If anyone can tell me why we need this without arguing that our government is somehow illegal (an eyerollworthy statement three years ago and an eyerollworthy statement now) then I’d be open to changing my mind.
I mean, as a former EPSA OO and Officer myself (albeit a poopy one), I see no harm in Ladona’s amendment.
The difference between basically any branch of government versus EPSA is that EPSA has undergone chronic rethemeing, which none of the other branches have done - not even once. I think I only ever heard one discussion in eight years about renaming the branches, and in that discussion only one person actually was voicing opinions about doing renaming.
But in my time in NS, the Armada is the third time in eight years that EPSA has done a serious rebrand. Maybe the Armada theme is here to stay, maybe it isn’t. But based on historical trends, I’d presume it won’t stay forever, which is why I really don’t mind this bill at all and support it. EPSA has a tendency to do theme changes, and I don’t really see harm in allowing it to delve in that ability further by allowing it to change its name.
Now, is this amendment necessary in a legal sense? Absolutely not, EPSA can call itself the The West Pacific Armed Forces for all it cares and it’s perfectly legal. But I prefer our laws reflect reality as much as they can, and if EPSA is going by a nickname I don’t see why we can’t make that nickname it’s official name if EPSA really wants to go by that name. In all honesty, I don’t see this as an erasure of EPSA’s identity, but rather allowing EPSA to better choose for itself how it wants to be defined.
It is allowed to change its name.
It can.
The idea is that, even if the EPSA does call itself TWPAF, it is still EPSA. It’s about the continuity of a legal identity that has been in place for over a decade.
The idea is that, even if the EPSA does call itself TWPAF, it is still EPSA. It’s about the continuity of a legal identity that has been in place for over a decade.
I guess whether one is against or for this proposal comes down to if one is really attached to the historical significance and “legal identity” of the EPSA name. I’m not, primarily since EPSA likes makeovers, so I’m fine with Ladona’s bill.
To be more accurate, I do prefer Ladona’s bill over the status quo for reasons I said prior, but I also don’t really mind keeping the status quo.
It is allowed to change its name.
It can.
I guess to clarify, my point is I don’t really mind if EPSA decides to make what it calls itself its legal name too. Which EPSA can’t change without a law change.
Which isn’t really an important point and is exactly why I don’t really care too much if Ladona’s bill is passed or not. I just prefer Ladona’s bill because I feel it matches more with EPSA’s rethemes (I don’t really care about the legal identity or historical significance of the EPSA name, if EPSA really wishes to change its legal name), but EPSA being unable to change its legal name doesn’t affect any re-themes much so the status quo doesn’t bother me much.