Mideast Assembly Thread

[big bad fab]

"bonnet blanc et blanc bonnet"

More people need to use this expression.

A quick google tells me I have no idea what that means. Although from BBF's context I imagine it has something to do with "doing something for the sake of doing it."

Sorry. It means that two things, two persons, are the same thing, the same person or would have the same consequences, the same policies, despite seeming to be different or even opposed.

The communist candidate said that about Pompidou and Poher in 1969 French presidential election. In the run-off there were only the centre-right and the gaullist candidates. So, for the PCF, this was equally evil and they abstain or vote blank.


Anyway, Sweedish, your a) idea must be discussed, but I don't think that's a good one, as our regional Senator is elected to deal with national matters, after a strictly political election, with national stakes.

b) pleases me, because it means that a bill should be widely supported to pass and that's a way to oblige us to seek consensus.
And, well, 5 assemblymen would be better: if it's 2 ayes, 1 no, 2 abstain for example .

Sorry for being a bit inactive, but family, gardening, wood (and woods...), wines and food make me busy this week-end again .
I'll be back on Monday with some proposals.


BTW, Badger, do you want me to post some amendments to my Public Procurement Policy Bill or do you still intend to put some forward ?

[big bad fab]

I'd like to make some amendments (directly in the text) to my earlier proposal:

Public procurement policy Bill:

1. The government and all public institutions of the Mideast, when they intend to purchase goods, works or services, shall make a call for tenders. In their call, they shall explain the consistence of goods, works or services required, the cost estimate, the ceiling set for public spending, the process for bidding, the information required from the bidders, the criterias set to be selected.

2. Among the criterias set to select among the bidders the one who will provide the goods, works or services, the public institution shall include the compliance with existing standards and labels of sustainable development, organic agriculture and environmental quality.
This criteria shall be the first one in 15% of calls for tenders in 2010, in 30% in 2012, in 50% in 2014, in 65% in 2016, in 75% in 2018 and in 90% in 2020 and thereafter.

3. A priority shall be set in public calls for tenders for businesses whose production, employees or registered office are is located in the Mideast.
When two bidders are on a par with the other criterias, the business whose production is the most located in the Mideast shall be selected, then the business whose employees are the most numerous to work in the Mideast shall be selected, then the business whose registered office is located in the Mideast.

4. A priority shall be set in public calls for tenders for small and middle-sized businesses. When two bidders are on a par with the other criterias, including those set in clause 3, and when they are both located in the Mideast, the smaller business shall be selected. The size of a business shall be set in the call for tenders, by a mix between the number of people employed by the business and the amount of its sales.

[big bad fab]

Even if I know there is already a debate on an Amendment proposed by our respected Speaker, and because our session isn't a very long one,

I wish to introduce the following constitutional amendment proposal to the Assembly:

Reinforcement of Rights Amendment to the Third Mideast Constitution

I. The clause 1. of Article V of the Third Mideast Constitution is amended to read:

"1.  No person shall be denied of Life without due process of Constitutional Law. No person shall be denied of Liberty or Property without due process of Law, Nor shall any person be denied the equal protection of Law."

II. The words "private properties," are included after the word "houses," in the clause 11. of Article V of the Third Mideast Constitution.

III. The clause 13. of Article V of the Third Mideast Constitution is amended to read:

"13. Private property shall not be used for private use of other people without Constitutional Law allowing it. Private property shall not be taken for public use, without just compensation set by Law."

IV. The clause 18. of Article V of the Third Mideast Constitution is amended to read:

"18. All persons under eighteen shall have the right to a publicly funded, well-balanced education. All persons under fourteen are required to receive education along lines and minimal requirements set by Law, in public or private institutions or in families."


The hierarchy of legal rules (is that the right phrase for "hiérarchie des normes" ?) should be better written in our Bill of Rights, especially for Life and Private Property. Hence my proposals:

My first aim is here to constitutionalize the protection given to Life. The death penalty should be authorized only by a constitutional level of Law, not only a legislative level.

My second aim is to give a greater protection to private property, as I think it's a sacred principle, as stated, for example, in the French Bill of Rights and Declaration of Human Rights (Déclaration des Droits de l'Homme et du Citoyen de 1789).
So, reducing private property for public use would always be allowed by legislative ruling. However, reducing private property for another private use should be possible only by constitutional law.

My third aim is to state that education is compulsory until the age of 14. Of course this education can be given in public, private institutions or in families. But every child should be protected in this need to receive a proper education.

