Foreign Relations Clarification Act Vote Thread

[devintheroaster]

This is the voting thread for the Foreign Relations Clarification Act, the scrutiny thread can be found here.

[devintheroaster]

I urge strongly against this isolationist bill.

[Dekks]

This bill is not isolationist but reflects the current needs of the Democratic Socialist Assembly in light of the interpretative dispute that High Judge Mauvemarke ruled on and the current diplomatic situation the region has found itself in. This bill switches power over making and withdrawing embassies (diplomatic relations) to the Congress and community of the region, thus making sure that the community likes our embassies and that our embassies like us, which will make sure that diplomatic tensions will be avoided. The fact that making embassies requires a supermajority of votes in favour and that withdrawing embassies requires a simple majority in favour is an extra safety lock, because the negatives of a diplomatic crisis and diplomatic tensions (harming the reputation of the region, bringing over tensions to our community) are greater than the positives of good diplomatic relations (learning from eachother, sharing communities, etc.) which while amplified by embassies and official relations can be done regardless, avoiding diplomatic crises' and tensions also means that isolationaist sentiments will be less likely to form. Should you want to have a simple majority or a super majority for both making and destroying embassies than you can vote against and I will make a bill that makes these changes, I however stand by the current version.

[devintheroaster]

To clarify, this bill TAKES AWAY Cabinet's ability to open or close embassies entirely. Additionally, it makes it easy for Congress to demolish embassies while making it difficult to build new friendships.

[studentloandebt]

Should you want to have a simple majority or a super majority for both making and destroying embassies than you can vote against and I will make a bill that makes these changes, I however stand by the current version.

I don't really trust that. When the LSA was up for discussion, people told me publicly that they did not think the bill was ideal. They thought it was too short and would prefer the time periods not be so short. However, they passed it anyway because they thought the bill was better than the system we had then.

Wiley and I both made bills to try and address that. I tried to increase it from 3-3 to 4-4 and that got voted down. Wiley tried to increase it from 3-3 to 3-4, which is what everyone was saying was better than 3-3. However, that got voted down. You even voted against it, Dekks, despite you saying this was prefered.

The idea of "We can just make another bill after passing this one" does not work. That system fails to work and a new bill won't make it through because people don't want to change it even when it's something they say they want to change. Either the bill is amended in it's scrutiny or it's never going to be amended.

[liossalde]

I strongly stand with our President and our Minister of Foreign Affairs.
This bill respects the basis of the Democratic Socialist Assembly, which is the Congress. More power to the Congress is more power to democracy itself. Presuming that the cabinet has the sole privilege of opening and closing embassies, is an act of neglection of people's needs.

This Act is not set to be a step towards isolationism. This Act will solve any further issues with interpretation of the Charter by defining the so far blurry clauses that lead to longstanding arguments lacking content.

It's our duty to ensure the clarity and integrity of our Charter. It's our duty to ensure the voice of the Congress.
Hence, I strongly advise you to vote in favor of this bill.

[Deleted]

Everyone ignore my earlier comments, i may or may have not misread the bill

[cellefranca]

The clear inconsistency between the different voting methods for the opening (2/3 majority) and the closure (simple majority) of embassies speaks for itself. This bill is isolationist in nature and I strongly oppose it. I am not against giving Congress the ability to vote on embassies, but this just feels like a way to make it harder for the region to develop diplomatic relations, which is harmful for our community based on leftist unity, democracy and civil discussion.
It would've been sufficient to regulate a 2/3 majority for both the opening and the closure of embassies. That's hard facts.

[liossalde]

Apr 10, 2020 21:26:13 GMT cellefranca said:

As it stands right now, it's schizophrenic legislation.

Celle, I get your point and the spirit behind it, but I would prefer not to use mental illnesses as a descriptive reference to one's proposal with those connotations. It stigmitazes mental conditions and I believe it's not a suitable term to use in any similar context.
I have to mention that as it's part of my duties now. No hard feelings or nothing in person of course, it's all about the public discource.

