|
Post by Sir Alexandreu Davinescu on Apr 14, 2016 8:13:42 GMT -6
Uc, for myself I'm fine that you're bringing up these arguments here. I disagree with you, but it's better to talk it out and work out what the issue might be.
I don't disagree with you on any particular, but I would note that, despite being a unitary government, all powers not delegated to the Ziu are vested in the provinces. That is a very strong grant of authority and relevant here, since it implies autonomy has been granted to the provinces except where specifically delegated. Whether it comes from above or below, it exists.
You do rightly mention that the Ziu can make laws relating to agreements between provinces. It's possible the Ziu could try to pass a law that tried to prohibit provinces from making any sort of agreement, or this very specific sort of agreement. But the Ziu has not done so. I'm not sure it would be Organic to do so, actually, since I'm not sure the agreement power could be interpreted so broadly, but that would be a fight for a different venue.
The Organic Law specifically allows for agreements between provinces. Are you saying that provinces cannot make agreements?
Let us pose some hypotheticals, if you would indulge me? I want to see where the limit lies. There's a bunch here, so if you'd like to be brief with yes or no, that's fine (although feel free to explain, too!).
A. M-M makes a law establishing that Section 45.6 of Wisconsin's legal code shall be dynamically incorporated into M-M law. Can M-M do so, or is it prohibited by the Organic Law from referencing other legal codes in that way?
B. M-M makes a law establishing that Section 45.6 of Vuode's legal code shall be dynamically incorporated into M-M law. Can M-M do so, or is it prohibited by the Organic Law from referencing other legal codes in that way?
C. M-M and Vuode each independently vote to send representatives to a third-party conference on cantonment created by His Majesty.
D. M-M and Vuode each independently vote to send representatives to a third-party conference on cantonment created by His Majesty, and M-M further votes that any bill the conference produces shall be incorporated into M-M law.
E. M-M and Vuode each independently vote to send representatives to a two-province conference of the two, and M-M further votes that any bill the conference produces shall be incorporated into M-M law.
F. M-M votes that it is copying Vuode's laws dynamically, and all Vuode law shall be considered M-M law.
G. M-M and Vuode vote to establish a separate office of Mumblybum. The Mumblybum will do ceremonial duties such as ribbon-cutting on behalf of both provinces.
The provinces have organic authority to make agreements. I see no reason why such agreements can't include agreements to combine their legislatures and have a joint body of law. I might have just missed it, but could you help me connect the dots?
For me, it seems like this:
1. Provinces may make agreements between themselves as they see fit. 2. Provinces may create any process to create laws that doesn't disenfranchise their citizens. Therefore: Provinces may agree on a joint process to create laws, as long as it doesn't disenfranchise their citizens.
Could you explain how it undermines that principal? Both provinces will continue to independently elect national representatives.
|
|
|
Post by Magniloqueu Épiqeu da Lhiun on Apr 14, 2016 9:05:06 GMT -6
Uc, for myself I'm fine that you're bringing up these arguments here. I disagree with you, but it's better to talk it out and work out what the issue might be. For the record, I do not think that talking it out is bad. I am all for that. I’d just like to get on with the contract, and debate on the merits of the Unison elsewhere. My sincerest apologies if my message seemed to indicate otherwise.
