Users browsing this thread:

***sandaoguo*** · 07-20-2016, 04:52 PM

It's relevant insofar as it shows I'm not arguing a particularly novel way of doing things.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Zak6858 · 07-20-2016, 04:53 PM

(07-20-2016, 10:15 AM)Omega Wrote:
(07-20-2016, 10:06 AM)Punchwood Wrote:
(07-20-2016, 05:24 AM)Zak6858 Wrote: Just like he said how TSP isn't TNP, TSP isn't the US either (thank God). Even if we are closer pretending to be the US won't get us anywhere. We need to have some leniency in the Cabinet's powers, it's not the end of the world.

Omega, if the APC is going to run how you want it to run, without us voting on it, then this is a pretty bad party. I understand you are the founder and chair, but you don't just decide whether or not we support something.

The party voted by majority on Discord that we would support the motion, you are more than welcome to join us on Discord.

I'm going to say this again. If the power of ratification goes to the Assembly then the power to dissolve treaties goes to the Assembly. It is very simple logic.
(This is me being DCoA) please leave APC internal affairs at the door during Assembly debate. Do this on your own channels. Thank you.
(This is me being APCRC Chair) Please listen to the CoA guys and take this out of here.

What a hypocrite

I am Zadiner/Zak. Part of Assembly, some other stuff, Founder of some other region.
Hey, I have a bunch of issues. You don't need to care.
Emoji of the week: :dodgy:

**Belschaft** · 10-03-2016, 02:33 PM

So, yesterday whilst preparing to put up a poll to decide the block vote I noticed a couple of issues with the two bills currently listed as "Treaty Amendment";

1. Despite being presented as competing legislation, they do not actually appear to be so. They do not actually address the same issue or alter the same area of the Charter - I can find no grounds to actually consider them "competing".

2. In regards to the Awe/Tsu draft, the addition reads as following;

"Should a treaty be dissolved by either party, the Minister of Foreign Affairs shall put the matter up for five days of mandated discussion in the Assembly, after which the treaty shall be dissolved"

Not only does this not actually create a method to dissolve a treaty - thus not addressing the issue that the bill written by DM and myself does - it is self contradictory and unenforceable. The language dictates that a treaty shall be dissolved after a mandated five day discussion, which must occur after a treaty is dissolved.

I haven't had an opportunity to talk with either Omega or Josh to clarify the situation, but I have gone over the issue with DM and the other Local Councillors; the consensus is that the two bills do not compete, and that they shouldn't be considered such. That's got the LC in a bit of a bother, as we're currently unsure what to do with the block vote.

_{Minister of Media, Subversion and Sandwich Making}
^{Associate Justice of the High Court and Senior Moderator}

PREVIOUS ROLES

***sandaoguo*** · 10-04-2016, 05:06 PM

Quote:1. Despite being presented as competing legislation, they do not actually appear to be so. They do not actually address the same issue or alter the same area of the Charter - I can find no grounds to actually consider them "competing".

One requires a vote. One never requires a vote. That's directly conflicting.

Also... Can we not have the Permanent Justice engaging in private discussion about issues of statutory interpretation, especially when those issues would likely end up before the Court?? Best to nip that the bud right now, tbqh.

(This post was last modified: 10-04-2016, 05:10 PM by sandaoguo.)

Eluvatar · 10-06-2016, 11:33 AM

I would suggest that before voting on amending the charter, we explicitly vote head to head between the two proposals. Perhaps as an informal poll.

[Image: HuoZhaoDao.png]

***sandaoguo*** · 10-06-2016, 02:32 PM

(10-06-2016, 11:33 AM)Eluvatar Wrote: I would suggest that before voting on amending the charter, we explicitly vote head to head between the two proposals. Perhaps as an informal poll.

Why would we do an "informal" poll, when we have a procedure for voting on conflicting bills already?

Eluvatar · 10-11-2016, 12:06 PM

Because it avoids a mess of tactical voting increasing the chance of sticking to the status quo.

The incentives are to vote only for the proposal you prefer, even if you think the alternative would improve upon the status quo.

[Image: HuoZhaoDao.png]

***sandaoguo*** · 10-11-2016, 04:35 PM

How on earth would it do that? A non-binding poll would have only one purpose: deciding which of the two goes to vote. All the incentives you're talking about would exist just as much as they exist under following the law with competing bills.

The fact is, the Assembly is split almost evenly on which mechanism to adopt. Before the last minute suicide votes on Bel's proposal, the two were roughly tied, with Awe/Tsu's having I believe 1 or 2 more Aye votes. People are simply going to have to decide one way or the other. Those who are heavily opposed to one aren't going to decide the other is acceptable just because it's the only one at vote. That means a non-binding poll is pointless, as the margin will almost certainly be the same.

(This post was last modified: 10-11-2016, 04:41 PM by sandaoguo.)

Eluvatar · 10-11-2016, 10:45 PM

Then we may not get any amendment passed.

[Image: HuoZhaoDao.png]

(This post was last modified: 10-11-2016, 10:46 PM by Eluvatar.)

***sandaoguo*** · 10-12-2016, 12:35 PM

Then we continue not having any spelled out mechanism for treaty repeal, until either a compromise is done or one proposal gets the support of enough legislators.

There's no requirement that an amendment is passed. If our political system is at an impasse, then it's at an impasse.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk