Turn on thread page Beta
    Online

    19
    ReputationRep:
    **** me you lot are desperate.
    • Wiki Support Team
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    Wiki Support Team
    (Original post by Life_peer)
    … at which point it will end.

    Seriously, forget about your political preference and think about what you're saying.

    Moreover, I'm quoting the GD again so please read it:

    According to the Guidance Document, a motion of no confidence can be called against the government at any point during a term of governance unless the government was formed less than two weeks prior to the motion, or less than two weeks have passed since the last motion of no confidence was called against the government.
    It is quite clear that it is utterly ridiculous to allow MoNCs to be called and withdrawn simply to block anyone else from submitting a MoNC for a fortnight. That clause serves the function of stopping MoNCs being called when the House has recently decided it has confidence in whatever the MoNC is in – this has not happened as there hasn't been a vote.

    This part of the decision happens to not be in your interest. Not all Speaker decisions will be – suck it up.

    And I will bother myself with the wording in the Constitution thank you, upon which I have already made a ruling.

    (Original post by Jammy Duel)
    So, who's going to urgently get on the phone to all the dictionary producers to get them to correct their definitions?
    I don't care what it says in the dictionary.

    (Original post by cranbrook_aspie)
    Can it be withdrawn? There is no specific procedure specified by the Constitution or the GD for doing so.
    There isn't for withdrawing anything if I remember correctly, but it is permitted. It would be crazy not to allow it.
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by Saracen's Fez)
    I don't care what it says in the dictionary..

    Can't say I expected anything else, you are so zabaglione!
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Saracen's Fez)
    There isn't for withdrawing anything if I remember correctly, but it is permitted. It would be crazy not to allow it.
    Just as a point of information (I'm content with your ruling): there is a specific provision permitting Bills to be withdrawn, and the existence of a cessation period for other items necessarily implies they can be withdrawn.

    Did you receive the MoNC submitted to you earlier ITT? If so, could you confirm whether cbay as a proxy MP is a valid seconder? Either way, EricAteYou has now agreed to second as well.
    • Wiki Support Team
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    Wiki Support Team
    (Original post by TheDefiniteArticle)
    Just as a point of information (I'm content with your ruling): there is a specific provision permitting Bills to be withdrawn, and the existence of a cessation period for other items necessarily implies they can be withdrawn.

    Did you receive the MoNC submitted to you earlier ITT? If so, could you confirm whether cbay as a proxy MP is a valid seconder? Either way, EricAteYou has now agreed to second as well.
    No, I didn't. Could you please PM it because notifications are really dodgy?
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by TheDefiniteArticle)
    Just as a point of information (I'm content with your ruling): there is a specific provision permitting Bills to be withdrawn, and the existence of a cessation period for other items necessarily implies they can be withdrawn.

    Did you receive the MoNC submitted to you earlier ITT? If so, could you confirm whether cbay as a proxy MP is a valid seconder? Either way, EricAteYou has now agreed to second as well.
    (Original post by Saracen's Fez)
    No, I didn't. Could you please PM it because notifications are really dodgy?
    If I can second as a Proxy, I'll be happy to.
    • Wiki Support Team
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    Wiki Support Team
    (Original post by Jammy Duel)
    Can't say I expected anything else, you are so zabaglione!
    I don't want to have a debate about descriptivism and prescriptivism but I do the prescribing on matters relating to the Constitution and GD.
    • Wiki Support Team
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    Wiki Support Team
    The only problem with proxies seconding cBay and JoeL1994 (in the faint hope you see this ) is that if the permanent MP returns and wishes the name to be withdrawn they have every right to request that,
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Saracen's Fez)
    The only problem with proxies seconding cBay and JoeL1994 (in the faint hope you see this ) is that if the permanent MP returns and wishes the name to be withdrawn they have every right to request that,
    I've seen it :P,

    I'm sure Brynjar will have no problem supporting this.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    Mr Speaker,

    Nobody should be plagiarising hazzer1998's MoNC without his consent. I ask that any MoNC submitted that is a copy of what Hazzer written be rejected.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Unown Uzer)
    Mr Speaker,

