IFC Council (IC)

[Libraria and Ausitoria]

The Imperial Commonwealth of Libraria and Ausitoria Vice President & Speaker His Grace Alexias Stella Instatement of Term Limits [Resolution Number: 72] Noting that many nations have been holding on to positions in the International Freedom Coalition for an extended length of time, Fully aware that most of them have been holding on to those positions by reason of their superb abilities and experience, but Recognizing that new ideas and officials may sometimes be desireable, Recognizing that the arguments between older officials may get tediously repetitive, Noting also that experienced nations may be able to serve surprisingly well in other official capacities, And deciding in general that therefore some sort of limit should be imposed, although exceptions should be possible in case there is a shortage of candidates for a particular position, The IFC Council hereby declares: 1. No official, elected or unelected, shall hold any particular official position for more than 9 months unless they relinquish the position for more than 3 months, in which case for the purposes of this resolution they shall start again at 0 months. 2. All officials over this limit shall have a grace period of 2 months from the passage of this resolution. 3. For aligning their time as officials with Prime Ministerial term-limits, officials may use an additional grace period of up to a fortnight. 4. Minor official bureaucrats employed by cabinet members but not themselves within the cabinet are exempted. 5. Other exceptions may be made by motion in Council. [Vice President & Speaker His Grace Alexias Stella, The Imperial Commonwealth of Libraria and Ausitoria]

[Aigeantir]

"Seeing as Mr. Whiteway has insisted that he does not feel overly stressed by the prospect of two projects, I will move an amendment to Resolution 71, Part II, section 1, to read:

Part II: Compliance
1. Compliance among IFTZ subscribers shall be monitored by an IFTZ member who shall be the Minister of Finance (hereafter the Minister).

As I believe this to be the interest of the majority of those among the membership that have responded so far."

[Muzztopia]

I Prince James Saint-Omer of the Empire of Muzztopia and Antares Scorpi here by choses to ABSTAIN on Resolution #71

I Prince James Saint-Omer of the Empire of Muzztopia and Antares Scorpi here by vote NAY on resolution #72

[Aravea]

I, General Arcturus Nile of the Hegemony of Aravea hereby vote NAY on Resloution 72.

[Taigawa]

"I, Primarch Liara Ghishu of the Taigawanese Imperial Council votes Nay on Resolution 72."

[Flardania]

I Junko Yamada of the Taisuist Republic of Flardania here by choses to ABSTAIN on Resolution #71

I Junko Yamada of the Taisuist Republic of Flardania here by vote NAY on resolution #72

"Furthermore I must say that I will be retiring from the International Freedom Coalition and these will be my last two votes. It's obviously not because of my age but due to the fact that you all drained my excitement in politics. There seems to be hidden agenda's and backroom deals galore, also I can't work professionally in an environment where I personally dislike certain delegates." Junko stated as she quickly glanced at some delegates. "However as I missed the few of you that I loved seeing and will be still keeping in contact with those few, I am certain my replacement will do as good of a job if not better as IFC delegate." Junko stated as she headed to her office and pack.

[Aviran]

The delegation from Aviran shall vote NAY on R#72.

We shall vote to ABSTAIN from R#71.

[Krjder]

"Krjder ABSTAINS from voting on Resolution #72."

[Elesar]

"After much deliberation, Elesar has decided to vote AYE on Resolution 71, and has also decided to vote NAY on Resolution 72."

[Novo Wagondia]

Wagondia has decided to switch its vote to Aye on Resolution 71, and furthermore to abstain from voting on Resolution 72.

[Libraria and Ausitoria]

"Thank you. Excluding a (Nay) vote cast by a resigned member, Resolution 71 passed 4-2 with 6 abstentions.

Resolution 72 withdrawn. Nay to the amendment of Resolution 71. The Imperial Commonwealth hereby opts-in to the IFTZ.

I hereby announce that Ausitoria shall be standing down as Speaker in approximately one week to take on the job of Minister of Free Trade. Even if many officials continue to wish to cling onto their posts, we do not generally believe it is healthy for the IFC to have the same people in the same position all the time. But in any event we have found the task of being Speaker to be thankless, having had to fight endless battles with leaders in government to defend the rights of an increasingly naive general membership and preserve stability, only to find ourselves being sniped at from behind. In such appalling conditions, we have no wish to continue.

There will no doubt be future battles over the direction of the IFC, probably far more destructive than the mostly silent ones Ausitoria has fought, and you may one day wish for me to return as Speaker, and in such conditions, it might once more be my pleasure. But for the moment, all of those of you who think you can run and defend the Council better than Ausitoria has are in luck. You'll need it.

On that note, I hereby open elections for the post of Speaker.

