Official Embassy of The South Pacific

[Sandaoguo]

As for your "this whole argument is ridiculous" and the "Cabinet considers" Balder not to be an ally, I will say this: surely it's the Cabinet's job, in a region which prides itself on upholding democratic principles and rights, to implement the Will of the People. And would not the legislature, open to all citizens, constitute the Will of the people? Food for thought perhaps.

The Assembly can certainly try to pass a law demanding you and I be friends, I suppose. What they'll get is several more years of a useless treaty that nobody thinks actually means anything, but nobody bothers to repeal because they don't want to deal with the kind of verbal abuse I've dealt with for the past 12 hours.

Btw, literally your first example in that list of you trying to save save yourself from a mod report is me joking. The last one, too!

[North East Somerset]

As for your "this whole argument is ridiculous" and the "Cabinet considers" Balder not to be an ally, I will say this: surely it's the Cabinet's job, in a region which prides itself on upholding democratic principles and rights, to implement the Will of the People. And would not the legislature, open to all citizens, constitute the Will of the people? Food for thought perhaps.

The Assembly can certainly try to pass a law demanding you and I be friends, I suppose. What they'll get is several more years of a useless treaty that nobody thinks actually means anything, but nobody bothers to repeal because they don't want to deal with the kind of verbal abuse I've dealt with for the past 12 hours.

The main reason it doesn't mean anything to you, is of course because you have deliberately sought to pursue a defender/anti-imperialist agenda in TSP involving the repeal of treaties with non-defender regions. That's not an excuse for self-victimization about verbal abuse. It's just an obvious irrefutable statement of fact given what you yourself have said about your activities in TSP. The only issue here is that you don't seem to want to face up to the reality of what you've already admitted.

Btw, literally your first example in that list of you trying to save save yourself from a mod report is me joking. The last one, too!

So in the other three in the middle you aren't joking then? I guess that proves the point then, surely.

[RiderSyl]

I don't think betraying a constitution you swore to uphold and overthrowing the elected leadership of a region just after getting off a ban looks very good on a resume.

Thankfully my critics don't write my resume.

[Unibot III]

The position being taken by Balder here is near hysterical - there have been open frustrations with Balder-TSP relations voiced by cabinet ministers and key members of TSP, both independent and defender-leaning members, for eons now, both privately in the cabinet office and in the Regional Assembly. The only thing astonishing about this development is that it took this long to happen.

It was widely known that few in the Foreign Office were pleased with maintaining a political relationship with an ally that had basically terminated relations with us in practice. And those sentiments were at least as old as the first Tsunamy government, but I believe those frustrations predate it by years.

The Balder Queen supporting the transitional government, violating the treaty and slamming TSP's allies for defending TSP was just the straw that broke the camel's back.

[RiderSyl]

Hey Unibot.

The reality is that the defender world, lead mostly by Unibot, became more and more obsessed about the political rise of imperialism and particularly the UIAF in 2013-14. Defenders utilized their influence in some GCRs to lean them towards defending, or to promote anti-imperialist sentiment in neutral or Independent regions.

Still promoting that anti-imperial sentiment, aye?

[North East Somerset]

The position being taken by Balder here is near hysterical - there have been open frustrations with Balder-TSP relations voiced by cabinet ministers and key members of TSP, both independent and defender-leaning members, for eons now, both privately in the cabinet office and in the Regional Assembly. The only thing astonishing about this development is that it took this long to happen.

It was widely known that few in the Foreign Office were pleased with maintaining a political relationship with an ally that had basically terminated relations with us in practice. And those sentiments were at least as old as the first Tsunamy government, but I believe those frustrations predate it by years.

The Balder Queen supporting the transitional government, violating the treaty and slamming TSP's allies for defending TSP was just the straw that broke the camel's back.

"Us" in the past tense presumably? Cause last time I looked, you were banned in TSP.

Fascinating you are still trying to interfere and push your defender agenda there, even though you're not welcome there anymore. What's in it for you - has G-R promised he is gonna get you back in if you support him here? Or just missing playing the Good-Cop, Bad-Cop act?

[RiderSyl]

The position being taken by Balder here is near hysterical - there have been open frustrations with Balder-TSP relations voiced by cabinet ministers and key members of TSP, both independent and defender-leaning members, for eons now, both privately in the cabinet office and in the Regional Assembly. The only thing astonishing about this development is that it took this long to happen.

