NE3: New York Agreement for a Northeastern Independence Referendum (passed)

[SUSAN CRUSHBONE]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

sponsor: clyde

mr representative, you have 36 hours to advocate for your bill.

[Clyde1998]

Thank you.

I feel it's time for the people of the Northeast to decide the region's constitutional future. Previously, I failed in an attempt to bring forward a referendum on devolution - however this didn't make it through the Assembly I was involved in, due to constitutional concerns. I've check the constitution this time, and there's nothing saying that a region cannot become independent from Atlasia.

This bill sets out the way a referendum on independence would be conducted. I believe that there should be a simple question for the electorate to answer - Should the Northeast be independent?. I feel that this question can be easily understood and will allow voters to choose the option (Yes or No) that they wish to vote for, without any difficulty.

As per usual, the Chief Judicial Officer should oversee the referendum process. I feel it's very important for the Chief Judicial Officer to be impartial at all times. I believe the current Chief Judicial Officer is an independent, so there will be little association to either option. If the Chief Judicial Officer was a member of a party, then they could become associated with one of the campaigns, due to the leadership of that party choosing sides (for example).

I feel that before this bill passes the Chief Judicial Officer should comment on the question that I've proposed in this bill - and the question that we agree on as an Assembly.

I've decided that campaign groups, political parties, et al should be able to register with the Chief Judicial Officer, to clearly indicate their position on the matter, should they so wish.

I've chosen the 18th through to the 20th of October as the voting period. This will allow us time to pass this bill - and to hold debates on the issue. I would be open to moving this date, however I don't feel we could hold the referendum quickly (ie early to mid-September).

As per usual with Atlasian referendums, a 50% + 1 majority should be required for the referendum to pass.

I feel that state media (such as the Atlasian Republican) should remain neutral in it's reporting, as should the Game Moderator - so that they don't cause events that could drastically effect either side.

In regards to Section 15, I should add "Regardless of the result..." to the start of the clause.

Feel free to ask me any questions and to propose any amendments.

[Classic Conservative]

I know I'm not a member of the Assembly or even a resident of the Northeast. But I have some concerns, what will happen to the Northeastern citizens who don't want to become part of your 'country' and want to stay in Atlasia. Also you really cant force the GM to be quite.

[SUSAN CRUSHBONE]

I know I'm not a member of the Assembly or even a resident of the Northeast. But I have some concerns, what will happen to the Northeastern citizens who don't want to become part of your 'country' and want to stay in Atlasia.

personally i would favor a period of a month or two following independence with no restrictions on migration between the two countries.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

the bill isn't forcing the gm to be quiet, just recommending that he should be.

[Clyde1998]

I know I'm not a member of the Assembly or even a resident of the Northeast. But I have some concerns, what will happen to the Northeastern citizens who don't want to become part of your 'country' and want to stay in Atlasia. Also you really cant force the GM to be quite.

I've created a white paper on the subject - which will be published quite soon, if this bill passes - which will hopefully answer most of your questions on what would happen after independence. This bill is on holding a referendum, rather than a bill on independence itself.

I've outlined, in the white paper, that independence wouldn't occur overnight - with the proposed date of independence being on 1st December 2015, allowing time for people to move around and for other issues to be sorted. I wouldn't want to prevent people from Atlasia from moving to the Northeast, and vice versa, after independence.

Evergreen is right, I'm not trying to force the GM to be silent. I'll re-word the "neutral" thing to make it clearer.

[Unconditional Surrender Truman]

As a citizen, a journalist, and a Senator-elect, I feel obliged to note that Sections 12 and 13 rest on very shaky ground from a Constitutional standpoint. Of course, the GM should exercise his authority objectively, but the Northeast has no authority over the GM, so its unclear to me why this is even part of the bill. Furthermore, who is to say what constitutes impartiality - should the GM be restricted from projecting economic uncertainty in the event of a "yes" vote, for example? That would seem to stack the tables in favor of the pro-independence crowd, as they would be essentially granted immunity from the negative effects of their actions. Likewise, the inclusion of Section 13 - which generously (sarcasm) allows the media to take sides on this issue - is somewhat bizarre, and seems to imply that the Northeast Assembly thinks it has the power to override the freedom of the press. I would also question whether the Assembly has the authority to require parties to register with the "yes" or "no" campaigns (section 7b).

Speaking more broadly, the overwhelming majority of this bill reads more like a policy brief than a piece of legislation. Perhaps that was your intention, but in that case I would recommend retitling this a "resolution" and passing a separate bill establishing a referendum.

