Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free
    • Wiki Support Team
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    Wiki Support Team
    A136 - Constitutional Era IV amendment
    Proposed by: The Hon. Aph, MP.
    Seconded by: The Rt. Hon. PetrosAC, MP. The Hon. Kay_Winters, MP. The Hon. Nigel Farrage MEP, MP. The Hon. Nebelbon, MP.

    1) The entirety of the Constitution and Guiding Document are repealed.

    2) Create new constitution who's words can be found here.

    3) Create a Timetable Document whose words can be found here.

    4) Create a Guiding document whose words can be found here.


    notes
    Spoiler:
    Show
    A worrying trend has been happening in which members try and pass items in the Guiding document only as this is seen as easier so a better option. It has to be noted that sections 5, 6, 9, 11, 12 and 13 and most of section 3 of the Guiding document have no constitutional basis.

    It is also worrying that we have a Guiding Document which is essentially two-tiered with some parts binding and others not which makes for a very confusing system. This amendments seeks to make the GD and constitution easier to understand by merging them into one and removing all of the superfluous parts.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    Grammar, but we discussed that and I'll take a look at some point.

    Please post the changes you mentioned you'd made here.

    Still, aye.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    I can't see anything necessarily majorly wrong with this, so aye I guess.
    • Very Important Poster
    • Welcome Squad
    Offline

    22
    ReputationRep:
    Very Important Poster
    Welcome Squad
    For those who haven't worked it out the main highlights of this are:

    Getting rid of treaties
    Getting rid of the whipping clause in the GD which shouldn't be in there
    Getting rid of the MoNC in a party leader as that should be party buissiness as to how they are run.
    Getting rid of the need to report MP seat changes as that isn't really enforceable.
    Simplifying the whole running of the house.
    • Wiki Support Team
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    Wiki Support Team
    I am quite happy with the Constitution containing only the bare minimum and the rest being in the GD. It allows a certain amount of flexibility in situations where common sense dictates another path to following it to the letter.
    • Political Ambassador
    Online

    15
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    aye
    • Wiki Support Team
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    Wiki Support Team
    I don't see the need to attack flexibility in this way.
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    Aye - looks grand



    DRINK!!
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by RayApparently)
    I don't see the need to attack flexibility in this way.
    Btw, are we doing a 'Member of the month' thing?



    DRINK!!
    • Political Ambassador
    Online

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    Would be nice to see the specifgic changes being made rather than having to get both documents up and go through with a fine comb
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    No, there are parts with the proposed new documents I do not agree with; the requires to change the Constitution are not stringent enough, 21 days from start to finish for a general election is too long, and the Guidance Document needs more in it. I believe Constitutions should not exist, there should be a quick guide for elections the Speaker should follow but the rest should be made up as things happen.
    • Community Assistant
    • Wiki Support Team
    • Political Ambassador
    • PS Reviewer
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    Community Assistant
    Wiki Support Team
    Political Ambassador
    PS Reviewer
    (Original post by RayApparently)
    I don't see the need to attack flexibility in this way.
    I join the Speaker in opposing this change - over 20 separate sections in the Constitution is not simplification nor is the splitting of two documents into three. The Speakership team requires flexibility and I believe that these changes are an attack on that, an attempt to try to nail everything down.
    • Very Important Poster
    • Welcome Squad
    Offline

    22
    ReputationRep:
    Very Important Poster
    Welcome Squad
    (Original post by Nigel Farage MEP)
    No, there are parts with the proposed new documents I do not agree with; the requires to change the Constitution are not stringent enough, 21 days from start to finish for a general election is too long, and the Guidance Document needs more in it. I believe Constitutions should not exist, there should be a quick guide for elections the Speaker should follow but the rest should be made up as things happen.
    Ummmmm, 21 days is what it currently is... This is literally just changing the way the documents work and removing superfluous stuff.

    Also the point of the GD is now to provide future Guidence to speakers on how things in the part were done. Think of it like a speakership manual.

