(WARP) World Alliance Royalist Party

I can understand the intention to simplify the legislative process, which is commendable..BUT...anyway, while of course what is necessary is party discipline, as you said, this discipline applies also to the existing procedures, even if someone could not approve them fully.
In that case, we can gather together and THEN, change the procedure itself. Not taking unilateral actions without even consulting nor the Party nor the Leader.
Now, the case is closed. We will proceed with the discussion of the bill in front of the Parliament.

New Tarajan wrote:I can understand the intention to simplify the legislative process, which is commendable..BUT...anyway, while of course what is necessary is party discipline, as you said, this discipline applies also to the existing procedures, even if someone could not approve them fully.
In that case, we can gather together and THEN, change the procedure itself. Not taking unilateral actions without even consulting nor the Party nor the Leader.
Now, the case is closed. We will proceed with the discussion of the bill in front of the Parliament.

Well in that case, may I know what is the leadership doing in ensuring that all members are voting as ONE?

This procedure is aimed EXACTLY at that purpose.
Of course, it's not possible to force everyone to participate to votations (someone could have RL problems, don't you think so?) nor to vote positively.
In this second case, if the Party already reached an agreement, there's a sanction, beginning with a warning, and proceeding further if new violations occurs.
Isn't it so obvious?

New Tarajan wrote:This procedure is aimed EXACTLY at that purpose.
Of course, it's not possible to force everyone to participate to votations (someone could have RL problems, don't you think so?) nor to vote positively.
In this second case, if the Party already reached an agreement, there's a sanction, beginning with a warning, and proceeding further if new violations occurs.
Isn't it so obvious?

Real life things are always understandable. But voting against a proposal of a party mate? We have experienced that several times before, if I am correct, but I never heard nor have seen any warning from the leadership? But with us who is actively promoting the party and even participating in Parliament? We always get warning and threats of this or that even for small things? 
Why is that? I'm confused?

I have not received informations about some Members voting against a bill which passed in front of the Party before going to the Parliament.

OOC Apologies for my bots of absence I've been busy finalising my move back to London. I haven't had the time to read over Eurussias bill in any real detail but will try to as soon as possible.

Atletius wrote:OOC Apologies for my bots of absence I've been busy finalising my move back to London. I haven't had the time to read over Eurussias bill in any real detail but will try to as soon as possible.

He finally produced something good.

Marquette (of Pacific) wrote:

Atletius wrote:OOC Apologies for my bots of absence I've been busy finalising my move back to London. I haven't had the time to read over Eurussias bill in any real detail but will try to as soon as possible.

He finally produced something good.

The last bill was good the only ones who didn't think so was you and one other nation

Great Empire of Ireland wrote:

Marquette (of Pacific) wrote:

Atletius wrote:OOC Apologies for my bots of absence I've been busy finalising my move back to London. I haven't had the time to read over Eurussias bill in any real detail but will try to as soon as possible.

He finally produced something good.

The last bill was good the only ones who didn't think so was you and one other nation

Please, it's not necessary to begin another fight inside the Party.
Let us concentrate our attention and energies over the new bill. What is past, is past.

New Tarajan wrote:

Great Empire of Ireland wrote:

Marquette (of Pacific) wrote:

Atletius wrote:OOC Apologies for my bots of absence I've been busy finalising my move back to London. I haven't had the time to read over Eurussias bill in any real detail but will try to as soon as possible.

He finally produced something good.

The last bill was good the only ones who didn't think so was you and one other nation

Please, it's not necessary to begin another fight inside the Party.
Let us concentrate our attention and energies over the new bill. What is past, is past.

Yes agreed

Great Empire of Ireland wrote:

Marquette (of Pacific) wrote:

Atletius wrote:OOC Apologies for my bots of absence I've been busy finalising my move back to London. I haven't had the time to read over Eurussias bill in any real detail but will try to as soon as possible.

He finally produced something good.

The last bill was good the only ones who didn't think so was you and one other nation

Thank you.

New Tarajan wrote:I have not received informations about some Members voting against a bill which passed in front of the Party before going to the Parliament.

February 1 when we presented a bill before the party,

(https://worldalliance.forumotion.co.uk/t276p270-warp-world-alliance-royalist-party#13725)

Sadly on February 6, citing no reaction, except to Atletius, I was forced to bring it to Parliament,

(https://worldalliance.forumotion.co.uk/t276p270-warp-world-alliance-royalist-party#13874)

The leadership is not lost. The leadership is still awaiting for an answer to our question.

By the way, the procedure exists for a reason, and there's no need to repeat once again. It's not perfect, of course, and what's far more important is that the procedure can be changed, as well: but only with the consent of the Members of this Party, and not by unilateral actions of a single member. This is customary rule of good behavior and respect, not toward the leadership, but toward all the other members of the Party, which have their right to say their own word on the matter before anyone else could pretend to overcome the rules.
I hope to have been clear.