It was widely known that few in the Foreign Office were pleased with maintaining a political relationship with an ally that had basically terminated relations with us in practice. And those sentiments were at least as old as the first Tsunamy government, but I believe those frustrations predate it by years.

The Balder Queen supporting the transitional government, violating the treaty and slamming TSP's allies for defending TSP was just the straw that broke the camel's back.

"Us" in the past tense presumably? Cause last time I looked, you were banned in TSP.

Oh. Damn good catch, NES. I didn't even notice he included himself when referring to The South Pacific.

[Sedgistan]

Please, let's move on from commentary on people's academic backgrounds, whether in a joking fashion or not. I don't want to see any further posts about that.

[Belschaft]

I have submitted the following legal question in TSP, to resolve the matter of legality;

Your honour, considering the recent actions of the Cabinet, I must submit the following legal questions;

"Does the Cabinet have the legal authority to dissolve a treaty without the approval of the Assembly?"

"Does the Cabinet have the legal authority to assert a power not explicitly granted in the Charter?"

---

The Charter addresses treaty matters in a number of locations, and makes certain specific grants of power to the Cabinet in regards to treaties. Article VI, Clauses 6 through 8, deals with the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and reads as following;

6. The Minister of Foreign Affairs will be the Coalition’s chief diplomat. They will be responsible for establishing the government’s foreign policy program, communicating with allies, and coordinating with the military on foreign policy priorities when necessary.

7. The Minister of Foreign Affairs holds the sole power to initiate treaty negotiations with other regions, groups, and organizations, but may designate officers to handle those negotiations. Upon completion of a treaty negotiation, the Minister must present it to the full executive for majority approval, before submitting it to the Assembly for ratification.

8. The Minister of Foreign Affairs will be responsible for establishing standards for the creation and maintenance of consulates and embassies.

This constitutes an explicit grant of powers to the cabinet, the Minister of Foreign Affairs in particular, in regards to treaties. It should be noted that this grant of powers does not include the dissolution of treaties, but is limited to their negotiation. Further, upon such negotiation, the Cabinet is explicitly required to present proposed treaties to the assembly for ratification. It is only once the Assembly has provided such ratification that the treaty becomes lawful and legally binding, and absent such ratification any agreement made by the Minister of Foreign Affairs is null and void.

This clearly indicates two things; firstly, that the Assembly, when adopting the Charter, considered the issue of treaties and chose to grant certain powers to the Cabinet. Having made this explicit and limited grant of powers, the Assembly did chose not to include in this treaty dissolution. No argument of an implicit grant of powers can be made when there has an explicit grant of powers; an explicit grant of powers having been made, only those powers exist. I do not believe that this can be disputed; the Assembly has chosen not to grant the Cabinet the powers the Minister of Foreign Affairs has tried to assert.

Secondly, by requiring Assembly ratification, the Charter makes clear that the Assembly is the final arbiter of treaty matters. No proposed treaty can become law without the Assembly's approval; by stating such in the section of the Charter that makes grants of powers to the Cabinet, the Assembly has made clear that it reserves certain powers to itself. It thus cannot be argued that the Cabinet is the sole responsible authority in this matter.

This reservation of powers is made clear once again in Article IV, Clause 6, of the Charter;

6. All general laws, resolutions, and treaty ratifications must be passed by a simple majority of those voting. Laws marked as constitutional laws, or resolutions that deal with issues found in constitutional laws, require a three-fifths supermajority of those voting to pass. Appointments, unless otherwise specified, require a simple majority of those voting. Votes are held for a minimum of 3 days, except for votes on constitutional law which are held for a minimum of 5 days.

The Assembly, once again, clearly reserved for itself the power of treaty ratification when adopting the Charter. This is yet again proof that the Assembly has granted the Cabinet only limited powers over treaties. Further to this, in Article IV, Clause 1, the Assembly made the following declaration;

1. The Assembly holds supreme legislative authority in the Coalition, and is comprised of all eligible legislators and a representative of the Local Council. It is responsible for establishing and maintaining the legal code of the Coalition.

