VM522 – Wales Annexation Motion 2019 Watch

Poll: Do you agree with this motion?
As many are of the opinion, Aye (0)
0%
On the contrary, No (44)
95.65%
Abstain (2)
4.35%
This discussion is closed.
Saracen's Fez
  • Community Assistant
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#1
Report Thread starter 3 weeks ago
#1
VM522 – Wales Annexation Motion 2019, mr T 999, Connor27 MP
This House calls on the government to repeal Wales devolution and annexed Wales and be united to the English Crown. Wales shall become a region and county of England and run by a Mayor.
0
Jammy Duel
  • Political Ambassador
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#2
Report 3 weeks ago
#2
Might I suggest that these joke motions being sent to division for clearly political reasons are bringing the members in question into disrepute?
1
Connor27
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#3
Report 3 weeks ago
#3
(Original post by Jammy Duel)
Might I suggest that these joke motions being sent to division for clearly political reasons are bringing the members in question into disrepute?
To clarify, I did not sanction this being sent to division nor was I asked by Fez if I consented to such action.
0
ns_2
  • Political Ambassador
Badges: 16
Rep:
?
#4
Report 3 weeks ago
#4
(Original post by Connor27)
To clarify, I did not sanction this being sent to division nor was I asked by Fez if I consented to such action.
If this is the case, does the Constitution or GD make specific that the seconding MP must consent to division or not?
0
PetrosAC
  • Political Ambassador
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#5
Report 3 weeks ago
#5
(Original post by Jammy Duel)
Might I suggest that these joke motions being sent to division for clearly political reasons are bringing the members in question into disrepute?
Completely agree tbh.
0
Jammy Duel
  • Political Ambassador
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#6
Report 3 weeks ago
#6
(Original post by ns_2)
If this is the case, does the Constitution or GD make specific that the seconding MP must consent to division or not?
IIRC it does not, and I do not believe that Fex has ruled whether the withdrawal of a seconding would stop a division, certainly in his current stint (although I have a feeling he ruled it doesn't previously, even if that contradicted several events with amendments)
0
Connor27
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#7
Report 3 weeks ago
#7
(Original post by ns_2)
If this is the case, does the Constitution or GD make specific that the seconding MP must consent to division or not?
I can’t recall off the top of my ahead but I don’t think it is required Saracen's Fez could perhaps confirm?
0
Connor27
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#8
Report 3 weeks ago
#8
(Original post by PetrosAC)
Completely agree tbh.
Read my reply to Jammy.
0
TheRadishPrince
Badges: 13
Rep:
?
#9
Report 3 weeks ago
#9
Complete waste of my time.
0
ns_2
  • Political Ambassador
Badges: 16
Rep:
?
#10
Report 3 weeks ago
#10
(Original post by Jammy Duel)
IIRC it does not, and I do not believe that Fex has ruled whether the withdrawal of a seconding would stop a division, certainly in his current stint (although I have a feeling he ruled it doesn't previously, even if that contradicted several events with amendments)
Well, that is another thing we need to add to the pile to fix...
0
SoggyCabbages
Badges: 17
Rep:
?
#11
Report 3 weeks ago
#11
Emphatic nay!!!!!!!!!!!!
0
CatusStarbright
  • Political Ambassador
Badges: 22
Rep:
?
#12
Report 3 weeks ago
#12
Yet another nay....
0
Saracen's Fez
  • Community Assistant
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#13
Report Thread starter 3 weeks ago
#13
(Original post by Connor27)
I can’t recall off the top of my ahead but I don’t think it is required Saracen's Fez could perhaps confirm?
I'm fairly confident it's not required, but my gut instinct is that if a member is happy to give their name to second something they should do so knowing it could go through the entire process, and if that means people are more selective in their seconding in future then I don't see that necessarily being a bad thing.

So if the House feels markedly differently on this then I would suggest an amendment.
0
CatusStarbright
  • Political Ambassador
Badges: 22
Rep:
?
#14
Report 3 weeks ago
#14
(Original post by Saracen's Fez)
I'm fairly confident it's not required, but my gut instinct is that if a member is happy to give their name to second something they should do so knowing it could go through the entire process, and if that means people are more selective in their seconding in future then I don't see that necessarily being a bad thing.

So if the House feels markedly differently on this then I would suggest an amendment.
I think that sounds sensible to me.
0
Miss Maddie
Badges: 18
Rep:
?
#15
Report 3 weeks ago
#15
I'll stop I'll stop they said

Still sends ******** to vote
0
CatusStarbright
  • Political Ambassador
Badges: 22
Rep:
?
#16
Report 3 weeks ago
#16
(Original post by Miss Maddie)
I'll stop I'll stop they said

Still sends ******** to vote
We know, and we have all had discussions privately.
0
Joep95
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#17
Report 3 weeks ago
#17
There are better ways to do this than as a motion, first you tackle devolution.
0
Andrew97
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#18
Report 3 weeks ago
#18
It’s a nay from me.
0
Saracen's Fez
  • Community Assistant
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#19
Report Thread starter 3 weeks ago
#19
One ineligible Aye has been removed from CollectiveSoul.

One No has been removed due to a double vote in seat 15 (4InchMeatSkid for TeeEff).

One No has been removed due to a double vote in seat 44 (Aph for Bluestar511).
0
Saracen's Fez
  • Community Assistant
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#20
Report Thread starter 3 weeks ago
#20
The Ayes to the right: 0
The Noes to the left: 44
Abstentions: 2

The Noes have it! The Noes have it! Unlock!

Turnout: 93.88%
0
X
new posts
Latest
My Feed

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.

Personalise

Do unconditional offers make teenagers lazy?

Yes (115)
58.67%
No (81)
41.33%

Watched Threads

View All