Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free
x Turn on thread page Beta

A133 - Petition Process Amendment 2016 watch

Announcements
    • Wiki Support Team
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    Wiki Support Team
    A133 - Petition Process Amendment 2016
    Proposed by: TheDefiniteArticle (Soc)
    Seconded by: DMcGovern (Soc), cranbrook_aspie (Lab), Kay_Winters (Lab), Saracen's Fez (Lab), Andy98 (Grn), adam9317 (UKIP), Nigel Farage MEP (UKIP), PetrosAC (Lib), The Financier (Con)

    In the Guidance Document, under 'Petitions', replace "7) The Speaker will put petitions to vote in the Division Lobby after 4 days discussion." with "7) The Speaker will put petitions to vote in the Division Lobby after 4 days' discussion unless legislation (whether a Bill or Statement of Intent) which would validly enact the content of the petition has been proposed since the petition came before the House."

    Also replace "10) The Speaker will create and maintain a listing of petitions submitted to the House." with "10) The Speaker will create and maintain a list of petitions submitted to the House."

    NotesAs highlighted by the recent war petition, there is currently no process by which a redundant petition can avoid being put to vote. Part 10 is just a grammatical change - a "listing" is more commonly used to refer to a single entry within a list.
    • Political Ambassador
    Online

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    Ummm, what is 7 being replaced with? Between the lot of you none of you spotted that?
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by Jammy Duel)
    Ummm, what is 7 being replaced with? Between the lot of you none of you spotted that?
    Yes, the description of this amendment is rather brief.
    • Very Important Poster
    • Study Helper
    Offline

    22
    ReputationRep:
    Very Important Poster
    Study Helper
    (Original post by Jammy Duel)
    Ummm, what is 7 being replaced with? Between the lot of you none of you spotted that?
    Hahaha PRSOM!
    • Political Ambassador
    Online

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by Quamquam123)
    Yes, the description of this amendment is rather brief.
    What I mean is it literally says that "7)....." will be replaced by, well, who knows nothing is given
    • Wiki Support Team
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    Wiki Support Team
    (Original post by Jammy Duel)
    Ummm, what is 7 being replaced with? Between the lot of you none of you spotted that?
    Lol.

    TheDefiniteArticle When you added on the seconders names I believe you accidentally omitted that part in the 'new version'.
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by RayApparently)
    Lol.

    TheDefiniteArticle When you added on the seconders names I believe you accidentally omitted that part in the 'new version'.
    I think TheDefinitiveArticle must have been a rush when he was writing this.
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    I think we can exercise common sense and as such i don't think this is really needed.
    Offline

    18
    Eh
    • TSR Support Team
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    TSR Support Team
    (Original post by Jammy Duel)
    Ummm, what is 7 being replaced with? Between the lot of you none of you spotted that?
    The one we seconded can be found here: http://www.thestudentroom.co.uk/show...49383&page=306. There seems to have been an error when TDA submitted.
    • Political Ambassador
    Online

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    I think it would be much much better if it were withdrawal by the proposer rather than legislation
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    Aye.
    Online

    20
    ReputationRep:
    A133 - Petition Process Amendment 2016
    Proposed by: TheDefiniteArticle (Soc)
    Seconded by: DMcGovern (Soc), cranbrook_aspie (Lab), Kay_Winters (Lab), Saracen's Fez (Lab), Andy98 (Grn), adam9317 (UKIP), Nigel Farage MEP (UKIP), PetrosAC (Lib), The Financier (Con)

    In the Guidance Document, under 'Petitions', replace "7) The Speaker will put petitions to vote in the Division Lobby after 4 days discussion." with "7) The Speaker will put petitions to vote in the Division Lobby after 4 days' discussion unless legislation (whether a Bill or Statement of Intent) which would validly enact the content of the petition has been proposed since the petition came before the House."

    Also replace "10) The Speaker will create and maintain a listing of petitions submitted to the House." with "10) The Speaker will create and maintain a list of petitions submitted to the House."

    NotesAs highlighted by the recent war petition, there is currently no process by which a redundant petition can avoid being put to vote. Part 10 is just a grammatical change - a "listing" is more commonly used to refer to a single entry within a list.


    This is the correct version. Apologies for being a bit daft.

    I don't think it's strictly necessary but clarity is always useful, so it is better than the status quo.
    Online

    20
    ReputationRep:
    Jammy Duel, why do you think petitions should be capable of being withdrawn by the proposer? If you'd like to add that possibility, you're perfectly entitled to submit an amendment yourself.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    Aye!
    • Political Ambassador
    Online

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by TheDefiniteArticle)
    Jammy Duel, why do you think petitions should be capable of being withdrawn by the proposer? If you'd like to add that possibility, you're perfectly entitled to submit an amendment yourself.
    I would argue that the way it is given, when fixed, is too restricted, after all there are ways that the petition can be satisfied without any primary legislation, and that petitions should expire either after a vote or if the petitioner no longer feels the petition is necessary.
    Online

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Jammy Duel)
    I would argue that the way it is given, when fixed, is too restricted, after all there are ways that the petition can be satisfied without any primary legislation, and that petitions should expire either after a vote or if the petitioner no longer feels the petition is necessary.
    This amendment does not require primary legislation to have the petition withdrawn - if done through secondary legislation it is also fine. The petitioner may no longer feel the petition is necessary, but if the House feels it isn't, the House will vote against it anyway. If it is supported by a majority, the House feels it is a good thing, and accordingly it ought to be supported by some form of legislation. Regardless, that is something for another amendment, and not an argument against this one.
    Online

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Rakas21)
    I think we can exercise common sense and as such i don't think this is really needed.
    (Original post by nebelbon)
    Eh
    Can I request that the two of you abstain rather than vote against, if I cannot convince you?
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by TheDefiniteArticle)
    Can I request that the two of you abstain rather than vote against, if I cannot convince you?
    Possibly. I'll read the debate.
    • Study Helper
    • Welcome Squad
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    Study Helper
    Welcome Squad
    (Original post by Jammy Duel)
    Ummm, what is 7 being replaced with? Between the lot of you none of you spotted that?
    It was there before I seconded, promise

    Posted from TSR Mobile
 
 
 
Turn on thread page Beta
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: March 13, 2016
Poll
Do you agree with the proposed ban on plastic straws and cotton buds?

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.