Açafat del Val
Citizen of Talossa
Posts: 112
Talossan Since: 10-15-2017
|
Post by Açafat del Val on Oct 10, 2017 11:38:41 GMT -6
In other systems, like ours, technically the government dissolves, to some extent, with the Cosâ, but for continuity and to ensure executive obligations are fulfilled, they may so choose to stay on until the election is resolved. Maybe you and I are studying different earths, but it has always been my experience that executive bodies serving unfixed terms stay in office indefinitely ( de jure, that is) until they choose to resign or are constitutionally removed. I know for a fact that that is the case in France, Russia, Italy, Japan, Canada, the U.K., Australia, and some others; and, as you said, it is done so that there is continuity between governments during post-election negotiations. I know that I'm being pedantic, and I'll admit too that I have failed still to familiarize myself entirely with the OrgLaw of Talossa, but if the OrgLaw is like any other parliamentary system, then any member of the Government thereof (say, for example, the Attorney General / Avocat-Xheneral) stays in office indefinitely until otherwise removed. Which is to say that the Government does not dissolve at all; on the contrary, the same people could keep the same portfolios if too few MCs objected, and there is no constitutional requirement/obligation whatsoever for a cabinet reshuffle. I don't know Talossa super well yet, but I do know other constitutions. Governments nowhere just dissolve; it'd be unstable. If anything, the Government resigns as a formality after the election but stays on as a caretaker until the head of state appoints a new prime minister (or equivalent). Ever heard of a President rejecting someone's resignation but holding onto it for later? Same idea... sorta. In any case, if you want to resign, go for it. Who can compel you otherwise? I just personally find it poor precedent. Edit: If you can show me some text where my understanding is wrong, then I'll stand gladly corrected. I just... governments don't dissolve. Even in the 1975 Australian crisis, even after the prime minister was dismissed and a double dissolution called, there were still ministers making sure that the whole operation wasn't imploding while the Gov-Gen called a new election and sought to name a new PM. :/
|
|
|
Post by Viteu Marcianüs on Oct 10, 2017 12:11:03 GMT -6
In other systems, like ours, technically the government dissolves, to some extent, with the Cosâ, but for continuity and to ensure executive obligations are fulfilled, they may so choose to stay on until the election is resolved. Maybe you and I are studying different earths, but it has always been my experience that executive bodies serving unfixed terms stay in office indefinitely ( de jure, that is) until they choose to resign or are constitutionally removed. I know for a fact that that is the case in France, Russia, Italy, Japan, Canada, the U.K., Australia, and some others; and, as you said, it is done so that there is continuity between governments during post-election negotiations. I know that I'm being pedantic, and I'll admit too that I have failed still to familiarize myself entirely with the OrgLaw of Talossa, but if the OrgLaw is like any other parliamentary system, then any member of the Government thereof (say, for example, the Attorney General / Avocat-Xheneral) stays in office indefinitely until otherwise removed. Which is to say that the Government does not dissolve at all; on the contrary, the same people could keep the same portfolios if too few MCs objected, and there is no constitutional requirement/obligation whatsoever for a cabinet reshuffle. I don't know Talossa super well yet, but I do know other constitutions. Governments nowhere just dissolve; it'd be unstable. If anything, the Government resigns as a formality after the election but stays on as a caretaker until the head of state appoints a new prime minister (or equivalent). Ever heard of a President rejecting someone's resignation but holding onto it for later? Same idea... sorta. In any case, if you want to resign, go for it. Who can compel you otherwise? I just personally find it poor precedent. Edit: If you can show me some text where my understanding is wrong, then I'll stand gladly corrected. I just... governments don't dissolve. Even in the 1975 Australian crisis, even after the prime minister was dismissed and a double dissolution called, there were still ministers making sure that the whole operation wasn't imploding while the Gov-Gen called a new election and sought to name a new PM. :/ That's not really the issue though. I've not argued that they serve indefinitely. And yes, "governments" do dissolves. Note the difference of nomenclature between the presidential system (eg US) and parliamentary system (eg UK). Note that in countries like Canada, a government 'falls' when a vote of confidence is lost. Here, the Org Law mandates the dissolution of the Cosâ upon an election, but permits government officials to continue until the election has been resolved. In that regard, while we have interim ministers, we do not have a government until one is formed.
|
|
|
Post by C. Carlüs Xheraltescù on Oct 10, 2017 14:16:06 GMT -6
I would argue that given the appointment of the government is by the monarch on the advice of the Seneschal, and requires no Ziu confirmation that it would be assumed Ministers remain in post unless they say otherwise.
|
|
|
Post by Danihél Roðgarüt on Oct 10, 2017 15:02:43 GMT -6
Spencer is absolutely right in his assertion of the norm in a parliamentary system. I'm not sure what the OrgLaw says as I'm a (born again) newbie.