|
|
Üc R. Tärfâ
Talossan since 3-8-2005
Deputy Fiôván Secretary of State
Posts: 760
|
Post by Üc R. Tärfâ on Apr 14, 2016 10:41:26 GMT -6
Uc, for myself I'm fine that you're bringing up these arguments here. I disagree with you, but it's better to talk it out and work out what the issue might be. I don't disagree with you on any particular, but I would note that, despite being a unitary government, all powers not delegated to the Ziu are vested in the provinces. That is a very strong grant of authority and relevant here, since it implies autonomy has been granted to the provinces except where specifically delegated. Whether it comes from above or below, it exists. You do rightly mention that the Ziu can make laws relating to agreements between provinces. It's possible the Ziu could try to pass a law that tried to prohibit provinces from making any sort of agreement, or this very specific sort of agreement. But the Ziu has not done so. I'm not sure it would be Organic to do so, actually, since I'm not sure the agreement power could be interpreted so broadly, but that would be a fight for a different venue. The Organic Law specifically allows for agreements between provinces. Are you saying that provinces cannot make agreements? Let us pose some hypotheticals, if you would indulge me? I want to see where the limit lies. There's a bunch here, so if you'd like to be brief with yes or no, that's fine (although feel free to explain, too!). A. M-M makes a law establishing that Section 45.6 of Wisconsin's legal code shall be dynamically incorporated into M-M law. Can M-M do so, or is it prohibited by the Organic Law from referencing other legal codes in that way? B. M-M makes a law establishing that Section 45.6 of Vuode's legal code shall be dynamically incorporated into M-M law. Can M-M do so, or is it prohibited by the Organic Law from referencing other legal codes in that way? C. M-M and Vuode each independently vote to send representatives to a third-party conference on cantonment created by His Majesty. D. M-M and Vuode each independently vote to send representatives to a third-party conference on cantonment created by His Majesty, and M-M further votes that any bill the conference produces shall be incorporated into M-M law. E. M-M and Vuode each independently vote to send representatives to a two-province conference of the two, and M-M further votes that any bill the conference produces shall be incorporated into M-M law. F. M-M votes that it is copying Vuode's laws dynamically, and all Vuode law shall be considered M-M law. G. M-M and Vuode vote to establish a separate office of Mumblybum. The Mumblybum will do ceremonial duties such as ribbon-cutting on behalf of both provinces. The provinces have organic authority to make agreements. I see no reason why such agreements can't include agreements to combine their legislatures and have a joint body of law. I might have just missed it, but could you help me connect the dots? For me, it seems like this: 1. Provinces may make agreements between themselves as they see fit. 2. Provinces may create any process to create laws that doesn't disenfranchise their citizens. Therefore: Provinces may agree on a joint process to create laws, as long as it doesn't disenfranchise their citizens. Could you explain how it undermines that principal? Both provinces will continue to independently elect national representatives. The limit lies on the degree of the dynamic incorporation. This agreement (I won't call it Treaty anymore, because a Treaty is signed among two sovereign entities) doesn't provide for a dynamic incorporation of specific part of a specific legal code, but sought to surreptitiously transfer the functions and prerogatives of two provincial governments to a third entity, in this way it violates the framework of the OrgLaw where each Province (OrgLaw § XVII.9) «shall govern itself in such a manner as to guarantee its citizens the full protection of their rights under this Organic Law» and are in particular (OrgLaw § XVII.5) «administered by constitutional governments elected democratically within the Province», because the government for all concerning matters it's an entity not elected within that Province. The OrgLaw gives autonomy, within the limits set, to its territorial subdivision, but with the transfer de facto of those powers given by the Kingdom to its internal subdivision to an entity not provided for in the Organic Law, the Province is no longer governing itself indipendently, crossing those limits because it's dealing with a purely organic matter. Furthemore, the qualifying attributes of a Province, territorial subdivisions of the Kingdom, are: 1. the exercise of the power vested on them by the Kingdom, 2. representation on the Senäts. Vuode and M-M by de facto relinquishing the exercise of the power to a third entity which collectively exercise them for both, are renouncing to indipendently exercise them: concerning the exercise of provincial power the two Provinces will de facto function as One single Province "United Provinces of VD and M-M" with an internal subdivision of VD and M-M as § XVII.1 (in this scenario the Tribune could easily be a feature allowed by the constitution of that Province), and by sticking to "we are 2 Provinces" VD and M-M infringes upon the right of equal representation on the Senäts of the citizens of the other six Provinces. Because what will differentiate VD and M-M from "two provinces" and "one united province with a peculiar local government" is exclusively the second attribute, the Senator. This or similar act is a way to circumvent the equal representation while functioning de facto as one Province. But if you lose one attribute, you aren't a Province anymore. I'd say that seeking a political and legal union and the de facto transfer of exercise of power of the Province to another entity, the "political union", is inorganic, and it creates another inorganic effect by infringing upon the right of equal representation on the Senäts of the citizens of the other six Provinces. Do you want to join the destinies of VD and M-M? The right, and organic, way to do it is merging the two Provinces in one.
|
|
|
Post by Sir Alexandreu Davinescu on Apr 14, 2016 11:45:54 GMT -6
I disagree severally.
You make a number of assertions without actually explaining them. Why, for example, would we be failing to protect our citizens's rights? All schema herein have been careful to try to preserve our voters' rights.
Also, I'm not sure about this idea that, by sending representatives to a body joined with other provincial representatives, that we would thereby be failing to elect our government "within the Province." It seems like if it's wrong for M-M to send provincial representatives to work out local laws with Vuode, it can't possibly be proper for us to send national representatives to meet with even more provinces to work out national laws. If it's a violation of the idea of legitimate government to meet in a body and work out laws for all constituents as a group, then it's a violation on the national level, too -- ie in the Cosa and Senats.