[big bad fab]

Basically, private property can be protected by the Constitution when there are conflicting private interests. The legislative level can still infringe private property for public interests.

Of course, the Freedom to Roam bill makes me re-read our Bill of Rights and I've compared it with the French Declaration of Human Rights, which is a really both protective and liberal -in the old sense- document.

Of course, this is more a philosophical than law problem. I think it's essential for a society to protect privacy, and private property is essential to it. It's, among other things, a way to provide quietness and security in families in the long term. And that's the better thing to allow people to concentrate on one of their most important task, to breed respectful and integrated children, so preparing a more peaceful future for the whole society.

As for education, we shouldn't set a too low age, because we need to let professional and specialized educations be possible. So, 14 seems to be a good compromise for "general" education.

[big bad fab]

Public procurement policy Bill:

1. The government and all public institutions of the Mideast, when they intend to purchase goods, works or services, shall make a call for tenders. In their call, they shall explain the consistence of goods, works or services required, the cost estimate, the ceiling set for public spending, the process for bidding, the information required from the bidders, the criterias set to be selected.

2. Among the criterias set to select among the bidders the one who will provide the goods, works or services, the public institution shall include the compliance with existing standards and labels of sustainable development, organic agriculture and environmental quality.
This criteria shall be the first one in 15% of calls for tenders in 2010, in 30% in 2012, in 50% in 2014, in 65% in 2016, in 75% in 2018 and in 90% in 2020 and thereafter.

3. A priority shall be set in public calls for tenders for businesses whose production, employees or registered office are is located in the Mideast.
When two bidders are on a par with the other criterias, the business whose production is the most located in the Mideast shall be selected, then the business whose employees are the most numerous to work in the Mideast shall be selected, then the business whose registered office is located in the Mideast.

4. A priority shall be set in public calls for tenders for small and middle-sized businesses. When two bidders are on a par with the other criterias, including those set in clause 3, and when they are both located in the Mideast, the smaller business shall be selected. The size of a business shall be set in the call for tenders, by a mix between the number of people employed by the business and the amount of its sales."

Upon, review, I suppose the only necessary change was bolded above for previously stated reasons.

Dear Badger, I respectfully don't agree on your amendment, even if I think we in fact agree on the heart of this bill.
As you've seen, I kept the registered office as a criteria, but only third in the hierarchy of choice.
I think that you were right and production and employees should be more important criteria. But I think we need to keep the registered office as a third criteria because some of our taxes on businesses are based on the registered office.
So, it's a good thing to keep this as an alternate and final criteria.
Of course, "ties" between candidates after the environmental criteria, the production criteria, the employees criteria may not be very numerous, but, as we are in to put lines on the public procurement policy, I think we shouldn't prevent ourselves from setting another criteria which is good for our tax revenues.

So, if my fellow assemblyman and if our dear Speaker agreed on it, I would like the Assembly to consider the bill as I've amended it.


As for the membership of the Assembly, I was about to table a similar proposal .
I strongly agree on this one, as I think they may be enough willing and competent citizens in the Mideast region to have 5 good members in the Assembly.
Debates would be even more alive and we could have an even wider area of personal competences from which the Assembly can benefit highly.
Ties would be scarcer, at least a bit.

It may be theoretically more difficult to have competitive elections. But 5 aren't 6 or 8 and we aren't on a "Northeastern" path.
And the Mideast now seems to be appeased and, even with only 3 seats, the elections aren't very passionnate.
On the contrary, I think this first step (5 seats) would lead us to think and debate about the electoral system later, which may be a safer way to have more competitive elections.

What is more, with 5 members, the Assembly would be able to designate an assemblyman to assess existing laws and review them periodically (I have some ideas on the subject...) and propose, when it's needed, some changes.
I mean, to spread the laws between the members in order to make them review less laws.

The second part establishes that the rest of this session will be conducted in accordance with the last election of three members, and the new 5 person assembly will accordingly be elected by the voters to begin the next session. I suggest we see how it works with five members, and then see if a need for a tie breaking authority of some sort (governor, speaker, regional senator, etc) is needed.

Our fellow Badger is especially right here: let's try ! We are pragmatic and reasonable people and will be able to analyze quietly and cleverly the new functioning of our Assembly then.

May I add that with more members in the Assembly, I think we'll have more candidates (even surprising ones ), because the chances to be elected would be higher. So the elections may be more competitive.
That may sound paradoxical, but it's statistically logical...

So, I suggest we move forward rather quickly on Badger's proposal, without forgetting to debate on my own constitutional amendment .

[big bad fab]

There are only 2 candidates so far but the election is still far away. So I don't think you can use it to argue against Badger's proposal.

As for the campaign thing, well, you may make the best of campaigns in Atlasia, it's always disrupted by unimportant facts or it's completely ignored. The real training comes inside the regional assembly.
To answer to your point here, I think having Assemblymen elected for 3 months and not only 2 would be better, to fulfil the training aim of all this.
That's another debate and I don't want to open it here, but you may see that we may have some other little changes that may answer your point.

When the Assembly is extended, there will be more candidates, as the chances are greater and as, inside political parties, if some are restraining from being candidates in order not to harm their mate's chances, they would be freer to be candidates with 5 seats.

[big bad fab]

On the Public Procurement Policy Bill, what do you intend to do, Mr. Speaker ?

[big bad fab]

I call for a vote on this bill, as there has been no debate for 24 hours, and we all seem to agree on it.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

 ... as well as this bill.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

AYE

and

AYE

Thnak you, Mr. Speaker for such a fair management of our debates and a swift decision on each of these bills.

[big bad fab]

FWIW: I tend to agree with Fab and SC about expanded the Assembly terms to 3 months. What if we to combine these two and look at expanding the Assembly to 5 seats to serve for 3 months each? I'm not sure these should be subject to separate votes when they both directly relate to reforming the Assembly.

I'm not so sure about only one vote on the 2 proposals.
Each one taken separately is a really good one.
But I wouldn't take the risk to lose on both of them because of opposition to only one among our fellow citizens.
So, I agree on a simultaneous vote, but not on only one vote.

[big bad fab]

Does our fellow assemblyman Badger have comments on my proposed Amendments to our Bill of Rights ?

Our dear Governor has let us some more days to discuss on these, if we want to include them on a big session of vote on, well, 3 series of Amendments:
-> 3 to 5 seats
-> 2 to 3 months
-> (hopefully) some amendments to our Bill of Rights.

I am myself on holidays for some days, but I check regularly our Assembly debates.
Remote legislative work !

[big bad fab]

I thank our former speaker to answer to the "old" question I've asked well before putting forward my proposal, but which remained without answer at the time, and which was about the simple meaning of the word "Law" in our Bill of Rights.

The problem is clearly that I wasn't born in a Common Law country... and that English isn't my native language, of course...
So I wasn't sure of the meaning of "Law". In French (and in other Latin Law systems), you've got a formal hierarchy between
le droit constitutionnel, more or less "harmed" by le droit international, especially from European origin,
la loi,
le règlement,
les circulaires.
And we always specify which level we refer to.

My concern is to give Life and Property the strongest protection.

The problem is that I think that, when you say that Law means everything in this case, we know that Liberty (also protected by "Law") is sometimes harmed just by bills adopted by our Assembly. Life must be protected with a higher degree than that.
So, I'm going to rewrite a proposal on this point.

And the problem is that, when you see the Freedom to Roam Bill recently turned into Law in the Mideast, it's not only the Property in itself, concretely, that is at stake, but its free use by the owner.
So, I'm going to rewrite a new proposal on this, too.

[big bad fab]

It's a fine proposal on which I largely agree.

I have 2 small remarks.

- Why not include taxes due on or before 4/15/09 ?
On 4/15/10, the MRRS will be able to know who hasn't reported or paid on 4/15/09.

- Five years to pay for deadbeats seem a bit too much for me. Why not set 12/31/13 as the deadline of principle ? We all know that the MRRS is able to give some additional delays if need be.

[big bad fab]

It's a fine proposal on which I largely agree.

I have 2 small remarks.

- Why not include taxes due on or before 4/15/09 ?
On 4/15/10, the MRRS will be able to know who hasn't reported or paid on 4/15/09.

- Five years to pay for deadbeats seem a bit too much for me. Why not set 12/31/13 as the deadline of principle ? We all know that the MRRS is able to give some additional delays if need be.

Two good points, Fab, which I'd considered in writing the bill. The first point I'd modeled the time off of some real world amnesty programs which seemed to have a lag of a couple years lag from the last eligible tax year and the amnesty period's beginning. (See link below for California's example). I'm not married to the date though, and if you assure me that your staff has determined the MRRS can adequately have deadbeats identified for the 2008 tax year as well, I'd be happy to amend the date. ;-)

The second part of including an extended 5 year repayment eligibility is to avoid the problems California had  with their tax amnesty where many deadbeats didn't come forward because they didn't have the money in hand at the time, and that is certainly an ongoing problem in the Mideast during this recession.

http://www.calchamber.com/Chamber_in_the_news/020305_Amnesty.htm


Don't forget that the interest on unpaid taxes will continue to accrue during that 5 year period until it's all paid, and they'll have to continue paying current taxes in the coming years as well, so I see more benefit and gain to regional taxpayers by giving every incentive for deadbeats to fess up and start paying back every penny they owe plus interest. For the reasons given in the article linked, I'd really like to keep the repayment schedule as extended as possible. Still, read the article and see if that changes your mind somewhat. I'm willing to listen to any continuing objections you have to a 5 year limit at that point.

Well, my dear Badger, to keep on objecting on the repayment period, I would need a precise study of who are the deadbeats, how much they must pay each, about which taxes the problem mainly is, etc.
And I must acknowledge we do not have any comprehensive study on these points.
So, I won't object on the 5-year period any more.

As for the first point, well, in the beginning of 2010, the MRRS will be able to know who hasn't paid taxes due (this is the key word in your proposal) on 4/15/09 or who hasn't asked officially for delays.
So, on this point, given the fact that the law would be in force on 4/15/10 and that the MRRS would have enough time to get prepared for these new rules, I maintain my remark.

Thanks for your time.

[big bad fab]

While our colleague Badger is working on amendments, I just want to ask my fellow assemblymen about the meaning they give to the word "Law" specified in our Constitution.

Does it refer to no specific level of legislation, or to constitutional level of legislation, or to legislative level of legislation ?

I don't want to misinterprete our supreme "rule" in my next proposals.

Don't forget my question !

See what my problem was...
So...


I wish to re-introduce the following constitutional amendment proposal to the Assembly, in a re-written version:

Reinforcement of Rights Amendment to the Third Mideast Constitution

I. The clause 1. of Article V of the Third Mideast Constitution is amended to read:

"1.  Human Life shall not be removed under any circumstance. No person shall be denied of Liberty or Property without due process of Law, Nor shall any person be denied the equal protection of Law."

II. The words "private properties," are included after the word "houses," in the clause 11. of Article V of the Third Mideast Constitution.

III. The clause 13. of Article V of the Third Mideast Constitution is amended to read:

"13. Private property shall not be taken or used by another private legal entity. Private property shall not be taken by a public legal entity for public use, without just compensation."

IV. The clause 18. of Article V of the Third Mideast Constitution is amended to read:

"18. All persons under eighteen shall have the right to a publicly funded, well-balanced education. All persons under fourteen are required to receive education along lines and minimal requirements set by Law, in public or private institutions or in families."

As for clauses 1, 13 and 18, the text I wish to add to the Constitution is in bold.

- First of all, I think the Bill of Rights should include the fact that the Human Life should always be protected.
This is a principle that is debatable, of course, but which speaks for itself.

- Then, as I've already explained, I think we should protect a bit more the private property. It must be clearly written that another private person cannot take or use someone else's private property.
As for public use, I propose to add a reference to public legal entities, so that it's clearer (even if there will always be debate on the fact that everything a public entity does isn't automatically a public action; but it's really a tiny number of cases, that we can still let to the courts or to statutory law, as is already the case today).

- I've left unchanged my proposal on education.

[big bad fab]

Thanks for avoiding me to introduce formally an amendment .

I agree on the revised text.

[big bad fab]

AYE

[big bad fab]

And I'll intervene tomorrow (CET) on my proposed Constitutional Amendment.

[big bad fab]

As for my proposed amendment to the Bill of Rights,

- My proposal of protecting Life under any circumstances makes it more difficult to (re)instate the death penalty, as it would require a new amendment.
It may also, if courts judge it in that way, protect Human Life against voluntary and external euthanasia, as the word "removed" implies a voluntary action adn an action by someone else than the human being whose life is "removed".
So, to answer to our dear Governor Inks.LWC, if I am myself spontaneously in favour of death penalty when I see murders with rapes, sexual murders, murders of children or persons completely unable to defend themselves, etc, I think we must apply equally the same principle in every circumstance, because it's a sacred principle.
And, as the death penalty doesn't exist in the Mideast, it's not as if we would be slashing a penalty in force, which may have entailed some problems in terms of dissuading crimes.

- I understand the principled objections of our Speaker Sweedish Cheese, who is perfectly logical: as my point on Private Property was inspired by his Freedom to Roam Bill, it's normal that he is sceptical on my proposition.

