We are working on a brand new version of the game! If you want to stay informed, read our blog and register for our mailing list.
Bill: Bill C-6: Parliamentary Procedure Act (RP Bill)
Details
Submitted by[?]: Liberal Party of Hutori
Status[?]: passed
Votes: This bill is a resolution. It requires more yes votes than no votes. This bill will not pass any sooner than the deadline.
Voting deadline: July 3888
Description[?]:
| Article I.) Speaker of the House 1. The Speaker of the House will be an independent political entity elected from the two largest political parties at the request of Parliament. 2. It will be the job of the Speaker of the House to moderate debate within the House of Parliament. 3. Political parties throughout the debate process will address the Speaker themselves with the debate of Bills and pieces of legislation. 4. The Speaker will have the power to remove unruly Members of Parliament who disturb the decorum of the House. 5. The Speaker will announce MPs who are speaking by their Name, Representative Riding, and any Ministerial Positions, if any, they hold. Article II.) Question Period 1. All pieces of legislation brought before the House of Parliament will go through a period of Debate known as Question Period where the Opposition may voice their Opinions about the Bill, offer suggestions and ask questions, while the Government may use their period to voice their defence of their Bills and vice versa should the Bill be Opposition Proposed. 2.) Bill requiring a simply majority to become law will require no less then THREE (3) months of debate before being brought before a vote. 3.) Bills requiring an absolute majority of 50% +1 to become law will require no less then SIX (6) months of debate before being brought before a vote. 4.) Bills requiring a supermajority of 2/3 of Parliament to become law will require no less then TWELVE (12) months of debate before being brought before a vote. 5.) Political Parties breaking these Procedures will be found in contempt of Parliament and will have their Bills struck from the record. Article III.) Forms of Address 1.) While in Parliament all Members of Parliament will speak to others with the proper conduct and Titles to respect the positions they have been entrusted with. 2.) Members of Parliament and the Speaker of the House will be addressed as "the Honourable". 3.) Members of the Cabinet including the Prime Minister will be addressed as the "Right Honourable" signifying their role as leadership within Parliament. 4.) Should under circumstances a Member of the Royal Family be presence they will be addressed by their Royal Honorific. 4a) The Monarch and Monarch's Consort will be addressed as Your Royal Majesty. 4b) The Heir Apparent will be addressed as Your Royal Highness 4c) Any other members of the direct Royal line will be address as Your Highness 5.) Members of the Hutorian Armed Forces will be addressed by their ranks. 6.) Directors or Deputy Directors or any Hutorian Government or Extra-Government Agency will be addressed by their Title. Article IV) Bill Passage & Repealing 1.) This Bill will require a 2/3 majority to pass and become law. 2.) Repealing of this Law will require a 2/3 majority voting in favour of it. Article I OOC/RP: Similar to the Canadian Speaker of the House. Has no political power or vote aside from moderating. Which ever party gets the most seats will control the Speaker. All IC posts will need to begin with Mr. or Madam. Speaker depending on the gender, which will of course be up to its controlling Party. We will also sign all of our posts with the name of the MP speaking. If you'll notice I've signed all of mine with either the Minister or Critic. We want our parties to have a little more life to them. This will help encourage it by adding in the creation of character depth and seeing the various voices and faces of our party. Article II OOC/RP: So to summarize this is to allow, you know, actual debate about a given bill before its rushed to the floor. No bill goes up for debate and then immediately for a vote immediately upon creation. There NEEDS to be time for debate of at least a few hours RL time so that others can see it and voice their opinions. I am willing to be flexible with the times but I do wanna see AT LEAST a LITTLE debate before we start ramming that many Bills out for a vote, because that was just creating a headache. The point more then anything was to show simple bills take less time for debate then something as serious as a Constitutional Amendment which I feel NEEDS to be up for a debate for a significant amount of time to allow both sides to voice their arguments and opinions. |
Proposals
Debate
These messages have been posted to debate on this bill:
| Date | 05:15:56, August 05, 2015 CET | From | Hutori Republican Alliance | To | Debating the Bill C-6: Parliamentary Procedure Act (RP Bill) |
| Message | I like the idea behind this. However I think that it is a bit restrictive for the mechanics of the game. Constant votes need to occur in order for the system to gain a recognition of our voting patterns and our parties' positions. Having a months long waiting process for bills make it difficult for this, especially for newer players. I would be more in favor of a month or two, seeing as that is an 8 hour period and elections are only every 8 days. If the issue is that the docket is too crowded, we can amend the number of bills that each party can propose per year, which I think is what that function is there for. I pushed my bills through without debate because when I first joined that's what everyone else was doing and I didn't want my bills to be the only one's not making progress. As far as the IC parts of this go I have no problem with those, they'd be nice. However the HRA will object to using any titles for royalty. |
| Date | 11:16:29, August 05, 2015 CET | From | Hutori National Alliance | To | Debating the Bill C-6: Parliamentary Procedure Act (RP Bill) |