We acknowledge that the problem arose from the position recently expressed by Eurussia is real. As we need to make our decisional process more effective and efficient while, at the same time, keeping the unity of the Party, as Leader we wish to propose a possible solution, by modifying Article 7 of our Statute, which rules upon this issue.
Namely, our proposed modification is this :

Every Member of the Party has the right to make proposals of law. However, before submitting the draft in front of the Parliament or the Council or other organs of the WA Government, the proposal must be submitted to the Party and thus examined for a period of three days (RL).
A draft of law will be supported by the Party only in case it will pass this examination with no objections of any Member which enjoy a seat in the WA Parliament.

This way, the process will be far more efficient, and the unity of the Party will be ensured. I ask to every Member to express the opinion on this modification.

Eurussia, I hardly disrespected you by merely opposing your bill.

New Tarajan wrote:We acknowledge that the problem arose from the position recently expressed by Eurussia is real. As we need to make our decisional process more effective and efficient while, at the same time, keeping the unity of the Party, as Leader we wish to propose a possible solution, by modifying Article 7 of our Statute, which rules upon this issue.
Namely, our proposed modification is this :

Every Member of the Party has the right to make proposals of law. However, before submitting the draft in front of the Parliament or the Council or other organs of the WA Government, the proposal must be submitted to the Party and thus examined for a period of three days (RL).
A draft of law will be supported by the Party only in case it will pass this examination with no objections of any Member which enjoy a seat in the WA Parliament.

This way, the process will be far more efficient, and the unity of the Party will be ensured. I ask to every Member to express the opinion on this modification.

I support this reform. Thank you.

But what if they did not take part on the deliberation of a proposal? Whatever the outcome, are they obliged to support the bill whether they like it or not?

I support the reform, I think its a good idea to make more productive the entire process of creation of laws, and the WARP need to be really productive.

Great Eurussia wrote:

New Tarajan wrote:We acknowledge that the problem arose from the position recently expressed by Eurussia is real. As we need to make our decisional process more effective and efficient while, at the same time, keeping the unity of the Party, as Leader we wish to propose a possible solution, by modifying Article 7 of our Statute, which rules upon this issue.
Namely, our proposed modification is this :

Every Member of the Party has the right to make proposals of law. However, before submitting the draft in front of the Parliament or the Council or other organs of the WA Government, the proposal must be submitted to the Party and thus examined for a period of three days (RL).
A draft of law will be supported by the Party only in case it will pass this examination with no objections of any Member which enjoy a seat in the WA Parliament.

This way, the process will be far more efficient, and the unity of the Party will be ensured. I ask to every Member to express the opinion on this modification.

I support this reform. Thank you.

But what if they did not take part on the deliberation of a proposal? Whatever the outcome, are they obliged to support the bill whether they like it or not?

Exactly. At the end, it's the Party which votes in the Parliament. Thus, if nobody expressed any objection in front of the Party, it's reasonable to assume that that Member agrees with the proposal, thus being obliged to support the same in front of the Parliament.

Spoiler:

Then, I have no objections.

Marquette (of Pacific) wrote:Eurussia, I hardly disrespected you by merely opposing your bill.

Well, saying "shut up" in Parliament and to a co-equal member of the chamber much more party mate is simply too offensive and disrespectful.

Please, please. No fights again in the Party. If there are problems, we can handle them, separately.

We ask to all the Members to support the most recent law proposed to the Parliament by Eurussia: the WA Territorial Waters Act. It's a good piece of legislation, which will greatly improve our RP as a whole.
Thank you.

New Tarajan wrote:We ask to all the Members to support the most recent law proposed to the Parliament by Eurussia: the WA Territorial Waters Act. It's a good piece of legislation, which will greatly improve our RP as a whole.
Thank you.

Thanks.

New Tarajan wrote:We ask to all the Members to support the most recent law proposed to the Parliament by Eurussia: the WA Territorial Waters Act. It's a good piece of legislation, which will greatly improve our RP as a whole.
Thank you.

Agreed, a great piece of legislation.

WA Role play Calendar
*open to proposals*
The Real Year seems a bit to long for RP. 
So I propose that we come up with a calendar here is what I have 
3 Months in Real Life=1 Year in RP.
Here is a better breakdown
January,February,March in Real life=1 year in RP
April,May,June IRL=1 year in RP
July,August,September: IRL=1 year in RP
October,November,December IRL=1 year in RP
This way a war could last longer without someone having to make RPS forever.Say if they want a war to go on for a year they wont have to write War RPS for 12 months but for 3 instead. Or if the term for someones President or Chancellor is 4 years.They wont have to wait 4 years IRL to have elections but only 1 instead.
Like I said this is open for editing.