Amendment to the Constitution

[Leagio]

Section III. Voting in the European Council

IV. Councillors only then vote on the proposal for 72 hours. The proposal is to be voted on in its whole form and may not be changed during the voting phase. Each vote must be announced in public and is permanent once cast. Proposals requiring a simple majority to pass must garner 55% approval of those present. Proposals requiring a super-majority to pass must garner 75% approval of those present. Whenever a motion to repeal EU Council legislation is presented and fails to pass, a repeal on the same legislation shall not be attempted again until no less than 90 days has passed afterwards.

---

My fellow councilors, through this year, we have seen attempts to repeal the same type of legislation multiple times. While this Council dearly welcomes the experience for change. However, when that change has been attempted mulitple times, it becomes a waste of time and energy for the Council. For that reason, the past few weeks, I have been working to find the best words that will ensure that there is a period of time for the Council in terms of repeals on the same exact legislation. I would also, like to state to the Council on the record that this is, like I said, is something that I have been working on such (although, it does not look it) a while and is not made as retaliation on anyone in the Council that is making any current attempts or motions to repeal legislation. Originally I was going to wait for another month where it might be more appropriate but I felt that there might not be a time like that coming if we follow how this year itself has been going.

Francis Plessis
EU Councilor for Leagio

[Inquista]

Debate starts NOW and will last until 05:15 GMT on October 25th, 2020.

Edward Firoux
Council Speaker and Councillor for Inquista

[Alkharya]

This is an interesting amendment, for sure. However, I would like more explanation on why the time limit is five months, as that sounds rather specific. In my opinion, to keep things tidy, we should either round it up to six months (or 180 days) or lower it to three months (or 90 days). The state of EU changes rather quickly so I believe three months is the viable option. Also, I would like to also have a day alternative in this amendment, to help those who do not use months in their calendar system.

---

Proposed amendments:

Section III. Voting in the European Council

IV. Councillors only then vote on the proposal for 72 hours. The proposal is to be voted on in its whole form and may not be changed during the voting phase. Each vote must be announced in public and is permanent once cast. Proposals requiring a simple majority to pass must garner 55% approval of those present. Proposals requiring a super-majority to pass must garner 75% approval of those present. Whenever a motion to repeal EU Council legislation is presented and fails to pass, a repeal on the same legislation shall not be attempted again until no less than 5 months 90 days has passed afterwards.

Aylin Gökçen
Councillor of Alkharya

[Leagio]

My reasoning for 5 months is because I felt that it would be sutiable as a length that was not too long and too short. I felt that 90 days or 3 months was too short and felt that two attempts to repeal the same legislation would be the best middle ground for the Council. I did not do six months as i felt that was too long for the type of environment that the European Union has experienced in the months previously. In all honesty, in this legislation, I would like to see something that gives a limit to how many times a year that a motion of repeal can be introduced within this Council; because it would be considered a waste of time and energy of the Council for a Councilor that is out of wack to introduce the same motion of repeal immediately after a previous attempt failed. I think that a day alternative will be acceptable as I mentioned earlier, I would something to prevent multiple repeals of the same legislation from happening a lot in one year.

Francis Plessis
EU Councilor for Leagio

[Duxburian Union]

I don't see the need for restricting repeals in this manner, especially using some arbitrary number that has no real basis in anything. The Speaker already has the power to moderate the legislative process and therefore, restrict unreasonable re-repeals.

Locking us to a specific number removes potentially necessary flexibility to test popular support for laws. What if the first repeal attempt failed by only a single vote on an act that was only passed with 2 or 3 total votes? What if something critical changes unexpectedly in the region and we really do need to repeal an act no matter what happened on it before? What happens if a Councillor weaponizes the limit in order to sabotage a legitimate repeal attempt by getting a sloppier one in first that isn't intended to pass?

Regardless of what you say about it not being retaliation, actions speak louder than words. It's obvious who this is targeted at and why it's been proposed with this timing. You can say that you've been working on it for a while, but your amendment is a single sentence. How long does it take to craft a one line amendment? I'm not buying what you're selling...that said, if you can really justify why the Speaker's discretion isn't enough, my opposition is not set in stone.

Wesley Greene
Councillor of the Duxburian Union

[Pravoslaviya]

I would not limit this just to repeal attempts. I think it would be good to, specifically, in writing, empower the Speaker to prevent the same essential subject from being repealed, amended, or if it's a bill that fails to pass, proposed again for a reasonable time period.

In the last seven months, since the condemnation of the coup in Icholasen was passed, we've had three unsuccessful or aborted attempts to repeal it, and two attempts - one aborted, the other ongoing - to amend it to force member states to impose an embargo on Communist Icholasen. We've also seen a partially successful attempt to amend the Europe Day Act almost immediately after it passed.

I don't believe there needs to be a five month cooling off period - perhaps that's a little too long - but I've become convinced we need some cooling off period. Member states' governments, who have to implement these decisions, and the businesses and individuals these decisions affect, have no certainty right now. When something is passed, they may as well bet on it being repealed or amended before they can even comply with it.

