Posted: Sun Jun 26, 2016 11:18 pmHello everyone. I might be back. 
Tuthina wrote:Hello everyone. I might be back.
Welcome back!
NationStates
Because sometimes even national leaders just want to hang out
https://forum.nationstates.net/
[NSG Senate] Lobby-ing a Scimitar
Page 3 of 119
Posted: Sun Jun 26, 2016 11:18 pmPosted: Sun Jun 26, 2016 11:25 pmPosted: Mon Jun 27, 2016 8:51 amWe could have a small Cabinet with a number of positions (Home, Education (Education is too important to give up, for me), Foreign, Treasury, Health, a few others if possible), with a larger cabinet with less power, made up of the undersecretaries, which advises the main cabinet on issues but overall has little influence on policy. It provides the illusion of importance without being important, and also allows for variable amounts of underscretaries. Also, you could have a shadow cabinet. I don't know if this is overcomplicating things, however.
Posted: Mon Jun 27, 2016 9:26 amThe Sarian wrote:If we are going to have 'mega departments', I'd go along the lines of:
Minister for Economic Affairs
- Finance
- Economics
- Commerce
- Labour
- Rural Affairs
- Urban Development
Minister for the Home Department
- the Interior
- Justice
- Environment
- Energy
Minister for Foreign Affairs
- Foreign Affairs
- Defence
- Trade
- International Development
Minister for Public Services
- Health
- Education
- Transport
- Science
Minister for Social Affairs and Citizenship (#TheThickOfIt)
- Communities and Local Government
- Culture
- Employment
- Welfare & Pensions
- Social Policy
- Human Rights
- Sport
Posted: Mon Jun 27, 2016 9:30 am@Sarian: and your opinion on the Secretaries/Ministers distinction?
Posted: Mon Jun 27, 2016 10:03 amArkolon wrote:@Sarian: and your opinion on the Secretaries/Ministers distinction?
I don't think it's a bad idea, and I certainly wouldn't actively oppose it, but I feel it could be done without tbh.
Posted: Mon Jun 27, 2016 10:35 amWhen we talk about restricting (or encouraging the restriction of) cabinet sizes, are we talking from an IC legislative perspective or from an OOC one?
Posted: Mon Jun 27, 2016 10:38 amBritanno 2 wrote:When we talk about restricting (or encouraging the restriction of) cabinet sizes, are we talking from an IC legislative perspective or from an OOC one?
Both, at least as far as I am concerned.
Even the UK, famous for it's dislike of codification, has a limit on the size of the Cabinet, so it's hardly a tyrannous or unrealistic thing to implement ICly, whilst there seems to be broad OOC consensus for smaller cabinet sizes.
Posted: Mon Jun 27, 2016 10:50 amHow do I go about getting back into this then ?? Used to be involved a couple of years ago, and I've got a bit more time on my hands this summer, so might as well have a go at this again.
Posted: Mon Jun 27, 2016 10:53 amThe Licentian Isles wrote:How do I go about getting back into this then ?? Used to be involved a couple of years ago, and I've got a bit more time on my hands this summer, so might as well have a go at this again.
Go here and sign up.
http://forum.nationstates.net/viewtopic ... 5&t=381848
Posted: Mon Jun 27, 2016 12:42 pmThe Sarian wrote:Britanno 2 wrote:When we talk about restricting (or encouraging the restriction of) cabinet sizes, are we talking from an IC legislative perspective or from an OOC one?
Both, at least as far as I am concerned.
Even the UK, famous for it's dislike of codification, has a limit on the size of the Cabinet, so it's hardly a tyrannous or unrealistic thing to implement ICly, whilst there seems to be broad OOC consensus for smaller cabinet sizes.
As far as I'm aware, all European countries have limits on cabinet sizes.
Personally – speaking of the U.K. and taking a leaf from its book – I would say let's set the cabinet at 6 max and allow the prime minister to name secretaries and their portfolios. I don't see any need to codify the specifics secretariats or ministries if/when we codify limits.
Posted: Mon Jun 27, 2016 1:45 pmAny thoughts on the Constitutional Convention proposal? And Admins, any way we could vote on it pre-Chamber (since having a Chamber would assume there was some existing government and in effect a constitution)?
Posted: Mon Jun 27, 2016 2:36 pmJust wondering if you guys feel like we need this old account in the future? I still have access to it since Aurentina I think. If so, just message me. ~Lamaredia
Posted: Mon Jun 27, 2016 2:40 pmNot a Bang but a Whimper wrote:Any thoughts on the Constitutional Convention proposal? And Admins, any way we could vote on it pre-Chamber (since having a Chamber would assume there was some existing government and in effect a constitution)?
I know it makes little sense (as you just pointed out), but I feel like we should get the ball rolling on the RP asap and so I think we should debate it in the senate.
Posted: Mon Jun 27, 2016 2:43 pmPresident Pro-Tempore of the Senate wrote:Just wondering if you guys feel like we need this old account in the future? I still have access to it since Aurentina I think. If so, just message me. ~Lamaredia
Or just write here tbh. *shrug*
Posted: Tue Jun 28, 2016 12:40 pm14 parties so far, it's like the old Knesset.
Posted: Tue Jun 28, 2016 1:28 pmSkappola wrote:14 parties so far, it's like the old Knesset.
Maybe I shouldn't have applied for my own party... whoops. Ah well, a young democracy would have many parties in reality.
Posted: Tue Jun 28, 2016 2:29 pmBritanno 2 wrote:Not a Bang but a Whimper wrote:Any thoughts on the Constitutional Convention proposal? And Admins, any way we could vote on it pre-Chamber (since having a Chamber would assume there was some existing government and in effect a constitution)?
I know it makes little sense (as you just pointed out), but I feel like we should get the ball rolling on the RP asap and so I think we should debate it in the senate.
I have to agree with this.
We'll keep it in mind.
Posted: Tue Jun 28, 2016 6:03 pmGood to see it back, cant wait to get started!
Posted: Wed Jun 29, 2016 5:41 amSo how close are we to starting the politics?
Posted: Wed Jun 29, 2016 4:10 pmPosted: Wed Jun 29, 2016 4:32 pmNot joining, but was just reading a few old Aurentina posts for old time's sake and thought I might as well re-activate and say hello. Lots of good memories.
Posted: Wed Jun 29, 2016 5:18 pmNew Bierstaat wrote:Not joining, but was just reading a few old Aurentina posts for old time's sake and thought I might as well re-activate and say hello. Lots of good memories.
Hello Mr. President
Posted: Wed Jun 29, 2016 5:18 pmNew Bierstaat wrote:Not joining, but was just reading a few old Aurentina posts for old time's sake and thought I might as well re-activate and say hello. Lots of good memories.
Hello Mr. President
Posted: Wed Jun 29, 2016 6:35 pmNow that the Coffee Shop has been opened, are we permitted to submit our proposals for portions of the basic law as declared in the Constitutional Convention Act, or do we have to wait for a senior member (an administrator, I presume) to open the convention?