Owenparker Posted November 30, 2021 at 05:30 PM Report Share Posted November 30, 2021 at 05:30 PM The argument at hand is that for example someone could constantly rise to a point to a parliamentary inquiry every time the chair makes a decision as well this would mean no person could inquire before making an appeal even if the inquiry was related to the appeal. example: chair makes decision I rise to a point of parliamentary inquiry. “what is the purpose of an appeal” this person could now not make an appeal since they have made an inquiry. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shmuel Gerber Posted November 30, 2021 at 05:32 PM Report Share Posted November 30, 2021 at 05:32 PM On 11/30/2021 at 12:30 PM, Owenparker said: The argument at hand is that for example someone could constantly rise to a point to a parliamentary inquiry every time the chair makes a decision as well this would mean no person could inquire before making an appeal even if the inquiry was related to the appeal. example: chair makes decision I rise to a point of parliamentary inquiry. “what is the purpose of an appeal” this person could now not make an appeal since they have made an inquiry. Please stop posting your reply as a new topic. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts