Proposal: Repeal of Flemingovianism as State Religion

But we'd be being all irrational and affronting to free thought Grosse!

TNP as an entity would collapse!

The sky would fall, cats would chase dogs and Roman might start making sense!

Such is the case when states have official religions.
 
Id like to strike the clause about tax advsntages. I feel as a flemite I deserve a TNP tax credit. Im tired of r3n spending my tax money in gold toliet paper and inviting strange women to the executive office for "law review" sessions.
 
Sauceistan:
Wow. The forum blew into a fit of rage in less than a hour.
Despite the fact I voted for the State Religion, and I agree it would give an undeserved victory for the opposers, I feel this is tearing the region apart.
I agree with Roman that a State Religion was a bad idea. But only because he made it that way.
Click to expand...
No, history makes State Religion a bad idea in RL and IC. Blaming the inevitable consequences of a bad law on those who dissent and refute that law is like blaming a murder on the viction - if he only didn't resist the murderer!.

“Persecution is not an original feature in any religion; but it is always the strongly marked feature of all religions established by law.”
------- Thomas Paine, The Age of Reason
Click to expand...

I have done nothing but voiced my dissent and opposition to Official State Religion. I refused to lay down on this matter. I will never be silent in my dissent unless government censorship is to become the new law of the land.

This is about Official State Religion. It is not about me, it is not about Flemingovia, it is not even about Flemingovianism. It is about whether or not this region is going to survive as a free region in which no individual's rights or 'religious observance' is mandated by law, by virtue of a citizen's requirement to obey every single law no matter how unjust.

This is about whether or not the government has the right to impose an Official State Religion on those who dissent but are required to support that law.

This is a matter of principle that transcends IC and RL issues.

Read Alunya's resignation from the RA. That will explain how this is about State Religion despite attempts to muddle the matter by making it a personal attack on one individual.
 
Romanoffia:
“Persecution is not an original feature in any religion; but it is always the strongly marked feature of all religions established by law.”
------- Thomas Paine, The Age of Reason
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
Feel free to point out any on-going or recent persecutions of non-adherents of the state religions of
Costa Rica
Liechtenstein
Malta
Monaco
Vatican City
Andorra
Dominican Republic
El Salvador
Panama
Paraguay
Peru
Poland
Spain
Greece
Georgia
Finland
Armenia
Denmark
Iceland
Norway
Sweden
Tuvalu
United Kingdom
Bangladesh
Djibouti
Algeria
Comoros
Jordan
Sri Lanka
Thailand
 
Grosseschnauzer:
Further admin note: Please tone down the vitriol on all sides. I think the admin team in particular is reaching the limits of our collective patience, and flooding the report CP is not going to be tolerated going forward as that conduct, too, is a form of abuse that can violate the ToU/ToS.

Now as a RA member, I also am like other members who oppose the concept of a state religion, and at a minimum Section 7.3 of the Legal Code needs amendment to remove some mandated elements to make it minimally tolerable. However, I have impatience with the gross bullying that has been going on so I'm not sure this vehicle is the way to aleiviate the serious issues in that law.

Section 7.3: Religious Observance
14. Flemingovianism shall be adopted as the a religion and church of The North Pacific.
15. All nations are guaranteed freedom of expression of all, any, or no religious belief, and that freedom shall not be curtailed.
16. The Flemingovian religion shall receive no governmental, financial or tax advantages through being the a religion of The North Pacific.
17. Holidays of the Flemingovian religion shall be observed permitted regionally, and all nations shall have the right to take a day off work, unpaid, on those holidays. Government officials are excluded from the effects of this clause.
18. No type of religious test shall ever be required of any nation to hold any governmental office or position.No nation shall serve on the cabinet or any other appointed or elected government position by virtue of their status in the Flemingovian religion.
19. Flemingovian officials may participate, as invited by the delegate, at all state functions.
Click to expand...

Will Flem or other members consider this as a compromise?
Click to expand...
I consider this an excellent compromise that would solve the issue. I have no objections to this wording as it leaves open the recognition status to all other religions should they wish to do so.

One thing I would change is the word "adopted" to "recognised" thus:

14. Flemingovianism shall be adopted recognised as the a religion and church of The North Pacific.

Either way, the proposal as it stands (with or without my suggested edit) removes any church as being tantamount to a 4th estate of government and I think it would be an excellent compromise bill.