Speaker Election
Members interested in running for the position of Speaker should announce their candidacy to the Council, and be prepared to answer any questions put to them by fellow members. Since the job is so large, I would advise potential Speakers to run with Deputy Speakers, but I would be prepared to advise any future elected Speaker as a Deputy Speaker.

Elections will start in four days. Should there be no candidates for the position of Speaker, the duty will no doubt devolve to the Prime Minister."

[Krjder]

"I, Aleçandró Bleuklośpont, announce my decision to run as Speaker of the Council." Said the Ambassador, standing up briefly to deliver his message before returning to his said.

[Aravea]

"I, Arcturus Nile hereby I announce my decision to run for speaker of the Council" the Aravean representative spoke.

[Mizrad]

Mizrad votes AYE to Resolution 71

[Aviran]

"With a heavy heart we bid our fair Speaker a healthy stepping from his post. His governing presence in this chamber will be missed by many. As life commands however, posts must be filled, integrity must be maintained, and this chamber must be unfettered by divisive politics. As such, I, Vivian Barrish, announce my Candidacy for the Speakership. I hope that my fellow Delegates will see the clearing in our proverbial thicket brush, and that we may all come together around the common cause of the good of this coalition, and all those who may be effected by it. Now is not the time for separatist rhetoric, now is a time for a cut through to our clear democracy, now is the time for a reassertion of purpose, now is the time to step up, hand in hand, together-to solve the issues of the day.

So let's get it done my friends, for the I.F.C!"

Barrish then shook the hands of the Speaker, the Prime Minister, and her fellow Cabinet members, as well as several Delegations including Novo Wagondia (whom she hugged in solidarity and respect [in light of amazing leadership during their tsunami crisis]), and West Aurelia, whom she respected for having such passionate views.

[Libraria and Ausitoria]

"Thank you.

The Prime Minister has confirmed to me that the holder of the Speaker position will continue to be honoured with the position of Vice President.

For the prospective speakers, we have a few questions:
1. Given the enormous powers held by both the Prime Minister and by the Speaker, what would you do in the event that you disagreed and why?
2. If a member disagreed with you, what would you do and why?
3. How many ways can you think of maintaining order in the Council, and in what situations would they be appropriate?
4. Is/are there any basic principles you would abide by as Speaker, and if so what and why?
5. Would you try to manipulate Council decisions to achieve a specific majority, and if so, how, when, and why?

For comparison I will answer the questions afterwards to show what I aimed to do in such situations.

Ausitoria has been made Minister of Free Trade, a duty we will happily dispense. If those wishing to join the IFTZ could please sign below this document, we would be delighted.

1. Subscribers agree not to tax imports from other signatories except as necessary to maintain a fair competitive market, by:
(a) effectively stopping any prejudicial discrimination within their nation between products from other subscribers with respect to products from their own nation, and
(b) maintaining at least the standard that travelers on matters on business may enjoy the best standard of free movement that the subscriber grants to any other nation.
2. Subscribers agree to discuss monetary and fiscal policy with other signatories, and to put in place plans in the event of market scares and sudden irrational money movements to ensure proper liquidity.
3. Subscribers agree to discuss harmonization of standards to permit greater interoperability in goods and services.
4. Subscribers agree to broadly support dialogue between their residents and citizens to encourage cultural interchange, admiration, and affection.
5. Subscribers agree to pay an annual subscription fee of one-ten-thousandth of their GDP from the start of each year of their membership, to provide sufficient funds for the Minister to frequently determine whether subscribers are in compliance or not.
6. Subscribers agree to abide by the provisions within and made pursuant to Resolution 71.

Please note that the Lendol Archipelago has joined. Similarly, please feel free to invite your own allies and close trading partners."

[Aviran]

:Q&A:

1. Given the enormous powers held by both the Prime Minister and by the Speaker, what would you do in the event that you disagreed and why?

I would relay the situation to the Secretary General for resolution. If the Secretary General proved unavailable, I would first attempt to resolve the situation via compromise wherever possible, and second send the issues to the members for vote.

2. If a member disagreed with you, what would you do and why?

I would highly consider the points of their criticism and attempt to include it into, what would be an ever evolving quality and technique of guiding this chamber. I believe that listening and integrating the concerns of others in the best possible areas, is crucial to being an effective leader.

3. How many ways can you think of maintaining order in the Council, and in what situations would they be appropriate?

I can think of but one, that would apply no matter the situation. A clear, well enforced, and open set of rules and guidelines for the floor that would also have a clear set of consequences if breached.

4. Is/are there any basic principles you would abide by as Speaker, and if so what and why?

Equality, supportiveness, community transparency, and compromise. All principles, I view as basic, and that I believe make for an excellent leader, and smooth governance.

5. Would you try to manipulate Council decisions to achieve a specific majority, and if so, how, when, and why?

I would not, the will of the people, is the will of the people. No matter the outcome.