| Message | Although not yet represented in this august body, we disagree with Artilce I.1. There should be a speaker election every ten years (or when the majority of Parliament decideds) at which two candidates are put forward and the rest of Parliament is free to vote on who they prefer. Perhaps the largest 2 parties should put a name forward, or perhaps it should be the first two parties that respond to the opening of the debate regarding who should be speaker. Basically at the very least Parliament should have a say in who is elected speaker, and when they are elected speaker. Naturally I would expect in the early stages that the more experienced parties would contest the position. Secondly if there is an issue with the amount of legislation currently put forward then perhaps this body should reduce the number of Bills that is available to a single party at any one time. I would suggest that although the number of Bills granted to a party each year should be maintained at the same level, no party should be able to store more than 10-20 (rather than the current 50) to prevent saturation. ooc: Relatively happy to support in principle, although difficult to enforce. |
| Date | 11:17:19, August 05, 2015 CET | From | Hutori National Alliance | To | Debating the Bill C-6: Parliamentary Procedure Act (RP Bill) |
| Message | Article II.5 is also completely unenforcable. |
| Date | 11:36:55, August 05, 2015 CET | From | Choice | To | Debating the Bill C-6: Parliamentary Procedure Act (RP Bill) |
| Message | Too much reading to so......plus I don't like this waiting one month thing. Especially as with my part we usually propose only one bill in each article, rendering debate practically pointless. And having lots of bills to vote upon is very good. |
| Date | 11:51:55, August 05, 2015 CET | From | Choice | To | Debating the Bill C-6: Parliamentary Procedure Act (RP Bill) |
| Message | Just about read through most of it. We oppose all of article 2 and will completely refuse to follow it, Choice works within our own time frame. With things such as addressing the speaker and using politician's names, we're pretty much fine with that. However due to our party being "rebellious", don't be surprised if we break the rules, mostly for RP reasons. Such as addressing the monarch, we would simply call them by their Christian and surname. I remember in Luthori, most parties started their comment with "Mr Speaker" and ended it with "I yield". However due to our republican stance there and our disrespect for their traditions, we refused to use that protocol. |
| Date | 12:23:52, August 05, 2015 CET | From |  Liberal Party of Hutori | To | Debating the Bill C-6: Parliamentary Procedure Act (RP Bill) |
| Message | OOC: well im glad i at least got some debate stirring haha. The point of the bill isn't to be enforced, these are more general guidelines for RP within Hutori's Parliament. Like i said most of this bill is about adding depth. The adding time delay for bills was to allow SOME debate. And like i said im more then willing to he flexible. For ordinary Bills im willing to drop it to 1 month, at least 4 hours, and Absolute Majority Bills 2 months or 8 hours. Constitutional Amendments rarely affect positions becuase most of them are aesthetic changes though often serious changes to the nation itself. Id like to keep those at 4 to 6 months ay the least. |
| Date | 12:25:05, August 05, 2015 CET | From | Choice | To | Debating the Bill C-6: Parliamentary Procedure Act (RP Bill) |
| Message | I disagree with the months thing, it makes the game drag for too long. |
| Date | 12:48:40, August 05, 2015 CET | From | Liberal Party of Hutori | To | Debating the Bill C-6: Parliamentary Procedure Act (RP Bill) |
| Message | Ooc: im literally asking you to wait 4 to 8 hours for people to voice their opinions lpl |
| Date | 13:12:08, August 05, 2015 CET | From | Choice | To | Debating the Bill C-6: Parliamentary Procedure Act (RP Bill) |
| Message | xD People can do that when it's up for a vote. As I only propose one article in each bill, it renders debate beforehand unnecessary. |
| Date | 14:19:51, August 05, 2015 CET | From | Liberal Party of Hutori | To | Debating the Bill C-6: Parliamentary Procedure Act (RP Bill) |
| Message | OoC: Alright then how about a rider requiring a debate period for Bills with more then one Article. Becuase some people might support it if one thing was changed or removed? Better compromise? |
| Date | 16:00:47, August 05, 2015 CET | From | Hutori National Alliance | To | Debating the Bill C-6: Parliamentary Procedure Act (RP Bill) |
| Message | ooc: Once I have representation I will maintain bills in the debate stage, especially those that I actually want to pass. At the moment I am very much a pressure group and as such wouldn't be able to propose legislation, but would be able to commit to whatever policies we wanted to while outside of Parliament. |
| Date | 17:15:49, August 05, 2015 CET | From | Liberal Party of Hutori | To | Debating the Bill C-6: Parliamentary Procedure Act (RP Bill) |
| Message | OOC: alright ill do some quick modifications to Article II. Article III is more of an RP thing so if the forms lf address aren't followed im not going to be heartbroken though again its about depth. The last thing is about the Speaker, does everyone agree at the very least to begin a post with Mr/Madam Speaker and end with your MP's name and rank/electoral riding before we move into the actual nitty gritty of thr Speakership itself ans how's its appointed/elected? |
| Date | 06:02:22, August 07, 2015 CET | From | Hutori Republican Alliance | To | Debating the Bill C-6: Parliamentary Procedure Act (RP Bill) |
| Message | Article 1 and Article 4 are inconsistent. And the debate time for ordinary bills is still too long. |
| Date | 13:04:22, August 07, 2015 CET | From | Liberal Party of Hutori | To | Debating the Bill C-6: Parliamentary Procedure Act (RP Bill) |
| Message | That is why i left it for over a day looking for final feedback... i wantwd to know before i pushed it but NO ONE commented. Its fine ill simply reintroduce it... and what's inconsistent about them? |
| Date | 11:29:52, August 08, 2015 CET | From | Liberal League | To | Debating the Bill C-6: Parliamentary Procedure Act (RP Bill) |
| Message | I think this is great for established parties but mandating a debate on those parties without seats doesn't seem fair to me. When I started out I needed to get visibility up, with these rules a new party would get far less exposure. If they apply only to parties with seats then I have no problem with this proposal. |
subscribe to this discussion - unsubscribe
Voting
| Vote | Seats | ||||
| yes |
Total Seats: 186 | ||||
| no |
Total Seats: 152 | ||||
| abstain |
Total Seats: 0 |
| Random fact: Real-life organisations should not be referenced in Particracy, unless they are simple and generic (eg. "National Organisation for Women" is allowed). |
| Random quote: "It only takes 20 years for a liberal to become a conservative without changing a single idea." - Robert Anton Wilson |