Proposed Constitutional Amendment

Grosseschnauzer

Grosseschnauzer

TNPer
In view of the inadverent problem that has arisen as a result of two inconsistent constitutional amendments affecting the provisions of the Constitution governing "Political, Diplomatic and Military Relationships With Other Regions", I hereby propose the following amendment to the constitution to address the inconsistency and to clarify the language of that section in view of the votes of the Regional Assembly on both previous amendments. The italicized language is included in this proposal as clarifications of the language originally included in the embassy documents proposal.


A Proposal for a Constitutional Amendment

Whereas, recent amendments have been enacted to the Constitution of The North Pacific concerning Embassy Documents and concerning the merger of registered voters into the membership of the Regional Assembly that inadvertently contain inconsistent language to the same provision of the Constitution, and
Whereas, there are minor technical corrections required as a result of the amendment to the Constitution of The North Pacific concerning the merger of registered voters into the membership of the Regional Assembly,

BE IT ENACTED BY THE NATIONS OF THE NORTH PACIFIC:

Section 1. The title of Article II of the Constitution is hereby amended to read: "Membership and Registered Voting Registration."

Section 2. The title of Article II, Section 2 of the Constitution is hereby amended to read: "Registered Voting Registration."

Section 3. Article II Section 4 Clause B of the Constitution (as amended by the amendment that merges registered voters into the regional assembly) is amended to read:

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 submit a proposal to accede to or withdraw from any agreement or treaty relationship with another region, or multi-regional organization, create, change or remove basic military or defense 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) or other interregional agreements, conventions, or treaties must be submitted to the Speaker for approval of such proposed action by a majority of the Regional Assembly 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.

Section 4. This amendment shall take effect upon ratification.
Click to expand...
 
Excellent. Seems to keep the idea of the original MoEA amendment, clears the convention business up, and makes some needed nip/tucks to elsewhere. No probs as far as I'm concerned.
 
Aside from finding it strange that military and defense treaties don't require the approval of the Regional Assembly (except full alliances) but other, purely diplomatic, treaties and the like do (That seems a little arse about face to me), I guess it isn't too bad. I still don't understand why this is all necessary though.

Also, unless it is in another part of the Constitution/Legal Code, where does this leave us with Embassy Agreements?
 
The original Embassy documents legislation (as TNP Law 12) included both amendments to the Constitution and to the Legal Code (TNP Law 9).


This proposal is designed to address the problems created by the amendment that merged the RVs into the RA which was well along the legislative process at the time the Embassy document proposal was ratified. The Legal Code provisions concerning the embassy documents are unchanged from what was adopted with that constitutional amendment, it just clarifies that original proposal. This proposal does not mention the Legal Code because there are no changes to those statutory provisions that the original Embassy Documents legislation added. There are some references to "registered voters" than need to be corrected, but at this point, that should be done with a separate bill.
 
Haor Chall:
Aside from finding it strange that military and defense treaties don't require the approval of the Regional Assembly (except full alliances) but other, purely diplomatic, treaties and the like do (That seems a little arse about face to me), I guess it isn't too bad. I still don't understand why this is all necessary though.

Also, unless it is in another part of the Constitution/Legal Code, where does this leave us with Embassy Agreements?
Click to expand...
Hey, you have to give the executive branch some executive powers! ;)

Aside from that, the clarification looks good to me.
 
Roman, if you go back to the language of my proposal in the first post and check for the words in italics, you'll see that I am proposing the addition of those few words to clarify the original language added or changed by the original Embassy Documents amendment.

These proposed additional words are designed to make clear what the intention of the original amendment is, and address the problem presented by a convention on defender-invader conduct as to how such diplomatic agreements are to be approved in TNP.

The language of this section after the two amendments that have been adopted created a gap that did not exist when the current revision of the Constitution was adopted in July.

Hope that helps.
 
That's exactly how I interpreted the amendment. I was just wondering what HC was driving at as I can't see anything wrong with the proposed amendment at all.

Thanks
 
Grosseschnauzer has also omitted a few words as well as added a few, which is perhaps the more key changes. There are two main problems I have, the first being to do with the way that this ammendment (at least for the MoEA bit) came about.

Secondly, and more importantly, I find it nonsensical that the Cabinet can decide on something like a mutual defense pact whilst something as trivial as a Embassy Agreement would (with this ammendment) have to go through the RA. It just seems plain daft, not to mention the fact that it works entirely against the reason for the original ammendment.
 
Hoar Chall, the changes you are concerned abour are already incorporated into the Constitution, and thus, this proposal does not require that they be stated again. And yhis proposal only addresses the issue that arose in paragraph B of Article II Section 4 of the Constitution, and there was no reason to address the text of TNP Law 9 as amended by TNP Law 12. I'm quoting both of them so you can point out where you believe something is being omitted. The only struck language in my proposal was the exact same sentence that was changed in the original embassy document proposal and that wasreinserted by the RA/RV merger agreement.


Article II Section 4:
Section 4. Political, Diplomatic and Military Relationships With Other Regions.

Editoral note: Clauses B and E were amended, and Clause F was added by a constitutional amendment adopted by a vote of the Regional Assembly, 9 January to 16 January 2006. The measure also amended portions of TNP Law 9.

A - The North Pacific may establish and maintain appropriate political, diplomatic, or military relationships with other regions in NationStates, in accordance with provisions enacted as part of the North Pacific Legal Code.
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 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 Regional Assembly 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.
C - Provisions for the establishment of a commonwealth relationship, a protectorate relationship, a colony relationship or other political relationships with other regions by treaty or agreement shall be established in the North Pacific Legal Code. A treaty or agreement that provides for establishment of a commonwealth relationship shall expressly provide for the rights of nations of the other region to acquire full and equal citizenship and Regional Assembly Membership in The North Pacific under the provisions of this Constitution.
D - Provisions for military alliances, military co-operation, and joint military operations by treaty or agreement shall be established in the North Pacific Legal Code. Such provisions may provide for approval of deployments by the Security Council in appropriate circumstances as provided by law.
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.
F. Negotiators can reject any proposal deemed unsuitable, before it is presented for vote (should that be required.)
Editorial note: This section was amended by a constitutional amendment merging registered voters into the Regional Assembly adopted 26 February - 6 March 2006.
Click to expand...

TNP Legal Code:
TNP LAW 9
Ministry of External Affairs

Section 1. External Affairs Forum and Diplomatic Corps.
A - The Minister of External Affairs has full organizational control of the External Affairs Category and the Diplomatic Corps. The Minister (or chosen Deputy) is required to update the List of Diplomatic Corps. members, monthly.
B - Diplomatic Corps. Members are required to be Registered Voters.

Section 2. Embassies, Consulates, and Interest Sections.
A - The Minister of External Affairs (MoEA) shall require every other region seeking an embassy in The North Pacific to compose a document stipulating the specifics of any diplomatic, political, and military relationships between the regions.
B - Reseerved. Editorial Note: The former text of this Clause B was repealed by TNP Law 12.
C - Should there be any embassies that The North Pacific has not yet accepted due to changes in this law, the embassy will remain, but any document specifying the relations between regions is not binding until amendments to the treaty or agreement have been approved by both regions in accordance with this Law. The status of all embassies must be updated monthly by the Ministry of External Affairs.
D - The MoEA or deputy may close the Embassy of any region if (1) the regional government of that region that requested the embassy no longer exists, (2) the region is deleted at NationStates, (3) the region violates the specified rules in the embassy document, (4) the Regional Assembly votes to close the embassy, or (5) no document specifying the relations between regions exists.
E - Consulates do not require any Alliance/Treaty/Agreement document, but must post within their consulate at the official Regional off-site forum this agreement:
I, member name , representing the region name, do hereby understand that this consulate in no way forces The North Pacific into any Military or Political Alliance or relationship.  I understand that this consulate may be closed at anytime by the Minister of External Affairs for whatever reason.  I hereby pledge to follow the rules and regulations of this forum.
Click to expand...
F - Any consulate may be upgraded to an embassy by requesting an embassy and fulfilling the requirements of Clauses A and B of this section concerning embassies.
G - Interest Sections do not require any Alliance/Treaty/Agreement documents, and may be established by a region having an embassy or a consulate to represent the interests of some other region that does not currently maintain diplomatic, political or military relationship with The North Pacific. Establishment of a Interest Section does not create a diplomatic, political or military relationship, but merely facilitates the ability of the region hosting the Interest Section in its Embassy or Consulate to represent the interest of some other region.
H - The Minister of External Affairs or the Prime Minister may withdraw the region from a treaty should the terms be breached. Editorial Note: Clause H was amended by TNP Law 12.

