Poll: Should this treaty be confirmed? You do not have permission to vote in this poll. |
|||
Aye | 23 | 50.00% | |
Nay | 9 | 19.57% | |
Abstain | 14 | 30.43% | |
Total | 46 vote(s) | 100% |
* You voted for this item. | [Show Results] |
[PASSED] A2208.02 [2232.FA] Pact of Orohena |
I am a citizen of Europeia, so could my vote please be changed to abstain? Thanks.
Republic of Lansoon (Pacifica)
Under Article 1 Section 7 of the Legislative Procedure Act, I motion to cancel voting on this treaty. I believe that there was not enough debate time given, since the posts put into the discussion were very large and that Glen was unable to write a substantial post in the short 18 hours that was given between Minister HumanSanity's last post and their subsequential motion to vote.
"After he realizes this newfound power of his to override the hopes and dreams of republicans, he puts all of the united provinces under his control."
one time minister of culture (08-17-2022, 05:44 PM)im_a_waffle1 Wrote: Under Article 1 Section 7 of the Legislative Procedure Act, I motion to cancel voting on this treaty. I believe that there was not enough debate time given, since the posts put into the discussion were very large and that Glen was unable to write a substantial post in the short 18 hours that was given between Minister HumanSanity's last post and their subsequential motion to vote. Someone actually read my Chair thread in the GC? Anyway, you can't motion to cancel voting (for this reason and like that). The Chair may prolong the voting process or you may raise an objection. There is a possibility to motion to cancel voting but for a reason so that The Chair can make revisions to the bill. However, the Chair is limited in that process as well, as the revisions must be of "typographical" nature. The Orange Records | Viliakmon (Pacifica) | NationStates Account Main | Discord: genericsequencealias#0990
(08-17-2022, 08:53 PM)A bee Wrote:(08-17-2022, 05:44 PM)im_a_waffle1 Wrote: Under Article 1 Section 7 of the Legislative Procedure Act, I motion to cancel voting on this treaty. I believe that there was not enough debate time given, since the posts put into the discussion were very large and that Glen was unable to write a substantial post in the short 18 hours that was given between Minister HumanSanity's last post and their subsequential motion to vote. Apologies for any issues, but if you read the piece of law I referenced in the original post you'd know that you can. Quote:(7) Any legislator may motion to cancel voting and withdraw a bill that has been brought to a vote so revisions can be made. The Chair may cancel voting on the bill, provided that there is a reason deemed sufficient by the Chair and no objection is raised within 24 hours of the motion being made and seconded. Should the motion and seconding be made within the final 24 hours of voting, the legislation shall not pass or fail until the Chair makes a ruling on the motion. "After he realizes this newfound power of his to override the hopes and dreams of republicans, he puts all of the united provinces under his control."
one time minister of culture (08-17-2022, 09:48 PM)im_a_waffle1 Wrote: Apologies for any issues, but if you read the piece of law I referenced in the original post you'd know that you can. I know these laws, I made an entire compilation about them in the GC. The provisions you're referencing are talking about a provision in Rule 2... Why? Idk! Rule 2: Powers and Responsibilities of the Chair section 4: Quote:(4) The Chair may correct typographical errors, grammatical errors, naming or The Orange Records | Viliakmon (Pacifica) | NationStates Account Main | Discord: genericsequencealias#0990
(08-17-2022, 05:44 PM)im_a_waffle1 Wrote: Under Article 1 Section 7 of the Legislative Procedure Act, I motion to cancel voting on this treaty. I believe that there was not enough debate time given, since the posts put into the discussion were very large and that Glen was unable to write a substantial post in the short 18 hours that was given between Minister HumanSanity's last post and their subsequential motion to vote. Pursuant to Article 1 Section 7, I object to the motion to cancel voting on the treaty. The full text was placed up for debate for five full days, during four of which there was no commentary. The concept of a non-aggression pact was placed up for a vote for a full 11 days before the text was posted. There was ample time to begin debate before the treaty was posted (it is worth noting that none of the objections have to do with the text of the treaty itself, so there is no reason they could not have been raised earlier). I have posted on this subject already here. The Chair's threshold for invalidating a vote in progress should be incredibly high. It should be clear there was either no opportunity for debate or that an error is likely to result from continuation of the vote. In this case, the threshold has not been met, and it would be intervening in a political question (some Legislator's dislike of the treaty) for the Chair to intervene to close the vote. Minister of Foreign Affairs
General of the South Pacific Special Forces Ambassador to Balder Former Prime Minister and Minister of Defense (08-17-2022, 11:06 PM)HumanSanity Wrote: Pursuant to Article 1 Section 7, I object to the motion to cancel voting on the treaty. And you are supposed to object his cancel. Waffle should've (and still can) called upon Rule 2, section (5) The Chair may delay votes for a reasonable time frame if done for the purposes of vote scheduling or to avoid preemption of active debate by a vote. However, this is followed by what you two are actually talking about (7) The Chair may waive the mandatory debate period remaining on a particular piece of legislation should a legislator motion for them to do so, provided that there is a reason deemed sufficient by the Chair and no objection is raised within 24 hours of the motion being made and seconded. Both of you are being political while (failing) to attempt at using the Legislative Procedure Act in such a way that would benefit you. However, I'm not saying this is either of yours fault. Using whatever the Assembly provides for political means is not a moral concern either. The issue is that the Legislative Procedure Act (among many others) is very outdated. Let me point out in my own example; The Chair may waive this legislation should a legislator motion them to do so but then the Chair should also provide a reason as to why a piece of legislation is being prolonged but this can all be circumvented by an objection? And yes I will use this opportunity to promote my own political opinions about The Chair which are completely unrelated to what is put to vote now. The Orange Records | Viliakmon (Pacifica) | NationStates Account Main | Discord: genericsequencealias#0990
|
Users browsing this thread: |
1 Guest(s) |