NSG Senate Coffee Shop: We don't serve decaf

[Atlanticatia]

What happened to the public gyms and healthy food subsidies I recommended?

Also, this bill is vague on the matter of sellers of bulk bags of syrups used in dispensers at eateries. Could we possibly get some clarifying language?

I plan to make a separate bill proposing subsidies for gyms, healthy food, and free school lunches. I think it's better to have 2 separate bills for spending programmes and education/regulation. Although maybe I will include it in this one..hm.

[Heraklea-]

What happened to the public gyms and healthy food subsidies I recommended?

Also, this bill is vague on the matter of sellers of bulk bags of syrups used in dispensers at eateries. Could we possibly get some clarifying language?

I plan to make a separate bill proposing subsidies for gyms, healthy food, and free school lunches. I think it's better to have 2 separate bills for spending programmes and education/regulation. Although maybe I will include it in this one..hm.

Well, either way go ahead and throw me on for now. I can always remove my name later if you change it in a bad way.

[Atlanticatia]

I plan to make a separate bill proposing subsidies for gyms, healthy food, and free school lunches. I think it's better to have 2 separate bills for spending programmes and education/regulation. Although maybe I will include it in this one..hm.

Well, either way go ahead and throw me on for now. I can always remove my name later if you change it in a bad way.

Danke!

[Malgrave]

I'll sponsor.

[Great Nepal]

The provision prohibiting sale of "sugary drink" in education establishments is unenforceable. We could stop schools from stocking these in vending machines or canteens but all this will do will encourage students in sufficiently advance classes to leave and grab a drink from nearby shops which will be sold to other students at inflated prices. And no, teaching staff will not be taking time out of their actual job of providing good quality education to our children to police sale of soda.
I oppose sugary drink tax, it is a sin tax with little real world evidence that it actually reduces said "sin".
500ml is tiny, you are essentially outlawing anything larger than this bottle of coke. If I have a gathering am I supposed to hire a cab?
I must also point out that surgery drink is so vaguely defined that even coffee or indeed most drinks apart from perhaps water fall under that category.

[Heraklea-]

The provision prohibiting sale of "sugary drink" in education establishments is unenforceable. We could stop schools from stocking these in vending machines or canteens but all this will do will encourage students in sufficiently advance classes to leave and grab a drink from nearby shops which will be sold to other students at inflated prices. And no, teaching staff will not be taking time out of their actual job of providing good quality education to our children to police sale of soda.
I oppose sugary drink tax, it is a sin tax with little real world evidence that it actually reduces said "sin".
500ml is tiny, you are essentially outlawing anything larger than this bottle of coke. If I have a gathering am I supposed to hire a cab?
I must also point out that surgery drink is so vaguely defined that even coffee or indeed most drinks apart from perhaps water fall under that category.

1: I don't think this will pull teachers away from their job of educating. There already things that are prohibited either in general or specifically on school grounds, I fail to see how this is any different.
2: The tax, as with other parts of this law, are part of nudge theory. We're not banning sodas, we are making it harder to make bad decisions for your health.
3: Check the text. Groceries are exempt, so you can still get two liters or whatever other size from the super market in preparation for your gathering. You just can't get the soda directly from the pizza place when they deliver, which in all actuality will probably save you money in the long run.
4: Okay, the definition is a valid point. Atlanticatia, you should make the language more specific. Maybe a gram per unit volume of sugar restriction or something.

[Great Nepal]

The provision prohibiting sale of "sugary drink" in education establishments is unenforceable. We could stop schools from stocking these in vending machines or canteens but all this will do will encourage students in sufficiently advance classes to leave and grab a drink from nearby shops which will be sold to other students at inflated prices. And no, teaching staff will not be taking time out of their actual job of providing good quality education to our children to police sale of soda.
I oppose sugary drink tax, it is a sin tax with little real world evidence that it actually reduces said "sin".
500ml is tiny, you are essentially outlawing anything larger than this bottle of coke. If I have a gathering am I supposed to hire a cab?
I must also point out that surgery drink is so vaguely defined that even coffee or indeed most drinks apart from perhaps water fall under that category.

