Northeast Assembly Thread

[Smid]

If Antonio doesn't accept the amendment as friendly, we'll move to a vote on the amendment.

It's probably better to do one vote than two - so we're better off waiting a bit for Antonio V's response.  I'll send him a PM letting him know of the proposal, in case he just logs on briefly.

I agree, sorry - wasn't planning on starting the vote right now - was meaning that we'll wait and see what he says, and if he doesn't accept, we can move straight to a vote - as opposed to opening debate.

[Smid]

Yeah, I accept.

In that case, unless there are any objections, let's move to a final vote.

The question is:

That - The Bill as amended be agreed to.

All of that opinion say "Aye," to the contrary, "No." I think the Ayes have it. Is a division required? A division is required. Ring the bells.

The Ayes shall pass to the right of the chair, the Noes to my left.

[Smid]

Aye.

[Smid]

What's the timetable on this vote?

I think it's meant to stay open 24 hours to give everyone the chance to vote (but able to be closed earlier if everyone votes before then. Just waiting on Rocky and then we can finish it.

[Smid]

There being seven votes in favour, none opposed, the question is resolved in the affirmative.



What's next on the agenda? The Chair is not sure which piece of legislation we're considering next.

[Smid]

I think it is sufficient to say "at least two-thirds" of voting members.

This means that if we have a six-member Chamber, veto over-rides will occur if there is a vote of four, however if the size of the Legislature is changed by future Amendments, we don't have to change the numbers again.

Perhaps "two-thirds of votes exercisable" might be better, meaning that for a Legislature of 6, four votes are required, regardless of how many people vote.

[Smid]

The vote is to open debate, under emergency procedings, yes? So one can oppose the Motion but vote in favour of the question in order to debate the motion?

[Smid]

The vote is to open debate, under emergency procedings, yes? So one can oppose the Motion but vote in favour of the question in order to debate the motion?

Actually, this is a final vote. That's how I read his post, anyway.

That's how I read it, too, hence the question marks - since my vote will be different depending on whether this is a final vote or a motion to debate, I need the clarification before voting.

[Smid]

The vote is to open debate, under emergency procedings, yes? So one can oppose the Motion but vote in favour of the question in order to debate the motion?

Actually, this is a final vote. That's how I read his post, anyway.

That's how I read it, too, hence the question marks - since my vote will be different depending on whether this is a final vote or a motion to debate, I need the clarification before voting.

This is a final vote. I'm doing this because of the word "Emergency". But I'd love to hear your opinion.

My opinion is that you can rule either way on this and that if there is dissent in the Chair's ruling, it can be challenged by the Legislature and put to a vote. I don't think it matters much either way and I for one won't be challenging the Chair's ruling.


(In my opinion, not necessary, but the procedural way of dealing with a challenge to the ruling would be):
The motion there would be "That the Chair's Ruling be dissented from" - to that question, a vote of Aye would be to open debate on the motion and a vote of Nay would be to uphold the Chair's ruling to proceed straight to final vote.

[Smid]

For the final vote on the Motion being considered:

Nay.

We have seen a hostile invasion of a free Atlasian state. The terrorists who have seized power are holding innocent Atlasian citizens hostage. Until there are free and fair elections in New Mexico to determine the issue of self-governance, we cannot and should not recognise the independent governance of the state. If a majority of citizens residing in New Mexico support self-governance, we should of course support their desire, however until a free and fair referendum is held in the state, we must consider it occupied Atlasian territory.

[Smid]

Aye.

[Smid]

Aye on the Dr Cynic Amendment.

[Smid]

Nay.

I fear that this would not prevent zombie voters, merely encourage them to make irrelevant posts on this board. They do enough damage by voting... getting them to "contribute" to the board when such contributions would be meaningless, is only compounding their influence.

[Smid]

There being two votes in favour and four votes against, the question is resolved in the negative.

[Smid]

The next Bill, I believe, is:

Reasonable Amending Procedure Amendment

1. Article VII of the New Northeast Constitution is hereby repealed. Its content shall be replaced by the following.
2. This constitution may be changed, altered, modified or amended if all of the following methods are met:
i) An affirmative vote of two thirds of voting (either in the affirmative or in the negative) members Legislative Assembly of the Northeast Region.
ii) An affirmative vote of majority of all members of the Legislative Assembly, voting, abstaining and absent members combined.
iii) Approval of the Governor in the form of his consent.
3. Any Citizen of the Northeast Region shall be allowed to create a petition to repeal a Constitutional Amendment that previously passed. If three Northeast Citizens sign this petition, a polling booth shall be created by the Chief Judicial Officer of the Northeast Region at 12:00:00am Eastern Standard Time of the Friday following the petition's creation. The voters shall vote "aye" if they favor repealing or "nay" if they oppose it. If more than one third of the voters votes "aye", the Amendment shall be repealed. The same Amendment shall not be put on vote by this procedure more than once in 180 days.

The question is:

That - The Bill be considered. All of that opinion say "Aye," to the contrary "no." I believe the Ayes have it.

The Proposer, Antonio V, has the floor.

[Smid]

Nay.

[Smid]

I am strongly in favour of this Bill.

As far as I'm aware, the Atlasian Constitution is silent regarding the right to bear arms? Perhaps someone can correct me if I'm wrong?

[Smid]

A very good Bill. Aye.

[Smid]

Nay.

[Smid]

Aye.

We're not yet voting.

I was voting for us to consider it.

It's a procedural vote which is carried on voices alone. It's like here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kp_kwUt7awo (at the 1:20 mark or thereabouts). No one votes no, so proceding continue.

[Smid]

Aye.

[Smid]

Does this Assembly have a way of expelling members?

We do have the power of impeachment. Also, a member is automatically expelled if they miss three votes on Legislation in a row and/or they don't give substantive debate in the Assembly for one month.

Speaking of this, it would seem that Hamilton has missed the last three final votes on Legislation - the Northeastern Green Jobs Act, the Northeast Gun Safety Act and the Reasonable Amending Procedure Amendment. Of course, he did vote on the final vote of the Resolution in Support of Cape Wind, however generally speaking, Resolutions do not constitute legislation, as I mentioned in the Governor's thread.

If the House moved for his expulsion under section xiii of Article V of the Constitution, he would no doubt appeal this ruling, which would leave the Court to determine the definition of "Legislation."

Section xiii of Article V reads:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[Smid]

Nay.

I support the Bill, except for Section B(1)(c)(2).

Due to the increase in unemployment, I can understand the need to support recently unemployed citizens in getting through these difficult times, but I fear that this Bill will lead to interest rate rises as lending companies see a reduced risk of default for borrowers whose repayments have increased by 20% compared to borrowers whose repayments have increased by, for example, 18%.

[Smid]

Support this, but Section C should be clarified to define "estimated damage" - perhaps the percentage of additional land cleared and not replenished should be factored into the profits made and that would be the cost of the fine. For example, if the company cleared a total of 100 hectares and only replenished 95 hectares, and earned in that time a total profit of $5 million, the fine would work out at double 5% of the total profits of $5,000,000, which would be $500,000 worth of fines. Perhaps also setting a minimum "per hectare" value of a fine, to prevent companies using creative accounting to post a loss in years in which they over-clear.

[Smid]

The Bill should only relate to forestry on public land. I think the regulation of the clearing of public forest is fine, after all it is a Regional asset and the Regional government should be able to regulate that, however the regulation of private forestry is unnecessary.

Indeed, as the Bill currently reads, the definition of forestry ("the clearing or elimination of trees for commercial purposes") could possibly result in a person who chops down a tree in their backyard and then sells it for firewood being fined (perhaps the plural may mean they'd only be prosecuted in the case of two or more trees, but regardless, the definition needs to be tightened and I think should only include forestry on public land).