Quote from: Baron Alexandreu Davinescu on August 13, 2025, 05:23:22 PMThis would give the accused people dramatically more due process, extend out the proceedings to weeks or months, and allow them to call witnesses and submit multiple rounds of briefs in their favor. The map is not the territory.

However, then you are arguing that the chancery should have powers equal to that of the Corts. For lighter timeframes I think it is fine (again I said 30d or less) for the chancery, but longer timeframes, I think it would be putting the chancery at risk, and bringing it into potential conflicts, which would put the chancery at risk of constant appeals and being defended in cort. At least the way I proposed. Helps to keep the Chancery out of something that could be a huge political argument, and put the more long term consequences into the hands of the Corts which would have a more objective and lasting judgement than that of the chancery.


We have the Corts for a reason to uphold the law in Talossa, that shouldn't be the chancery's job but the Corts, which is why I made my suggestions

Honesty, what I would personally recommend is that, instead of the 5th violation being a year, is that, at that point, it should be made into a criminal offence under Talossan Law, so on the 5th violation, the matter is referred to the Corts for a trial, with a list of sentencing guidelines for the Corts included in the bill, from loss of posting privileges, to loss of citizenship depending on the severity of the offence (so small mistakes get lesser consequences and gross offences get the biggest penalties)

Also, I think it should also include a clause saying "offences commited in a X (to be determined (2-5 year) time frame)" rather than an indefinite period, at least for minor offences with larger ones being exempt from such time limitations. I think this is a better and more balanced approach, and would be a better approach than solely relying on the chancery to decide (and once it gets longer that a 30 day suspension, I think that should be upto the Corts to decide whether to impose rather than the Chancery)

(Also this is just my current thoughts and not that of my political party or that of the government, just my own personal thoughts for the moment)

Quote from: Baron Alexandreu Davinescu on August 12, 2025, 02:54:50 PMI'm not entitled to just ask the courts for an opinion on this matter. But also, I don't need to. I can read the few provisions of the law at issue here and reach my own conclusion. You yourself have frequently voted for other bills aimed at resolving an ambiguity in the law, even when there hasn't been a court opinion about it.

You can disagree, and I suspect that the rest of the URL will, too. I will be very happy to debate the issue in the upcoming election, if this bill fails. Under the current circumstances, I think this change is badly needed.

My issue is that the bill itself says this is to clarify the law, I'd disagree with the legislation for other reasons besides that, but that one line i just don't accept, and I don't want think any of the laws I've voted for have explicitly said that (though I may be wrong and if I am, then I apologise for that, but still dislike the principle of using that language in legislation, as that is a matter of opinion that the law needs to be clarified, and not an objective fact, which is something that is dangerous to include in a legal text, it's one thing to say "this needs clarifying" outside of legal text and have it written into a bill. And muddies the waters) without that line, although I'd disagree with the bill, it would be more acceptable in my view but you do you

Quote from: Baron Alexandreu Davinescu on August 12, 2025, 02:32:06 PMNo. I'm allowed my own opinion, thank you. I believe this bill is necessary, both to eliminate an ambiguity and to limit government power.

So you are basically saying your opinion matters more than what a legal ruling may say. It's like you already know what the law is, and your framing this as an ambiguity to muddy the issue and make it seem like something it isn't. This is a pure attempt to cap ministerial power. If you presented the bill as such, I would have disagreed with it. But not enough to comment, but wouldn't have voted for it. But with the framing and the premise of the bill of fixing an ambiguity, as it would be a law, you would need to have proof beyond doubt that it is an ambiguity. Which you have not proven. So the premise of the bill is in itself flawed. This is not fixing an ambiguity, just you attempting to get a bill through that alligns with your opinion. Which is perfectly reasonable without the framing of the bill, and the legal text which would make the Ziu call it an ambiguity, despite no evidence being provided for it, which is not a good look.

I know we disagree on the premise of the bill and the power you plan to constrain. But that is being debated elsewhere. But yeah I really don't think this bill should go further and if it does I definitely won't vote for it it it is flawed from the start

Quote from: Baron Alexandreu Davinescu on August 12, 2025, 11:31:55 AMThere is an ambiguity in the law.  E.1 says that the minister may not discriminate based on an applicants beliefs, but must act on all applications, while E.5 says that the minister may halt at any time.  I believe that E.1 and the Second Covenant govern, while you guys say that E.5 governs.

Regardless, you're right that this bill would impose a clear cap on this aspect of Government power, and it is indeed my political ideology to say that the deliberation on potential immigrants should be a public process and not the private decision of the minister, barring public safety concerns that should then be publicly disclosed.

If the URL has a different political ideology, you guys will defeat this bill.  And then voters will decide which view best represents Talossa.  That's how it works.

