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: Debate on Constitution (B) Bill
Details
Submitted by[?]: Alliance Party
Status[?]: passed
Votes: This bill asks for an amendement to the Constitution. It will require two-thirds of the legislature to vote in favor. This bill will not pass any sooner than the deadline.
Voting deadline: March 4738
Description[?]:
| This Bill comprises one element of the umbrella debate on our constitution as summarised in the "Debate on Constitution Summary Bill". This Bill concerns all aspects of the Speaker's appointment and role. Firstly, the Alliance Party recognises the fact that the following Bill has already been raised by an opposition party: a. http://classic.particracy.net/viewbill.php?billid=620214 There is another Bill relating to the "Speaker of the Senate": b, http://classic.particracy.net/viewbill.php?billid=614586 The proposals being voted upon, raised by the Alliance Party - the government of the day in 4737 are two-fold: 1. Rescind the bill http://classic.particracy.net/viewbill.php?billid=614586 (RP: Speaker of the Senate Act) 2. Change the constitution relating to the "Procedure on the election of the legislative presiding officer" as specified in Article 1 |
Proposals
Article 1
Proposal[?] to change Procedure on the election of the legislative presiding officer
Old value:: The presiding officer of the national legislature is elected by fellow lawmakers and is expected to be non-partisan and impartial.
Current: The presiding officer of the national legislature holds office ex officio by virtue of holding another office.
Proposed: The presiding officer of the national legislature is the leader of the majority party/coalition or largest party/coalition.
Debate
These messages have been posted to debate on this bill:
| Date | 18:45:22, April 05, 2020 CET | From | Alliance Party | To | Debating the Debate on Constitution (B) Bill |
| Message | As regards Bill a: The Alliance Party humbly requests that debate on that Bill be seen as part of the debate held within this Bill. As regards Bill b: The question needs to be asked as to what that Bill is referring. The National Assembly is a unicameral parliament There is no Senate. Regardless of the views of this Assembly, it may be time in any case to reformulate what the role of the Speaker is and how he or she should be appointed. This would avoid future confusion for this Assembly and subsequent political parties in it. |
| Date | 20:48:17, April 05, 2020 CET | From | Conservative Nationalist Party | To | Debating the Debate on Constitution (B) Bill |
| Message | We have outlined our views on the matter in Bill A. If the government wishes to adjust or suggest other options then we encourage them to do so here. |
| Date | 16:11:01, April 06, 2020 CET | From | Alliance Party | To | Debating the Debate on Constitution (B) Bill |
| Message | The government is minded to rescind Bill B. According to its own rules, if a new Speaker is not elected then the old one remains in place. It is a simple matter for the government of the time to introduce a mechanism to elect a replacement Speaker when the current one retires or resigns. The only abuse of that system would be in appointing a Speaker who is, in practice, partisan in their running of the Assembly. Yet the existing rules allow the government of the day to nominate a new Speaker so there is nothing to prevent this scenario now. |
| Date | 19:13:32, April 06, 2020 CET | From | Conservative Nationalist Party | To | Debating the Debate on Constitution (B) Bill |
| Message | We suggest that a vote of no confidence may be proposed to 'oust' a speaker for negligence or partisan behaviour. Thereby preventing any form of corruption. |
| Date | 19:43:17, April 06, 2020 CET | From | Alliance Party | To | Debating the Debate on Constitution (B) Bill |
| Message | The issue of corruption was not the main thrust of the Alliance's last speech. The principle point was rather that neither the current mechanism nor the CNP's proposal prevent unwanted scenarios occurring. It is accepted that there could be recourse to some procedural way of responding to any such scenarios. The argument is that any such Speaker "law" is unnecessary. There is no benefit (certainly not one yet mentioned in the debate) in having either the existing "law" or the CNP's replacement. Rescinding the historical one leaves us with the same Speaker indefinitely and a replacement can be found when he/she retires or resigns (or is ousted by vote of no confidence). |
| Date | 12:39:19, April 07, 2020 CET | From | Conservative Nationalist Party | To | Debating the Debate on Constitution (B) Bill |
| Message | We think that when a cabinet is appointed at the start of a new government (after every election) the speaker who should be from the leading opposition party should be appointed and voted for with a majority along with the government. This ensures fixed terms of office and fully avoids any 'unwanted senarios' |
| Date | 13:02:30, April 07, 2020 CET | From | Alliance Party | To | Debating the Debate on Constitution (B) Bill |
