The origional:

Changes:

The Law Library has been updated to reflect these changes.

I'm not sure I agree with number 8.

will have a NationStates Region of their own and not just an organization representing many smaller regions.

This would seem to remove any chances of involving Canada in any multi-regional organisation or summit.

That would be the exact reason that is there.

And it's just too bad that your displeasure of it couldn't have come BEFORE it was actually passed and something might have been done about it.

Yes it is. If RL hadn't swamped me, I most certainly would have opposed it.

A while back ago when I was MoFA, I hinted that I was interested in making the Hudson Bay Doctrine official law. JG, one of the drafters of the Hudson Bay Doctrine whom I had chosen to be my Deputy at the time, talked me out of it, by providing several excellent reasons. He felt it wasn't proper to limit our foreign policy in such a way that isolationism would become compulsory. Defeated by superior reason, I agreed with him.

Establishing diplomatic relations with an organization representing many smaller regions, should be studied and voted upon on a case by case basis and not voted against arbitrarily because our guidelines say so. I can't honestly imagine why our honourable and dedicated cabinet, would want to exclude our region from participating in inter-regional discussions or summits. We've done so several times in the past on issues such as forum vandalism, and guidelines for diplomats, which culminated in drafting and adopting the Canada-Q102 Protocol that our ambassadors are obliged to follow.

I will begin working immediately on a further review of our standards for diplomatic relations, and I will most certainly be presenting this motion to the cabinet or house of commons, whether I am elected or not as soon as the next term reconvenes.

You just posted all of that for no reason really.

Had you read the whole item, you would have seen "Exceptions to the above guidelines may be made on a case by case basis by a majority opinion of the cabinet." right at the bottom ... which clearly covers your concerns about

Again ... this would have been very constructive conversation had it been brought up in Cabinet, which you were a part of, for the month and a half-ish that it was available for comment.

I'm well aware, that there is a notwithstanding clause for exceptional cases. Not only can I read English, (oh the joy :yes:) but I was also part of the cabinet that used the clause, to vote favourably for diplomatic relations with England a few terms ago. I believe it was the only time it was used. Nevertheless I still think we would do better without number 8. I think the standards need to be simplified a bit more.

I did contribute to the revision of these standards in cabinet, but unfortunately I went inactive before the final conclusion was reached, including the decision to include number 8 which, I am almost certain, was presented after my available time for NS became severely limited.

Hopefully I'll be presenting a proposal for the revision of these standards to the cabinet and/or house of commons early next term.

Logistically, number 8 was added for this reason:

When a group of Regions asks for Diplomatic Ties, it is hard to determine who our ties are with. Is it with each and every faction of that group, or just the group that came to us.

Lets fictionalize and say there is NS Regions Sensimilla, Seeds and Stems, ZigZag-aholics, Munchieland, and People Of Time, which have all joined to create the PSO (Pot Smokers Organization).

Ambassador Rizla drops by the Canadian forums and requests that Canada exchange Diplomatic Ties with the PSO.

The PSO does not have any actual NS Region page, only a specified forum to co-ordinate all of their tasks and such.

It would be against the natural order of the CSDR to enter into Diplomatic Ties with a forum. Remember ... we are playing a game here and this forum is just an extension of NS Canada. It is not a seperate entity. Canada exchanges Diplomatic Ties with other Regions.

And bottomlined, if we were to ever consider joining an organization, it would be beneficial for Canada to check out EACH AND EVERY Region that is affiliated with the organization to make sure that they meet our Diplomatic Standards, as joining the fictitious PSO would mean we were exchanging ties with five different Regions, not just one, which was the original request.

It is imperative that Canada sticks to the game and doesn't stray to the outside world of seperate entities spun off from the game.

Just my feeling at least.

^ What he said.

These are just guidelines they are not carved in stone. If an organization comes along that is stable and represents regions with similar pro-democratic values to the region of Canada then Cabinet will review that. No one will be turned away without a review and Cabinets complete consideration.

I understand the motivation for #8, but I don't agree with the result.

I'm trying to mentally frame our Standards to be compatible with establishing diplomatic relations with multi-regional organisations, that are deemed worthwhile by the cabinet, without recourse to the exception. One example would be an inter-regional organisation such as a United Regions or an inter-regional organisation where the 20 or so largest regions can take up their affairs, much like the RL UN.

I understand that the possibility of an exception is reserved, but in this particular matter I don't think it is really necessary. My itchiness with these new standards is not limited to #8 though. Cabinet set out to revise them and three changes (one addition) have been made. I'm seeing room for more changes.