I couldn't quite follow your other argument, I confess. The provincial governments would work in unison, but national representation in the Senats would still represent their individual provinces as individual provinces, and would be elected individually. It would profit the Vuode Senator nothing to campaign in M-M or appeal to us, since we don't elect him.
The crux of your argument seems to be that it's unfair that Vuode and M-M would get to govern as one province but still get two Senators in the Ziu. But frankly, I just don't see it. If someone had no knowledge about the agreement, then the national scene would look identical to them before and after it was signed (if it were to be so). Senator Grischun would continue to rep Vuode interests, just as before, and his electorate would be no less represented than the day before. His electorate would be the same size as the day before. His incentives to serve them would be the same as the day before. His responsibilities would be the same as the day before. Given the utter lack of change in any way that I can tell, and the fact that the two provinces would remain distinct in culture, region, and many other aspects, I don't see the problem with sharing joint local governance.
To the point: we do not want to join the destinies of the two provinces. We just want to administer them with a single joint body for some indeterminate amount of time.
I wonder if you would mind answering those questions I posed above -- just with a quick yes or no, if it's too many to answer in detail. It would help me figure exactly where you draw this strange line.q
|
|
|
Post by Eðo Grischun on Apr 14, 2016 17:31:08 GMT -6
You can't have your cake and eat it to Actually, we can! This decision seems to have been made. Not officially by referendum or whatnot, but, by rejecting the proposal to merge as a single province, we have decided to remain two provinces. I don't follow that part. I'm sure THAT would be inorganic. I imagine the national government would be not be affected in any way. A union of all provinces would be highly unlikely to ever happen, but it would not be Inorganic, nor would it damage the national Ziu. Touch on this as I answer further posts. More to come.
|
|
|
Post by Eðo Grischun on Apr 14, 2016 17:41:01 GMT -6
You know, if we had weighted senäts voting, this wouldn't really be an issue *swims back to Cézembre as punishment for intervening* Weighted Senate voting is a good idea and well worth exploring, but it has nothing to do with this local issue. We could go ahead and install a system of weighted voting in the Senate and this local issue would still exist. This issue has nothing to do with representation at the National Ziu level. This is about provincial level administration. Say, we do go ahead with weighted voting in the Senate. You will have made the national level upper chamber more representative, sure. But, what isn't addressed are intertwined issues such as catchment areas, provincial activity levels, etc. Vuode's Senator would have one vote to Benito's two, but Vuode would still remain a ghost town provincially and we would still have massive trouble getting the Estats Xhenerais to properly convene. There is only so much that can be done when two people are actively taking part in the local assembly and when the system fails the province suffers as a result. Vuode can't get to the point of creating and passing local level provincial legislation. The only way to move this wheel is to pool and share resources with our neighbour. The Senate and The Ziu and any given national yadda-yaddy have nothing to do with it.
|
|
|
Post by Eðo Grischun on Apr 14, 2016 17:45:43 GMT -6
I do not see why that would be so negative. Scotland, Wales, England, and Northern Ireland have done it, and the UK has not perished, or fallen prey to evil federal government scavengers. That's a very naïve vision of the history of the UK. - England conquered and annexed Wales in the second half of the XIII century, and the land of Saint David became part of the Kingdom of England. - England invaded Ireland and ruled it under different system (from feudal and so on) culminating in the proclamation of the Kingdom of Ireland in 1542 in personal union with the Crown of England. Henry VIII was at the same time King of England and King of Ireland. But they were two different Kingdoms, two states. - Scotland and England for a while were 2 different kingdoms in a personal Union of the Crowns because the same person inherited both. James Stuart was at the same time James IV of Scotland and James I of England. But two differents States, with each one its parliament, governement, judicial system, laws, nobility, ecc... - in 1707 Scotland and England became a unified Kingdom: Kingdom of Great Britain. One Kingdom, One State. - in 1801 Great Britain and Ireland become a unifed Kingdom: United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland. One Kingdom, One State. (Please note that it's Unifed Kingdom of Great Britain and (Northern) Ireland because England and Scotland (and Wales) were long gone as Kingdom/State when the 1801 union gave birth to the modern UK: the kingdoms that became United were those of Great Britain and Ireland). England Scotland Wales (Northern) Ireland, were not Provinces of the UK that become unifed. The United Kingdom is the result of a process of different kingdoms, different states, unifying in One. The Crown Dependencies were left out of this processz, so the Isle of Man, Guenrsey, Jersey are in personal union with the Crown but are not part of the UK. The recent process gave different degrees of autonomy to Scotland, Wales and (Northern) Ireland (not England) within the united state, the UK, by way of the UK Parliament devolving some of its powers to an ad hoc home nation Parliament or Assembly. That's nothing comparable to what is happening here. This sentence is a nosense. Of course, you are right. It is fairly ridiculous to cite the UK as an example in regards to this local provincial matter. Two entirely different things. (and, I certainly am aware and very well schooled on the history ) However, while the situations are grossly different, we can look to small nuances of similarity for inspiration and guidance.