By declaring that it holds supreme legislative authority, the Charter is explicit that no other body has the power or authority to undo or contradict it's legislative actions. This is an unambiguous clause; the Assembly is the only body with legislative power in TSP. That legislative power extends to treaties, which only enter force when ratified by a vote of the Assembly. Treaties have legal binding force in TSP because of that Assembly ratification - they are, in effect, a law binding TSP and the other signatories, agreed between both regions. Whilst obviously distinct from general laws, they require the same Assembly approval and have the same binding force.

It is established, both in the Charter and long precedent, that the Assembly is the sole legislative authority. Only the Assembly has the power to amend, alter or dissolve it's legislative acts. A treaty is a legislative act of the Assembly. Thus only the Assembly can dissolve a Treaty.

---

A second argument can be made in relation to ambiguity; the Charter, whilst reserving the power of treaty ratification to the Assembly, does not make a similar explicit reservation for treaty dissolution. I believe that I have presented the legal case for why such is not necessary above - treaties being a legislative act of the Assembly and thus subject only to the Assembly - but I acknowledge the potential for ambiguity.

Article VI, Clauses 11 through 12, deals with issues of ambiguity;

11. The executive may exercise the collective authority of executive orders, by unanimous consent among the Prime Ministers and Cabinet Ministers. Executive orders may only be issued to address an immediate and pressing issue created by ambiguity or holes in a particular law, which will immediately have the effect of law.

12. Upon declaring an executive order, the order will be presented automatically to the Assembly for three days of debate, followed by a vote according to legislative rules, where it will expire and its effects be reversed if the Assembly does not incorporate it into law.

These clauses make an explicit grant of power to the Cabinet for situations where there is ambiguity in the law; they also establish a clear procedure that must be followed in this situation. It is clear from this clause that the Cabinet may only assume powers not granted to it explicitly via executive order, and that such executive orders musty receive the approval of the Assembly to acquire legal power. This is yet another example of the limited powers of the Cabinet, and further evidence of the fact that such powers stem from the Assembly.

There is no executive order, either proposed or in force, which grants the Cabinet the power to dissolve treaties. There is no explicit grant of these powers in the Charter, or any other section of regional law. As such, we have no other option but to conclude that the Cabinet does not have this power.

---

Your honour, having demonstrated beyond any possible question that the Cabinet is not granted the power to dissolve treaties in the Charter, and that further to this that they have no legal authority to assert further powers without an Assembly approved Executive Order, I must ask that you immediately strike down these illegal actions of the Cabinet.

[Altmoras]

Your honour, having demonstrated beyond any possible question that the Cabinet is not granted the power to dissolve treaties in the Charter, and that further to this that they have no legal authority to assert further powers without an Assembly approved Executive Order, I must ask that you immediately strike down these illegal actions of the Cabinet.

I need more popcorn. This just keeps going and going.

[Canton Empire]

The fact is, why is Balder getting so pissy about this anyways?

[Glen-Rhodes]

The fact is, why is Balder getting so pissy about this anyways?

Because it's me. I'm literally the Hillary Clinton of NS Gameplay, let's be real. It's gotta be a scandal. If Raven did this, nobody would be bothered to respond.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Fedele]

The fact is, why is Balder getting so pissy about this anyways?

Is that a fact?

I'm literally the Hillary Clinton of NS Gameplay, let's be real.

This is either hubris and self aggrandizement or heavy handed self deprecation. It's difficult to tell which.

[Ikania]

Clinton supporters have mostly been harassed off the internet, I couldn't believe my eyes if I see another one like me. He has to be shooting himself in the foot.

[Canton Empire]

The fact is, why is Balder getting so pissy about this anyways?

Is that a fact?

I'm literally the Hillary Clinton of NS Gameplay, let's be real.

This is either hubris and self aggrandizement or heavy handed self deprecation. It's difficult to tell which.

It is a fact.

[Solorni]

This actually sums up how Balder feels about this all:



I personally find it incredibly amusing. After all, how a region like TSP have a MoFA who cannot read or perhaps understand laws? Surely someone on TSP could help mentor Glen-Rhodes on this? It's not a good look for TSP and literally not something I have ever seen before. I mean we gave Nephmir and his regions a lot of crap for various things, yet I can't recall anything quite like this. So believe me when I say it, but I think Balder is far more amused than anything else.