Incidentally, what's happening with regard to forming a new Government? Are we awaiting a final ruling from the EC?
|
|
Miestrâ Schivâ, UrN
Seneschal
the new Jim Hacker
Posts: 6,635
Talossan Since: 6-25-2004
Dame Since: 9-8-2012
Motto: Expulseascâ, reveneascâ
Baron Since: Feudal titles are for gimps
Duke Since: Feudal titles are for gimps
|
Post by Miestrâ Schivâ, UrN on Oct 10, 2017 15:06:15 GMT -6
Ultimately, I would prefer an official announcement that unequivocally states which ministers have chosen to serve in the interim. I'd much prefer the opposite - anyone who has decided not to fulfil their "caretaker" job explicitly resign.
|
|
Açafat del Val
Citizen of Talossa
Posts: 112
Talossan Since: 10-15-2017
|
Post by Açafat del Val on Oct 10, 2017 16:29:36 GMT -6
That's not really the issue though. I've not argued that they serve indefinitely. And yes, "governments" do dissolves. Note the difference of nomenclature between the presidential system (eg US) and parliamentary system (eg UK). Note that in countries like Canada, a government 'falls' when a vote of confidence is lost. Here, the Org Law mandates the dissolution of the Cosâ upon an election, but permits government officials to continue until the election has been resolved. In that regard, while we have interim ministers, we do not have a government until one is formed. The difference was already noted. If you reread my original comment under the interpretation that government refers to the executive exclusively, you may understand my point better. A falling does not equal a removal. You want to reference Canada— okay. If Trudeau today lost a vote of confidence, he would not be immediately sacked, either in a constitutional de jure sense or even in a practical de facto sense. In fact, if you want to be really technical (pedantic), the Crown could just say “lol kay” and keep Trudeau and his ministers in office. (Edit: there is a difference between doing something because it’s tradition/convention, and doing it because it’s the law. As a general rule, if you’re talking about the Commonwealth, it’s almost never law and nearly always convention.) Within the context of semi-presidential and parliamentary forms of constitution, a Government/Cabinet/Council/Executive is not dissolved ever. Ever, ever, ever. That’s not how it works. Each nation takes its own variation on the theme, but inevitably the positions are only vacated and refilled with new appointees — and, yes, often following a general election or a loss of confidence or supply, but also not until qualified appointees are found. No nation, lest someone was looking to cause chaos and instability, would dismiss its Government/Cabinet/Council/Executive without refilling its positions immediately at the same time; to do otherwise would leave the entire civil service or domestic policy leaderless! So, instead, a Prime Minister resigns as a formality but he and his ministers remain until (in the case of Canada) the Crown selects the succeeding PM. This way, there is always someone accountable and in charge. This is not the same thing as “dissolving”. Vacating and refilling positions =/= dissolving. (Edit: Go read the French constitution and find mentions of “dissolve”: it’s used only with respect to the Parliament, and not with the Government or the Council of Ministers. And though France is just one place, you’ll find the same wirh other countries.) Back to Talossa: I guess I need to go and study this part of the OrgLaw. I can’t believe that anyone would write it such that all the ministers are sacked before a new Seneschal is installed. That’d be madness. Much more likely that everyone keeps their portfolio until removed by the King...
|
|
Açafat del Val
Citizen of Talossa
Posts: 112
Talossan Since: 10-15-2017
|
Post by Açafat del Val on Oct 10, 2017 16:35:16 GMT -6
Ultimately, I would prefer an official announcement that unequivocally states which ministers have chosen to serve in the interim. I'd much prefer the opposite - anyone who has decided not to fulfil their "caretaker" job explicitly resign. This ^
|
|
|
Post by Magniloqueu Épiqeu da Lhiun on Oct 10, 2017 17:16:32 GMT -6
I entirely agree with Spencer’s analysis of the situation.
|
|
|
Post by Viteu Marcianüs on Oct 10, 2017 17:59:39 GMT -6
That's not really the issue though. I've not argued that they serve indefinitely. And yes, "governments" do dissolves. Note the difference of nomenclature between the presidential system (eg US) and parliamentary system (eg UK). Note that in countries like Canada, a government 'falls' when a vote of confidence is lost. Here, the Org Law mandates the dissolution of the Cosâ upon an election, but permits government officials to continue until the election has been resolved. In that regard, while we have interim ministers, we do not have a government until one is formed. The difference was already noted. If you reread my original comment under the interpretation that government refers to the executive exclusively, you may understand my point better. A falling does not equal a removal. You want to reference Canada— okay. If Trudeau today lost a vote of confidence, he would not be immediately sacked, either in a constitutional de jure sense or even in a practical de facto sense. In fact, if you want to be really technical (pedantic), the Crown could just say “lol kay” and keep Trudeau and his ministers in office. (Edit: there is a difference between doing something because it’s tradition/convention, and doing it because it’s the law. As a general rule, if you’re talking about the Commonwealth, it’s almost never law and nearly always convention.) Within the context of semi-presidential and parliamentary forms of constitution, a Government/Cabinet/Council/Executive is not dissolved ever. Ever, ever, ever. That’s not how it works. Each nation takes its own variation on the theme, but inevitably the positions are only vacated and refilled with new appointees — and, yes, often following a general election or a loss of confidence or supply, but also not until qualified appointees are found. No nation, lest someone was looking to cause chaos and instability, would dismiss its Government/Cabinet/Council/Executive without refilling its positions immediately at the same time; to do otherwise would leave the entire civil service or domestic policy leaderless! So, instead, a Prime Minister resigns as a formality but he and his ministers remain until (in the case of Canada) the Crown selects the succeeding PM. This way, there is always someone accountable and in charge. This is not the same thing as “dissolving”. Vacating and refilling positions =/= dissolving. (Edit: Go read the French constitution and find mentions of “dissolve”: it’s used only with respect to the Parliament, and not with the Government or the Council of Ministers. And though France is just one place, you’ll find the same wirh other countries.) Back to Talossa: I guess I need to go and study this part of the OrgLaw. I can’t believe that anyone would write it such that all the ministers are sacked before a new Seneschal is installed. That’d be madness. Much more likely that everyone keeps their portfolio until removed by the King... Lol okay. Whatever you say. Doesn't really add anything or undermine my point. But great job at going over shit I learned my first year in undergrad.
