Not exact matches
Citing passages for and
against predestination from Shakespeare, Craig Stephans seems to agree on the difficulty of
easy assessment and on the inherent uncertainty.
In a submission to the House of Lords Constitution Committee's inquiry into the passage of legislation through Parliament, the CIOT proposes: · The Finance Bill Public Bill Committee takes oral evidence from tax experts and others; · More effective liaison between select committees and the Finance Bill committee; · Increasing the resources available to Parliament for scrutinising tax matters; · Using technology to make it
easier for those outside Parliament to comment on Bills, e.g. an online facility to input comments by clause numbers, so MPs can see who says what
against each clause; · Asking the Office of Tax Simplification to publish simplification
assessments of new tax proposals.
They should demand an acknowledgment from Duncan (making it
easier for him to deliver that essential mea culpa), insist on safeguards regarding data collection and federal involvement, and seek clarity as to how governance of the Common Core and the
assessments are going to be ordered so as to respect state sovereignty and guard
against E.U. - style bureaucratic creep.
Moreover, the availability of historical precedent might imply less contestation (especially from climate skeptics), a cognitively different approach to what we might consider «sufficient evidence», and
easier assessment of any given eruption
against some objective measure of impacts.