This bill, if passed, would be both extremely detrimental to Lazarus' ability to posses broad strength and to its ability to properly fulfill the best interests of the region. The bill, more broadly, is written in a way that is sympathetic to the author's current Gameplay views, however ever-changing those may be, rather than in a way that is beneficial to Lazarus.
The mere thought that Lazarus would adopt this bill is of course as laughable as it is absurd. This horrendous bill has no place in the Lazarene Law Index, nor does it reflect the actual reality of what is best for Lazarus. This bill portrays Lazarus as exactly what it shouldn't be - a region with a hyper-restricted military that cannot be used to Lazarus' advantage. Whilst this bill does plenty to help Lazarus' allies (which is in no way a bad thing) and other regions randomly (an extremely absurd clause which is wholly unnecessary), I'm not sure what advantage this bill poses for Lazarus.
I am not denying that there are several decent elements about this bill (and Cormac more generally is a fantastic legislator, even if I disagree with much of what he legislates), but there are many unfortunate clauses which I shall endeavor to explain corrections for in the below:
(1) The regional military alignment of Lazarus will be neutral. Lazarus will bear the Neutral tag at all times.
(2) Lazarus may not bear any of the following tags: Defender, Imperialist, Independent, or Invader.
Personally, I would support Lazarus adopting the Independent ideology (as defined by the ever-present Independent Manifesto), rather than maintain a "neutral" alignment. This is in no way a personal preference (as I am personally more of an Imperialist and raider), but rather an ideology adopted by both Balder and the North Pacific that is the best for game-created regions, as it allows them to participate in military operations in a variety of ways that are
beneficial to them and of their own choosing. There is absolutely no benefit to Lazarus being restricted to the types of operations that you have personally selected. I am slightly appalled that you are shaping the region in this way, but it is of course your right to promote the legislation you see fit.
The fact of the matter is that neutral alignments do not exist. A region can not truly remain neutral, in all steps for intervention there is a decision that must be made by the relevant commanders and command structures that cannot be reasonably construed as "neutral." It is therefore logical to conclude that Lazarus should be an Independent region - one that does operations to its choosing (except of course when legally bound by internal law or diplomatic documents) and for its gain. This power to conduct operations "for your own gain" (so to speak) is of course a power that comes with great responsibility. The Commander-in-Chief and her delegates would naturally need to exercise caution in military deployments, considering whether or not it is warranted and in the best interests of Lazarus, as well as weighing the internal and external political potential for benefits to reap and repercussions to deal with. This is a critical responsibility which I would trust the Commander-in-Chief and her delegates to exercise responsibly.
I haven't the time at this point to address the various specific provisions of the limited options of mission types to participate in, but I of course have made my view on expanding that and making it discretionary rather clear above. I would like to hear input of the Citizenry on this.