1st Parliament of South America

[Cranberry]

I believe this is the place (?) to inform you, Mr. Speaker, that the National Executive of the Socialist Party has revoked Mrs. Crabcake's mandate; with the next ranking member without representation in parliament (Mr. Cranberry) taking the seat.

x Cranberry
Party Leader

[Cranberry]

Mr. Speaker,

adressing the two gentlemen's concerns, since there is no precedent available for this peculiar case, it is up to us to set precedent. The party executive decided in a majority decision that the honourable member Crabcake's mandate - gained through election on the party list - would be revoked and that the mandate would be filled by the next person on the current party list. Thus, it is to our understanding that Crabcake is to be succeded by myself.

[Cranberry]

I do however think it is premature for Mr. Cranberry to be already calling himself an honorable member without any indication of his appointment from your good self.

For lack of precedent, I assumed the seating would be automatic. I apologise if I was too fast on this, but clarification from the Speaker would be very appreciated.

May I furthermore wonder why the Mr. Speaker cannot address this issue for the moment?

[Cranberry]

I shall hope you used unionised workers for this task, Mr. Speaker?

Thank you for your swift, and I believe fair ruling!

[Cranberry]

Mr. Speaker, it seems we once again need your judgement.

With the defection of Murica, MP, to the Worker's Party, we have again reached a situation with no available precedent. The question being poised now is obviously whether the seat currently occupied by Mr. Murica can be considered as a personal or as a party mandate, whether Mr. Murica can keep it as member of the Worker's Party, or whether the seat was being vacated by him the moment he left the Socialist Party, and is now up to be filled by the next ranking member (that is Mr. Hifly).

In name of the Opposition of this parliament, I speak in our opinion that the latter is the case. Voters clearly voted for a party, and not an individual candidate - thus, in order to best represent the voters will, mandates should be considered as belonging to the political party or list, and not the individual gaining it through participation in said list. This view is, in my opinion, further supported by the judgement in the previous case regarding Mrs. Crabcake's seat, when it was supported by both government and opposition that the seat belonged to the party, and the party had a right to expel a member from parliamentary representation and fill the vacant seat with the next member on the party list.

[Cranberry]

Mr. Speaker, thank you for your swift clarification. I cannot say I agree with your judgement, but I respect it, and I am grateful for your consideration on the matter.

[Cranberry]

Mr. Speaker,

in name of the Official Opposition I would like to introduce the following amendment.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Since party list composition could eventually change during a parliamentary term (as seen in the most recent precedent), it is the Official Opposition's belief that this change should be represented in the eventual case of a resignation / expulsion from parliament.

[Cranberry]

Mr. Speaker,

to address the honourable members concern:
It still is the party the people elect, not the individual members on the party list; and as long as that is true, it is my belief that the party should be best represented in parliament - and best representation is in our belief the current version of a party list, not the one passed at times even ten weeks before. Imagine a member of the party list has switched party registration in the meantime - since he still is on the party list from at the time of the election, the seat would have to be vested unto this gentleman, and thus to a completely different party.

[Cranberry]

Aye

[Cranberry]

Nay

[Cranberry]

The Official Opposition thanks Speaker Cris for his phenomenal speech, and is keen to remind that the Socialist Party is united with many forces in South America as well as Atlasia on this issue of a mutual, amicable cooperation between our two nations.

[Cranberry]

Mr. Speaker,

the honourable gentleman speaking before me is right with one thing: this is one occurence of the utmost importance. But, in the name of the Official Opposition, I can but disagree with him on nearly everything else he said.

What is going on in Cochabamba, is not the work of, and I quote, "cowards and thieves". The people out there are using their human rights to protest what in their eyes is wrong, is not working. They are the sovereign of our nation, not a number of sheltered gentlemen sitting today in this room. We should be listening carefully what they have to say, not shoot them down as the honourable gentleman has suggested.

I am not saying that one side will get out of this with all its demands and hopes fulfilled. Politics is the art of the possible, the art of compromising, and this is what our government should do. I call upon the Prime Minister to be a true servant to the people, the job he was elected to, go out there, and speak to the people. Speak to them and listen to them! Invite them to the negotiation table, find a compromise, and let the world know, that in South America, we solve our problems in a peaceful, considerate way. We are a democracy, not a dictatorship. Go on, show that your government is truly one worth of a democracy, not a dictatorship, Mr. Prime Minister.

[Cranberry]

No

[Cranberry]

I would like to propose the following, this does not change the bill in a substantial way at all, but adds some democratic legitimisation to further policies on the issue following the Paris Climate Conference.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[Cranberry]

I thank the government for its acceptance of the amendment.

[Cranberry]

Aye

[Cranberry]

Mr. Speaker,

I speak in front of this house today in horror. I speak on what the honourable minister of justice just offered for debate. This law that our government apparently intends to pass in the last days of this current session of Parliament, can in no way be described as anything remotely near a, I quote the minister, "a reasonable and moderate compromise", end quote. This is nothing but bare meat for the big corporations and donors behind the Conservative Party, and an invitation for them to treat their employees in any way they care, for it seriously disables the work of organised labour. That such would come from the Conservative Party is not surprising. But that such would be passed in a government that includes the Social Liberal Party is most alarming. I implore that party to turn their back, show their spine and, according to what they promised the people in the last election, say a resounding "NO!" to such 19th-century-captain-of-industry legislation. I invite the party to join us in opposition to this monostrosity, and stand for their values.

It is now clear, that it is time for this government to come to an end. A government that proposes such legislation, has lost all democratic legitimation, if it serves not the people they pledged to serve, but the interest of their big-money friends alone. It is clear that such a government can never be the right choice for the South American people. It is time, for this government to resign, and let the people speak their will over this.

[Cranberry]

Mr. Speaker,
I can only once again plead for the honourable members' conscience not to vote for this disastrous bill that will fundamentally change the way for the workers of our nation to let their voice be heard, and puts them at a significant disadvantage towards their employers, when both should be able to see eye to eye to each other.

Honourable members of the Social Liberal party, stay true to the name of your party and the message you were elected by the voters, and join us in opposition to this bill!

[Cranberry]

Nay