Mideast Assembly Thread

[big bad fab]

If at all possible, I'd really like to get all of these voted on by the Assembly ASAP so we can get them on the November ballot.

Well, I'm really busy in RL now and it will be the case for the weeks to come. Forgive me. I've intended, for a moment, to withdraw my amendments, but, as is perfectly logical, principled objections won't fade away with time, so it's better to go to vote ASAP.

So, to make things simpler and as there are many objections from every side, I re-write my first amendment and ask our dear Speaker to submit this new first amendment and the other two amendments (unchanged) to the Assembly's vote.

I make it clear that, though introduced simultaneously, these 3 amendments are independent and a 3 separated votes have to be organized in our Assembly (when I talked about a "package", that had no legal consequence: it was just a way to invite my fellow Assemblymen to think about them globally).


1) Peter's objection on the right for police agents to kill in order to save innocent lives should be addressed and I make some changes on this.
As for Badger's objection on euthanasia, we simply disagree and I won't convince him . So, no need to further debates.
As for his objection on abortion, my writing can be "anti-choice" only if the period before birth is viewed as "human life": I am personally in favour of such a view and would be in favour of forbidding abortion except in cases of rape or of threat to mother's life, but th current state of law is one that view the human life as legally beginning when the child is out of his/her mother.
So, I won't change my writing on this. But I perfectly understand the objection of my fellow Badger.

Here is my last writing. It won't change any more and you'll have to do with its weaknesses .

Protection of Human Life Amendment to the Third Mideast Constitution

The clause 1. of Article V of the Third Mideast Constitution is amended to read:

"1.  Human Life shall not be removed under any circumstance, except by law enforcement officers when allowed to use deadly force to protect threatened innocent lives and by soldiers when allowed to use deadly force against enemies in time of war. No person shall be denied of Liberty or Property without due process of Law, Nor shall any person be denied the equal protection of Law."


2) The Eminent Domain Statute only deals with PUBLIC entities using or taking private property, not with PRIVATE entities taking or trying to take or using without being allowed private property of another else.

So, I stick to my amendment proposal:

Protection of Private Property Amendment to the Third Mideast Constitution

I. The words "private properties," are included after the word "houses," in the clause 11. of Article V of the Third Mideast Constitution.

II. The clause 13. of Article V of the Third Mideast Constitution is amended to read:

"13. Private property shall not be taken or used by another private legal entity. Private property shall not be taken by a public legal entity for public use, without just compensation."


3) A right to education doesn't entail the same education for everyone. So, even mentally disabled persons receive a sort of education through treatment and psychological care.
My phrase "along lines and minimal requirements set by Law" is here to allow the possibility to have different lines and requirements for objectively/obviously different situations.

As for the age, there is no age set in our current Constitution, so 14 is already something. And 16 would be too old because you've got teens who follow an apprenticeship course, in which they work "normally" (with a contract) for more than 50% of their time and so are no longer in the education system, though they keep following courses and lessons at school.
I don't want to harm this system of apprenticeship, which is very useful for young people who aren't at ease in school, to give them real competences and to prevent "premature" unemployment.

So, I stick to my amendment proposal:

Right to Education Amendment to the Third Mideast Constitution

The clause 18. of Article V of the Third Mideast Constitution is amended to read:

"18. All persons under eighteen shall have the right to a publicly funded, well-balanced education. All persons under fourteen are required to receive education along lines and minimal requirements set by Law, in public or private institutions or in families."


I thank our Speaker to make us vote on these 3 proposals, whatever the anticipated result .

[big bad fab]

The Mideast Save the Sinking Ship That Is Our Economy Act

Section I: The Assembly recognises the need for a lower regional corporate tax, in order to stimulate our economy and help boost employment. We therefore will offer tax cuts to businesses that are successful in creating new jobs in the region. 
Definitions: "Workforce compensation" is the value of benefits paid to employees, both full and part time, whether in form of salaries/wages or the dollar value of fringe benefits such as health insurance, etc.
   1)   Effective 1/1/10, every Mideast business, company, and corporation that is successful in increasing their overall workforce compensation, regardless of whether said increase is due to additional employees being hired or increased compensation to current employees or a combination thereof in this region with at least 5 will get a 25 % tax cut reduction equivalent to double the percentage increase for employee compensation in their corporate tax rate for 2010, up to a maximum reduction of 50%. (i.e. A 3.5% increase in employment/compensation will result in a 7% reduction in corporate taxes. 5% increase will result in a 10% tax cut, etc.)
   2) Any increase of total compensation for individual employees salary and/or benefits above $100,000 per year is excluded from calculating any reduction of corporate taxes pursuant to Section 1 above.

Section II: The Assembly proposes that a number of 10 billion dollars be used in programs designed to extend and repair the region's infrastructure, such as building new roads, bridges, tunnels and railroad, increasing and promoting train activity, and renovate decayed roads.

Section III: The funding for public schools and universities will be increased with 7 % the coming two years.

Section IV: The region's funding for science for new effective and green energy will be increased with 5 %.   

Section V: The funding for the initiatives in Section II, III, and IV will be drawn from the 32 billions handed to the Mideast Region through the Regional and Local Fiscal Relief Act.


 

- It seems as if your 25% reduction isn't coherent with your examples. If the reduction is 25%, that would mean 12.5% increase in employee compensation. 50% is a maximum, but 25% can't be a minimum. So, what is it ?
I'm sorry if I've misundertood this clause, but, really, it isn't very clear to me for the moment.

Of course, the example should be removed from the text..., and also the "etc." word, which is quite difficult to deal with, legally speaking .

- As for the use of national funds, though I would have been very reluctant to this pouring of money THAT DOES NOT EXIST (except in the Senate's writings and in the future work of our children...), the reality is that the Mideast region must now use this money.

Your proposal's sections III and IV should be amended, because a 7% increase in an area where the budget is already massive would be too much. I would advise a 4% increase each year) or a 7% increase but over 2 years.
As for "science for new effective and green energy", the basis is ridiculous and so, a 50% increase wouldn't be outrageous.

If you've got precise numbers, I would be pleased, but I think the rough assessments I have in mind aren't bad.

As for section II, I would advise to limit the list of infrastructures and to set priorities:
1. repairings and works aimed at improve the security of current infrastructures, first of bridges and tunnels, then of roads; (but note that I exclude extending roads, a source of pollution and pork...)
2. extending and improving environmental-friendly infrastructures: renewable energy production centers and distribution infrastructure; infrastructures easing the use of electrical transportation.
3. increasing and promoting railway transportation, whether of persons or of goods.

And you may usefully add that the sums allowed to this program should be spent or engaged before the end of 2011 and that the Public Procurement Policy Bill, which our Assembly has voted recently, shoudl be applied to these spendings but with an exceptional rate of 50%.

Thanks for your time.

[big bad fab]

I thank you for your quick answer and for taking into consideration some of my ideas or objections on sections I and II.
We are OK on section III.

So, I'm going to intervene only on section IV.
What I stated is that 5% of increase on public spendings that are very low is little thing.

When you wrote about a 7% increase in ALL the public fundings for ALL public schools and universities, this makes a BIG, BIG amount.

But when you have 5% of something which is very small, it's still very, very small (see, Mideast's public funding of science for new effective and green energy is VERY small; the main amount of money spent for research in these areas is of private origin, even in universities).

That's why my 50% isn't outrageous, because the basis on which you apply this 50% may not exceed 500m$.... Imagine 5% of this !

Thanks again for your attention.

[big bad fab]

I'd like to introduce to the Assembly the following:


The Periodical Assessment of Statute Laws for a Better Accountability of our Government Bill

I. Each year, the Assembly reviews the Statute Laws which came into force 5 years earlier, in order to check their lasting usefulness, to scrap Statute Laws that have become useless or to amend Statute Laws that have more downsides than upsides.

II. To that aim, an Assemblyman shall submit an "Assessement Report" to the Assembly regarding each law referred to in clause I.
After having consulted the Governor's office, every accurate administrative entity, the other members of the Assembly, the Atlasia Game Master and a number of citizens, and having checked the overall and additional costs, the financial implications and the results of the law, the Assemblyman writes an "Assessment Report".

