[PASSED] Commend Imperium Anglorum

[Drasnia]

For posterity's sake:

Commend Imperium Anglorum was passed 14,881 votes to 2,264.

[Imperium Anglorum]

I would like to give my thanks to Abhichandra and those others who worked and voted for this commendation. I feel honoured. If anyone stops by the Three Walled bar, the drinks are on me.

---

The precedent or convention saying that nominees ought pretend that a commendation simply does not exist, seems to prevent any nominee from speaking out to correct factual inaccuracies. It has, however, I feel, cultivated a politics without adherence to the truth. There are two unaddressed points raised earlier in this thread, which I don’t think anyone but myself can adequately address. In fact, I'm somewhat worried about addressing them even now, even with voting completed. Yet, I would feel remiss if I did not address them, fearing that not doing so could be interpreted as some sort of admission of guilt, rather than dealing with them, as just exclaimed, ‘for posterity's sake’.

The first is that during the voting process, I broke my own region's laws.

This isn't the case. Beyond the fact that Europe has always held the right to exercise its vote however it wishes, the government has repeatedly made clear its voting policies in the past. There are three levels of analysis here: first, does statutory law require the Delegate to refrain from voting in the Security Council, second, is doing so a violation of the statutory requirement for European neutrality, and third, does customary law provide a countervailing precedent.

In statutory law, there is currently no text which regulates or restricts Delegate voting requirements. However, statute does require that Europe maintain a neutral stance in the World Assembly. However, neutrality's definition in the context of Europe’s foreign affairs has always been up for interpretation. I abide by the interpretation that neutrality means the region does not take sides. Certainly, here, when it deals with an affair directly affecting the region or its inhabitants, neutrality is on face ridiculous. Staying out of foreign affairs is necessarily impossible if those affairs are not foreign – by inaction, you have chosen a side. If, for example, the resolution Condemn Europe or Condemn Alsted were up for vote, I would stack against them with fervour.

Different interpretations of what neutrality means, and therefore, different consequences for its scope, have long been held by different delegates. My own interpretation of neutrality is admittedly much more loose than, for example, Alsted’s interpretation, but also more restrictive than say, Jeux II’s interpretation. Historically, it has only been clear violations of neutrality, which bind the region to a certain side without meaningful democratic accountability or mandate, which have been found unacceptable.

But more fundamentally is the question of customary law, as statutory law is relatively new and covers relatively few topics. First, precedent is not entirely binding. Otherwise, European governance would turn into Sir Humphreys strotting around saying "Minister, many things must be done, but nothing can be done for the first time". Europe’s delegate is documented to have voted on Security Council resolutions many times in the past. In fact, statute by World Assembly Accord on Campaign Spam, which, per The Basic Law § 2(b), supersedes customary law, explicitly recommends that the Delegate vote in the Security Council to combat proliferation of campaign spam. This is further supported by prior votes on recommendation of the founder or the Cabinet, when constituted, or simply at the Delegate’s discretion at times in the past, including but not limited to reasons having to do with campaign spam and SC queue clogging (e.g. the repeated NAZI EUROPE votes).

Certainly, one can still raise objection on a different basis. For example, whether or not my vote was in contravention of some nebulous unwritten Security Council convention. Lacking knowledge of the intricacies those conventions, I cannot say I am an expert on the topic. However that is, I treat allegations that I broke regional law with great significance, and can affirm that I did not break Europe’s regional law in this matter.

If you disagree with the above assessment, I invite you to petition the judiciary for redress. Re-litigating it here, however, seems an even greater violation of the SC convention shouldered by anyone who wants to claim that particular mantle.

The second is that I have been campaigning for a commendation for myself or Europe in the past. This stems from some snark I wrote in the past, quoted a few posts ago. The interpretation thereof is not what I meant when writing.

The context of the post, speaking about the number of GA/WA/UN resolutions passed by nations which currently reside in Europe, was that the claims made in Commend Forest, which at the time of the post simply noted that some 16 GA resolutions were passed by members, did not in of themselves constitute an action for which the region was commendable. This was noted in the post below by Mall, who responded, "GA authors residing in a region is nothing particularly commendable unless there is something in the region that draws them in/makes them better". That is what I meant.

Edit, removed responses from spoiler.

[Drasnia]

The precedent or convention saying that nominees ought pretend that a commendation simply does not exist, seems to prevent any nominee from speaking out to correct factual inaccuracies. It has, however, I feel, cultivated a politics without adherence to the truth.

I believe truth in a C&C like this should be paramount. Generally, I think the prospective author should message the prospective nominee asking 1) if they would mind being nominated (some people hate that kind of spot light) and 2) after a rough draft has been written to look over it for any errors or inaccuracies that need to be corrected. Certainly, I think a nominee should remain fairly neutral (e.g. not actively campaign for its passage) but posting in the drafting thread shouldn't be absolutely taboo. In this case, I feel you should have and in the future others in the same situation should step forward and make sure there are no misconceptions being spread about.

