Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free
    • Political Ambassador
    Online

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by Saracen's Fez)
    I don't necessarily disagree.
    The nature of a constitution though is its binding nature as the ultimate law, any binding part of the GD is constitutional in all but name, especially when the constitution says "do this thing" it's sheer laziness to have them separate. I am unaware of the history, but by any chance does the GD predate the constitution?

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    Aye
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    I hope we can not be spending too much time in this Parliament on such matters. I'll consider the amendment and vote when it goes to division.
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    Nay
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    No
    • Political Ambassador
    Online

    16
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    Nay - this is just pointless.
    • Wiki Support Team
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    Wiki Support Team
    (Original post by Jammy Duel)
    The nature of a constitution though is its binding nature as the ultimate law, any binding part of the GD is constitutional in all but name, especially when the constitution says "do this thing" it's sheer laziness to have them separate. I am unaware of the history, but by any chance does the GD predate the constitution?
    I don't know, but I don't see the problem with having three classes of section:
    Non-binding GD: not binding, amended by simple majority
    Binding GD: binding, amended by simple majority
    Constitution: binding, amended by two-thirds majority

    I think the proposers of this amendment are seeing a contradiction that isn't really there.
    • Very Important Poster
    • Study Helper
    • Welcome Squad
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    Very Important Poster
    Study Helper
    Welcome Squad
    (Original post by Saracen's Fez)
    I don't know, but I don't see the problem with having three classes of section:
    Non-binding GD: not binding, amended by simple majority
    Binding GD: binding, amended by simple majority
    Constitution: binding, amended by two-thirds majority

    I think the proposers of this amendment are seeing a contradiction that isn't really there.
    No because take away the names etc... If it's binding, it shouldn't matter where it's said, it should still need the same requirements to amend it...

    I personally think anything binding in the GD should be moved to the constitution to make it all much simpler...
    • Community Assistant
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    Community Assistant
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by Jammy Duel)
    We have our own amendments we want, didn't stop the submission.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Well then it's silly to do this, because if this passes, unless your amendments are something that the entire House is crying out for, they won't be passed.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    Nay.
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    Eye eye.
    • Political Ambassador
    Online

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by cranbrook_aspie)
    Well then it's silly to do this, because if this passes, unless your amendments are something that the entire House is crying out for, they won't be passed.
    Well labour have made pretty clear it's not passing regardless, and when was the last time the house was crying out for something for a supermajority to happen, I imagine you're looking back a fair bit, I've passed a fair few with for the most part people either going "IDC" or "that seems sensible enough" when told

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    • Political Ambassador
    Online

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by Quamquam123)
    Nay - this is just pointless.
    Okay, next time something big and new is put it make it part of the GD and reference it in the constitution as binding, try arguing to anybody that anything should be put in like that. I think this is the third time in a few days I've come across aversion to a change that would never be accepted if going the other way.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    • Political Ambassador
    Online

    16
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by Jammy Duel)
    Okay, next time something big and new is put it make it part of the GD and reference it in the constitution as binding, try arguing to anybody that anything should be put in like that. I think this is the third time in a few days I've come across aversion to a change that would never be accepted if going the other way.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Are you suggesting I'm voting nay on this because you proposed it? If so, you're wrong. I just do not believe this amendment is necessary so if any other party proposed it, I would still vote nay.
    • Political Ambassador
    Online

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by Quamquam123)
    Are you suggesting I'm voting nay on this because you proposed it? If so, you're wrong. I just do not believe this amendment is necessary so if any other party proposed it, I would still vote nay.
    No, I'm suggesting that it is something that wouldn't actually ever be implemented. I might even try it to point out the stupidity of statements being made

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    18
    nah
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by mobbsy91)
    No because take away the names etc... If it's binding, it shouldn't matter where it's said, it should still need the same requirements to amend it...

    I personally think anything binding in the GD should be moved to the constitution to make it all much simpler...
    I agree with this, but I'm not voting in favour of this Amendment because super-majorities are a flat-out terrible idea and should be avoided wherever possible.
    • Very Important Poster
    • Study Helper
    • Welcome Squad
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    Very Important Poster
    Study Helper
    Welcome Squad
    (Original post by TheDefiniteArticle)
    I agree with this, but I'm not voting in favour of this Amendment because super-majorities are a flat-out terrible idea and should be avoided wherever possible.
    Well, in that case, in terms of this amendment fair enough, because it's not to do with this per se...
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by mobbsy91)
    Well, in that case, in terms of this amendment fair enough, because it's not to do with this per se...
    Well, this amendment makes more supermajorities required.
    • Very Important Poster
    • Study Helper
    • Welcome Squad
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    Very Important Poster
    Study Helper
    Welcome Squad
    (Original post by TheDefiniteArticle)
    Well, this amendment makes more supermajorities required.
    Yeh, but from what I understand, your objection to it isn't because you think that the requirement for amendment shouldn't be in line with each other for binding bits, but because you don't think it's the right requirement...?
 
 
 
TSR Support Team

We have a brilliant team of more than 60 Support Team members looking after discussions on The Student Room, helping to make it a fun, safe and useful place to hang out.

Updated: May 9, 2016
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • Poll
    What's your favourite Christmas sweets?
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • 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

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