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.
 
For the record, this is exactly what I was talking about when I said neither of us will budge :emb:

It's actually interesting that I can't see how you don't see a problem, and you can't see how I do see a problem. Even after 5 or 6 days and over 15 pages of debate, nothing has changed that fact.
 
Well, one last time for those of us who are a little slow. What exactly is the problem you see this fixing, Erica?
 
Sure!

In current legislation, we permit that the recipient of a Triumph is masked as an Honorary Citizen (HC). You do not need legislative experience to receive a Triumph, nor do you need legislative experience to receive an Award of any sort (excluding the Order of Senatia). Without legislative experience, what does an HC have to offer the Senate? Granted, a lot of HCs have legislative experience anyway, but that isn't to say that there in future won't be an HC who has no experience: this amendment will remove the possibility of this ever happening, regardless of how remote.

Furthermore, a lot of ordinary citizens have fantastic legislative experience but these people don't have automatic speaking rights, so where do we draw the line? Is one person's opinion on legislature more valuable than another's, because the first person made a "highly-distinguished service [to the military] or a particularly-important military action", i.e nothing to do with legislature? There is also currently discussion in the CA about allowing the GA to give out Triumphs, which, if passed, makes the chances of this occurring less remote than before.

There's also no stopping an HC, or a group of them, from lobbying. They can talk freely in the Senate, wielding their status in order to push their agenda. Since the Senate is encouraged to listen to HCs as they are almost unanimously seen as a force for good, there's a large potential for Senators to be persuaded. This gives HCs leverage over the Senate, and an ability to voice their opinions on a more esteemed platform than regular citizens, which I don't see as sensible. HCs are already respected and have more influence, allowing them this freedom to change the pace of Europeian politics at will seems less than fair, especially considering that they aren't elected.

EDIT: This probably deserves its own paragraph: I think that this influence and respect makes HCs harder to silence than people are making out, that is to say that it's not as easy to hold them accountable as you'd think. I certainly don't think it's a simple matter of the Speaker removing their rights to speak in the Senate, because if a group is willing to lobby then they're probably willing to spin this against the Senate, too. Bear with me, but I imagine that in this situation it would be easy for the aforementioned HC to generate disapproval of the Senate, thus paving the way towards removing Senators from office, simply because the Senate is viewed as the less experienced, less trustworthy entity in this situation.

For me, personally, these are the issues that I see this amendment fixing. Others have been debated but, unless I'm mistaken, no conclusions have been met at any point.
 
You're making a case for something that I believe simply can't happen. How can you reasonably explain someone attempting to sabotage the region that they have dedicated part of their life to? You're not only saying this could happen, you seem believe it will happen. Are HCs respected, yes. But to say that we put them on a pedestal and worship every word they speak is simply wrong. There are multiple occasions where we have disagreed with an HC and simply ignored them.

You're argument is based off of something that's hasn't happened and would be relatively harmless if it did. On the other side, people against this can point to clear evidence that HC access to the Senate has been a great asset to our region. I can point to multiple discussions where a point made by the HC has saved the discussion or opened doors to new possibilities that no one ever thought of. In he recent draft of the Judicature Act alone Skizzy Grey and r3n made great additions that has made the current product a much better proposal than it possibly could be without Senate access.

I'm sorry but there is no practical evidence that you can point to that would support your argument. If it was commonplace I would understand, but we've had this in place for 5 years now and this has never been a problem. I just think your seeing ghosts, but that's me.
 
I would argue that while not all HCs received their status for legislative work they all excelled in something. CSP and Kraken are military leaders par excellence. Few people can keep up with Swak when it comes to efficiency. Hy, while not necessarily a legislator, is a great legal mind and an expert on a large number of things. The same goes for Skizzy. Pretty much every single HC, certainly every HC currently active, was either a pioneer in one aspect of our region or is considered at the very least an expert on the workings of one or more parts of this game or this region. Collectively the HCs can and do provide a level of knowledge on anything the Senate might legislate that the Senate itself is highly unlikely of being able to reproduce.
 
To clarify, from my point of view this amendment does not affect* an HCs ability to advise the Senate, nor am I saying that HCs haven't contributed in the past, I actually agree with both of you. As a region, we are lucky to have people as committed and experienced as HCs and I want to see them continue to assist the Senate in any way they see fit, and I believe that their ability to do so is is by and large unaffected by this amendment -- if it were then I would be far less likely to support it!
 
If it's unaffected, what's the point if his amendment? We have a system that works but you want to remove it... :blink:
 
JayDee said:
If it's unaffected, what's the point if his amendment? We have a system that works but you want to remove it... :blink:
Their ability to advise the Senate is unaffected, this is what I said and this is not the cause of concern. It's their ability to exploit or misuse their right to speak in the Senate which is the cause of my concern. These are minor changes which will produce minor results, yet results nonetheless. You yourself stated that the issues were 'relatively harmless', well this amendment would render them completely harmless at very little cost, which I much prefer :D
 
If their ability to advise the Senate is undiminished then surely their ability to negatively influence the Senate, which seems to be the potential problem you have with the current system surely remains undiminished as well.
 
In the Senate, an HCs opinion becomes more clear. Rather than having Senators carry out the agenda of an HC, the HC can post in the Senate themselves.
 
Drecq said:
If their ability to advise the Senate is undiminished then surely their ability to negatively influence the Senate, which seems to be the potential problem you have with the current system surely remains undiminished as well.
You raise an interesting point! I'm not sure that 'to advise' and 'to influence' mean the same thing and it's important to make that distinction -- this amendment does decrease their influence but it doesn't impede their ability to advise.

I am having trouble articulating this next part but I hope this reads clearly enough: the right to speak in the Senate is given to them so that they may advise the Senate, not influence it. Therefore, to attempt to influence the Senate from outside of Senatia would not be a misuse of this right, but to attempt to do so from inside would be.

Also, this is happening again for the 100th time today. :$
 
You can influence the Senate from within even without speaking rights. I could DM one of the Senators and request they do something and they may very well do it. If an HC posts in the Senate, they're intent is likely a lot less malicious.
 
If nobody takes their advice then it doesnt really matter if their ability to advise is decreased or increased. Influence is an important aspect of advice.
 
JayDee said:
You can influence the Senate from within even without speaking rights. I could DM one of the Senators and request they do something and they may very well do it. If an HC posts in the Senate, they're intent is likely a lot less malicious.
Then why do they have speaking rights?
 
Constie said:
JayDee said:
You can influence the Senate from within even without speaking rights. I could DM one of the Senators and request they do something and they may very well do it. If an HC posts in the Senate, they're intent is likely a lot less malicious.
Then why do they have speaking rights?
I have a feeling you think you have me backed in a corner. I'm here to tell you that you're wrong. I have absolutely no clue what your point is.
 
Back
Top