|
|
|
Post by Eðo Grischun on Apr 14, 2016 17:50:09 GMT -6
Notwithstanding HOW it happened, it happened. And I do not see that the result was inherently bad for national government, or that the other countries necessarily lost their identity. And I note that you have not replied to my question. This is an important point and is why entering a provincial alliance of administration is wholly better than a plain, flat-out merging into a single, larger province. It is true that the unions between the countries of the UK have not led to a loss of identity for the individual member nations. I'm not sure the same would hold true in Talossa. If we merge into a single province, Vuode and M-M, both, would lose their unique cultural identity. Maybe, not overnight, but over time, it would be lost. Remaining two separate provinces protects and preserves the identity and culture (and continuity, of several sorts) of both provinces.
|
|
|
Post by Eðo Grischun on Apr 14, 2016 18:31:24 GMT -6
It seems to me that you don't fully understand the principle under which sovereignty flows, and the irony of a self proclaimed new peculiarist explaining this to self proclaimed derivatists is, well, "peculiar". It seems to me that this is an argument of semantics. There is more than one type of sovereignty. For example, King John is our Sovereign, yet he does not have absolute sovereignty. His sovereignty is choked by constitutional limits and is granted by the people, who in turn are sovereign. The Sovereign will of the people of Talossa grants King John his royal, constitutionally limited sovereignty. And, as we see now, King John's royal sovereignty does not seem to be clicking together with the sovereign will of the people all that well. Which way is that river flowing? Sovereignty isn't black and white. Absolutism and despotism aside, sovereignty flows in both directions in a many number of circumstances. I agree on the semantics here, though. We are not a federal state, and I have always been very careful in trying never to use the word 'federal' in reference to anything Talossan. I use the phrases 'national level' and 'provincial/local level'. Agreed. In full. But, changes nothing. The Kingdom creates the provinces in a top-down manner. Yes. But, nothing stops those provinces from entering into agreements to jointly administer local level law. It's a bit like when you live in a rural area (pick any country, doesn't really matter) and this rural town you live in has been governed by a local town hall council of three members. The next town over works the exact same way. Business is slow and talent pools are limited. Both towns decide to bring their business together and form a unitary council. I could probably find hundreds of examples of this happening the world over. Town councils joining together to become regional councils. Regional councils breaking apart to become Town councils. It happens all the time and never does it threaten the national/federal systems on the levels above. There is a bit of a sticky wicket in there if we run with literal plain-text reading. You picked up on it, I'm sure, as you have highlighted it in italics. "administered by constitutional governments elected democratically within the province". WITHIN the province. One option is a very, very minor OrgLaw amendment to change the word 'within'. Rather, we don't conduct a joint election. We hold two separate elections "WITHIN" each province then the results of those two separate elections determine the composition of a joint assembly. It's legal. Challenge it in court, I dare ya ORG XVII.13 is wholly irrelevant. XVII.5: Well, we covered the "elections within" part. I don't see any problem so long as both provinces conduct separately held ballots. Your other point of "Self-governing and autonomous" holds merit. But, as your rightly say, these provisions are conditional on "the consent, of course, of the people living in those subdivisions". If the majority of Vuodeans support these proposed changes via referendum, and if the majority of M-Mers support these proposed changes via referendum, then all is well with the world. We would still be self-governing in the sense that each province elects/appoints/names people to serve on a local assembly. The proposed "tribune office" would further solidify this. We would still be autonomous as long as each province retains local veto as AD suggests. I disagree. The autonomy and self governance of the provinces remain intact, but just operating under different mechanics. I agree elections to a joint assembly should be conducted WITHIN each individual province individually, but, the concept of a joint administrative assembly, especially when such a joint assembly has derived its power from the sovereign will of the local people at the provincial level does not contravene any Organic principle. Irrelevant. The national level Senate is designed for national level representation for the provinces in the Ziu. The proposed assembly has nothing whatsoever to do with representation in the Ziu. The proposed joint assembly would not be able to propose, debate and enact legislation over and above provincial level. A little melodramatic, but have a bash if you feel that strongly. I fully believe your case would be dismissed at the earliest port of call.
