Mideast Assembly Thread

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

My apologies - something came up in my personal life, and I was out of town most of yesterday.  Voting is opened on the following Constitutional amendment.  Voting will last 48 hours:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[Kaine for Senate '18]

AYE.

[big bad fab]

AYE

[RIP Robert H Bork]

Aye

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

AYE

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

I've PMed NiK reminding him to swear in and vote.  He has until tomorrow around 4 to vote.  What are people's thoughts on voting times?  With 5 members, I feel it should be longer than 24 hours - does everybody like 48 hours?

[Kaine for Senate '18]

48 hours works for me, but I think we should also allow for extended time if a member notifies us beforehand that he will need more time.

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

48 hours works for me, but I think we should also allow for extended time if a member notifies us beforehand that he will need more time.

Of course - I just meant is 48 hours good as a default time?

[Psychic Octopus]

I believe I swore in when I was appointed, should I do it again?

In any case, AYE.

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

I believe I swore in when I was appointed, should I do it again?

Yes - new Assembly session means new oath of office.

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

The AYEs are 5, and the NAYs are 0.

The AYEs have it.  The Amendment has been passed by the Assembly and is now moved to be ratified by the people of the Mideast.

[Swedish Rainbow Capitalist Cheese]

The AYEs are 5, and the NAYs are 0.

The AYEs have it.  The Amendment has been passed by the Assembly and is now moved to be ratified by the people of the Mideast.

I'll get a vote up on Thursday.

[big bad fab]

Some of you may remember that, in a former session of our Assembly, I put forward the foillowing proposal.
There were criticisms on this for being somewhat complicated, even "bureaucratic"...

The Periodical Assessment of Statute Laws for a Better Accountability of our Government Bill

I. Each year, the Assembly reviews the Statute Laws which came into force 5 years earlier, in order to check their lasting usefulness, to scrap Statute Laws that have become useless or to amend Statute Laws that have more downsides than upsides.

II. To that aim, an Assemblyman shall submit an "Assessement Report" to the Assembly regarding each law referred to in clause I.
After having consulted the Governor's office, every accurate administrative entity, the other members of the Assembly, the Atlasia Game Master and a number of citizens, and having checked the overall and additional costs, the financial implications and the results of the law, the Assemblyman writes an "Assessment Report".

III. The "Assessment Report" shall give a statement:
a. on the overall and the additional costs of the law,
b. on the current risks and the possible future risks (at least in the following areas: constitutional risks, safety and human risks, security risks, financial risks),
c. on the upsides and downsides and on the efficiency of the law in comparison with its original aims and with the means it uses or its implementation implies,
d. on its compatibility with the Constitution and with other Statute Laws.
The report shall conclude whether the law can be let unchanged or needs to be repealed or amended, due to incompatibility, to uselessness, to excessive risks or to excessive costs.
The Assemblyman who has written the report shall introduce at the same time a bill to repeal or amend the law if the report concludes so.

IV. Each year, before the end of January, the Assembly by a majority vote or its Speaker if no majority is reached shares out between the Assemblymen (including the Speaker) the reviewing work of all the Statute Laws which came into force in the preceding 5th year.

But the need for periodical reviewing of our legislation is still here, in order to simplify it, to amend it, to improve it, as reality changes, evolves faster and faster, as our financial resources are under strain, as our Government needs to remain not too big and to act humbly and moderately.

The assessment of legislation is almost as important a work than the vote of new legislations. With an Assembly of five members, it should be easier to perform this task of reviewing the laws.

But we don't need a very exhaustive process. So, I wish to propose the "lighter" following:

The Periodical Assessment of Statute Laws for a Better Accountability of our Government Bill

I. Each year, the Assembly reviews the Statute Laws which came into force 3 full years earlier, in order to check their lasting usefulness, to scrap Statute Laws that have become useless or to amend Statute Laws that have more downsides than upsides.

