Post Archive

Region: The Thaecian Senate

History

The vote has ended. On the question of whether to pass the bill, the ayes are 6, the nays are 0, and thr abstains are 1. The bill has passed the Senate. As it has been amended by the author, it will return to the House.

Of Altonianic Islands

Per the following petition obtaining the required amount of signatureshttps://www.nationstates.net/page=dispatch/id=1765532

the Senate is required by law to open debate on the following bill: https://www.nationstates.net/page=dispatch/id=1760528

I encourage all Senators to post their thoughts on the bill.

[spoiler=Senators]

Angypt

Snowflame

Marvinville

Saltmore

Sevae

Gifty

Solittus[/spoiler]

Let me start by saying I am against the amendments and will be planning on voting nay if/when a voting period begins. Here's the problem: you could argue that there are some good ideas in this bill, and I wouldn't disagree. My main issue involves what the amendments say regarding party membership counts. I totally get the opposing perspective about membership counts, but having them is important. As my good friend MP Santa Marana stated in the House, "The point of 5 members is to ensure strong and fair playing field in which the each party is equal to each other."

If the point was to help large parties, then the number would be 10 or 15 or 20. But the number is 5, because an accurate measure of whether a party has momentum or whether it has support. In a region that supports democratic values, parties are important. Parties allow people of similar beliefs to band together. But at the same time, the playing field MUST be fair to everyone. It is totally possible for a newcomer to join, have strong beliefs about a policy, and create a party. Getting 5 members is not a restrictive requirement. And so, I am against the proposed amendments.

Santa Marana

Considering that the Chair has lifted Santa's quote, and I responded to that on the House RMB, to open up, I will simply post how I responded to that.

Santa Marana wrote:I am torn on this bill. Although the amendments are good, the amendment in which the 5 member rule is abolished is horrifying. The point of 5 members is to ensure strong and fair playing field in which the each party is equal to each other. This bill has many good features but still includes some debatably odd amendments.

The point may have been to make parties 'equal' to each other, but that is not the effect. The effect is, real movements like PTD, which from its inception has been practically single-handedly responsible for anyone in this region supporting direct democracy (even though you may not agree with it, they clearly are something serious if they have managed to get everyone talking about it), are being suppressed because they are not good enough for the rest of the region. PTD held the Speakership last term- and they still can't be recognised as a legitimate party? In fact, this bill has been written partially because of PTD's circumstances- they're clearly not irrelevant, and they still can't be recognised as a legitimate party? That doesn't make any sense to me.

Additionally, I dispute that the bill creates a 'strong and fair playing field' - people can still compete in elections strongly and fairly to all other people if they are not in a party. In fact, in 2020, the first incarnation of the Alternative Party consisted of only four members. We would go on to win two seats in the House and one in the Senate: that was every seat we contested. This was before I was even a popular figure in Thaecia- at this point, I would genuinely call myself disliked. But we still won every seat we contested in a time even more partisan than today. And yet under these laws, ALT of 2020 would not be a 'real' political party. Parties don't need to have five members to be strong, or for elections to be fair- elections are already fair because of our checks and verifications- it has been shown time and time again, that people who are not in 5 plus member parties can win elections and pose a serious threat to the establishment to get their legislation passed (ALT did that in 2020 forming a coalition with the governing TPU, PTD actually got the Speakership). But parties still have a use to them- it allows these smaller groups, like the 2-1 seat ALT, to organise their beliefs into a manifesto, and into an organisation, and to have that representation on the ballot box. Putting these nations on the ballot box shows that we aren't joking around with these parties: we are saying that their beliefs are legitimate and that they have the right to represent themselves, to run for elections under what they believe in, not what FREE, or TGP, or ALT, believe in, but what they personally think is right. The only thing that membership requirements do is the very opposite of that. What sort of democracy are we if we deny parties the right to represent themselves in elections?

It's not like smaller parties are a fringe, ignorable movement. Sure, they may push forward beliefs that are out of the generally accepted norm, like direct democracy, but they should still be allowed to organise into a political party and promote their beliefs that way. The second right of the Constitution is 'the right to free association; this includes the right to form or join a political group'. As 2.3 of the Constitution says, Thaecia is a free and democratic society- what sort of free and democratic society places restrictions and requirements on how their citizens can associate?

