Quote from: Miestră Schivă, UrN-GC on Today at 04:57:45 PMThere are a grand total of two choices to get any Government legislation passed this term:

1) the PA and the URL make a mutually satisfying deal.
2) the PA shames and condemns the URL for angry, cynical gamesmanship and illegitimate motives, and hopes at least one URL Senator will admit you're right and surrender.

Lol... most people would probably include a third option, where neither party is whipping the vote to achieve maximum leverage, and instead approves of a bill based on its merits.

Listen, you can scroll back through the thread and see that I have been really active and engaged in discussing this thing. When it was introduced 5 days ago, I immediately asked some clarifying questions so I could better understand it. After a few days, Mic'haglh got back to me with answers, and I've continued to try to get some clarity about why this particular change is important (outside of rebranding), Even though I'm not easily able to access a computer over this holiday season. But if getting this done fast is a priority, I do really think we should get to actually talking about why we would want to change the immigration process to require the opposition leader (Mic'haglh right now) to approve of halting immigration.

As my understanding had it, this would be a emergency thing we would need to do because of serious and immediate harm. When we last discussed this, for example, it was brought up to me that people could say really horrible things and hurt others if the government didn't have the power to stop the process on a dime. So this seems like a strange new requirement - almost the contrary of that. I'm obviously open to it, but I do think we need to actually talk about it.

Quote from: Baron Alexandreu Davinescu on Today at 04:08:18 PMthis is just an effort at gamesmanship, to provide a cynical reason to kill a popular piece of legislation

Certainly, this legislation is popular with PA members.

But that argument comes quite close to an argument that our Senäts delegation are not fully entitled to vote their consciences on any piece of legislation. The counter-majoritarian nature of the Senäts is, we thought, precisely what you used to say was good about it.

There are a grand total of two choices to get any Government legislation passed this term:

1) the PA and the URL make a mutually satisfying deal.
2) the PA shames and condemns the URL for angry, cynical gamesmanship and illegitimate motives, and hopes at least one URL Senator will admit you're right and surrender.

Our party leader Mic'haglh is taking point on this issue and insha'llah he can make the deal with you before Clark time.

We assign all of our seats to Mximo C.

Azul, Progressives! Just an alert that a vote has begun for you to weigh in on!

Our bill was our flagship bill that we made a focus point of our campaign, frequently promised to work hard to pass, and amended with feedback over the course of the months and months it was available. Again, it's been months.

Five days ago, this version was proposed. It's an almost identical copy. I have repeatedly and frequently engaged about it, but I'm not going to derail the main focus of our campaign at the last minute.

If this change is a good one, then I can pull the bill from the Clark and add it, if we're in time. I'm happy to do that, and there's precedent for that happening. Or we can just make this a stand-alone bill. I don't actually have any immediate objection to the change, and it's not directly related to the main focus of the bill, so it wouldn't be a problem. Some in my party have suggested that this is just an effort at gamesmanship, to provide a cynical reason to kill a popular piece of legislation. I don't think that's true, though, and so I do still want to discuss this proposed change.

So what's the deal? Why would we want to alter the immigration procedure so that the government no longer has the ability to halt the process, and instead requires the cooperation of the opposition?

I must say, it seems like bad form (and frankly also foolhardiness) to signal the possibility for compromise only to clark the bill on the very next day.

For any bill to be passed into law this Cosă, the Progressives and the Free Reformists need to work together and essentially govern by consensus. It would be better for everyone involved to get used to this arrangement sooner rather than later.

Quote from: Baron Alexandreu Davinescu on Today at 12:06:10 PMPlease put this on the Clark, @Sir Lüc .

Will do but please use the Call for Bills like everyone else in the future, as that's the normal process. Thanks!

Quote from: Baron Alexandreu Davinescu on Yesterday at 05:37:23 PMI would love to talk about the specifics here. We might just agree and amend the bill if we could discuss it.

If you're Clarking it, then apparently not?

Quote from: King Txec on Today at 01:47:52 AMI haven't listened to Chris Ledoux in a long time, but I am a HUGE fan of 90s Country!

-Txec R

I am more of a 60's and 70's guy but some 90's are good. My favorite LeDoux song is This Cowboys Hat and Alex Schofield I recommend Sweet Simona and/or Headstone