View Topic

I ask that the UH discusses the possibility of restricting (removing) the ability to expedite from the skrifra that introduces the bill in question. The ability to do so violates the constructive interaction we expect from our government.

Ok, but could other members motion to expedite? And can they second that motion?

Of course. What I wish to prevent is having the same person introduce a bill and immediately ask to expedite it. It doesn't feel like the ability to do that serves any constructive purpose.

I don't particularly see a reason for this, as there is little to gain from it. In matters of urgency, a motion to expedite would be needed as soon as possible.

While bills shouldn't, ideally, be introduced then expedited immediately, there are circumstances where it is the only viable option (like the amendment I introduced last term, had I not expedited it would have never had a chance of passing).

Plus while the member who introduced it can motion to expedite ultimately you need to have another member second and to vote aye. So you still need a majority of the UH's support. If someone came in with malicious intent to stifle debate he would be stopped, hopefully.

I mean, for people to 'force through' legislation without debate, you at bare minimum need two Skrifa (one of which must be the Speaker) to collude on this, and in order to push the vote itself through in a manner rapid enough to be considered unfair, another Skrifa to hit that magical 3/5 for quorum.
Even then, the OH always has veto power over it, and the only way to overcome that is a fourth Skrifa member willing to go along with this.
The notion that there'll be 4/5 Skrifa elected who are willing to do the kind of shady shit required for this to be a Legitimate And Serious problem, instead of just a marginally annoying one where either the Speaker refuses to formally acknowledge the request to expedite (even in so innocuous a fashion as claiming 'stuff came up' and so they were not able to bring it to vote immediately), or for other Skrifa to simply vote down the bill because they had no opportunity to debate...sort of nuts.

Also, as presumably the target of this bill because I've 'proposed' then immediately requested expedition on two separate bills in the last week (in quote marks because the first was proposed by the Monarch, and the latter is a common-sense correction of some numbers that was in any case proposed and in every sense but the legal one passed by the previous UH), I note that I've clearly shown restraint on bills that would otherwise obviously be considered contentious - such as, for example, ORTA.