Toerana V, Lothern

I would also like to expand a little bit on this- how is it that allowing all people to create parties freely makes the field fairer to less people? The Chair says "the playing field MUST be fair to everyone"- which I completely, in all aspects, agree with. Then what about four people that want to make a party? Or three, or two, or just one person that wants to start up a political movement but doesn't have a strong base? It might be totally possible for a newcomer to make a party- but that's only technically. Newcomers flock to the pre-existing parties because they don't have a strong support base: how then, can we expect them to make a political party off the bat? By giving them actual, legitimate recognition, when newcomers enter the region and ask for a list of political parties - because this happens literally all the time, you can see it all over the RMB - these smaller groups will be visible, and they will gain more support.

The only thing that the current law accomplishes is making smaller parties less visible, and so, gain significantly less support. Newcomers see only FREE, TGP, and ALT: they join these parties, and we end up with the problem of the main parties having 'zombie' members. This is not fair to the smaller parties at all- they do not get the ability to advertise themselves on either the ballot box or the official list. They are suppressed, because they are too small and are beneath the notice of the main groups. This is entirely undemocratic, and is most certainly entirely unfair. If the Senate chair wants the playing field to be fair to everyone, why must fringe parties be suppressed then? If it's entirely possible for a newcomer to join and create a party, why does PTD, a party that held the Speakership, still suffer from no recognition?

I genuinely do not understand the point that is being made at all- if we want the playing field to be fair, why is it that parties have to be bigger, in order to be recognised? It is more fair for smaller parties to be able to promote their beliefs without these, again, very draconian and three years out of date requirements. In fact, if we want these 'equal' playing fields, how is it that FREE has 40+ members, whilst TGP has 15+ and ALT has 10+? Is that exactly 'fair'? Is it because FREE recruits more than other parties- sure. But ALT has still proven itself electable, in the House with 3 seats in the first ever election with the party. If anything this shows that membership levels don't contribute to fairness- but I'll tell you something that did contribute, being part of an official party. Let's be entirely honest: do we really think Of Altonianic Islands would have been elected, if not for ALT? Imagine if ALT was not recognised- he would be denied a seat, and for what? Because larger parties want a 'fair playing field'. But a fair playing field to FREE is one where smaller movements are suppressed- that is the very opposite of fair.

A fairer playing field is one where larger parties like FREE can be evened out with budding new political movements on the official dispatch and ballot box. That is what will contribute to fairness, not making it harder for parties to form.

Toerana V, Sunipi, Lothern

Lastly, all members of this region are guaranteed the 'right to free association; this includes the right to form or join a political group'. It is clear that by denying people the right to form a recognised group in the first place, if not unconstitutional, is very much so riding the edges of constitutional law. By denying them the right to be recognised, we are pulling away their second right piece by piece. That does not make Thaecia a free nor democratic society.

The point of 'spam parties' or 'joke movements' will be inevitably brought up, so I will address that here too. The Constitution of Thaecia declares Thaecia a "free and democratic society". All citizens have the right to "freedom of expression, opinion, and speech". This, by extension, includes the right to protest. Should not people have the democratic right to protest against the establishment by forming 'joke' political movements? Is the right to protest through joke movements a fundamental part of protesting in a democracy? Aside from the unlikeliness of joke movements, the right of people to create a political party to promote their belief on the ballot must be inalienable. The right to organise, and the right to protest, is inalienable. All citizens have this right, because Thaecia is a democratic region. And this law is undemocratic and does nothing other than harm our political system.

If we adore representative democracy and party rivalry so much, why do we bleed it so by denying parties the right to exist?

Toerana V, Sunipi, The Ambis, Lukaymmunki, Lothern

While you both raise valid points I feel more inclined to agree with Snow, I do not feel that 5 people is restrictive if they want to be taken seriously.

Your suggestion that the subject of "joke/meme" movements and while I agree that the declaration states "A free and democratic society" we shouldn't allow one person/persons to be able to disrupt our government for the sake of memes & jokes..

I would like to see some sort of safeguard against this before even considering supporting this bill.

