NationStates

There has been a long debate about this so I move to start the voting

Britanno wrote:There has been a long debate about this so I move to start the voting

There is still debate going on, so I oppose.

Great Nepal wrote:

Britanno wrote:There has been a long debate about this so I move to start the voting

There is still debate going on, so I oppose.

I can't help thinking that the same arguments are being repeated over and over again. Most senators will have made up their minds after 6 pages of debate.

Britanno wrote:

Great Nepal wrote:There is still debate going on, so I oppose.

I can't help thinking that the same arguments are being repeated over and over again. Most senators will have made up their minds after 6 pages of debate.

I agree. However, I think we might need to sort out the fact that both bills duplicate and contradict each other to quite a large extent.

Fulflood wrote:

Britanno wrote:
I can't help thinking that the same arguments are being repeated over and over again. Most senators will have made up their minds after 6 pages of debate.

I agree. However, I think we might need to sort out the fact that both bills duplicate and contradict each other to quite a large extent.

Maybe send both to coffee shop to be redrafted into one bill?

Great Nepal wrote:

Fulflood wrote:I agree. However, I think we might need to sort out the fact that both bills duplicate and contradict each other to quite a large extent.

Maybe send both to coffee shop to be redrafted into one bill?

That's a good idea. The current arrangement is complicated and confusing.

Great Nepal wrote:

Fulflood wrote:I agree. However, I think we might need to sort out the fact that both bills duplicate and contradict each other to quite a large extent.

Maybe send both to coffee shop to be redrafted into one bill?

I tried it back here:
http://forum.nationstates.net/viewtopic.php?f=25&t=239510&p=14895831#p14895831
dans le spoiler.

Fulflood wrote:

Great Nepal wrote:Maybe send both to coffee shop to be redrafted into one bill?

I tried it back here:
http://forum.nationstates.net/viewtopic.php?f=25&t=239510&p=14895831#p14895831
dans le spoiler.

Both side would need to support that and sow would all the co-sponsors. So, it should really be in coffee shop.

Great Nepal wrote:

Fulflood wrote:I tried it back here:
http://forum.nationstates.net/viewtopic.php?f=25&t=239510&p=14895831#p14895831
dans le spoiler.

Both side would need to support that and sow would all the co-sponsors. So, it should really be in coffee shop.

Yeah, I wondered if this was legal or not.

So if we sent the Energy bills back to the Coffee Shop, this is the queue:

CURRENT QUEUE FOR LEGISLATION

1. Governmental Subdivision Creation Act
2. Agricultural Rights Act
3. Governmental Services Act
4. Ministry of Research and Astronomy Reform Act
5. National Culture Act
6. National Financing and Accounting Act
7. Legality and Restrictions Act
8. Senatorial Procedures Act
9. Anti-Corruption Act
10. Membership of the Commonwealth of Nations Act
11. Basic Utilities Privatisation Act
12. Ratification of the Non-Proliferation Treaty
13. Railways Act
14. Food Vendor Act
15. First Amendment to the Limiting Legislation Act

I think, for the sake of democracy, we should move with a vote. If you don't like it, vote against it. Simple. None of this filibustering. Not whilst I'm here.

Costa Alegria wrote:I think, for the sake of democracy, we should move with a vote. If you don't like it, vote against it. Simple. None of this filibustering. Not whilst I'm here.

The trouble is we all do like it, because both bills essentially say the same thing in different ways.

Fulflood wrote:

Costa Alegria wrote:I think, for the sake of democracy, we should move with a vote. If you don't like it, vote against it. Simple. None of this filibustering. Not whilst I'm here.

The trouble is we all do like it, because both bills essentially say the same thing in different ways.

So? Vote for one, defeat the other. It's a win-win either way. Point is, if we keep this discussion going on for much longer, it could set a precedent. And I'd rather we had an efficient democracy rather than a fringe ogilarchy, so to speak.

Costa Alegria wrote:I think, for the sake of democracy, we should move with a vote. If you don't like it, vote against it. Simple. None of this filibustering. Not whilst I'm here.

Though I cannot speak for other senators, I am not filibustering. I hope to see the best quality of legislation possible passed, and if that requires an extended debate, so be it. As it stands, there is enough overlap between the two bills in the omnibus that they should be combined.

I move that the two bills are sent back to the Coffee Shop to be combined, after which they shall take second place in the current queue, and that we now start debating the Governmental Subdivision Creation Act.

Costa Alegria wrote:

Fulflood wrote:The trouble is we all do like it, because both bills essentially say the same thing in different ways.

So? Vote for one, defeat the other. It's a win-win either way. Point is, if we keep this discussion going on for much longer, it could set a precedent. And I'd rather we had an efficient democracy rather than a fringe ogilarchy, so to speak.

The we need to agree on which one to vote for.

Phing Phong wrote:

Costa Alegria wrote:I think, for the sake of democracy, we should move with a vote. If you don't like it, vote against it. Simple. None of this filibustering. Not whilst I'm here.

Though I cannot speak for other senators, I am not filibustering. I hope to see the best quality of legislation possible passed, and if that requires an extended debate, so be it. As it stands, there is enough overlap between the two bills in the omnibus that they should be combined.

I move that the two bills are sent back to the Coffee Shop to be combined, after which they shall take second place in the current queue, and that we now start debating the Governmental Subdivision Creation Act.

Second.

Fulflood wrote:

Phing Phong wrote:
Though I cannot speak for other senators, I am not filibustering. I hope to see the best quality of legislation possible passed, and if that requires an extended debate, so be it. As it stands, there is enough overlap between the two bills in the omnibus that they should be combined.

I move that the two bills are sent back to the Coffee Shop to be combined, after which they shall take second place in the current queue, and that we now start debating the Governmental Subdivision Creation Act.

Second.

Third.

Great Nepal wrote:

Fulflood wrote:Second.

Third.

Fourth

Britanno wrote:

Great Nepal wrote:Third.

Fourth

Fifth

Ainin wrote:

Britanno wrote:
Fourth

Fifth

Sixth

Belmaria wrote:

Ainin wrote:Fifth

Sixth

Seventh.

Am I right in thinking that this is next in line for debate?

Governmental Subdivision Creation Act

Britanno wrote:Am I right in thinking that this is next in line for debate?

Governmental Subdivision Creation Act

Yes, however I move to remove the National Judiciary Act:

1. It would contradict the Judicial Act.
2. The Judicial Act has already passed and we have a functioning judicial system.
3. It's a poor system, which was created to be a provisional system until we had a fully-functioning one. The Judicial Act provides a fully-functioning one.

Wolfmanne wrote:

Britanno wrote:Am I right in thinking that this is next in line for debate?

Governmental Subdivision Creation Act

Yes, however I move to remove the National Judiciary Act:

1. It would contradict the Judicial Act.
2. The Judicial Act has already passed and we have a functioning judicial system.
3. It's a poor system, which was created to be a provisional system until we had a fully-functioning one. The Judicial Act provides a fully-functioning one.

Seconded.

Of the Quendi wrote:

Wolfmanne wrote:Yes, however I move to remove the National Judiciary Act:

1. It would contradict the Judicial Act.
2. The Judicial Act has already passed and we have a functioning judicial system.
3. It's a poor system, which was created to be a provisional system until we had a fully-functioning one. The Judicial Act provides a fully-functioning one.

Seconded.

Thirded.