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?

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

El Lexhatx H.2.1 repeats, over and over again, that the necessary requirement for any bill to be Clarked (or to be submitted to the CRL) is that it has "spent 10 days in the Hopper".

The problem is - as we found in the Succession Amendment thread - at least one member of the CRL thinks that if a bill's language changes fundamentally (like, from a new draft), it's no longer the same bill and has to start again.

El Lexh H.2.1.7.4 gives the SoS authority not to Clark a bill which is totally different from what went to the CRL. If we want the CRL to have the authority to do the same to a bill whose language has changed either totally or significantly over its 10 days, we should do so explicitly.

But I disagree. My preferred amendment would be to change the language

QuoteA bill has passed the Hopper if it has spent at least 10 days in the Hopper

wherever it appears to be something like:

QuoteA legislative proposal has passed the Hopper if the substantive text of the bill has been debated in the Hopper for at least 10 days and its proposer is satisfied with its form.

Which way do we want to shift it? The current ambiguity is not ideal.

@Sir Lüc it's been 10 days since AD dropped his first draft, can this get the nod now?

Estimat Túischac'h, I rise to deliver a question to the Minister of Immigration @þerxh Sant-Enogat.

1) Considering the recent attempt at re-immigration under a pseudonym of a previously blocked candidate, can the Immigration Minister please explain the steps under which, "using information provided in the application and after investigating to the best of its ability", the Ministry of Immigration became "satisfied that this application is Bona Fide"?

2) Given the intent of 54RZ4, enacted specifically in response to a successful applicant for citizenship giving a false name, can the Minister give any indication of how many applications for citizenship he has processed during his term in office, and what he did in each case to fulfil the requirement of El Lexhatx E.2 to "collect the legal name or name used in daily life" of each prospective citizen?

My biggest argument for an unicameral Cosă is that a bicameral system requires too many people to sit in it; too many people who would rather not be politicians are pressed into service by their parties.

Quote from: Mic'haglh Autófil, SMC EiP on April 24, 2024, 05:49:33 PMI think S:reu Puntmasleu mentioned implementing -- or I guess re-implementing! -- a system that allowed people to change their provincial assignments once every so often.

No, no, NO. That just opens the door to gerrymandering Senäts seats with such a low population. The only stable form of provincial assignment is geographic, given that we need periodic shake-ups of the map to balance immigration flows.

I understand the worries about oversight; but if we want the Convocation to be independent (to the point where the Ziu aren't allowed to set rules for it), then we have to believe that it can decide for itself what kind of scrutiny its votes may have. In any case, there is a larger "check" on screwery, that being the Ziu and referendum confirmation.

But I hope the last bit assuages the CRL's worries?

Quote from: Baron Alexandreu Davinescu on April 23, 2024, 05:49:26 PM

Quote from: Miestră Schivă, UrN on April 23, 2024, 04:23:46 PM

Quote from: Baron Alexandreu Davinescu on April 23, 2024, 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: Sir Txec dal Nordselvă, UrB on April 23, 2024, 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

Quote from: Baron Alexandreu Davinescu on April 23, 2024, 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 April 23, 2024, 10:51:07 AM

Quote from: Sir Lüc on April 23, 2024, 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).

My take on the "decree" is that it's a regrettable kludge necessitated by the fact that the King will neither abdicate gracefully nor indicate otherwise so we could proceed to "legislative decapitation". I would agree with AD that there is no need to be rude but we've got to make sure it "sticks" (and no need to bar him from a possible comeback although it's hard to imagine a situation where that could happen).

My idea as previously was to just draw up a Decree of Abdication that would take effect automatically if not signed, like any other law, but I was worried whether an ordinary Act of the Ziu (as opposed to an OrgLaw amendment) would do the job.

Quote from: Breneir Tzaracomprada on April 22, 2024, 07:15:21 PMI don't want to jinx it but if this issue is settled in an enduring fashion AND it is through the cooperation of former political adversaries then this is a great moment for Talossa.

Make no mistake, AD and I will probably be political adversaries to the end of time lol. :D But the co-operation of current political adversaries on a major project of constitutional reform is something to be treasured, and something I've wanted for a long time. It may well have the impact of causing a whole realignment in Talossan politics.

The new Free Democrats seat assignment is as follows:
@Miestră Schivă: 23
@Antaglha Xhenerös Somelieir: 23
@Sir Lüc : 23
@Bentxamì Puntmasleu: 16