SO 2017-79 META RPS Act

Go down

SO 2017-79 META RPS Act

Post by Aralunya on Sun Nov 19, 2017 11:01 am

Parliament of the Union
SO 2017-79
Mapping Effective Tactics Allowing Regional Political Strategy Act

WHEREAS it is the belief of the Parliament of the Union that the institution of the Parliament is vital to the functional administration and governance of the Union;
WHEREAS it is also the belief of the same body that the activity of the region can be greatly enhanced;
WHEREAS there exists no framework for politics to play an active role in our region;
WHEREAS potential to spur regional activity can be found in politicizing our Parliament, so long as an established system separates the politicization from the proper administrative functions of the Parliament;
BE IT ORDERED by the Parliament of the Union, with the advice of the Senators of the Union in the Parliament assembled, as follow;


Chapter I: Name
Article 1.
This Act may be referred to as the META RPS Act.

Chapter II: Establishing a System for Political Bills in the Parliament
Article 1.
Following the same procedures laid-out in the Parliamentary Procedure Orders Act, all bills serving political purposes will be processed according to the proper orders and procedures of this Parliament.

Article 2.
When proposing a bill or resolution in the Drafting Table of the Parliament, the primary sponsor of the proposal may introduce the proposal as a Political Senate Order (hereafter PSO). After achieving the requisite number of co-sponsors to be moved out of the Drafting Table, the Chair of Parliament will commit any PSO to all standing Parliamentary Committees. The Committees shall screen the bill to ensure the proposal does not affect the proper administration of the Union Government. Upon receiving positive reports from each Standing Committee, the proposal may be moved to the Debate Hall and resume normal order in the Parliament.

Article 3.
PSOs shall not be binding upon the members of the Union, but instead serve as a way to express political policies of a majority of the Senators assembled in this Parliament.



November 19th, 2017
The Rt. Hon Minister without Portfolio Aralunya, MP LSM


Last edited by Aralunya on Mon Nov 27, 2017 7:07 am; edited 1 time in total
avatar
Aralunya
Admin


Posts : 177
Join date : 2015-08-15

http://parliamentaryunion.forumotion.org

Back to top Go down

Re: SO 2017-79 META RPS Act

Post by Aralunya on Sun Nov 19, 2017 11:02 am

Honorable Colleagues, I do believe that this bill will need some work to ensure it is up-to-code. I look forward to input and working with all of you to bring some political flare to our regional government.
avatar
Aralunya
Admin


Posts : 177
Join date : 2015-08-15

http://parliamentaryunion.forumotion.org

Back to top Go down

Re: SO 2017-79 META RPS Act

Post by Nassau-Windsor on Sun Nov 19, 2017 1:45 pm

Mr Speaker (PT), I would like to ask the following questions to my Rt. Hon. friend [Aralunya]:

1. Does he agree with me, that Parliament is the legislative branch of governance, and that Cabinet is the executive branch of governance, and that, according to the principles of the trias politica, as formed by the French Noble Baron de La Brède de Montesquieu in 1748 (in his book De l'Esprit des loix), these should be separated as much as possible, though that we should allow some checks and balances to remain so that the Legislature can always hold the executive branch to account, as well as that the Judiciary should have such privileges?

2. What does he mean by the words "all bills serving political purposes" (Article 1)? Is it not true that all Bills and other proposals of legislation are by definition thereof political?

3. Could he give some examples for Bills/Acts that he would consider to be "serving political purposes" and those who do not?

4. Does the said term bills also refer to Amendments and Repeal Bills?

5. Why is he of the opinion that the "primary sponsor" may determine whether the proposal is (or is not) a bill serving political purposes? Why does he think that the author could not do this by himself, or if he refuses, the Chair on his behalf?

6. Who is to be the "primary sponsor" he refers to? Is it the first co-sponsor to the proposal? What if a party-member of the author is the second co-sponsor, but the first sponsor refuses to act and the Chair is of the same party as the first sponsor?