While I agree with your overly dramatic point "If we adore representative democracy and party rivalry so much, why do we bleed it so by denying parties the right to exist?" We are not denying parties the right to exsist, are we not simply protecting our processes by having a mimimum requirement?

At this time I will also be planning on voting Nay.

Marvinville, Mardis

I invite The Ambis to speak on the Senate Floor.

The Ambis

Solittus wrote:I invite The Ambis to speak on the Senate Floor.

For what reason?

Gifty wrote:Your suggestion that the subject of "joke/meme" movements and while I agree that the declaration states "A free and democratic society" we shouldn't allow one person/persons to be able to disrupt our government for the sake of memes & jokes..

Please enlighten me- how will this disrupt our government? Exactly how will people being able to represent themselves through political movements without such restrictions disrupt the region? It will not cause bills to be voted on any slower or faster, it will not cause the Executive to lose Ministers, it will not delay the Courts. Do we suggest that because the Commissioner must update the list of political parties, it will disrupt their work? I find this unlikely, to be fair, because the rate at which political parties are founded is the same as which bills are passed through the House and Senate. Should we then, remove the Law Registry, because updating it is 'disrupting' the work of the Domestic Affairs Ministry? I think the response to this will be; 'it is an important part of the region for all citizens to be able to see the laws passed'. And to that I say, it is an important part of the region for all citizens to be able to follow through their rights to form a party, and to be able to see all the parties made and themselves consider which they may wish to join.

Citizens should not feel ashamed to form a fringe or small political movement because it is a minor inconvenience to the Government; citizens should be proud of their beliefs and free to promote them. Unfortunately, under the current legislation, they are not able to do so.

Gifty wrote:I would like to see some sort of safeguard against this before even considering supporting this bill.

There is already a safeguard in place, though: there are multiple other requirements that nations must fulfil in order to have their political party recognised. Let me read to you now a small excerpt from the bill (the other requirements).

[list]Present an official factbook with a list of members, all of which must be citizens of Thaecia, with the factbook having to be updated at least once every twenty-one (21) days,

Present an official party name and acronym,

Present a list of policies supported by the party,

Fulfils any other requirements set throughout this Act,

[list](i.e. those requirements are in part but not in whole:)

Must not violate any NationStates rules.

Must be composed exclusively of letters of the latin alphabet and/or arabic numerals.

Must contain no less than 5 characters and no more than 40 characters.

Once a political party receives official recognition, its name shall no longer be open for use by any other political parties.[/list][/list]

As you can see, there are multiple other safeguards in place; and the list above is not extensive, instead, it is showing only a part of what the full requirements are. It is not like I can rock up and declare 'The new party is My Party 400': I must have an official factbook, a name, an acronym, members, and most notably I feel, a list of policies: parties do actually have to believe in something. Parties must genuinely have a list of policies, a list of things that they will do, in order to receive recognition. Otherwise, it is not much of a political group at all, is it? It is not like this legislation allows anyone to make a party simply on a whim: they still must sit down, and think about it, before it can be made and publicised.

If you feel this safeguard is not enough, then, I do invite you to continue this debate with me, and propose any alternate or additional safeguards. However, it is abundantly clear that there are several sorts of safeguards in place in order to prevent such spam.

Gifty wrote:We are not denying parties the right to exsist, are we not simply protecting our processes by having a mimimum requirement?

We are, though, denying parties a right to exist; they have no right to exist on the ballot, or on the official factbook, and these things are notable. As I have said, newcomers do oft ask for a list of parties: how would you feel, perhaps, if your budding new political movement was denied a right to be shown to newcomers because of some far flung reason? If you could not encourage people to vote for your candidates in elections without confusion, because there is no acronym next to their name? These parties are seen as lesser, and in a democratic society, people must not be assigned rights based on how popular they are- they should be assigned that right based on the fact they are a lawful citizen of this august region.

I have already explained how there is no 'protection' of our processes, I feel as though there is no need to go into more detail, unless you would like to ask me more questions about it. I would like to raise though, that there was a time between the passage of the Constitution and of this law, in which there were no party membership requirements. And there was no threat nor damage to our process. The region has never had a problem with no restrictions: but we have had a problem when there are restrictions. That problem is minor movements being suppressed by the ruling establishment. I am not making this problem up, nor am I blowing it out of proportion. Not including myself, twenty citizens of Thaecia have signed a petition to have this bill debated and passed. That is more than enough for a recall petition to occur, of which we have only seen one in Thaecian history against President Andusre. This is the first petition requiring a bill to be debated in Thaecian history.

