I've had a quick search.

A similar instance appeared in the July 2013 Clark, where the SoS at the time didn't reassign 3 NPW seats until the following Clark.  Commentary at the time seems to conclude that "seats reassigned DURING an ongoing Clark are not effective until the following clark."

Then going back to 2007, Mick Preston also had a similar incident and concluded "we can't reassign the seats until AFTER the current Clark".

I can't find the posts (Proboards search function isn't the best), but I'm fairly certain that in the past I, myself, have had a seat reassignment blocked and held until the next available Clark.

Reading through what I can find it seems that Mick Preston and his immediate successor both operated a policy where seat shuffles only took effect on the next Clark, not on the same Clark.  This changed with MPF taking office and seems to continue today.  Now I'm thinking on it, I can vaguely remember him making this change and disagreeing with it at the time.

I still think that once a Clark has begun then seats shouldn't be reassigned to then be voted with.  My appointment to the Senate happening after the Clark had begun, I believe, means I could not vote that seat even if I hadn't have voted in the Cosa. 

We can have different opinions on this.  It makes no difference to what's happened here.  I've voted the Cosa seats, so the reassignment of those 8 seats can't take effect until the 21st of this month.  The Senate seat can't be voted on until next month (which I, again, argue was always going to be the case because the appointment happened AFTER the Clark had begun).

Quote from: Lüc on March 03, 2020, 10:10:58 AM
I think the confusion stems from the fact that historically reassignments have been valid at any time, including during a Clark (if of course those seats hadn't been voted yet). You could have not voted as an MC, reassigned the seats and then accepted the Senate seat and voted there on this month's Clark, and in my judgement it would have been totally in order.

I'm not sure that is the case.  I'm pretty sure Cosa reassignments have only ever counted for the next available Clark, not for the Clark in which they happened. 

Quote from: Glüc on March 03, 2020, 09:41:23 AM

Quote from: Eðo Grischun on March 01, 2020, 06:22:12 PM
I have just cast my votes on the 3rd Clark via the DB, and now I, Éovart Grischun MC, hereby resign my Cosa seats and from the 54th Cosa.

Some confusion about what exactly the intention is here.
I'm guessing it's not to have your MC votes count, then resign and then also vote as a Senator and have other MC's appointed who vote using the PNP seats as well, cause that probably shouldn't be possible.

I'd say either you are not an MC this clark (in which case your MC votes don't count) or you are, but then your resignation (and the corresponding MC/Senate appointments) only take effect once the clark ends.

Oh, no, no.  I know full well that I won't be able to vote the Senate seat until the next Clark.  That was always going to be the case because V's appointment to the UC and the appointment of an interim Senator was always going to happen too late to count for this Clark.  (The convention you usually have used in the past is that re-shuffles take effect upon the next available Clark).

So, I voted my MCs seats (as I still was an MC legally), then resigned before V appointed me to fill out his Senate Term.  I won't be able to vote in the Senate until next month and the reassignment of the PNP seats shouldn't take effect until next Clark as well.

I specifically waited for the Clark to begin so that the Cosa changes wouldn't take effect straight away.  As I said, convention in the past has always been that once a Clark has begun then changes take effect the following Clark.  And, as the Senate seat would not have been able to be voted on regardless, then I was risking not having a vote in either House this month.

So, yeah.  I voted as an MC, which should count.  THEN I resigned THEN was appointed to the Senate.  But all these changes don't count yet for Clark purposes.  Yeah?

Quote from: Dr. Txec dal Nordselvă on March 03, 2020, 08:22:22 AM
Is this a serious attempt at a national honors system? It's been a long time since the king has given any honors. I'd like to see a similar system to the U.K. where the PM advises the monarch on honors. A lot of people have been, in my opinion, overlooked.


***
(Sorry! I hit 'modify' instead of 'quote'.  The content of your post has not been changed.  I shouldn't even be able to do that outside of Immigration???  Eddie.)

Yes.  Well, it's a starting point.  I want to go much further, but I'm loathe to start messing around with the King's Organic privileges as I fear we won't get enough support.  So, I'm starting here with the Decorations, ie: the stuff that we can play with without verging into the Organic.