Section 3. Military Relations
A - Any Military Alliance/Treaty/Agreement documents that provide for a military relationship must first be approved by the Minister of Defense, who then informs the Prime Minister of his or her acceptance or rejection of the document. Such documents may provide for military alliances, military co-operation, and joint military operations.
B - Should the treaty or agreement document be rejected, due to security reasons, the MoD must inform the Security Council of his or her action. The Security Council may review the matter.
C - Should the document be accepted by the MoD, with or without a review by the Security Council, the Prime Minister shall submit the document to the Speaker for submission to the registered voters for ratification or rejection.
D - Documents concerning military relations must be posted in the embassy of the appropriate region or organization within the official Regional off site forum once it is ratified by the Regional Assembly.
E - When a treaty or other agreement does not authorize specific military deployments by its terms, the Security Council may approve deployments in appropriate circumstances not specified in such treaty or other agreement.
F - The Minister of External Affairs or the Prime Minister may 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.

Section 4. Political Relations.
A - The Prime Minister, with the advice of the members of the Cabinet, may negotiate and conclude treaties and other agreements concerning political relationships with other regions.
B - A treaty is required for the establishment of a commonwealth relationship, a protectorate relationship, in which another region will accede to becoming a commonwealth, protectorate, or colony of The North Pacific.
C - No treaty or other agreement may provide for a political relationship in which The North Pacific would assume the status of a commonwealth, protectorate, or colony of some other region.
D - Other political agreements may be negotiated that provide for the creation of other forms of political relationships with other regions.
E - A treaty that provides for establishment of a commonwealth relationship shall expressly provide for the rights of nations of the other region to acquire full and equal citizenship and registered voter status in The North Pacific under the provisions of this Constitution.
F - The Minister of External Affairs or the Prime Minister may 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.

Section 5. Multi-Regional Organizations.
A - The provisions of this law may be applied to Treaties or Agreements between The North Pacific with Multi-Regional Organizations.
Click to expand...
 
That was only part of it, although I am pleased to see that I was incorrect with regards to Embassy documents. Again, I find it strange that it seems ok for the Cabinet to be able to sign a mutual defense pact with the RLA, whilst ratifying the invader/defender convention requires the RA to agree. In terms of their importance and their effect on our actions it just seems a trifle odd.


Effectively I'd much rather see it this way round:

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 submit a proposal to accede to or withdraw from any agreement or treaty relationship with another region, or multi-regional organization, create, change or remove basic diplomatic treaties or agreements. The creation, change or removal of other interregional agreements, conventions, or basic military treaties, short of a binding mutual defense pact, must have the support of a majority vote by the cabinet. Proposals for the creation, change or removal of any documents dealing with mutual defense pacts, alliances or ententes (as in a coalition) must be submitted to the Speaker for approval of such proposed action by a majority of the Regional Assembly 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.
Click to expand...
 
I would not support the change you are proposing, Haor Chall. I believe that the intent of the original amendment as to routine Embassy Documents (and lesser forms of Military Agreements based on the content of the original proposal) was to remove those categories and only those categpries from a vote by the Regional Assembly.

I'm not willing to make a substantive change using this Amendment proposal. I believe the proposal as I submitted it fairly reflects what the Regional Assembly agreed to, and I'm not willing to seek in a change that would virtually eliminate any participation by the Regional Assembly in such decisions; it goes against a governmental system that the Constitutional system which under Clause 9 of the Declaration of Rights:
Each Nation in The North Pacific is guaranteed the organization and operation of the governmental authorities of the region on fundamental principles of democracy, accountability, and transparency.
Click to expand...
 