I implore you, Senators: listen to your people, and give them their rights that they demand and deserve.

Gifty

Thank you for clarifying a lot of my misundestandings Brototh.

I know some people think I'm willfully ignorant, but I like to ask questions and gather the facts first, I dont claiim to know and understand everything, and its rather distressing to check our discord and discover certain members of our government think its ok to mock a lack of understanding.

I will go away and think about my stance on this in more depth.

Hi y’all! Last time I talked on here it did it go all to well, so let’s hope that changes.

So, I’m going to touch on some of the points Brototh made, but also add some of my own. I am in support of this bill. This is why I got a TGP member to sponsor me, as opposed to a FREE member. I proposed a UC for this in the house. This bill fixes a lot of things. For one, let’s look at PTD, a topic I’m sure you’re tired of, but it’s a fantastic example. Snall had an idea. He stood for this idea, and look where we are. Direct Democracy debate everywhere. PTD started that. And you’re telling them they can’t be a party? Guess what, no one is listening! Snall is listed under PTD everywhere, even in the HoC WFE last term. PTD may not be a party, but it doesn’t really matter to anyone. Say I was new to Thaecia. I had a set of political ideals, and I wanted to see if others had them. I can’t just declare myself a party and be like “let people join.” No. I have to petition people. Be honest, how many of you would legitimately listen to me if I was new to Thaecia? I’m willing to bet the “yes-es” did not equal four, the amount I would need to start a party. But if I can just make one, it could become the new FREE.

Gifty, you mention a safeguard. If this it what it’ll take to get you to vote aye, let’s do it. I believe that the petitioning act has a way for people to turn a petition down if it was created for the amusement of the author. Just do the same here if we need.

Anyway, that’s all I have to say. Please vote Aye

Solittus

With the current condition of the bill, I encourage all Senators to vote nay. Thus, I will be proposing a few amendments later today.

I am in full support of this bill.

Above all, we have given all citizens the right to "free association; this includes the right to form or join a political group or media organization." This is fundamental. However, we don't really follow through with this right, instead we place a threshold on the number of members; a number that is dauntingly high and for most, completely impossible. The other thresholds: having an official party name, acronym, colour, update the dispatch every 21 days and present a list of policies, are sufficient to ensure the aforementioned "safeguard". This amendment ensures that democracy will prevail, and to oppose it, as FREE seem to be, is to deny democracy to our citizens.

Sunipi, Lothern

Solittus wrote:snip

These amendments have nothing to do with allowing democracy to "prevail". And if you noticed, FREE isn't completely against the amendments. Just look at the Shadow Speaker who agreed with me in regards to the amendments having some interesting ideas, but they have also have some aspects that completely ruin the original bill.

I motion for Unanimous Consent to pass $420.69 in border wall funding and $200 for miscellaneous spending

Of Altonianic Islands, Brototh

i acknowledge the motion

Toerana V, Marvinville

I am planning on voting Aye on the Political Party Deregulation Act. While I support the 5 member minimum requirement and believe PTD could have done more to advertise their party to reach the minimum requirement, this bill will not fundamentally change anything in the region. It will simply give PTD legal recognition, which they typically have had throughout their history. There are other safeguards in place to prevent potential spam parties, as Cinema and Solittus have mentioned.

Of Altonianic Islands, Brototh, The Ambis, Lukaymmunki, Lothern

I would like to propose the following amendment:

[Spoiler= Amendment A] Article 1 Section 1

Rewrite

Present an official factbook with a list of members, all of which must be citizens of Thaecia, with the factbook having to be updated at least once every twenty-one (21) days unless the party has obtained no new members in that time period and no members have left in the same.

to

Present an official factbook with a list of members, all of which must be citizens of Thaecia, with the factbook having to be updated at least once every twenty-one (21) days unless the party has obtained no new members and no members have left in that time period.[/spoiler]

This amendment is mainly because I found the original wording relatively confusing, and so I felt as if it needed a bit of rewording.

