The changes are simple and don’t change anything other than something aesthetic.
The Prime Minister is, according to the Military Code, a member of the Admiralty, since the Article 1, Section 1, of the Military Code determines that: “The Admiralty is a commission that shall be composed of up to three Captains and the Prime Minister, or their appointed designee”. Following on from that, I think it would be appropriate to change our Charter to align with that.
It is a simple change, which maintains what the original text seeks and maintains something standardized and aligned with the Military Code.
This is not an aesthetic change. There is a clear difference between “the PM leads the military and as such has a seat in the Admiralty” and “the Admiralty leads the military, and one of its members happens to be the PM”. The latter reduces the role of the PM.
Kringle is correct. The change to the PM-Admiralty relationship contemplated by this amendment is clearly substantive, and it is one we have discussed before. For the reasons stated in that debate, I am entirely opposed to such a reallocation of authority away from the PM.
The proposed changes to the Cabinet section are also substantive, not stylistic. At present, the PM and Cabinet are separate institutions. The PM is the elected leader of the executive branch; the Cabinet comprises any ministers the PM chooses to appoint. Relegating the PM to being simply “another member” of the Cabinet diminishes their role.
Okay, I think I understand your point here.
However, it is still “contradictory”, since the Charter defines the PM as someone that is not a member of the Admiralty, while the Military Code does not.
Also, I really don’t see any difference between “The military will be led by […]” and “The […] shall be the supreme entity leading the military”. So I think we should change that. As I said, there is also the possibility of simply using “the PM and the Admiralty” in the Military Code.
But it will still remain that way. The Cabinet is the intuition that leads the Executive. The Prime Minister is responsible for appointing anther members of the Cabinet, so they still has control over this.
In the former the Admiralty runs the military under the ultimate direction of the Prime Minister in their capacity as our elected executive. In the latter the Admiralty is the commanding and directing figure and the Prime Minister loses their distinctive and preeminent role, leading the military only insofar as they are one of other (unelected) voices in the Admiralty.
So it is clear that what is specified in the Military Code contradicts the Charter, since the first is what the Charter says; the second, the Military Code… In a matter before the Court, for example, the decision would certainly be the one prevailing in the Charter for obvious reasons.
(I somehow feel like I misinterpreted what you said, so please correct me if that’s the case)
That’s a good question. I would say it would simply be discarded, as there would be no agreement among the leading entities.
But actually, it’s like I’m getting into something I didn’t want to: changing something beyond the aesthetic thing. It never made sense to me to mention Admiralty in the Charter and in the Military Code as a word that refers to two different things.
So, maybe, it’s better to do it:
My main focus is simply to establish exactly what Admiralty means in the Legislation.
Thus, Admiralty would be referred to only in the Military Code, as something being the PM + Board of Admirals. I believe that this would also not change any function that both entities have.
I disagree and suggest this is exactly why the proposed amendment is inadequate. If the Prime Minister is our elected executive then the people have voted for them based on an platform that presumably includes certain foreign and military policies and the (appointed but still unelected) Admiralty should not be obstructing legitimate policies from our elected leadership.
I agree, although I already interpret our current legislation as allowing this.
But well, I would still like to hear your opinion on what I proposed below the part you cited.
I am fine with your changes to the admiralty section, but I still disagree with your changes to the Cabinet, both in substance and also in form (“may appoint another members of the Cabinet” doesn’t sound right).
To be honest, although I prefer my definition, it doesn’t seem like a problem like the Admiralty.
As far as I remember, I don’t think there is any part of the legislation that mentions the Prime Minister as a member of the Cabinet, in fact I would say that the legislation itself only deals with the Prime Minister, with the exception of the Charter, that also mention the Cabinet.
