President Darcness Sends Controversial Amendment to Public Referendum




President Darcness Sends Controversial Amendment to Public Referendum
By Deepest House








(Europeia – May 22, 2017) – President Darcness today declined to sign or veto the Honored Citizen Restriction Amendment, which the Senate passed on May 21. By declining to sign or veto, the population of Europeia will decide the fate of the amendment at the ballot box. The Senate passed the amendment by a vote of four to two.

The amendment eliminates the right of the region’s honored citizens to speak without invitation in the Senate. President Darcness considered the law overnight before deciding to put the decision to public referendum. “This is an issue that I believe is best decided by the People themselves,” the president said in declining to sign or veto. “I hereby request that the issue of the People's Assent be discovered via referendum.”

Speaker of the Senate McEntire immediately slammed President Darcness for his refusal to sign or veto the legislation, which he presented to Goldenblock yesterday. “I would have preferred an outright veto,” he said.

“I was hoping, especially early into the President's tenure, that he would choose decisiveness, to either sign or veto the bill,” McEntire continued. “Instead, against the recommendation of the Attorney General, he has chosen neither path.” McEntire also took issue with the president’s intervention in what he saw as a Senate matter. “Let me be clear, this is a Senate issue. This is a question about who should speak on the Senate floor,” he emphatically stated upon hearing the news. “The Senate decided this issue.”

The Speaker of the Senate continued his indictment of the president’s decision, insinuating that Darcness’ decision undermines the value of the region’s senior legislative body and its ability to manage itself. “What disturbs me, though, is the lack of leadership here,” he said. “If we are going to have a referendum every time we don't have a unanimous vote in the Senate, why have a Senate?”

The amendment is the first legislative activity of the new Senate. Senator Leo introduced the amendment to the Senate on May 15 after the Citizens’ Assembly discussed the topic but ultimately failed to pass. The debate in the Senate, which included many honored citizens providing input, lasted nearly a week before the speaker called a vote. McEntire, Punchwood, Leo, and Mr. Verteger voted in favor, while Drexlore Greyjoy and Cerian Quilor voted against.

Public reaction to the referendum was mixed, with arguments for both sides quickly springing forth. PhDre supported the legislation. “It encourages [honored citizens] to actually run for Senate to directly impact Senate discussion for one,” he said. “It will also allow [honored citizens] to be honored without the reasonable concern of diluting Senate speaking rights.” Kuramia was unsure why the matter was even brought to referendum.

Erica vigorously supported the amendment, believing it grants too much political influence to unelected citizens. “It's your own responsibility to give your opinion exposure, not the Senate's,” she said, in regard to speaking rights allowing a prominent place for honored citizens to voice their concerns. “It should never have to be used as a platform to 'get a point across.’ All that does is grant political leverage to people who haven't been elected.”

Notolecta, infamous for his abrasive and unpolished behavior, quickly took the opportunity to question the merits of the legislation. “I don't know why we think a voice in the Senate ought to be restricted to 6 senators, it's just asking for ill-informed bad legislation,” he speculated. “If the Senators personally think they are less off because of [honored citizen] speaking privileges I don't give a [expletive],” Notolecta gruffly declared without regard to using crude language in the Palace of the People.

Senator Cerian Quilor, who voted against the amendment, pushed back against McEntire’s notion that President Darcness lacked decisiveness in the decision. “I think Darcness showed decisiveness, not a lack of it, here.” Cerian Quilor also questioned if an actual problem exists. "Someone still needs to explain (and defend) their claim as to what problem is being corrected with this removal," he asked.

Rach, the founder of the Freedom and Equality Party, which lists the revocation of honored citizen speaking rights as one of its core platform issues, issued a statement to the EBC regarding the president’s decision. “This referendum has been a slight speedbump, but it has made me so proud to see how so many people have responded positively to this concept,” she said. “The acrimonious opposition by a minority of people has been unfortunate and surprising.”