III. The "Assessment Report" shall give a statement:
a. on the overall and the additional costs of the law,
b. on the current risks and the possible future risks (at least in the following areas: constitutional risks, safety and human risks, security risks, financial risks),
c. on the upsides and downsides and on the efficiency of the law in comparison with its original aims and with the means it uses or its implementation implies,
d. on its compatibility with the Constitution and with other Statute Laws.
The report shall conclude whether the law can be let unchanged or needs to be repealed or amended, due to incompatibility, to uselessness, to excessive risks or to excessive costs.
The Assemblyman who has written the report shall introduce at the same time a bill to repeal or amend the law if the report concludes so.

IV. Each year, before the end of January, the Assembly by a majority vote or its Speaker if no majority is reached shares out between the Assemblymen (including the Speaker) the reviewing work of all the Statute Laws which came into force in the preceding 5th year.


The title of my proposal seems to be clear: we must review periodically our legislation, in order to simplify it, to amend it, to improve it, as reality changes, evolves faster and faster, as our financial resources are under strain, as our Government needs to remain not too big and to act humbly and moderately.

The assessment of legislation is almost as important a work than the vote of new legislations. I think our fellow citizens will agree on that and my fellow Assemblymen and the candidates to the Assembly are already aware of this.

With our Assembly soon extended to five seats, it will be easier to perform this task of reviewing the laws.

I urge our Assembly to vote this bill before the next elections, so that our new Assembly will be able to begin this assessment work in January.

Of course, I'm open to all your objections, critics, improvements on this bill.

I thank you for your attention.

[big bad fab]

On the economic bill:

I'm sorry to ask this again, but how much does a 1% increase represent in section III and how much a 1% increase in section IV ?

Frankly, I think we are talking about millions in section IV and about billions in section III...

Rather than proposing myself another amendment, I just suggest that, if you've worked on precise numbers (which are not secret... whatever laws on PMs ! ), one of you, Speaker, fellow Assemblyman or GM, gives them in front of the Assembly.

If you haven't more rpecise numbers, I would recommend to reduce the amount of section II's spendings to 9 bn $, to stay at 7% in section III and to put a 25% increase in section IV.

I don't want to seem monomaniac on this, it's just a question of common sense:
when you have 1000 which is increased by 7%, you've got 1070
when you have 20 which is increased by 5%, you've got 20.4
when you have 20 which is increased by 50%, you've got 30
What I mean is very simple when we discuss on real numbers (and when I take 1000 and 20, I'm very highly undervaluing the real difference I think...).

[big bad fab]

Oups, I haven't seen our Governor's objection on my first amendment.

Sorry to put more mess, but, even if I think the word "removed" implies a notion of intent and will that is not in self-defense, I think our Governor's remark should be taken into account.

I'm deeply sorry, Mr. Speaker, but could you submit again the first proposal with my own and -last...- amendment, written as follows ?


Protection of Human Life Amendment to the Third Mideast Constitution

The clause 1. of Article V of the Third Mideast Constitution is amended to read:

"1.  Human Life shall not be removed under any circumstance, except in case of self-defense, by law enforcement officers when allowed to use deadly force to protect threatened innocent lives and by soldiers when allowed to use deadly force against enemies in time of war. No person shall be denied of Liberty or Property without due process of Law, Nor shall any person be denied the equal protection of Law."

[big bad fab]

For the record, I provide Badger with permission to post my private analyses of the economic package.

I wish to see these analyses and these numbers before giving you a final opinion on Badger's amendment.

Anyway, with my other suggestions, you'd have to re-write some other points.

[big bad fab]

Protection of Private Property Amendment to the Third Mideast Constitution

I. The words "private properties," are included after the word "houses," in the clause 11. of Article V of the Third Mideast Constitution.

II. The clause 13. of Article V of the Third Mideast Constitution is amended to read:

"13. Private property shall not be taken or used by another private legal entity. Private property shall not be taken by a public legal entity for public use, without just compensation."