[Consular]

I think it's perfectly acceptable for the author of the resolution and its target to communicate by telegram -- and I think most do. But would it be better that those communications take place in public, where they are transparent? Yeah, maybe.

[Imperium Anglorum]

I think it's perfectly acceptable for the author of the resolution and its target to communicate by telegram -- and I think most do. But would it be better that those communications take place in public, where they are transparent? Yeah, maybe.

To be clear, if this is in response to my post (it seems ambiguous), my post isn't about whether or not a nominee can correct factual inaccuracies by telegram with the author. It is about the convention, as I understand it, that a nominee cannot post in the drafting thread — even if inaccurate accusations are thrown about in that thread. It is those two accusations (on the last page) which I address.

[Consular]

I was just musing.

I suppose the convention is there because otherwise it can appear a candidate has too great a hand in their own commendation -- which is very unclassy.

[The Elba]

In statutory law, there is currently no text which regulates or restricts Delegate voting requirements. However, statute does require that Europe maintain a neutral stance in the World Assembly. However, neutrality's definition in the context of Europe’s foreign affairs has always been up for interpretation. I abide by the interpretation that neutrality means the region does not take sides. Certainly, here, when it deals with an affair directly affecting the region or its inhabitants, neutrality is on face ridiculous. Staying out of foreign affairs is necessarily impossible if those affairs are not foreign – by inaction, you have chosen a side. If, for example, the resolution Condemn Europe or Condemn Alsted were up for vote, I would stack against them with fervour.

And "Commend Imperium Anglorum" is not a matter of Europe's business, insofar Europe is concerned. It does not threaten Europe's interests, nor are there anything at stake for Europe (unlike condemnations for individual European nations), except your own personal agenda.

Nonetheless, let the masses and history judge upon your own biased interpretation of "neutrality".

[Imperium Anglorum]

Nonetheless, let the masses and history judge upon your own biased interpretation of "neutrality".

"If you disagree with the above assessment, I invite you to petition the judiciary for redress." Which, I will note, for some reason, does not have a standing limitation requiring that only persons connected to the region be allowed to bring suit. That probably ought be corrected, but I won't be moving on legislation to impose standing limitations for maybe a week.

[Elke and Elba]

Nonetheless, let the masses and history judge upon your own biased interpretation of "neutrality".

"If you disagree with the above assessment, I invite you to petition the judiciary for redress." Which, I will note, for some reason, does not have a standing limitation requiring that only persons connected to the region be allowed to bring suit. That probably ought be corrected, but I won't be moving on legislation to impose standing limitations for maybe a week.

And where shall said places to lodge a complaint be?

I bet my horses you don't intend to even reply to this, in order to keep your position as Delegate of Europe and to obfuscate the judiciary process.

[Polldger]

If someone is going to use the "let history decide" line, they better be willing to drag this up and address it and acknowledge that they are right or wrong in 2021.

That'll equal the entire lifetime of Imperium Anglorum, since 2013 and Elke's been around since 2009 so another 4 years won't hurt.

[Imperium Anglorum]

And where shall said places to lodge a complaint be?

I bet my horses you don't intend to even reply to this, in order to keep your position as Delegate of Europe and to obfuscate the judiciary process.

It seems you haven't read any of Europe's laws and also don't even know what Europe's judiciary process even is. One could easily make the argument that a person seeking to raise a judicial question has a responsibility to already be informed on the relevant law and context of that question. If I were to sue in say, French court based my idea of how the common law works, demanding that the person whom I am suing provide me the legal information needed, I would be rightfully laughed out of the courthouse.

However, the judiciary process is clearly established in the Basic Law, which is stored along with all of Europe's statutory laws in the Statutes. That is the process you have to follow. Customary law may also be relevant, as statutory law does not cover everything; procedures for redress of customary law issues are also specified in the Basic Law.

[EuroFounder]

In statutory law, there is currently no text which regulates or restricts Delegate voting requirements. However, statute does require that Europe maintain a neutral stance in the World Assembly. However, neutrality's definition in the context of Europe’s foreign affairs has always been up for interpretation. I abide by the interpretation that neutrality means the region does not take sides. Certainly, here, when it deals with an affair directly affecting the region or its inhabitants, neutrality is on face ridiculous. Staying out of foreign affairs is necessarily impossible if those affairs are not foreign – by inaction, you have chosen a side. If, for example, the resolution Condemn Europe or Condemn Alsted were up for vote, I would stack against them with fervour.

And "Commend Imperium Anglorum" is not a matter of Europe's business, insofar Europe is concerned. It does not threaten Europe's interests, nor are there anything at stake for Europe (unlike condemnations for individual European nations), except your own personal agenda.