[Clyde1998]

As a citizen, a journalist, and a Senator-elect, I feel obliged to note that Sections 12 and 13 rest on very shaky ground from a Constitutional standpoint. Of course, the GM should exercise his authority objectively, but the Northeast has no authority over the GM, so its unclear to me why this is even part of the bill. Furthermore, who is to say what constitutes impartiality - should the GM be restricted from projecting economic uncertainty in the event of a "yes" vote, for example? That would seem to stack the tables in favor of the pro-independence crowd, as they would be essentially granted immunity from the negative effects of their actions. Likewise, the inclusion of Section 13 - which generously (sarcasm) allows the media to take sides on this issue - is somewhat bizarre, and seems to imply that the Northeast Assembly thinks it has the power to override the freedom of the press. I would also question whether the Assembly has the authority to require parties to register with the "yes" or "no" campaigns (section 7b).

Speaking more broadly, the overwhelming majority of this bill reads more like a policy brief than a piece of legislation. Perhaps that was your intention, but in that case I would recommend retitling this a "resolution" and passing a separate bill establishing a referendum.

Sections 12 and 13 are more recommendations - rather than regulations. However, as I said to Classic Conservative, I will make it clearer that they are recommendations - as I can understand why it looks like a requirement, now that it's been pointed out to me.

In regard to the GM, it's more to do with saying "I support/oppose independence" rather than publishing figures that people would expect to see - like financial figures.

There would be no requirement to register - however I feel that it would allow for people to see quickly which position Party X or Newspaper Y have taken. For example, if a newspaper does an article about how they support independence - they would be listed as a "Yes campaign group". If you and others feel that it would be better without it, I will remove it.

This bill was designed to be a cross between a resolution and a bill. As you, and probably other will, feel that it would better for me to make it more like a standard bill, then I'll do so. There will be a few things that I'll make clearer, as well.

[Clyde1998]

Proposed change - based on Truman's suggestion.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[DemPGH]

I fully and absolutely support sending it to referendum at the minimum. I guess my only question is, Do we want to wait till mid October? Hey, October will be here before you know it, so that's fine, but will there be a debate in the interim? We should have time to have a fairly exhaustive one if so.

[Clyde1998]

I fully and absolutely support sending it to referendum at the minimum. I guess my only question is, Do we want to wait till mid October? Hey, October will be here before you know it, so that's fine, but will there be a debate in the interim? We should have time to have a fairly exhaustive one if so.

I originally thought of an [18th] September vote , but decided that mid-October would be better to allow ourselves time to arrange and hold a (few) debate(s) on the subject.

I'll think about a closer date though - I'm also trying to make sure that it doesn't clash with anything else. I'd prefer to have it on it's own, exclusive, weekend.

[Clark Kent]

Even if it may not specifically violate the Constitution, I believe that secession is treason, and fully support a constitutional amendment clearly stating that and banning secession. No matter what else changes, I know that I personally will not be voting in favor of any bill that opens a pathway to secession.

[Leinad]

Like Classic Conservative and Truman, I'm not a member of this Assembly, but am visiting over the weekend (lovely place, should come here more often), decided to drop in (security recognized me from TV and let me in under the false assumption I was invited), and took the microphone when Evergreen was distracted.

I agree that the "recommendations" on things the Assembly has as much control over as I have over the Assembly is worded to make it sound like it does--and as it doesn't, what do empty recommendations do but clutter up the bill? I'd recommend (hehe...) those are struck from the bill, and added as a non-binding statement from Representative Clyde.

And also, what if you do this and Nyman basically says "um, no, you can't." Succession generally isn't looked at fondly. There's no constitutional basis for it, and little philosophical basis. Unlike Scotland or even the Confederate states, the Northeast was never an independent entity, always a region of Atlasia. In general I'm not against succession-via-referendum as a means to improve representative government--or stewardship of power, as I prefer to call it given that power is derived, ultimately, from the individual, and government is just a form of more efficiently handling that power. Crowdsourcing, in a way.

But, practically, a rejection of this by the Federal Government is not only likely, but in my opinion logical. After all, losing a region during this time of panic would add another problem--most likely for the President to promptly ignore, but I digress.

What, fundamentally, makes this different from TNF's communist takeover? I suppose the referendum does, but I still find that the Northeast will be rather powerless to enforce whatever happens if Nyman disapproves. And depending on how they disapprove and your method of resistance, it could turn sour fast.

Good luck, though. While I'd rather see a united Atlasia in this case, I've always had a soft-spot, so-to-speak, for succession as a long-form path to libertarianism--states/regions/counties/cities just keep breaking off as independent nations until you have 7 billion independent nations of 1, very loosely regulated by highly transparent, weak, and constitutional regional governments. One can dream...

[DemPGH]

Upon further consideration, the proposed date is fine. We do need time to have some communication about this. Also, when reform attempts fail they often end up with a stigma attached to them, like consolidation and so on - "Oh, that won't work."