    Nobody should be plagiarising hazzer1998's MoNC without his consent. I ask that any MoNC submitted that is a copy of what Hazzer written be rejected.
    a) Hazzer didn't write it.
    b) It's already been accepted.
    • Wiki Support Team
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    Wiki Support Team
    (Original post by Life_peer)
    You don't even have a proof of anyone's intention to use this MoNC to block another one in the next two weeks. As I see it, Labour's aspies were trying to be clever and talked hazzer into submitting their MoNC for them because they knew they wouldn't be taken seriously and didn't want to be responsible if it backfired. Seeing their comments, Hazzer and Nigel reconsidered their position and withdrew their support, effectively ending the MoNC.
    Correct, however there is a certain need to consider future events in this job and create a system where it is not possible to play foul (to that extent anyway) even if that is not happening here.

    I have explained what I see as the point of the buffer period, I have made a ruling (I initially made it several days ago in fact in private correspondence) and I will not be going back on my word.
    • Wiki Support Team
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    Wiki Support Team
    (Original post by Unown Uzer)
    Mr Speaker,

    Nobody should be plagiarising hazzer1998's MoNC without his consent. I ask that any MoNC submitted that is a copy of what Hazzer written be rejected.
    I understand your point and I will exercise common sense here.

    (Original post by JoeL1994)
    b) It's already been accepted.
    Just to clarify, no second submission has been accepted yet, or indeed received.
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by Saracen's Fez)
    I have explained what I see as the point of the buffer period.
    Last I checked the role of the speaker was to APPLY the rules, not CHANGE them.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Saracen's Fez)
    Just to clarify, no second submission has been accepted yet, or indeed received.
    I see you missed it earlier in the thread, apologies.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Unown Uzer)
    Mr Speaker,

    Nobody should be plagiarising hazzer1998's MoNC without his consent. I ask that any MoNC submitted that is a copy of what Hazzer written be rejected.
    I shall change the wording.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Saracen's Fez)
    Correct, however there is a certain need to consider future events in this job and create a system where it is not possible to play foul (to that extent anyway) even if that is not happening here.

    I have explained what I see as the point of the buffer period, I have made a ruling (I initially made it several days ago in fact in private correspondence) and I will not be going back on my word.
    Even if the rules currently allow it and the ‘foul play’ is what does happen in real world politics? Generally speaking, what is the point of the simulation aspect if we can't make use of the rules to gain advantage?

    I strongly believe it would be more fair to allow this now and then, if enough people care to support your interpretation, pass an amendment to the Constitution and the GD stating that ‘to end’ the process means to defeat the vote of no confidence.

    Even though it's been shown you are wrong and your decision is unsubstantiated?
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Unown Uzer)
    Mr Speaker,

    Nobody should be plagiarising hazzer1998's MoNC without his consent. I ask that any MoNC submitted that is a copy of what Hazzer written be rejected.
    Anything submitted in parliament is considered to be in the public domain and therefore not subject to plagiarism laws.

    For example, it would be illogical for laws to be copyrighted. If one country finds an effective way of dealing with an issue, there is no reason another country can't choose to deal with it in exactly the same way.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Life_peer)
    Even if the rules currently allow it and the ‘foul play’ is what does happen in real world politics? Generally speaking, what is the point of the simulation aspect if we can't make use of the rules to gain advantage?

    I strongly believe it would be more fair to allow this now and then, if enough people care to support your interpretation, pass an amendment to the Constitution and the GD stating that ‘to end’ the process means to defeat the vote of no confidence.

    Even though it's been shown you are wrong and your decision is unsubstantiated?
    Copy in words to the same effect regarding the decision to allow withdrawal of proposers.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by TheDefiniteArticle)
    Copy in words to the same effect regarding the decision to allow withdrawal of proposers.
    Except the GD isn't explicit in that case, smarty pants. Moreover, he had to invent a fitting definition in order to justify his decision.

    How the **** is withdrawal not considered an end of the MoNC? The MoNC has been withdrawn, terminated, it has ended according to his own statement. I implore you to throw away your partisan bias and think about it without trying to achieve your goal.
 
 
 

3,650

students online now

800,000+

Exam discussions

Find your exam discussion here

Poll
Should predicted grades be removed from the uni application process

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.