|
|
|
Post by Eðo Grischun on Apr 14, 2016 18:47:04 GMT -6
it's a residual granting of power from the Kingdom to its territorial subdivisions. I'd argue that is not the case. A 'residual granting', as you phrase it, comes with the ability of revocation. Pray tell, what do you think would happen if the national Ziu were to attempt to revoke this 'residual granting'? The local powers of the provinces, indeed, were granted to them at some stage, but these powers are now inalienable and irreversible. This is a key nuance of Organicity, where, yes, the Organic Law can be amended a million trillion times, but certain aspects cannot be changed. We can only amend the OrgLaw if the amendment itself is Organic. That is to say, we can tweak the constitution's language and we can remove entire sections of mechanics and technicalities, and we can add new stuff and whatnot, but, amendments to remove rights and/or sovereignty once granted, which are now viewed as inalienable, would not be strictly legal. The Organic Law did indeed grant the provinces their autonomy and right of self-governance, but, only in accordance with the granted sovereign rights and will of the local population of those provinces.
|
|
|
Post by Eðo Grischun on Apr 14, 2016 19:05:50 GMT -6
Uc, for myself I'm fine that you're bringing up these arguments here. I disagree with you, but it's better to talk it out and work out what the issue might be. I don't disagree with you on any particular, but I would note that, despite being a unitary government, all powers not delegated to the Ziu are vested in the provinces. That is a very strong grant of authority and relevant here, since it implies autonomy has been granted to the provinces except where specifically delegated. Whether it comes from above or below, it exists. You do rightly mention that the Ziu can make laws relating to agreements between provinces. It's possible the Ziu could try to pass a law that tried to prohibit provinces from making any sort of agreement, or this very specific sort of agreement. But the Ziu has not done so. I'm not sure it would be Organic to do so, actually, since I'm not sure the agreement power could be interpreted so broadly, but that would be a fight for a different venue. The Organic Law specifically allows for agreements between provinces. Are you saying that provinces cannot make agreements? Let us pose some hypotheticals, if you would indulge me? I want to see where the limit lies. There's a bunch here, so if you'd like to be brief with yes or no, that's fine (although feel free to explain, too!). A. M-M makes a law establishing that Section 45.6 of Wisconsin's legal code shall be dynamically incorporated into M-M law. Can M-M do so, or is it prohibited by the Organic Law from referencing other legal codes in that way? B. M-M makes a law establishing that Section 45.6 of Vuode's legal code shall be dynamically incorporated into M-M law. Can M-M do so, or is it prohibited by the Organic Law from referencing other legal codes in that way? C. M-M and Vuode each independently vote to send representatives to a third-party conference on cantonment created by His Majesty. D. M-M and Vuode each independently vote to send representatives to a third-party conference on cantonment created by His Majesty, and M-M further votes that any bill the conference produces shall be incorporated into M-M law. E. M-M and Vuode each independently vote to send representatives to a two-province conference of the two, and M-M further votes that any bill the conference produces shall be incorporated into M-M law. F. M-M votes that it is copying Vuode's laws dynamically, and all Vuode law shall be considered M-M law. G. M-M and Vuode vote to establish a separate office of Mumblybum. The Mumblybum will do ceremonial duties such as ribbon-cutting on behalf of both provinces. The provinces have organic authority to make agreements. I see no reason why such agreements can't include agreements to combine their legislatures and have a joint body of law. I might have just missed it, but could you help me connect the dots? For me, it seems like this: 1. Provinces may make agreements between themselves as they see fit. 2. Provinces may create any process to create laws that doesn't disenfranchise their citizens. Therefore: Provinces may agree on a joint process to create laws, as long as it doesn't disenfranchise their citizens. Could you explain how it undermines that principal? Both provinces will continue to independently elect national representatives. The limit lies on the degree of the dynamic incorporation. This agreement (I won't call it Treaty anymore, because a Treaty is signed among two sovereign entities) doesn't provide for a dynamic incorporation of specific part of a specific legal code, but sought to surreptitiously transfer the functions and prerogatives of two provincial governments to a third entity, in this way it violates the framework of the OrgLaw where each Province (OrgLaw § XVII.9) «shall govern itself in such a manner as to guarantee its citizens the full protection of their rights under this Organic Law» and are in particular (OrgLaw § XVII.5) «administered by constitutional governments elected democratically within the Province», because the government for all concerning matters it's an entity not elected within that Province. The OrgLaw gives autonomy, within the limits set, to its territorial subdivision, but with the transfer de facto of those powers given by the Kingdom to its internal