|
|
|
Post by Viteu Marcianüs on Oct 10, 2017 18:10:24 GMT -6
Also, you're not accurate. Upon a loss of a vote of confidence, the government and its ministers are expected to resign.
|
|
Ian Plätschisch
Senator for Maritiimi-Maxhestic
Posts: 4,001
Talossan Since: 3-21-2015
|
Post by Ian Plätschisch on Oct 10, 2017 18:52:31 GMT -6
Also, you're not accurate. Upon a loss of a vote of confidence, the government and its ministers are expected to resign. At least in Talossa, that's not what happened the last time the government lost a vote of confidence, at the end of the 48th Cosa. FreeDem ministers stayed in place until the resolution of the 49th Cosa General Election.
|
|
|
Post by Viteu Marcianüs on Oct 10, 2017 19:19:18 GMT -6
Also, you're not accurate. Upon a loss of a vote of confidence, the government and its ministers are expected to resign. At least in Talossa, that's not what happened the last time the government lost a vote of confidence, at the end of the 48th Cosa. FreeDem ministers stayed in place until the resolution of the 49th Cosa General Election. Inasmuch as we're talking about Talossa, that is tradition, as previously discussed. The Org Law provides for that option.
|
|
|
Post by Magniloqueu Épiqeu da Lhiun on Oct 11, 2017 2:58:28 GMT -6
Also, you're not accurate. Upon a loss of a vote of confidence, the government and its ministers are expected to resign. Tell me, then, if – before an election – the Government resigns after a failed VoC; who continues the day-to-day operations of Government offices?
|
|
|
Post by Magniloqueu Épiqeu da Lhiun on Oct 11, 2017 2:59:29 GMT -6
The difference was already noted. If you reread my original comment under the interpretation that government refers to the executive exclusively, you may understand my point better. A falling does not equal a removal. You want to reference Canada— okay. If Trudeau today lost a vote of confidence, he would not be immediately sacked, either in a constitutional de jure sense or even in a practical de facto sense. In fact, if you want to be really technical (pedantic), the Crown could just say “lol kay” and keep Trudeau and his ministers in office. (Edit: there is a difference between doing something because it’s tradition/convention, and doing it because it’s the law. As a general rule, if you’re talking about the Commonwealth, it’s almost never law and nearly always convention.) Within the context of semi-presidential and parliamentary forms of constitution, a Government/Cabinet/Council/Executive is not dissolved ever. Ever, ever, ever. That’s not how it works. Each nation takes its own variation on the theme, but inevitably the positions are only vacated and refilled with new appointees — and, yes, often following a general election or a loss of confidence or supply, but also not until qualified appointees are found. No nation, lest someone was looking to cause chaos and instability, would dismiss its Government/Cabinet/Council/Executive without refilling its positions immediately at the same time; to do otherwise would leave the entire civil service or domestic policy leaderless! So, instead, a Prime Minister resigns as a formality but he and his ministers remain until (in the case of Canada) the Crown selects the succeeding PM. This way, there is always someone accountable and in charge. This is not the same thing as “dissolving”. Vacating and refilling positions =/= dissolving. (Edit: Go read the French constitution and find mentions of “dissolve”: it’s used only with respect to the Parliament, and not with the Government or the Council of Ministers. And though France is just one place, you’ll find the same wirh other countries.) Back to Talossa: I guess I need to go and study this part of the OrgLaw. I can’t believe that anyone would write it such that all the ministers are sacked before a new Seneschal is installed. That’d be madness. Much more likely that everyone keeps their portfolio until removed by the King... Lol okay. Whatever you say. Doesn't really add anything or undermine my point. But great job at going over shit I learned my first year in undergrad. I love your compulsive need for asserting your believed superiority. It is very mature.
|
|
|
Post by C. Carlüs Xheraltescù on Oct 11, 2017 3:46:47 GMT -6
Also, you're not accurate. Upon a loss of a vote of confidence, the government and its ministers are expected to resign. There’s something in this, but I’d say that’s just a power the Cosa has over the government to hasten its demise. It can’t actually dismiss individual ministers.
|
|