Ian Plätschisch
Senator for Maritiimi-Maxhestic
Posts: 4,001
Talossan Since: 3-21-2015
|
Post by Ian Plätschisch on Apr 18, 2019 19:06:26 GMT -6
I'd prefer at least an alternate provisions that says the Ziu can pass legislation to address what to do case by case, or something similar. That sounds fine to me I see your point, however being able to reject it only twice seems like not enough power. What about three times?
|
|
Lüc da Schir
Senator for Benito
If Italy wins a Six Nations match I will join the Zouaves
Posts: 4,125
Talossan Since: 3-21-2012
|
Post by Lüc da Schir on Apr 19, 2019 6:02:21 GMT -6
I see your point, however being able to reject it only twice seems like not enough power. What about three times? Yup, but rejecting it three times means that in the worst case scenario a Budget would be passed in the Fourth Cosa (rejected 2nd, rejected 3rd, passed over objection 4th). That seems a bit too late for me with our own timescales - I mean, using the current Government as an example, they wouldn't be able to win supply until September if the Senate was opposed all the way.
I get your argument about not enough power though. Maybe we can add in some safeguards for the Senate? For example, the Government has to tweak the budget after the first Senate rejection to make a honest attempt to address the concerns, and if it *has* done so and it still doesn't pass the Senate, it becomes law anyway.
|
|
King John
King of Talossa
Posts: 2,415
Talossan Since: 5-7-2005
Knight Since: 11-30-2005
Motto: COR UNUM
King Since: 3-14-2007
|
Post by King John on Apr 19, 2019 8:49:16 GMT -6
There was a crisis along these lines in Australia a few decades back, with the Senate refusing to OK the budgets the House of Representatives passed, and the House refusing to pass a budget the Senate would OK. It was resolved by the Crown dissolving Parliament. (Yay, Crown!) Maybe we should emulate that. It doesn't need to be spelled out in the OrgLaw, but perhaps we should simply understand that a standoff of that kind would trigger new elections — which might put some pressure on both Houses to find a compromise.
— John R
|
|
Ian Plätschisch
Senator for Maritiimi-Maxhestic
Posts: 4,001
Talossan Since: 3-21-2015
|
Post by Ian Plätschisch on Apr 19, 2019 9:51:30 GMT -6
I see your point, however being able to reject it only twice seems like not enough power. What about three times? Yup, but rejecting it three times means that in the worst case scenario a Budget would be passed in the Fourth Cosa (rejected 2nd, rejected 3rd, passed over objection 4th). That seems a bit too late for me with our own timescales - I mean, using the current Government as an example, they wouldn't be able to win supply until September if the Senate was opposed all the way. Yes, it would be pretty late, but the point of that is to give incentive to the Government to work with the Senate so they do not have to wait as long. I really don't know how it would be possible to ensure this, given how subjective it is to "make an honest attempt."
|
|
Ian Plätschisch
Senator for Maritiimi-Maxhestic
Posts: 4,001
Talossan Since: 3-21-2015
|
Post by Ian Plätschisch on Apr 19, 2019 9:55:39 GMT -6
There was a crisis along these lines in Australia a few decades back, with the Senate refusing to OK the budgets the House of Representatives passed, and the House refusing to pass a budget the Senate would OK. It was resolved by the Crown dissolving Parliament. (Yay, Crown!) Maybe we should emulate that. It doesn't need to be spelled out in the OrgLaw, but perhaps we should simply understand that a standoff of that kind would trigger new elections — which might put some pressure on both Houses to find a compromise. — John R I do believe that it would need to be spelled out in the OrgLaw; otherwise there would be no authority for the King to step in to dissolve the Cosa. We might say that if the budget fails twice to pass the Senate, the King may decide to dissolve the Cosa or instead to hold a joint session to encourage the houses to hammer out their disagreements. Then, if the budget fails a third time, the Cosa is dissolved automatically.
|
|
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 Apr 19, 2019 17:44:56 GMT -6
There was a crisis along these lines in Australia a few decades back, with the Senate refusing to OK the budgets the House of Representatives passed, and the House refusing to pass a budget the Senate would OK. It was resolved by the Crown dissolving Parliament. (Yay, Crown!) Maybe we should emulate that. It doesn't need to be spelled out in the OrgLaw, but perhaps we should simply understand that a standoff of that kind would trigger new elections — which might put some pressure on both Houses to find a compromise. Firstly, sir, your grasp of Australian history is inaccurate. The crisis was resolved by the Governor-General dismissing the Prime Minister, something which is still massively controversial today and pushed forward the Republican cause in Australia considerably. Substantively, I have no objections to a standoff on money bills leading to an early dissolution. But I would much prefer the will of the Cosa as the directly democratic house to prevail - therefore, to restrict the Senäts' power over money bills to a four-month (half a Cosa term) delay.
|
|
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 Apr 19, 2019 17:53:16 GMT -6
Anyway: I have been discussing this bill in private with its proposer and with the leader of the ModRads, hoping we could come to a three-party consensus that would push this through quickly with a veto-proof 3/4 majority. However, that doesn't seem to be happening. So what I prefer is to call a Joint Committee of the Ziu with proportional representation from the various parties to suggest amendments to this draft, in time to get an agreed version on the Second Clark of this Cosa. Since the purpose of this bill is to clarify rather than to make substantive changes to the OrgLaw status quo, this committee would not propose substantive amendments without either unanimity, or the consent of the bill's author, Senator Ian Plätschisch. And of course the Senator would be free to continue to suggest amendments of his own By proportional representation I would mean 3 FreeDem, 2 RUMP, 2 AMP, 1 ModRad, and the King if he's interested. What do others think?
|
|
|
Post by Gödafrïeu Válcadác’h on Apr 19, 2019 19:27:37 GMT -6
I would really like Sir Alexandreu Davinescu and Viteu Marcianüs (when the latter have calmed down from tearing strips off each other) to both look through this and decide whether it can be the basis for a multi-party consensus on OrgLaw Reform in the 53rd Cosa. And I would especially like the King to take a look at this himself and find reasons to veto it sooner rather than later.
|
|
Lüc da Schir
Senator for Benito
If Italy wins a Six Nations match I will join the Zouaves
Posts: 4,125
Talossan Since: 3-21-2012
|
Post by Lüc da Schir on Apr 21, 2019 4:12:24 GMT -6
There was a crisis along these lines in Australia a few decades back, with the Senate refusing to OK the budgets the House of Representatives passed, and the House refusing to pass a budget the Senate would OK. It was resolved by the Crown dissolving Parliament. (Yay, Crown!) Maybe we should emulate that. It doesn't need to be spelled out in the OrgLaw, but perhaps we should simply understand that a standoff of that kind would trigger new elections — which might put some pressure on both Houses to find a compromise. Firstly, sir, your grasp of Australian history is inaccurate. The crisis was resolved by the Governor-General dismissing the Prime Minister, something which is still massively controversial today and pushed forward the Republican cause in Australia considerably. Substantively, I have no objections to a standoff on money bills leading to an early dissolution. But I would much prefer the will of the Cosa as the directly democratic house to prevail - therefore, to restrict the Senäts' power over money bills to a four-month (half a Cosa term) delay. I can agree with that. I hope we can strike a balance between all-powerful upper chamber (Australia) and practically worthless upper chamber (UK) on important stuff like budget bills.