_________________
Current President
Current Member of Parliament
Current King-of-Arms

Former President (1x); Former Minister of Development (2x); Former Member of Parliament (7x)
avatar
Nassau-Windsor
Admin


Posts : 338
Join date : 2016-02-27

Back to top Go down

Re: SO 2017-79 META RPS Act

Post by Aralunya on Sun Nov 19, 2017 5:50 pm

I thank my Rt. Hon. friend [Nassau-Windsor] for the questions. Allow me to answer to the best of my ability.

1) I do agree with the principles put forth in the question. The importance of separation of powers is vital to good governance. I struggle to see the relevance of the question to the Bill.

2) A political purpose is one that does not fill a administrative or governing need.

3) Political Bills: Legalizing/Criminalizing Gay Marriage, Passing Budgets, Free Movement of Citizens throughout our nations, etc.

Non-Political Bills: War Declarations, Amendments to our Constitution, Bills related to the structure of our regional government, Regulation of actors within our region, etc.

4) It depends. Amendments, absolutely not. Repeal Bills only if they repeal legislation that was passed as a political bill. So, Parliament could not pass a political bill to repeal any of the Election Acts on the books.

5) Perhaps my terminology is off. I am under the impression that the Primary Sponsor is the Senator who initially proposed the legislation. And in the end, the Committees have a final say. If the bill is not initially marked as a PSO, any senator can move to commit any bill to all three committees to verify the non-political nature of the bill.

6) I again do not see the relevance of the question to the proposal. A PSO goes through the exact same process as other proposals in Parliament, except the additional mandatory Committee Step.
avatar
Aralunya
Admin


Posts : 177
Join date : 2015-08-15

http://parliamentaryunion.forumotion.org

Back to top Go down

Re: SO 2017-79 META RPS Act

Post by Nassau-Windsor on Sun Nov 19, 2017 7:45 pm

Mr Speaker (PT), I am most grateful for the quick response of my Rt. Hon. friend [Aralunya]. I would like to address these statement and follow-up questions:

On point 1:
I think it is relevant as in the Preambule of this Act, the following is stated: "the proper administrative functions of the Parliament". As he agrees that Parliament is the legislature rather than the executive, would this not infringe with the principle of the trias politica which he himself has acknowledged and praised?

On point 2:
But is it not so that all matters of interest are "needs" to be addressed by Parliament? In fact, if they were not, then they would not have to be addressed in any proposal. Therefore, in my opinion, all proposals are to some extent political - because they express the view of an issue that needs to be addressed by the political influences of the day.

On point 3:
Did I understand it correctly that non-political proposals refer to procedural law, whereas political proposals do not?

On point 4:
Does he not agree with me that Amendments - especially those to PSOs - ought by definition to be falling under the same categories, as they are in essence Acts on their own (just changing an earlier Act), and that they therefore could include political provisions just as well as the initial Acts they tend to amend?

On point 5:
In order to avoid confusion, I would like to invite the Rt. Hon. Minister [Aralunya] to replace the words "Primary sponsor" with "author" as it is more simple and more accurate.

On point 6:
Indeed. However, that is exactly the point which makes it relevant: if the Cabinet wishes to rush certain legislation through, they might feel that proposals should not follow the extra committee stage, which could cause some trouble in the future and legislative process.

_________________
Current President
Current Member of Parliament
Current King-of-Arms

Former President (1x); Former Minister of Development (2x); Former Member of Parliament (7x)
avatar
Nassau-Windsor
Admin


Posts : 338
Join date : 2016-02-27

Back to top Go down

Re: SO 2017-79 META RPS Act

Post by Abdoa on Sun Nov 19, 2017 9:20 pm

On the points raised by my Hon. friend [Nassau-Windsor], I would like to offer my own take:

1. I would like to point out that the Parliament has many functions which, if they cannot be called administrative, I am unsure of their name. E.g.: creating ministries and departments in the Executive Branch; limiting/regulating the powers of the Founder, but also of the rest of the Executive Branch; setting policy in basically all areas. I would venture to point out that, though we do have a defined Legislative-Executive branch distinction, it is severely blurred by the simple fact that everyone has to obey the laws passed by Parliament, unless they are incoherent or plainly unconstitutional, whereas the Parliament can at any point pass a law that overrules an Executive Branch policy, and can relieve any government official of his position at any point in time. The Parliament is very much an administrative entity.