    (Original post by Jammy Duel)
    Would be nice to see the specifgic changes being made rather than having to get both documents up and go through with a fine comb
    Sorry, I've posted the main highlights. The rest would just be a list of when things are repeated or tidying up wording.
    • Wiki Support Team
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    Wiki Support Team
    (Original post by Aph)
    Also the point of the GD is now to provide future Guidence to speakers on how things in the part were done. Think of it like a speakership manual.
    Is that not what the current GD does?
    • Political Ambassador
    Online

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by Aph)
    Ummmmm, 21 days is what it currently is... This is literally just changing the way the documents work and removing superfluous stuff.

    Also the point of the GD is now to provide future Guidence to speakers on how things in the part were done. Think of it like a speakership manual.


    Sorry, I've posted the main highlights. The rest would just be a list of when things are repeated or tidying up wording.
    The highlights doesn't tell us much, the documents are rather long
    • Study Helper
    • Welcome Squad
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    Study Helper
    Welcome Squad
    Ugh this is gonna take a while to go through properly; at a brief glance it's an aye

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    • Very Important Poster
    • Welcome Squad
    Offline

    22
    ReputationRep:
    Very Important Poster
    Welcome Squad
    (Original post by RayApparently)
    I don't see the need to attack flexibility in this way.
    I'm personally not happy that motions, SOI's, petitions, referendums, PMQ's and voting reveiws have all been added to the GD and have no constitutional basis, meaning that they will have to happen because if the speaker doesn't allow them people will kick off Mary hell as they are in the GD but people didn't bother trying to add them to the constitution because they saw it as being harder to achieve and belives that they wouldn't get what they wanted. This leaves us with a situation where the GD is basically the de facto constitution but isn't called such because people don't like that idea and want to keep the illusion of flexibility when indeed there is none.

    I also have a problem with the GD being binding when it is mentioned in the constitution because then why isn't it in the constitution?!

    Mr Soeaker. With all due respect you know as well as I do that although you don't have to follow the GD if you decided not to and so stopped SOI's, motions, petitions or anything else in there but not in the constitution you would face the chop. There is no flexibility in the GD only an illusion of one. All this amendment does is makes people amend to the right place instead of being lazy and creates an easier to understand system.
    • Wiki Support Team
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    Wiki Support Team
    (Original post by Aph)
    Mr Soeaker. With all due respect you know as well as I do that although you don't have to follow the GD if you decided not to and so stopped SOI's, motions, petitions or anything else in there but not in the constitution you would face the chop. There is no flexibility in the GD only an illusion of one. All this amendment does is makes people amend to the right place instead of being lazy and creates an easier to understand system.
    There is flexibility by having a GD, just not that much flexibility.
    • Political Ambassador
    Online

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by Saracen's Fez)
    There is flexibility by having a GD, just not that much flexibility.
    Codifying is a wonderful way of reducing flexibility.
    • Wiki Support Team
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    Wiki Support Team
    (Original post by Aph)
    I'm personally not happy that motions, SOI's, petitions, referendums, PMQ's and voting reveiws have all been added to the GD and have no constitutional basis, meaning that they will have to happen because if the speaker doesn't allow them people will kick off Mary hell as they are in the GD but people didn't bother trying to add them to the constitution because they saw it as being harder to achieve and belives that they wouldn't get what they wanted. This leaves us with a situation where the GD is basically the de facto constitution but isn't called such because people don't like that idea and want to keep the illusion of flexibility when indeed there is none.I also have a problem with the GD being binding when it is mentioned in the constitution because then why isn't it in the constitution?!Mr Soeaker. With all due respect you know as well as I do that although you don't have to follow the GD if you decided not to and so stopped SOI's, motions, petitions or anything else in there but not in the constitution you would face the chop. There is no flexibility in the GD only an illusion of one. All this amendment does is makes people amend to the right place instead of being lazy and creates an easier to understand system.
    It's not about stopping things. It's about procedure. Remember recently when I allowed a petition to be withdrawn? It didn't specify in the GD at the time that doing so was allowed but I did it as that was what made sense. If I choose to let a bill be debated for an extra day or something can I expect a VoNC for acting unconstitutionally? And if not then you're making the Constitution into a Guidance Document rather than the other way around.

    This is deeply, deeply unnecessary.

    I'd rather the illusion of flexibility than absolutely none at all anyway. However as Fez succinctly says, there is flexibility.
 
 
 
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 29, 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
    Has a teacher ever helped you cheat?
  • 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

    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.