The Prime Minister and I, in accordance with our joint power under Article VIII, Section 5 of the Charter are most pleased to announce our joint nomination of @Pronoun (Esfalsa, in-game) to the Council on Regional Security.
The Prime Minister and I reached out to the Council on Regional Security for their consultation and approval, which we are pleased to say that they provided.
Pronoun has been a member of the region and has been in good standing for several years. He has repeatedly demonstrated his commitment to the region. They have held several positions within the region and is currently, is an active Citizen, Legislator, and Citizenship Committee member among other positions.
Pronoun, the Prime Minister, the Council on Regional Security, and I are all standing by to answer any questions or comments the Assembly might have.
I do have a small question, is this countering Kris’s nomination of Henn, meaning you and the Prime Minister prefer Pronoun, over Henn, also if both their both nominations go through, will they both be accepted, even though one CRS member resigned? Either way, both Pronoun, and Henn are both extraordinary citizens and both deserve their nominations for CRS.
These are not competing nominations. If both nominations are confirmed, they will both enter the CRS on equal standing.
The Prime Minister and I were torn over nominating Pronoun or Henn. We ended up choosing Pronoun, and it appears Henn had submitted an application directly to the CRS during that time.
Lastly, the resignation of Glen from the CRS was purely a coincidence, as the process for this nomination began shortly before it.
The short answer is that it’s both; as the Charter puts it, the Council is tasked with both “monitoring and responding to regional security issues.” These aren’t separate areas of responsibility, but rather components of a holistic approach to keeping our region secure. By proactively making contingency plans, the Council can aim to streamline its reactive actions in an emergency. By reactively responding to acts of hostility against an ally, the Council can proactively stay alert for potential actions taken against the Coalition itself. In some cases, the line between proactive and reactive can be unclear. Are proscriptions in response to the invasion of an ally a reactive measure to that invasion or a proactive measure against potential hostilities against the Coalition? Would the rescission of an emergency Citizenship Committee appointment be a reactive response to that appointment or a proactive guard against how that appointee might handle applications? The distinction, at some point, is academic — the Charter tasks the Council with being both proactive and reactive, and in my view, that holistic approach is more effective than an approach more narrowly focused on one or the other.
Since the Chair decided to not use their powers as per LPA 2.9 to delay this vote even though there are relevant questions to the CRS remaining, I hereby request a cancellation of the vote as per LPA 1.6, and until that point in time I will vote Nay in protest.
The reason provided has been deemed sufficient by the Chair. However, in order for voting to be cancelled, the original motion must be seconded, after this, there will be a 24hr wait period in which other legislators may be given the opportunity to object to this motion. If no objections are raised, then voting shall be cancelled.
As with Henn’s nomination, I object to the motion to cancel voting. I do not believe the Assembly should embargo the confirmation of two eminently qualified nominees until the CRS provides “the vaguest of answers” to questions about its internal deliberations. If members of the Assembly believe that such responses are material to their evaluation of these nominees, then they may vote accordingly.
The motion is recognised by the Chair, as the motion to cancel has been objected to by another Assembly member, voting will continue and end at its original pre-defined date and time. 2024-08-30T21:20:00Z.