2. On this point, I concur with my Hon. friend [Nassau-Windsor]: "political" would have to be explicitly defined in a much more specific way for this Act to not force almost all bills to be PSOs, a scenario I hope we can all agree would be undesirable.

3. see my remarks on my perception of the merits of the bill as a whole, below

4. Again, I concur that PSOs, if they are to be allowed, should also be just as amendable as other laws: we should take advantage of the fact that we don't have the WA's coding limitations here.

5. I also think that "author" is the term we have used the most, though I can see the reasoning for using "primary sponsor": calling it the "author" is misleading, since the introducer might not be the author, or it might also be a joint-introduction. In any case, I believe that we should just formulate it in the passive voice, like the PPOs do: "A bill may be introduced on the Drafting Table as a Political Senate Order (hereafter PSO)". It's simpler and more flexible, and ultimately serves our unwritten procedures better.

6. Here, I can see both sides: on the one hand, PSOs don't really concern the normal government structure, so why on earth would Cabinet/Chair want to rush anything through, especially when they could be tried for a Civil Offense if they don't follow the procedure set forth in this bill; however, it is a loophole that could trivialize and distort the process of passing "political" bills, which could render the system redundant at best and obsolete at worst.

On the proposal before us as a whole, I am unsure of its merit: yes, this could be an interesting development, and might spur interesting debates, but it would also create a conflict between those in the Parliament who are more interested in running the Union and those who care more about the RP aspect of the Parliament, possibly leading to bad governance from an administrative point of view. I firmly believe that the Parliament's main duties will always be to legislate for the Union, as we always have - and there has never been a shortage of issues to legislate on within those bounds. I fear that if this bill becomes Law, this could be trivialized, and elections might begin to be fought and won by nations who care more for RP than for the proper functioning of the Union.

_________________
The Right Honorable President, the Baron Abdoa, MP LSM GSM
Senator of the Union
avatar
Abdoa



Posts : 1604
Join date : 2015-10-24
Location : Chadjbi Parma, Abdoa

http://www.nationstates.net/nation=abdoa

Back to top Go down

Re: SO 2017-79 META RPS Act

Post by Libertarian Democracy on Sun Nov 19, 2017 10:49 pm

I agree with what has been said by my Rt. Hon. friends.  I like this idea, but I do not think it belongs in the Parliament.  I do not want to associate our candidates and our parties with real-world political positions, which could influence elections.  I would like to see this idea realized perhaps as an RP, maybe even an NGO.

Also, on an administrative note, I am going to need the Rt. Hon. author of this proposal to append the date of authoring and his name to the proposal. For examples, see the bills in the Legislative Archive.

_________________

The Right Honourable Minister of Jurisprudence Lord Libertarian Democracy, RO MP LSM GSM
Baron of the Union
Speaker pro Tempore of Parliament
General-Secretary of the Classical Liberal Party
avatar
Libertarian Democracy



Posts : 876
Join date : 2015-10-25

Back to top Go down

Re: SO 2017-79 META RPS Act

Post by S:t Artica and the N.K. on Mon Nov 20, 2017 3:15 pm

Libertarian Democracy wrote:I agree with what has been said by my Rt. Hon. friends.  I like this idea, but I do not think it belongs in the Parliament.  I do not want to associate our candidates and our parties with real-world political positions, which could influence elections.  I would like to see this idea realized perhaps as an RP, maybe even an NGO.

Also, on an administrative note, I am going to need the Rt. Hon. author of this proposal to append the date of authoring and his name to the proposal.  For examples, see the bills in the Legislative Archive.

