|
Post by Sir Alexandreu Davinescu on Apr 15, 2016 4:34:12 GMT -6
And I'll take a look at the wording very soon. I would suggest that Uc is right about the title, incidentally: two provinces probably can't form a treaty since we're not sovereign entities. That's a power of the Ziu. Why not simply call it an Agreement?
|
|
|
Post by Magniloqueu Épiqeu da Lhiun on Apr 15, 2016 4:44:40 GMT -6
Well, we are sovereign as provinces. German Bundesländer are part of the Federal Republic, but nobody would think to say that they were not sovereign (to a certain extent).
|
|
|
Post by Sir Alexandreu Davinescu on Apr 15, 2016 5:17:35 GMT -6
Fair point. And the OrgLaw does say that the provinces are sovereign in some sense. Hm.
|
|
|
Post by Sir Alexandreu Davinescu on Apr 15, 2016 7:08:49 GMT -6
How about "compact?" Sir Cresti mentioned the idea today, about how that's the way some American states refer to agreements between themselves. Or still just agreement, since that's how German states call them, as with the Rundfunkstaatsvertrag.
|
|
|
Post by Chirbi Scherpa-Carriedo on Apr 15, 2016 7:40:15 GMT -6
Seeing that the title of the proposal is a "Treaty of Union", let me reiterate that I am in no way going to support the merger of the United Province of Vuode-Dandeburg with any other province in the Kingdom. I have outlined several points here, which I hope the M-M Assembly will take into consideration.
|
|
Ian Plätschisch
Senator for Maritiimi-Maxhestic
Posts: 4,001
Talossan Since: 3-21-2015
|
Post by Ian Plätschisch on Apr 15, 2016 8:02:15 GMT -6
Your points are consistent with the current plan. The provinces themselves aren't merging, only the governments
|
|
|
Post by Chirbi Scherpa-Carriedo on Apr 15, 2016 8:12:27 GMT -6
Thank you for clarifying, good s:reu.
However, echoing the question of the Chief of Staff, why not simply call it an agreement?
|
|
Üc R. Tärfâ
Talossan since 3-8-2005
Deputy Fiôván Secretary of State
Posts: 760
|
Post by Üc R. Tärfâ on Apr 15, 2016 9:09:20 GMT -6
Well, we are sovereign as provinces. German Bundesländer are part of the Federal Republic, but nobody would think to say that they were not sovereign (to a certain extent). Fair point. And the OrgLaw does say that the provinces are sovereign in some sense. Hm. Provinces aren't sovereign.
|
|
|
Post by Sir Alexandreu Davinescu on Apr 15, 2016 9:25:49 GMT -6
The Organic Law disagrees, which is why any changes to the "equal sovereignty of a province" must be approved by that province.
Either way, that's pure semantics.
|
|
Üc R. Tärfâ
Talossan since 3-8-2005
Deputy Fiôván Secretary of State
Posts: 760
|
Post by Üc R. Tärfâ on Apr 15, 2016 12:07:38 GMT -6
It's not semantics... It's substance.
Provinces are not sovereign, they partake in Talossa sovereignty in the manner indicated by the Organic Law.
Politic science is something that can't be improvised, like "OrgLaw amendments must be Organic"...
|
|
|
Post by Eðo Grischun on Apr 15, 2016 12:33:35 GMT -6
I have zero problem not calling it a treaty. Agreement, contract, compact. Whatever you all think works best.
|
|
|
Post by Sir Alexandreu Davinescu on Apr 15, 2016 12:39:14 GMT -6
With due respect, I believe this is almost the definition of a semantic argument. You're not taking issue with any aspect of substance, but purely the semantic label applied to specific entities, divorced from any operative context.
And again, the Organic Law clearly refers to the the provinces as possessing "equal sovereignty" to each other, and certainly they appear to be sovereign to a significant degree, since they are capable of self-governance and all powers not specifically delegated elsewhere fall to the provinces. They are not administered by a higher authority in the course of ordinary events.
Do you have any comment on the many other things I've said that are relevant to the actual point of discussion? I spent considerable time and thought in addressing your arguments from before.
|
|
|
Post by Sir Alexandreu Davinescu on Apr 15, 2016 12:40:44 GMT -6
I think agreement or compact. Agreement is particularly nice in the face of possible challenges, since the Organic Law explicitly mentions agreements between provinces. It's harder to say that something is impossible when the Ziu has been given explicit authority to regulate that thing!
|
|
|
Post by Eðo Grischun on Apr 15, 2016 13:01:29 GMT -6
I think agreement or compact. Agreement is particularly nice in the face of possible challenges, since the Organic Law explicitly mentions agreements between provinces. It's harder to say that something is impossible when the Ziu has been given explicit authority to regulate that thing! I would agree on that point. If the OrgLaw already uses a particular phrase or term of language, then we should probably run with the same. Plus, the thing with 'compact' ... yeah, it's a lovely word and I'd love to use it, but, it's not really Talossan tradition to borrow or use Americanisms. Agreement. It's simple. It's nice.
|
|
Üc R. Tärfâ
Talossan since 3-8-2005
Deputy Fiôván Secretary of State
Posts: 760
|
Post by Üc R. Tärfâ on Apr 15, 2016 13:03:10 GMT -6
With due respect, I believe this is almost the definitionI spent considerable time and thought in addressing your arguments from before. I'd like to write books to adress these simplistic views of the OrgLaw and constitutional matter, but you have to understand that it's not easy for me to explain such a complex concepts in a language which is not my own while working on writing real laws. Yesterday I had some free hours, today I hadn't. I left my office at 19, I went directly to a party meeting and now I'm having a superb dinner before the next meeting. I will do.
|
|