|
Post by Sir Alexandreu Davinescu on Sept 29, 2015 19:50:09 GMT -6
I'd like to start a standing committee on making some changes to the OrgLaw. There is no requirement for joining the committee, except that you have an interest in continuing to perfect our supreme document, the Organic Law of the Kingdom of Talossa, that we have all sworn to uphold and preserve. I hope others will join me in this. This will be the first standing committee in the Ziu, as far as I am aware of our legislative history, so we will be setting precedent. I will not consider this an "official" committee until a duly chosen Túischac'h has approved its formation, but I like to think we are all mature enough to manage without that imprimatur for the time being. I know that there are several people specifically who might be interested in this initiative: Ian Plätschisch, Sir C. M. Siervicül, Magniloqueu Épiqeu da Lhiun, Miestrâ Schivâ, UrN. If you wish to join this standing committee, please be aware that there are a few basic principles on which I'd like us all to agree: - Our goal is to move some of the minutiae and details from the Organic Law into el Lexhatx, largely leaving principles and important mechanics of our checks and balances. We need to plan for the long-term as we consider which specifics are necessary.
- Our goal is emphatically not to make major institutional changes. Each such change deserves its own separate debate, outside of this committee, and it would turn us into a mess of partisan arguments and all sorts of nonsense.
- If possible, we will only endorse a bill once we're all happy with it. In most cases, it's better to leave something alone and come back to it later, rather than muck it up. This is the future of our nation we're holding, and we need to use kid gloves.
- We will be polite, please. This means more than just being cordial: do not impugn someone else's motives. We will all trust that we're here to do our duty and think things through.
To start us off, I'll suggest that we might particularly want to examine these articles, and decide which of them might be best streamlined first: IX. The Secretary of State, the Hopper, and the ClarkX. Passing LegislationXVI. The Courts (text is out of date)
|
|
Miestrâ Schivâ, UrN
Seneschal
the new Jim Hacker
Posts: 6,635
Talossan Since: 6-25-2004
Dame Since: 9-8-2012
Motto: Expulseascâ, reveneascâ
Baron Since: Feudal titles are for gimps
Duke Since: Feudal titles are for gimps
|
Post by Miestrâ Schivâ, UrN on Sept 29, 2015 20:11:06 GMT -6
Yeah, I like the idea, but the timing seems designed deliberately to sandbag my Royal Commission bill, which I consider dirty pool.
|
|
Ian Plätschisch
Senator for Maritiimi-Maxhestic
Posts: 4,001
Talossan Since: 3-21-2015
|
Post by Ian Plätschisch on Sept 29, 2015 20:18:47 GMT -6
I quite like this proposal. It's exactly what I wanted, and it will be much easier to get off the ground than Dame Miestra's bill, which is already facing significant opposition before the Clark even begins (I say this as objectively as I can). By explicitly emphasizing the importance of streamlining over substantive changes, the chances for partisanship are heavily reduced.
Besides, who doesn't like setting precedent?
Count me in
|
|
|
Post by Sir Alexandreu Davinescu on Sept 29, 2015 22:01:00 GMT -6
Yeah, I like the idea, but the timing seems designed deliberately to sandbag my Royal Commission bill, which I consider dirty pool. I was unhappy with the bill you clarked, and I don't think it will do a very good job at solving the issues we both agree could be addressed. I actually think things could get done and get improved, and so I didn't want them to get sidetracked with a commission that was flawed. But obviously I think the world of the whole proposition, and just want to go about it in a different way. I would point out that a Commission, by the way, is dissolved automatically after issuing its report. This Committee will not have that problem. And we'll also set a precedent for the future for things like this, which is kind of cool!