I have a problem with this because it includes any type of interregional agreements or conventions and is not limited to military agreements:

Haor Chall:
The creation, change or removal of other interregional agreements, conventions, or basic military treaties, short of a binding mutual defense pact, must have the support of a majority vote by the cabinet.
Click to expand...

I still think what you are suggesting is a substantive change that goes beyond the original embassy documents proposal as adopted of the Regional Assembly, and goes beyond an amendment that is intended to make technical corrections and clarifications.
 
Ideally, it should be the executive branch that arranges for treaties, etc., and the RA that approves/ratifies those treaties.
 
Grosseschnauzer:
I have a problem with this because it includes any type of interregional agreements or conventions and is not limited to military agreements:

Haor Chall:
The creation, change or removal of other interregional agreements, conventions, or basic military treaties, short of a binding mutual defense pact, must have the support of a majority vote by the cabinet.
Click to expand...

I still think what you are suggesting is a substantive change that goes beyond the original embassy documents proposal as adopted of the Regional Assembly, and goes beyond an amendment that is intended to make technical corrections and clarifications.
Click to expand...

Well, I guess I'm not going to stop you if you want to give more power to the Cabinet. I just can't understand why you seem to think that the Cabinet should be able to pass a binding mutual defense pact with any other region(s) but can't (for example) sign a simple diplomatic agreement with no binding obligations which is little more than a statement of friendship and a goodwill type gesture.

Because that is what you seem to be suggesting to me and it really does seem upside down, back to front, arse about face, or whatever you want to call it. But if thats the way people want to do things then that is that.
 
For what it's worth, HC, I get the same impression you do from this proposal.

However, I should add, I've been against the concept of a TNP constitution since about Feb. 2005, questioned its utility and neccessity at the constitutional convention last summer and currently believe it does more to stifle this region than anything.

There is democracy in this region because the people (with the co-operation of the delegate) want it, not because of some document few read and fewer understand.

That said, I'll keep my nose out of future constitutional discussions and leave it to those that value this aspect of NS gameplay. While I may disagree with the end result, I do respect the amount of work put in by the people involved.

I apologize for straying off-topic.
 
Well, I guess I'm not going to stop you if you want to give more power to the Cabinet. I just can't understand why you seem to think that the Cabinet should be able to pass a binding mutual defense pact with any other region(s) but can't (for example) sign a simple diplomatic agreement with no binding obligations which is little more than a statement of friendship and a goodwill type gesture.
Click to expand...

I'm still trying to figure out why you think not including your proposal would increase power to the Cabinet, because the way I read what you suggested, the Cabinet would have virtually unfettered voting on nearly all diplomatic, military and political treaties and agreements without involvement of the regional assembly.

Keep in mind that the amendment I am proposing here only deal with one part of the Embassy Documents proposal. All of the remaining portions were not affected by the RA merger amendment, and therefore, do not require inclusion in this proposal.

In general, as I understand Article II Section 4 as a whole and TNP Law 4, embassy and consulate agreements, and a defined scope (but not all) military agreements would not require RA approval. Everything else would require a vote of the RA. As I understand the change you suggested, it would remove almost all diplomatic, military and other agreements from being subject to an RA vote.
 
No, it wouldn't. It would allow the RA to vote on pretty much all military and defense treaties- since I'm hard pressed to think of any military treaty which are lesser than a mutual defense pact. Sure it allows the cabinet to vote on most (but not necessarily all) diplomatic treaties- but those are the ones with the least direct impact or don't bind TNP to some overseas commitment. I don't understand why this is so difficult to comprehend.
 
The provision that permits an RA vote is Section 3 of TNP Law 9, which implements the military aspect of Article II, Section 4 of the Constitution.