President Darcness defended his decision in an exclusive interview with the EBC. “This is a decision that affects our core democratic principles. The Senate was deeply split on this case, and so are the people,” he said. “It’s impossible to say signature or veto easily portrays the will of the people, so I want them to speak for themselves.”

Supreme Chancellor Mousebumples opened debate on the referendum today, which will continue for at least 72 hours. The referendum must receive a simple majority to pass.
 
Jahka said:
So... we're saying this highly controversial bill didn't really do much of anything in practice. Surprise surprise.
Sometimes it's harder to fight for/against those smaller changes than the bigger ones.
 
Jahka said:
So... we're saying this highly controversial bill didn't really do much of anything in practice. Surprise surprise.
Well it's hard to take even something small away from people when they feel entitled to it. This was an important debate, though, although I'm sure we are all glad it's over.
 
"... The Senate was deeply split on this case, and so are the people," he said. "It's impossible to say signature or veto easily portrays the will of the people, so I want them to speak for themselves."

Now that this is all settled I do have to look back and chuckle still at this particular quote. The Amendment won out by something like 10.5%, and Calvin/Darcness were elected with a 4.4% majority. How exactly do we define "deeply split"? :p

Either way, I'm glad this is finally settled so we can move forward. I guess over the next few Senates it looks like we're going to be having quite a few candidates for Speaker! How neat!
 
McEntire said:
Jahka said:
So... we're saying this highly controversial bill didn't really do much of anything in practice. Surprise surprise.
Well it's hard to take even something small away from people when they feel entitled to it. This was an important debate, though, although I'm sure we are all glad it's over.
That's a gross, and frankly cheap, mischaracterization of the opposition to this amendment and you know it.
 
Common-Sense Politics said:
McEntire said:
Jahka said:
So... we're saying this highly controversial bill didn't really do much of anything in practice. Surprise surprise.
Well it's hard to take even something small away from people when they feel entitled to it. This was an important debate, though, although I'm sure we are all glad it's over.
That's a gross, and frankly cheap, mischaracterization of the opposition to this amendment and you know it.
I have to tell you, I don't think it is. I don't mean "entitled" as a disparagement, I truly don't. To feel entitled means that some feel themselves deserving of special treatment. I have heard from many that taking away these privileges is a "douchey" thing to do, that HCs have had it for 5 years so we can't take it away now. Drecq said that there's no reason for or against it, so we shouldn't take it away. To me, that is an attitude of feeling deserving of Senate speaking privileges.

And, in fact, in some ways it's a correct feeling. Some Honored Citizens are deserving of special speaking privileges on certain issues. And when that's important, the Senate can invite them to speak. And we will do so. But let's not act like entitlement isn't a part of the debate here. It's something that people have become accustomed to, that we think is deserved for those who receive Ovations or Triumphs. Again, I happen to disagree.
 
I said that there is no reason to keep it and no reason to remove it, so we should keep it because that makes the least amount of work for me (I wouldnt have had to make changes to the law index), not because with no reason to take it away we should keep them because I want them. Since the new status quo is that HCs dont have speaking rights, the law index has been changed already after all, I would once again have to do work to put them back in, and since there is no reason to have them or not have them, I would now be against adding them back in just as I was against taking them out.
 
Drecq's never hinted that he dislikes extra work he doesn't have to do.
 
Never hinted. Did outright say so a couple of times though. And yes, our efficiency is laziness coupled with the realization that it needs to get done anyways.
 
Let's not forget that a similar proposal failed in the CA not long ago; I don't think "deeply split" is that much of an exaggeration.
 
Sopo said:
Let's not forget that a similar proposal failed in the CA not long ago; I don't think "deeply split" is that much of an exaggeration.
I don't either, for what's worth.

There tends to be two types of elections in Europeia: (1) really close (2) Runaway

In my view, any election where the winner doesn't get ~66% of the vote is representative of an election that captured the region's attention and lacked consensus.
 
To be fair, McEntire, I only saw the "douchey" comment once (was it not a comment in a poll?)
 
Back
Top