[Libraria and Ausitoria]

Thank you.

I would relay the situation to the Secretary General for resolution. If the Secretary General proved unavailable, I would first attempt to resolve the situation via compromise wherever possible, and second send the issues to the members for vote.

What if the Secretary General also disagreed with you? And would you be prepared to move a vote of no-confidence in the Prime Minister?

I can think of but one, that would apply no matter the situation. A clear, well enforced, and open set of rules and guidelines for the floor that would also have a clear set of consequences if breached.

Do you think you can codify for every eventuality, and then expect people to actually read and remember all the rules? Would it not be easier simply to rule by common sense?

I would not, the will of the people, is the will of the people. No matter the outcome.

Do you think that only c. ten members out of fifty is truly representative of the will of the people, particularly if the vote is close? When would you decide what the majority is? What if a majority wants to curtail the rights of a future majority? What if a majority wants to do something that is incompatible with what another majority including some of the first majority simultaneously want to do? What if a majority wants to curtail the rights of a minority?

[Krjder]

Questions and Answers
1. Given the enormous powers held by both the Prime Minister and by the Speaker, what would you do in the event that you disagreed and why?

In the event that I disagreed with the prime minister, I would find time to sit down and discuss our disagreements, perhaps find a compromise or pursue a solution that leaves both parties satisfied.

2. If a member disagreed with you, what would you do and why?

If a member disagrees with me, that would be unfortunate indeed and I would, again, find time to discuss why they disagree. Sadly, I cannot please everyone and often there will be times when I have to sacrafice my interests for a majority and there will be times when other people must sacrifice their interests for a majority. This however should be a rare occurrence, because I shall strive to ensure that everyone is at least satisfied by outcomes.

3. How many ways can you think of maintaining order in the Council, and in what situations would they be appropriate?

To maintain order, the best method is to be firm, not afraid to lay the law down. If someone starts to misbehave, I will call them to order. It should be done in a courteous manner first, however, should they continue to step out of line, a harsher tone will be utilised and I may ask higher powers to instil disciplinary action, such as a revoking of membership, should the offence be grave enough or the offender persists. A strong base of solid rules and regulations with which to work with is also important, but not essential as laws are generally the common sense of mankind, such as speaking in turn, discussing topics politely and the like.

4. Is/are there any basic principles you would abide by as Speaker, and if so what and why?

Fluidity, Fairness and Calculation. It's important to be fluid. No, it's not important to be liquid, I mean you need to be open. People need to trust you and know you aren't scheming for your own or another particular's purposes. Another principle that I strongly believe in is fairness. Everyone in the Council should be treated equally before the speaker or by the speaker. No one takes precedence, no one takes preference. The last is calculation. Not maths, but rather the ability to use tact and knowledge to assess a situation and calculate its outcome. As Speaker, this is an essential skill and imperative during certain heated discussions.

5. Would you try to manipulate Council decisions to achieve a specific majority, and if so, how, when, and why?

As Speaker in the Council, I would never attempt to manipulated a decision to achieve a majority. Democracy is a mechanism not to interfere with and only works if the majority vote is genuine. There will be times when I may have a certain tone to perhaps hint what I believe is the better option but only when discussing topics which are of serious gravity and if I feel that all will vote unanimously anyway, such as aid providing, going to war against nations which threaten the sacrosanct values of liberty, freedom and democracy or perhaps on other serious moral issues. But I will never deliberately attempt to manipulate the will of the Council.

[Aviran]

Thank you.

I would relay the situation to the Secretary General for resolution. If the Secretary General proved unavailable, I would first attempt to resolve the situation via compromise wherever possible, and second send the issues to the members for vote.

What if the Secretary General also disagreed with you? And would you be prepared to move a vote of no-confidence in the Prime Minister?

If the Secretary General also disagreed with me, then, as I said in the original answer, I would turn to the people for their decision. If they too did not agree with me, then I would have to yield.

I can think of but one, that would apply no matter the situation. A clear, well enforced, and open set of rules and guidelines for the floor that would also have a clear set of consequences if breached.

Do you think you can codify for every eventuality, and then expect people to actually read and remember all the rules? Would it not be easier simply to rule by common sense?

What some may deem as common sense, others may see as obscure reasoning. No, I do not intend on codifying every scenario, however I don't assume to know what people view as common knowledge either. I believe that a clear set of general rules and guidelines; with clear consequences, would be sufficient for this chamber.

I would not, the will of the people is what should rule.

Do you think that only c. ten members out of fifty is truly representative of the will of the people, particularly if the vote is close? When would you decide what the majority is? What if a majority wants to curtail the rights of a future majority? What if a majority wants to do something that is incompatible with what another majority including some of the first majority simultaneously want to do? What if a majority wants to curtail the rights of a minority?