TNP Law 9:
Section 3. Military Relations
A - Any Military Alliance/Treaty/Agreement documents that provide for a military relationship must first be approved by the Minister of Defense, who then informs the Prime Minister of his or her acceptance or rejection of the document. Such documents may provide for military alliances, military co-operation, and joint military operations.
B - Should the treaty or agreement document be rejected, due to security reasons, the MoD must inform the Security Council of his or her action. The Security Council may review the matter.
C - Should the document be accepted by the MoD, with or without a review by the Security Council, the Prime Minister shall submit the document to the Speaker for submission to the registered voters for ratification or rejection.
D - Documents concerning military relations must be posted in the embassy of the appropriate region or organization within the official Regional off site forum once it is ratified by the Regional Assembly.
E - When a treaty or other agreement does not authorize specific military deployments by its terms, the Security Council may approve deployments in appropriate circumstances not specified in such treaty or other agreement.
F - The Minister of External Affairs or the Prime Minister may 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.
Click to expand...

If a change is needed, then a bill to amend that part of TNP Law 9 is what is required. Since the objective of this particular proposal to amend the Constitution is to fix and clarify the two recently adopted constitutional amendments, changes to Laws currently in the Legal Code is a distinct issue. You are certainly free to propose a bill that further amends TNP Law 9 if you believe that is an appropriate course.
 
OK, forget my first post on this.

The amendment that was voted through in January, and should be present in the consitution is:
Article II, Section 4

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 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.

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

Now this was changed by mistake due to the RA merger going through at the same time. However, we have already voted on and accepted this amendment. Aside from one mention of the RV (bolded), there is nothing wrong with this amendment. All it needs is RV changed to RA and its fine.

The original amendment allows:
  • the MoEA or PM to sign embassy agreements,

  • requires cabinet approval for military agreements,

  • and requires a referendum for an alliance. Which is what was voted for 2 months ago.


The amendment presented here changes that.
  • The MoEA or PM is allowed to sign military or defense treaties,

  • the cabinet is still required to sign mutual defense pacts (although what defense agreements the MoEA would sign that aren't mutual defense one I don't know...),

  • but the RA is required to vote on everything else. Every embassy request will have to go through the RA. Which is exactly what we changed back in January.


If anything this means the MoEA could sign us up to wars without us knowing, probably because the RA is too busy voting on embassy agreements to notice.

The amendment present seems to have arrived as a direct result of the Invader/Defend convention. If this is the case, then add a section to point this towards the RA. Don't change the entire meaning of an amendment we only voted in two months ago because of one event. A simple change of one sentence:

Proposals for the creation, change or removal of any documents dealing with alliances, ententes (as in a coalition), or inter-regional convention agreements must be submitted to the Speaker for approval of such proposed action by a majority of the Regional Assembly in a referendum with a quorum participating.
Click to expand...

...covers that eventuality and removes the RV mention, while preserving the intent of the orginal amendment.

Sorry if I seem a bit emotive, but I know the pains that went into getting that amendment passed the first time round (and indeed the second), I wouldn't want it to be lost.
 
At the moment, I am pressed for time due to RL demands, but I have to point out to Nam that the RA merger amendment inadvertently reinstated the original language of the section as it read before the Embassy Documents amendment. I'll take another look at this issue when I have some other things out of the way.

But I will point out that the only part of the original proposal that was undone by the RA merger agreement is the one paragraph my original post mention. The other changes made ny the Embassy Documents proposal in the Constitution and the provisions of the Legal Code were not affected by this problem.

(OOC: Since October I have been the family member on the scebe dealing with my sister's deteriorating health. She had a series of strokes since October, and it has been aggravated by a diagnoses of advanced stage 4 (terminal) cancer that has metasized.) It is untreatablle. I've had plans for quite a while to go back to law school to get my second (graduate) degree in law so I can go into teaching full-time, and the deadlines to get the paperwork in is rapidly approaching. So that and the other RL problems created by my sister's terminal illness take priority. end of OOC).
 
Nanyeknom:
Let's work through how this problem in Article II Section 4 Clause B developed step by step:
As approved last July, Clause B read:
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 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.
Click to expand...

After the Embassy Document package was approved, Clause B then read:
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 submit a proposal to accede to or withdraw from any agreement or treaty relationship with another region, or multi-regional organization, 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 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.
Click to expand...