I disagree with my Rt. Hon. friend [Libertarian Democracy], I believe this proposal should have a connection to parliament, we need to increase the member's activity in parliament, and a good way of doing that is to allow them to work questions they find important. Currently, we have a very limited way of doing that. The number of topics handled by parliament is few. I understand your concern regarding controversial topics and politics, but their presence already exists. The Hon. Lhistonia, for example, recognized the Republic of Catalunya during their time in office as president. That is by many found to be very controversial, but no one reacted to this or cited that it involved real-life politics? I would also like to respectfully ask my Rt. Hon. friend [Libertarian Democracy] to develop on how this proposal would affect elections?
avatar
S:t Artica and the N.K.

Posts : 130
Join date : 2017-04-14

Back to top Go down

Re: SO 2017-79 META RPS Act

Post by Libertarian Democracy on Mon Nov 20, 2017 8:09 pm

S:t Artica and the N.K. wrote:
Libertarian Democracy wrote:I agree with what has been said by my Rt. Hon. friends.  I like this idea, but I do not think it belongs in the Parliament.  I do not want to associate our candidates and our parties with real-world political positions, which could influence elections.  I would like to see this idea realized perhaps as an RP, maybe even an NGO.

Also, on an administrative note, I am going to need the Rt. Hon. author of this proposal to append the date of authoring and his name to the proposal.  For examples, see the bills in the Legislative Archive.

I disagree with my Rt. Hon. friend [Libertarian Democracy], I believe this proposal should have a connection to parliament, we need to increase the member's activity in parliament, and a good way of doing that is to allow them to work questions they find important. Currently, we have a very limited way of doing that. The number of topics handled by parliament is few. I understand your concern regarding controversial topics and politics, but their presence already exists. The Hon. Lhistonia, for example, recognized the Republic of Catalunya during their time in office as president. That is by many found to be very controversial, but no one reacted to this or cited that it involved real-life politics? I would also like to respectfully ask my Rt. Hon. friend [Libertarian Democracy] to develop on how this proposal would affect elections?

I have nothing against Senators holding real-life political positions, but I think they have little place in this Parliament. My fear is that if this Parliament is turned into a World Assembly-style body, candidates and parties will be associated with the real-world politics. It would affect elections, because instead of candidates and parties being associated with their service to, contribution to, and vision for the Union, people would vote on the basis of the real-world politics, which would likely form the majority of Parliamentary action.

My proposition is to foster the discussion of real-world politics in a forum separate and dissociated from the Parliament. An RP initiative / NGO would be perfect for this kind of thing.

_________________

The Right Honourable Minister of Jurisprudence Lord Libertarian Democracy, RO MP LSM GSM
Baron of the Union
Speaker pro Tempore of Parliament
General-Secretary of the Classical Liberal Party
avatar
Libertarian Democracy



Posts : 876
Join date : 2015-10-25

Back to top Go down

Re: SO 2017-79 META RPS Act

Post by S:t Artica and the N.K. on Tue Nov 21, 2017 10:05 pm

Libertarian Democracy wrote:
S:t Artica and the N.K. wrote:
Libertarian Democracy wrote:I agree with what has been said by my Rt. Hon. friends.  I like this idea, but I do not think it belongs in the Parliament.  I do not want to associate our candidates and our parties with real-world political positions, which could influence elections.  I would like to see this idea realized perhaps as an RP, maybe even an NGO.

Also, on an administrative note, I am going to need the Rt. Hon. author of this proposal to append the date of authoring and his name to the proposal.  For examples, see the bills in the Legislative Archive.

I disagree with my Rt. Hon. friend [Libertarian Democracy], I believe this proposal should have a connection to parliament, we need to increase the member's activity in parliament, and a good way of doing that is to allow them to work questions they find important. Currently, we have a very limited way of doing that. The number of topics handled by parliament is few. I understand your concern regarding controversial topics and politics, but their presence already exists. The Hon. Lhistonia, for example, recognized the Republic of Catalunya during their time in office as president. That is by many found to be very controversial, but no one reacted to this or cited that it involved real-life politics? I would also like to respectfully ask my Rt. Hon. friend [Libertarian Democracy] to develop on how this proposal would affect elections?