What I can say is that, for the moment, I do not intend to split my proposal, because I want to reinforce a series of Rights, not just one, and I think it's better not to change the Bill of Rights too often.

- That's why I'd like to hear our fellow Assemblyman Badger on my re-writings, that may still be improved.

Thank you for your attention.

[big bad fab]

I wish you would reconsider splitting the bill. As you know I support the first and forth clauses, and would like to vote in support of them. However I will vote Nay on the amendment as currently written.

Thanks to have made your position clear, Mr. Speaker.
I may think again, but need to know Badger's own opinion on the proposal.

[big bad fab]

Big thanks to Franzl.
And I thank our Governor to be fair again and to stick to the will of the majority of our citizens.

I agree with our Speaker: the next Assembly will have to discuss another electoral system. And this may be a BIG discussion, as many systems are possible. For the moment, we need to be sure the 5 seats are created before next week.

I agree with Badger's amendment to the Mideast election consolidation Statute and I'm ready to vote.

[big bad fab]

AYE

[big bad fab]

My colleagues and I were talking about the results of the Mideast people voting on the amendment of Article III of our Constitution: 8 AYE, 3 NO.

Isn't it a clear "popular will" ?

Sticking to it is just paving the way for it to be applied AS SOON AS November election and not dragging our feet.
That's why you deserve some "thanks" .

So, we're all on the same page, "no problemo", as one of your fellow Governors would have said.

[big bad fab]

I wish to re-introduce my constitutional amendments to the Assembly, splitted in 3 different proposals:


Protection of Human Life Amendment to the Third Mideast Constitution

The clause 1. of Article V of the Third Mideast Constitution is amended to read:

"1.  Human Life shall not be removed under any circumstance. No person shall be denied of Liberty or Property without due process of Law, Nor shall any person be denied the equal protection of Law."


Protection of Private Property Amendment to the Third Mideast Constitution

I. The words "private properties," are included after the word "houses," in the clause 11. of Article V of the Third Mideast Constitution.

II. The clause 13. of Article V of the Third Mideast Constitution is amended to read:

"13. Private property shall not be taken or used by another private legal entity. Private property shall not be taken by a public legal entity for public use, without just compensation."


Right to Education Amendment to the Third Mideast Constitution

The clause 18. of Article V of the Third Mideast Constitution is amended to read:

"18. All persons under eighteen shall have the right to a publicly funded, well-balanced education. All persons under fourteen are required to receive education along lines and minimal requirements set by Law, in public or private institutions or in families."


To my fellow Assemblyman Badger:
my amendment on Private Property is not only about "taking" private property, but also about "using" it, and it is about private entities among each other (the private property taken by a public entity is already dealt with by our Constitution and I haven't changed the "public use" phrase).
Therefore, this version answers to the objection of our dear Peter about the initial "circular logic".

To my fellow Assemblymen:
If your interpretation of the Freedom to Roam Bill is right (i.e. the private property is used only upon owner's agreement), my amendment will not harm this Bill.
My main aim is to prevent bigger "exceptions" to the right to quiet private ownership.

To my fellow Assemblyman Badger:
I think the human life is sacred (in the common meaning of the word) and that another human being cannot decide to remove it. This is a principle (whether one believes in a God or in Mother Nature or in a great Human Project ) and it should be written as such.
And don't forget that I only propose to rewrite the Bill of Rights just to make this protection more difficult to remove, but our current Bill of Rights already gives a general protection to "Life".

To my fellow Assemblymen:
I urge you to consider these 3 amendments as one "package", aimed at reinforcing our Bill of Rights, even if, of course, you will decide separately on each of these 3 proposals.
And please take a little time to read the current writing of our Bill of Rights and to read my amendments: you'll see that the changes are of reinforcement  and are not at all contrary to the spirit of the current writing.

I thank you for your time.

(I'm sorry not to have introduced these 3 amendments sooner.)

[big bad fab]

If that one amendment is meant to remove the death penalty, thats already been done lol.

I know my English is bad, but I repeat that I just want MORE protection for human life. I know there is no death penalty in the Mideast.
But I want to give human life a clear constitutional protection. And I've said that, written so, it will also prevent voluntary euthanasia.
Please read what I've written one or two pages before, throughout our debates in the Assembly.

[big bad fab]

So since no one has attempted to debate or argue my economic proposal, should I asume that y'all support it?

I have some objections but am very busy today. Could you wait until tomorrow ?

And I'll answer to Peter's and Badger's clever objections. I already thank them for this.