
We promised to prioritize immigration by publicizing the issue and trying lots of new ideas. This has been a huge priority for our government, and we've tackled it in a bunch of different ways. We've tried different forms of advertising at different times, and kept an eye on what worked. More on that later. But before we could even accomplish this, we had to remake the entire immigration system!
We promised to update and support Infotecă, the people's immigration portal. We accomplished this in a big way! The entire thing has been overhauled. Now it's not just a collection of dry statistics... it's now presented in a beautiful manner with an automatically generated summary at the top of the page. It's still all of the people's information, but now it's even better. And the best part is that it's still just the same amount of work for future governments: five minutes a month!
We promised never to secretly block potential immigrants, and promised we would pass legislation to eliminate this government power. The first bill of the term was a revamped Public Process Bill, 62RZ01! That particular government power is completely gone and dead, and we won't let it return.Quote from: Marcel Eðo Pairescu Tafial, UrGP on Yesterday at 06:51:09 PMI think it's a great question. I understand where it's coming from! In my opinion, it's hard to read "law" in such a way that it doesn't include the Organic Law, though, and I wouldn't quite understand how to make it that way so that the proviso doesn't apply.Quote from: Baron Alexandreu Davinescu on Yesterday at 06:46:11 PMI think you could make that case for sure if that provision had been removed from the Organic Law, but we made sure to keep it in and it refers to laws in general. This was even discussed during the drafting process specifically, with regards to what effect it would have on the clock - it didn't reset the clock, but neither did it eliminate the clock.
No, this was in reference to something else. I was asking whether specifically renumbering Lexh.H.4.1.1 would reset the clock, and came to an understanding that it didn't. Enshrining the 20-seat Cosă into the OrgLaw was something I insisted on pretty much at the tail end of the drafting process, and personally I had assumed that all amendments enter into effect immediately after the appropriate referendum passes, and that the one-year delay refers exclusively to statutory changes -- if it didnt, the word "such" in "with the provisos that any such change" wouldn't make much sense to me, though this could be a language barrier thing.
EDIT: I don't mean to kick off a debate in this thread, I was moreso wondering about the precise wording of the referendum question, and whether that's all legally sound. As far as I understand it as a non-lawyer it wouldn't be, and I wanted to direct attention to it to clear up potential misunderstandings.
Quote from: Baron Alexandreu Davinescu on Yesterday at 06:46:11 PMI think you could make that case for sure if that provision had been removed from the Organic Law, but we made sure to keep it in and it refers to laws in general. This was even discussed during the drafting process specifically, with regards to what effect it would have on the clock - it didn't reset the clock, but neither did it eliminate the clock.
Quote from: Marcel Eðo Pairescu Tafial, UrGP on Yesterday at 04:50:32 PMI have a question about the referendum on 62RZ26.
It mentions that the reduction of the Cosă's size to 20 seats would only take effect after February 2027, which is the timeline set forth from the Pseudo-Real Cosă Act. However, since 62RZ26 is an amendment, and the delayed effect of Cosă size changes only applies to changes made via statute (at least that's how Org.IV.2.1 reads to me), is it not rather the case that, were the referendum to pass, the size change would go into effect immediately?