|
Post by Lady Cari on Jan 13, 2018 2:34:45 GMT
this bill makes my head explode
|
|
|
Post by hromos on Jan 13, 2018 4:23:01 GMT
this bill makes my head explode Reasons?
|
|
|
Post by United Barbaros on Jan 13, 2018 4:46:13 GMT
Which bill?
|
|
|
Post by Lady Cari on Jan 13, 2018 15:06:15 GMT
this bill makes my head explode Reasons? 45 days is a long time in NS, and 90 days is an eternity. And Londinium has historically been driven by newcomers. 30/60 may be acceptable. This whole section walks a little too close to the Constitution for comfort. Also, this means I would have to choose between Crown Princess and Lord Chancellor. Expecting people to leave the government entirely for an entire term will also lead to chaos descending after the next election period. Constitutional conformity and conflict should be implicit in any bill. Also, 3.2 throws half this bill out the window.
|
|
|
Post by Bymaria on Jan 13, 2018 16:19:30 GMT
Yes I agree with Cari that Londinium is built on newcomers. After all that is the main message from our recruitment TGs. I really don’t understand the idea of barring them from running for government as in past elections we’ve had just two nations running for PM and were short a parliament seat twice. They shouldn’t be prevented from running, but if the region did have concerns about their inexperience, there would hopefully be another candidate to vote for. What I’m saying is that the voters should decide on their elected officials, as long as those officials meet citizenship standards. Maybe citizenship is the route to go for this, but I really don’t think setting a time limit here is at all necessary. It is critical that our focus now must be on integrating our new members gained through recruitment, which frankly article 1.3 does not do.
|
|
|
Post by hromos on Jan 13, 2018 18:03:29 GMT
So in other words...we're too new and too small for this bill to be applicable without being harmful to the region?
|
|
|
Post by hromos on Jan 13, 2018 18:11:44 GMT
What specific sections can be agreed upon? (I'll put it in a different bill in case the scope changes).
Can this be agreed upon?: 1. The Speaker must come from the Assembly. 2. The Pro Temp should not affect the Parliament vote when standing in as PM.
|
|
|
Post by United Barbaros on Jan 13, 2018 19:17:42 GMT
I don't think you would have to choose between Crown Princess and Lord Chancellor because Crown Princess is a title, where's Lord Chancellor is a position. That's my take on it.
I do want to remind everyone that the purpose of this bill is to prevent abuse of power through puppetry, in the wake of the Tiberius Puppet Show. This is not to say that we should put the bill to a vote immediately, and it might need some tinkering, but we shouldn't forget the purpose of this bill, which I find of at least some importance
|
|
|
Post by KingdomOfUnion on Jan 17, 2018 18:15:08 GMT
Despite my objection to the need of this bill, I ask the support of the Assembly in the creation of an NS poll on the Pupper Power Reduction Act (2018).
(Not sure if this can be put to vote due to the [DRAFT] tag but yepp
|
|
|
Post by southernaurgediam on Jan 18, 2018 1:41:12 GMT
It is the ruling of the Chair that due to the fact this bill is indeed a draft, it cannot yet be considered as a complete bill by the Assembly. The Chair asks that the original submitter resubmit the bill without the draft tag. ( hromos)
|
|
|
Post by KingdomOfUnion on Jan 18, 2018 22:48:32 GMT
Ahh ok- thought so. But I was just playing safe.
|
|