[PASSED] The Treaty Repeal Amendment

[Gorundu]

Given the recent discussions on the lack of clarity with the threshold for treaty repeals, I think this would be a sensible Constitutional Amendment:

Article 3, Clause 3 of the Constitution is amended to read as follows:

3. The Delegate may negotiate treaties with foreign powers or propose the repeal of existing treaties. No treaty will come into effect or be repealed unless approved by a two-thirds majority vote of the Regional Assembly.

 

[Pallaith]

This is explicitly codifying what I believe is currently the status quo. But since we’ve apparently always repealed treaties with a 2/3 vote and have treated the question of repealing treaties as a thorny one, it’s probably a good idea to revisit this. I say revisit because this has been broached before.

I’m fine with this as written although I would suggest making it clear that repeal must be advanced by the delegate just as the initial treaty vote is, as was discussed in that previous bill.

 

[Gorundu]

I’m fine with this as written although I would suggest making it clear that repeal must be advanced by the delegate just as the initial treaty vote is, as was discussed in that previous bill.

As it seems clear from the previous discussion that most people would prefer a repeal to be advanced by the Delegate, I'm willing to make this change. Would adding "upon request of the Delegate" to the end of the clause work?

 

[Pallaith]

That would work.

 

[St George]

Treaties are approved by a two-thirds vote, I don't see a reason for them to be repealed by anything other than a two-thirds vote.

 

[Gorundu]

I don't particularly care what threshold is adopted - though personally it makes sense to me that entering into a commitment should require more agreement than withdrawing from one.

 

[St George]

I don't particularly care what threshold is adopted - though personally it makes sense to me that entering into a commitment should require more agreement than withdrawing from one.

I think if it was adopted by a two-thirds majority then it should be repealed by a similar requirement.

 

[Comfed]

The threshold for repeal should be two-thirds.

 

[Zyvetskistaahn]

I would be inclined to agree with Pallaith that revoking a treaty should need the involvement of the Delegate, essentially for the reasons set out by COE in the debate linked by Pallaith. I am not overly concerned with the threshold but would say that, if revocation were left to the Assembly alone, I would prefer a two-thirds majority. It is important, to my mind, that our allies can trust that our treaties will be kept to and one or the other (or both) mechanisms to prevent a narrow majority from disturbing them is appropriate to that aim.

 

[mcmasterdonia]

It does raise a question that has come up before, which is essentially that legislation should be repealed the same way it’s passed. By that token, only the Delegate (or their designate) can negotiate and suggest treaties to the assembly. Should it not be the same for repeals?

 

[Hulldom]

It does raise a question that has come up before, which is essentially that legislation should be repealed the same way it’s passed. By that token, only the Delegate (or their designate) can negotiate and suggest treaties to the assembly. Should it not be the same for repeals?

I think it ought to be.

 

[Kaschovia]

A treaty is a sustainable diplomatic commitment rather than a simple change or debate of the law. If a law is adjusted, then the procedure is fairly uniform over time and can be managed internally with no explicit diplomatic effect. Circumstances in interregional relationships depend upon many changing variables for continuity and are much less likely to be changed or revoked than the law. Given the current lack of legal clarity on the procedure for revocation and the involvement of the Delegate in initiating the votes for them, as Pallaith has mentioned, I'm not sold on an equivalent legislative procedure for approval and revocation. I believe we should write into law what is already in practice instead. Do we believe that it falls within the responsibilities of the Delegate to have the required information at the time to make the most informed calls for approval and revocation requests? I'd say so. Discussion with the Regional Assembly will always take place surrounding treaties, so I'm not sure why the Delegate would not be a key figure in taking forward those discussions formally.

 

[Gorundu]

Given the current lack of legal clarity on the procedure for revocation and the involvement of the Delegate in initiating the votes for them, as Pallaith has mentioned, I'm not sold on an equivalent legislative procedure for approval and revocation. I believe we should write into law what is already in practice instead.

So to be clear, what do you think should be the threshold for repealing a treaty? You said you're not sold an on equivalent legislative procedure for approval and repeal, but that is the current practice.

 

[Kaschovia]

So to be clear, what do you think should be the threshold for repealing a treaty? You said you're not sold an on equivalent legislative procedure for approval and repeal, but that is the current practice.

The equivalent legislative procedure comment was a misunderstanding, so my apologies. To clarify, I think it should be codified that the Delegate proposes repeals and that they are confirmed by a two-thirds majority, in line with current practice.

Perhaps: "The Delegate may negotiate treaties with foreign powers or propose the repeal of existing treaties. No treaty will come into effect or be repealed unless approved by a two-thirds majority vote of the Regional Assembly."

 

[Gorundu]

It seems that most would prefer that only the Delegate proposes repeals, but since the voting threshold appears to be an issue of contention, I invite more people to share their thoughts on the issue. Personally I lean towards a simple majority, because I'm not sure treaties should be kept if both the Delegate and a majority of interested citizens believe it shouldn't be. Treaties are built on a foundation of trust, and that trust must have been broken in some way for both the Delegate and a majority of the RA to want it repealed.

 

[Loh]

In my mind I don't see any reason why repeals shouldn't require a two-third vote, in the same way a two-third vote is required to approve them.

 

[Oracle]

The more I think on this, the more I concur that the repeal should require a 2/3rds majority.

 

[Gorundu]

Thanks for bumping this, Oracle. Since most commenters favour a two-thirds vote, I've amended the bill as follows:

Article 3, Clause 3 of the Constitution is amended to read as follows:

3. The Delegate may negotiate treaties with foreign powers or propose the repeal of existing treaties. No treaty will come into effect or be repealed unless approved by a two-thirds majority vote of the Regional Assembly.

Thank you to @Kasch, whose wording I've adopted here. As there is little else to discuss, I move for a vote, Mister Speaker @St George

 

[St George]

Thanks for bumping this, Oracle. Since most commenters favour a two-thirds vote, I've amended the bill as follows:

Thank you to @Kasch, whose wording I've adopted here. As there is little else to discuss, I move for a vote, Mister Speaker @St George

The motion to vote is noted and the proposal is now in formal debate, which shall last 5 days. At the conclusion of formal debate a vote will be scheduled and will last for 7 days.

The Speaker is prepared to allow requests for a truncated formal debate down to 2 days.

 

[St George]

Formal debate is now over, and a vote will begin at (time=1660838400).

 

[Pallaith]

Due to the author’s error in not bringing the actual final version of the amendment to the Speaker, I will be voting against and encourage all of you to do the same. We need to revote on this anyway so we might as well get it right in one go, seems silly to have two subsequent amendments for the same single change.

 

[Fregerson]

I propose that the author bring the actual final version and then we motion for a vote again, so as not to waste time.

 

[Gorundu]

@St George I move for a vote and ask for the formal debate period to be shortened to the minimum length you would permit.

 

[St George]

@St George I move for a vote and ask for the formal debate period to be shortened to the minimum length you would permit.

In this instance I will diverge from the Standing Procedures and schedule a period of formal debate to end in 1 minute time. At which stage a vote will be scheduled and begin.

 

[St George]

This is now at vote