A164 – Crisis Committee Amendment

Announcements Posted on
Four things that unis think matter more than league tables 08-12-2016
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Quamquam123)
    No. The fact is that this amendment should not have been put before the House in the first place. If the Speaker is going to be consistent and protect the interests of the MHoC, he should withdraw this amendment and put it up at the beginning of next term.
    Would you care to point out where I was wrong on the basis of your statement, I said all you achieve is dragging this out and extra month, and you said no we want to drag it out an extra month.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    Aye.
    Online

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Jammy Duel)
    Would you care to point out where I was wrong on the basis of your statement, I said all you achieve is dragging this out and extra month, and you said no we want to drag it out an extra month.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    You're implying that this amendment should be presented to the House this term and I'm explaining why it shouldn't.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Quamquam123)
    You're implying that this amendment should be presented to the House this term and I'm explaining why it shouldn't.
    And in doing so dragging it on for an extra month...

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Online

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Jammy Duel)
    And in doing so dragging it on for an extra month...

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Because it shouldn't have been put up this term...
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    abstain
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Quamquam123)
    Because it shouldn't have been put up this term...
    You seem insistent on disputing the fact that it drags it out another month, whether you believe it should have gone up this term or not (it's hardly precedent breaking) it does not change that FACT.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Online

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Jammy Duel)
    You seem insistent on disputing the fact that it drags it out another month, whether you believe it should have gone up this term or not (it's hardly precedent breaking) it does not change that FACT.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    I am insistent on making my point that this amendment should not have been accepted until next term. Whether Nigel would decide to re-submit it on the first day of the next term or never, that would be his decision and I would respect that. However, there has already been an identical amendment this term and therefore, I hope that people either don't vote or vote against this amendment.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    Without a doubt, the CC should be removed; little has came from it, and it sounds like their interior fighting as made it a shambles!
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Quamquam123)
    I am insistent on making my point that this amendment should not have been accepted until next term. Whether Nigel would decide to re-submit it on the first day of the next term or never, that would be his decision and I would respect that. However, there has already been an identical amendment this term and therefore, I hope that people either don't vote or vote against this amendment.
    They were given a chance to sort their act out, they failed to, this was resubmitted, it's not the first time that has happened, it's hardly setting a new precedent...and delaying it a month still achieves nothing other than dragging it on for another month.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Online

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Jammy Duel)
    They were given a chance to sort their act out, they failed to, this was resubmitted, it's not the first time that has happened, it's hardly setting a new precedent...and delaying it a month still achieves nothing other than dragging it on for another month.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    By accepting this amendment, the Speaker opens up the chance for others to do exactly the same thing - submit an amendment they want to pass again and again until it does. You clearly joined the CC to oversee its destruction so I won't ask you, but I have heard that the CC have several crises ready to be released.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Quamquam123)
    By accepting this amendment, the Speaker opens up the chance for others to do exactly the same thing - submit an amendment they want to pass again and again until it does. You clearly joined the CC to oversee its destruction so I won't ask you, but I have heard that the CC have several crises ready to be released.
    Opening the doors implies setting a precedent, a precedent that has already been set.

    Infact submitting an amendment over and over is possible regardless, you in fact are supporting that by saying it should be dragged out an extra month.

    If there are several crises (there aren't) then why are they not being submitted?

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Online

    3
    ReputationRep:
    So first of all the Speaker has been an active opponent of the CC in the past, thus he has opened himself up to accusations of bias in allowing this amendment to be debated. I recommend to him that he stand aside or else he could very well go the way of his friend the former speaker.

    Now, as for the amendment itself I was opposed to the CC in the first place, I abstained on the last amendment because I wanted to see if it could be salvaged but now it is clear to see that it can't really and people seem to have given up on the CC by just proposing joke situations. I think we have only had one realistic scenario from it in 1.5 years so it needs to end.
    Online

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Jammy Duel)
    Opening the doors implies setting a precedent, a precedent that has already been set.

    Infact submitting an amendment over and over is possible regardless, you in fact are supporting that by saying it should be dragged out an extra month.

