We can split executive membership and election requirements from the Assembly without losing the accountability aspect of the Assembly that we want to see maintained. If I thought this was a security risk, I would not support it.
Echoing Pronoun’s argument, I actually think such a move would increase accountability to the Assembly since its members would be more inclined to get such answers from the (more independent) executive. Not to mention that the remaining legislators will still possess recall functions, law making functions, and confirmation functions. Further, I think, especially in the short term (and likely the long term), many, if not all, ministers of the executive branch will also be legislators. So the only thing that changes would be a softer firewall rather than a hard one.
Also, as legislators, you also still have the ability to vote for PM, and would thus be able to use your vote to vote for legislators if you so chose.
I have struggled for the last couple of days to word out my opinions on this without sounding contradictory of confusing. Essentially, I’m against the concept of requiring a WA status or SPSF participation for citizenship. However with that in mind, I do support the general idea of this idea, and think that Griff does postulate a couple of solid ideas.
To echo (briefly) Pronoun’s argument, indirectly influencing members of the Assembly to do the bare minimum is what is currently created at the moment. There are a lot of things that we can do to drive the onus of security clearances away from joining the Assembly without weakening the Assembly as a whole.
Now to go over numbers that were previously thrown out by Griff. I think that for elections I’d feel most comfortable with a fairly significant percentage, something like 3/4th over 2/3rds just as a means to ensure that a consistent attention is being kept up with(although that does lead to the question of how attentive will people be vs how much will they just want they shiny badge of having citizenship.)
Additionally while I do mostly like the concept of legislators having to be “active in debate” I think that we would need a pretty solid definition of what that would be before we could really institute it in a way that would be effective.
(apologies for the mini wall of text, have been trying to find the words for a few days, as I have said :P)
Apologies for the delay. I’m curious to know your reasoning for this.
Well let me put it simply. I maintain legislator status within TSP as I have(admittedly on again off again) been a citizen and member of this region since ~2017. In that period I have also been a member of either the UDSAF or TGW while not being involved DIRECTLY with the SPSF for the majority of that time. Put simply, as I already participate in R/D and work CLOSELY with SPSF(as can be attested by all active members of the SPSF) there’s simply not a specific need for me to join a 3rd military organization that does the exact same thing, is a part of the same alliances and holds the same treaties as the two organizations I am currently actively part of. As for why I am against WA Status, it would be regurgitation.
Now if there were written and authorized exceptions, I’d likely be much more receptive of the idea, but blanketing those two requirements simply feels unnecessary to me.
I concur with Kanglia. WA status should not be the key for regional citizenship or participation in the Assembly. Plus, Kanglia is not even eligible to join SPSF due to law in our Military Code which prohibits a member of SPSF to join another army.
2 Likes
Then maybe just use similar eligibility standards to those of the Assembly for citizens.
Closed due to inactivity per the Legislative Procedure Act , Article 1, Section 6.