I move this to a vote.
I’ll second
Just checking quickly before I bring this to a vote, are you referring to this draft here?
No, it’s this one 
1 Like
At this moment in time, the above motioned draft is unable to go to a vote, the current debate period for this draft stands at two days, the earliest this draft would eligible to go to a vote would be on Monday, October 7th I believe. This is due to the fact that this is an amendment to constitutional law, thus requiring a minimum debate period of five days.
1 Like
I’m struggling to grasp the need for these changes. Why is the proposed language an improvement over what we currently have?
I apologize for the last minute intervention, as I realize this is about to hit the date at which it can be put to vote. RL commitments have been absolutely all consuming lately, and I have failed to keep up with this debate as closely as I would have liked.
Well, basically, there are two conflicts about what Admiralty means.
According to the Charter, it refers only to Admirals; according to the Military Code, it refers to Admirals in conjunction with the PM/MoD
I’m not totally sure I see a conflict, as the Charter does not expressly define the term “Admiralty.”
In any event, how does this change reconcile the Charter and the Military Code? The PM can (and typically does) designate their position on the Admiralty to the MoD. But the MoD does not thereby become an Admiral. Are they part of the “board of admirals” for purposes of this amendment to the Charter, or would the MoD have no say in decisions to “establish further hierarchy, create programs, and appoint deputies,” since such decisions are entrusted exclusively to the “Prime Minister” and “the board of admirals”?
The Charter is notoriously about “the Prime Minister and Admiralty”, which implies that the PM is not part of it, while the Military Code clearly states that the “The Admiralty is a commission that shall be composed of up to three Captains and the Prime Minister, or their appointed designee”.
Well, you could ask the same question for what is currently written in the Charter, and I even thought about putting a “or their appointed designee” in this part to solve conflicts like that.
Not necessarily. Another way to read that clause is as an acknowledgement that the Prime Minister might not be part of the Admiralty. Which is true; the PM’s designee might be on the Admiralty in their stead. Then the purpose of the “Prime Minister and Admiralty” language is to ensure that, even if the Prime Minister is not serving on the Admiralty directly, they still must be involved in decisions to “establish further hierarchy, create programs, and appoint deputies."
But that would also imply that the Prime Minister cannot be part of the Admiralty, when we know that is not true, as the Military Code provides that either the Prime Minister or the MoD can be part of the Admiralty.
Basically, the Charter assumes that the PM and the Admiralty are different entities, that one is not part of the other, while the Military Code says the opposite.
That’s not a necessary implication of the language. And I don’t think it’s the best reading if we are trying to reconcile different provisions of our law, which should be the goal of statutory interpretation, rather than looking for conflicts.
All this provision is saying is that whoever is on the Admiralty and however the term “Admiralty” is defined in other legislation, the PM must take part in the listed set of decisions.
Still, I see that there is open for interpretation and I believe that leaving this open is less advantageous than changing it to reconcile the Charter and the Military Code.
Ultimately, the amendment does its part in defining Admiralty and avoiding ambiguities from getting dirty, imo.
Considering the fact that there is active debate at the moment, the Chair utilises sub-section 9, of section 2 of the Legislative Procedure Act, and delays voting on this legislation until 2024-10-09T13:20:00Z. If there is still active debate I may extend this vote delay, I will see tomorrow.
Yours faithfully,
BlockBuster2K43, Chair of the Assembly
I see this as a solution in search of a problem. Our military leaders can correct me if I am wrong, but I don’t believe that this purported conflict in the definition of “Admiralty” has caused any difficulties in the smooth functioning of the SPSF. Any ambiguity that may have existed has been liquidated by practice.
On the other hand, this proposal actually introduces new ambiguity by leaving unclear whether the PM’s designated representative on the Admiralty could take part in the listed decisions, as they are not technically an Admiral.
Edit: I’ll just add that I don’t see this as a huge deal, just unnecessary and potentially creating more problems than it’s worth. I’m happy to conclude debate here and let this go to vote. The Assembly can decide which of us it agrees with.
1 Like
It’s a good question, and I considered including it, even though I didn’t do it.
Edit: according to your argument, this would imply that the PM cannot delegate the leadership of the SPSF to their MoD (along with the Admirals), since the “The military will be led by the Prime Minister, along with a board of admirals”. Btw, nothing prohibits the PM to do so.
Noting the lack of discussion, I will be moving this to a vote hopefully in the next few hours. RL has been extremely busy as of late, and for that I apologise, it should hopefully calm down around the start of next week.
1 Like
We are …finally… at a vote! Apologies for the delay.
1 Like
I agree entirely with what Welly said and am voting against for this reason. I encourage others to do the same.
1 Like
The Chair wishes to inform the Assembly of a mistake in the description of the vote A2410.01, associated with this discussion thread.
The description previously stated this → amend the Charter and further expand the powers of the board of admirals
This has been changed to → amend the Charter and modify the naming of the board of admirals within a specific clause