Could this potentially be done as UC after the law has passed? It's a pretty minor change (and if not by UC then just alongside other Legislation) and I would rather that it doesn't go back to the house just for this.

Toerana V, The Ambis

Agreement with Brototh. If you want to do it, we can just UC it later. (Also, before I get suppressed, I was sponsored yesterday)

We will begin voting on the bill since the debate has stopped. I'll be posting my amendment later as a UC.

[spoiler=Senators]

Angypt

Snowflame

Marvinville

Saltmore

Sevae

Gifty

Solittus[/spoiler]

I abstain

After some thought, and with the amendments going on as a UC,

I will vote Aye

Voting has now ended. On the question of whether to pass the bill, the votes are as follows:

The ayes are 4, the nays are 0, the abstains are 3. The bill has passed both chambers of Congress.

Brototh

Angypt, The Ambis, Lukaymmunki, Lothern

We will begin our next business which is https://www.nationstates.net/page=dispatch/id=1767142

I encourage all senators to discuss the bill and voice their thoughts on the RMB.

[spoiler=Senators]

Angypt

Snowflame

Marvinville

Saltmore

Sevae

Gifty

Solittus[/spoiler]

Of Altonianic Islands, The Ambis

I am in favour of the bill. Nothing I would really stand to oppose, and I like the idea of it.

I see no problem with the bill, so I'm in favour.

I will be voting in favour.

We will now begin voting on the bill!

[spoiler=Senators]

Angypt

Snowflame

Marvinville

Saltmore

Sevae

Gifty

Solittus[/spoiler]

I will be voting aye

The vote has ended. On the question of whether to pass the bill, the results are as follows:

The ayes are 6, the nays are 0, the abstains are 1.

The ayes have it, and the bill has passed both chambers of Congress.

Brototh

We will now begin our next order of business:

https://www.nationstates.net/page=dispatch/id=1610634

I encourage all senators to discuss the bill and post their thoughts on the RMB.

[spoiler=Senators]

Angypt

Snowflame

Marvinville

Saltmore

Sevae

Gifty

Solittus[/spoiler]

Good bill, makes logical sense.

We will now begin voting on the bill!

[spoiler=Senators]

Angypt

Snowflame

Marvinville

Saltmore

Sevae

Gifty

Solittus[/spoiler]

I will be placing my vote a bit later.

The vote has now ended. On the question of whether to pass the Constitutional amendment, the results are as follows:

The ayes are 4, the nays are 1, the abstains are 2. The amendment has passed both chambers of Congress.

The Islamic Country Of Honour Brototh

The Islamic Country Of Honour

We will now begin the hearing of The United Provinces Of Kerovia for the position of Culture Minister. I welcome the nominee to speak on the floor of the Senate and I encourage every senator to ask the nominee a question. Brototh is also allowed to speak on the Senate floor.

[spoiler=Senators]

Angypt

Snowflame

Marvinville

Saltmore

Sevae

Gifty

Solittus[/spoiler]

Ok side note I hate when speakers are like "the PM can speak for now" please I always can

Saltmore, The Ambis

The United Provinces Of Kerovia any plans for the rest of the term? Do you have enough time and staff? How have you participated in the ministry since you returned?

I don't know, I've read the culture chat and it seems there has been some activity, and the region has become a *bit* more social I think, but there still don't seem to be a lot of people participating? But honestly that's kind of all of NS right now, or maybe it's just my relative inactivity. But what do you think, is Culture in a good place right now and is it better than the last time you were minister?

The United Provinces Of Kerovia

The United Provinces Of Kerovia Do you intend to carry on the precedent set by Toerana V to run weekly events, and have a schedule for the events?

The United Provinces Of Kerovia

Sevae wrote:How have you participated in the ministry since you returned?
I refrain on answering questions for my nominee, but I will address this specifically- anyone can look in the #events channel and see that Kerovia has been running events of his own accord, even when the previous Minister had said there would be no game (because he would not be available). The most recent one was a skribbl.io event

Sevae wrote:The United Provinces Of Kerovia any plans for the rest of the term? Do you have enough time and staff? How have you participated in the ministry since you returned?

I don't know, I've read the culture chat and it seems there has been some activity, and the region has become a *bit* more social I think, but there still don't seem to be a lot of people participating? But honestly that's kind of all of NS right now, or maybe it's just my relative inactivity. But what do you think, is Culture in a good place right now and is it better than the last time you were minister?

Hi Sevae! Thanks for the question.

I've already discussed a few plans for the future with some people, but I can guarantee that we will have a Halloween Festival coming up soon. Staff wise, I'll be honest - no, I don't. But from my previous terms as Culture Minister, I more or less did most of it by myself with occasional assistance from Angypt or New Ikesandria. With that being said however, I'll still be actively searching for more culture staff as it will be needed in the future. Also as Brototh said, I've gotten active in Culture by hosting last weekends event.

Solittus wrote:The United Provinces Of Kerovia Do you intend to carry on the precedent set by Toerana V to run weekly events, and have a schedule for the events?

Thanks for the question, Solittus!

Yes, I do plan of following Toerana V with his weekly events; they worked great and got the region more involved which I love. I'll be releasing a schedule soon, but first I'm going to discuss a few things with the staff.

Solittus

It seems as if there are no more questions, and so we will now begin voting on the nominee.

I will be voting Aye

[spoiler=Senators]

Angypt

Snowflame

Marvinville

Saltmore

Sevae

Gifty

Solittus[/spoiler]

Vote has now ended.

On the question of whether to confirm the nominee, the ayes are 5, the abstains are 3. The nominee has been confirmed by the Senate.

Brototh, The United Provinces Of Kerovia

I also would like to motion for Unanimous Consent for the following:

The Prime Minister's office motions the Senate to withdraw from the Treaty of Sarpedos with the League, citing that the other aforementioned party has withdrawn from the treaty.

[spoiler=Senators]

Angypt

Snowflame

Marvinville

Saltmore

Sevae

Gifty

Solittus[/spoiler]

I acknowledge the motion

Brototh, The Ambis

Additionally, the League has closed embassies with Thaecia.

I acknowledge the motion

I acknowledge the motion

I acknowledge the motion

I acknowledge the motion

The motion has passed.

Brototh

We will now begin our next order of buisness.

https://www.nationstates.net/page=dispatch/id=1772486

I'd like to encourage us all to discuss this

[spoiler=Senators]

Angypt

Snowflame

Marvinville

Saltmore

Sevae

Solittus[/spoiler]

I oppose this bill. I dont find it necessary at all since the court has already ruled on what classifies as a resignation.

Brototh

The Amendments that were made by the House to Article II Section I, forcing any resignee to telegram the EC or PM, is just silly. It's weird and unnecessary, as a Senator I wouldn't be putting my money on that

Marvinville

I sponsor Lothern to speak

Brototh wrote:The Amendments that were made by the House to Article II Section I, forcing any resignee to telegram the EC or PM, is just silly. It's weird and unnecessary, as a Senator I wouldn't be putting my money on that

It is very interesting that you say this, given the fact you were active in the House RMB during the debate of my amendment that did exactly this.

Brototh wrote:Also, never mind about Amendment D

This is what you said after you initially went against it. Why is that? Why did you not try to stop this amendment in the house and wait for the senate? It seems that you lost the dedication to try and fight it in the house and waited to block it in the senate AFTER the amendment passed. Do you not like the bill as a whole? Why try to push against it now? This is precisely why we shouldn't even have a senate. Now you are in cahoots with FREE trying to block the bill as is. It passed the house UNANIMOUSLY with 2 FREE ayes! Now the bill has the chance of being blocked by people who aren't even active in Thaecia. This system doesn't make any sense.

I'm sick and tired of the senate taking DAYS to even DEBATE bills, to just then block them when the active people in the community support them.

Senators,

Please review the debates we had in the HoC RMB as to why this amendment was added and approved of by the house. This confirmation system literally takes 2 seconds to do. Just copy-paste the message you post in the RMB and telegram the EC if you were elected or the PM if not. That's literally it. It's insane to me to think that this is weird, unnecessary, and silly. It's a terrible argument against a good system of confirmation.

Lothern wrote:

Senators,

Please review the debates we had in the HoC RMB as to why this amendment was added and approved of by the house. This confirmation system literally takes 2 seconds to do. Just copy-paste the message you post in the RMB and telegram the EC if you were elected or the PM if not. That's literally it. It's insane to me to think that this is weird, unnecessary, and silly. It's a terrible argument against a good system of confirmation.