The way the RA merger amendment was drafted and adopted, it followed the original Clause B, but changed references to registered voters in the original Clause B to the Regional Assembly. Because of the language used in that amendment, the base language of Clause B shown in the RA merger proposal had the inadvertent effect of reinstating the original language of clause B with the only tbe one change in the reference to registered voters to the Regional Assembly:
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 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 votersRegional Assembly 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.
Click to expand...

What I am proposing is to reinstate the original Embassy Documents language with exactly two clarafications. The first makes clear that the acceptance or withdrawal from basic embassy and military treaties rest with the MoEA and the PM, which, as I understand it, was the real point of the original embassy document proposal, and that military agreements would be subject to Cabinet approval. The second clarification deals with a category of diplomatic agreements that the original Embassy Documents proposal did not deal with....international agreements that create laws on conduct by nations and regions. Before the original Embassy Documents proposal, the language of Clause B was universal, and thus, by implication, that previously undescribed class would have been covered. The second clarification I am proposing is intended to address that category by leaving approval of such documents to the Regional Assembly, which clearly would have been the course that would have existed under the Constitution prior to the original Embassy Document legislation.

Since there seems to be some feeling that the clarifications may not have the intended effect. let me propose this as Section 3 of this proposed amendment which concerns
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 submit a proposal to accede to or withdraw from any agreement or treaty relationship with another region, or multi-regional organization, create, change or remove basic military or defense 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) or other types of interregional agreements, conventions, or treaties that do not involve Embassy status or military activity must be submitted to the Speaker for approval of such proposed action by a majority of the Regional Assembly 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.
Click to expand...

Can we at least agreement that the question comes down to the lanhuahe in green? I want to make sure that what I understood as the intent of the Embassy document oackage, i.e., to remove agreements on embassies, consultates, interest section, and less formal military agreements from votes in the regional assembly, and to keep votes on all other interregional and muli-regional agreements with the Regional Assembly.
 
Grosseschnauzer, you really don't make any sense. Or perhaps its me. Anyway, you seem to be contradicting yourself here. You are talking about the MoEA and PM passing basic military treaties- even though you brought up the relevant part of the Legal Code regarding military treaties when I mentioned giving more of that power to the RA.

I really don't understand the way you're approaching this, to be honest, as it makes little sense to me at all and so far all I might probably have acheived more by banging my head against the nearest wall. However, if you really want to give the Cabinet the ability to vote the region into wars, whilst the Regional Assembly votes on hugs and kisses treaties then thats fine. However, it seems incredibly stupid to me.

Firstly, let me explain. The original ammendment just said "basic treaties" for some reason you think that should be basic "military and defense" treaties (short of a MDP). Two things, firstly- as has already been mentioned a few times- there aren't really many such treaties. I can think of possibly two that might fall in that catagory but it's a slightly grey area. For whatever reason, you completely leave out any other sort of 'basic' treaty in the diplomatic arena (which, you might think is sort of the area of the MoEA)- the "hugs and kisses" treaties I mentioned before (like our embassy agreements essentially are- but not necessarily based around embassies but similar ideas- whether the new Lion-Star Pact falls under this or is a "basic military treaty" I'm not too sure, which is part of the problem I'm talking about). Which is why, if we're going to clarify that passage I think it should read "basic military or diplomatic treaties."

With that sorted, I don't have so much of a complaint with the second change. Perhaps the wording below might be better or something similar in legalese.

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 submit a proposal to accede to or withdraw from any agreement or treaty relationship with another region, or multi-regional organization, create, change or remove basic military or diplomatic 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 coalitions) or other types of interregional agreements, conventions, or treaties that effect regional law must be submitted to the Speaker for approval of such proposed action by a majority of the Regional Assembly 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.
Click to expand...
 
Ahhh, I think we might all have been aiming at the same thing, but misinterpreting what each other meant... :duh:

Yeah, all thats good. I'm still not sure about the basic military treaty idea, but as long as the intention of the original embassy document are kept, and the provision for convention agreements is added, I'm happy.