I have nothing against Senators holding real-life political positions, but I think they have little place in this Parliament.  My fear is that if this Parliament is turned into a World Assembly-style body, candidates and parties will be associated with the real-world politics.  It would affect elections because instead of candidates and parties being associated with their service to, contribution to, and vision for the Union, people would vote on the basis of the real-world politics, which would likely form the majority of Parliamentary action.

My proposition is to foster the discussion of real-world politics in a forum separate and dissociated from the Parliament.  An RP initiative / NGO would be perfect for this kind of thing.

I thank my Rt. Hon friend [Libertarian Democracy] for the answer. Still, I don't believe that fostering real-life politics outside parliament will have the intended effect on regional activity. I apologize for my skeptical view, but many role play initiatives fall short and eventually gets forgotten. Take for example the regional map, that no one talks about anymore. Parliament and the government is the most functional body for encouraging regional activity and it would be better to start by expanding its capabilities to meta roleplay, in order to build up more interest among the members. After that, we should discuss to expand with more role play options outside of parliament. I also believe that the negative side effects such as influencing elections are equally as possible if this initiative is outside of parliament, especially if the members are associated with these political views and are members of parliament and government.
avatar
S:t Artica and the N.K.

Posts : 130
Join date : 2017-04-14

Back to top Go down

Re: SO 2017-79 META RPS Act

Post by Abdoa on Wed Nov 22, 2017 1:19 am

To respond to my Hon friend [Saint Artica], I make several points:
1) I agree that formal RP initiatives have tended to fall apart: however, this has tended to be because our RP moderators have not been active enough in their own RPs. As a counter-example, UnitedTerran has many times in the past initiated impromptu RPs on the RMB, which have usually taken hold, and made for some interesting tales.
2) If you visualize possible scenarios, the problem with letting Real World politics into our own political system:
If we pass this Act as it is written, there are two possible outcomes. The first is that parliamentary elections are fought just as much, or more, on RW political grounds as on regional issues. This would inevitably expose rifts in current political factions, and could force parties to fight parliamentary elections on two platforms, narrowing political consensus and the ability to find a competitive list to support. One could realistically end up with a majority elected on a RW platform who have no interest, motivation, experience legislating for the actual needs of the citizens of the Union, whose actual conditions, this bill even specifies, are completely unaffected by RP legislation.
The second is that the provisions of this bill are completely ignored. Though this wouldn't really have any kind of effect on anything, since things would simply stay the same, it would mean that the Parliament has wasted its time, and would just add to our already confusing law corpus.
Alternatively, we adopt LibDem's proposition: I really don't see how this would have an effect on our political system here. Since Parliament would have no affair in this, elections would continue to be fought by parties on platforms of regional policy.
3) We need to remember what our government is about, and what makes it special. We are not the GA: the laws that we write actually have an effect on the actual actions on nations residing in the Union. We are actually governing ourselves: we aren't just making speeches into thin air.
And I vigorously dispute the claim that we are limited in our scope of topics: once we have written a law, it will almost certainly need to be amended at some point to reflect changes in circumstance. Our law, just like any law, is always in flux, and needs our constant and devoted attention to evolve and keep up with developments. Most of the most important laws of the Union have been revised at least once if not twice or even more times.

Also, a note:
With regards to my Hon friend the former President [Lhistonia]'s declaration on the subject of Catalonian independence, that action was not in his role as President, or as any kind of Union official. As such, all it shows me is that no one was interested enough in it to comment.

_________________
The Right Honorable President, the Baron Abdoa, MP LSM GSM
Senator of the Union
avatar
Abdoa



Posts : 1604
Join date : 2015-10-24
Location : Chadjbi Parma, Abdoa

http://www.nationstates.net/nation=abdoa

Back to top Go down

Re: SO 2017-79 META RPS Act

Post by Sponsored content


Sponsored content


Back to top Go down

Back to top


 
Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum