It’s also current SPSF policy, and that amendment would just codify it into law. Support for that particular amendment to the Military Code.
I believe that the issue with the gap is why, in the Charter, there is a mention as if the Prime Minister were someone who is not a member of the Admiralty, as you can see here:
However, in the Military Code, there is only a quote from the Admiralty:
The SPSF is twice as powerful and influential since having this rule as it was before.
Full support for the original proposal, or at least just the change to prevent concurrent memberships in other militaries if there is no appetite amongst the GP establishment for other changes.
In fact, I’ll move the original amendment abolishing cross-membership in the SPSF to a vote, and nothing else.
That may be the case today, but can we know with certainty that it will be the case next year? In five years? I don’t know if legislating this current policy into law is worth it instead of giving the Admiralty the flexibility to make alterations to SPSF policy based on the conditions of the time.
EmC has a good point here. The period or even who is in the Admiralty and in the position of Prime Minister will certainly change, and there is no way of predicting how things will be by then, flexibility is really welcome.
Why should we put off legislating something because of a very slight possibility (that I don’t think would ever actually be true, in any case) in five years?
I don’t think it’s interesting for legislation to address this, but rather those directly responsible for the SPSF do. In the end, depending on the situation, they will be the ones best able to decide what would be best and, even if it is a “very slight” possibility, I don’t see why not allowing such flexibility.
Agreed. The Assembly can just as easily pass new legislation five years from now.
Just letting you know that I will change the topic name to suit the current proposal being debated, as there are no changes in the Charter.
I see the point on both sides and, although I would still prefer to leave this in the hands of the Admiralty, I would not see a real problem with leaving it to legislation to specify this, whether prohibiting it or not.
The Admiralty changing policy - or issuing an exemption on an individual basis if needed - is a lot easier than changing the law.
1 Like
Since it is the will of the majority, the proposal remained unchanged.
I move the original proposal to vote.
I stopped keeping up with this, but didn’t we already bring this to a vote?
1 Like
We took Welly’s proposal to a vote, not the “original” one
Can we all agree that it would be good practice to actually quote or link the bill that is being motioned, when it is motioned?
3 Likes
This would be appreciated, especially when a thread contains multiple competing drafts.
I put a link, hope it works properly 
I second the motion.
1 Like
personally against the change to rule 3
as long as people can separate priorities for the two orgs and have proven they can do so dual-membership should be fine