Nonetheless, let the masses and history judge upon your own biased interpretation of "neutrality".

The commendation of the delegate of Europe is indeed a matter that concerns Europe (as indeed would be a condemnation) - as it reflects on the region as a whole. The majority of what IA has been commended for is work that is undertaken on behalf of the entire region, so it is very much in our interest.

As for questions of Europe's neutrality - Europe is neutral for as far as its founder decides that it shall be neutral.

[The Elba]

And where shall said places to lodge a complaint be?

I bet my horses you don't intend to even reply to this, in order to keep your position as Delegate of Europe and to obfuscate the judiciary process.

It seems you haven't read any of Europe's laws and also don't even know what Europe's judiciary process even is. One could easily make the argument that a person seeking to raise a judicial question has a responsibility to already be informed on the relevant law and context of that question. If I were to sue in say, French court based my idea of how the common law works, demanding that the person whom I am suing provide me the legal information needed, I would be rightfully laughed out of the courthouse.

However, the judiciary process is clearly established in the Basic Law, which is stored along with all of Europe's statutory laws in the Statutes. That is the process you have to follow. Customary law may also be relevant, as statutory law does not cover everything; procedures for redress of customary law issues are also specified in the Basic Law.

Maybe before taking your potshots, maybe consider that you're not the smartest one in the house. But you don't ever seem to get the idea, so no point on me trying to deny your sense of entitlement at all.

It wouldn't be ever surprising if you would decide to dismantle the judiciary process and even the entire courthouse in Europe, given the amount of meddling you put your hands in. You presume I have no idea of Europe's laws - or 'laws'. Yet I'm telling you now that since the Basic Law (and even the Constitution of Europe) are rather recent developments, and that most of Europe's previous stuff is based on common law and precedent, it does put up a case where Europe's even confused whether it is operating on common law or civil law.

And "Commend Imperium Anglorum" is not a matter of Europe's business, insofar Europe is concerned. It does not threaten Europe's interests, nor are there anything at stake for Europe (unlike condemnations for individual European nations), except your own personal agenda.

Nonetheless, let the masses and history judge upon your own biased interpretation of "neutrality".

The commendation of the delegate of Europe is indeed a matter that concerns Europe (as indeed would be a condemnation) - as it reflects on the region as a whole. The majority of what IA has been commended for is work that is undertaken on behalf of the entire region, so it is very much in our interest.

As for questions of Europe's neutrality - Europe is neutral for as far as its founder decides that it shall be neutral.

Thank you.

May everyone here be reminded that the right to displace the Delegate of Europe through endo-tarting is absolutely legal under the laws of Europe. I'd like to see someone take a try at that.

[Consular]

I'm really not sure why this is an issue to you, Elke and Elba.

[Imperium Anglorum]

It wouldn't be ever surprising if you would decide to dismantle the judiciary process and even the entire courthouse in Europe, given the amount of meddling you put your hands in. You presume I have no idea of Europe's laws - or 'laws'. Yet I'm telling you now that since the Basic Law (and even the Constitution of Europe) are rather recent developments, and that most of Europe's previous stuff is based on common law and precedent, it does put up a case where Europe's even confused whether it is operating on common law or civil law.

The Basic Law states that its provisions can only be removed by Parliament, which means I can't really 'dismantle' anything. Executive discretion cannot change statutory law, and the Delegate is not delegated broad independent legislative authority. Nor can I really meddle in the judicial system: § 7 of the Basic Law explicitly states that all "All judicial powers are vested in the Founder and may be exercised or delegated at the Founder’s discretion".

There is no constitution of Europe. It is unwritten. The Basic Law is an extension upon that constitution, acting as a codification of process. A good analogy here would be the English constitution, before the passage of various Parliament Acts. Moreover, Europe's judicial system doesn't fit into the mould of common or civil law — beyond the fact that its an oversimplification in of itself, since different court systems always have a level of nuance (e.g. is the British court system still purely a common law system given that appeals can be made to European Court of Human Rights?) — as I am aware, however, the regional court system operates on an inquisitorial basis.

If you're referring to the division between customary and statutory law — then § 2 and § 2(b) of the Basic Law also resolve that issue. In fact, an analogy can be called to the English legal system during the late Plantagenet dynasty, where the common law, a precedent-based legal system, coexisted with statutes proclaimed by the King or passed by Parliament which codified specific things in the wider body of law.

May everyone here be reminded that the right to displace the Delegate of Europe through endo-tarting is absolutely legal under the laws of Europe.

Doing so is legal. It is legal not only under statutory law, which does not regulate the endorsement process, but also under customary law, being the main system by which the region chooses its leaders. That is not to say, however, that every delegate has the same powers.