MUN Chat Thread MkII

Captain Biggles

As long as it has something to do with the MUN then it's fine in my eyes. :smile:

That would be pretty cool. :cool:

I thought I was going to have to fight it through, but the HoC seems to like the idea of closer contact of the HoC and MUN. Hopefully it would mean a few of the HoCers would become more interested in the MUN as well :ninja:

Reply 783

Captain Biggles

2

DayneD89

I thought I was going to have to fight it through, but the HoC seems to like the idea of closer contact of the HoC and MUN. Hopefully it would mean a few of the HoCers would become more interested in the MUN as well

That should definitely liven things up a bit. Means there's actually a point to having Summits rather than just an end where everyone leaves and it gets lost in cyberspace. :ninja:

How soon do you think until it goes to a vote?

Reply 784

DayneD89

Oh, sorry if your going to count this as HoC stuff but its MUN related. Theres an amendment going through the HoC that would mean any treaties comming out of a MUN summit would get voted on in the HoC to see if it gets ratified.

Although I've never taken any interest in the HoC I may have to have a peak in and see what this amendment is all about. Sounds intriguing. We seem to get a lot of members from there joining here.

Reply 785

Id be telling a fib if I said it was my idea. You have the great SG to thank, I'm just getting it in the HoC. Should go to vote in a few days and we will know if it passes in about a week.

Reply 786

OP

*beams with pride*
I do my best, but thanks Dayne. The ammendment is great and I'll get talking about it over there now. Thanks for all the help, you're a great Speaker (and a pretty good dude).

Reply 787

I had a peek at the thread in the HoC. Seems like they support bringing us and them closer, but with some confusion over how it would work and how it would affect us if they accept or more crucially reject it.

On another note, I'm working on the next Korea move now.

Reply 788

OP

I've posted a reply in the HoC giving the sort of maximum limits of how we could affect the others, they're welcome to argue it down but that's possibly the easiest and most realistic it could work. Our Summits (when ratified) affect what laws they can pass and their positions can affect our debates.

Reply 789

Noemie should probably be asked about this - provided she continues as UK rep this will be more critical to her role than anyone else. We should probably have a dedicated thread for this as well as some sort of vote.

Reply 790

OP

She's currently away so we can't really ask her, though I'm sure she'll be amenable, it will affect her more than most but it should be relatively close to how she'd debate anyway.
Vote on what exactly?

Reply 791

Mrgd291190

Vote on what exactly?

To allow the HoC to be able to pass/reject treaties which may have already been passed by us.
It's more of a formality, but allowing the HoC the right to influence our treaties and the UK standpoint is surely something we have to agree to as well.

Reply 792

I'd agree we should have a vote here though I'd hope it would pass.

Its interesting to see the HoCers ask questions about how the MUN works. Might get a few who are more interested in the MUN because of it.

Reply 793

Mrgd291190

*beams with pride*
I do my best, but thanks Dayne. The ammendment is great and I'll get talking about it over there now. Thanks for all the help, you're a great Speaker (and a pretty good dude).

awww, shucks you aint so bad yourself :wink:

Reply 794

DayneD89

I'd agree we should have a vote here though I'd hope it would pass.

I can't see why it wouldn't.

Reply 795

Student2806

I can't see why it wouldn't.

me neither, but for the sake of making sure.

Reply 796

OP

Student2806

To allow the HoC to be able to pass/reject treaties which may have already been passed by us.
It's more of a formality, but allowing the HoC the right to influence our treaties and the UK standpoint is surely something we have to agree to as well.

I get what you mean, wasn't sure what you were referring to.
Yes, I'm going to put a proper clause to go into the Charter together and that'll be part of it though I could put it as separate to the main vote as it does somewhat infringe each parties independence. Though I can't see many disagreeing with it.
I'm actually looking at a total re-write of the Charter so I might put it in there.

Reply 797

OP

DayneD89

awww, shucks you aint so bad yourself :wink:

I do my best :wink:

Reply 798

Mrgd291190

I get what you mean, wasn't sure what you were referring to.
Yes, I'm going to put a proper clause to go into the Charter together and that'll be part of it though I could put it as separate to the main vote as it does somewhat infringe each parties independence. Though I can't see many disagreeing with it.
I'm actually looking at a total re-write of the Charter so I might put it in there.

A total re-write? :eek:

You're keen!

Reply 799