Once we have the concepts of awards being granted by recommendation and investitures, then we can later look at the rest of the system.

Also, fixing a spelling error I just found in the original first paragraph (traditional to traditionally)

Quote from: Açafat del Val on March 02, 2020, 02:35:18 PM
Micked.

Making the same changes as suggested for the State Opening Bill (ie: Monarch to Sovereign). 

By the way, am I to take your Micking as a co-sponsoring or are you just voicing support?

Fair enough, I suppose. 

Prime Minister to Seneschal: Yeah.  I used Prime Minister because the original paragraph being amended used that term.  We probably have loads of instances in law where either/or has been used.  I don't think that's a major issue, but it might be beneficial if we pick the term we want to be using and then go through the law and make sure all instances match.  That's a thing for a later day. For now, yeah, I can make this change.

Monarch to Sovereign: Similar to above.  Although I think we will find the term King used most often in law, which bugs me because one day we may end up with a Queen.  I prefer Monarch over Sovereign as a matter of styling (I would much prefer to be using the term 'the Crown', but that nomenclature hasn't really stuck in Talossa), but again, yeah, I can make this change.

Overall styling and changes to sentence structure:  Sure.  Thanks for cleaning it up.

The only thing I want to debate is the bit about a rebuttal speech from the leader of the third largest party.  I have thought for a while that the third party leader should have a greater role in parliament.  If we were holding live debates or 'in-turn' terpelaziuns then the order would probably go as I suggested, but we don't do those things.  It would be neat, though, to start recognizing the third party that way and start including it in the order programme for events such as hearings and ceremonies.  I'm not going to remove it from this draft Bill just yet, but will amend the language from "Third Party" to "third largest party", and make it optional. 

In the meantime, let's discuss it.  Why did you feel a need to remove it from your suggested edits?

(also, I'm keeping 'programme' instead of 'program'.  I can't remember exactly where it is or whether it's a law or just a convention, but whenever regional spelling variations exist, we are supposed to adopt the British spelling over all others).

----

Bill now reading as thus at present:

Following each General Election there shall be an official "State Opening of the Cosa". At the start of the State Opening, the new Seneschal shall be sworn to the office publicly.  The Sovereign shall then deliver a speech outlining the Government's legislative agenda and programme for the term. The contents of this speech shall be communicated to the Sovereign by the incoming Seneschal prior to the ceremony. The Seneschal may announce Cabinet Ministers during the ceremony. A rebuttal by the Leader of the Opposition shall follow, which may be followed by a further rebuttal by the leader of the third largest party. When practical, the State Opening shall be held during an official Living Cosă for which food and drink shall be featured and as many Talossans as possible shall be invited to attend.

I've been led to believe the Ain't it Fun Act fixed the problem this Bill would have fixed.

I have just cast my votes on the 3rd Clark via the DB, and now I, Éovart Grischun MC, hereby resign my Cosa seats and from the 54th Cosa.

Per the Cosa list rules, up to one third of party seats may be filled by non-list members.  The PNP wishes to reassign Cosa seats as follows:

@Dame Litz Cjantscheir, UrN - 17 Seats
@Miestrâ Schiva, UrN - 2 Seats
@Marti-Pair Furxheir S.H. - 2 Seats
@Dr. Txec dal Nordselvă - 2 Seats
@Þon Txoteu É. Davinescu - 2 Seats

Many thanks.

Added a poll. 

@Glüc

I need to make some Cosa seat shuffles .  It's usually handled in the "MCs for the xxth Cosa" thread, which we don't have over here yet.

Can I just request the shuffle here on this thread or should I ask you to create a dedicated thread like before?

Yep, that would be a redline for me too.  Both provinces would need to retire their constitutions and adopt a new third way.  Vuode won't just become a Canton of M-M and vice versa.

@Seiken Zeap

Seiken's Wittenberg account status has been changed from Prospective to Citizen and his Visitor Status is hereby null.  Welcome to Talossa Seiken.


Congratulations to @Viteu

Continuing the brief conversation that began on ProBoards over to here...

What would our redlines and demands be? 
What would we be willing to let go of?
How could we ensure that the spirit of Vuode stays alive post-merger?