[Glen-Rhodes]

*literally wrote most of the Charter himself*


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[The Resentine Kingdom]

Seriously, it's not an issue of "Glen and the Cabinet don't know the law" it's an issue of, "there is no law, what do we do?". Hence there's a high court challenge by Bel, and there's an Amendment being debated in the assembly. This is seriously just a normal occurrence to how we do laws, I honestly don't get why everyone and their mother is kicking up a storm about this. Like seriously, the worst we had was some emotionally charged debate last night, but that was about it. All of you are overdramatizing this drastically.

And, tbh, it's not like the Balder Treaty would've gone differently if it had been done by the Assembly. I don't know much about Balder, but, from what I got, it was less about "hostilities" and more about "we don't do anything with these people, so there's no reason to continue it". It's really quite that simple.

[Belschaft]

Indeed; no one is saying that the Cabinet doesn't know what the law is. It's ambiguous, and they have a certain interpretation of it. The problem, from a legal point of view, is that that they forgot about a vital step in the legal process - seeking an Executive Order to clarify that ambiguity - and that's what makes this legally problematic. I've demonstrated above where that ambiguity is, and the necessity of seeking an EO when it's present.

Had they gone through the correct legal process of seeking an EO, there would be none of this fuss in TSP about what has happened; the majority of the Assembly, I suspect, would have supported the dissolution of the treaty.

Addendum: A couple of people have raised the issue of me posting my legal question here - It is obvious that TSP's forums are being read, and details of what is going on informing discussion here and being refereed to. In consideration of that, I chose to post the full copy here rather than have it parsed and selectively quoted from, so as to not have my words misinterpreted.

[Pierconium]

Indeed; no one is saying that the Cabinet doesn't know what the law is. It's ambiguous, and they have a certain interpretation of it. The problem, from a legal point of view, is that that they forgot about a vital step in the legal process - seeking an Executive Order to clarify that ambiguity - and that's what makes this legally problematic. I've demonstrated above where that ambiguity is, and the necessity of seeking an EO when it's present.

Had they gone through the correct legal process of seeking an EO, there would be none of this fuss in TSP about what has happened; the majority of the Assembly, I suspect, would have supported the dissolution of the treaty.

Addendum: A couple of people have raised the issue of me posting my legal question here - It is obvious that TSP's forums are being read, and details of what is going on informing discussion here and being refereed to. In consideration of that, I chose to post the full copy here rather than have it parsed and selectively quoted from, so as to not have my words misinterpreted.

So, let me see if I have this correct.

Balder and TSP have been sniping at one another for a while now, primarily because of what is seen by one party (Balder) as the ineptitude of the other party (TSP) in regards to their choice of Foreign Affairs minister, and that specific nation's seemingly belligerent attitude towards them, correct?

Now, it appears that on the advice of that particular minister the government of TSP has violated its own laws in order to follow said advice and we are all wondering whether or not the Balder position on that nation's ineptitude is accurate?

[Fedele]

Is that a fact?

It is a fact.

How is the word "fact" defined in your region? It must be something quite different from the definition I'm accustomed to.

[Glen-Rhodes]

No, Pierconium. The breakdown of Balder-TSP relations predates my first term as MoFA. In fact, other MoFAs seem to have had more issues than I did.

Balder and TSP just have never been compatible allies.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Pierconium]

No, Pierconium. The breakdown of Balder-TSP relations predates my first term as MoFA. In fact, other MoFAs seem to have had more issues than I did.

Balder and TSP just have never been compatible allies.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

If that is the TSP point of view then it would seem that there is a systemic issue with your MoFAs since this action has apparently taken so long to be addressed.

[Solorni]

@Glen That's a bold statement from someone unable to even read and comprehend laws. Balder TSP worked very well in the beginning when Hileville and Southern Bellz were heavily involved in the region. Hile himself played a very large role in early Balder history.

Furthermore, Balder has never been a demanding ally. Even when you were pursuing personal vendettas against our allies in LKE and Europeia, Balder was respectfully neutral. I even spent political capital in Europeia on your behalf (something you betrayed anyway). So you can spout incorrect information out of either malice or ignorance, but either way it's wrong. Furthermore you will continue to be called out and exposed every time you try to pull a fast one.

[The Ghost of Festavo]

Well, he's a better Pharaoh than you were...

That depends on how you define "better", my friend.