And to give just one example, Cllr Van Halen has, at least as far as Pravoslaviya's concerned, already effectively got what he wants regardless of how the Council might vote, because there's an ever-dwindling number of businesses in our country who are willing to trade with the UNSR while Van Halen has it under constant threat of embargo. This isn't the right way to get what you want, it's not the right way to carry on legislative business, it needs to change.

Cllr Tupac Shakur

[Leagio]

Honestly, Councilor Greene, I do not care if you believe that this is retailition on whoever. Although, I will say that, I doubt that it is retaliation on Councilor Gökçen as I did not see the Councilor striking me for it. In fact, said Councilor provided an amendment (an amendment that I will find acceptable) to my amendment. So, as I said, I do not care about what you say about what you believe. And on the reason why it takes so long on the fact that it is one sentence is that I was going through a constant debate on whether or not it should not have more to like for Legislation that was withdrawn before a vote is complete but I had decided not to include it trying after 30 different ways to write it as I felt that any method to do so would trample on the rights of my fellow councilors. There is your reason Councilor Greene.

Francis Plessis
EU Councilor for Leagio

[Icholasen]

'I stan this legislation! I'm all in favour - I hope this stops those communists wasting my time with repeals. I'm a very busy woman.'

---

Duchess Councillor Poppy Carlton-Romanov III, Attorney at Law

[BrumBrum]

I agree with the idea of this proposal. It is quite frankly ridiculous that some topics are coming up again and again wasting time and stopping progress on other vital issues. It is also totally undemocratic to brow beat into the "right" result. Once the chamber has spoken then there needs to be a cool down period so we can see the impact of the legislation. 5 months seems enough for this.

Personally I feel we need to make sure acts cover most bases to begin with rather than constantly relying on amendments. Perhaps there should also be an amendment locking in any act for at least 3 months before getting amended so there is some stability in law. Chaos of not knowing whether regulations will stay the same is just not good for business or the economy.

Tobias Johnson Farage, United Duchies

[Spain]

If this helps to end with the massive "Repeal the Condemnatio of the Coup of Icholasen Act 2020" discussions every month because 3 Councillors disagree with the Act itself it will have with my full support. The Council shall spend their time on discussing much important affairs than a Repeal of the same Act every month just because some of you doesn't like it, and it is always refused by Councillors here. Congratulations Councillor Plessis, this is by far a really good Amendment to the Constitution.

Donald D. Tusk
Councillor for Spain

[Vayinaod]

In general I do not support this proposal as it does not allow for flexibility within this Council chamber, I would much rather prefer a Council Procedures act which details further responsibilities of the Speaker and empowers councilors to motion that a motion is a 'nuisance' act with enough evidence to suggest that is the case.

This would accomplishing the intent of the act, as well as allow the council flexibility to declare various different motions to be unbecoming of the Council's time if the evidence is ample. Might be nice as well to regulate the amount of proposals outside emergency motions that the council can consider at once to ensure they all get the treatment they deserve.

In short, I do not believe this to be the proper route to deal with the repeat repeal issues, and would prefer simply defining council procedures more.

Carita Falk
Archrepublic of Vayinaod

[Inquista]

Debate is over. It is now time to vote upon amendments. There is one amendment, proposed by Councillor Gökçen:

Amendment
IV. Councillors only then vote on the proposal for 72 hours. The proposal is to be voted on in its whole form and may not be changed during the voting phase. Each vote must be announced in public and is permanent once cast. Proposals requiring a simple majority to pass must garner 55% approval of those present. Proposals requiring a super-majority to pass must garner 75% approval of those present. Whenever a motion to repeal EU Council legislation is presented and fails to pass, a repeal on the same legislation shall not be attempted again until no less than 5 months 90 days has passed afterwards.

Voting on amendments begins NOW and will last until 05:45 GMT on October 30th, 2020.

I vote FOR this amendment.

Edward Firoux
Council Speaker and Councillor for Inquista

[BrumBrum]

On behalf of United Duchies , I vote FOR
Tobias Johnson Farage

[Alkharya]

On behalf of Alkharya, I vote FOR the amendment.

Aylin Gökçen
Councillor of Alkharya

[Fremet]

On behalf of the Kingdom of Fremet, I vote FOR the amendment.

Charles Michel
Councilor for the Kingdom of Fremet

[Spain]

I vote FOR the amendment.

Donald D. Tusk
Councillor for Spain

[Pravoslaviya]

On behalf of the Kingdom of Pravoslaviya, I vote FOR the amendment.

Cllr Tupac Shakur

[Montenbourg]

On behalf of the Kingdom of Montenbourg, I vote FOR the amendment.

Emma Granger
Councillor for Montenbourg

[Duxburian Union]

On behalf of the Union of Duxburian Dominions, I vote FOR the amendment.

Wesley Greene
Councillor of the Duxburian Union

[Kingdom of Reitzmag]

On behalf of the Kingdom of Reitzmag, I vote FOR the amendment.

Friedrich van Allen
Councilor, Kingdom of Reitzmag