subdivision to an entity not provided for in the Organic Law, the Province is no longer governing itself indipendently, crossing those limits because it's dealing with a purely organic matter. Furthemore, the qualifying attributes of a Province, territorial subdivisions of the Kingdom, are: 1. the exercise of the power vested on them by the Kingdom, 2. representation on the Senäts. Vuode and M-M by de facto relinquishing the exercise of the power to a third entity which collectively exercise them for both, are renouncing to indipendently exercise them: concerning the exercise of provincial power the two Provinces will de facto function as One single Province "United Provinces of VD and M-M" with an internal subdivision of VD and M-M as § XVII.1 (in this scenario the Tribune could easily be a feature allowed by the constitution of that Province), and by sticking to "we are 2 Provinces" VD and M-M infringes upon the right of equal representation on the Senäts of the citizens of the other six Provinces. Because what will differentiate VD and M-M from "two provinces" and "one united province with a peculiar local government" is exclusively the second attribute, the Senator. This or similar act is a way to circumvent the equal representation while functioning de facto as one Province. But if you lose one attribute, you aren't a Province anymore. I'd say that seeking a political and legal union and the de facto transfer of exercise of power of the Province to another entity, the "political union", is inorganic, and it creates another inorganic effect by infringing upon the right of equal representation on the Senäts of the citizens of the other six Provinces. Do you want to join the destinies of VD and M-M? The right, and organic, way to do it is merging the two Provinces in one. I have to also admit to not quite understanding your full argument here, but it seems that the crux is all about national representation in the Senate. I agree with AD, I don't buy it. The joint assembly would, for all points and purposes, wield the same level of administrative power as the M-M assembly and Vuode assembly always had in the first place. This is, namely, local level, provincial law. The only key difference is that the laws passed would take effect in both provinces. That is to say, we would share a provincial level legal code and work together in the building and the on-going maintenance of the same. If Vuode elects just one or two locals to a local assembly, very little local work can be done to benefit the locality. If M-M elects just two or three locals to a local assembly, some, but still very little, work can be be done to benefit that locality. If we come together, with the express permission of the citizenry of both localities, a right granted by the Organic Law, then we have a bigger pool of talent and resources to allow our provinces to flourish. THIS IS A BASIC TENET OF SELF-DETERMINATION AND GOVERNANCE. It has nothing whatsoever to do with Senate representation. Vuode's Senator would still be accountable to and responsible for representing Vuode's citizens in the national Ziu. M-M's Senator would still be accountable to and responsible for representing M-M's citizens in the national Ziu. And, both provinces would still be exercising their Organically granted sovereign will and Organically granted rights of self-governance and self-determination. I just don't see why you think this is inOrganic or why you think this threatens the other provinces or why you think this threatens the national level institutions. Because it doesn't.
|
|
|
Post by Eðo Grischun on Apr 14, 2016 19:15:39 GMT -6
ARTICLES OF TREATY FOR A POLITICAL UNION BETWEEN THE PROVINCE OF MARITIIMI-MAXHESTIC AND THE UNITED PROVINCES OF VUODE AND DANDENBURG ----------- PREAMBLEWe, the {{people/represtatives of the people}}, of the Province of Maritiimi-Maxhestic and the United Provinces of Vuode and Dandenburg hereby enter into this formal and binding agreement, and doing so in good faith, and in the belief that doing so will be of great benefit to our great provinces, and in the spirit of co-operation and cordiality, hereby adopt these articles of treaty and for this agreement to remain in force in perpetuity. THE ARTICLESA. The province of Maritiimi-Maxhestic (herein: Maritiimi-Maxhestic) and the United Provinces of Vuode and Dandenburg (herein; Vuode), shall upon {{DATE}}, and forever after, join in a political and legal union by the name of THE ALLIANCE OF MARITIIMI, DANDENBURG, MAXHESTIC AND VUODE (or in short THE MARITIIMI-VUODE ALLIANCE). B. This union does not remove nor revoke the soveriegn rights of each individual province as granted by the Organic Law of the Kingdom of Talossa. Nor does this alliance seek to impinge, revoke or remove the individual indentity, character or culture of each individual province entering into this alliance. C. This union shall provide for the creation of one unified {{parliament/assembly/?}} composed of members representing the individual regions of this alliance. D. Representative membership within, and election hereto, this body shall be defined by law. E. This union shall never restrict freedom of trade, navigation or movement between the individual and soveriegn provinces of Maritiimi-Maxhestic and Vuode. F. Any law enacted by this new unified {{parliament/assembly/?}} shall ensure equal treatment for all citizens under this new alliance. G. Any law enacted by this new unified {{parliament/assembly/?