by Max Barry

Latest Forum Topics

Advertisement

The Thaecian Senate Board

Search

Search

[+] Advanced...

Author:

Region:

Sort:

«12. . .161162163164165166167. . .184185»

I don't particularly like the method of election of the Haut Conseil and Grand Conseillers. I would much prefer it if regions could simply elect the person themselves and then have that be a mere formality in terms of ratification and placement.

Also, Mr. Chairman, I call Altys to the Senate to answer some brief questions. If they cannot, I would ask that they please get in contact with me so we can find an alternative person who could answer my query.

Altys, if you would be so kind as to explain provisions in 2(a) and 2(b), that would be fantastic.

For starters, most of this treaty is just "encouraging" regions to do this, or "discouraging" them from doing that, which while is pretty good in the sense that the treaty doesn't violate National Sovereignty, also means the treaty doesn't actually do anything.

There is a catch though, and I think this is the plan with this whole treaty. While the treaty itself doesn't really force anything upon regions, it has a clause which allows it's little unelected "Conseil" to amend the treaty, forcing regions to either comply or be kicked of the organisation. This is particularly worrying to me in the sense that the project could end up having a say over our internal matters in the long term despite never receiving the approval of our citizens.

Thank you for sponsoring me Mr Senator.

Hulldom wrote:I don't particularly like the method of election of the Haut Conseil and Grand Conseillers. I would much prefer it if regions could simply elect the person themselves and then have that be a mere formality in terms of ratification and placement.

Altys, if you would be so kind as to explain provisions in 2(a) and 2(b), that would be fantastic

Haut Conseillers represent one member region, meaning each region can choose their own way of nominating one. Considering the nature of Consortium (alliance between regions oriented towards interregional matters, so imagine the representative like a substitute to the MoFA or a diplomat to a certain group of regions) however, I would argue it is best if the executive retains control over such action. In the end, whatever the representative says or does would be the MoFA's prerogative (as constitutionally only they and the Prime Minister have any authority over Foreign Affairs). The representative is in no way like the one we used to have to the Regions Assembly, especially considering the fact any sovereignty violation is nonexistent.

As for the Grand Conseillers, they only bear advisory power. Their job is not to represent a region but to assist the Haut Conseil. It is worth noting every grand founder of Consortium (people who have done most of the job in helping make the alliance a thing) are Grand Conseillers.

Cerdenia wrote:For starters, most of this treaty is just "encouraging" regions to do this, or "discouraging" them from doing that, which while is pretty good in the sense that the treaty doesn't violate National Sovereignty, also means the treaty doesn't actually do anything.

That indeed is an issue I've seen The East Pacific's Magisterium (legislature) talk about. The point of the treaty is to be as loose as possible to escape problems akin to regional sovereignty. The idea was that if a region does not contribute it can just leave/get ejected. However, I do agree some clauses could use more coercion (ie having an embassy and relations with each member region, otherwise there is no point for you to be there) when it comes to being enforced.

Cerdenia wrote:There is a catch though, and I think this is the plan with this whole treaty. While the treaty itself doesn't really force anything upon regions, it has a clause that allows its little unelected "Conseil" to amend the treaty, forcing regions to either comply or be kicked of the organisation. This is particularly worrying to me in the sense that the project could end up having a say over our internal matters in the long term despite never receiving the approval of our citizens.

Unelected has been answered above. And yeah I understand the idea, though it also again allows you to just opt-out if you do not like one of the changes. However, maybe changing from a ¾ majority to a unanimous vote could help solve this issue? If one region does not agree (in our case if Thaecia refuses one amendment), the amendment is null.

In any case, this treaty prefers believing in the good faith of the member regions than to force them into something. Now the question would be if the regions themselves would agree or not in such belief.

Levantx

Other Senators have already mentioned some very valid points I completely agree with, so lets try to make this short.

In Article(?) 6b you can read
"[...] I. Member regions shall have a maximum of 8 weeks to make the necessary amendments to their version of the treaty in their respective manners appropriate. II. Member regions that do not amend their version of the treaty shall no longer be considered members after 8 weeks."
Now maybe it is just me, but this line seems to be kind of defeating the purpose of this treaty in quite some occasions. Say we, or any other candidate member, is fine with everything written in the treaty, and decides not to change anything about it, then would that not technically entail they/we are expelled from the treaty after 8 weeks? And even if a region decides to ammend it, then what does this mean for other member regions and what is the role of the Haut Conseil in this occasion? Does it have to vote on an Amendment proposed by a candidate region? Will a change brought by one region mean regions already part of the treaty will have to adapt to it or do they also get a say in this change outside of the Haut Conseil?

