Kerim Aydin wrote: >I would say the above agreement, which is *exactly* how agreements >were used in the past, would not be bound by a change-by-proposal.
I've been assuming that the hypothetical agreement-changing proposal modifies (or otherwise overrides) rule 101 if it would get in the way. That would require a higher AI than is otherwise needed, of course. It's a practical obstacle that we'd need to consider if we wanted to actually modify a purported protectorate this way, but doesn't affect the constitutional theory. If P5091 passes, as seems likely, we'll never face it in practice. -zefram
