Yes, I agree there's a lot of ambiguity not just in the definition of a bill, but also in the role of the CRL (and relatedly in what "passing", "moving to committee", and so on actually mean).

I do think I have tended to interpret things from a "big boy Parliament" standpoint, thus thinking about a bill as a more-or-less well-formed piece of legislation and not as an overarching idea, and the CRL as a fixed link in the Hopper-to-Clark process, irrevocably placed immediately before floor passage as a proofreading step; and to be fair, several passages in existing legislation do support this stricter interpretation, which is why I never assumed I was pulling stuff out of my ciul!

Perhaps there's a disconnect between form and practice, since AFAIK, in "big boy Parliaments", it's not committees that normally do the CRL's proofreading job, but rather non-MP entities such as clerks and the Table Office - and to be fair, this would be the case in Talossa too, since the Scribery is technically tasked with basically the same job as the CRL by Lex.C.1.3.2-5.

All this said, it may be counterintuitive but I do agree with Miestră: much as in other areas (exibit 1 and exibit 2), I am in favour of more flexibility as long as it's clearly spelled out in law. (I would honestly be even more radical and get rid of the CRL entirely, but I'll reserve my actual recommendations for another time.)

My fellow Talossans --

For several years I have hoped and gone on hoping that I would be able to regain the engagement and spare time for my beloved country that I once was able to sustain, but I must sadly accept that my other responsibilities simply do not allow me to be the King that I have been in the past, that I would want to be, and that you deserve.  I had initially thought that my pastoral duties as a Deacon of the Holy Orthodox Church would diminish over the last couple of years, but instead they have redoubled as I have recently been moved to an even more active position.  Despite my best hopes, it is time for a change for the Kingdom.

When I first immigrated to Talossa, I found so much here that I loved -- an extraordinary and rich language, a vibrant community, and an intricate simulation.  I also found a domineering leader who was afraid to let Talossa outgrow him.  I will not become such a King.

We speak now to our Ziu, the legislature that speaks for the people.  We request that you set into law procedures by which we may choose a successor.  We readily accept that the Ziu and the nation will have a voice in these procedures, and our advisors inform us of good and necessary legislation.  We call for its swift passage.

We declare that it is our intention to abdicate our throne.  When we are satisfied that there will yet remain to our Kingdom a monarch to safeguard her honours and her majesties, we will lay down our Royal honours, and remain *very* happy to continue to enjoy the high honours we share with all of you -- the honours of a citizen of the Kingdom of Talossa.

-- John Regeu

Quote from: Miestră Schivă, UrN on April 28, 2024, 02:10:28 AMPerhaps what we need is for the Chancery every couple of years to check out the flow of new citizens, seeing where it's imbalanced towards or away from various provinces, and make a formal recommendation to the Ziu for re-catchment-ing?

When I drafted the previous catchment reform last year there was a proposal to make catchment area review a regularly scheduled (every five years) process conducted by the Ministry of Immigration. For reasons that are still unclear to me this proposal was opposed. But I still think the process would be better handled by the Ministry working in consultation with the Chancery.

Perhaps what we need is for the Chancery every couple of years to check out the flow of new citizens, seeing where it's imbalanced towards or away from various provinces, and make a formal recommendation to the Ziu for re-catchment-ing?

I suppose my main thought is why do we need provinces to have an equal number of states as catchment area? Catchment areas don't have an equal number of Brazilian provinces or Swiss cantons, so why do they need an equal share of the US?

For example, Cézembre, which is famously Talossa's european province, has a lot of catchment area in Europe. I don't think we really need additional catchment area in America. On the other hand, Vuode is already the province with the fewest citizens. If we give away some of the most populous states in its catchment area to another province which also has a lot of catchment area elsewhere (Benito) we might as well disband it now.

Quote from: Miestră Schivă, UrN on April 27, 2024, 05:42:23 PMGuidance from @Sir Txec dal Nordselvă, UrB please - do we have to Clark this as one amendment or two?

It must be Clarked as two amendments based on how it is written.

It's two.

Guidance from @Sir Txec dal Nordselvă, UrB please - do we have to Clark this as one amendment or two?

I would like to submit
The 9 to 5 Amendment
to be included on the next clark.

Sure, go forth and Clark.