Main | About | Tutorial | FAQ | Links | Wiki | Forum | World News | World Map | World Ranking | Nations | Electoral Calendar | Party Organizations | Treaties |
Login | Register |
Game Time: April 5461
Next month in: 00:44:07
Server time: 07:15:52, March 29, 2024 CET
Currently online (0): Record: 63 on 23:13:00, July 26, 2019 CET

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 (D) Bill

Details

Submitted by[?]: Alliance Party

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: 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 Bil relates to tThe elements of the constitution referred to in this Bill of November 4688: http://classic.particracy.net/viewbill.php?billid=614960
That Bill, itself, refers to ten further Bills relating to:

a. Votes of no confidence in the government
b. The Leader of the Opposition
c. Speaker of the Senate (sic)
d. Referenda
e. Questions to the "Secretary-General" (sic)
f. Youth Parliament
g. Public Houses
h. National Care Service
i. Insurance Services
j. Agriculture

The proposal to be voted upon (raised by the Alliance Party, government of the day of 4737) is to rescind the following Bill http://classic.particracy.net/viewbill.php?billid=614960 and its constituents Bills.

Proposals

Debate

These messages have been posted to debate on this bill:

Date19:02:55, April 05, 2020 CET
FromAlliance Party
ToDebating the Debate on Constitution (D) Bill
MessageThe primary reaction of the historical Bill in question is that it engenders confusion and unnecessary complexity.
Our constitution should be as simple and as straightforward as possible.
In some instances this may simply require a restating of the interpretation of our existing constitution in such a way that the confusion and complexity is removed, or at least minimised.

Date19:06:38, April 05, 2020 CET
FromAlliance Party
ToDebating the Debate on Constitution (D) Bill
MessageRegarding votes of no confidence (a) in this Bill's desciption.

This is not particularly confusing, but borders on the unnecessary.
Under existing law, any party can propose a new cabinet at any time, and if such a Bill commands sufficient support then a new government will be formed.
Alternatively, an early election can be proposed by any party, and again will be legally binding if passed.

The Bill referred to in part (a) adds very little in terms of procedure which the Alliance Party finds particularly useful.
Indeed, it adds an unnecessary element to the existing simple mechanisms for removing a government which no longer commands a majority.

Date19:15:15, April 05, 2020 CET
FromAlliance Party
ToDebating the Debate on Constitution (D) Bill
MessageRegarding the Leader of the Opposition (b):

The Alliance Party finds the wording in the old Bill clumsy:
"The Leader of the Opposition by convention leads the largest opposition party" - which we think should read that "The Leader of the Opposition is by convention the leader of the largest party not in government".

The Alliance also suggests that the assertion in the old Bill that "The Leader of the Opposition by convention is viewed as an alternative or shadow Prime Minister" should be reviewed. Yes, shadow Prime Minister is fine (assuming that the Assembly retains the title of Prime Minister). However, an alternative Prime Minister? What does that mean? The government believes that in the case of the acting Prime Minister being unable to continue office then there should be a nominated Deputy Prime Minister who would be the "alternative".

Date19:39:24, April 05, 2020 CET
FromAlliance Party
ToDebating the Debate on Constitution (D) Bill
MessageRegarding the "Speaker of the Senate" (c):

This is being debated separately in the Debate on Constitution (B) Bill

Date19:42:21, April 05, 2020 CET
FromAlliance Party
ToDebating the Debate on Constitution (D) Bill
MessageRegarding the use of national referenda (d):

The Alliance Party is firmly of the opinion that this is an unnecessary mechanism.
If it has any usefulness it is surely outweighed by its complexity.

Date19:49:39, April 05, 2020 CET
FromAlliance Party
ToDebating the Debate on Constitution (D) Bill
MessageRegarding Questions to the "Secretary-General" (e):

The Alliance Party must confess to being so confused by this element of the constitution that it can only propose either passing legislation to abandon it or to replace it with our modern interpretation.

