Re: (Revoked) Revocation of the New Year Land Grab

Great Eurussia Sat Jan 18, 2014 10:58 am

Marquette (of Pacific) wrote:AFTER COUNTING THE VOTES OF THIS BILL, I HAVE DETERMINED THAT THERE IS A TIE.

Another three-day voting period will commence, ending at 0:00 (GMT) on the 21st of January, 2014.

Please submit your votes like this:

The PRETITLE of NATION votes in FAVOR/AGAINST/ABSTAINS on the original proposal.

The PRETITLE of NATION votes in FAVOR/AGAINST/ABSTAINS on the amendment proposed by Atletius.

The amendment is located here: bit.ly/1eHo93Q

AGAINST! AGAINST! AGAINST!

New-Zealand Sat Jan 18, 2014 11:00 am

Oh sh*t. I had copied Atlieus' post, then changed the fors to against. My bad.

That's why the post said "votes in AGAINST the proposal". I was just being lazy, but didn't think things through.

New-Zealand Sat Jan 18, 2014 11:04 am

Shirouma wrote:
Texania wrote:Bustedddd

Why would he vote for and later against? He propably just copied his post and changed to against but forgot to change the nations name.

Yea, Thats what I did, but I was in a rush so I forgot to change the names, and to actually make the post make sense. "Votes in AGAINST of proposal" makes absolutely no sense.

Havenburgh Sat Jan 18, 2014 11:55 am

Against, against. Against all the way.

The Catham Islands Sat Jan 18, 2014 1:50 pm

The Commonwealth Realm of the Catham Islands votes in FAVOR on the original proposal.

The Commonwealth Realm of the Catham Islands votes in FAVOR on the amendment proposed by Atletius.

Arveyres Sat Jan 18, 2014 2:31 pm

We vote against both things aforementioned.

Aloia Sat Jan 18, 2014 2:36 pm

THE IMPERIAL STATES OF ALOIA votes AGAINST on the original proposal.

THE IMPERIAL STATES OF ALOIA votes AGAINST on the amendment proposed by Atletius.

Marquette (of Pacific) Sat Jan 18, 2014 2:44 pm

Texania wrote:Bustedddd

A Republican Ireland wrote:
New-Zealand wrote:The Kingdom of Atletius votes in AGAINST on the original proposal.

The Kingdom of Atletius votes in AGAINST on the amendment proposed by Atletius.
Why are you voting on behalf of Atletius or is Atletius your puppet?

Both of you, get out of here. The time for debate is over, so only Parliament members are allowed here. It makes counting the votes easier and it limits congestion if only MP's are allowed here during voting.

United States of Europe Sun Jan 19, 2014 1:52 am

We vote against the law and against the amendment.

New Tarajan Sun Jan 19, 2014 10:29 am

New Tarjana votes in FAVOUR of both the law and the Atletian amendment.

Marquette (of Pacific) Mon Jan 20, 2014 10:23 am

Voting for the Revocation of the New Year's Land Grab has officially closed. Please wait while the votes are counted, which should be shortly.

Marquette (of Pacific) Mon Jan 20, 2014 10:31 am

The official tally:

Votes in FAVOR of the original proposal: 7
Votes AGAINST the original proposal: 6

Votes in FAVOR of the amendment by Atletius: 7
Votes AGAINST the amendment by Atletius: 6

With a majority in FAVOR the bill and the amendment have been passed, and is now law.

New-Zealand Mon Jan 20, 2014 8:16 pm

I appeal this motion (due to the initial tie) and thus forward a proposal to the WA Council to repeal the actions of this bill.

As the higher governing body, the decision of the council will supersede that of the parliament.

Great Eurussia Mon Jan 20, 2014 8:19 pm

New-Zealand wrote:I appeal this motion (due to the initial tie) and thus forward a proposal to the WA Council to repeal the actions of this bill.

As the higher governing body, the decision of the council will supersede that of the parliament.

I'm confused with the results. If there is a tie, the proposal has not passed and cannot become a law.

New-Zealand Mon Jan 20, 2014 8:50 pm

Great Eurussia wrote:
New-Zealand wrote:I appeal this motion (due to the initial tie) and thus forward a proposal to the WA Council to repeal the actions of this bill.

As the higher governing body, the decision of the council will supersede that of the parliament.

I'm confused with the results. If there is a tie, the proposal has not passed and cannot become a law.

I have put forward a case to the council : https://worldalliance.forumotion.co.uk/t386-re-instate-the-new-year-land-grab#12761

But you are right. Constitutionally, if the proposal was a tie, it failed. It HAS to be a simple majority to pass, anything else is a fail.

Marquette (of Pacific) Tue Jan 21, 2014 1:06 am

Great Eurussia wrote:
New-Zealand wrote:I appeal this motion (due to the initial tie) and thus forward a proposal to the WA Council to repeal the actions of this bill.

As the higher governing body, the decision of the council will supersede that of the parliament.

I'm confused with the results. If there is a tie, the proposal has not passed and cannot become a law.

The constitution says I as Speaker have the ability to break ties, so I broke the tie. What's wrong with that?

New-Zealand Tue Jan 21, 2014 11:41 am

Sorry about that Marquette. I seem to have missed that clause (My bad). So yea, you're right this bill did pass properly. I have thus retracted my motion in the council.

Marquette (of Pacific) Tue Jan 21, 2014 11:51 am

New-Zealand wrote:Sorry about that Marquette. I seem to have missed that clause (My bad). So yea, you're right this bill did pass properly. I have thus retracted my motion in the council.

No worries man, it's not very visible at first glance anyway.

Great Eurussia Thu Jan 23, 2014 1:24 pm

Marquette (of Pacific) wrote:The official tally:

Votes in FAVOR of the original proposal: 7
Votes AGAINST the original proposal: 6

Votes in FAVOR of the amendment by Atletius: 7
Votes AGAINST the amendment by Atletius: 6

With a majority in FAVOR the bill and the amendment have been passed, and is now law.

CHALLENGED! https://worldalliance.forumotion.co.uk/t389-pending-eurussia-vs-wa#12946

Marquette (of Pacific) Thu Jan 23, 2014 1:57 pm

Great Eurussia wrote:
Marquette (of Pacific) wrote:The official tally:

Votes in FAVOR of the original proposal: 7
Votes AGAINST the original proposal: 6

Votes in FAVOR of the amendment by Atletius: 7
Votes AGAINST the amendment by Atletius: 6

With a majority in FAVOR the bill and the amendment have been passed, and is now law.

CHALLENGED! https://worldalliance.forumotion.co.uk/t389-pending-eurussia-vs-wa#12946

THIS BILL HAS PASSED. STOP POSTING IN THIS THREAD. ANYONE WHO CONTINUES TO POST HERE WILL HAVE TO BE REPORTED FOR SPAMMING.

Great Eurussia Mon Jan 27, 2014 2:50 pm

https://worldalliance.forumotion.co.uk/t389p30-pending-secretary-general-vs-parliament#13138

I believe the law has been declared unconstitutional :-)

Marquette (of Pacific) Mon Jan 27, 2014 4:25 pm

Great Eurussia wrote:https://worldalliance.forumotion.co.uk/t389p30-pending-secretary-general-vs-parliament#13138

I believe the law has been declared unconstitutional :-)

Oh, really? Thanks for the link, I'm too dumb to be able to read what E&A wrote. :-P

Great Eurussia Mon Jan 27, 2014 7:01 pm

Marquette (of Pacific) wrote:
Great Eurussia wrote:https://worldalliance.forumotion.co.uk/t389p30-pending-secretary-general-vs-parliament#13138

I believe the law has been declared unconstitutional :-)

Oh, really? Thanks for the link, I'm too dumb to be able to read what E&A wrote. :-P

Yeah obviously :-D

New Tarajan Mon Jan 27, 2014 7:09 pm

I wish to specify: the law has been "frozen", until it will be duly submitted to the Council for approval. The vote of the Parliament keeps its validity, until the Council will decide what to do.

Great Eurussia Mon Jan 27, 2014 7:33 pm

New Tarajan wrote:I wish to specify: the law has been "frozen", until it will be duly submitted to the Council for approval. The vote of the Parliament keeps its validity, until the Council will decide what to do.

Unfortunately, frozening an already repealed law due to unconstitutionality as per the court's ruling is something we are questioning due to the irregularity of that process itself. As a Party to the case, we question it so we do not recognize that frozen thing. Sorry.

Sponsored content