it goes before the RA, I am fine with it. If there is no citizen imput...then I doubt it will get my vote.
 
Grosseschnauzer:
It could create a circumstance where a Cabinet majority could put the region into an military arrangement early in the three month term and implement it with military action without any input or support of the majority of registered voters. The engagement would not violate the provision as written, but could easily go against the majority view of the region as a while without any meaningful input or recourse.
Click to expand...
Hm.. This perhaps warrants some thought.

Should there be exceptions to the proposal for military-related pacts?
 
Polts posted:

I believe the cabinet decision is for Mutual Defense Pacts whereas a referendum is required for a full military alliance!!
 
Goal VA posted:

Indeed, once a military agreement moves from one of mutual defence to something that would effect the region as a whole, such as an alliance or entente, then I whole heartedly agree that a referendum should be made.

This is what I have attempted to highlight in my proposal. Any documents that would force the region to act militarily in anyway (other than to defend a specific friend) should be given to the registered voters for consideration.

Yes, the cabinet could negotitate a defence pact with a region early in their term, and the most that would happen is that the NPA would have to defend our friend should they run into issues. The NPA would probably do this regardless of a pact, so I personally believe they hold no power other than that of symbolic friendship; Hence why I give little importance to them. I also realise that many hold them in higher regard, which is why I believe that a full cabinet vote should be made to create, edit or remove them.

This is not about removing power from the electorate, but more about allowing expediency in foreign affairs for our region.
 
Grosse psoted:

A mutual defense pact still involves the potential of the use of the forces of TNP, and thus, such agreements should remain among those approved by the voters of the region.

The constitution clearly recognizes there can be a need for an expedited action, first by a shortened voting period (5 days as opposed to 7) and second, that the use of the NPA in such circumstances can be approved by the security council. There is still no sound policy reason in my view to remove the approval of the registered voters from the process, and the circumstance I described in my previous post is still a dangerous situation with respect to showing respect for the views of the majority of registered voters of the region.
 
Haor Chall posted:

Grosseschnauzer:
A mutual defense pact still involves the potential of the use of the forces of TNP, and thus, such agreements should remain among those approved by the voters of the region.

The constitution clearly recognizes there can be a need for an expedited action, first by a shortened voting period (5 days as opposed to 7) and second, that the use of the NPA in such circumstances can be approved by the security council. There is still no sound policy reason in my view to remove the approval of the registered voters from the process, and the circumstance I described in my previous post is still a dangerous situation with respect to showing respect for the views of the majority of registered voters of the region.
Click to expand...

But the NPA goes around doing whatever it likes anyway, it defends regions with which we have no diplomatic relations and no pacts/alliances/whatever. There is no oversight or say from the citizenry about where or what the NPA defends so I don't understand why there is such an issue over this anyway. Personally I don't like Mutual Defense Pacts at all anyway but as a compromise perhaps defensive pacts can be voted on by the RA with full alliances then voted on by all the RV's in referendum.
 
GoalVA posted:

I do kinda agree with you HC, but I still feel that an RA vote can take too long.

You know as well as I the danger of taking too long in matters such as these, especially when dealing with other regions who are alien to our system of governance.

I've attempted to find a middle ground between expediency and electorate participation.

That said, of course I'd be willing to modify the amendment if the majority supported an RA vote.

Grosse, HC raises a very good point that the NPA does what the hell it wants anyway. The citizenship have shown no interest in accountability of the NPA's actions before now, so I don't see why this amendment would make any difference to them. You have to realise that many of our voters may not be in full possesion of the facts when asked to vote, or may simply vote based on their prejudice. There are no checks and balances with a referendum, no neccesity to be unbiased or fair in your actions. These are the sort of things that I'd hope our citizens would want in our External Affairs. As an executor, I am bound to make the right decision for the region, and if the citizens do not believe that I have done so, then I can be subject to investigation. I think that this should prevent any abuse of the system: I, personally, am really against the idea of foreign policy by mob rule which we create potential for with a referendum.

Perhaps I could ask why you are so against representation in our foreign affairs? It might give me a clearer picture of your issues with my amendment?





p.s. HC, I don't like MDPs either, but the chances are that we may need to utilise them one day, so we might as well prepare for that eventuality.

**edit - Grammar.
 
Heft posted:

Mutual Defense Pacts aren't something we would enter into lightly, and most regions that we would even consider entering into one with are regions that, as someone said above, we would defend anyway. Also, there's little chance of us getting invaded (at least not successfully), and if a delegate goes rogue here there's little chance that a MDP would save us (and I'd like to think that most regions would help us anyway).

And, yes, the NPA does do pretty much whatever we want, with little oversight, but we're not running around doing whatever we feel like. I recognize that, after Goal and Polts, my role as Minister of Defense makes me one of our regions most public ambassadors to the NS World. I recognize that my actions, and those of the NPA, directly reflect on TNP as a whole. Given this responsibility, I'm not about to do anything stupid or let the NPA do something that will damage TNP's reputation.

As Goal and, to a lesser extent, Poltsamaa can attest, I've certainly not been acting unilaterally. I've been consulting with Goal on a number of things, and will continue to. I also doubt that this Cabinet would, even if we did have the power, do something that went against the will of the majority of the region. After all, you can simply vote us out of office if you disagree with our actions (assuming we run for another term).
 
Well if there are no further comments and since the deadline is upcoming (Dec 7), I will schedule this for a vote starting on Friday, Dec. 9
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top