ADMIN: Review of the UK position

Why should there be? Why should 1 member be bound by different rules than others?

This "hypothetical" puts the charter at risk of breach. How about we bolt the stable door before the horse bolts?

Do you need to bolt the stable door when the horse cant go any further than you wish?

Tell me the point in arguing over a breach after it has happened when we can prevent it occuring?

You could argue the same for things like crime - if you incarcerated everyone permanently, there would be no way of them commiting crimes. You have to have some element of risk in everything you do, unless you're god, obviously.

I think given that the Prime Minister is generally a fairly long-term TSR poster, as are a lot of the people active in both the MUN and the House of Commons, I think it's unlikely that we'd end up with somebody in the UK position who would end up trying to wreck things. And if we do, we have a mechanism in place to get rid of them - Votes of No Confidence.

The difference being in crime you don't actively create situations where they can occur. There will inevitably come a time when RL and TSR HofC differ and this creates a conflict we can stop arising by stopping this link.

Or we can say that the UK rep obeys the wishes of the HoC unless there are none, period.

The difference being in crime you don't actively create situations where they can occur. There will inevitably come a time when RL and TSR HofC differ and this creates a conflict we can stop arising by stopping this link.

I'm not entirely sure what the relevence of the length of TSR PM's membership is to the issue.

To be honest, there's so much more or less mild out of character behaviour that the fact that the UK rep is to some extent beholden to the HoC won't impact a huge amount - especially if they're a long-standing member of the MUN or the House, which is likely.

It means they're more likely to have an investment in TSR and its institutions and are less likely to choose somebody who has no interest in maintaining the character and integrity of the MUN...

The majority of scenarios will not show a dissenting opinion - when they do there will be good justification for it, hence it adds an interesting twist.

To be honest, if you want to talk about departing from real life, the current MUN system leaves a lot to be desired.

The majority of scenarios will not show a dissenting opinion - when they do there will be good justification for it, hence it adds an interesting twist.

To be honest, if you want to talk about departing from real life, the current MUN system leaves a lot to be desired.

Yes it departs i nthe way things are done, this much is true - but what you are asking for is that we actively allow our own charter to be breached.

A charter which is written with the addition of this stipulation?