In accordance with section 2 subsection 3 of the Assembly Procedure Act (August 2018), this motion (which has since been deleted by its author) is not legal.
In anticipation of any further legal motion with affairs in the state they are in, however, I am not going to beat around the bush. I am extremely disappointed by this motion. This treaty seems to have been proposed on the basis of shaky assumptions that provisions will never actually be used and the idea that Lazarus and Osiris will always be able to solve disagreements regarding this treaty diplomatically. 4:3 in particular is an entirely unnecessary stumbling block that has the potential to bring this all down about our ears in the future. Our constitution is clear that there are two ways in which a citizen may be punished and signing a treaty that gives a false indication that other arrangements are possible is dangerous. The very notion of convicting our citizens at the whim of a foreign power, no matter how friendly with either party we may be, is frankly shameful.
Arguments that current governments would not instigate the issues foreseen in this thread do not hold weight-these institutions are not static and in the future new officials may regard the treaty differently and divide our regions. The text must be clear if it is to be enforced then as it is now.
I can't see how changes to or the removal of such a controversial and extraordinary provision could cause such dismay in Osiris that they would be unwilling to ratify a treaty without it. Why should we vote in favour of an inadequate treaty just to avoid inconveniencing our partner? Especially considering that both parties will have to undergo the ratification process anyway if you intend later amendments to bring it up to standard after we ratify the original proposal.
In anticipation of any further legal motion with affairs in the state they are in, however, I am not going to beat around the bush. I am extremely disappointed by this motion. This treaty seems to have been proposed on the basis of shaky assumptions that provisions will never actually be used and the idea that Lazarus and Osiris will always be able to solve disagreements regarding this treaty diplomatically. 4:3 in particular is an entirely unnecessary stumbling block that has the potential to bring this all down about our ears in the future. Our constitution is clear that there are two ways in which a citizen may be punished and signing a treaty that gives a false indication that other arrangements are possible is dangerous. The very notion of convicting our citizens at the whim of a foreign power, no matter how friendly with either party we may be, is frankly shameful.
Arguments that current governments would not instigate the issues foreseen in this thread do not hold weight-these institutions are not static and in the future new officials may regard the treaty differently and divide our regions. The text must be clear if it is to be enforced then as it is now.
I can't see how changes to or the removal of such a controversial and extraordinary provision could cause such dismay in Osiris that they would be unwilling to ratify a treaty without it. Why should we vote in favour of an inadequate treaty just to avoid inconveniencing our partner? Especially considering that both parties will have to undergo the ratification process anyway if you intend later amendments to bring it up to standard after we ratify the original proposal.