Members,

This is the opinion of our Speaker. We may not question his word or his decisions - to do so is unconstitutional. This is not democracy. The Speaker should be impartial. He should have no vote, belong to no official party and have no say in the matters of Parliament. After all, did the people vote him as Speaker to make these final decisions?

In effect, we are a puppet government. We make legislation, we vote on it - but it really doesn't matter because it is the Speaker who can decide whether a piece of legislation becomes law or not. That cannot be allowed to happen. If a vote fails then it fails. If it passes it passes. And if it is a 'tie' then it should be the decision of the people - not the Speaker.

It is time to review the position of the Speaker of the House. I call for immediate debate on this issue.

Madame Douay said

ok. explain this then - when we have a tie in Parliament what would you have the speeker do? it would be logical for the speaker to vote when theres a tie.

PM.Poiters.Serving Alexandria

Excuse me for burging into Parliament like this, but Isaw that Miss Douay had some issue wrongly understood and I will do my est to help her in the finding of the truth behind this matter.

The Speaker is allowed to express himself as any other Parliamentary Minister. Questioning a person's vote is not uncostitutional it is stupid, For example, say you voted YES on a given issue, do you think it right that i start saying that your vote is undemocratic because I believe that people should vote NO. Clearly, you are not doing what you say you are.
You say the Speaker should be impartial. If he is impartial what is the point of electing a member of the House to be the Speaker. You say he should not vote, what the heck!... what will he do then, nothing at all?, stand there with his arms crossed?, really, come on, what is the point of having a Speaker if he is not allowed to do anyhting but say hello and goodbay.
And answering you question: yes the people voted him to be their elected representative in this House, and then the other members of Parliament who also happen to have been elected by the people chose him to be their Speaker, and gave him certain powers and responsibilities.

Really, what are you talking about? the Speaker is also a member of Parliament, he is an elected provincial representative.

So all in all, I just want to say that you, Miss Douay, should actually think before writing about undemocratic or unconstitutional happenings, or at least try and know how things work. To end this address to this Honorable House, I have to point out that the so called Protection Act 2005, is exactly what its name says, a piece of legislation written by the hand of Miss Douay, that is to "Protect" herself from the legal step that are being take to remove her from office. I am an Asuncioner, and I have never been more ashamed to see a person speak for us and do it in such a dishonourably way. In Asuncion we have asked Miss Douay to step down from office, as well as from her mountain high ego and pride.

Sincerely,

The Speaker's role in Parliament should be to keep order and to oversee. He shouldn't have a vote. In the instance of a tie, it should go to a second debate or should be opened for a public referendum.

The Speaker should be an impartial representative. For example, if the Conservative Party has 3 members in Parliament and the Pride Party 1, but the Speaker is a Conservative then automatically we can assume every bill they introduce will be passed in which case, what is the point of having a parliament at all?

It's not working gentlemen - be honest. Open your eyes and see that this is a rigged system.

I'm sorry, but if the ACP has three members, the APP only one, and there is one independent member, I really don't see where the Speaker comes to be the problem here, since he is the independent. Besides, the ACP has the Majority, and as such it is only normal that most of the legislation will be ACP-like. It happens in every country in the world, if a party doesn't hold a strong majority coalitions start to raise, gaining by that means tha majority needed to be able to get laws passed or vetoed. If you think this is incorrect, I suggest you send a letter to Mr. Blair (you live i Britain, so your Prime Minister, in case you didn't remember) and point out that everything is wrong and that all the Parliaments in the world should change according to your teachings...

If the Speaker of the Parliament is an ACP member, he can't be independant can he? His vote will go with his party. Is that fair?

And I think you'll find that in Britain, our speaker has no vote and cannot belong to a political party. He is impartial. He doesn't speak on bills of law, nor does he vote on them.

The Spaker Mr. Peterson is an independent.

How is he an independant? He can vote on bills of law - that isn't being independant. His opinions and bias will show in his vote the same as it does with those of us who represent a party. The answer? Take his vote away.

The fact of being an independent doesn't mean that he does not vote, it means that he run independent for the seat in Parliament, and that he achieved it with no political affiliations. He still remains politically unaffiliated, and he even started a movement of political unaffiliated people. That means that he does not answer to any party, not that he does not vote in Parliament. He simply doesn't quite agree in full with any of the parties, so he doesn't join any. And that's it.
He should be allowed to vote like any normally elected representative. And the possition of Speaker is only a possition within the Parliament to help regulate its internal affairs, and it has nothing to do with not allowing a person to vote, for that would be denying the very rights he was given when elected.

Thanks for the political theory lesson but I know what an independant is. Can't you understand that he isn't that independant if he's voting in Parliament? He might not be assigned to a political party but he's got prejudices and ideas that he's using to unfluence Parliament's policies and laws. And is that right? As you said, he's supposed to regulate internal affairs - instead he's just like an ordinary MP which is unconstitutional.

*And by the way - since when could anyone wander in Parliament and give a speech?

Have you closed your head that you do not let information slip into it! What part of he is a regular MP do you not understand! He IS a regular MP, and also he was given the powers to regulate the internal affairs of the Parliament. What you are saying is like saying that for instance the Head of the Political Trials of the Congress should not be allowed to vote, because he was given the powers to regulate the internal affairs of Congress.

[Note: The Head of Political Trials is a possition within the Argentinian Congress, the person responsable for it is a popularlly elected representative that is chosen by his pairs to do the specified job, which includes overseeing that the processes that may be held against another representative. This is just so that you can understand the example]

So what in God's name are you talking about

. Of course he does, he belives in certain things and doesn't believe in certain others, he very well explained his platform when he was running for Parliament.

THATS MY POINT - He shouldn't be a damn MP. He should be totally impartial, voted by Parliament to keep order amongst the MPs, not to be an MP himself.

Running for Parliament? He's supposed to keep order not command Parliament.

And again, are you even allowed to be giving your diatribe here?

MADAME DOUAY

YOU WILL LEAVE THIS CHAMBER IMMEDIATELY, YOU HAVE BEEN ACCUSED OF TREASON AND MUST STAND TRIAL, YOU WILL NOT BE COMING BACK HERE AGAIN!!!

Well, then what you should be advocating for should be that the elected MPs chose a Speaker from the people and not from amongst themselves, not that you take someone's powers away when elected Speaker.

And if I may ask, why is it that you have just told me that, instead of doing it when I first started posting here...is it that you are runnig out of answers, maybe.