View Topic

I motion to extend the debate.

If we have another month before the end of our term, I think we should wait for the new Skrifa to take part in this since the passing of this act would make the current election unnecessary, right? The UH would become dissolved if it's passed. Also, I think we should give one last chance for citizens to voice their thoughts and concerns in the Citizens' Platform before we vote.

Then again, if we want to just pass it on to the OH and let them do what they will, the act can always be amended if passed or we'd just be back to where we are now if it fails.

The last clause says the bill takes effect

April 8, with Speaker elections taking place one week prior.

The new Skrifa would have over a month to contribute to the Underhusen, despite not being able to vote on the Storting Reformation Amendment Act.

Or we could perhaps go to vote right now, but not vote for a long enough period of time to allow the new Skrifa to swear into office and vote on it then and there, because I have five days after the vote motion to open the vote, and we have seven days to actually vote thereafter, per procedural rules.
If we were to extend debate, procedural rules dictate that it can only be by a maximum of a hundred and sixty-eight hours (one week). The new Skrifa would take office roughly five or six days from now.

We could perhaps compromise in the meantime by inviting the Skrifa candidates before the Underhusen to voice their opinions, as if they were actual Skrifa in the debate process. However, that might give the unfair notion of Skrifa potentially voting for a Skrifa candidate based on whether or not they support the bill in its current form rather than due to qualifications.

Ah, I forgot about that last line. Still, I personally think we should extend the debate for the max time (a week). If the motion to vote gets seconded, however, so be it. I wouldn't try to stand in the way of it passing.

I am not allowed to motion to either vote or extend debate. So that means @BraveSirRobin, it's all on you to decide what to do.

General consensus here: if the motion to vote passes, should I wait to introduce the bill to a vote so the new Skrifa has a chance to vote on the bill, or should I introduce it right away so only the four of us pass/fail it?

I honestly don't think it'd matter. I'm pretty certain at least three of the four of us would vote 'aye' anyway, so it'd just be for show to allow the new Skrifa to just vote.

I guess if this act gets passed, the new Skrifa would still be able to vote on amendments to it as well as other bills, correct? So it doesn't matter much, I just think it'd be easier to get it right the first time.

And I motion to extend debate 72 hours

That's three different conflicting motions: one to vote, one to extend by 72 hours, and one to extend by 168 hours. One of you is going to have to change.

I second the motion to extend 168 hours then, I guess

Extension granted. Because it's the maximum time allowed, after the one-week period, we must decide whether to table the bill or vote on it. But hopefully we'll have a fifth Skrifa by that time.

So lets debate.......

I've got nothing.

I motion to amend the bill to define members of the open assembly members of Wintreath for more than X amount of time.

We could debate what amount of time that should be! UH debate capabilities restored!

I'm currently making a(nother...) debate thread in the election subforum where the candidates give their thoughts on things such as requirements to join the OA since there isn't much talk from them in the Citizens' Platform. We'll all be able to join in on the debate there, too.

I'm honestly against waiting periods because they do nothing and am against a code of conduct because I think that all it will do is limit discussion. But then again, as a parliamentarian that should come as no surprise.

I noticed that we need to fix Article 1 as the numbering goes 1, 2, 3, 2, 3, 4, etc.

I've renumbered the sections properly.