View Topic

Then I think we have a solution.

When will we need to extend debate?

Once the initial debate period is up.

And when is that?

About 7 hours from now.

Actually Laurentus is correct.  It's about 6 hours and 45ish minutes since this was created around 7:45 AM on the 12th.

Actually Laurentus is correct.  It's about 6 hours and 45ish minutes since this was created around 7:45 AM on the 12th.

Actually Laurentus is correct.

A common situation, I assure you.

Then I motion to extend debate by 72 hours. Preemptively.

Hmm, I think 48 hours would be better. That gives more than enough time for Gov to respond, but also establishes that he needs to take this seriously and respond.

Would 72 hours be to much? If we are going to do this we should give Gov plenty of time. 72 hours is a good compromise between people who are baying for blood and those who want to draw it out.

Remember, this still has to pass the OH. If we make it 48 hours they may object.

I'm with Laurentus on this one...I think we do need to give him time, however, 48 hours tells him that he needs to take this seriously.  He's already had 2 days and is pushing it off because of his "counsel."  48 hours tells him that he needs to get on it if he's wanting to make his appeal before the gears start going.

I would second 72 but not 48 hours. I also want to make it clear my request for those "concerned citizens" amongst our numbers who've thus far remained anonymous to understand that I will request to hear evidence from all of you that can be cited in this Act. The idea of a revocation based on anonymous evidence doesn't sit well with me.

I do agree that evidence shouldn't be anonymous.  Either the person should speak up if they're allowing their evidence to be used, or the evidence itself shouldn't be used.  I understand being wary about being put out there in this, but considering the gravity of this act, anyone involved in any way needs to be known.  It's not in the least bit fair to condemn anyone, even Gov, in the shadows.  You wouldn't want that to be how people would be towards you if you were on the burner, and for as irritating as Gov can be, he doesn't deserve to have people slinking in the shadows and pointing fingers invisibly.

And since this isn't anything incredibly sensitive, there's no reason to be anonymous.

 Let's review our evidence.

Lumens case.

Hannah's case.

Older cases, like Pengu's and Chanku.

His behavior in the election did not help.

His behavior after the Revocation thread came up did not help either.

Anything else?

Well, let's be fair here. Anyone would be upset if they suddenly found out the Storting is considering the revocation of their citizenship. His reaction could certainly have been more diplomatic, but I'm not sure his behaviour in the Revocation thread has been all that bad...

I've tried to stay of out of this bill discussion on principle, so I'm limiting my comments to procedural practice where applicable. All I will say is that we will need to extend debate. Govindia needs an adequate amount of time to speak for himself, among other reasons. You all will have to motion for an extension again, however, because there are no preemptive extensions. (It's been 48 hours, by the way.)

I am in favour of disclosing and reviewing all of the evidence necessary during the extended debate period, including evidence that others had mentioned disclosing.