Additional bills I am hoping the Green Party will support for reintroduction in the 63rd Cosa:

62RZ22 - BHAID: Humanitarian Assistance to Sudan Resolution (Reconsideration)
Rejected by the Cosă 64-96 (20 abstained), by the Senäts 0-7 (1 abstained)

62RZ20 - Sense of the Ziu: Global Governance of Artificial Intelligence
Agreed to by the Cosă 57-35 (111 abstained), rejected by the Senäts 0-1 (6 abstained)

62RZ21 - Sense of the Ziu: Iranian Freedom & Democracy
Agreed to by the Cosă 80-20 (103 abstained), rejected by the Senäts 0-0 (7 abstained)

62RZ02 - Advisory Opinion Removal Amendment
Rejected by the Cosă due to missing the required supermajority 90-70 (20 abstained), rejected by the Senäts 3-5

62RZ09 - Upper House of Review Amendment
Rejected by the Cosă due to missing the required supermajority 94-66 (20 abstained), agreed to by the Senäts 4-3

62RZ12 - Sense of the Ziu: Anticipating the Consequences
Agreed to by the Cosă 78-42 (60 abstained), rejected by the Senäts 0-0 (7 abstained)

This prospective has not made a post on Wittenberg within a month of their introduction.  In accordance with Lexh.E.4, their application process is hereby terminated. @Minister of Immigration, please take notice.

Thanks. I completely forgot about my bill. Please send it to the CRL. Thanks.

-Txec R

@Sir Lüc pleaae move this to the CRL.

-Txec R

I will of course be Clarking my two eligible bills, just for the record.

Attn @King Txec @þerxh Sant-Enogat @Breneir Tzaracomprada and @Mic'haglh Autófil, O.Be - quick reminder this will be your last opportunity until the next First Clark in October to Clark the bills you currently have in the Hopper (if they pass CRL, where necessary).

I approve.

I see no problems with form or function, and I vote to approve.

Moved to the CRL for review.

Quote from: Sir Lüc on June 26, 2026, 03:58:30 AM

Quote from: Breneir Tzaracomprada on June 24, 2026, 06:10:05 PM

Quote from: Sir Lüc on June 24, 2026, 06:06:12 PMPlease don't necropost on threads this old; six months old is bad but tolerable, three years is way too old. I suppose it's not explicitly discouraged by Wittiquette, but it makes historical research much more difficult when threads are suddenly heavily out of order.

--SoS

Thank you for advising on this, Luc. Would it be better for me to request a split beforehand rather than make the post? Or if someone could help me with how to do it?

I think the best thing to do is to simply create a quote from the old thread, and paste it into a new thread. The quote's header will contain a link to the original comment, which can be used to peruse the old thread. (Or if you don't want to quote anything in particular, you can just paste a link to the original thread.)

QuoteAs you mentioned this is not a breach of any etiquette rules but I do not want to make historical research more difficult. I am currently doing exactly that on Old Witt.

To be more specific - necroposting is not a breach of Wittiquette but is one of those things that are pretty much universally discouraged in Internet fora. AFAIK, there's no way to prevent it which wouldn't also prevent legitimate "update threads" - something like the "Holding place for Green legislation" thread getting revived every 2-3 months - and so there's just a red warning in the bottom when people attempt to reply to old posts, but I don't think it's getting read that often.

This is very helpful, thanks Luc.

I guess it's good to get some practice in, but @Moses Henry Emefiele , you're not quite to that point yet!