Refining approval of treaties

Grosseschnauzer

Grosseschnauzer

TNPer
A Constitutiional Amendment to clarify the procedure in the Regional Assembly concerning treaties:
Clause 5 of Section 3 of Article II of the Constitution be amended to read as follows:
5. Any agreement or treaty signed with a foreign region or organization must be introduced to the Assembly by the Minister of External Affairs or Delegate or his/her Cabinet designee. The Assembly must approve the agreement or treaty by a two-thirds supermajority vote.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
 
As much as Tresville wanted this to be added to the proposal to clean up the impeachment/recall references in the powers of the RA, this is really a different subject and even I recognize it is more fair to treat it as a separate proposal.

Because the Delegate is not required to have a "Minister of External Affairs" by that title, I'm substituting "Cabinet designee" to conform to the current flexible structure that the Cabinet has.
 
Perhaps you could say instead "The Executive?" Executive Powers are delegated as the Delegate sees fit after all, so that would mean those in the Executive who the Delegate says are authorized to do so.
 
I originally was planning to do just that, but I have a feeling it's too vague. It might imply that literally any member of the Executive could submit a treaty or agreement.

I think the use of "designee" avoids that overly broad language.
 
No. The Delegate establishes who in the Executive can do what.

The Delegate decides how Executive decisions are made. Non-issue.
 
Eluvatar:
No. The Delegate establishes who in the Executive can do what.

The Delegate decides how Executive decisions are made. Non-issue.
Click to expand...
Your starting to make it sound like they are just meaningless puppets, dancing to their masters tune...

Yeah, I'd vote for it.
 
Missed this discussion earlier, sorry.

I voted against because, as a matter of principle, I do not want to see a route whereby the MOEA could be sidelined in treaty discussions. To my mind it should be the MOEA who introduces treaties not (for example) the minister of arts and entertainment.
 
Unfortunately, Flem, constitutionally there is no MoEA. There is no (legal)requirement for the Delegate to have that position (or with that title for that matter), though they probably would. As all Ministers are appointed one would imagine that the Delegate would have an MoEA who they can work well with, so it is unlikely the Delegate would want their Minister of Arts or anything else to be involved in presenting treaties.

Though I appreciate where you are coming from, it does not have any legal standing under the Constitution. When we have appointed cabinet ministers there shouldn't be an issue with this.

Edit:

*pauses*

Which would appear to mean that me and Tres are in agreement on this. Which must be, like, the second time ever... :o
 
Flem, in drafting this I've tried to use language that acknowledges that the Delegate would likely have an appointee that deals with relations with others outside of TNP, nut not givr every member of the Executive that power. (While I realize most people wouldn't read "the Executive" in that way, it remains a possible reading unless lmiting language is used.)

As long as the Delegate has the power to organize the administration of the Executive branch in any manner the Delegate sees fit and with whatever titles they deem appropriate for their administration we're going to have to engage in verbal gymanstics in referring to specific executive functions and positions. AA

And of course, we had to fix the process problem of what the RA is supposed to do when a treaty or agreement is presented to the RA. While many would assunme the RA would vote on it, the COnstitution currently doesn't require a vote, or even state how large a majroty is required to approve it.
 
Gov,

please take a more careful look at what the amendment does. The reference to a MoEA is because, as the Constitution currently stands, there's no such title for that office, rather the Delegate has the right to give it whatever title the Delegate wishes. And in fact, different titles have in fact been used since the current Constitution came into effect.

The Constitution currently doesn't even provide for RA approval of any treaty whatsoever, just that it is to be shown to the RA.
 
Well, the issue appears to be what proportion of majority should be required to approve a treaty or agreement.

Clearly the larger group supported a two-thirds vote, and a minority wanted a simple majority.

It seems to me that an intermediate compromise would be three-fifths (which is 60 percent for those who can't handle fractions. :o )

So I propose that number as a compromise.

A Constitutiional Amendment to clarify the procedure in the Regional Assembly concerning treaties:
Clause 5 of Section 3 of Article II of the Constitution be amended to read as follows:
5. Any agreement or treaty signed with a foreign region or organization must be introduced to the Assembly by the Minister of External Affairs or Delegate or his/her Cabinet designee. The Assembly must approve the agreement or treaty by a three-fifths supermajority vote.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
 
Given that Heft who opposed the earlier proposal has not stated an objection to this revision of the treaty proposal, and no one else has stated an onjection to it, I'd suggest that this might be ready for a vote.
 
Grosseschnauzer:
Given that Heft who opposed the earlier proposal has not stated an objection to this revision of the treaty proposal, and no one else has stated an onjection to it, I'd suggest that this might be ready for a vote.
Click to expand...
I last did the activity check on the 17th and I want to do that then have the last votes before I leave for the holidays. Do I have your permission to do that Grosse, since you were elected with a substantive majority last election... Oh wait...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top