I do not believe that 10, is representative of an overall majority, however, due to the availability of some of our fellow councilors, if it were something quick and unimportant (i.e an amendment or other parliamentary procedure) I would allow only present Delegations the ability to vote on such an act. Larger bills, would of course require an overall majority. An overall majority to me, is defined as 50% +1. As to the cyclical nature of majorities and minorities; I have a simple policy, if you can get it the votes, then it happens. It can always be repealed later.

[Libraria and Ausitoria]

Thank you for your answers. Regarding your last, Aviran, how could you possibly get 26 votes on any subject in a short period of time when the normal maximum is 15, and there will invariably be disagreements? I myself typically use statistical analysis along these lines to determine how many votes are needed.

Regarding your last, Krjder, how would you decide when a majority had reached a decision? What if a majority wants to do something that is incompatible with what another majority including some of the first majority simultaneously want to do? What if a majority wants to curtail the rights of a minority?

[Krjder]

Thank you for your answers. Regarding your last, Aviran, how could you possibly get 26 votes on any subject in a short period of time when the normal maximum is 15, and there will invariably be disagreements? I myself typically use statistical analysis along these lines to determine how many votes are needed.

Regarding your last, Krjder, how would you decide when a majority had reached a decision? What if a majority wants to do something that is incompatible with what another majority including some of the first majority simultaneously want to do? What if a majority wants to curtail the rights of a minority?

I believe a majority is 55%, that is when I feel that a good proportion of currently active IC members have voted. If the will of the majority is incompatible with another majority, I will announce how it is incompatible to the IFC and take the situation from there. If the majority wished to curtail the rights of a minority, I would highlight this and see if they are all still willing to vote in favour. If they still do, I'm afraid that is unfortunate and I would perhaps urge them to change their legislation to fit the whole of the IFC better.

[Aviran]

Thank you for your answers. Regarding your last, Aviran, how could you possibly get 26 votes on any subject in a short period of time when the normal maximum is 15, and there will invariably be disagreements? I myself typically use statistical analysis along these lines to determine how many votes are needed.

Regarding your last, Krjder, how would you decide when a majority had reached a decision? What if a majority wants to do something that is incompatible with what another majority including some of the first majority simultaneously want to do? What if a majority wants to curtail the rights of a minority?

Present majority does have a clear cut definition in its very title. Whoever votes within a set time range, are what I would consider the present majority.

[Aravea]

1. Given the enormous powers held by both the Prime Minister and by the Speaker, what would you do in the event that you disagreed and why?
Well I would do my best to resolve the situation through either going to the Secretary General for a mediation between myself and the Prime Minister. If he was unavailable I would seek to forge an agreement between myself and the Prime Minister or to see if we can seek a compromise.
2. If a member disagreed with you, what would you do and why?
Well I would at first sit down and talk with the member about why he disagreed with me and weigh his opinions. From there I would take the member's criticism and compare it with my own stance on the subject before attempting to combine the two ideals into a compromise.
3. How many ways can you think of maintaining order in the Council, and in what situations would they be appropriate?
To be quite honest I can think of a couple different ways maintain order in the council depending on the situation. For the most part what is needed to ensure order is the willingness to be stern and committed to keeping the peace within the council chambers. In short this mean that one needs to be willing to use discipline to keep the members in line should they violate the rules(ie are being disruptive or causing trouble.). However, the speaker should also be willing to abide by the rules of the council and be fair in how and when they dole out such discipline. In essence I guess what I am trying to say is that impartiality and a fair hand are what is necessary to maintain order.
4. Is/are there any basic principles you would abide by as Speaker, and if so what and why?
Yes there are several principles that I would abide by as speaker. The most important of these principles are honesty, trustworthiness, impartiality/equality, and flexibility. Honesty in this case would entail being truthful about your reasoning behind decisions and never using the system to gain an advantage in passing or defeating resolutions, manipulating members, etc. Trustworthiness would be important because as speaker, it is one's job to uphold the trust of our membership and the alliance itself. To surmise it means loyalty to the organization and being able to maintain secrets if necessary. Now as for impartiality and equality, in short it means that as speaker I believe that one should never allow their personal views or biases to influence the way they conduct their duties. As for equality in this case it would entail that every member is to be treated with the same level respect and dignity as everyone else and not show favoritism to anyone party.
5. Would you try to manipulate Council decisions to achieve a specific majority, and if so, how, when, and why?
No I would never try to manipulate council decisions as it violates the standard of honesty and impartiality which I hold to. Trying to manipulate the votes in such a manner is something that I believe goes against the core principles of this alliance as well as my own.

*Sorry for the delay but I was swamped with assignments.

[Libraria and Ausitoria]

Thank you. Unless anyone has any further questions, I believe it is time for members to start to vote?