Erm no, it is only your opinion that there is an ambiguity in law, if you believe there is one, test it in the Corts. If they then prove their to be one then yes you can call this fixing that, but until then, this is. And will only be you putting your own political spin on an argument, trying to frame what is clear cut in law into "ambiguity" and using this to force a change in law under the guise of an "ambiguity" which is a dirty political trick.

Quote from: Baron Alexandreu Davinescu on August 12, 2025, 08:46:34 AMI have not mentioned the recent controversy here, since I'd like to try to fix this particular point of law to remove any possible ambiguity.  I'm open to suggestions about phrasing or improvements to the process otherwise.

You are saying this is clarifying and fixing an ambiguity in law. Which you have not portent to exist but are using it to reign in powers given by law to the Minister of Immigration that you disagree with. What I would argue you do before bringing this bill forward is to pose a legal question to the Corts to see what their judgement of the law as it stands is if you find the minister to have acted questionably in regards to these powers.

Then if the Corts believe the powers exist or not you can make sounder judgements then. But this seems like a reactionary bill designed to cap ministerial power, claiming it to be a clarification/ambiguity that hasn't been said to have been so by the Corts as it hasn't been challenged in the Corts, so this is you pushing your own political ideology into Talossa in a false guise of "clarification"

2.1. A bill is a legislative proposal seeking to make a new law or to amend or repeal an existing law. A resolution is a written proposal which is explicitly non-binding, or does not seek to make a new law nor to amend or repeal an existing law.

I think the following should be added:-

"The only exception to the non binding nature of a resolution is when this is used as a vehicle to allow the house to vote upon a ratification of a treaty which otherwise has no legal route to have a vote to be called upon, as ratification is a binding measure between two nations"

And

2.1.3.1.2. Resolutions that establish the position of the Ziu on a foreign policy issue.

I think should be changed to

"2.1.3.1.2. Resolutions that establish the position of the Ziu on a foreign policy issue.
Resolutions in this sense can be used as a vehicle to allow the Ziu to legally ratify a foreign treaty, as long as it has met the required time in the hopper, but the text of the treaty is exempt from changes once presented as it is setting to establish an international agreement with text approved by more than one country"

Or at least similar changes, as this would clear up how ratifications are legally done in Talossa without ambiguity and in reasonable way for a resolution to carry the full legal weight of ratification in law.

Firstly, the member opposite seems to have gone against their own rules of one terp per minister per month, so this feels like harassment territory.

With BHAID, whatever plans we may or may be making, it is too early to release information on that. Also I would disagree that the individual doing as the opposite member said is "popular" and more like a weed in Talossan politics that is self serving and seems to only care about the "prestige" of setting up the organisation but doesn't truly care about the work, as with a charitable organisation, you don't get involved or use it to make anyone look good, but for the people or is there to help, so making a big deal out of something by constantly framing it as "something I created" is something that member of the public mentioned by the member opposite seems gross as cheap as it is detracting from the work BHAID does and turning it into a personal trophy to show off.

I will state again, Other than previously announced projects, I will not be announcing anything further until we have something to announce as per my previous answers to this member, we WILL NOT announce anything until deals have been reached, it isn't as if the foreign ministry has been silent, and we have made announcements on things as they have been needed. So what you are asking about falls under "other than previously announced projects"

Other

Quote from: Breneir Tzaracomprada on August 07, 2025, 11:59:46 PMMr. Speaker,

This enquiry is for the Foreign Affairs Minister. @Antaglha Xhenerös Somelieir

What a pity with the failure of the Carcosa initiative. I recall that you were determined to move forward with it until the communications breakdown. Now that that is resolved what other activities is the Ministry currently engaged in?

Other than previously announced projects, I will not be announcing anything further until we have something to announce as per my previous answers to this member, we WILL NOT announce anything until deals have been reached. As is standard practice within most of not all foreign ministries globally.

Quote from: Miestră Schivă, UrN-GC on August 08, 2025, 12:54:34 AMEstimadas es estimats cünpartizaes, the Constitution is silent on what to do if the election for the Comità is uncontested. I am minded to simply call for a Yes/No/Abstain vote on the inaugural Comità dal URL: @Miestră Schivă, UrN-GC , @Mic'haglh Autófil, O.Be , @Antaglha Xhenerös Somelieir .

You have 72 hours to vote.

Yes

Quote from: Miestră Schivă, UrN-GC on August 08, 2025, 12:58:54 AMI am happy to call for a Yes/No/Abstain vote that @Mic'haglh Autófil, O.Be will be the candidate of the URL for the 62nd Cosa election.

You have 72 hours to vote.

Yes

Option 2

Option 1

Option 3

Për on all

Quote from: Miestră Schivă, UrN-GC on August 05, 2025, 12:15:02 AMVoting on this will begin once voting on the Constitutional amendments is done.

I would like to propose the following candidates for the inaugural Comità of the URL:

- @Miestră Schivă, UrN-GC
- @Mic'haglh Autófil, O.Be
- @Antaglha Xhenerös Somelieir

I'm also fine with this