Secondly, while technically not necessary to be included in this treaty, something we as a region may not gloss over, is the way our seat in that Haut Conseil is decided. I believe this topic alone deserves it's own debate and possibly legislation, either for this treaty alone or all future treaties alike. Our region's representation must be done right, we all agree on that, so simply saying "Oh it will probably be a diplomat or minister I guess" does not suffice. Due to the untimely debate on our entry of this treaty however, I fear this is a debate that must be held after we have already sent someone to fill up our seat.

Lastly, the topic of how voting in the Haut Conseil works, is slighty questionable. With the way it is written, there seems to be some search for middle ground between a regular majority and unanimity, which resulted in a 3/4 majority. Both other options listed here have positives and negatives, but the current solution feels like an odd choice.

Senators, we have begun voting on the Convention of Lausanne.


THE CONSORTIUM
Convention of Lausanne

1. Establishment
...a. The Consortium is hereby established as an interregional alliance between regions with common interests.
...b. Signatories of this treaty are hereby recognized as member regions of The Consortium.
...c. Founder regions are hereby recognized as The East Pacific, Thaecia, the Free Nations Region, Force, the Kingdom of Great Britain and Alstroemerian Commonwealths.

2. Leadership
...a.The Haut Conseil is hereby established as the Leadership of The Consortium.
......I.The Haut Conseil shall consist of member regions’ representatives, where each member region is granted one seat in the Conseil.
...b.Grand Conseillers are hereby established as advisors to the Conseil.
......I.Grand Conseillers shall be appointed through a simple majority vote of the Haut Conseil.
......II.The seat of Grand Conseiller is permanent unless its occupant resigns or is removed by a ¾ majority of Haut Conseil members for actions taken against the good of Consortium and its member regions.
......III.Grand Conseillers are strictly advisory in nature.

3. Diplomacy
...a.All member regions are hereby encouraged to maintain healthy diplomatic relations between one another.
......I.All member regions are discouraged from actively working against a member region in matters of community, diplomacy, gameplay, and security.
...a.All member regions are required to establish an in-game embassy with The Consortium region.
...a.All member regions are encouraged to participate in events put on by individual member regions as well as the Consortium. This also includes events sponsored by either.

4. Mutual Defence
...a.All member regions of Consortium recognize each individual region’s regional government which came into power through the respective region’s law.
...b.All member regions are encouraged to assist one another in the event of a regional emergency which requires intervention through request of the respective leadership of said affected regions.
...c.All member regions are encouraged to exchange information regarding the safety and security of each region and their individual communities.

5. Application
...a.Prospective member regions shall be required to meet the criteria listed below:
......I.The prospective member region may not be:
.........1.An embassy collector.
.........2.A puppet storage.
.........3.Holders of the tags “fascist” or “totalitarian”.
.........4.Sympathizers to fascist or totalitarian ideologies.
.........5.A politically extremist region.
......II.The prospective member region must have:
.........1.An established Authority in power for at least one month.
............a.The Authority must not be disputed or have been recently disputed.
.........2.A law or agreement establishing a governing authority.
.........3.At least 50 nations.
...b.Should prospective member regions meet the above requirements, the Haut Conseil shall discuss the prospective region and vote to determine if the prospective region may join. The vote must be unanimous for a prospective region to be accepted into Consortium
...c.Once the prospective region has ratified this treaty following their internal procedures, had their application approved, and had met any other provisions as set by the Haut Conseil, such a region shall become a full member region of The Consortium.
...d.The Haut Conseil is empowered to establish further provisions and requirements for prospective regions.