Let's put my proposal, Ian's proposal and Miestra's proposal side by side, with the assumption of the worst case scenario (Senate always rejects): Month | My proposal (2X)
| Ian's proposal (3X)
| Miestra's proposal (4 Months)
| May | First Clark
| First Clark | First Clark, first month of delay
| June | Second Clark; first Budget vote; first strike
| Second Clark; first Budget vote; first strike | Second Clark; first Budget vote; second month of delay | July | Third Clark; second Budget vote; second strike; budget passes | Third Clark; second Budget vote; second strike
| Third Clark; second Budget vote; third month of delay | August | Fourth Clark; Government gets Budget money.
| Fourth Clark; third Budget vote; third strike; budget passes
| Month of Recess; fourth month of delay
| September |
| Fifth Clark; Government gets Budget money. | Fourth Clark; third Budget vote; delay over; budget passes
| October |
|
| Fifth Clark; Government gets Budget money. |
Note that:
- With Miestrâ's proposal, I used a "tactical" Month of Recess to avoid "wasting" a Clark while we waited for the delay period to be over.
- Ian and Miestrâ's proposals are technically equal, in terms of the length in Clarks, but in Ian's the Government has one more month to spend the money since it hasn't used its Month of Recess.
- I assumed Miestrâ's delay would start on the First Clark, otherwise it would have been ridiculously long before the Government would be able to spend the money.
|
|
Lüc da Schir
Senator for Benito
If Italy wins a Six Nations match I will join the Zouaves
Posts: 4,125
Talossan Since: 3-21-2012
|
Post by Lüc da Schir on Apr 21, 2019 4:14:48 GMT -6
Personally, I like Miestra's proposal's flexibility; it's also Prorogation-proof, since the delay can start whether or not the First Clark is prorogued. The problem is that four months really is too long for our system.
|
|
King John
King of Talossa
Posts: 2,415
Talossan Since: 5-7-2005
Knight Since: 11-30-2005
Motto: COR UNUM
King Since: 3-14-2007
|
Post by King John on Apr 22, 2019 14:18:44 GMT -6
I would really like Sir Alexandreu Davinescu and Viteu Marcianüs (when the latter have calmed down from tearing strips off each other) to both look through this and decide whether it can be the basis for a multi-party consensus on OrgLaw Reform in the 53rd Cosa. And I would especially like the King to take a look at this himself and find reasons to veto it sooner rather than later. I've read it pretty carefully. I don't see anything hugely wrong, or obviously inOrganic. — John R Clarification: What I meant, but failed to say clearly, was that I'd read the "Annotated OrgLaw" carefully, and agree with its general thrust. The exact wordings in the proposed mega-Amendment need some work, I think. We should have plenty of time to work out that "multi-party consensus" of which Miestra spoke.
|
|
King John
King of Talossa
Posts: 2,415
Talossan Since: 5-7-2005
Knight Since: 11-30-2005
Motto: COR UNUM
King Since: 3-14-2007
|
Post by King John on Apr 22, 2019 14:34:42 GMT -6
Why the limit of 150 words in a Royal statement of objection to an Amendment? We seem to have taken to proposing *huge* Amendments; it might well be that 150 words would be insufficient even to mention the various points of objection.
— John R
|
|
King John
King of Talossa
Posts: 2,415
Talossan Since: 5-7-2005
Knight Since: 11-30-2005
Motto: COR UNUM
King Since: 3-14-2007
|
Post by King John on Apr 22, 2019 16:49:16 GMT -6
Yes, the Crown dismissed one P.M. and installed another, who immediately called new elections. I don't know whether this favoured the "Republican cause" in the long term, but Labour certainly took a short-term pasting in that election. — John R
|
|
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 Apr 22, 2019 18:20:22 GMT -6
I don't know whether this favoured the "Republican cause" in the long term "Well might we say God save the Queen, because no-one will save the Governor-General" - Gough Whitlam
|
|
Ian Plätschisch
Senator for Maritiimi-Maxhestic
Posts: 4,001
Talossan Since: 3-21-2015
|
Post by Ian Plätschisch on May 1, 2019 15:54:31 GMT -6
A slight clarification regarding a comment the Seneschal made in the Ziu chamber; my decision to delay Clarking this bill until next month did not have anything to do with MC Davinescu. I want to take a final good look at this amendment before I Clark it, and I would not have had time to do that had I put it in the May Clark.
|
|