unclebryan said:
OOC: Mod preference is for .5 intervals. We're willing to consider quarters or tenths, but nothing lower. Keep it to quarters for right now, let's see how it works out.
-
We have updated our Community Code of Conduct. Please read through the new rules for the forum that are an integral part of Paradox Interactive’s User Agreement.
OOC: Mod preference is for .5 intervals. We're willing to consider quarters or tenths, but nothing lower. Keep it to quarters for right now, let's see how it works out.
Point of Order!
Please don't assume we will adopt either, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The President, according to the constitution, has the right to propose a budget for us to debate. Therefore, the President's proposal, as he changed it, is the 'main' motion on the floor. Mr. Leary proposed an amendment, which was seconded, and as you indicate, is about ready to be voted on. Thus, when you deem debate has concluded on that amendment, you should open the voting on that amendment. It will either pass or fail. If the amendment passes, then it becomes the current budget proposal, which we could then vote on. If the amendment fails the President's latest proposal would remain the current budget proposal, which we could then vote on. We would then hold a vote on the whatever the then current budget proposal was, which could pass, and let us get on to other business, or fail, forcing us to come up with another budget. While I think we all want one or the other version to pass so we can get onto other matters, we cannot assume that this is a prison menu, and that we obliged to pick one or the other. Therefore, when you deem debate on the amendment (or the budget as whole) has closed, please open voting on just Mr. Leary's amendment. And while the voting is going on, you might want to let us proceed with other legislation.
Please don't assume we will adopt either, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The President, according to the constitution, has the right to propose a budget for us to debate. Therefore, the President's proposal, as he changed it, is the 'main' motion on the floor. Mr. Leary proposed an amendment, which was seconded, and as you indicate, is about ready to be voted on. Thus, when you deem debate has concluded on that amendment, you should open the voting on that amendment. It will either pass or fail. If the amendment passes, then it becomes the current budget proposal, which we could then vote on. If the amendment fails the President's latest proposal would remain the current budget proposal, which we could then vote on. We would then hold a vote on the whatever the then current budget proposal was, which could pass, and let us get on to other business, or fail, forcing us to come up with another budget. While I think we all want one or the other version to pass so we can get onto other matters, we cannot assume that this is a prison menu, and that we obliged to pick one or the other. Therefore, when you deem debate on the amendment (or the budget as whole) has closed, please open voting on just Mr. Leary's amendment. And while the voting is going on, you might want to let us proceed with other legislation.
(OOC: I got chewed out in a chemisty class for listing an observation that was about half way between two gradations on a scale marked in units and halves as something.25 , because he said that implied a degree of precision not possible on that scale. I suppose I would have been okay if I had written something and quarter instead, but who knows? Thus with the mod guidance, we learn that Eutopia stilll has some non-decimal tendencies, which is understandable given its heritage, of not being under Napoleon. A possible legislative topic this is.Voshkod said:
)
Reverend Park, that was essentially as I had planned, to vote on one amendment and then, if needed, the next, once debate was closed. Perhaps I was not clear.
*Jerome stares at von Hapsburg in disbelief*
With all due respect, is the honourable member aware that this is not a kindergarten? Is he also aware that talk of bodily harm, whether real or in jest, is grossly inappropriate?
The honourable member seems to think this Assembly is wasting its time considering the budget. Does the honourable member understand what a budget is? Is he aware that the budget is the foundation of all government activity? Is he aware that, without a budget, government will be unable to operate? Does he understand that public funds do not grow on money trees - including funds for any pet project of his that he may consider a "real issue"? Does he understand that we, as members of the General Assembly, have a solemn duty to ensure the welfare of Eutopia, and that we therefore have a duty to carefully consider each proposal before us - including the budget, even though he personally may find all this number-crunching rather boring? Is he aware that we owe it to our citizens to consider - carefully and responsibly - just *what* we do with *their* money?
I fear the answer to all of the above is "evidently not," or Mr. von Hapsburg would also understand that there are few things that this Assembly could consider that are *more* important than the budget. Any time spent on improving the budget is hardly wasted. I can only hope that Mr. von Hapsburg's attitude isn't indicative of the general attitude in the ENP.
With all due respect, is the honourable member aware that this is not a kindergarten? Is he also aware that talk of bodily harm, whether real or in jest, is grossly inappropriate?
The honourable member seems to think this Assembly is wasting its time considering the budget. Does the honourable member understand what a budget is? Is he aware that the budget is the foundation of all government activity? Is he aware that, without a budget, government will be unable to operate? Does he understand that public funds do not grow on money trees - including funds for any pet project of his that he may consider a "real issue"? Does he understand that we, as members of the General Assembly, have a solemn duty to ensure the welfare of Eutopia, and that we therefore have a duty to carefully consider each proposal before us - including the budget, even though he personally may find all this number-crunching rather boring? Is he aware that we owe it to our citizens to consider - carefully and responsibly - just *what* we do with *their* money?
I fear the answer to all of the above is "evidently not," or Mr. von Hapsburg would also understand that there are few things that this Assembly could consider that are *more* important than the budget. Any time spent on improving the budget is hardly wasted. I can only hope that Mr. von Hapsburg's attitude isn't indicative of the general attitude in the ENP.
*Smith whispers to rest of his fellow ENP backbenchers*
Some people just don't understand humour.