1: I don't think this will pull teachers away from their job of educating. There already things that are prohibited either in general or specifically on school grounds, I fail to see how this is any different.
2: The tax, as with other parts of this law, are part of nudge theory. We're not banning sodas, we are making it harder to make bad decisions for your health.
3: Check the text. Groceries are exempt, so you can still get two liters or whatever other size from the super market in preparation for your gathering. You just can't get the soda directly from the pizza place when they deliver, which in all actuality will probably save you money in the long run.
4: Okay, the definition is a valid point. Atlanticatia, you should make the language more specific. Maybe a gram per unit volume of sugar restriction or something.

1. Yes and generally speaking large part of that is enforced on basis that they are rare (such as bringing knifes, lighters), effects are obvious (drinking alcohol, smoking) or not enforced (chewing gums). Black market of soda will be in the last category, once the transaction takes place there is no obvious evidence that it occurred and sale/purchase of soda isn't going to be rare. I am not saying it will pull teachers away from teaching, rather that it wont be enforced because teachers aren't going to be patrolling schools instead of teaching so all it does is allow some students to profit by charging much extra for soda they bought outside school gates.
OOC: I know this happens because when our school took away unhealthy food from vending machines, I started making around £50 a day selling drinks, candy and crisps.
2. Yes and research indicates what it will actually do is nudge people towards other products like say chocolate milkshake with similar calorie contents or towards generic brands; product substitution theory.
3. Oh sorry, I must have missed the grocery store exception.

[Collatis]

I'll sponsor

[The Sarian]

Anyone thoughts or sponsors?

Also aware that what I have written may contradict previous legislation, so if people could help tell me which bits of which acts need to be amended, that'd be fabulous.

---

Parliamentary Presidium Act

Author: Matilde Ojeda Campos (The Sarian | Free Democratic Party)
Sponsors: Euàn Welder (Battalion | Democratic Left); Kenneth Diaz (Lykens | Liberal Democrats); Eugenia Malgrave (Malgrave | Democratic Left)
An Act to Define and Dictate the Roles and Responsibilities of Presiding Officers of the Calaverdean Parliament

---

Section 1: Repeals and Amendments

To be added

Section 2: Chairmanship

1. The Vice President, in his role as ceremonial President of Parliament, shall chair debates and votes patterning to:
   i) Nominations to the Office of Prime Minister
   ii) Elections for the Office of Speaker of the Calaverdean Parliament
   iii) Motions of No Confidence
2. To resolve ties in the house, the Speaker will call the Vice President into Parliament to give the casting vote.
3. On all other days the presiding officer shall be the Speaker of the Calaverdean Parliament.
4. The Speaker shall appoint three Deputy Speakers, who shall chair parliament whilst the Speaker is unavailable.
5. The presiding officer shall ensure that the rules laid down by parliament are observed during debate.

Section 2: Nomination of the Speaker

1. The Speaker shall be elected by Parliament and shall serve until the beginning of the next session unless removed under the provisions of Section 5.
2. Elections shall occur when the Office of the Speaker is vacant.
3. To be included in the ballot, a sitting Member of Parliament must put themselves forward and have their nomination seconded by five different Members of Parliament.
4. The Vice President, in his capacity as President of Parliament, shall be responsible for maintaining the list of all nominated MPs.
5. After a 24 hour nomination period, the Vice President shall present to Parliament a ballot of all MPs with the requirements to be included on said ballot, in addition to the option to Re-open Nominations.
6. Members of Parliament shall vote using the Instant Run-off System.
7. The nominated member who obtains more than 50% of the vote (including second, third... choices, where required) shall be appointed to the office of Speaker of the Calaverdean Parliament by the Vice President.

Section 3: The Speaker

1. The Speaker shall be presiding officer of all regular parliamentary business.
2. The Speaker shall ensure that debates run smoothly and are carried out in an orderly fashion.
3. The Speaker has the power to remove Members of Parliament from the chamber for a specified amount of time, in accordance with legislation and standing orders.
4. The Speaker has the power to introduce standing orders subject to the approval of parliament.
5. The Speaker shall have control of the Order of Business which will be decided by:
   i) Three bills nominated by the Government.
   ii) One bill nominated from the largest opposition party or coalition.
   iii) The Private Members Bill which has been in the queue for longest.
   iv) One day at the discretion of the Speaker, which may (though is not limited to) be Emergency Legislation, Prime Ministers Questions or a Private Members Bill.
   v) One day of voting, typically at the end of the week.
   vi) Normal business may be suspended for emergency debates or votes, which will be at the discretion of the Speaker or if a motion receives fifteen seconds.
6. The Speaker must resign his position in his political party in addition to all politically partial organizations, committees and think tanks upon election.
7. The Speaker may not debate in the chamber.
8. The Speaker may not vote in divisions.

Section 4: Deputy Speakers

1. The Speaker shall appoint three Deputy Speakers.
   i) One Deputy Speaker shall be appointed from the governing party or coalition.
   ii) One Deputy Speaker shall be appointed from the opposition party or coalition.
   iii) One Deputy Speaker shall be appointed from a Member of Parliament not in the government or official opposition.
   iv) If, for whatever reason, the Speaker can not appoint a Deputy Speaker, the appointment may be postponed indefinitely.
2. The Speaker shall strive to appoint Deputy Speakers so that one shall be available at all times. (OOC: One Deputy Speaker each from British and Similar Time Zones, American and Similar Time Zones and Australian and similar time zones)
3. A Deputy Speaker shall hold the same powers as the Speaker while presiding over the Chamber.
4. A Deputy Speaker shall not be required to resign from their party.
5. A Deputy Speaker may not debate in the chamber.
6. A Deputy Speaker may not vote in divisions.

Section 5: Removal of the Speaker

1. The Speaker may be removed by the tabling of a Motion of No Confidence which receives 8 seconds.
2. There may not be more than one Motion of No Confidence in a calendar month.
3. Motions of No Confidence shall be presided over by the Vice President.
4. Motions of No Confidence shall pass or fail by a simple majority.
   i) If no majority can be reached, the Vice President shall have the deciding vote.
5. If a Motion of No Confidence is successful, the Speaker shall be forced to resign.

Section 6: Upon Passage

Upon the bill being given assent, there shall be an immediate election for Speaker under the provisions laid out in Section 2.

[Malgrave]

I'll sponsor.

[The New World Oceania]

Opposed. Most of this occurs already by precedent; we shouldn't complicate matters by adding statutes that people will cite in obscure situations to twist the intention in their favor.

[Battlion]

Opposed. Most of this occurs already by precedent; we shouldn't complicate matters by adding statutes that people will cite in obscure situations to twist the intention in their favor.

Which of these precedents aren't legally binding? Impartiality certainly isn't, the Speaker said he didn't need to be because the law didn't say so.

Time to end that


ALSO Sarian it's Battlion not Battalion

[Battlion]

Also Sarian, me and Lykens only sponsored on the knowledge that section 3 subsection f was going to be removed.

It still needs to be removed.

[Lykens]

Also Sarian, me and Lykens only sponsored on the knowledge that section 3 subsection f was going to be removed.

It still needs to be removed.

Upon further review, there is an amendment for the VP to begin voting waiting in the queue, and someone is going to have to break the tie.

[Battlion]

Also Sarian, me and Lykens only sponsored on the knowledge that section 3 subsection f was going to be removed.

It still needs to be removed.

Upon further review, there is an amendment for the VP to begin voting waiting in the queue, and someone is going to have to break the tie.

Yes, and that amendment is still YET to be put up for debate and vote.

I'd rather not have an impartial speaker having a deciding vote, it should remain with the VP but possibly only if they haven't voted.

[Heraklea-]

Also Sarian, me and Lykens only sponsored on the knowledge that section 3 subsection f was going to be removed.

It still needs to be removed.

Upon further review, there is an amendment for the VP to begin voting waiting in the queue, and someone is going to have to break the tie.

Not necessarily. We can also have a system where by if an act fails to attain a majority, it has failed even in the event of a tie. I think this would be a better system, and that the Speaker and Deputy Speakers will only vote in the event that their vote will effect the out come.

[Lykens]

Upon further review, there is an amendment for the VP to begin voting waiting in the queue, and someone is going to have to break the tie.

Yes, and that amendment is still YET to be put up for debate and vote.

I'd rather not have an impartial speaker having a deciding vote, it should remain with the VP but possibly only if they haven't voted.

Every single bill has a chance of passing or failing overwhelmingly, and an equal chance of falling into a tie.

Having the VP abstain until certain there won't be a tie is unfair. And it has the speaker voting against everything, rather than a few specific things. I think that's satisfactory, as they don't have a choice in how they vote.

[Lykens]

Upon further review, there is an amendment for the VP to begin voting waiting in the queue, and someone is going to have to break the tie.

Not necessarily. We can also have a system where by if an act fails to attain a majority, it has failed even in the event of a tie. I think this would be a better system, and that the Speaker and Deputy Speakers will only vote in the event that their vote will effect the out come.