[cellefranca]

Apr 10, 2020 23:24:20 GMT liossalde said:

Apr 10, 2020 21:26:13 GMT cellefranca said:

As it stands right now, it's schizophrenic legislation.

Celle, I get your point and the spirit behind it, but I would prefer not to use mental illnesses as a descriptive reference to one's proposal with those connotations. It stigmitazes mental conditions and I believe it's not a suitable term to use in any similar context.
I have to mention that as it's part of my duties now. No hard feelings or nothing in person of course, it's all about the public discource.

I will remove that part, but this also feels a little bit exagerated. I'm not insulting, judging or offending people who suffer from schizophrenic disorder, in fact I am very sympathetic to their suffering. It was merely a different way of putting that the legislation at hand is unbalanced in its relation with reality.

[Deleted]

I wholeheartedly support this legislation. This gives much needed power back to congress. If letting the common people of the DSA vote on whether or not to have relations with someone is "isolationist", then obviously your interests aren't in line with the interests of the overall regional population. Congress can decide what's best for the region themselves, and I see zero reason why the cabinet deserves the privileges in this legislation instead of us.

In the end, I get some of you disagree with closing embassies, but if you truly believe the majority of DSA residents want embassies, then there's no reason not to vote yes. If you believe the majority of DSA residents don't want embassies, despite you yourself wanting them, then I'm truly sorry. But that's how democracy works. You give power to the people and let them decide how to use it. I'm really bloody tired of cliques deciding the fate of our community and I know I'm not alone. Giving more power to the overall community is never a bad thing.

[devintheroaster]

Apr 11, 2020 21:26:59 GMT @slotheria said:

I wholeheartedly support this legislation. This gives much needed power back to congress. If letting the common people of the DSA vote on whether or not to have relations with someone is "isolationist", then obviously your interests aren't in line with the interests of the overall regional population. Congress can decide what's best for the region themselves, and I see zero reason why the cabinet deserves the privileges in this legislation instead of us.

In the end, I get some of you disagree with closing embassies, but if you truly believe the majority of DSA residents want embassies, then there's no reason not to vote yes. If you believe the majority of DSA residents don't want embassies, despite you yourself wanting them, then I'm truly sorry. But that's how democracy works. You give power to the people and let them decide how to use it. I'm really bloody tired of cliques deciding the fate of our community and I know I'm not alone. Giving more power to the overall community is never a bad thing.

What makes this isolationist isn't giving Congress the power. I'm in favor of that. It's the way in which it's done in this legislation. Whether the vote requires a simple majority or a supermajority, it should be the same to both make or break an embassy. Additionally, I do feel that Cabinet should separately hold the power, though I am less strong on this opinion than I am on my belief that Congress should have the power, and have it with consistency. What makes this isolationist is the fact that it would make it easy to break an embassy with a simple majority while making it difficult to make an embassy with the required supermajority. 

[Cacusia]

I mis like the idea of having a simple majority to close, but a supermajority to open. I believe it is in the best interests for us to further expansion of our influence, through embassies, so it would be better if the law had the necessary votes the other way round, supermajority to close, simple majority to open. It doesn’t hurt to open an embassy, it can damage relations to close one.

[Deleted]

Dekks really should've added consistency to it, I agree, I brought that up on the Scrutiny thread. But with the current situation, now more than ever Congress needs this power. There are people who would rather the majority of the DSA can't choose to cut relations with toxic regions that house totalitarians, and even if this legislation isn't perfect, we need it now.

[studentloandebt]

Apr 13, 2020 15:12:40 GMT @slotheria said:

and even if this legislation isn't perfect, we need it now.

That is the exact same argument that was used for the LSA last month. As you can see from the two amendments that were attempted to be made on it, you can see why someone would be skeptical of that logic. The legislation shouldn't require future amending. That's the entire point of the scrutiny period; make amendments to it before it goes to vote or vote against it. Don't pass something into law you don't agree with and assume it can be amended later.

[Deleted]

Fair enough, but we absolutely need this power. I do wish Dekks had made those changes, and I can understand why my logic may not hold up for everyone, but I do maintain that the issue with it is minuscule.