I second proposal of per president and ask you, mr. speaker to start voting on it immediately.
Furthermore I find the proposal of debating any other legislation before approving any budget to be wrong. We can not do that before we will approve the budget, it would be direct breach of constitution if we would do so. Please mr. Speaker open voting on budget of mr. President.
*Then he looks worryingly on his watch, trying not to fell asleep.*
Some people just don't understand humour.
I second proposal of per president and ask you, mr. speaker to start voting on it immediately.
Furthermore I find the proposal of debating any other legislation before approving any budget to be wrong. We can not do that before we will approve the budget, it would be direct breach of constitution if we would do so. Please mr. Speaker open voting on budget of mr. President.
*Then he looks worryingly on his watch, trying not to fell asleep.*
*Jerome smiles sweetly* Indeed, Mr. von Hapsburg doesn't seem to understand how and when to use it. I'm glad you agree.Green_alien said:
No, you were the person I was talking about. Besides you have to forgive per Habsburg, this is a very long day.
Very well, I close debate on the budget at the current time. Since there appear to be the two offerings, we will vote on them in order of offering. *small chuckle at own joke* Please direct yourself to the proper location for voting.
*Jerome smiles even more sweetly* I'm perfectly aware who you were talking about, Mr. Smith. But it appears "some people just don't understand humour."Green_alien said:
If anyone is in a positon to forgive Mr. von Hapsburg, it is the citizens of this country; after all, it is *their* interests that he is supposed - and failed - to represent.
Mister Vandelft, do not accuse me of trying to betray my people. Accuse me of disagreeing with you. Accuse me of being a rebel legislator. I have no problem with that. But do not accuse me of not having the people’s interests in mind!!! You think I am a party hack, don’t you? I am NOT. So you lost the election. Get over it!!! All parties have times when they are not in the majority. If I fail to represent the people adequately, then I ask the people to forgive me – I only have their interests in mind.
"Threatening bodily harm to silence open debate is not acting in the interest of the people. It is the act of a would be tyrant and a mind not capable of civilized debate. Your words represent a gross failure to the ideals of democracy and to the Eutopian people who support those ideals."
"As Per Vandelft stated, the budget is quite possibly the most important issue facing this body in any given term. Hence the Constitution mandates that it be addressed immediately before all other business. Just because you are personally bored by the process does not make it unimportant."
"A point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Per Sykes' proposal has not been formally adopted by the President at this date. As such, the current vote would be on whether or not Per Sykes' amendment would be incorporated. I just wished to make it clear that we are currently voting on two seperate amendments, not an actual budget proposal."
"As Per Vandelft stated, the budget is quite possibly the most important issue facing this body in any given term. Hence the Constitution mandates that it be addressed immediately before all other business. Just because you are personally bored by the process does not make it unimportant."
"A point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Per Sykes' proposal has not been formally adopted by the President at this date. As such, the current vote would be on whether or not Per Sykes' amendment would be incorporated. I just wished to make it clear that we are currently voting on two seperate amendments, not an actual budget proposal."
POINT OF ORDER!J. Passepartout said:
We can only vote on the amendment now. After we find out whether it passes or not, then the General Assembly can decide how it wants to vote on whichever budget is the main proposal. Please amend the voting instructions, and disregard all the premature votes on "Proposal #2". I realize you are new to holding the gavel, but there are well established rules for doing this, which if you don't follow will subject these proceedings by court challenges by anyone who is unhappy with the result, which will make us do it again. So please, do it the right way the first time.
Per Leary, Forgive my belligerence - I am growing old, and talk of money tires me easily
Mr. von Hapsburg, I fail to see what any of this has to do with the election; perhaps you'd care to elucidate?
Do I think you're a party hack? No, party hacks usually know what they are doing. I simply think you're, shall we say, profoundly confused about the role of this Assembly and the importance of the task presently before us.
If you don't wish to be accused of neglecting the people's interests, then I'd suggest to start acting in their interest.
Do I think you're a party hack? No, party hacks usually know what they are doing. I simply think you're, shall we say, profoundly confused about the role of this Assembly and the importance of the task presently before us.
If you don't wish to be accused of neglecting the people's interests, then I'd suggest to start acting in their interest.
Very well then. I apologise to the people abd to this august body for my negligence.
Mr. Deputy Speaker, while voting is proceeding on the budget amendments and then voting on the budget itself, can we begin considering other legislation, subject to the proviso that it be suspended if the final budget were defeated we would then immediately return to that constitutionally mandated first order of business, and if so, which of the two bills filed at the Speaker's office shall we begin with?
Woody looks for some action from the deputy speaker and then rises to speak.
"Hearing no objections, and understanding from his comments in the townhall that Mr. von Hapsburg plans to revise his referendum on the monarchy, it would appear that my modest bill would be the only one ready to be debated. I hereby propose:"
"Hearing no objections, and understanding from his comments in the townhall that Mr. von Hapsburg plans to revise his referendum on the monarchy, it would appear that my modest bill would be the only one ready to be debated. I hereby propose:"
"We need this kind of information to properly serve our nation, to know where our scarce resouces should be directed, and to spot developing situations that might require our action. I would hope that you would find this bill acceptable, but would welcome comments as the frequency and statistics."
Last edited:
Continue on, Reverend, remembering the stipulation about the psssibility of further budget discussions.