I'm starting to think you're as much an Americanophile as Nihil is an Anglophile.

[Heraklea-]

Not necessarily. We can also have a system where by if an act fails to attain a majority, it has failed even in the event of a tie. I think this would be a better system, and that the Speaker and Deputy Speakers will only vote in the event that their vote will effect the out come.

I'm starting to think you're as much an Americanophile as Nihil is an Anglophile.

I'm not an Americanophile, I just think that this is a better system.

[New Werpland]

Handling of Snarky Individuals Act

Author:Clemond Abaroa(?)
Sponsors:
Description or preambulatory clauses.

---

Section 1: Definitions

Snarky Person- a person who constantly acts facetious and acts sarcastic in response to anything that goes on/Kenneth Diaz, Snarky Persons cannot be considered human.

Section 2: Legislation

Snarky Persons are from now on Illegal. Any Snarky Persons present on Calaverde Soil must immediately be put to death via Electric Chair.

[Battlion]

Yes, and that amendment is still YET to be put up for debate and vote.

I'd rather not have an impartial speaker having a deciding vote, it should remain with the VP but possibly only if they haven't voted.

Every single bill has a chance of passing or failing overwhelmingly, and an equal chance of falling into a tie.

Having the VP abstain until certain there won't be a tie is unfair. And it has the speaker voting against everything, rather than a few specific things. I think that's satisfactory, as they don't have a choice in how they vote.

They shouldn't vote at all, period.

You can't be impartial by giving a position in a vote, it leaves you open to suggestion that you're not staying above the debate.

[Lykens]

Handling of Snarky Individuals Act

Author:Clemond Abaroa(?)
Sponsors:
Description or preambulatory clauses.

---

Section 1: Definitions

Snarky Person- a person who constantly acts facetious and acts sarcastic in response to anything that goes on/Kenneth Diaz, Snarky Persons cannot be considered human.

Section 2: Legislation

Snarky Persons are from now on Illegal. Any Snarky Persons present on Calaverde Soil must immediately be put to death via Electric Chair.

Sponsor.

Every single bill has a chance of passing or failing overwhelmingly, and an equal chance of falling into a tie.

Having the VP abstain until certain there won't be a tie is unfair. And it has the speaker voting against everything, rather than a few specific things. I think that's satisfactory, as they don't have a choice in how they vote.

They shouldn't vote at all, period.

You can't be impartial by giving a position in a vote, it leaves you open to suggestion that you're not staying above the debate.

I suppose we'll have to agree to disagree.

[Heraklea-]

Every single bill has a chance of passing or failing overwhelmingly, and an equal chance of falling into a tie.

Having the VP abstain until certain there won't be a tie is unfair. And it has the speaker voting against everything, rather than a few specific things. I think that's satisfactory, as they don't have a choice in how they vote.

They shouldn't vote at all, period.

You can't be impartial by giving a position in a vote, it leaves you open to suggestion that you're not staying above the debate.

I don't agree. Our MPs were not elected to remain silent, but to represent their constituents That means voting in acts and resolutions presented to this body. While I agree a speaker should remain above the debate, impartially mediating the debate, they should still be able to affect the final outcome of a vote if their votes could in fact affect the outcome.

[The New World Oceania]

Handling of Snarky Individuals Act

Author:Clemond Abaroa(?)
Sponsors:
Description or preambulatory clauses.

---

Section 1: Definitions

Snarky Person- a person who constantly acts facetious and acts sarcastic in response to anything that goes on/Kenneth Diaz, Snarky Persons cannot be considered human.

Section 2: Legislation

Snarky Persons are from now on Illegal. Any Snarky Persons present on Calaverde Soil must immediately be put to death via Electric Chair.

Vehemently opposed. Electric chairs are too expensive.

[New Werpland]

Handling of Snarky Individuals Act

Author:Clemond Abaroa(?)
Sponsors:Kenneth Diaz(DL)
Description or preambulatory clauses.

---

Section 1: Definitions

Snarky Person- a person who constantly acts facetious and acts sarcastic in response to anything that goes on/Kenneth Diaz, Snarky Persons cannot be considered human.

Section 2: Legislation

Snarky Persons are from now on Illegal. Any Snarky Persons present on Calaverde Soil must immediately be put to death via Hanging.

Sponsors?