Users browsing this thread:

**Belschaft** · 07-26-2016, 04:18 AM

Problem with that is what happens when the assembly votes against the cabinet but by an insufficient margin?

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

PREVIOUS ROLES

Omega · 07-26-2016, 03:06 PM

(07-20-2016, 12:26 PM)Cathalea Wrote: Motion.

I would like to request that this motion be withdrawn before August 3rd, 11:14:59 CDT.

Above all else, I hope to be a decent person.
Has Been
What's Next?

CoA: August 2016-January 2017
Minister of Foreign Affairs: October 2019-June 2020, October 2020- February 2021

***sandaoguo*** · 07-26-2016, 11:16 PM

(07-26-2016, 03:06 PM)Omega Wrote:
(07-20-2016, 12:26 PM)Cathalea Wrote: Motion.

I would like to request that this motion be withdrawn before August 3rd, 11:14:59 CDT.

The motion still has support.

Frankly, I don't see how DM and Bel's proposal is a compromise at all. We're requesting that the Cabinet retain the authority to dissolve treaties, as a matter of recognizing practical realities. The compromise for that isn't to require an Assembly vote, and also require a Delegate sign off. That's actually a worse outcome, because we're adding an official that has no business at all being involved in the process, and it's not even as a trade off for Assembly votes.

I still stand 100% behind the original proposal. If the counter-proposal were to improve, maybe I'd consider supporting it. But at this point, it's doing exactly what the original proposal is saying we shouldn't do, and then some.

There's only one outcome of any proposal that doesn't recognize the Cabinet is the only body that executes foreign policy: the Assembly gets to throw its fist in the air and say NO..... and the Cabinet just shoves the "alliance" in the deepest darkest hole they can find. It's how we got Balder, and it's gonna be how we get more of those if future governments sign treaties left and right like they did in 2012. If that's something the Assembly wants to live with, and none of TSP's politicians are going to scheme for recalls or resignations when that's the response, then fine. It's basically a return to 3 months ago.

(This post was last modified: 07-26-2016, 11:26 PM by sandaoguo.)

Omega · 07-26-2016, 11:25 PM

(07-26-2016, 03:06 PM)Omega Wrote:
(07-20-2016, 12:26 PM)Cathalea Wrote: Motion.

I would like to request that this motion be withdrawn before August 3rd, 11:14:59 CDT.

Whereas it has come to the attention of the Deputy Chair that this motion still has support I hereby withdraw the previous request.

Above all else, I hope to be a decent person.
Has Been
What's Next?

CoA: August 2016-January 2017
Minister of Foreign Affairs: October 2019-June 2020, October 2020- February 2021

Drugged Monkeys · 07-27-2016, 02:19 PM

Article IV Section 5 of the Charter states:

Quote:5. All bills must be moved to a vote upon receiving a second by another legislator. The Chair is responsible for the creation of a voting thread, and recording the votes. In the event that the Chair does not or cannot perform their duties in a reasonable timeframe, any member of the Assembly may create a voting thread.

While Article XII Section 2 of the Charter states:

Quote:2. Debate on Charter amendments will last for a minimum of two weeks, unless the Council on Regional Security acknowledges that the amendment addresses an immediate and perilous issue that threatens the security of the region. Any amendment that directly affects the game-side community or its home governance, as determined by the Chair of the Assembly, must also be debated and voted upon by the game-side community.

I would ask the following of the Chair, Are the motions to vote on the original proposed amendment relevant, since the required amount of debate time had yet to pass before they were made?

If they are deemed relevant, I motion that the previous draft be removed from the floor and the current draft motioned to vote.

Semi-Unretired

Awe · 07-28-2016, 02:52 AM

If a motion and second have been lodged, they will remain in place unless the player decides to withdraw their motion or second. The Charter states that the Chair must perform their duties within a reasonable timeframe. In this case, the timeframe is explicitly stated in the Charter, to be at least two weeks after debate has begun.

If there are multiple versions of an amendment needing to be put to vote, I'll be inclined to follow the rules of the previous Charter and hold a plebiscite on which proposal to put to vote first. Alternatively, we can put all proposals to vote at the same time, where the option on the poll will be 'Proposal A, Proposal B or Abstain', depending on the preference of the Assembly.

EDIT: I've actually opted to use the version Tsu proposed,so I think we'd require a motion and second on that instead of the one I proposed initially

[Image: 9ehfkQV.png]

the island league