To whom is the Secretary-General referring?
Why would the governing party (the Alliance in the present case) construct a questionnaire to be answered by its own Prime Minister?
Or does it mean (and it which case if it is to be retained then should be re-worded as such) - that the governing body must enable a debate upon taking office; that debate to entail the submitting of questions from the Leader of the Opposition and other opposition parties?

Do we still need this element of the constitution?
Any member of this house can raise a Bill at any time demanding answers of the government.
What answers are obtained are down to the political maneuverings of the person answering in any case (direct answers are not always possible or desirable).

Date19:51:59, April 05, 2020 CET
FromAlliance Party
ToDebating the Debate on Constitution (D) Bill
MessageTo save space and time, the Alliance Party finds all remaining items in the old bill (f-j) unnecessary.

If any party feels otherwise they are of course free to express their opinion herewith.

However, the main thrust of this Bill in its entirety is that the old Bill of 4688 is not only 50 years old, but is showing its signs of age.

Date00:24:59, April 06, 2020 CET
FromAlliance Party
ToDebating the Debate on Constitution (D) Bill
MessageA further observation relating to (b) which states:
In the case of a change of government, it is conventional for the Leader of the Opposition to become Prime Minister

Does any party understand what the purpose of this statement is?
In a change of government the Leader of the Opposition would become Prime Minister only if and when a Cabinet Proposal Bill was successfully passed to that end. That is the convention. There is no need for the statement of "conventional" procedure in bill (b) - in fact, the statement defies convention if, after an election a new party is elected which is neither the new government, nor the previous leading opposition party.

This alone should cast doubt on any attempt to retain all these elements of the constitution without revision.

Date11:36:17, April 06, 2020 CET
FromConservative Nationalist Party
ToDebating the Debate on Constitution (D) Bill
MessageWe believe the old bill in its current state is suitable and should remain enshrined in law.

Date16:18:28, April 06, 2020 CET
FromAlliance Party
ToDebating the Debate on Constitution (D) Bill
MessageDoes the CNP seriously think that there is no doubt concerning the appropriateness and/or necessity for all ten of the items addressed by the Bill in question - that none of them warrant further discussion other than "suitable and should remain"?

If that is the case, then it comes down to a matter of opinions, and the government thinks that all the points raised by the Alliance in this debate are genuine and, unlike the CNP, think they give rise to a cause for concern. The conclusion reached would therefore be to rescind the Bill of 4688.

Date15:18:04, April 07, 2020 CET
FromAlliance Party
ToDebating the Debate on Constitution (D) Bill
MessageAfter 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

Date20:03:59, April 07, 2020 CET
FromAlliance Party
ToDebating the Debate on Constitution (D) Bill
MessageAfter a year's debate, the only "objection" raised by the CNP (indeed by any party) to the many points made by the Alliance Party was:
"We believe the old bill in its current state is suitable and should remain enshrined in law."

This was just an expression of opinion, and not a genuine attempt to engage with the debate by addressing some or all of the issues raised by the Alliance with a view to influencing the outcome or persuading the government of some matter it might have overlooked.

The government is sorry that the SNP saw fit not to support this Bill under these circumstances as it weakens the case for the change - though of course their objection will not be sufficient to prevent the Bill from passing into law.

In constrast, the government thanks the SDP for its support, as it appears to be doing across the suite of Bills relating to our constitutional debates.

subscribe to this discussion - unsubscribe

Voting

Vote Seats
yes
  

Total Seats: 307

no
 

Total Seats: 53

abstain
     

Total Seats: 0


Random fact: Players have a responsibility to differentiate between OOC (out-of-character) and IC (in-character) behaviour, and to make clear when they are communicating in OOC or IC terms. Since Particracy is a role-playing game, IC excesses are generally fine, but OOC attacks are not. However, players must not presume this convention permits them to harass a player with IC remarks that have a clear OOC context.

Random quote: "Modern technology owes ecology an apology." - Alan M. Eddison

This page was generated with PHP
Copyright 2004-2010 Wouter Lievens
Queries performed: 53