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 22, 2015 22:14:30 GMT -6
Then this is not a Committee; it's just an informal caucus on OrgLaw reform, which was deliberately formed in protest at the Royal Commission not being set up to the personal liking of one MC and one Senator. The Commission WILL have minor-party representation, as well as non-Ziu representation. So if you carry on like this, it is YOU who are closing down the opportunity for broader participation. (As for "amicable", it's very easy to be amicable when you let the guy who wants to run everything run everything...)
Seriously, I suggest if you guys really want OrgLaw reform - rather than just thumbing your noses at the Government/me - I suggest you support the Commission wholly. It is a ROYAL Commission, Alex!
|
|
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 22, 2015 22:19:11 GMT -6
Alex's comments about being "mowed down by a freight train" are the kind of victimhood-mongering I have sadly come to expect from him. The RUMP will have 2 commissioners and a further 1-3 will be nominated by His Imperial Coloradariffic Majesty. So that's a majority of monarchists. But Alex just won't play any game where it isn't rigged in advance that he'll win. And of course the whole point of OrgLaw reform is to make sure the greater game that is Talossa is not rigged in advance for the benefit of anyone.
This is why I am very dubious that this Committee will accomplish anything. It won't produce anything that Alex doesn't approve of; and Alex wants no change at all to the fundamental anti-democratic defects in the OrgLaw. Anyone putting effort in here is either happy with cosmetic changes, or wasting their time.
|
|
|
Post by Sir Alexandreu Davinescu on Oct 22, 2015 22:29:01 GMT -6
Despite making such a persuasive case about why our ideas and views would be welcome on your commission, I'm actually pretty comfortable with our progress. If you check back a couple of pages, you can see the bill in progress; Ian has been updating it as we've been discussing. It doesn't really matter to me whether or not it's a "formal" committee... I honestly just want to clean up a few bits of the OrgLaw and make Talossa better, and whatever this is, it's working.
There's no reason why people can't be in both groups, though. Ian doesn't seem to want to join, but Epic might. And of course, you would still be welcome to join us, Dama Miestra. We're making great progress!
|
|
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 22, 2015 22:34:58 GMT -6
My commission? Oh, you mean the Royal Commission which was just approved by both houses of the Ziu, right?
Your bill is designed to make sure no progress and no long-term stable basis for the OrgLaw happens. Good luck getting a majority to support it after thumbing your nose like this at the Ziu majority in both houses (and the Government).
BTW, can anyone sensible from the RUMP confirm whether you will take up your 2 seats on the Royal Commission, or boycott it because it's not rigged in advance nor run by you?
|
|
|
Post by Sir Alexandreu Davinescu on Oct 22, 2015 22:59:20 GMT -6
Well, the last legal reform effort (Epic helped with that one, too!) was a mild success, so I hope this one will do okay, too. I seriously doubt anyone's going to vote against a good bill out of spite. Anyway, Ian: what do you think about putting 6.2 back in? Does my reasoning make sense?
|
|
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 22, 2015 23:10:08 GMT -6
I still don't see why you are so opposed to a Royal Commission, including guaranteed cross-partisan and non-partisan representation, that you went out of your way to organise an alternative. You think that you can sandbag other people's proposals out of partisan or personal spite, and yet have your own evaluated on their merits.
That said, thanks very much - once again - for your effort in pulling together El Lexhátx, thus bringing about one of the major old ZRT programmatic points. Just a shame that you've been obstructive and snarky about my effort to do the same for cantonal boundaries.
|
|
|
Post by Sir Alexandreu Davinescu on Oct 22, 2015 23:21:33 GMT -6
You're welcome. My objection on your commission was that the shiny "majority report" would be issued by a simple majority. This was brought up at the time. The better change that would make me actually want to vote for this would be raising the threshold for a "majority report" up from a simple majority of 4 out of 7. The only purpose to a bill like this can really be to encourage those legislators interested in OrgLaw reform to meet and really hash out the issues in a detailed way that a supermajority endorses. And the only way to really encourage that is to set up the committee so that the same simple majority that exists in the Cosa can't try to run roughshod over the minority. Failing that, there's really just... no point here. We can already make proposals about amendments and such in the Hopper, discussing them in a public way. Unless this proposed committee were to actually bring something to the table that's new, rather than just the shiny label of "majority report," then there's no reason to spin our wheels. Raise the threshold for majority report to 6 out of 7, or even unanimous, I think. But at this point, I think we're really not getting anywhere in this discussion, Dama. I know you're not deliberately trying to be disruptive because of sour grapes, but at this point we're just rehashing the same discussion that was steamrolled over before. But maybe you'd like to comment on Ian's bill? I'll quote it, below. Here is a formatting which encompasses these ideas:
New Org.IX:
New Title H:
Bolded parts are new.
