With four Senators casting a vote, this bill passes the Senate by a vote of 3-1.

As the bill has passed both houses of the Chancellery, it now goes to the King or Vicere for approval or veto. If neither takes any action on the bill by Calondă Mai, it will become law and the Maestro shall begin preparations for the referendum.

Quote from: Baron Alexandreu Davinescu on Today at 05:49:26 PM

Quote from: Miestră Schivă, UrN on Today at 04:23:46 PM

Quote from: Baron Alexandreu Davinescu on Today at 10:48:00 AMMaybe the solution is just to do a separate bill?  That would be easiest, and I think trust would extend that far at this point.  If they were viewed as a joint package, I'd support that (not that I have a vote, but I am pretty noisy).

Can we do a separate bill as a joint package, i.e. the two go up or go down together? I would be worried that one would get vetoed but the other passed.

I really really really doubt you need to worry about a veto. And yes the provisions can be easily written so that they are contingent on each other. That is a good solution. That wouldn't go in the text, but in the therefore clauses. I can do it tonight if you'd like.

Yeah good, I liked the wording in my Abdication Bill. If there really is no chance of a veto, this is the dignified way out.

Quote from: Miestră Schivă, UrN on Today at 04:23:46 PM

Quote from: Baron Alexandreu Davinescu on Today at 10:48:00 AMMaybe the solution is just to do a separate bill?  That would be easiest, and I think trust would extend that far at this point.  If they were viewed as a joint package, I'd support that (not that I have a vote, but I am pretty noisy).

Can we do a separate bill as a joint package, i.e. the two go up or go down together? I would be worried that one would get vetoed but the other passed.

I really really really doubt you need to worry about a veto. And yes the provisions can be easily written so that they are contingent on each other. That is a good solution. That wouldn't go in the text, but in the therefore clauses. I can do it tonight if you'd like.

Quote from: Sir Txec dal Nordselvă, UrB on Today at 04:35:04 PMAzul leaders of Fiova,

The Chancery is preparing the 60th Cosa election and needs to confirm details regarding your upcoming Senate election. The Chancery has details that the election for senator is run by the Chancery, is this correct or should the province conduct the election?

Regards
Sir Txec dal Nordselvâ
Secretary of State

Please run our Senäts election for us Mr SoS kthx.

miestra la capitan

Azul leaders of Maritiimi-Maxhestic,

The Chancery is preparing the 59th Cosa election and needs to confirm details regarding your upcoming Senate election. The Chancery has details that the election for senator is NOT run by the Chancery, is this correct or should the province conduct the election?

Regards
Sir Txec dal Nordselvâ
Secretary of State

Azul leaders of Benito,

The Chancery is preparing the 60th Cosa election and needs to confirm details regarding your upcoming Senate election. The Chancery has details that the election for senator is run by the Chancery, is this correct or should the province conduct the election?

Regards
Sir Txec dal Nordselvâ
Secretary of State

Azul leaders of Fiova,

The Chancery is preparing the 60th Cosa election and needs to confirm details regarding your upcoming Senate election. The Chancery has details that the election for senator is run by the Chancery, is this correct or should the province conduct the election?

Regards
Sir Txec dal Nordselvâ
Secretary of State

Quote from: Baron Alexandreu Davinescu on Today at 10:48:00 AMMaybe the solution is just to do a separate bill?  That would be easiest, and I think trust would extend that far at this point.  If they were viewed as a joint package, I'd support that (not that I have a vote, but I am pretty noisy).

Can we do a separate bill as a joint package, i.e. the two go up or go down together? I would be worried that one would get vetoed but the other passed.

Quote from: Baron Alexandreu Davinescu on Today at 10:51:07 AM

Quote from: Sir Lüc on Today at 06:10:00 AMI must note that this bill is substantially different from the one first presented when this Hopper thread was created; and its earliest similar version was posted on the 17th of April, meaning that if that's taken to be the time the current proposal was first Hoppered, the bill will only be ready for CRL consideration in three days's time.

It shouldn't be any issue clearing it in time for the next Clark, so I'm just trying to avoid setting a bad precedent.

Legally speaking, we could just affirm this right now out of committee and then any changes we want could still be made afterwards, but I agree that this would be a bad precedent and we should not do it.  As a general rule, (if we are going to have a CRL) then a bill should not go to a vote without CRL approval, and it should get re-approved if it is substantially revised after the CRL process.  It's not a legal necessity but it's good practice and something the Ziu can enforce on itself.

Yeah, I understand where Lüc's coming from, but how are you going to measure "earliest similar version"? That's pretty subjective.  IMHO the ten days should be the period of discussion of the proposal as a concept. Actual textual continuity should not be required.

I also understand where AD's coming from whereby you could totally replace a bill's text after CRL but before Clarking. But to require the CRL's say to be final would be giving the CRL too much power. A more difficult question. The CRL should be an advisory body that needs to have its say but should be able to be ignored (by a staggering coincidence that's my idea of the monarchy as well).

Either way the point seems moot because it appears the Ziu is coming to a consensus about a solution that's also perfectly acceptable so Im not gonna bother any further with this. Still thought it was a nice idea.