Intrigued by what was questioned by Kris in a previous proposal, I thought it would be useful to fill the gap in the laws of the South Pacific.
First, let’s see the Charter:
Therefore, we would amend the Military Code as follows:
Another thing Kris pointed out that I thought would be good to clarify:
Another one:
I largely addressed this proposal in my response to Kris’ comments in the other thread. I think the one General rule is rather silly – if we have competent officers around to run operations, they should be permitted to do so regardless of how many Generals we have. Additionally, the solution to our current workaround of permitting cross-membership only if someone is approved by the General Corps is simply to prohibit cross-membership.
Interesting. Do you have any amendments suggestions that adhere to your idea?
Honestly, I don’t feel it would be fair to prohibit our members from participating in other organizations, with, of course, the appropriate security measures.
Why wouldn’t it be fair? Prohibiting cross-membership is a very appropriate security measure for a highly sensitive organization.
You have a point, but do we really need this? I would have no problem banning that in this proposal, but I think it’s a valid debate. Couldn’t this end up reducing our numbers or do you believe not?
Given that current SPSF policy is to disallow cross-org membership, and has been in place for many moons now, no, I don’t think it will hurt our numbers. Let’s get it in law so we can simplify the process of joining the SPSF.
No. Ever since we required members to prioritize the SPSF alone, our officer corps has actually expanded dramatically in both quality and depth. Plus, we should be prioritizing retaining people who are dedicated to the SPSF, not entertaining the wishes of those who will inevitably put another region or agenda first.
Something else that’s worth changing is that the PM is the supreme leader of the military and the General Corp is the primary entity leading it.
What would be the practical difference between that and what we have now?
Resolve current contradictions in the law. Who’s leading the military, per the law?
If we take into account the changes intended in the current proposal, the Prime Minister together with the General Corps
The way I see it is that the General Corps is the supreme entity overseeing the military, with the PM or MoD being a member of the General Corps.
Well, the proposal can also be suitable for this, it all depends on what y’all think is best
pretty sure this is the wrong thread for this
Coming back to that, well, I was thinking about this possibility too and it wouldn’t be difficult to adapt our legislation to this. It is more my preference to differentiate the PM from the Generals Corps, just as I would like them to be differentiated from their Cabinet 
Does anyone have any objections or suggestions?
Honestly, I’m thinking about removing the change in the Charter, thinking about it a little and I found it a bit contradictory, since the PM can already appoint Ministers to perform tasks delegated to them.
It would just be something more and meaningless.
Edit: done.
Yes, I will have some thoughts here. I apologize for the slow response. I’ve been drowning in real life work. But I hope to post something more detailed later this week.
Sorry to bother you, but do you plan to do it soon?