}} shall not be inconsistent with the Organic Law of the Kingdom of Talossa. H. This treaty shall take effect upon the fufillment of all of the following conditions only: i: That the citizenry of the Province of Maritiimi-Maxhestic ratify these articles by method of {{xxxx}}. ii: That the citizenry of the United Provinces of Vuode and Dandenburg ratify these articles by method of {{xxxx}}. iii: That the Provincial Constitution of Maritiimi-Maxhestic is amended to become compatiple with these articles. iV: That the Provincial Constitution of Vuode is amended to become compatible with these articles. I. This treaty shall remain in effect in perpetuity in so long as a majority of the citizenry of both provinces so wish. This treaty may be rescinded by popular referendum by either province at any stage, without prejudice nor penalty. Together, Speaking as One, We Pray it be so.Undersigned. Right, so let’s see:
A. The Province of Maritiimi-Maxhestic (hereinafter: Maritiimi-Maxhestic), and the United Provinces of Vuode and Dandenburg (hereinafter: Vuode), shall upon {{DATE}}, and forever after, join in a political, and legal union by the name of THE CONFEDERATION (I really like confederation, it makes me feel like a Swiss man) OF MARITIIMI, DANDENBURG, MAXHESTIC AND VUODE (or in short THE MARITIIMI-VUODE CONFEDERATION). B. This union does not remove, nor revoke, the sovereign rights, and the authority of each individual province as granted by the Organic Law of the Kingdom of Talossa. Nor does this alliance seek to impinge, revoke, or remove the individual identity, character, or culture of each individual province entering into this alliance. C. This union shall provide for the creation of one unified {{parliament/assembly/?}} composed of members representing the individual regions of this alliance. D. Membership in this new unified body may be requested by any citizen of the Confederation during General Elections. Citizens of the Confederation may also indicate a party to represent them in this unified {{parliament/assembly/?}}. The exact procedures of election shall be governed by conjoint law.E. Any law enacted by this new unified {{parliament/assembly/?}} shall ensure equal treatment for all citizens under this new alliance. F. Any law enacted by this new unified {{parliament/assembly/?}} shall be considered null and void in those parts that violate the Organic Law of the Kingdom of Talossa.
G. The {{parliament/assembly/?}} of the Confederation shall during its first convocation work towards an equal Constitution of both provinces, in order to ensure equal rights to citizens in all parts of the Confederation.H. Any law enacted by the {{parl/assem/?}} shall be translated into the language of the Kingdom, el Glheþ Talossan, as well as the culturally important minority languages of Maritiimi-Maxhestic, which is German, and that of Vuode, which is {{French/Latin/Finnish???}, what is it, you guys?}.I. In addition to this {{parl/assem/?}}, each Province of the Confederation shall elect one Tribune of the Peace to sit in the Confederate Tribunal of Equality. These two Tribunes of the Peace shall each have power to reject a law enacted by the {{parl/assem/?}}, if they deem it detrimentary to the freedom, or sovereignty, or safety, of their respective province. Upon such rejection, the law shall not be enforced in any part of the Confederation, and shall be sent back to the {{parl/assem/?}} for deliberation. The exact procedures of electing a Tribune of the Peace to the Confederate Tribunal of Equality shall be governed by law.
K. A law rejected by any Tribune may be passed notwithstanding such a rejection by an absolute majority of the {{parl/assem/?}}. A law may only be rejected once.
L. Amendments to the Constitution, or to the procedures of election to the Tribunal must not be rejected by any Tribune.M. Upon passage of an act by the {{parl/assem/?}}, the Confederate Tribunal of Equality shall have one fortnight to announce a rejection. After such time, no Tribune shall have power to reject said act.N. This treaty shall take effect upon the fulfilment of all of the following conditions only: i: That the citizenry of the Province of Maritiimi-Maxhestic ratify these articles by method of {{xxxx}}. ii: That the citizenry of the United Provinces of Vuode and Dandenburg ratify these articles by method of {{xxxx}}. iii: That the Provincial Constitution of Maritiimi-Maxhestic is amended to become compatiple with these articles. iv: That the Provincial Constitution of Vuode is amended to become compatible with these articles. O. This union shall never restrict freedom of trade, navigation, or movement between the individual and sovereign provinces of Maritiimi-Maxhestic, and Vuode. P. This treaty shall remain in effect in perpetuity in so long as a majority of the citizenry of both provinces so wish. This treaty may be rescinded by popular referendum by either province at any stage, without prejudice nor penalty. Together, Speaking as One, We Pray it be so. Undersigned. This all works for me. I like it. The only thing I'm not sure on is terminology, but that can be ironed out. The principles of what you have came up with are close to perfect. I'd say, your draft should now become the second draft working copy from this point on. ... I know, the thread has diverged into two separate discussions (a: discussion the terms of the agreement, and b: discussing the concerns raised by UC Tarfa), but I am really eager to hear from Sir Alexandreu Davinescu on his thoughts of our drafts.
