Talk:Reading (legislature)

Merge First, Second, and Third reading

There's not enough meat in each concept to warrant their own article. They should probably be merged into one article. Suggestions for article name would be welcome. Duckbill 16:35, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

How about "Reading (legislature)" ? Duckbill 17:47, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

OK, we've had a week with no suggestions to the contrary, so I'm going to merge them. Duckbill 02:04, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

First cut

OK. I have drawn up a first cut. This is basically the content lifted from "First reading", "Second reading", and "Third reading". I have cobbled together a first paragraph which gives an overall summary. Duckbill 23:31, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

Globalization?

Is this really a necessary issue when it predominantly, if not ONLY, applies to the US, Canada, and England? It covers those. 67.76.32.253 07:15, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

It doesn't actually cover the UK very well or very clearly. And it also applies to all other Westminster systems, doesn't it? Also, is this term actually used for the U.S.? I've never heard "first reading" and "second reading" and so forth discussed for U.S. legislative activities the way it is for British. john k 23:27, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

There are a lot countries that have a version of this system, though most are Westminster based i think - including Australia and New Zealand, Ireland, Australian state legislatures, possibly India from memory. But I'm not sure the concepts vary significantly, so perhaps we should refocus the article on the concepts of different readings having different functions, and only have a section at the end of the article on how they work in practice in particular jurisdictions. hamiltonstone (talk) 02:15, 11 September 2008 (UTC)