The process for Parliamentary Question time in the UK, as in my country, is that Ministers are given written advance notice of questions (three days in the UK); but that "impromptu" supplementary questions can then be asked. There would be no point for the Opposition to ask a TERP which a Government minister could simply not answer because they didn't have the facts to hand.

We're flying by the seat of our pants here, and I think setting precedents for good future practice is important.

Well, there are TERPs as well, as mandated by El Lex H.2. Although we should request that TERPs for the LC be submitted with at least a little bit of warning, so Government Ministers can prepare answers and not be surprised/having to make something up on the spot?

The Senator from Benito previously volunteered to set things up technologically speaking, I've asked him to chime in ASAP.

We'll need an Acting Túischac'h if AD can't make it, and an agenda. And probably a quorum?

I'm seeing a logical problem here. Can a PD not simply suspend the operation H.20, and a subsequent PD declare an LC for whenever with no special veto provisions?

Any ideas on the other issues?

The 20th would work for me too. But the Seneschál has to make the call within 48 hours to make that happen. If the Túischac'h can't make it, can he appoint a deputy?

I should reiterate that I totally agree that whatever happens this month, we should aim to have a Living Cosa / State Opening with the First Clark next year - but that'll be up to the incoming Seneschál and Túischac'h, whoever they are.

Quote from: Baron Alexandreu Davinescu on November 03, 2022, 11:22:00 PMThe common rules of order would still prevail if a quorum of MCs present demanded a motion or whatnot,

Okay, that changes things a little. My advice to the Seneschál was there was no point setting a date for something that (substantively) wasn't going to happen. But if the issue is that a minority party (and the Túischac'h) don't want it to happen, but that majority rules, then we're in a different landscape. I will discuss matters further inside Cabinet.

Meanwhile, if we are to talk about precedents, I certainly don't want to set a preference where one party and/or the Túischac'h can turn a Living Cosa into an empty nothing because it's not convenient to them. That really would be overriding the Cosa majority's rights under OrgLaw IV.11!

What power does the Túischac'h to say that he's simply not going to allow any business at a Living Cosa?

Perhaps if the Túischac'h is not willing to hold a proper Living Cosa, because his own party is unavailable, he should appoint a temporary Deputy who is willing to do so with whomever turns up.

Let me just tap the sign again:

Quote"may set and hold Living Cosas ... as described by law"

If the TNC are available for any date between November 17-21, then name that date and I will advise the Seneschal to call the LC for that date. Or, if the TNC are available for an earlier date and are amenable to a PD temporarily waiving parts of El Lex H.20, tell me that date and I will advise the Seneschal accordingly.

What I will not do is advise the Seneschal to set a date for a meeting to which the TNC have already said they won't turn up and which the Túischac'h will close down without allowing any participation. That is not "setting a Living Cosa".

"may set and hold Living Cosas ... as described by law". The provisions of H.20 are the problem here - in particular the requirement for 2 weeks notice, which appear to have taken away all the actual dates on which the TNC might be available. There is a way around that, and it's called a PD, which is a pretty blunt instrument.

Funny thing about that "overwhelming majority" - there doesn't seem to be an actual majority of MCs who can make any date between November 17-21, which are the remaining dates avaiable to us. If we could still do it, I would advise the Seneschál to set a date post-haste; but from what I can tell the TNC are not able/willing to turn up on any of those dates and want it to be an empty farce, which I can't go along with.

I stand by my interpretation of the law.

The way the law is currently written, by the legal argument given by Dama Litz (which honestly I considered persuasive if not definitive), it's impossible to delay a Living Cosa held during the last Clark. Also, by the legal argument given by me, which I do consider definitive, there is nothing suggesting that a vote of the Cosa to hold an LC is legally binding

Also, looking at it, I think the bit about "special PDs" is unconstitutional. You can't add restrictions to the PD power which is granted by the OrgLaw. In any case, a properly worded PD could simply delete this part of the law, if the King went along with it!

So a few suggestions for amendments:
- require the Cosa vote to suggest one or more indicative times/places for the LC, just so the MCs can have a discussion on who might be available when;
- put the responsibility for organising in the hands of the Túischac'h, rather than the Seneschál;
- if no date in the specific month can get a quorum of 1/2 MCs, then the Túischac'h may delay to the next month; and the month after that, if necessary, up to dissolution;
- if the Túischac'h doesn't do so for whatever reason, a quorum of MCs can just declare a Living Cosa "over his head" and elect a new Túischac'h at the Living Cosa;
- make explicit the implication of H.1.1 that an LC can always be held as part of a State Opening of the Cosa during the First Clark without need for a vote to authorise
- delete the stuff about PDs

What do others think?

Quote from: Baron Alexandreu Davinescu on November 03, 2022, 08:16:20 PMI am very loathe to set the precedent that the Seneschal can simply ignore the direction of the Cosa to do a Living Cosa, and I am not sure that it's true that the ephemeral law passed to authorize the Living Cosa is not binding.

Of course it is. 57RZ21 is a Sense of the Cosa, just like all those non-binding Senses of the Ziu we've been voting on this term. Nowhere in the text of the bill does it say that it's legislation, and El Lexh H.20 mentions "a vote of the Cosa", not a law endorsed by the Senäts and King. That's the A-Xh's formal opinion.

QuoteI'd suggest the best thing to do is to give official notice there will be a pro forma Living Cosa in which nothing will happen

My opinion as A-Xh is that this would be ridiculous and the Seneschál should not do this.

Quote from: Baron Alexandreu Davinescu on November 03, 2022, 07:29:04 PMMy thinking was that a month of recess could take place in November instead of December

In retrospect, that would have been clearly the correct move.

I also point out that, by El Lex H.1, having a Living Cosa in the First Clark (to coincide with the State Opening of the Cosa) is already authorised and thus doesn't need an additional Cosa vote, so that seems sensible.

As Attorney-General, I am very carefully making no public statements on what I think are the legal/Organic rights and wrongs of the current sitaution.

As a Free Democrat MC, I am quite amazed to see a TNC MC making the argument for the inOrganicity of this measure which I was given to understand was agreed with the TNC leadership! People gotta start consulting with their own team.

If I had my druthers I'd amend things to put more countries in the Vuode column, they're becoming a ghost town

So El Lexhatx E.7, and in particular 7.4-7.11, needs to be reformed to fix the discrepancy of Mexico. Considering that KR1 himself wrote the basis of the current provincial assignments, and once wrote a manifesto entitled BLOW UP MEXICO SOON!, perhaps it's a psychologically symptomatic omission.

Are there any other amendments to provincial assignment law we'd like to make while we're at it?