Post

Thank you for sponsoring me Mr Senator.

Hulldom wrote:

I don't particularly like the method of election of the Haut Conseil and Grand Conseillers. I would much prefer it if regions could simply elect the person themselves and then have that be a mere formality in terms of ratification and placement.

Altys, if you would be so kind as to explain provisions in 2(a) and 2(b), that would be fantastic

Haut Conseillers represent one member region, meaning each region can choose their own way of nominating one. Considering the nature of Consortium (alliance between regions oriented towards interregional matters, so imagine the representative like a substitute to the MoFA or a diplomat to a certain group of regions) however, I would argue it is best if the executive retains control over such action. In the end, whatever the representative says or does would be the MoFA's prerogative (as constitutionally only they and the Prime Minister have any authority over Foreign Affairs). The representative is in no way like the one we used to have to the Regions Assembly, especially considering the fact any sovereignty violation is nonexistent.

As for the Grand Conseillers, they only bear advisory power. Their job is not to represent a region but to assist the Haut Conseil. It is worth noting every grand founder of Consortium (people who have done most of the job in helping make the alliance a thing) are Grand Conseillers.

Cerdenia wrote:

For starters, most of this treaty is just "encouraging" regions to do this, or "discouraging" them from doing that, which while is pretty good in the sense that the treaty doesn't violate National Sovereignty, also means the treaty doesn't actually do anything.

That indeed is an issue I've seen The East Pacific's Magisterium (legislature) talk about. The point of the treaty is to be as loose as possible to escape problems akin to regional sovereignty. The idea was that if a region does not contribute it can just leave/get ejected. However, I do agree some clauses could use more coercion (ie having an embassy and relations with each member region, otherwise there is no point for you to be there) when it comes to being enforced.

Cerdenia wrote:

There is a catch though, and I think this is the plan with this whole treaty. While the treaty itself doesn't really force anything upon regions, it has a clause that allows its little unelected "Conseil" to amend the treaty, forcing regions to either comply or be kicked of the organisation. This is particularly worrying to me in the sense that the project could end up having a say over our internal matters in the long term despite never receiving the approval of our citizens.

Unelected has been answered above. And yeah I understand the idea, though it also again allows you to just opt-out if you do not like one of the changes. However, maybe changing from a ¾ majority to a unanimous vote could help solve this issue? If one region does not agree (in our case if Thaecia refuses one amendment), the amendment is null.

In any case, this treaty prefers believing in the good faith of the member regions than to force them into something. Now the question would be if the regions themselves would agree or not in such belief.