I think Independent regions and/or a dissolved federal government should be seriously considered - it would make reform easier and yeah, it would increase the importance of what goes on regionally. Regions as part of a federal structure will always be viewed as a kind of minor league system, so that conversation needs to be had.

IV.4 calls the regions autonomous, and I see nothing that would prohibit a region from going independent or leaving.

[Clyde1998]

As per Leinad's recommendation - removing any reference to the word "recommendation". Clause 9 (was Clause 11 in previous revision) has been changed to be an Assembly commitment to attempt to work together following the referendum.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[SUSAN CRUSHBONE]

thank you, clyde. i'll introduce a separate thing for neutrality if this passes.

And also, what if you do this and Nyman basically says "um, no, you can't." Succession generally isn't looked at fondly. There's no constitutional basis for it, and little philosophical basis. Unlike Scotland or even the Confederate states, the Northeast was never an independent entity, always a region of Atlasia. In general I'm not against succession-via-referendum as a means to improve representative government--or stewardship of power, as I prefer to call it given that power is derived, ultimately, from the individual, and government is just a form of more efficiently handling that power. Crowdsourcing, in a way.

i don't think historical precedent is at all the be-all and end-all you're building it up to be. there is always a first time.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

if we have the people on our side, we will inevitably also have the international community on our side. i don't want to speculate too much, but it doesn't seem like a good idea to assume that an atlasian military response would be a prudent or even a viable action.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[SUSAN CRUSHBONE]

also i'mma be extending debate on this obviously

[Clyde1998]

Any more suggestions for the bill?

[pikachu]

I had just wrote a massive thing on this, but my session timed out, so here are basically the cliffnotes:

a) FTR, I'm against independence.
b) I think there should be a higher threshold for independence.
c) The date should come after regional elections.

I will expand on this later, when my WiFi access is more stable.

[Clyde1998]

I had just wrote a massive thing on this, but my session timed out, so here are basically the cliffnotes:

a) FTR, I'm against independence.
b) I think there should be a higher threshold for independence.
c) The date should come after regional elections.

I will expand on this later, when my WiFi access is more stable.

I'm not surprised that your against independence (I think you've referenced it before).

The threshold for all referendums is 50% in the region - so I don't feel that we should change this for this referendum. It wouldn't be a victory for either side if 55% (say) vote for independence, but that's below the threshold. I'd be willing to add a turnout clause though - maybe 40% - for the referendum to be deemed valid.

I'll wait for your explanation on why the date should come after the regional elections, before commenting on it.

[Clyde1998]

I will expand on this later, when my WiFi access is more stable.

Are you still with limited WiFi?

[pikachu]

I'm back. I'll be fine with a turnout clause, I just want there to be a clear mandate for independence, considering the magnitude of the decision.

On the date, I'm really hoping we can ensure a way to have cooperative regional officeholders if we do go independent (so probably having the vote before/after elections). I'm assuming the next regional election will likely be fought on this issue, so I'd we be set with officeholders who are pro-independence, if we do go that way, rather than the divided government we have right now. Also, considering this is a landmark election in Atlasia, it might be better to have it divorced from everything October. (Though my idea might be in violation of NE election law, so...)

However, the only thing that would cause me to veto this is if there is no mandate provision. Other than that, I'm fine with a referendum. (And hopefully we can the idea of independence to a rest )

[Clyde1998]

I'm back. I'll be fine with a turnout clause, I just want there to be a clear mandate for independence, considering the magnitude of the decision.

On the date, I'm really hoping we can ensure a way to have cooperative regional officeholders if we do go independent (so probably having the vote before/after elections). I'm assuming the next regional election will likely be fought on this issue, so I'd we be set with officeholders who are pro-independence, if we do go that way, rather than the divided government we have right now. Also, considering this is a landmark election in Atlasia, it might be better to have it divorced from everything October. (Though my idea might be in violation of NE election law, so...)

However, the only thing that would cause me to veto this is if there is no mandate provision. Other than that, I'm fine with a referendum. (And hopefully we can the idea of independence to a rest )

I'll add a 40% turnout clause in - I think it's reasonable, as there are quite a few people on the register that are totally inactive now.

When is the October election? I think I have proposed the date of the referendum in a free space, but as you say - it might overlap with the campaign period. If the election is the week after, I'd be willing to move the referendum forward a week - as that would still give us long enough to have a debate on the issue.

[Clyde1998]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Moving the referendum date a week forward and adding the turnout clause.

Anyone have any more comments before I propose a closure to the debate?

[pikachu]

I can live with this.

[Clyde1998]

Looking back through the debate - I don't think there's anything I've missed out from the bill or that I haven't explained why I'd oppose certain things going into the bill.

I request that we close the debate and start voting on the amended bill.