Motion to try PacifEx Economy

I'm not certain who has the authority to approve this transaction, but I figured this would be a good place to start.

I motion that we accept the proposal in wich The Pacific formally offers to purchase the Bank of The North Pacific for the sum of 300,000 Francos which is equivalent to 1,500,000 TNP dollars for a TRIAL PERIOD, during which time we can cancel the agreement without any loss on our part. I think this is a no-risk deal and gives us a chance to at least see if their proposal would work well. This would improve interregional relations and give us a chance to be involved in a working economy.

The trial period would be for two months and renewable if we so desired. Otherwise, our economy would be restored to how it was before the transaction.

Someone correct me if this should be brought elsewhere. If not, I ask for a vote on the motion.

And what about the money?

Monte Ozarka:

And what about the money?

Click to expand...

It would be dealt with by PacifEx. If we didn't like how everything turned out during the trial, we could cancel at any time and we would have all the money we had before. It would be like nothing changed.

New Kervoskia sent me this regarding the handling of the money.

New Kervoskia:

I just wanted to say that PacifEx will in no way dictate how the money will be distributed. We'll sign a "check" to TNP and they can choose to keep it in our vaults or wherever they wish.

-NK

Click to expand...

I'm for it. It may be a good way to mend fences with the NPO following recent events.

Nah. I'd rather not.

Anyway, technically, the RA will have to vote on it.

Haor Chall:

Nah. I'd rather not.

Anyway, technically, the RA will have to vote on it.

Click to expand...

Not necessarily.


I've been talking with Byardkuria lately (and Flem as well a bit) about who 'owns' the Bank, or at least for the purposes of this incident. Below is a statement that's been being worked out, unpolished, in need of de-pompousing, and not-yet-issued.

It is the opinion of this administration, after consultation with legal counsel, that the study commission (and financial matters inherint, of course) constitutes a vested interest of the Third Republic in the continual good management of the Bank. Yet there has not been an imperative for its functioning to be monitored by the government. Free Silver makes Free Men: the Prime Minister holds the money of the people shall continue to belong with the people and so supports the natural caretaker of democracy. As such, the situation referenced is one of negotiations with a foreign government; furthermore, matters relating to or affecting diplomatic, political, financial, or military policy is an inherent power traditionally guarded to the government (or authorized agents of the government) alone. The North Pacific Constitution and Legal Code proscribe many such duties to the Ministry of External Affairs, the Prime Minister being more than a primus inter pares necessary to Cabinet cooperation, but clearly described Head of Government and foreman of the people's affairs. In the situation referenced, whether there is a declared negotiations or not there exists a de facto period of ongoing negotations between the representatives empowered to speak on behalf of His Holiness the Emperor, Bovinus I, and the representatives empowered to speak on behalf of the North Pacific People.


More specifically, this is in reference to Article III, Section 4, Clause F:

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

Click to expand...

If one wanted to intepret it that way one could I suppose. I don't believe that article references financial/economic agreements however. I was going by this:

A - The Regional Assembly shall have the authority to adopt all laws, amendments to this Constitution, or other motions and proposals, except as otherwise expressly delegated in this Constitution to another governmental authority.

Click to expand...

As control of the Bank and the financial institutions of the region are not expressly delegated to any other body or government authority (at least none that have a legal standing) it would obviously fall to the Regional Assembly to decide. However I accept that the point is contestable.

Edit: As a somewhat seperate point, may I suggest that the government consider all alternatives? If we are seriously considering the option of getting someone outside the region to service the economy, should we not consider other options? It may be that there are others out there who might be interested in putting a offer in competition with the PacifEx to ensure that we are getting the best deal possible for TNP.

It doesn't reference financial/economic agreements. As I said, matters of diplomatic/financial/military purpose are reserved to the government, in tradition and inherent necessity of government. As I said, there is a de facto (meaning whether formal or not it is happening, savvy?) period of negotiations going on, and the clause cited refers to the powers of negotiators --in this case, them (the NPO), and whosoever is empowered to speak on behalf of the North Pacific People, that is, the Cabinet and ultimately the Prime Minister.

As stated, I certainly believe the Bank is an asset of the People and should belong to the People always. However, it is not necessary to motion every small bit of discussion before them, and certainly when the Bank ought to remain in the hands of the People. I certainly agree with your final paragraph, that we consider all of our options before us, as I do recognize your previous work regarding such matters as the Bank, and that -the free hand to consider our options- is why this statement is an important point to make.

I think we agree. I was stating that I believe the ultimate decision on whether to accept the proposal lies with the RA. In other words, that I do not think the cabinet can sign us up to this by themselves. Whereas you, as I now understand it, are talking about the negotiations rather than the acceptance which is a different matter entirely and in which case I am in full agreeance with your point. I think.

So should it be brought to the RA for a discussion?

No, the Prime Minister is correct -IMO- that he can reject the proposal before a vote (in the part of the constitution he mentions above). I was stating that the PM/Cabinet could not agree to the proposal without an RA vote, which is somewhat different.

Heh. Looks like someone's using my MoEA get-out clause

Glad to see it put to such good use.

Haor Chall:

I think we agree.

Click to expand...

We do.

I was stating that I believe the ultimate decision on whether to accept the proposal lies with the RA. In other words, that I do not think the cabinet can sign us up to this by themselves.

Click to expand...

I am certainly in agreement with that.

Whereas you, as I now understand it, are talking about the negotiations rather than the acceptance which is a different matter entirely and in which case I am in full agreeance with your point. I think.

Click to expand...

We are.