Ministry of Foreign Affairs too powerful?

GoodFella · July 9, 2002, 01:19

From the Constitution:

Quote:

Minister of Foreign Affairs:
This minister is the government’s chief advisor on foreign affairs and is responsible for carrying out foreign policy. He/She is given the power to enter into diplomatic negotiations with other countries, however should refrain from making commitments until approved by the people.

The Foreign Advisor is granted the power to make peace, accept Mutual Protection Pacts, offer Right of Passage Agreements, and forge Military Alliances. The exchange of all items, except Strategic, Luxury, or Gold resources falls on the broad shoulders of the Foreign Affairs Minister. It is strongly recommended that the Foreign Affairs Minister consult the appropriate ministers when gifts or exchanges are involved.

This Minister is required to consult the Trade advisor when Gold, Luxury or Strategic resources are involved.

Forgive me if I am wrong, but this seems to give the impression that the foreign minister has the sole decision on making diplomatic and trade agreements.

It seems ot suggest making polls for approval, but it doesn't clearly say that it is required.

I propose amending the ministry of foreign affairs to require the minister to need the approval of ministers and president (or just approval from the appropriate offices) and 2/3 of the citizens.

Forgive me if I'm wrong, but this is the interpretation I got when reading it.

Ninot · July 9, 2002, 01:39

As is the current state of the constitution.. the Foreign Minister does NOT have control over resource or luxury trade, only techs.

And it would be entirely rediculous to state that any minister MUST require consensus on every decision.

Most of the decisions listed as in the power of the Foreign minister already have stipulations, such as making war.

The constitution on my job is clear and fine. I dont see why anyone would have a problem with it.

Btw, why would I sensibly require 2/3 of the citizens to agree with me on every single trade? and not only that, but the president as well?

notyoueither · July 9, 2002, 01:46

I agree with Ninot. We elect them. We must allow them to act.

They in turn must abide by the spirit of the game. I think that most or all ministers are doing this. However, official polls require 4 days to be binding (I think). Do we really want to hold things up every time a some-what major decision is needed?

I would like some clarification on the role of the Pres, FAM, and SMC on matters of war though. Can the FAM just go ahead and make peace if he or she chooses, over the objections of everyone?

Can the FAM prevent the SMC from exploring just over the border?

Who decides what our response is when the AI says 'get lost or declare war'?

MrWhereItsAt · July 9, 2002, 10:19

Argh. More amendments.

We elect our Ministers because we expect them to represent us well, we expect them to listen to us, and to poll when they feel it is worth us having an input. We expect them to subjugate themselves before our will, and any who do not so are unworthy.

We need not regulate our Ministers to death in such a way. Any problems with their performance, see the Judges. It is good you bring this idea up before us all, GoodFella,

but I disagree with any amendments to this effect.

ThePlagueRat · July 9, 2002, 10:22

Ahh... A people's proposal for a new constitution clause?
(that would have to pass by 66%)

Could also be a job for the const. court? (to reformulate and make a poll)

I do not agree in the foreign minister's sole responsibility, or "granted power of...."

1."making peace"
2."accept Mutual Protection Pacts"
3."offer Right of Passage Agreements"
4."forge Military Alliances."

This should be reformulated to "Executing the people's wish of..."
Or "Assist the task of..." in some way.

So we need this const. court to balance the executive power properly.

ThePlagueRat · July 9, 2002, 10:29

Quote:

Originally posted by GoodFella

I propose amending the ministry of foreign affairs to require the minister to need the approval of ministers and president (or just approval from the appropriate offices) and 2/3 of the citizens.

I think there is something about the 2/3 requirements for War Declaration, also written in the same constitution. (?)
But unfortunately no amendments concerning allies and territoral supremacy. (dammit, we must provide links when reffering to our const.) Ok, so we have to check for consistency first of all...

Sheik · July 9, 2002, 11:04

Quote:

Originally posted by ThePlagueRat

I do not agree in the foreign minister's sole responsibility, or "granted power of...."

1."making peace"
2."accept Mutual Protection Pacts"
3."offer Right of Passage Agreements"
4."forge Military Alliances."

This is interesting. Shouldn't the President or the Military Minister have the right to declare war and make peace. It seems to me that the person that has the right to declare war should have the right to declare peace. I don't think we need more checks and balances because we did elect this person to make decisions but the ability to make peace may be to much.

MrWhereItsAt · July 9, 2002, 11:05

I think people just need to take this sort of decision into account when they elect a Foreign Minister. We don't need endless polls for such a thing.

As Trip says in another thread (about an idea I support

), why slow the game down even more for little reason?

ThePlagueRat · July 9, 2002, 11:15

Quote:

Originally posted by MrWhereItsAt
As Trip says in another thread (about an idea I support

), why slow the game down even more for little reason?

We are not slowing progress in game... We're just trying to improve the system. Just the same as the Apolytonian Court polls. (Trip making many polls on that issue nowadays)
Some matters needs thinking ahead...

Jon Shafer · July 9, 2002, 11:32

If the FAM makes peace under everyone's nose without consulting anyone or making a poll, impeachment = inevitable.

Epistax · July 9, 2002, 12:25

What do we do if we find ourselves, in the middle of a turnchat, with

"The great zulu civilization demands of the puny bananas,

12 Monkeys"

We can't convein a vote, although this may directly be whether or not we wish to declare war.

Jon Shafer · July 9, 2002, 12:44

We are only to go to war when it has already been planned upon. For example, if in 30 turns, France demands 1,000,000 gold and 15 techs, then we can say no, they declare war, and we take no diplomacy hit for it. OTOH, we have to come to some consensus about what we wish to risk... saying no to the Zulus will certainly end up putting us in a war with them, which we cannot afford. Also, there is no way to stop a turnchat when that kind of issue arises... you can't just pause the game with the little menu box up.

Robber Baron · July 9, 2002, 18:54

Quote:

Originally posted by Trip
... saying no to the Zulus will certainly end up putting us in a war with them, which we cannot afford. Also, there is no way to stop a turnchat when that kind of issue arises... you can't just pause the game with the little menu box up.

No prob. Just say, "excuse me, Mr. Shaka, I'll need to conduct a poll among my citizenry to see if they agree to your exorbinant and insulting demands. We'll get back to you in a little over a week or so (allowing 4 days for an unofficial poll, another 4 for an official poll ...). Be a dear, now, and please have your impi's check their war clubs and animal skin shields by the border. Thanks."
He seems like a nice, polite man. I'm sure he'll understand.

Ninot · July 9, 2002, 19:32

Quote:

1."making peace"
2."accept Mutual Protection Pacts"
3."offer Right of Passage Agreements"
4."forge Military Alliances."

as the FM job is stipulated right now in the consitution, the Foreign Minister MUST consult with the neccesary ministers before making any decisions whatsoever.

Thus...
I cant make peace without consulting the SMC
I cant get into an MPP or military alliance without consulting.. i guess it would be the SMC...
and it goes on and on.. mostly with the advise of either the SMC, Trade, or Science Minister.

And, in such cases as War, I must have a 66% vote.. and even then, I would never jump at such a thing unless the SMC explecitly requested it.

MrWhereItsAt · July 9, 2002, 22:06

Perhaps, to prepare ourselves for such an inadvertent (on our part) war, we need to have a general stance towards some Civs. Sometimes it may be necessary to give in to reasonable demands ( determined by the Foreign Minister and citizens in the turnchat), and others we may want to keep everything to ourselves. This way we have at least considered the possibility over war over such a refusal of tribute, and we cannot blame anyone for refusing a trade and inadvertently ending up putting us in a war we idn't want.

I guess this means more polls (sigh) to determine whether the people are prepared to deal with such a war for the sake of denying a Civ tribute.

Jon Shafer · July 9, 2002, 22:51

Quote:

Originally posted by Robber Baron
No prob. Just say, "excuse me, Mr. Shaka, I'll need to conduct a poll among my citizenry to see if they agree to your exorbinant and insulting demands. We'll get back to you in a little over a week or so (allowing 4 days for an unofficial poll, another 4 for an official poll ...). Be a dear, now, and please have your impi's check their war clubs and animal skin shields by the border. Thanks."
He seems like a nice, polite man. I'm sure he'll understand.

I see your point.

Maybe we should sacrifice 20 strong bulls in his honor.

I agree with Mwia. We need to have some standard for what is acceptable to give to prevent war... if I come across it in a turnchat...

GoodFella · July 10, 2002, 03:14

Perhaps it justs needs clarification, because the way it is written now it seems misleading (or mabee its just me).

Ninot · July 10, 2002, 10:25

THAT is quite true. I was confuzed myself.

It seems all inclusive because it isnt as detailed as it should be.
Simply stating the Foreign Minister has powers regaurding everything but so-and-so can make for some pretty powerful Foreign Ministers, or some pretty confuzed ones (like me).

It wouldnt be hard to compile an actual list of his powers, rather than saying his powers involve all but so and so.