AYE


Right to Education Amendment to the Third Mideast Constitution

The clause 18. of Article V of the Third Mideast Constitution is amended to read:

"18. All persons under eighteen shall have the right to a publicly funded, well-balanced education. All persons under fourteen are required to receive education along lines and minimal requirements set by Law, in public or private institutions or in families."


AYE

[big bad fab]

Protection of Human Life Amendment to the Third Mideast Constitution

The clause 1. of Article V of the Third Mideast Constitution is amended to read:

"1.  Human Life shall not be removed under any circumstance, except in case of self-defense, by law enforcement officers when allowed to use deadly force to protect threatened innocent lives and by soldiers when allowed to use deadly force against enemies in time of war. No person shall be denied of Liberty or Property without due process of Law, Nor shall any person be denied the equal protection of Law."


AYE

[big bad fab]

And, yes, I'm sorry but I have to object to the matter being redrafted for even further debate at this point, at least until we get the economic development bill passed. After that I have no objection to it being resubmitted. But for now I would suggest the matter be tabled.

I understand your objection, as the debate on this has been chaotic and mostly because of me.
That's up to our Speaker now and I would understand if he votes "nay" or if he eventually decides to stop the voting due to your procedural objection.

So, my fellow Assemblymen, don't worry, I wouldn't protest against any final decision.


As for your first objection, well, in French, "légitime défense" legally includes defense of your own family, of those whom you are legally responsible for;
but, if "self-defense" hasn't the same meaning in English, I'm sorry again that my bad legal English weakens again my proposals here...

[big bad fab]

As for your first objection, well, in French, "légitime défense" legally includes defense of your own family, of those whom you are legally responsible for;
but, if "self-defense" hasn't the same meaning in English, I'm sorry again that my bad legal English weakens again my proposals here...

English is a bloody comlicated language. I too assumed self-defense included defense of a third party as well, otherwise I'd have pointed it out earlier.

I think it might be wise to table this amendment and return to it once we've dealt with the Economy Act, as well as your other bill, so that we can work on this in debth. I would for example like to explorse how this proposal would affect current euthonesia legislation.

However since it is unlikely to happen before the next Assembly, I'll leave the final decission to you, as that Assembly might very well be more negative to such legislation.   

I'm a reasonable guy: I've tried to push this amendment but with no success so far.
So I agree with your proposal. Let's table this amendment and we'll discuss it later, i.e. after your economy proposal and after my "constant assessment" proposal.

[big bad fab]

I'm sorry, Mr. Speaker, but I'm still waiting for numbers from our dear Badger, after the GM has allowed him to give them to the Assembly.

[big bad fab]

Well....

As nobody can give numbers (and I don't blame anyone, as I have no numbers myself), I can give you the French situation:

for public schools and universities, it's 85 bn Euros
but without the buildings of degrees before the Baccalaureat, at 18 years old and without the technical, cooking and cleaning staff, 2 areas where the local public entities are competent,
so the total is: 115 bn Euros.

Now, public support for science and research in green energy (and even in all green technical processes, including green car, for example):
at most (I include all "green" research...), 1.5 bn Euros....

And, what is more, in France, public support for R&D and science is huge (it is the private financing which is weak, contrary to the US).

See what I meant ?

5% of 1.5 bn Euros is ridiculous,
7% of 115 bn Euros is massive.

I'm not saying that we should cut the 7%. I'm saying 5% in for "green" science and research is far too small to be effective.

So, maybe we can set the increase at, at least, 30% and cut the sums for infrastructure a bit... (by 1 bn $ for example)

Maybe our Speaker can make a new proposal on these numbers. Or may he prefer that I introduce a friendly amendment ?

[big bad fab]

Dear Assemblyman Badger, your amendment is perfect for me.

Of course, I let the last word to our dear Speaker.

[big bad fab]

Since Big Bad Fab didn't have any objections, the amendment is accepted as friendly.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I'm ready when you guys are ready.

Ready. Steady. Go, Mr Speaker.

[big bad fab]

The Mideast Save the Sinking Ship That Is Our Economy Act

Section I: The Assembly recognises the need for a lower regional corporate tax, in order to stimulate our economy and help boost employment. We therefore will offer tax cuts to businesses that are successful in creating new jobs in the region. 
Definitions: "Workforce compensation" is the value of benefits paid to employees, both full and part time, whether in form of salaries/wages or the dollar value of fringe benefits such as health insurance, etc.
   1)   Effective 1/1/10, every Mideast business, company, and corporation that is successful in increasing their overall workforce compensation, regardless of whether said increase is due to additional employees being hired or increased compensation to current employees or a combination thereof in this region with at least 5 will get a tax cut reduction equivalent to double the percentage increase for employee compensation in their corporate tax rate for 2010, up to a maximum reduction of 50%. (i.e. A 3.5% increase in employment/compensation will result in a 7% reduction in corporate taxes. 5% increase will result in a 10% tax cut, etc.)
   2) Any increase of total compensation for individual employees salary and/or benefits above $100,000 per year is excluded from calculating any reduction of corporate taxes pursuant to Section 1 above.

Section II: The Assembly proposes that a number of 9 billion dollars be used in programs designed to extend and repair the region's infrastructure, such as building new roads, bridges, tunnels and railroad, increasing and promoting train activity, and renovate decayed roads.

Section III: The funding for public schools and universities will be increased by 7% the coming two years.

Section IV: The region's funding for science for new effective and green energy will be increased with 25%.   

Section V: The funding for the initiatives in Section II, III, and IV will be drawn from the 32 billions handed to the Mideast Region through the Regional and Local Fiscal Relief Act.

AYE

[big bad fab]

It's 5 actual years.
In 2010, we will review all the Statute Laws adopted in 2005 (1st year of Atlasia).
In 2011, all the Laws adopted in 2006, etc.

[big bad fab]

Five years is too long in my opinion.

There are some reasons for my choice:
- we need to review EVERY law, so we need to start with 2005,
- reviewing SERIOUSLY is quite a work and, even if we're 5 now, it will take time,
- we must let some time for a law to be implemented completely and with some hindsight.

Therefore, I've opted for this delay of reviewing.

That must be a great step forward for our region and it may be extended in all Atlasia...

[big bad fab]

I too think five years might be a bit too long.

As you pointed out, five years is how long Atlasia has existed at this point, a very long time in other words. Few RPGs live this long, and it is very likely that this game has long been ended at the point it's time to review the statue laws we pass today. Therefore to make the time from a laws passage to the time it will be reviewed five years, would be way too long if you ask me.   

I also believe most statue laws that was passed in the Mideast in 05 has already been changed or altered in some way or another. If we were to dig up the statue laws from then, two-thirds would most likely be afterwords amended or repealed. Not to mention that before we had an active assembly, there wasn't as much regional law made as there is now. So the number of laws from 05 that actually would need a review is probably pretty small.

I would instead suggest two years. It's not a too short period, nor a too long.

I'm open on this and 2 years may be well;
still, there is the "stock" of laws passed in 2005, 2006 and 2007. Should we review them throughout the first year of implementation of my proposed bill ?

Or do you intend to make the bill effective only for future statue laws ? That wouldn't be fair and would miss a big part of the aims of this reviewing.

[big bad fab]

Pleased to hear it from you, Mr. Speaker.

The "stock" may indeed be manageable in the first year or the first 2 years.

May I add that my proposal will also be a way to (push everyone to) ensure that we've got an updated and complete list of our Laws and of their text ?

[big bad fab]

Our Governor has chosen and I have no reason for not trusting his good choice:

AYE

[big bad fab]

Yes !

Our Governor wanted you to certify the vote on my proposed amendment to the Bill of Rights on the Right to Education.
Mayeb you should make it clear again.

And back to my bill on reviewing "old" laws: what do our fellow Assemblyman Badger think about it ?
But, Mr. Speaker you may have had other objections ?

[big bad fab]

First of all, you may know that without a "mandatory" provision, this work of reviewing won't be done, because our Atlasia is functioning in the short time, with people trying to push a bill and then go away without EVER thinking about consequences.
That's a pretty irresponsible behaviour and this bill is also aimed at tackling this problem of RESPONSIBILITY.

I've understood your attempt to put the burden of my idea on myself... but, well, I'll also stop taking part in Atlasia one day or another and this work will have to go on.
And even before I leave, I'm not better than anyone else: without a "mandatory" provision, I probably won't be able to review every statute law.

As for the "bureaucratic" critic, well, keep cool !
A report won't be many pages long... And you know that the reference to "every accurate administrative entity" is only something the Assemblyman who will review CAN do (and something virtual here).
But in real life, it would be completely normal to check with administrative entities who work on the subject or implement the law. That's not bureaucratic, that's obvious.
What my bill wants also to point is that we vote laws without any SERIOUS and PRECISE assessment before. So, we need to checl all those laws voted throughout the years, TRYING to put figures on them or "after" them as they are already in force.

As for the names of reports, well, I have to be precise in a bill and we need to know what we are talking about. Every day, we realize that we aren't precise enough (some electoral rules, for example ).

There are between 12 and 25 laws to review each year: with 5 Assemblymen, it's really doable throughout one year. Of course, there is the issue of the "stock" but it can be dealt with throughout the 2 first years of implementation.

I'd add that every legislative body (even in "small governments"....) has its own workforce, able to make risk analysis and financial assessment.
What is more, a conservative wouldn't deny that a strong legislative body is, on the contrary, good for preventing the Government to expand too much.

You know that the Assembly is already reluctant (that's not a critic, just a fact) to change laws already implemented. So, my reviewing proposal won't

And, lastly, I would say that I'm not dealing with the past. I'm just dealing with the present, as these laws are our current laws, nothing else.
As for the future, well, every Assemblyman has many ideas and I have no worry about this. But we need to know our current legislation, a result of the "past" of course, but that's what partly makes us what we are. And we need first to update, review, modify, improve, check it, before always adding new laws: that's a conservative (and common-sense) stance.
Moreover, reviewing laws currently in force will OF COURSE make new ideas emerging. So it will contribute to our future also.

My bill will also be good for the future, by the way, as, when we will vote a proposal now, we'll know that it will be reviewed and we'll try to be "better" in writing it.

These are the answers I can make, hoping I've takne into account all your points.

[big bad fab]

I'm sorry Fab, but I remain utterly unconvinced.

What if every business in the Mideast were required to undergo a similar "Assessment report" regardless of profitability, to determine whether it should stay in business? Whether government mandated or by some rogue coalition of stockholders, it would be a burdensome, needless activity that distracts from the goal of the enterprise--making money. Likewise, the proposal here distracts from our own necessary enterprise--making laws.

I think you underestimate, my friend, just how burdensome these Assessment Reports will be. The GM has more than enough on his plate beyond having to reconsider the financial/social/environmental/cultural/sociological impact of every law we've ever passed. Regardless of the amount of time spent here, the amount of time we spend chasing down every law for cost/benefit analysis distracts from the present.

Tell me Fab--specifically--exactly what laws would you seek to repeal or modify at this point due to being extraneous or past their prime?

Your comparison is unfair.

Of course, businesses are CONSTANTLY making re-assessment of their products, services, processes, costs. Of course, this work is necessary because if you don't re-assess yourself at least periodically and never look at the real results, you are sure to make mistakes and to keep on making again and again.

Yes, this is quite a work, but it's work really needed, as we need to be RESPONSIBLE and ACCOUNTABLE in our legislative work.

Finally, I won't give you any specific example of a law that should be amended after this review, because the aim of the whole exercise is precisely to ascertain it. And I won't do it, because the debate would be too... specific indeed.

Mr. Speaker, I know that our deadline is almost reached, so this proposal will be switched to our new Assembly.
I just want to say that I think my debate with Badger won't go far away (I mean, it's an interesting one but one where we'll probably stick to our original opinions), as it's a principled one and as our fellow Assemblyman won't propose any amendment.
So, at one point, you and the new members of our Assembly should introduce amendments if you wish to, or the proposal will have to be submitted to vote.

Thanks for your attention.
Thanks for this session during which we have worked and debated wholeheartedly !

[big bad fab]

I nominate our current Speaker, Swedish Cheese, to continue the fine work he's been doing in the job already.

This time, you've managed to be the one who did it, eh ?

I second this.