| Message | The cabinet had been asked by the Prime Minister to consider all options before reconvening to discuss them and to take collective responsibility for endorsing the preferred outcome of the Alliance Party on the matters concerning the Speaker. That meeting has now taken place, and this Bill will now be amended accordingly, as the government's proposal makes the debate of the whys and wherefores of the Speaker's role and appointment clear cut and beyond further debate, whilst requiring no more legislation than the passing of this Bill with its required two-thirds majority. |
| Date | 13:05:41, April 07, 2020 CET | From | Alliance Party | To | Debating the Debate on Constitution (B) Bill |
| Message | In support of the government's decision on this issue, it should be noted that the proposed policy is not extraordinary. There are other countries who have already adopted this policy, including several in Artania and also in Seleya itself. Two ot the Great Powers of Terra (Dorvik and Istalia) have also done so. |
| Date | 15:13:58, April 07, 2020 CET | From | Alliance Party | To | Debating the Debate on Constitution (B) Bill |
| Message | After a year's debate on this matter, this legislation will now be put to the vote. A summary of its place within the overall constitutional review is to be found in the Constitutional Review summary Bill: http://classic.particracy.net/viewbill.php?billid=620247 |
| Date | 18:27:48, April 07, 2020 CET | From | Conservative Nationalist Party | To | Debating the Debate on Constitution (B) Bill |
| Message | The presiding officer of the national legislature is the leader of the majority party/coalition or largest party/coalition" How can the leader of the majority party who we assume would be the prime minister also take an impartial role as the chair of legislature? This would be wholly undemocratic and hugely concerning to the people of the nation. We in the Conservative party are entirely concerned by these developments from the government in what would appear to be compromising the i democratic integrity of the parliament. with this bill being proposed in its current form there is no possibility whatsoever of it gaining support from the Conservative party and we will initiate a vote of no confidence into the government as a symbol of our contempt. |
| Date | 20:20:30, April 07, 2020 CET | From | Alliance Party | To | Debating the Debate on Constitution (B) Bill |
| Message | The Alliance Party thanks the SDP for their support in this issue, which has possibly been the most contentious debate our of the suite of debates which the government instigated. The government also understands the point of view of the CNP and appreciates why it felt the need to vote against this part of the constitutional review. We would remind all parties that the change proposed in this Bill can be reversed with a simple two-thirds majority vote in any subsequent parliamentary session. The process of examining all aspects of the constitution and rescinding this current change in legislation does not need to be repeated. Lastly, in a final attempt to draw the sting from the Leader of the Opposition: Under existing guidelines (found in the historical Bill being rescinded here) it is principle up to the government of the day (not the opposition) to nominate a Speaker - quoting from that Bill: "The governing party (or government parties) can nominate a candidate for the election of the Speaker " This government chose not to nominate and by default the existing Speaker remains in situ. Now, however, seemingly because the CNP's own proposals were not accepted, the Leader of the Opposition finds it unacceptable undemocratic for the government to have the say in the control of parliamentary proceedings. Perhaps the Great Powers of Dorvik and Istalia might have something to say about the CNP's objections, as they have adopted the same policy as proposed here. |
| Date | 20:55:04, April 07, 2020 CET | From | Conservative Nationalist Party | To | Debating the Debate on Constitution (B) Bill |
| Message | Can the Alliance Party please clarity that party leader also the prime minister and quite rightly so. If this is the case however, it is very reasonable of us to object to the prime minister (leader of the largest party) being the speaker of the legislature. That to us is wholly unacceptable. Obviously an Alliance MP holding the position and being voted into office as the current law would require is perfectly understandable and we would provide them with our full support. However political appointments without parliaments say are truly undemocratic. Especially if it were the prime minister to hold the position surely? If the prime minister was to chair debate there is certainty in bias of proceedings. |
subscribe to this discussion - unsubscribe
Voting
| Vote | Seats | |||||
| yes |
Total Seats: 307 | |||||
| no | Total Seats: 53 | |||||
| abstain |
Total Seats: 0 |
| Random fact: In Particracy players are only allowed to play as one party at a time. Want to swap nations? Inactivate your current party and make a new one! Want to return? Request Moderation to reactivate your party on the forum! |
| Random quote: "The Revolution needs to progress. We as humans need to evolve into higher beings through better moral virtues. And we can achieve that if we clean ourselves from the immoral. Those who go against the Revolution, go against human progress and must be freed in the most humane way possible. That is why we introduced the guillotine." - Maximus Robertson, former Davostani revolutionary |