|
Post by Sir Alexandreu Davinescu on Apr 16, 2016 0:20:39 GMT -6
Ah, refreshing it might have done away with it, then. Wow, that's really unlucky. I'm sorry
|
|
|
Post by Magniloqueu Épiqeu da Lhiun on Apr 16, 2016 1:24:35 GMT -6
I do not agree with allowing the Tribunes to veto amenments to how Tribunes operate. I also think it prudent to put the election process to the joint legislature (especially the part where any citizen can request a seat when the Assembly is not in legislature) into the Agreement. Also, let us not have proclamation crises with Teibunes, keep the thing that asks for Tribunes to veto a law within a fortnight, or else never to be able to veto it again.
|
|
Ian Plätschisch
Senator for Maritiimi-Maxhestic
Posts: 4,001
Talossan Since: 3-21-2015
|
Post by Ian Plätschisch on Apr 16, 2016 7:30:36 GMT -6
I do not agree with allowing the Tribunes to veto amenments to how Tribunes operate. I also think it prudent to put the election process to the joint legislature (especially the part where any citizen can request a seat when the Assembly is not in legislature) into the Agreement. Also, let us not have proclamation crises with Teibunes, keep the thing that asks for Tribunes to veto a law within a fortnight, or else never to be able to veto it again. The thing is, you can't have a proclamation crisis with tribunes, because they are elected. If the populace wants a bill that the tribune vetoes, they can just vote him out of office. A fortnight is probably a better deadline that a month for vetoing bills, now that I think about it (although both should be able to veto independently).
Sorry for continuously changing my mind without providing any new arguments
|
|
|
Post by Sir Alexandreu Davinescu on Apr 16, 2016 11:06:29 GMT -6
A fortnight is fine with me, if everyone else thinks it's good. I do really feel strongly though, Epic, that it would be a terrible mistake to prohibit Tribunes from vetoing those sorts of bills. Imagine if we had a slim majority in favor of burning all the witches in the province, and you were the Tribune and vetoed that. It would be an obvious next step for us to just remove you from office and then pass our bill again, without fearing a veto!
|
|
|
Post by Magniloqueu Épiqeu da Lhiun on Apr 17, 2016 10:26:57 GMT -6
A fortnight is fine with me, if everyone else thinks it's good. I do really feel strongly though, Epic, that it would be a terrible mistake to prohibit Tribunes from vetoing those sorts of bills. Imagine if we had a slim majority in favor of burning all the witches in the province, and you were the Tribune and vetoed that. It would be an obvious next step for us to just remove you from office and then pass our bill again, without fearing a veto! I very much hope that every person who may would veto such a bill! I guess it is not as bad if Tribunes have such power, although I would like them not to have it. But I am clearly in the minority here, and this is a democracy, after all! Okay. Next point?
|
|
|
Post by Sir Alexandreu Davinescu on Apr 17, 2016 10:40:58 GMT -6
Well, here is my suggested form of the agreement. I changed the time for veto back to a fortnight, since you guys seem to think that's better.
A. The Province of Maritiimi-Maxhestic of the Kingdom of Talossa and the United Provinces of Vuode and Dandenburg of the same do hereby form a political and legal compact of cooperation for the purposes of creating a joint and equitable political and legal union. This union shall henceforth be known as the Confederated Provinces of Maritiimi, Vuode, Maxhestic, and Dandenburg.
B. This agreement does not remove or alter the sovereign rights or authority of either the Province of Maritiimi-Maxhestic or the United Provinces of Vuode and Dandenburg as granted by the 1997 Organic Law of the Kingdom of Talossa. Both provinces shall retain their individual identity, character, culture, and other distinctive aspects, and it is affirmed that this agreement is exclusively an instrument of local governance freely contracted by both provinces.
C. This agreement shall provide for the creation of an assembly composed of members representing both provinces, unified in one legislative and executive body that shall be known as the Joint Assembly of the Confederation of Maritiimi, Vuode, Maxhestic, and Dandenburg.
D. The exact procedures for initial election to the Joint Assembly shall be determined by mutual agreement of the individual legislatures of the Province of Maritiimi-Maxhestic and the United Provinces of Vuode and Dandenburg. Thereafter, the Joint Assembly shall establish and maintain its own election procedures.
E. All laws and regulations enacted by the Joint Assembly shall ensure equal treatment for all citizens.
F. No laws or regulations enacted by the Joint Assembly shall contradict any part of the 1997 Organic Law of the Kingdom of Talossa, or else same laws and regulations shall be voided to the extent of the contradiction.
G. In addition to those representatives elected to the Joint Assembly, both Provinces shall at the same time each independently select a Tribune of Equity, charged with ensuring the just and fair representation of their Province and safeguarding the rights of their respective citizenry. These Tribunes shall each separately have the power to veto any law or regulation enacted by the Joint Assembly within a fortnight of its passage. Such a veto may only be overturned if the Joint Assembly passes the same law or regulation with a supermajority of votes.
H. This union shall never restrict freedom of trade, navigation, or movement between the individual and sovereign provinces of Maritiimi-Maxhestic, and Vuode.
