Quebec’s proposal changes two words. Welly’s proposal changes four. I don’t think that’s over-legislating — and I think the issue here is concerning.
However ‘hypothetical and unlikely’ a rogue delegate is, I don’t see the harm in closing loopholes. As it currently stands, the Delegate can unilaterally decide any Regional Officer exhibited ‘unbecoming behavior’ and suspend their powers. If I were a rogue Delegate, I’d certainly want to use that authority. Why would I let the Prime Minister use Communications powers to send regional telegrams telling people I’m staging a coup? Why would I let the CRS use Border Control powers to block an invading force that’s coming in to support me? I wouldn’t.
This problem is also not solved just because the Prime Minister has the same authority. The law says that the Prime Minister or the Delegate can determine that a Regional Officer exhibited unbecoming behavior and should be removed. If the Delegate maintains their determination, then it remains true that the Prime Minister or the Delegate has made a determination of unbecoming behavior.
I do not think that issue is solved just because the Prime Minister’s “supremacy” is “very well established” or an “ingrained thing in regional culture” or a “precedent.” I don’t see the harm in putting it in law; at the very least, if this is so deeply ingrained in our culture, then we should change the law to match that culture. For the reasons above, I think the law as it currently stands does not.
I don’t really see why that’s relevant. If that’s dangerous too, why is the solution to allow something else that’s dangerous, instead of… fixing the other dangerous thing too?
Furthermore, we do try and counterbalance that danger through institutions like the Coral Guard and by promoting an endorsement culture more generally. There are influence costs to banjecting established nations from the region. There are no influence costs to dismissing Regional Officers.
I guess that’s one way to interpret it. It’s true that “all unused Regional Officer positions shall be allotted to the Council on Regional Security.” I don’t think it’s obvious that that priority also applies to regional members who aren’t CRS members but have instead been granted Border Control powers under the CRS’s discretionary authority.
I thought it’s been common with the OWL Director for a while now?