Interregional Foreign Affairs Minister

This topic is for the discussion of the interregional foreign affairs minister.

So far, we haven't established anything about the foreign minister except that he/she will exist. So here's a list of what we'll need:
--How the foreign minister will be placed
--Duties of the foreign minister
--Authority of the foreign minister

Here's what I suggest:
--Placement: the foreign minister should be elected. It's only fair to have a popularly-chosen person conducting relations between the interregional union and other regions or conglomerates.
--Duties: The foreign minister should negotiate any form of treaty or agreement with other regions/conglomerates, and should deal with requests by other regions to join the interregional union. Both of which I believe should be voted on by the legislature afterward; treaties should be approached the same as new laws for vote percentage (which means 60%), and for new regions joining the union, an approval rate of 90% would be required, as mentioned on the legislature's topic.
--Authority: The foreign minister would have full authority to make demands or negotiate with other regions without guidance by the president or other authorities (though he/she can be recalled like anyone else if the ability is abused). Any form of treaty or agreement could be published by the foreign minister and another region, though any treaty would need to be accepted by the legislature before going into effect. The foreign minister could also reject a request from another region to join the union without input of the president or other authorities; if he/she approved of the request, they would also be able to negotiate any whereabouts or surrounding agreements of a region joining the union (as long as the agreements did not provide unequal rights to the given region over the original four. If the legislature voted to approve the request, the agreements would automatically be implemented alongside it). If a region's request was rejected, it would have permission to complain directly to the president (who would refer the problem to the legislature, who would vote on the request as normal). However, any region complaining to the president MUST have spoken earlier with the foreign minister. If a region's request to join is sent to the president and directly voted on by the legislature, no surrounding agreements would be made. Only the foreign minister could make such agreements.

The foreign minister would have full authority to make demands or negotiate with other regions without guidance by the president or other authorities

I think the foreign minister needs to at least notify the President (and maybe the legislature) before making large negotiations like a peace treaty. Should they object, it would be voted on. This prevents the foreign minister for posting treaties that would be denied by the legislature anyway, reducing credibility.

and for new regions joining the union, an approval rate of 90% would be required

This seems far too high. It means a incredibly small minority could deny a region access. How about 75%?

The foreign minister could also reject a request from another region to join the union without input of the president or other authorities

We should however add: The foreign minister is obliged to inform the President and Legislature of any join requests he has rejected.

Other than that, seems fine.

@Xin Prussia: I agree that the minister should notify the president; however, authority to make the agreements should fall solely with the minister himself/herself. If the president or legislature had the ability to handle the negotiations, there wouldn't be a point in having a separate person to do that full-time. Also, it would be rather undiplomatic if the interregional government could deny a region the right to even SPEAK with the minister. As a result I think the minister should make negotiations and an agreement first, and have the agreement itself voted on by the legislature like a law.

About regions joining, it is imperative that the rating is very high. The process to work with the regions as a union is very difficult and can't be spared to simply let regions apply to join us all the time. If a region wishes to join, they should be very well approved of--75%, I feel, is simply not enough approval for the regions to sit down and work right alongside that region. However, 90% would show that the regions are very comfortable and quite able to work with the new region. While it's exciting for new regions to join, we have to ensure that virtually everyone approves of the joining, since it means that region will essentially fuse politically with our own.

Lastly, I think that's fair; to simplify things, why don't we just require the foreign minister to simply notify the president and heads of the legislature of all formal negotiations taking place?

@Xin Prussia: I agree that the minister should notify the president; however, authority to make the agreements should fall solely with the minister himself/herself. If the president or legislature had the ability to handle the negotiations, there wouldn't be a point in having a separate person to do that full-time. Also, it would be rather undiplomatic if the interregional government could deny a region the right to even SPEAK with the minister. As a result I think the minister should make negotiations and an agreement first, and have the agreement itself voted on by the legislature like a law.

This gives the foreign minister far too much power in deciding our foreign policy, don't you think? Also, there was nothing about denying a region the right to speak with the minister. I was simply stating that the minister perhaps shouldn't propose treaties that he could never deliver on, as it would reduce our credibility in future negotiations.

Xin Prussia wrote:

@Xin Prussia: I agree that the minister should notify the president; however, authority to make the agreements should fall solely with the minister himself/herself. If the president or legislature had the ability to handle the negotiations, there wouldn't be a point in having a separate person to do that full-time. Also, it would be rather undiplomatic if the interregional government could deny a region the right to even SPEAK with the minister. As a result I think the minister should make negotiations and an agreement first, and have the agreement itself voted on by the legislature like a law.

This gives the foreign minister far too much power in deciding our foreign policy, don't you think? Also, there was nothing about denying a region the right to speak with the minister. I was simply stating that the minister perhaps shouldn't propose treaties that he could never deliver on, as it would reduce our credibility in future negotiations.

Not really, because whatever decisions he makes will ultimately have to be approved by the legislature. He doesn't technically have "power" to do anything. He just gets to shape whatever proposal is presented to the legislature. About what I said on denying a region negotiations, I was referring to when you said the minister should notify the president if he/she rejects a request to join. I was just clarifying what I'd mentioned earlier, that another region could speak directly with the president or legislature if the minister denied to negotiate their request. I just misinterpreted, that's all. I agree that the minister should notify the president/legislature if he/she denies a request to join. As long as you agree that a region can speak directly with the president/legislature if the minister rejected the request, we're fine.

Zwotstyg wrote:

Xin Prussia wrote:

@Xin Prussia: I agree that the minister should notify the president; however, authority to make the agreements should fall solely with the minister himself/herself. If the president or legislature had the ability to handle the negotiations, there wouldn't be a point in having a separate person to do that full-time. Also, it would be rather undiplomatic if the interregional government could deny a region the right to even SPEAK with the minister. As a result I think the minister should make negotiations and an agreement first, and have the agreement itself voted on by the legislature like a law.

This gives the foreign minister far too much power in deciding our foreign policy, don't you think? Also, there was nothing about denying a region the right to speak with the minister. I was simply stating that the minister perhaps shouldn't propose treaties that he could never deliver on, as it would reduce our credibility in future negotiations.

Not really, because whatever decisions he makes will ultimately have to be approved by the legislature. He doesn't technically have "power" to do anything. He just gets to shape whatever proposal is presented to the legislature. About what I said on denying a region negotiations, I was referring to when you said the minister should notify the president if he/she rejects a request to join. I was just clarifying what I'd mentioned earlier, that another region could speak directly with the president or legislature if the minister denied to negotiate their request. I just misinterpreted, that's all. I agree that the minister should notify the president/legislature if he/she denies a request to join. As long as you agree that a region can speak directly with the president/legislature if the minister rejected the request, we're fine.

Yeah, that's fine.