|
Post by Vista Major, MP on Mar 11, 2018 13:39:50 GMT -5
The Confederate Parliament
Parliament Bill # 00_
A Bill For an Act Entitled: The Foreign Policy Recalibration Act
11 March 2018
Vista Major
Parliament Proposal
Resolved by the Confederate Parliament of the Confederacy of Free Nations, that the following article is proposed as a law under the jurisdiction of the Confederacy of Free Nations, enforceable by all of its institutions.
Be it enacted by the Confederacy of Free Nations, in Confederate Parliament assembled, that
Section 1
Role of the Ministry
ss.1.
The Ministry of Foreign Affairs shall require that, as a condition of having embassies or other formal ties with the Confederacy of Free Nations, foreign regions/organizations (“internationals”) must accept at least one ambassador for the Confederacy, to be assigned by the Minister of Foreign Affairs. ss.2.
In order to serve as ambassadors, one must have been a citizen of the Confederacy of Free Nations for at least two months, unless this requirement is waived on a case-by-case basis by the Minister of Foreign Affairs. In their assigned regions, ambassadors shall be required to, meaningfully to the best of their ability, engage with the community and regularly keep in contact with the region’s government, as well as report back to the Minister of Foreign Affairs on a bi-weekly basis, and whenever major events are occuring in their assigned region. Ambassadors shall retain their right to negotiate treaties and agreements on behalf of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, though such agreements, when finalized, must be ratified by the Chancellor or Parliament. Ambassadors may not serve in more than two regions unless allowed to on a case-by-case basis. Section 2
Creating Relations
ss.1.
The Minister of Foreign Affairs shall be allowed to establish diplomatic relations with internationals without the prior approval of the Chancellor if they receive permission by a vote of the Parliament. Parliament shall reserve the right to approve any agreements or establishment of diplomatic relations with internationals in the absence of Chancellery action, and Parliament may overrule any action of the Chancellor or Minister of Foreign Affairs regarding the same. ss.2.
All internationals shall be required to forge a formal agreement with the Confederacy within six month of embassy/relations establishment (or the passing of this bill, in the case of current internationals), which shall dictate relations between all parties involved, as negotiated by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and approved by the appropriate domestic bodies (in the case of the Confederacy, its Parliament).
|
|
|
Post by Continental Commonwealths on Mar 11, 2018 14:35:12 GMT -5
Order.
At the request of the author, this bill has now been moved to debate. The debate shall last for three days, concluding at 4:00pm Eastern on Wednesday, March 14.
Order, Order.
|
|
|
Post by Solla Ultima on Mar 11, 2018 16:14:06 GMT -5
Will Ambassadors be able to take a leave of absence, and if so who shall be the interim replacement, and how shall he or she be appointed?
|
|
|
Post by Unfallious on Mar 11, 2018 16:22:33 GMT -5
Section 1 ss.1 opens with a messy sentence that I struggle to read. "unless otherwise waived as a result of there being a lack of the hereinafter" what does this refer to? I believe it's allowing the ambassadorial requirement to be waived, but by who? In what circumstances?
Section 1 ss. 2 is inherently problematic. Allowing the Chancellor to approve treaties is an issue and against precedent. It should, at very least, be approved by Parliament after the Chancellor has accepted it.
Section 2 ss. 1: What does this mean? The FA Minister gets a free pass to establish embassies for a month? In what circumstances? Why?
|
|
|
Post by Vista Major, MP on Mar 11, 2018 17:03:44 GMT -5
Yes, ambassadors will be allowed to take leave of absences. They can be temporarily replaced, as needed, like any other government employee.
The waiver will allow internationals to go without an ambassador if we don't have enough ambassadors to give away. It can also be waived if we're already pretty tight, like Genuan Rebirth, for example. Also, the allowing of the Chancellor to approve treaties is constitutionally mandated, since technically all relations have to be approved by them; however, a referendum can certainly be called, if desired. Which leads into my next point, the grace period will allow the MoFA some more autonomy in seeking relations; I can't automatically strip away the Chancellor's role in foreign affairs (and I'd rather not), but I can provide some leeway. This will give the MoFA a chance to at least try their hand at something the Chancellor would originally snub at, providing a proof (or disproof) of concept, so to speak, for the MoFA to establish.