Why do we even need to inform the EC or PM through tg with our resignation, even when we post it on the rmb where they can see it. This adds unnecessary bureaucracy to our current system. Also the PM has nothing to do with resignations from Congress, and they arent the one running a by election, so this doesnt even make sense

Marvinville wrote:Why do we even need to inform the EC or PM through tg with our resignation, even when we post it on the rmb where they can see it. This adds unnecessary bureaucracy to our current system. Also the PM has nothing to do with resignations from Congress, and they arent the one running a by election, so this doesnt even make sense

It literally says, TG the EC if you are resigning from an elected position, which would be congress, or the PM if you are resigning from a non-elected position. I don't understand what you are trying to say. You are correct, the PM doesn't have anything to do with congress resignations, so people resigning from congress TG the EC. It literally takes 5 seconds to do this, what do you mean unnecessary bureaucracy? This is a confirmation step so that there can be NO confusion on when someone is joking about resigning and actually resigning. I'm not asking them to jump through 30 legal hoops, it's literally just a copy-paste message to an official. Literally anyone can do these simple steps.

Lothern wrote:It literally says, TG the EC if you are resigning from an elected position, which would be congress, or the PM if you are resigning from a non-elected position. I don't understand what you are trying to say. You are correct, the PM doesn't have anything to do with congress resignations, so people resigning from congress TG the EC. It literally takes 5 seconds to do this, what do you mean unnecessary bureaucracy? This is a confirmation step so that there can be NO confusion on when someone is joking about resigning and actually resigning. I'm not asking them to jump through 30 legal hoops, it's literally just a copy-paste message to an official. Literally anyone can do these simple steps.

The court has already ruled on this matter and the process is clear in its current form. With all the recent resignations, and yes we have had a lot of them, we have had absolutely no issue with confirming them on the rmbs. So why do we even need them to telegram the EC? Also what if they fail to telegram the EC? Does that mean they will still hold their position even if they post their resignation on the rmb?

Lastly, allowing someone to rescind their resignation is a horrible idea. If you resign, you resign. Thats it.

Marvinville wrote:The court has already ruled on this matter and the process is clear in its current form. With all the recent resignations, and yes we have had a lot of them, we have had absolutely no issue with confirming them on the rmbs. So why do we even need them to telegram the EC? Also what if they fail to telegram the EC? Does that mean they will still hold their position even if they post their resignation on the rmb?

Lastly, allowing someone to rescind their resignation is a horrible idea. If you resign, you resign. Thats it.

I understand the court already ruled on the matter. That's why the bill is named "The Resignation Formalization Act" and not the "Resignation Act". Yes, not TG'ing the EC would mean the resignation was invalid. If they do not fix that issue and forgo their duties, they would be in dereliction of their duties. If that is your only disliking of the bill, feel free to amend that tiny part. Don't block the bill as a whole.

I believe that allowing people time to rescind their resignation is a good idea. Emotions can get the best of people, we are all human, and I believe we should allow people the chance to rescind their resignation.

Lothern wrote:I understand the court already ruled on the matter. That's why the bill is named "The Resignation Formalization Act" and not the "Resignation Act". Yes, not TG'ing the EC would mean the resignation was invalid. If they do not fix that issue and forgo their duties, they would be in dereliction of their duties. If that is your only disliking of the bill, feel free to amend that tiny part. Don't block the bill as a whole.

I believe that allowing people time to rescind their resignation is a good idea. Emotions can get the best of people, we are all human, and I believe we should allow people the chance to rescind their resignation.

But this bill makes the process much more bureaucratic, as I already stated, and it also goes against the court ruling since the court said that you can not rescind resignations. This bill overall makes the process much more complex than it needs to be

Marvinville wrote:But this bill makes the process much more bureaucratic, as I already stated, and it also goes against the court ruling since the court said that you can not rescind resignations. This bill overall makes the process much more complex than it needs to be

Are you seriously telling me right now that copy-pasting a message into a telegram that literally takes less than 30 seconds is making it "much more bureaucratic" and "much more complex". Do you not find any irony in this? TG's take literally less than a minute to do. It's crazy to me to try and say that requiring this makes it too hard to resign. I will not be debating any further and hope the senators review these messages and the debates held in the house about this bill and have debates of their own.

