[ingliz]

Article 8. - I think, given the difficulties we are having arriving at a parliamentary consensus, the interim constitution should not be considered a "constitution" but merely a discussion document. Then I think the first set of parliamentary rules would only need a simple majority to ratify them as the new constitution and law. I agree once a Constitution is made a 2/3 majority is needed to alter it after that.

There should also be rules governing the appointment of a Head of State and a Speaker of the House.

[Holt]

What are thoughts about nations within the Republic, e.g. the Norse nation, Gaelic nation, etc.? How much autonomy do we intend to give to the provinces, should we take Government?

[HoniSoit]

Article 8. - I think, given the difficulties we are having arriving at a parliamentary consensus, the interim constitution is not a "constitution" but merely a discussion document. I think the first set of parliamentary rules should only need a simple majority to make the new constitution law and a 2/3 majority needed to alter it after that.

I agree.

There should also be rules governing the appointment of a Head of State and a Speaker of the House.

I assume you think the Head of State only serves a ceremonial role?

What are thoughts about nations within the Republic, e.g. the Norse nation, Gaelic nation, etc.? How much autonomy do we intend to give to the provinces, should we take Government?

I think that's going to further complicate an already complicated game but I think we will work this out as we play along.

[ingliz]

I assume you think the Head of State only serves a ceremonial role?

Yes, except under specific circumstances when normal parliamentary rule breaks down then the President can dissolve Parliament and call new elections, he can approve a minority government according to rule, sign bills unless he believes they are unconstitutional etc. It is a ceremonial role when things are running smoothly and an active role, circumscribed by the constitution, when they are not.

[HoniSoit]

Yes, except under specific circumstances when normal parliamentary rule breaks down then the President can dissolve Parliament and call new elections, he can approve a minority government according to rule, sign bills unless he believes they are unconstitutional etc. It is a ceremonial role when things are running smoothly and an active role, circumscribed by the constitution, when they are not.

And the president will be appointed by the government?

What about the Clerk of the Parliament and the House Speaker - how do you think they should be appointed?

[ingliz]

Seeing as the President's role is set out in the Constitution why not?

The Speaker and Clerk to the House can be nominated by the government or elected by simple majority. We can do without either for as long as it takes to reach consensus, I don't think that matters, but the President is essential otherwise nothing will get done and given the petty Party squabbling I think (at least in the first instance) the first Government should appoint the first President who serves a set term whatever happens, at least 3 months the term of a normal parliament.

[Kon]

Democracy must be used in favour of appointment in all elements of the political sphere, or we will end up with an oligarchy. It is especially important to not appoint our judiciary.