Each time the Prime Minister wants to retain a Cabinet minister between terms, we have a song and dance about holding a vote. I think we should just formalize it.
I’m happy to take suggestions on the wording, by the way. I think there’s probably a cleaner way to express this that I’m not thinking of right now.
I would like to suggest that instead of the end of the term, they remain in their position until a successor has been confirmed (wether it is them or someone else)
I’m not sure our system has a clear way of reliably defining who a successor is. The next Cabinet might not have anyone with the same title, or might have someone with the same title but for whom the Prime Minister has defined a different role.
This is a just reworded version of yours:
But, I dislike how V(2) is written and would rather just rewrite it altogether:
(The current language of V(2) uses both “minister” and “member of the Cabinet.” I just went with minister to be consistent, but either way is fine.)
I agree with Pronoun that this would be hard to define. Maybe:
This would leave it to be determined by the PM. But I don’t think it’s really needed.
Cryo’s V(2) rewrite sounds really good to me.
I will point out that recalls of the PM do not automatically remove the rest of the cabinet under current law. Motions of no confidences provide for the PM and Cabinet both to be removed.
This amendment as proposed would cause direct conflict with those provisions in the Charter.
I think a better option is to let the Assembly leave the status quo and have it continue as an unwritten tradition that reconfirmation votes happen (supports the reinforcement of Assembly supremacy).
Though if we do insist upon codifying it, I would suggest saying that cabinet members are to be reconfirmed if the new PM desires to retain them upon a taking office (rather than saying they leave office with the old PM).
I mean, (a) we can amend those provisions, and (b) I do not see the “direct conflict” here — if the Prime Minister is recalled, then they do indeed ‘cease to hold office’ and thus members of the Cabinet would also cease to hold office under this amendment.
What does ‘Assembly supremacy’ mean? The Assembly holds supreme legislative authority — it exercises that authority by legislating, not by continuing an unwritten tradition.
Frankly, I think votes to retain ministers are tenuous under current law. Procedurally, they’ve been considered resolutions — but they are resolutions that contain no words, and which barely anybody actually refers to as a resolution. Even if that resolution fails, there’s no legal mechanism to remove a minister from office.
The Assembly would reinforce its supremacy by actually legislating like it’s supposed to instead of having laws that don’t align with its actual preferences.
How would you define retention?
That’s true
But with how it’s worded there would be a gap where there would not be any ministers at all, which could cause issues during the transition (such as risking regional security) and make the job harder for the incoming PM
Right 
I am simply pointing out that the express intention in the Charter is that cabinet members are designed to be able to survive a recalled PM that appointed them if the Assembly desires. I am not in any way saying the Assembly can’t amend that part too if it wanted to change its intent now that we are a few years into this new system.
I don’t have access to the exact debate, but it was said (more or less) that if the retained minister didn’t get majority support, it might be a sign that the PM should fire that minister. Beyond that, the Assembly can still absolutely vote to recall a retained minister, even if the technically unneeded vote to keep them on failed. I might be misremembering slightly, it has been a couple of years…
Keeping someone in their existing office.
This already can (and does) happen under our current system. I’d be fine with an amendment that has ministers leave their post when a new (elected) Prime Minister takes office — I think that should fill that gap during special elections (I think a caretaker PM can deal). But between regular elections, because a Prime Minister-elect has to wait until they take office to nominate Cabinet members, there can already be a gap at the start of the term (which I think is a separate issue to this amendment).
I think this amendment would indeed change that, yes.
Right, exactly. Neither of those are a legal mechanism related to the Assembly vote itself. At best, the vote exerts some political pressure, but legally speaking, it doesn’t actually do anything.
I do not think recall votes really move the needle here. The Assembly can recall an official with or without a retention vote, but recalls are not the same thing — for one, they require a supermajority; and for another, they can only be held for specific reasons, of which “failed an Assembly vote” is not one.
I don’t mind this in theory, but recently we have had ministers ‘retained’ with the same title, but where the Prime Minister submits a new definition of the minister’s role à la Charter V(2)(c). I think that the role which the Prime Minister defines for a Cabinet member when appointing them is relevant to the Assembly’s decision on whether to confirm them, and that if the role changes — even if the office has the same name — then the Assembly should get to vote again. We could define ‘existing office’ in law but I think it’s cleaner to just say each Prime Minister gets a clean slate at the start of their term.
We should move the motion to a vote of pronoun draft and cryo’s drafts (reformulation and on executive)