II. To that aim, the Speaker will organize a debate on each law, in the month following the 3rd anniversary of the coming into force of a Statute Law. The debate shall not be open for more than 3 days.

III. Statute Laws which came into force in 2005 will be debated in 2010, along with the laws which came into force in 2006.

So, the Assembly is just obliged to debate, not to vote, not to change, not to amend.
We will just check that the law is still accurate.

First, without an obligation, even just an obligation of thinking and debating, the Assemblymen does not bother to do it...

Second, it will be simpler to review old laws as we are sure that, at least 3 full years after, they will be reviewed.

Thank you for your attention

[Kaine for Senate '18]

I still don't think this law is necessary.  We are usually busy debating other legislation; we don't need to take up time debating legislation that is 3 years old.

[tmthforu94]

I still don't think this law is necessary.  We are usually busy debating other legislation; we don't need to take up time debating legislation that is 3 years old.

Meh, the activity of this Assembly has decreased a lot. Actually, I think the decrease has started ever since we switched to a 5-member Assembly. This bill would help us eliminate useless bills, and would increase activity.

[big bad fab]

I still don't think this law is necessary.  We are usually busy debating other legislation; we don't need to take up time debating legislation that is 3 years old.

- We aren't so busy.
The previous Assembly voted a very tiny number of laws... and repealed none of the old ones.
For the moment, the current Assembly has voted one amendment and is debating one proposal, both of them put forward by the same Assemblyman.
That may become a problem.

- If old laws don't need to be debated again, well, it's a bit worrying to vote new ones, as they would be in force forever, sort of.
And, on the contrary, if you think 3 years is too short a delay, let's consider Atlasian "time": 3 years is a very long time, in a way !

- Please note that I've put a limit on these debates, so that they don't delay other legislative work. On the contrary, they'd force our Assembly to be useful all the time, even when there isn't any other "work in progress".

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

I support this bill.

[Swedish Rainbow Capitalist Cheese]

As was the case last time, I don't see the necissarity of this law. I believe it will be too complicated and hard to uphold and I fear that the assembly will end up spending more time on reviewing old laws than working on their own new ideas for legislation. I obviously don't think that we should just leave every old law as it is for ever and ever, but there's no need to mandate a review of every statue law every third year. Any assemblyman can him/herself propose changes to old laws.

So I don't support this bill, however I will not veto it, shall it pass.

 

[big bad fab]

As was the case last time, I don't see the necissarity of this law. I believe it will be too complicated and hard to uphold and I fear that the assembly will end up spending more time on reviewing old laws than working on their own new ideas for legislation. I obviously don't think that we should just leave every old law as it is for ever and ever, but there's no need to mandate a review of every statue law every third year. Any assemblyman can him/herself propose changes to old laws.

The problem is precisely that (s)he scarcely do, in fact.

So I don't support this bill, however I will not veto it, shall it pass.

I thank you for that, Mr. Governor.

[big bad fab]

The coming vote on the amendment recently voted by our Assembly and the national buzz about coming elections in Atlasia shouldn't prevent us from keeping on our legislative work, my fellow Mideast Assemblymen !

[Kaine for Senate '18]

Labor Protection Act

Article I:  Any corporation found in violation of National or Regional Labor laws shall pay the most expensive of the following fines:
   (1A): A corporate tax increase of 20% for the following tax year;
   (2A): A forfeiture of tax benefits and subsidies for the following two tax years;
   (3A): One Hundred Thousand Dollars to each employee who is able to successfully prove a legitimate labor rights violation to either the Mideast Superior Judge, or another appropriate Magistrate.

Article II:  This legislation will take effect immediately, and will be effective for all labor complaints filed on or after January 1, 2010.

[big bad fab]

Can we first vote on my proposal, in order not to mix everything up ?

Thanks, Mr. Speaker !

[RIP Robert H Bork]

Right now I'm neutral on big bad fab's bill.

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

Substantial debate on the following bill having ended at least 24 hours ago, voting on the following bill shall begin.  This will be a 48 hour vote:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

AYE