Post by Magniloqueu Épiqeu da Lhiun on Nov 16, 2014 9:28:51 GMT -6
I finally have some time to sit down and write my considerations about the bills up for voting (I've had a really busy, busy month with work, studies, and planning a trip to Finland and Sweden). As always, I need and want your input on these bills!
Here is the link to the current clark, so you know of which bill I write, when I do so:
47RZ3 - I am not sure what to do with the passage that says "prepare to set aside a budget for 60$".
Question 1: What currency is this? Canadian Dollar? US Dollar? Australian Dollar?
Question 2: What exactly does it mean to "prepare to set aside a budget". What is the government supposed to do? Should it set aside 60 bogus-$? But it says to "prepare." So, I am confused. And was the plan not to "nationalise" Wittenberg, and not to "privatise" it? I don't know what this means, and therefore, I believe it needs much, much, *much* more discussion and clarification.
So, that's a NON from me.
Comments?
47RZ4 - Uhm... what's *exactly* happening to the Túischac'h now? Nothing much differs, except for the style of nomination, and I think a passage of "advising MCs of appropriate decorum" - whatever that is supposed to *actually* mean.
Comments?
47RZ5 - Anti-Espionage! Sounds like a utopia, and I'm all for utopias. I like the thought of us not spying around with pseudonyms, and becoming the Talossan NSA. I am in favour, and await your comments.
47RZ6 - I think this is quite a well-done, and successful proposal to sort out some of the problems of the voting and validation system currently in place. I particularly like the ability of the Commission members to notify the King that one member has become unresponsive. BUT, there is that thing: Amendment and Bill in one. If the bill is passed, the amendment still stays. If the Org. Law. amendment is not ratified, does that mean that the law is also "invalid"? It might be a bit problematic, and I'd prefer amendment and bill to exist separately.
I still lean towards an ÜC nonetheless.
47RZ7 - There is not much to say. The amounts seem sensible, and every government needs a budget. So, I say "yea!"
47RZ8 - Okay, this repeals the first PD of this Cosă, and makes it into a statute, as promised. What do you think of the ministries of Immigration, Home, and Defence being merged into one ministry?
PLEASE NOTE: without an Organic law amendment deleting the refences of the three ministries to be merged, this law is unintelligible at best, and inorganic at worst.
NOTE FURTHERMORE that I do not approve of Senator Schivâ's unclear amendment proposals, that do not outline the old version of the text, and therefore are not clear on what exactly is to be changed by this bill.
HOWEVER; I am not *against* the principles of this bill. It is merely its realisation, which "rubs me the wrong way".
47RZ9 - Again, note that Senator Schivâ is *not* including the current version of the text to be amended/replaced, which is questionable practice. I find that there needs to be a discussion about this, *before* voting hastily.
47RZ10 - Okay, what just happened? The SoS is appointed by law (i.e. statute), on the nomination of the King, with the advice (i.e. nomination) and consent (i.e. approval after nomination of the nomination) by the Seneschal, INSTEAD OF him just being appointed by the Seneschal. Note also that no provision for his removal is given.
I do not believe that this is well-thought-out.
47RZ11 - Sounds interesting. I might like it, but I need your input, please.
47RZ12 - Soccer (yaaay!). I am not much one for soccer, so whatever you say goes.
47RZ13... oh wait, that doesn't exist.
THANK GOD, IT'S OVER!
Here is the link to the current clark, so you know of which bill I write, when I do so:
47RZ3 - I am not sure what to do with the passage that says "prepare to set aside a budget for 60$".
Question 1: What currency is this? Canadian Dollar? US Dollar? Australian Dollar?
Question 2: What exactly does it mean to "prepare to set aside a budget". What is the government supposed to do? Should it set aside 60 bogus-$? But it says to "prepare." So, I am confused. And was the plan not to "nationalise" Wittenberg, and not to "privatise" it? I don't know what this means, and therefore, I believe it needs much, much, *much* more discussion and clarification.
So, that's a NON from me.
Comments?
47RZ4 - Uhm... what's *exactly* happening to the Túischac'h now? Nothing much differs, except for the style of nomination, and I think a passage of "advising MCs of appropriate decorum" - whatever that is supposed to *actually* mean.
Comments?
47RZ5 - Anti-Espionage! Sounds like a utopia, and I'm all for utopias. I like the thought of us not spying around with pseudonyms, and becoming the Talossan NSA. I am in favour, and await your comments.
47RZ6 - I think this is quite a well-done, and successful proposal to sort out some of the problems of the voting and validation system currently in place. I particularly like the ability of the Commission members to notify the King that one member has become unresponsive. BUT, there is that thing: Amendment and Bill in one. If the bill is passed, the amendment still stays. If the Org. Law. amendment is not ratified, does that mean that the law is also "invalid"? It might be a bit problematic, and I'd prefer amendment and bill to exist separately.
I still lean towards an ÜC nonetheless.
47RZ7 - There is not much to say. The amounts seem sensible, and every government needs a budget. So, I say "yea!"
47RZ8 - Okay, this repeals the first PD of this Cosă, and makes it into a statute, as promised. What do you think of the ministries of Immigration, Home, and Defence being merged into one ministry?
PLEASE NOTE: without an Organic law amendment deleting the refences of the three ministries to be merged, this law is unintelligible at best, and inorganic at worst.
NOTE FURTHERMORE that I do not approve of Senator Schivâ's unclear amendment proposals, that do not outline the old version of the text, and therefore are not clear on what exactly is to be changed by this bill.
HOWEVER; I am not *against* the principles of this bill. It is merely its realisation, which "rubs me the wrong way".
47RZ9 - Again, note that Senator Schivâ is *not* including the current version of the text to be amended/replaced, which is questionable practice. I find that there needs to be a discussion about this, *before* voting hastily.
47RZ10 - Okay, what just happened? The SoS is appointed by law (i.e. statute), on the nomination of the King, with the advice (i.e. nomination) and consent (i.e. approval after nomination of the nomination) by the Seneschal, INSTEAD OF him just being appointed by the Seneschal. Note also that no provision for his removal is given.
I do not believe that this is well-thought-out.
47RZ11 - Sounds interesting. I might like it, but I need your input, please.
47RZ12 - Soccer (yaaay!). I am not much one for soccer, so whatever you say goes.
47RZ13... oh wait, that doesn't exist.
THANK GOD, IT'S OVER!