|
|
|
Post by Sir Alexandreu Davinescu on Sept 29, 2015 22:01:55 GMT -6
I quite like this proposal. It's exactly what I wanted, and it will be much easier to get off the ground than Dame Miestra's bill, which is already facing significant opposition before the Clark even begins (I say this as objectively as I can). By explicitly emphasizing the importance of streamlining over substantive changes, the chances for partisanship are heavily reduced. Besides, who doesn't like setting precedent? Count me in I'm glad! Two heads are better than one, and hopefully more will join us. My suggestion will be that we pick a single article for our focus. We can do one article at a time, if that works for you?
|
|
|
Post by Magniloqueu Épiqeu da Lhiun on Sept 30, 2015 12:51:08 GMT -6
I think there could have been a better way to settle this amicably together with those who were in favour of the Royal Commission Bill as it stands.
However, I would rather help in OrgLaw matters, rather than stand by idly because of a misstep that could have been avoided (indeed this formation of a Standing Committee does look like an ambush to those wishing to make substantial changes to the Organic Law — and I still do believe that the Organic Law should experience a major overhaul).
That said, I would be honoured to be part of this Committee, and I do vow to stand by its rules, so long as the majority in this Committee considers these rules appropriate to our cause.
|
|
|
Post by Sir Alexandreu Davinescu on Sept 30, 2015 13:52:07 GMT -6
I think there could have been a better way to settle this amicably together with those who were in favour of the Royal Commission Bill as it stands. However, I would rather help in OrgLaw matters, rather than stand by idly because of a misstep that could have been avoided (indeed this formation of a Standing Committee does look like an ambush to those wishing to make substantial changes to the Organic Law — and I still do believe that the Organic Law should experience a major overhaul). That said, I would be honoured to be part of this Committee, and I do vow to stand by its rules, so long as the majority in this Committee considers these rules appropriate to our cause. I specifically invited Dama Miestra because of her initiative on this issue already, and I hope she will join us as we work! I'm also glad you're on board Can't wait to get started!
|
|
|
Post by Sir Alexandreu Davinescu on Oct 1, 2015 11:42:03 GMT -6
What does everyone think of my suggested starting point?
|
|
Ian Plätschisch
Senator for Maritiimi-Maxhestic
Posts: 4,001
Talossan Since: 3-21-2015
|
Post by Ian Plätschisch on Oct 1, 2015 14:31:33 GMT -6
Yes, those articles are a good place to start
|
|
Miestrâ Schivâ, UrN
Seneschal
the new Jim Hacker
Posts: 6,635
Talossan Since: 6-25-2004
Dame Since: 9-8-2012
Motto: Expulseascâ, reveneascâ
Baron Since: Feudal titles are for gimps
Duke Since: Feudal titles are for gimps
|
Post by Miestrâ Schivâ, UrN on Oct 1, 2015 16:29:01 GMT -6
This is NOT a non-partisan committee. It excludes me, for a start, and no FreeDem members will be involved. This is political mischief-making. AD could not block the Royal Commission because it only requires a majority, not an absolute majority; so he's trying to create an alternative. Typical.
Ián P. should be aware that he's making himself a useful idiot for the RUMP, who want <b>no</b> real constitutional changes.
|
|
|
Post by Sir Alexandreu Davinescu on Oct 1, 2015 16:34:46 GMT -6
This is NOT a non-partisan committee. It excludes me, for a start, and no FreeDem members will be involved. This is political mischief-making. AD could not block the Royal Commission because it only requires a majority, not an absolute majority; so he's trying to create an alternative. Typical. Ián P. should be aware that he's making himself a useful idiot for the RUMP, who want <b>no</b> real constitutional changes. I specifically and emphatically invited you. And of course I would love any FreeDem legislator, and any non-legislator with an interest, to join. Honestly, did you miss the invitation I extended, above? I even tagged you in the post so it would pop up a notification, so you would know I would want you to be a part of this. I hope others will join me in this. This will be the first standing committee in the Ziu, as far as I am aware of our legislative history, so we will be setting precedent. I will not consider this an "official" committee until a duly chosen Túischac'h has approved its formation, but I like to think we are all mature enough to manage without that imprimatur for the time being. I know that there are several people specifically who might be interested in this initiative: Ian Plätschisch, Sir C. M. Siervicül, Magniloqueu Épiqeu da Lhiun, Miestrâ Schivâ, UrN. I specifically invited Dama Miestra because of her initiative on this issue already, and I hope she will join us as we work! And what the heck? I started off proposing the OrgLaw changes I thought might work best, and asking for suggestions from anyone else! More to the point, this gets the ball rolling weeks faster than your bill, and in a spirit of pleasantry and bipartisanship. Well, it did until you started calling people names, anyway. But no harm done. Come join and let's get some work done!
|
|
Miestrâ Schivâ, UrN
Seneschal
the new Jim Hacker
Posts: 6,635
Talossan Since: 6-25-2004
Dame Since: 9-8-2012
Motto: Expulseascâ, reveneascâ
Baron Since: Feudal titles are for gimps
Duke Since: Feudal titles are for gimps
|
Post by Miestrâ Schivâ, UrN on Oct 1, 2015 16:37:34 GMT -6
No. You did this deliberately to derail the Royal Commission because I wouldn't tweak its rules to make it more conservative. Let the Ziu vote by majority whether to go with the Royal Commission. If the bill fails, I will happily join an informal commission such as this. But to try to start it before the bill fails - as a clear incentive to make the bill fail - is the kind of thing which makes you an untrustworthy collaborator.
|
|
|
Post by Sir Alexandreu Davinescu on Oct 1, 2015 16:44:02 GMT -6
No. You did this deliberately to derail the Royal Commission because I wouldn't tweak its rules to make it more conservative. Let the Ziu vote by majority whether to go with the Royal Commission. If the bill fails, I will happily join an informal commission such as this. But to try to start it before the bill fails - as a clear incentive to make the bill fail - is the kind of thing which makes you an untrustworthy collaborator. Dama Miestra, with all due respect, you decided to overrule people with objections (including me) to Clark that bill, even though it was really clear that legislators had misgivings about its effectiveness. You did that because you were confident you could just ram it through based on a simple majority approval... just like will happen in your Commission. And this isn't the first time that sort of thing has happened, either. I wish we weren't in this situation, either. But we're not here because I wanted to undermine your Commission... we're here because you're trying to jam it down our throats on a simple majority, rather than taking your time and talking through our differences to arrive at a version we could all be happy with.
|
|
Ian Plätschisch
Senator for Maritiimi-Maxhestic
Posts: 4,001
Talossan Since: 3-21-2015
|
Post by Ian Plätschisch on Oct 1, 2015 17:47:54 GMT -6
Ián P. should be aware that he's making himself a useful idiot for the RUMP, who want <b>no</b> real constitutional changes. I don't favor any commission that seeks to change many substantive parts of the OrgLaw at once. It would almost certainly never work, because the RUMP would vote it down. I would much rather change substance on a bill-by-bill basis; I have said all along that I simply desire a simplification of the OrgLaw. Never have I thought that this committee would be making any substantive changes, nor have I ever advocated for it; By explicitly emphasizing the importance of streamlining over substantive changes, the chances for partisanship are heavily reduced. You may disagree as the nature of how substantive changes should be made, but to imply that I don't know what I am doing is neither accurate nor fair
|
|
|
Post by Sir Alexandreu Davinescu on Oct 2, 2015 9:30:02 GMT -6
Anyway, let's just move on with it. I resume and renew my offer for any legislator who pleases to join this standing committee -- it doesn't matter your party or history, we just want to get things all prettified and fixed in our supreme law. This offer extends especially to Dama Miestra, and I hope that everyone will be able to set aside any petty disagreements as we do serious work here. Ian Plätschisch and Magniloqueu Épiqeu da Lhiun, please invite anyone else you think might be able to help. Any preference as to which of the three suggested articles we tackle first?
|
|