Lothern wrote:Are you seriously telling me right now that copy-pasting a message into a telegram that literally takes less than 30 seconds is making it "much more bureaucratic" and "much more complex". Do you not find any irony in this? TG's take literally less than a minute to do. It's crazy to me to try and say that requiring this makes it too hard to resign. I will not be debating any further and hope the senators review these messages and the debates held in the house about this bill and have debates of their own.

well if you seriously look at the extra procedures added to the resignation process than what we currently have, then obviously you will see that it is more bureaucratic.

This section makes no sense to me:

"1. The employer is allowed to immediately dismiss the resignee during said twenty-four (24) hours period."

I don't see why this needs to be included, there's nothing stipulating this can't happen and it de facto happens anyway. It's unecessary.

I also agree with Marvinville. It's completely unecessary to have to telegram the EC/PM when you resign. Some may argue that these are preventative measures, but to my knowledge, nothing has happened in the past to make this amendment necessary. Just posting the resignation on the RMB is satisfactory and the fact that resignations take effect after 24 hours anyway is enough of a safety measure anyway.

In this current state, I won't be voting in favour of the bill.

Marvinville

MPs: Pass something that the Senate does not like

Senate: Rejects the bill

MPs: OMG WE SHOULDN'T HAVE A SENATE!!!!!

Checks and balances anyone? The whole point of the Senate is to scrutinise legislation- they are not your rubber stamp. They are meant to disagree with you and disagree with you hard. Otherwise the House would be passing terrible legislation all the time, and vice versa. That is the very point of having two chambers. If you can't understand that, then the bill definitely should not pass

Marvinville, Santa Marana, Solittus

This section seems rather problematic, and I am inclined to agree with Solittus.

"1. The employer is allowed to immediately dismiss the resignee during said twenty-four (24) hours period."

Especially when you say that peoples emotions can get the better of them. So for example in a fit of emotion I resign, then change my mind once I had calmed down an hour later my fate relies on someone who has the power to just dismiss me at a whim for the next 24 hours?

Also honestly I do not see the need to have to message specific people in the event of resignation If you resign through the RMB shouldn't that be enough? I mean even resigning through the discord should be acceptable depending on the preferences.

At this time I will also not be voting in favour of the bill.

As the bill has been up for debate for nearly 48 hours, I would like to suggest we move to voting at this time.

[spoiler=Senators]

Angypt

Snowflame

Marvinville

Saltmore

Sevae

Solittus[/spoiler]

I will open by voting nay. (edited formatting error)

Voting has now closed. On the question of whether to pass the bill, the results are as follows:

The ayes are 0, the nays are 5, the abstains are 7. The bill has failed.

We will now begin debating the following bill:

https://www.nationstates.net/page=dispatch/id=1775894

I encourage all senators to read the bill and discuss their thoughts on the RMB.

[spoiler=Senators]

Angypt

Snowflame

Marvinville

Saltmore

Sevae

Gifty

Solittus[/spoiler]

I think this a much better solution to one that is currently legislated for and should go some way to ensuring all our roles are filled.

I think this is good and fills the space much better than our current legislation as Solittus has stated.

I can't see any reason to pick at this.

Since there is a lack of debate, we will now begin voting on the bill.

[spoiler=Senators]

Angypt

Snowflame

Marvinville

Saltmore

Sevae

Gifty

Solittus[/spoiler]

I will be voting aye

Voting has now ended. On the question of whether to pass the bill, the results are as follows: The ayes are 5, the nays are 0, the abstains are 2. The bill has passed the Senate and thus, both chambers of Congress

Brototh

Brototh

We will begin our next order of business:

https://www.nationstates.net/page=dispatch/id=1778882

I encourage all senators to discuss the bill and provide their thoughts.

[spoiler=Senators]

Angypt

Snowflame

Marvinville

Saltmore

Sevae

Gifty

Solittus[/spoiler]

I am happy to see that all parties support the idea of internships. I agree with the final product and I am planning on voting aye.

Assembled with Dot's Region Saver.
Written by Refuge Isle.