:D

Apologies for going off on one, when in fact, I was pretty agreeing with what had been said... :blush:
 
Yup, I agree with you. Personally it could be changed to simply "basic diplomatic treaties" (I'm guessing thats sort of what you're suggesting). Which would, as per the later wording, add those "basic military treaties" (whatever they are) to Cabinet vote. Perhaps that would be better.
 
Time to re-set:

A Proposal for a Constitutional Amendment

Whereas, recent amendments have been enacted to the Constitution of The North Pacific concerning Embassy Documents and concerning the merger of registered voters into the membership of the Regional Assembly that inadvertently contain inconsistent language to the same provision of the Constitution, and
Whereas, there are minor technical corrections required as a result of the amendment to the Constitution of The North Pacific concerning the merger of registered voters into the membership of the Regional Assembly,

BE IT ENACTED BY THE NATIONS OF THE NORTH PACIFIC:

Section 1. The title of Article II of the Constitution is hereby amended to read: "Membership and Registered Voting Registration."

Section 2. The title of Article II, Section 2 of the Constitution is hereby amended to read: "Registered Voting Registration."

Section 3. Article II Section 4 Clause B of the Constitution (as amended by the amendment that merges registered voters into the regional assembly) is amended to read:

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 submit a proposal to accede to or withdraw from any agreement or treaty relationship with another region, or multi-regional organization, create, change or remove basic military or diplomatic treaties as defined by law. 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 coalitions) or other types of interregional agreements, conventions, or treaties that affect regional law must be submitted to the Speaker for approval of such proposed action by a majority of the Regional Assembly 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.
Click to expand...

Section 4. This amendment shall take effect upon ratification.
Click to expand...

Hoar Chall, I can accept your version of the correction/clarification of Article II Section 4 Clause B in Section 3 of the amendment if we can also require that laws be adopted that defines what are and are not "basic" military or diplomatic treaties and agreements. The Embassy Agreements and Consulate Agreements are already designated by law, so those won't need to be enacted again.

But I think that, in the long run, there needs to be a way to say what are basic military documents that can be approved by the Cabinet without a Regional Assembly vote, as well as what are not "basic" military or diplomatic documents that have to be voted on by the Regional Assembly. Is that a fair compromise?

I will also point out for the record, that the constitutional language does not limit who can initiate an agreement on a political relationship between TNP and others, and I think that is appropriate at this point. The Constitution and the Legal Code already provide some guidance (commonwealth, colony and protectorate relationships are "political relationships") and there may be various ways such agreements, as well as international or interregional conventions, might originate.
 
Then this is the final text of the proposal that is now ready for formal submission as a Constitutional Amendment:


A Proposal for a Constitutional Amendment

Whereas, recent amendments have been enacted to the Constitution of The North Pacific concerning Embassy Documents and concerning the merger of registered voters into the membership of the Regional Assembly that inadvertently contain inconsistent language to the same provision of the Constitution, and
Whereas, there are minor technical corrections required as a result of the amendment to the Constitution of The North Pacific concerning the merger of registered voters into the membership of the Regional Assembly,

BE IT ENACTED BY THE NATIONS OF THE NORTH PACIFIC:

Section 1. The title of Article II of the Constitution is hereby amended to read: "Membership and Registered Voting Registration."

Section 2. The title of Article II, Section 2 of the Constitution is hereby amended to read: "Registered Voting Registration."

Section 3. Article II Section 4 Clause B of the Constitution (as amended by the amendment that merges registered voters into the regional assembly) is amended to read:

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 submit a proposal to accede to or withdraw from any agreement or treaty relationship with another region, or multi-regional organization, create, change or remove basic military or diplomatic treaties as defined by law. 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 coalitions) or other types of interregional agreements, conventions, or treaties that affect regional law must be submitted to the Speaker for approval of such proposed action by a majority of the Regional Assembly 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.
Click to expand...

Section 4. This amendment shall take effect upon ratification.
Click to expand...
 
I will transfer it to the main forum and start Formal Discussion on it sometime this evening.

A very productive informal discussion on this one, I might add.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top