Commonwealth of Fremont • 10th Parliament

[Lumine]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

2.2. Article I of the Fremont Constitution is hereby amended as follows:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

2.3. Article II of the Fremont Constitution is hereby amended as follows:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

2.4. Article III of the Fremont Constitution is hereby amended as follows:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

2.5. Article IV of the Fremont Constitution is hereby amended as follows:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

2.6. Article V of the Fremont Constitution is hereby amended as follows:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

2.7. Article VI of the Fremont Constitution is hereby amended as follows:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

2.8. Article VII of the Fremont Constitution is hereby amended as follows:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[Lumine]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[Lumine]

Mr. Speaker (and do forgive me if I'm mistaken here), may I ask what happened with the First Minister's request for opening more slots?

[Lumine]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[Lumine]

Additionally, I should like to propose a series of amendments to the Standing Orders for the House of Commons - just updated the Wiki based on YE's proposed changes, I hope it's accurate - based on several issues I think warrant at least some debate:

Proposal 1: Increasing slots:

Article II, Section 3:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Proposal 2: Ending an questionable rule:

Article IV, Section 1:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Proposal 3: Clarifying time for possible objections to rule changes:

Article VI, Section 2:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Article VI, Section 7:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Proposal 4: Adapting Senate rules pertaining expulsion and censure:

Adding an entirely new Article, Article VII:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[Lumine]

Since rule changes are not classified as legislation, debate can begin now.

I am objecting to proposals 1 and 2.

Proposal 1 - I object to because the HoC previously tried using seven slots and people got burnt out.  Five slots is fine.

Proposal 2 - I'm generally in favor of allowing the Speaker to have discretion on voting matters, and twelve hours isn't very long.

Would I'd be correct in assuming tentative support for proposals 3 and 4? (if so, much appreciated)

I do think there's merit to expanding the number of slots so as to not have legislation waiting too long, although that might be a side effect of other factors which may slow the process somewhat. Accounting for - and respecting - the FM's position I'd certainly also defer to what my MP colleagues and the Speaker would think.

Proposal 2 seems to me as rather unfair, we have a voting period for a reason and this rule was unilaterally invented to block a piece of legislation in which some MP's didn't vote on time, and I must say that seems both awfully arbitrary and not a good precedent. I'm not very supportive of the notion of changing the rules too often for the purpose of specific votes, and would argue this should become an exception by virtue of eliminating this addition rather than the new norm.

[Lumine]

Aye to all four.

[Lumine]

Aye.