    If there are several crises (there aren't) then why are they not being submitted?

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Not really, no. In may not be enshrined in the constitution, but the Speaker should have the sense not to accept an identical amendment in the same term. After all he himself said this: "I think in the interests of general good order in the House it is best that I do not take another amendment like this during the current term unless its provisions are significantly different to the ones in the previous amendment." Therefore, he has laid down his own precedent of not accepting 2 identical amendments in the same term and has now broken that precedent. He is therefore being highly inconsistent and I find that extremely concerning.

    With regards to the crises, you're in the CC so you explain to me why you haven't bothered to produce a crisis yourself? Probably the reason why progress the latest crises has been slow is because you are disrupting the council as much as possible? From what I have been told though, the CC will be releasing some more crises soon.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Quamquam123)
    Not really, no. In may not be enshrined in the constitution, but the Speaker should have the sense not to accept an identical amendment in the same term. After all he himself said this: "I think in the interests of general good order in the House it is best that I do not take another amendment like this during the current term unless its provisions are significantly different to the ones in the previous amendment." Therefore, he has laid down his own precedent of not accepting 2 identical amendments in the same term and has now broken that precedent. He is therefore being highly inconsistent and I find that extremely concerning.

    With regards to the crises, you're in the CC so you explain to me why you haven't bothered to produce a crisis yourself? Probably the reason why progress the latest crises has been slow is because you are disrupting the council as much as possible? From what I have been told though, the CC will be releasing some more crises soon.
    To release any crisis would to breach its own constitution, well no, it would once again highlight the weakness in the constitution in that it gives absolute power to the chair, allowing them to pump out utter tripe, although I guess you haven't noticed that yet.
    Online

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Jammy Duel)
    To release any crisis would to breach its own constitution, well no, it would once again highlight the weakness in the constitution in that it gives absolute power to the chair, allowing them to pump out utter tripe, although I guess you haven't noticed that yet.
    I'd say you are breaching the entire spirit of the CC just by being a member of it.
    • Thread Starter
    Online

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Aph)
    So first of all the Speaker has been an active opponent of the CC in the past, thus he has opened himself up to accusations of bias in allowing this amendment to be debated. I recommend to him that he stand aside or else he could very well go the way of his friend the former speaker.

    Now, as for the amendment itself I was opposed to the CC in the first place, I abstained on the last amendment because I wanted to see if it could be salvaged but now it is clear to see that it can't really and people seem to have given up on the CC by just proposing joke situations. I think we have only had one realistic scenario from it in 1.5 years so it needs to end.
    The Speaker is not, and never has been, required to take a neutral position on amendments, within reason obviously.
    Online

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Saracen's Fez)
    The Speaker is not, and never has been, required to take a neutral position on amendments, within reason obviously.
    But by bending a well established precedent due to your own personal feelings is beyond that line IMO. I fully support the speaker offering his views on amendment but bending the rules to let amendments that they like be debated is too far.
    Online

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Aph)
    But by bending a well established precedent due to your own personal feelings is beyond that line IMO. I fully support the speaker offering his views on amendment but bending the rules to let amendments that they like be debated is too far.
    PRSOM. There's some quite obvious bias in the Speaker's decision to allow this amendment.
    • Thread Starter
    Online

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Aph)
    But by bending a well established precedent due to your own personal feelings is beyond that line IMO. I fully support the speaker offering his views on amendment but bending the rules to let amendments that they like be debated is too far.
    The precedent is debatable, but I would also remind the House that I placed the CC on report back on 3 August. Whilst it was pointed out to me that due to the section in the Constitution it was not possible for me to make the decision to close it then, activity levels have not picked up since then, we have not seen a proper crisis since August and that one appeared to be a joke crisis, and during the last repeal amendment a majority of MPs voted for repeal (though not the requisite two thirds for it to pass). For me, this is sufficient to allow the House to debate this again.
 
 
 
Updated: October 17, 2016
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.

Poll
Do you think you'll achieve your predicted A Level grades?

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.