6. Treaty Enactment, Amendment, and Annulment
...a.This Treaty shall be considered in force upon the formal adoption of the treaty by each respective region.
...b.Amendments to the Treaty may be done by the Haut Conseil at any time with a ¾ majority in favor.
......I.Member regions shall have a maximum of 8 weeks to make the necessary amendments to their version of the treaty in their respective manners appropriate.
......II.Member regions that do not amend their version of the treaty shall no longer be considered members after 8 weeks.
...c.A member region may choose to leave the Consortium at any time.
......I.Said Member region is encouraged to give a 1 week advance warning prior to submitting a notice to leave to allow for the Conseil to discuss the matter.
......II.Upon notification, the Member region will no longer be considered a part of Consortium.
.........1.Former Member regions may rejoin the Consortium at any time so long as they follow the requirements laid out in this document.
...d.A member region may be removed from the Consortium at any time.
......I.Said member region shall be kicked after an unanimous vote in the Haut Conseil , not counting the region subject to ejection’s vote.
Read factbook

Levantx

Aye

I thought a lot about this bill, but ultimately I've decided to vote nay.

I was here exactly 1 year and 275 days ago, on this same chamber, when we voted for the Charter of the Regions Assembly. At the time I abstained from voting on the legislation, but I must say the way it turned out would later on made me regret I hadn't opposed it while I could, and would consequently lead to me starting the movement to get Thaecia out of the Regions Assembly.

As it currently stands, this Treaty only brings uncertainty and we don't really know how it will turn out, me and other Senators made a few fair critiques of the legislation, but due to it being a treaty which must be the same across all member regions, ultimately we can't address any of the issues here in this Chamber.

As it currently stands I would rather oppose this now rather than let it pass and regret it later on. NationStates has a history of failed inter-regional projects, and I would rather Thaecia not be a part of another one until I can really trust the organisation.

Abstain

Nay

Abstain.

Abstain

Swearing in of Senators

Congratulations to the two Senators-elect duly chosen by the people of Thaecia! You are now under the gaze of all that reside here! Here's for a solid end to this short term!

Now, to inaugurate you all to this fine establishment, please take the following oath:

"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of Thaecia against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter."

Antenion (TPU)
Dykataar (IND)

- Taungu
Electoral Commissioner of Thaecia

Results:
Aye (1) Hulldom
Nay (3) Ashlawn Cerdenia World Trade
Abstain (3) Cydoni Dendrobium The Helvetic Imperium

The treaty has failed.

I’d first like to welcome our two new Senators Antenion and Dykataar.

Next, I present to the Senate a motion to reduce the House of Commons by 4 seats, to a total of 11, and the Senate by 2 seats, to a total of 7.

Senators, we have begun voting on the above motion.

Aye

NAY

Mr. Chairman are you out of your mind? The people approved a reduction of 4 seats to the House, not 4 seats to the House and 2 to the Senate. This motion should be withdrawn IMMEDIATELY and replaced with the proper motion.

I withdraw my motion and submit a new one to reduce the House of Commons by 4 seats, to a total of 11 seats.

Senators, we have now begun voting on the new motion.

Aye

Antenion (TPU)
Cerdenia (TF)
Cydoni (IND)
Dendrobium (SOL)
Dykataar (IND)
Hulldom (LPT)
The Helvetic Imperium (IND)
World Trade (LPT)

AYE

Dykataar

I will vote Aye reluctantly as I agree with the motion originally put, however I view the reduction of the House as the most pressing concern.

Dykataar

Oath of Office

I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of Thaecia against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter.

With that said do I get to vote in this motion? asking out of politeness, and the fact that it's been more than a year since the last time I've been in this chamber

Dendrobium and Dykataar

Aye

Unless if I remember things wrong, newly sworn in Senators were usually incoprorated immideately into the current matters of the Senate, so feel free to vote I suppose; also welcome ^-^.

Brototh and Dykataar

Dendrobium wrote:Aye

Unless if I remember things wrong, newly sworn in Senators were usually incoprorated immideately into the current matters of the Senate, so feel free to vote I suppose; also welcome ^-^.

Thanks!

My vote is Aye

Dykataar

"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of Thaecia against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter."

Hey guys, thanks for the welcomes. I'm a freshie to NS and Thaecian Politics so bear with me here with the questions. Am I allowed to debate/vote on the current topic (House Reduction) or do I wait?

AYE

Aye!

Mr. Chairman, I present a motion to reduce the Senate by 2 seats, to a total of 7.

«12. . .161162163164165166167. . .184185»

Advertisement