Opinion: Presidential Punt Prevents Passage of Peoples’ Assembly






Opinion: Presidential Punt Prevents Passage of Peoples’ Assembly

Written by Deepest House
(Europeia – January 18, 2023) President Icarus announced today that she would send the recently passed Peoples’ Assembly Omnibus Act to referendum.

“The heated debate on this issue has been going on for a long time now,” President Icarus said from 34 Goldenblock Avenue, the official residence of the president of Europeia. “There are both strong arguments for as well as against it and I view it as my duty as the elected voice of the people that both sides get the chance to express their feelings. I cannot, in good conscience, come to a fair decision on this topic on my own without neglecting either side, therefore per GI2 of the Constitution, I am hereby reserving the bill for the signification of the People's Assent via referendum.”

While President Icarus alleges strong arguments for and against, that’s true for nearly all meaningful legislation that comes before the president for signature, and in and of itself does not constitute sufficient reason for neglecting to sign or veto the bill. Additionally, the Senate completed the final bill package during a term in which the majority of senators ran on a platform supporting the passage of the Peoples’ Assembly. These candidates easily won election.

Indeed, both sides have had the chance to express their feelings. We have had public discussions ‘for a long time now,’ as President Icarus notes. Both proponents and opponents of the Peoples’ Assembly knew this this Senate term would likely be the decisive term for its debate and vote within our region’s legislative chamber. When the election came to pass, it was clear that candidates supporting the Peoples’ Assembly retained a clear mandate to continue working on the legislation and pass it for signature or veto from the president. There was no large scale opposition to the bill during the election.

The reasoning given by President Icarus is therefore specious. Additionally, the very nature of signing or vetoing a bill is ‘neglecting’ the other side. This is inherent in signing legislation and comes with the office. It would be absurd to suggest all bills should go to referendum, but if neglecting the other side is part of the calculus, it is easy to see how a president could send everything to a referendum.

The people have already spoken through their elected representatives. Everyone has had a chance to participate and share their perspectives. We, the citizens of Europeia, sent a staunchly pro-Peoples’ Assembly to the legislature this term with the expectation the Senate would complete its work and send a final bill to the president for signature. Throughout the Senate term and the finalization of the bill, there has been no coherent opposition against it. This is not to say that every citizen supports the legislation – of course that isn’t true. There are a few who have vocalized their opposition. However, an opposition minority doesn’t necessitate a referendum.

That President Icarus punted is a disservice to the citizens who elected this Senate, it stalls regional progress and advancement unnecessarily, and it unfairly caters to a minority crowd that has not been able to mobilize effective opposition to the passage of the Peoples’ Assembly.

Leaders lead. They gather information, identify and chart a path forward, and take the first steps to guide their constituency on that journey. This is why we elect presidents. We elect presidents to make decisions, tough decisions, and set us forward on the path to progress. In this case, all of the available information suggests robust support for the People’s Assembly with minority opposition. Sending this legislation to referendum was not a tough decision. It was a complete and total punt of presidential responsibility and an abdication of leadership from our highest office.

President Icarus has been a good president. One bad decision does not define a presidency, and this will not define Icarus’ presidency, either. However, it will remain on the record as the time when she decided to take the easy road instead of making a decision. That’s unfortunate for Icarus, and unfortunate for the office of the presidency.

Finally, it’s worth noting that both presidential candidates have also signaled that they would send the bill to referendum. However, their reasoning for that is much different: they know that the bill maintains widespread support. I believe they are unwilling to signal an intent to sign it because they are against it, but also they can’t say they’d veto it, given the widespread support it enjoys. Such a statement would potentially inhibit their Goldenblock hopes and dreams. That’s quite different from a president leaving office who is not running for re-election and can simply sign legislation consistent with public opinion and support clearly in favor of the bill. I could be wrong here, but this is a reasonable interpretation knowing their stance on the bill. Heck, I'd say the same thing.

Our Constitution empowers our presidents with significant authority to sign bills into law. We elect presidents to lead. Unfortunately, sending this bill to referendum is not leadership.
 
I'm pretty positive that politicians presaged the progression towards a People's Assembly, partially because political persuasion made possible the pact that passed.

(The compromises that multiple Senates reached over this piece of legislation, and its front row discussion in multiple Senate campaigns that resulted in a "clean" PA Act, is also worth noting!)
 
I'm pretty positive that politicians presaged the progression towards a People's Assembly, partially because political persuasion made possible the pact that passed.

(The compromises that multiple Senates reached over this piece of legislation, and its front row discussion in multiple Senate campaigns that resulted in a "clean" PA Act, is also worth noting!)

That is a lot of Ps
 
Someone was taking notes while VC with this alliteration. Interesting read too...I don't quite understand Ica's reasoning but I also care so little about this issue.
 
Last edited:
This op-ed, a million times. Especially this part:

"Sending this legislation to referendum was not a tough decision. It was a complete and total punt of presidential responsibility and an abdication of leadership from our highest office."

The Think Tank 100% supports this op-ed with an op-ed of our own that basically says the same thing.

I'm tipsy so please forgive minor typos and gallicism.

We're a Republic, merde!

Hail Europeia!
 
Strong disagree here, I think it's very obvious that there are reasonable concerns about activity for the PA that cant really be addressed by the PA itself, and while there are people who are ok with it passing I dont really see the same amount of people say theyll actively participate.
Given that activity is a concern that the Executive usually deals with so I am in no way surprised that Icarus decided to send this to referendum. You need a realistic way to see how many people exactly are willing to vote for the PA

The statement that the Senate had a clear mandate to pass the PA would be one I absolutely disagree with. It would be really hard to say that the PA was the primary factor in the votes in the election.
 
I think there was some potential buzz about the PA being stronger than the version that was passed, and shifting some powers from the Senate to the PA. Many Senators, including me, were against this, and it was changed. However, I think there was some talk about that previous, more ambitious version of the PA going to referendum, and I think that would make sense.

What we have now is, IMO, a more structured Grand Hall for proposing legislation, and maybe a more in your face opportunity to write and draft legislation as a citizen. I don’t think these are really large or significant changes compared to what ordinary citizens could do in the past, so personally I would not have sent it to referendum, but I could see how earlier versions of the PA and what it could have been might have sparked some discussions of a referendum, which carried over.

Also, I think it is very interesting that this was published in the EBC. If I were President (key word “were”) and had control over the direction and purpose of the EBC, I would say that it’s not in the best interest for the government to publish an opinion article criticizing itself through the state-run media outlet. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
 
Back
Top