In response to Epic's statement that a new law would have to be introduced to detail the duties of the Secretary of State, such law already exists: C.1.1
|
|
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 22, 2015 23:29:08 GMT -6
Of course, it could be that the Commission will have a super-majority or a unanimous decision. It won't necessarily be a 4/7 or 5/8 or 5/9 vote. But I suppose your real sticking point is that you needed to have the chance of a minority veto, rather than a minority voice alongside a majority voice, even a minority voice which (if your King so wills) could be presented to the Ziu just as much as the majority.
You're so convinced you'll be in a minority that you were prepared to rip the whole thing down over your insistence on a minority veto. That's what I see. You also ignored that there will be 1-3 non-political commissioners, again, appointed by the man you trust to have life-or-death power over this whole nation. Not just the usual suspects in the Ziu.
As to the bill you've presented, it actually expands the existing document, which is exactly the sort of thing that the proposals of the Commission won't do, insh'allah. As I've said, my preference is for reforms which strip the technical details of how elections, etc are run out of the OrgLaw and put them into statute law, leaving just principles of guidance. For example, it drives me wild all the arbitrary things that the SoS has to do - like use a random number generator to assign seats in the Cosa rather than a sensible system used in other countries, like Saint-Laguë or D'Hondt counting.
|
|
Sir C. M. Siervicül
Posts: 9,636
Talossan Since: 8-13-2005
Knight Since: 7-28-2007
Motto: Nonnisi Deo serviendum
|
Post by Sir C. M. Siervicül on Oct 23, 2015 3:16:37 GMT -6
As to the bill you've presented, it actually expands the existing document, which is exactly the sort of thing that the proposals of the Commission won't do, insh'allah. As I've said, my preference is for reforms which strip the technical details of how elections, etc are run out of the OrgLaw and put them into statute law, leaving just principles of guidance. That's what the bill Alexandreu posted does: the first five sections are all that remains of Article IX of the OrgLaw. The rest of the bill shows where the remainder of Article IX is being added to el Lexhatx. I actually think there could be some synergy between the royal commission and the standing committee. If the standing committee can reach quick and broad consensus on things to strip out of the OrgLaw and move to el Lexhatx (with no substantive changes), what is left behind will be neater and cleaner for consideration of substantive reforms. And what has been moved to el Lexhatx will be easier to amend (over RUMP objection).
|
|
|
Post by Sir Alexandreu Davinescu on Oct 23, 2015 4:24:41 GMT -6
Yikes.
|
|
Ian Plätschisch
Senator for Maritiimi-Maxhestic
Posts: 4,001
Talossan Since: 3-21-2015
|
Post by Ian Plätschisch on Oct 23, 2015 5:30:59 GMT -6
Yes, I will reinsert section 2 when I can.
Let me emphasize that the whole point of this Commission is NOT to make substantive changes. That is what the Commission will do (which I voted per for, in case you forgot).
|
|
|
Post by Sir Alexandreu Davinescu on Oct 25, 2015 8:28:50 GMT -6
Okay. Ian, I wonder if you could repost the two bills with all the changes you've made?
|
|
Ian Plätschisch
Senator for Maritiimi-Maxhestic
Posts: 4,001
Talossan Since: 3-21-2015
|
Post by Ian Plätschisch on Oct 25, 2015 8:49:43 GMT -6
Okay. Ian, I wonder if you could repost the two bills with all the changes you've made? Ok.
|
|
|
Post by Magniloqueu Épiqeu da Lhiun on Oct 25, 2015 9:24:01 GMT -6
I have underlined my changes, although not all of them (quotation marks, and de-capitalisations in the part of the Royal Veto, for example). I have also changed everything into the British-English orthography, as used to be custom in Talossa.
|
|
Ian Plätschisch
Senator for Maritiimi-Maxhestic
Posts: 4,001
Talossan Since: 3-21-2015
|
Post by Ian Plätschisch on Oct 25, 2015 9:59:50 GMT -6
Sure. I see you have even edited parts that we have not changed! I think it would be a waste of time to try to insert all of those changes into my version; use the version you have just created and institute the changes, then repost it with the changes implemented.
|
|