|
|
|
Post by Unfallious on Mar 11, 2018 17:19:17 GMT -5
I just believe this grace period is arbitrary. If you want to give the FA more autonomy, just write an amendment. There's nothing that specifically says treaties must be approved by the Chancellor. My interpretation of 'establishment of diplomatic ties' is the forming of an embassy, a treaty is something higher than that and, in my opinion, requires Parliamentary approval. Unless this is specifically reflected in the bill, I believe it will result in an imbalance of power to which I cannot support.
|
|
|
Post by Jaslandia on Mar 11, 2018 17:29:28 GMT -5
This has potential, but I have a couple of concerns. While mandating that our embassies accept our ambassadors seems like a reasonable policy, I'm not sure if we would have enough people willing to serve as ambassadors for us to hold up our end. And if we don't have enough ambassadors, then what? We shouldn't just cut off new diplomatic ties because we're short on personnel.
My other concern is the mention of "visa/visitor" policy. While I don't have a problem with negotiating agreements with our embassies, I don't think stuff like visas should be part of it, because I don't think we should have visas or visitor policy at all. We aren't at any sort of risk for invaders, so I don't see the purpose of forcing people out after a certain period of time.
|
|
|
Post by merc on Mar 11, 2018 19:25:11 GMT -5
The Foreign Policy Recalibration Act can be supported with some changes. As Unfallious pointed out, the first sentence of section 1, subsection 1 should be clarified or rewritten. Additionally, the last sentence of that subsection should be eliminated; we know we don't have the correct amount of people to give any region three ambassadors, and there is most usually no need for that many anyway. Also, treaties should be decided on in Parliament; while it would be Administration Policy to pursue such a vote even were it not to be required, it is important that future administrations be held to the same rule. No one person, the Chancellor or otherwise should ever be permitted to exclusively ratify a treaty.
The Administration also advocates the elimination of Section 2. It would eliminate what is effectively a check-and-balance system regarding the construction of embassies that is currently held between the Chancellery and Ministry of Foreign Affairs. Furthermore, relations with each region should be built up on a case-by-case basis. Requiring a region to do activities with us that they don't normally do with anyone, or else, is not a good foreign policy.
The Administration shares the same concerns already brought to the floor.
In its present form, the Chancellor would veto this bill, but with necessary changes would be willing to sign it into law.
|
|
|
Post by Vista Major, MP on Mar 12, 2018 14:16:04 GMT -5
Updates made to the bill.
|
|
|
Post by Unfallious on Mar 12, 2018 15:01:43 GMT -5
I consider the changes to Section 2, Subsection 1 to be satisfactory. Whilst not ideal, I consider a Parliamentary overrule to be better than nothing. However, Section 2, Subsection 2 is very problematic to me. There is no need to establish a formal agreement with every region we have embassies with. This introduces an unnecessary amount of work into the FA ministry and could potentially constrain the options open to the Ministry in choosing how to conduct the business of the ministry. Additionally, the edited Section 1, Subsection 1, whilst less confusing, now mandates that each region we have embassies be given 'at least 1' ambassador from the Confederacy. I don't really have to say that this is unfeasible.
Under the current changes, my stance is that this bill should be denounced.
|
|
|
Post by Vista Major, MP on Mar 12, 2018 16:45:27 GMT -5
There are mechanisms to ensure that such proposals don't become burdensome. The waiver allowing internationals to not have an ambassador still stands from the bill's first iteration, and the formal agreement between us and internationals has been made open ended to allow more flexibility on behalf of the Ministry; this follows the precedent of other regions with active foreign ministries, that they have at least something on paper to make alliances official besides embassies.
|
|
|
Post by Continental Commonwealths on Mar 16, 2018 17:22:34 GMT -5
Order.
This bill has been moved to a vote. Voting will conclude in seven days on Friday, March 23 at 6:30pm.
Members are asked to voice their approval of this bill with "endorsed", or their disapproval of this bill with "denounced". There is no need to voice abstentions; a lack of any response at all will be viewed as an abstention.
Order, Order.
|
|
|
Post by Unfallious on Mar 16, 2018 19:16:29 GMT -5
Denounced.
|
|
|
Post by merc on Mar 17, 2018 12:46:03 GMT -5
Denounced
|
|
|
Post by Solla Ultima on Mar 17, 2018 18:25:15 GMT -5
Endorse
|
|