I. This treaty shall remain in effect in perpetuity in so long as the citizenry of both provinces so wish. This treaty may be rescinded by popular referendum by a supermajority of either province at any stage, without prejudice nor penalty nor ill-will.
|
|
Ian Plätschisch
Senator for Maritiimi-Maxhestic
Posts: 4,001
Talossan Since: 3-21-2015
|
Post by Ian Plätschisch on Apr 17, 2016 10:51:37 GMT -6
I know that the Council of Governors is basically defunct, but assuming it becomes active once again, this agreement implies we would only send one person, because the provinces would share a joint executive. I don't really like the prospect of a province being without its own executive (even in name only), and so I propose that the tribune of the province which is not inhabited by the joint executive officer be the ceremonial executive of their province.
|
|
|
Post by Sir Alexandreu Davinescu on Apr 17, 2016 12:19:01 GMT -6
That makes perfect sense to me, and a good catch, too! Epic? Etho? Chirbi?
|
|
|
Post by Eðo Grischun on Apr 17, 2016 15:13:22 GMT -6
So, structure would be Joint Executive > Joint assembly + x2 provincial Tribunes who are also local ceremonial executive head. (+Cunstaval). Sounds good to me. Maybe, even retain the original provincial names for these offices. So Vuode's person would be the Premier/ Tribune, M-M would be, I actually don't know what your head office is called, sorry but, you get me, eh?
|
|
|
Post by Sir Alexandreu Davinescu on Apr 17, 2016 15:42:32 GMT -6
Our executive is deliberately very very weak, explicitly described as a ceremonial figurehead, and exists only because we needed to have one. They're called the Grand General Secretary.
|
|
Ian Plätschisch
Senator for Maritiimi-Maxhestic
Posts: 4,001
Talossan Since: 3-21-2015
|
Post by Ian Plätschisch on Apr 17, 2016 18:42:30 GMT -6
The joint chief executive would be the ceremonial head of their province, so that province's tribune would not be the head. It would also be bad in terms of separation of powers if a tribune was allowed to be the joint chief executive, although I have no problem with the tribune sitting on the assembly.
|
|
|
Post by Sir Alexandreu Davinescu on Apr 17, 2016 19:54:24 GMT -6
Well, that draft above has no formal chief exec position, and Etho is right... each province does still need a head. Makes sense to me, since they're not given an additional power.
But you raise a good point, Ian... should we add a provision for the Joint Assembly electing a head? Do we need one, or should we just make do with the Joint Assembly alone?
|
|
Ian Plätschisch
Senator for Maritiimi-Maxhestic
Posts: 4,001
Talossan Since: 3-21-2015
|
Post by Ian Plätschisch on Apr 17, 2016 20:38:42 GMT -6
Hmm... I must admit I was functioning under the assumption that the union would have a single executive, although now that I realize I made that assumption, a chief executive seems less necessary (of course, the Assembly could elect a "Speaker of the Assembly" for procedural matters).
Therefore, each tribune would serve as the ceremonial executive of their respective province, and the executive power of the Union (if there was any to be had) would be vested in the Tribunal of Equity.
We may also want to look into creating a judicial branch.
|
|
|
Post by Magniloqueu Épiqeu da Lhiun on Apr 18, 2016 2:28:21 GMT -6
About the executive thingy, I think the Tribunes should only be representing the two Confederate provinces, but not actually have any executive power (except for the veto) — that is not to say that they cannot, but for executive office with any real power, they should again be elected.
About the Justice System, may I turn your attention to Benito, where the current and newly-elected Maestro Börnatfiglheu has proposed an arbitration system, where two parties choose to see a third as “Judge”, in order to enter into a binding contract in the end?
|
|
|
Post by Eðo Grischun on Apr 18, 2016 3:55:06 GMT -6
I'm not sure if the Tribunes should be able to sit in the assembly as normal voting members. I assumed that the two tribunes would be sort of ex-officio to the assembly. The reason is it raises further weird procedural issues if they do sit on the assembly.
If a tribune sits on the assembly, and one of them votes 'non' on a bill, does that equal a veto? So, a bill could be killed on the first vote, even if the vote ended up 80-20 in favour, would it still automatically fail if one of the 20 votes against came from a sitting tribune?
A veto should come after the formal vote, but a sitting tribune could vote no early in the voting session and effectively kill a bill before anyone else has had a say.
What if we do a system where the two tribunes are joint ceremonial executive head, and are responsible for procedure as suggested above. Each tribune has a slightly different role.
Tribune A calls the sessions to order, keeps order in the house, keeps the schedule of "Clarks" going smoothly, etc. This is the 'Speaker Tribune'.
Tribune B keeps records of passed and failed and vetoed bills, updates the wiki with provinces bills, does all the writing procedural work. This is the 'Scribe Tribune'.
Which Trubune gets to be speaker and which gets to be scribe can be decided each new term somehow.
They both don't get a formal vote during sessions. But, both have the veto ability (post voting) on behalf of the province they represent.
Within their own province they are also the official ceremonial "ribbon cutter". No real local power other than the veto, within the assembly they keep procedural things running smoothly.
|
|