|
|
Ian Plätschisch
Senator for Maritiimi-Maxhestic
Posts: 4,001
Talossan Since: 3-21-2015
|
Post by Ian Plätschisch on Apr 14, 2016 19:30:49 GMT -6
I didn't bother debate with Uc because everyone else had covered everything I had to say. Some feedback on Epic's treaty;
D; The wording of this article sounds like a voter could give themselves a seat and elect a party. G; Would the separate constitutions of the two provinces be repealed after this occurred? Or would the new constitution be supplementary? I like option 2 better, because it better maintains provincial autonomy H; Will you be doing all of the translating? I generally dislike requirements like this, because they are almost never followed. K; Each tribune should have their own veto, because each have their own distinct interests to protect K; I think a tribunal veto should only be overcome by a supermajority. It allows for better protection, and if the citizenry of the tribune's province want the law, the tribune can be voted out of office in the next election. However, I still support minimum vetoes for Cunstavais (should this be addressed in the Treaty?)
Otherwise, it sounds good to me.
|
|
|
Post by Eðo Grischun on Apr 14, 2016 20:11:03 GMT -6
I didn't bother debate with Uc because everyone else had covered everything I had to say. Some feedback on Epic's treaty;
D; The wording of this article sounds like a voter could give themselves a seat and elect a party. G; Would the separate constitutions of the two provinces be repealed after this occurred? Or would the new constitution be supplementary? I like option 2 better, because it better maintains provincial autonomy H; Will you be doing all of the translating? I generally dislike requirements like this, because they are almost never followed. K; Each tribune should have their own veto, because each have their own distinct interests to protect K; I think a tribunal veto should only be overcome by a supermajority. It allows for better protection, and if the citizenry of the tribune's province want the law, the tribune can be voted out of office in the next election. However, I still support minimum vetoes for Cunstavais (should this be addressed in the Treaty?)
Otherwise, it sounds good to me. I have to offer my apologies to you, Ian. I forgot you were playing an active part in these discussions when I asked for S:r Davinescu's input. Of course, your input was desired and sought also. Again, I am sorry for forgetting to mention you at the end of my previous posts. With regret. (on that note: I am sure we would all love to hear the opinions of the wider Maritiimi-Dandenburg-Maxhestic-Vuode community, so, please come one, come all. (as long as the people M-M are comfortable with these discussions being hosted within the confines of the province?))
|
|
Ian Plätschisch
Senator for Maritiimi-Maxhestic
Posts: 4,001
Talossan Since: 3-21-2015
|
Post by Ian Plätschisch on Apr 14, 2016 20:19:41 GMT -6
I didn't bother debate with Uc because everyone else had covered everything I had to say. Some feedback on Epic's treaty;
D; The wording of this article sounds like a voter could give themselves a seat and elect a party. G; Would the separate constitutions of the two provinces be repealed after this occurred? Or would the new constitution be supplementary? I like option 2 better, because it better maintains provincial autonomy H; Will you be doing all of the translating? I generally dislike requirements like this, because they are almost never followed. K; Each tribune should have their own veto, because each have their own distinct interests to protect K; I think a tribunal veto should only be overcome by a supermajority. It allows for better protection, and if the citizenry of the tribune's province want the law, the tribune can be voted out of office in the next election. However, I still support minimum vetoes for Cunstavais (should this be addressed in the Treaty?)
Otherwise, it sounds good to me. I have to offer my apologies to you, Ian. I forgot you were playing an active part in these discussions when I asked for S:r Davinescu's input. Of course, your input was desired and sought also. Again, I am sorry for forgetting to mention you at the end of my previous posts. With regret. (on that note: I am sure we would all love to hear the opinions of the wider Maritiimi-Dandenburg-Maxhestic-Vuode community, so, please come one, come all. (as long as the people M-M are comfortable with these discussions being hosted within the confines of the province?)) Don't worry about it! I wasn't offended or anything
And yes, wider comment is encouraged.
|
|