I have no problem with recognised religions or adopted religions as long as they are not promoted as the religion of the region.

I will support Grosse's proposal should it come to a vote.


[edited for orthography and spelling]
 
Section 7.3: Religious Observance
14. Flemingovianism shall be adopted as the a religion and church of The North Pacific.
15. All nations are guaranteed freedom of expression of all, any, or no religious belief, and that freedom shall not be curtailed.
16. The Flemingovian religion shall receive no governmental,or financial advantages through being the a religion of The North Pacific.
17. Holidays of the Flemingovian religion shall be observed permitted regionally, and all nations shall have the right to take a day off work,with pay, on those holidays. Government officials are excluded from the effects of this clause.
18. No type of religious test shall ever be required of any nation to hold any governmental office or position.No nation shall serve on the cabinet or any other appointed or elected government position by virtue of their status in the Flemingovian religion.
19. Flemingovian officials may participate, as invited by the delegate, at all state functions.

19. All adherents of Flemingovianism shall recieve a 100% tax break, futhermore all nations residing in The North Pacific shall recieve a 100% tax break and the TNPRS (The North Pacific Revenue Service)shall be made null and void.
Click to expand...

My edited proposal.
 
My apologies Roman. I felt I was a little harsh and put much of the blame on you in my first post. However, I feel as though you are just hurting everyone, but mostly yourself. Yes, 15 nations voted against the bill. But how many of them sympathize with you now? 3? How many do you think it's going to be in two weeks?

I know I'm still fairly new, but it seems as though you've done great things for this region. You feel very passionately about this issue and you have made some great points. But are you going to destroy what you have done in TNP over one silly bill? (That's right. Silly bill.)

I understand this isn't about you, but it appears as if both sides are repeating themselves (including what I just said) in a meaner and louder way each time. I don't want this to divide the region.

Now that I'm done, I would like to say I like what Grosse brought to the table. I think opening up the possibility of multiple state religions could ease the tension.
 
Section 7.3: Religious Observance
15. All nations are guaranteed freedom of expression of all, any, or no religious belief, and that freedom shall not be curtailed.
Click to expand...
For those of you who feel the act infringes on their rights, I remind you that this was placed in it to safeguard everyone's rights.
 
I voted against this proposal. I don't feel the region needs a state religion. However, as with everything I respect the decision of the RA and most of the RA voted for this.

I would support any proposal to repeal any region sanctioned religion. I believe the current law allows for multiple religions, but I would prefer not sanctioning one above another.


OOC: I've got opinions but those will not be expressed here. They would just contribute to the sideshow.
 
Sauceistan:
My apologies Roman. I felt I was a little harsh and put much of the blame on you in my first post. However, I feel as though you are just hurting everyone, but mostly yourself. Yes, 15 nations voted against the bill. But how many of them sympathize with you now? 3? How many do you think it's going to be in two weeks?

I know I'm still fairly new, but it seems as though you've done great things for this region. You feel very passionately about this issue and you have made some great points. But are you going to destroy what you have done in TNP over one silly bill? (That's right. Silly bill.)

I understand this isn't about you, but it appears as if both sides are repeating themselves (including what I just said) in a meaner and louder way each time. I don't want this to divide the region.

Now that I'm done, I would like to say I like what Grosse brought to the table. I think opening up the possibility of multiple state religions could ease the tension.
Click to expand...

Sometimes one has to stand one's ground and not compromise one's principles no matter what the cost. The problem is that anyone with any kind of foresight could see a problem with a State Religion in a region that has always prided itself on individual liberties. Such laws are the beginning of a slippery slope in which deterioration of the region is the inevitable result. Such a law was assured of causing problems. What if it had be an Official State Political Party that was recognized as THE Official Political Party of the region named in the Legal Code? Would anyone have ever voted for something like that?

This law was a total violation of the cardinal rule of never mixing religion with politics and law. Anyone who creates such a law that names an Official State Religion either lacks foresight of any kind or is looking for trouble when the law clearly gives preference to one religion over all other religions. As such, to give official legal preference and superiority to one religion is to denigrate and make subservient all other religions. That is an act of unequal treatment of equals.

Grosseschauzer's compromise version of the proposal of this thread is a good compromise. Although I do not like any specific religion being even mentioned in any law for obvious reasons, the compromise opens up the recognition of religions by name without the chance of any religion becoming an arm of the state or a 4th estate of government.

punk d:
I voted against this proposal. I don't feel the region needs a state religion. However, as with everything I respect the decision of the RA and most of the RA voted for this.

I would support any proposal to repeal any region sanctioned religion. I believe the current law allows for multiple religions, but I would prefer not sanctioning one above another.


OOC: I've got opinions but those will not be expressed here. They would just contribute to the sideshow.
Click to expand...

I agree with your post, but with one tiny exception - what happens when the 'will' of the RA passes a law that creates an inequality? That is when the Constitution is supposed to put the brakes on democracy so that the rights of individuals are not compromised.

Also, when the current law promotes and recognizes any religion as THE religion, it is legalised inequality and implies that no other religions have any kind of equality with the State Religion. Ideally, I would like the whole State Religion law completely struck, but Grosse's compromise proposal removes the inequality and bias towards a specific religion over other religions.

And that is why I and a number of people are in support of Grosse's proposal to settle this issue.

I and those who support the contention that an Official State Religion are being flexible in this matter. It's time to see if the other side is willing to compromise or if they want this morality play to continue ad infinitum.
 
I would like to object to the Speaker's decision to move this into formal debate. As PaulWall pointed out originally, it spent one hour being discussed before that occurred. Formal debate is highly premature.

Like many others, I will not vote in favor of any repeal or amendment to the law for as long as Romanoffia's abusive behavior toward Flem and others in TNP continues.
 
I have been thinking long and hard about Grosse's proposal.

I would like to thank him for attempting to come up with a solution that falls short of complete repeal, especially since it compromises his own held views, as he has said.

What I do not understand, given the principle of separation of church and state that some are arguing for, why having (potentially) several state religions is more palatable than having just one state religion?

Surely if state and religion should not mix, it makes no difference whether there is one or many?


Edit: re-reading Grosse's post, i am not sure that a proposal that is "minimally tolerable" is in the best interests of TNP at the moment.
 
I think Grosseschnauzer's proposal is exactly what this region needs right now. And I think it is entirely tolerable as several others do. And, it is indeed in the best interests of the region. Let me explain.

It solves a number of problems. The first is that it re-words the law in a way that your church is recognized in the legal code as a church of the region.

The second is that it does not give any special preference to one church over another.

The third is that it allows other churches/religions to seek the same status and satisfies any concerns of inequality of religions under the law.

The fourth is that it creates competition in the marketplace of religious ideas by allowing other churches to seek adopted or recognized status if they should get a similar bill or modifying bill passed. It will increase the cultural diversity of TNP in a positive way by not creating a privileged class in terms of religions in the region.

The fifth is that it doesn't set up a situation where any religion is THE religion and prevents any religion from becoming a fourth estate of the government. I have no wish to see any religions being diminished by one religion having special legal status over all other religions, which is exactly what the current law grants.

This satisfies a lot of concerns and issues in a rational and logical way. Is it exactly perfect in term of what everyone wants? Of course not. I would like an absolute repeal of the State Religion Act, but I am willing to compromise. And this is just about the only compromise I see standing a chance which is why I support Grosseschnauzer's modified proposal.

If some kind of compromise is not arrived at this issue will be a perennial issue. I am trying to prevent that from happening by giving in to compromise. I think I have made a sufficient offer on my part to accept Grosseschnauzer's version of this bill. It is not an outright repeal; your church gets formal recognition, but in a way that is co-equal with all religions in the region.

Now, I am willing to accept this neutral compromise as it is written. I strongly urge you to do the same.

Addendum on edit:

Surely if state and religion should not mix, it makes no difference whether there is one or many?
Click to expand...

You misread my intent. I have no objection to religions or religion in general. I recognize the cultural value to the region. What I object to is making one specific religion THE religion in the form of an Official State Religion. It's a matter of equality. To raise one specific religion over others by Law is to institutionalise inequality of religions. As a matter of equality of all religions in they eyes of the law, the same legal status must be given to all religions or no religions.

Again, I have been urged to accept Grosseschnauzer's compromise in this matter. I hope you will do the same. It is in the best interests of this region and this is the only way to dispense with this matter. Meet me in the middle on this one and put an end to this silliness.
 
As I said in the opening post, I am sick and tired of it all.

Although I appreciate Grosse's efforts, I do not want to carve a niche for something that i no longer feel any desire to pursue.

If Grosse wants to propose his bill, or if someone else wants a stab at religious recognition in TNP feel free to have a go - but I recommend against it, for your own sake.
 
Romanoffia:
Sauceistan:
My apologies Roman. I felt I was a little harsh and put much of the blame on you in my first post. However, I feel as though you are just hurting everyone, but mostly yourself. Yes, 15 nations voted against the bill. But how many of them sympathize with you now? 3? How many do you think it's going to be in two weeks?

I know I'm still fairly new, but it seems as though you've done great things for this region. You feel very passionately about this issue and you have made some great points. But are you going to destroy what you have done in TNP over one silly bill? (That's right. Silly bill.)

I understand this isn't about you, but it appears as if both sides are repeating themselves (including what I just said) in a meaner and louder way each time. I don't want this to divide the region.

Now that I'm done, I would like to say I like what Grosse brought to the table. I think opening up the possibility of multiple state religions could ease the tension.
Click to expand...

Sometimes one has to stand one's ground and not compromise one's principles no matter what the cost. The problem is that anyone with any kind of foresight could see a problem with a State Religion in a region that has always prided itself on individual liberties. Such laws are the beginning of a slippery slope in which deterioration of the region is the inevitable result. Such a law was assured of causing problems. What if it had be an Official State Political Party that was recognized as THE Official Political Party of the region named in the Legal Code? Would anyone have ever voted for something like that?

This law was a total violation of the cardinal rule of never mixing religion with politics and law. Anyone who creates such a law that names an Official State Religion either lacks foresight of any kind or is looking for trouble when the law clearly gives preference to one religion over all other religions. As such, to give official legal preference and superiority to one religion is to denigrate and make subservient all other religions. That is an act of unequal treatment of equals.

Grosseschauzer's compromise version of the proposal of this thread is a good compromise. Although I do not like any specific religion being even mentioned in any law for obvious reasons, the compromise opens up the recognition of religions by name without the chance of any religion becoming an arm of the state or a 4th estate of government.

punk d:
I voted against this proposal. I don't feel the region needs a state religion. However, as with everything I respect the decision of the RA and most of the RA voted for this.

I would support any proposal to repeal any region sanctioned religion. I believe the current law allows for multiple religions, but I would prefer not sanctioning one above another.


OOC: I've got opinions but those will not be expressed here. They would just contribute to the sideshow.
Click to expand...

I agree with your post, but with one tiny exception - what happens when the 'will' of the RA passes a law that creates an inequality? That is when the Constitution is supposed to put the brakes on democracy so that the rights of individuals are not compromised.

Also, when the current law promotes and recognizes any religion as THE religion, it is legalised inequality and implies that no other religions have any kind of equality with the State Religion. Ideally, I would like the whole State Religion law completely struck, but Grosse's compromise proposal removes the inequality and bias towards a specific religion over other religions.

And that is why I and a number of people are in support of Grosse's proposal to settle this issue.

I and those who support the contention that an Official State Religion are being flexible in this matter. It's time to see if the other side is willing to compromise or if they want this morality play to continue ad infinitum.
Click to expand...
"Sometimes one has to stand one's ground"

Much like you did not do during your term as Chief Justice? I find the timing of these strong feelings towards state religion to be suspect in consideration of their starting right after your resignation. Do not think that anyone here will simply forget your conduct with this seeming smokescreen. Instead of owning up to your failure, you shout "conspiracy" and disturb the relative peace of this board with your frankly mental ramblings. It has been suggested to you multiple times to take a break from the board and let your irritation subside, but instead of taking this well-meaning advice you double-down.

I needn't even wonder that people who voted Nay for the religion bill would not support this repeal simply because of your behavior. Members have already stated as much. Even if you were successful in getting Flemingovianism repealed (which you didn't even bother attempting yourself, no template to copy-paste maybe?) you are, at the end of the day: repealing an RP religion that hasn't harmed anyone, and damaging your reputation, hopefully beyond repair this time.

To all those who are considering this repeal, be aware that it will not stop Romanoffia's behavior, he will simply find a new subject for his ranting and raving. I have been around him for ten years on here, can you say the same, and still want to support him?
 
A compromise, by its very nature, is not going to please either side of a dispute. But it is designed to find a middle ground that can be lived with.

The reason I took the approach I did is because of the language of Clause 2 of the Bill of Rights

2. Each Nation's rights to free speech, free press, and the free expression of religion shall not be infringed, and shall be encouraged, by the governmental authorities of the region. Each Nation has the right to assemble, and to petition the governmental authorities of the region, including the WA Delegate, for the redress of grievances. The governmental authorities of the region shall act only in the best interests of the Region, as permitted and limited under the Constitution.
Click to expand...

My proposal of a compromise meets the standard contained in Clause 2, but at the same time maintain a distinction between the government and any churches, and protect adherents of any religion, or no religion without favoritism, as far as their role in government is concerned.

I won't agree to Paul Wall's suggestion in as much as the last time I checked, there are no taxes in TNP, so the suggestion makes no logical or rational sense.

(OOC Note: I took the sentence concerning "no religious test" with respect to government offices almost verbatim from Article VI of the RL U.S. Constitution, which means it predates its First Amendment. And I would note that the type of religious test is not limited to governmental or political authorities, so it has always appeared to me to mean religious institutions as well. So the addition of that language here strengthens my goal of a middle ground that encourages religion without imposing any.)
 
It was a joke Grosse. You know 98.7% of all RA proposals are joke/silly proposals.

However will you at least consider changing the unpaid holiday part to paid? Kthx. Paid holidays FTW!
 
Grosseschnauzer:
A compromise, by its very nature, is not going to please either side of a dispute. But it is designed to find a middle ground that can be lived with.

The reason I took the approach I did is because of the language of Clause 2 of the Bill of Rights

2. Each Nation's rights to free speech, free press, and the free expression of religion shall not be infringed, and shall be encouraged, by the governmental authorities of the region. Each Nation has the right to assemble, and to petition the governmental authorities of the region, including the WA Delegate, for the redress of grievances. The governmental authorities of the region shall act only in the best interests of the Region, as permitted and limited under the Constitution.
Click to expand...

My proposal of a compromise meets the standard contained in Clause 2, but at the same time maintain a distinction between the government and any churches, and protect adherents of any religion, or no religion without favoritism, as far as their role in government is concerned.

I won't agree to Paul Wall's suggestion in as much as the last time I checked, there are no taxes in TNP, so the suggestion makes no logical or rational sense.

(OOC Note: I took the sentence concerning "no religious test" with respect to government offices almost verbatim from Article VI of the RL U.S. Constitution, which means it predates its First Amendment. And I would note that the type of religious test is not limited to governmental or political authorities, so it has always appeared to me to mean religious institutions as well. So the addition of that language here strengthens my goal of a middle ground that encourages religion without imposing any.)
Click to expand...
Since Flem stated that he just wants this done with I urge Grosse to start his own compromise as a separate bill and everyone vote nay on this bill, or Flem if you would like to withdraw it, it is up to you. The compromise that Grosse came up with serve the best of everyone's interest and will put this silly matter to rest.

Thanks,
Egalotir
 
I voted Against the initial Flemingovianism bill, but in a straight repeal situation I'd support keeping it now, purely because of the conduct of Romanoffia - which has exposed him as dogmatic, intolerant and militant in his quest to escalate this conflict beyond all levels of reasonableness. Making up absurd conspiracies about the damage State Religion is doing, when the blatantly obvious reality is that it has no material effect on our well-being, and the only damage being done is from his provocative reactions to it. If Flemingovianism will serve as a barrier to that sort of crazed extremist "freedom-fighter" nonsense politics, then I'd choose to keep Flemingovianism any day of the week, rather than appeasing ignorance.

I would certainly consider supporting the compromise proposal put forwards by Grosse though.
 
I abstained from the vote on the original act because I see no place for religion in the government, but I was under the impression that, for the most part, the so-called "compromise" that Grosse is suggesting was the intention of the original legislation thereby allowing equality of religions. When I commented on the initial act, I mentioned the simple logic that granting this title to a single religion and a single religion alone was unequal to which I was given this response: "There is no law that would prevent other religions from seeking the same recognition. The only thing preventing that from happening is the fact that there are no other NS religions around in TNP at the moment. " (Post is here.) and when I asked for confirmation from Flem that this was indeed the bill's intention he responded: "This is a democracy. If the people vote for it, there is no preventing the same act being passed with Flemingovianism being crossed out and the name of another religion being inserted! This would give us two recognised state religions." (Post is here.)

Initially I too understood that with the phrasing "THE state religion", that flem's religion would be the only state religion of TNP and that no other could be named, but it appears as if this wasn't quite the initial intention of the legislation. I blame this misunderstanding on a poor choice of wording in the original act, but Grosse's proposal changes the wording so that this is the new understanding of the legislation and I see it as a worthy "compromise" or perhaps better put, "solution". I encourage both sides of this debate to support Grosse's proposal.
 
SillyString:
I would like to object to the Speaker's decision to move this into formal debate. As PaulWall pointed out originally, it spent one hour being discussed before that occurred. Formal debate is highly premature.
Click to expand...
The objection is noted, however, debate on the matter of the state religion has been ongoing for close to a month now, both in the Assembly and in a number of other sub-fora outside of it, and, I would suggest, that there are few, if any, new perspectives or arguments for members to bring to bear on the matter. Formal debate shall continue.
 
North East Somerset:
I voted Against the initial Flemingovianism bill, but in a straight repeal situation I'd support keeping it now, purely because of the conduct of Romanoffia - which has exposed him as dogmatic, intolerant and militant, etc., etc., etc.
Click to expand...

Why, that's mighty dogmatic of you!

:blink:

Zyvetskistaahn:
SillyString:
I would like to object to the Speaker's decision to move this into formal debate. As PaulWall pointed out originally, it spent one hour being discussed before that occurred. Formal debate is highly premature.
Click to expand...
The objection is noted, however, debate on the matter of the state religion has been ongoing for close to a month now, both in the Assembly and in a number of other sub-fora outside of it, and, I would suggest, that there are few, if any, new perspectives or arguments for members to bring to bear on the matter. Formal debate shall continue.
Click to expand...

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
 
Romanoffia:
This is about Official State Religion. It is not about me,
Click to expand...

As the proposer of this repeal I can state categorically that yes, it is all about you. If it was not for the sake of bringing peace to the forum, and the hope that by appeasement you might stop the behaviour you are exhibiting, I would not have proposed this repeal.

Let's not pretend some high-minded motivation. It is all about appeasement. I freely admit it.
 
flemingovia:
Romanoffia:
This is about Official State Religion. It is not about me,
Click to expand...

As the proposer of this repeal I can state categorically that yes, it is all about you. If it was not for the sake of bringing peace to the forum, and the hope that by appeasement you might stop the behaviour you are exhibiting, I would not have proposed this repeal.

Let's not pretend some high-minded motivation. It is all about appeasement. I freely admit it.
Click to expand...
What an obnoxious motive on your part and I'm glad you admit your original intent. But rest assured that you are 'appeasing' more people than just me.

But no worries, your motivation to repeal Official State Religion is irrelevant. At least my motivations are grounded in individual civil liberties. If your bill passes, so be it. Otherwise Grosseschnauzer's compromise bill will be next to be voted on, regardless. I and many others only wish you had been capable of compromise and opted for Grosseschnauzer's compromise bill.

Again, I thank you for your cooperation in helping to remove this black cloud over the region called Official State Religion.
 
no, Romanoffia, it is not obnoxious of me. It is just weary and resigned.

You can play the knight in shining armour all you wish. In my book, you are just a thug.
 
As Deputy Speaker, I would appreciate if the Regional Assembly members could stay on topic about this proposal and leave any personal feelings toward one another in their respective chambers and not turn this assembly hall into a petty squabling match. Thank you.
 
I only responded to the specific personal attack in which I was called a "Thug", which I am absolutely entitled to do.
 
It was a encouragement to ALL parties not just you, Mr. Roman. I have half a mind to make an "inane comments thread" and split off ALL comments that are not benefical to the topic there.
 
OK, back on topic. This discussion should be about the Repeal of Official State Religion, not about beating up on Roman.
 
Elu at least has the benefit of a shell for protection.


OOC: Ironically, I have a pot of snapping turtle soup cooking on the stove at this very time. No kidding. Seriously. Damn, I love being a Southerner.
 
You could be correct. But when the suggestion arose of cutting short the formal debate, there was widespread objection. However, there seems to be little debate on the motion going on at the moment. Perhaps the Speaker ought to consider truncating formal debate?
 
I suppose we might as well get it over with. I'm not going to support a repeal(for the same reasons I had from the start), but I can see the virtue of us moving on at least.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top