Submitted by FRS
Hello readers, firstly I would like to thank Meercovo for opening up the ONN for contributions, secondly I wanted to explain why I am writing this article, you will have undoubtedly noticed that I have been scrutinising the WMD Law legislation quite a bit, and I wanted to use this article to explain how I view legislation and why I undertake the role I do.
Despite its name the Opposition of the Orange Order isn't just to oppose government legislation, but to scrutinise it with a fine tooth comb, for loopholes, inconsistencies and general errors. If we take the original draft of the WMD law, for example, I highlighted a number of issues I had with the document:
1. This act defines WMD as weapons which can cause huge damage to major settlements and unparalleled loss of life.
What quantifies as 'huge damage' - all weapons cause damage in some form, as it is there very nature, and the law is only affecting WMDs 'unparalleled loss of life' - This could be justified to ban all weapons, as again loss of life is common throughout warfare, although Brunholl did save this slightly with the unparalleled part
2. This act bans the use of WMDs in warfare unless the target nation has given explicit consent.
This does not affect a nations ability to simply have WMDs. I understand that the phrase 'unless the target nation has given explicit consent' is for RP purposes but it still undermines the message of this law - and raises the question 'What's the point of banning them then?'.
Additionally I have been informed by Meercovo that this law is actually unconstitutional - Section 7.8 of our constitution states that:
"3. Nations must not:
-Attack nations without prior warning
-Use nuclear or chemical weapons
-Carry out military operations without first notifying the other nation privately" To repeal the Act, 50% of TOO's residents must vote to repeal it.
By convention (created Partially by FRS and partially Meercovo) only legislation of major constitutional significance e.g. the equalities act, has a 50% repeal threshold , normally it's just 25%. This in particular is interesting as I have highlighted before on the RMB my use of 50% specifically being so that it was harder to repeal, and it begs the question 'did Brunholl make this legislation harder to repeal?
In short, on this occasion no, when Brunholl was writing the law they made it seem that this was intended to be a constitutional amendment to section 7.8, however they didn't ever explicitly say this, so this was, albeit sneaky, a constitutional amendment.
So as you can see from the above thought processes I, and my fellow members of the opposition Mardata and Meercovo have to undertake on a regular basis, undertake is far more than simply opposing government legislation, which is why the opposition is at least as important as the government.
Now I can hear you saying 'but FRS that doesn't explain why the opposition is more important than the government' and my answer to that is patience, I'm getting to that part.
You see the thing about governments, is that they can, and do, appeal to the needs of voters, saying whatever they wish in order to secure votes, the government of TOO can say and do whatever they please as long as it does not violate the constitution, and who checks manifestos against the constitution, that's right, the opposition.
Furthermore, under section 7.2 of the cosntitution:
'Any cabinet official can be impeached by 2/3 of the opposition judges, unless they are Worshipful Master.'
Interestingly I am just in the process of writing an official warning to Zanjact relating to their trade ban which violates article 7.6 of the constitution:
7.6. Trade
1. All nations within TOO must be able to trade freely without fear of regulation or inspection, unless any legislation is passed differing to this sentiment.
3. TOO shall have a Common Market, allowing all nations to engage in frictionless trade, only according to their own laws.
4. Any regulations on trade must be approved by the entire region
5. TOO should continue the path of ever strengthening the region and should adopt a Common Defence Policy to ensure stability and strength.
6. Goods outlined within separate laws must never be tariffed or regulated.
And in section 7.2:
'to successfully impeach and remove the WM, 3 polls must take place, lasting one day each. The poll must be "Yes/No" in favour of impeachment, with no abstention option. If the Yes option wins 3 times, then the WM is impeached and removed. If the Yes option wins 2 times, then the WM is eligible for impeachment pending on a final decision from the Opposition, in which they must approve impeachment with 3 of the 3 judges approving. If only one of the polls succeeds in carrying a Yes majority, then the WM is not impeached'
Here the opposition has the ultimate authority, the opposition can remove the current WM, the ultimate source of power, one which comes with much responsibility.
Thank you for taking the time to read, Until next time, FRS
Well said FRS