This is simply not going to happen.

Quote from: Ian Plätschisch on March 02, 2020, 07:23:18 AM

Quote from: Miestrâ Schiva, UrN on March 01, 2020, 08:58:18 PM
A successful Vuode/MM merger would set thoughts in motion in the neighbouring province of Fiova, which is still "merger-happy".

... do you think it's worth discussing a three-way merger already?

No

A successful Vuode/MM merger would set thoughts in motion in the neighbouring province of Fiova, which is still "merger-happy".

... do you think it's worth discussing a three-way merger already?

Quote from: Lüc on March 01, 2020, 05:03:48 AM
The SEA had that "eligible" flaw I referenced earlier which should have been fixed because it introduces a loophole

Your conversation with Epic gave no indication of what that "loophole" might actually have been. I asked you exactly what you wanted me to change and got no response. You said things "could" be changed. I took that to mean "could also NOT be changed" and took the path of least resistance. I honestly didn't think Epic's comment was significant, just quibbling.

Quoteand also still has my D.(x).1 placeholder, because I don't think you even read my draft.

You're right, that was an oversight on my part. But why do you think I would incorporate your draft into my bill if I hadn't read it, and thought it was at least as good as the IRV idea which was an inheritance from the old ModRad platform? This is another example of an insulting comment which breaks down possibilities of communication.

Quote- V's Judiciary bill had large edits made on his sole, private input that were announced only a few days before the Clarking deadline.

V communicated to me that those edits were SUPPOSED to be in the original draft, and asked me what to do re: his impending departure from the Ziu. I encouraged him to make those edits, and also encouraged him not to Clark it this time. As I say, you have to decide whether it should be illegal to make edits to bills close to Clarking deadline, because there's nothing in the law to that effect yet.

Or perhaps you think that Clarking shouldn't be allowed while "discussion is still ongoing". Are you suggest we allow some kind of "filibuster" in the Hopper, that we can stop something being Clarked if someone just wants to discuss it more? As for me, if people are "discussing" something, and I don't think their comments are interesting or important, I'm going to plow ahead. If you don't like that, get the rules changed.

There has been a lot of stink raised by various people (usually people who were leaders of the defunct Moderate Radical Party, for some interesting reason) around members of Government parties deciding to Clark various bills that the first group of people have objections to. There seems to be an idea that they are not being "properly Hoppered" and it is somehow inappropriate to Clark them while certain people (some of whom aren't even members of the Ziu?) still have problems with them.

A couple of points:

1) I don't think that people who, in some cases, made a conscious withdrawal from Talossa's legislative politics have a real right to complain when those who have been elected make a note of their objections, and plough on anyway. For me, I welcome concerns and comments, especially polite ones, and I hope you've all seen that I do deal with them rather ignore them. But the questions I ask myself when Clarking a bill  are as follows:

- am I satisfied with it, given the comments of others?
- will it get the necessary majority?

Pleasing everybody with my bills is not a priority. Pleasing people who have strong objections with which I disagree, and who do not have a vote or political influence in the Ziu, is quite frankly "nice but inessential". If you are drawing the conclusion that if the people who have objections with the Government parties' agreed legislative project should make damn sure there is an effective party which represents their views in the next Cosa (and on lobbying Senators in the meantime), then damn right.

2) While we're speaking on influence and politeness the other day, several of my critics don't seem to have gotten the memo that comments which are phrased in aggressive, pugnacious and condescending manners are far less likely to be taken heed of. Or, to put it another way - I'm not REALLY predisposed to listen to your suggestions on legislation if you just called me an "asshat" in the OldWitt Shoutbox.

3) Current law on the Hopper states:

Quote from: el Lexhatx H.6No bill may be published in a Clark unless it has spent at least ten days in the Hopper as a legislative proposal, except according to H.6.1.

Some criticism has taken the form of criticising the proposers of bills for amending them quite soon before Clarking them - even if that amendment has come in response to criticism! Would these people prefer we change the law to read:

QuoteNo bill may be published in a Clark unless it has spent at least ten days unamended in the Hopper as a legislative proposal, except according to H.6.1.

But the whole point of "1 Province, 1 Senate seat" is the federal principle. The people of the various provinces don't have any "power".

An argument for weighted Senäts voting is an argument for abolishing the federal principle altogether, which I don't have any objection to, since the provinces were created AFTER Talossa and have only ever existed in any real sense fitfully.

We could have fun provincial cultures and everything without any Senäts or provincial governments at all. New Zealand's provinces were abolished legally in 1876 but still exist as cultural and sporting entities.

Quote from: Lüc on February 28, 2020, 07:45:12 AM
I would strongly caution against Clarking a bill that has been so substantively changed two days before the Clark is set to begin.

I honestly think the whole thing could stand another month of discussion and I would urge it not to be Clarked this time. If V is on the Cort he can continue to help with discussion in the Hopper.

QuoteNow, to my objections. I frankly don't see the problem with calling UC judges "Justices".

As far as I can tell, V thinks that that title gives judges "delusions of grandeur" that they are entitled to ignore the law if they personally consider it contrary to "justice" as seen in re: "Sebastian Panache".

Quote from: Lüc on February 28, 2020, 07:38:30 AM
Also, are you sure you want to Clark the Seneschal Election Amendment? We were still discussing details yesterday!

Well, now you're co-author, so if you want to amend any details, tell me. I personally think it's good to go.

Thank you kindly, Minister.

Governors and governor-adjacents of Talossa, there are too many provinces and we should eliminate some so that the remainder can be functional.

These must be real provincial mergers - not those nonsense proposals where merged provinces get double the Senats seats or whatever. All provinces must continue to be equal.

I have heard that the issue of Vuode-MM merger is back on the table. Anyone keen on merging with Fiova? We've got a great constitutional system but almost total apathy.

Can I suggest that the following citizens be made moderators of the following NewWitt boards:

• Immigration: @The Interior Minister
• The Hopper and the Cosa: @The Túischac'h
• Fiova: @The Fiova SoS
• El Glheþ Talossan: @The provisional head of SIGN

Reposting the thread from Old Witt's Hopper to make sure it doesn't get lost

Reposting the thread from OldWitt's Hopper to make sure it doesn't get lost

Quote from: Viteu on February 27, 2020, 05:32:18 AM
The statute abolishes, in its entirety, the Justice of the Peace, which is a decent idea but I think maybe some of us would prefer to avoid

Yeah, I refer my learned colleague to the dictum in Hall v. Oates (1981), viz. "I can't go for that."

I honestly don't think we need any fulltime judges on a lower court. I prefer "citizen justices", who can become qualified by sitting an exam, with appeal to the UC. As we've found, declaring someone a fulltime judge is the best way to make them inactive.

Hello, yes. Can I please to be clarking The Seneschál Election Amendment, the There Ain't No Such Thing As A Free Senäts Seat Amendment and the Abolition of Compulsory Voting and Determination of Legal or Actual Decease Bill.

Can I also ask that pretty please the deadline for this Clark be extended until we are sure whether any Royal vetos are going to be coming down for the 2nd Clark? Because some bills will want to be re-proposed in that case.

QuoteI would like to make some detailed comments on how I reached my decisions