A Federation of "Equals" - A Danubian Federation Interative AAR

Otto of england said:

Dictator implies that the person in question has significant powers through out the state. The most of the powers are formalities that simply have to be there, for example if there wasn't the right to dissolve parliament then the Chancellor could just abuse it himself and rule as an absolute dictator - this has happened before.

- Deputy Colonel Leopold Von Tirpitz

Click to expand...

First, that is simply absurd. How would it be possible for any Chancellor to do such a thing? Second, if you such a power must exist, then what right does a monarch have to hold it? How is his power legitimate? Why not have a democratically elected head of state whose legitimacy comes from the people?

Somberg said:

Because the issue of monarchies has divided the Federation ever since Silesia became a state 18 years ago. States should have the right to determine what form of republic will govern them, but monarchies are simply unacceptable in our republican federation. It pains me to see us constantly fight each over this issue without an end. We must rid our nation of this institution once and for all.

I also object to the Acceptance of a Unitary System presented by Signor Lilic. While I believe the federal government should have strong power over the states, I do not believe we must remove the institution of states.

~ Edoardo Vertucci

Click to expand...

Correct me if I'm wrong, but it seems as though you are saying that people should not be allowed to select their desired form of government because you find it unacceptable. To me this is a ridiculous notion. Just as some people prefer republics, others prefer monarchies, and as long as any given government is respecting the rights of its people, it should not be an issue.

- Zenel I, King of the Albanians

Keperry said:

First, that is simply absurd. How would it be possible for any Chancellor to do such a thing? Second, if you such a power must exist, then what right does a monarch have to hold it? How is his power legitimate? Why not have a democratically elected head of state whose legitimacy comes from the people?

Click to expand...

The Monarch has no legitimate legislative or executive rolls, unlike a president. Also the Monarchs legitimacy comes from the people, as the people have votes time and again to keep the monarchy. Voting yes 4 times in increasingly large margins in the last 18 years.

I point you to the infamous Silesian administration during the civil war, where Erwin Von Tirpitz usurped absolute power by dissolving parliament and declaring a state of emergency.

The direction that the Federation must take is clear: it must have a firmly Republican government that can keep its constituent states under control.

The presence of Monarchies within the Federation was clearly prohibited by a Federal Referendum years ago, but the Conservatives and Reactionaries refused to apply it and rejected the will of the Danubian people. The continued existence of Monarchies is an affront to the Democratic principles that have created our Federation, this situation must end now, in this convention!
Even in a unitary nation the states will continue to exist, they will just lose most of their legislative powers. It is necessary to put an end to the excessive freedom that has been granted to these states to ensure stability to our nation and the respect of Federal laws and decrees. The objective of a common Danubian cultural identity can now be achieved!

- Marco Arpaio

viola said:

Even in a unitary nation the states will continue to exist, they will just lose most of their legislative powers. It is necessary to put an end to the excessive freedom that has been granted to these states to ensure stability to our nation and the respect of Federal laws and decrees. The objective of a common Danubian cultural identity can now be achieved!

Click to expand...

I must oppose any such attempt. I have always been one of the greatest supporters of federal supremacy, but this simply takes it too far. We must not forget that we are a diverse and multi-ethnic country. Our peoples are distinct and need distinct representation, and therefore states must retain the ability to run themselves and make their own legislation, even though they should be subject to the Federation and its legislation. We are also quite a large nation, geographically, and it is simply impractical to expect the federal government to busy itself with the day-to-day administration of every nook and cranny of it to the extent that would be required if states were stripped of all their power. In the system you would propose, states might exist in name, but they would not exist in any meaningful way. A common Danubian identity is not something to be desired if all our own identities are to be wiped out to achieve it.

viola said:

The direction that the Federation must take is clear: it must have a firmly Republican government that can keep its constituent states under control.

The presence of Monarchies within the Federation was clearly prohibited by a Federal Referendum years ago, but the Conservatives and Reactionaries refused to apply it and rejected the will of the Danubian people. The continued existence of Monarchies is an affront to the Democratic principles that have created our Federation, this situation must end now, in this convention!
Even in a unitary nation the states will continue to exist, they will just lose most of their legislative powers. It is necessary to put an end to the excessive freedom that has been granted to these states to ensure stability to our nation and the respect of Federal laws and decrees. The objective of a common Danubian cultural identity can now be achieved!

- Marco Arpaio

Click to expand...

This is simply going too far, Signor Arpaio. As long as we have a strong and supreme federal government, we can ensure that the states respect federal laws and decrees. However, we must not remove a state's ability to legislate over its own affairs, as this is effectively removing the states themselves. Our nation is too large and diverse to be ruled just by the federal government. We need states that have legislative powers so that we can ensure that the needs of our the people of each state are adequately addressed.

~ Edoardo Vertucci

President: Aetios Spiros (NRU)
Vice-President: Francesco de Palma (RA)
Foreign Minister: Wolfram Liberalen (Independent)
Minister of War: Laszlo Szekely (DPU)
Minister of Security: Jovan Lilic (DPU)
Minister of Internal Affairs: Nicolò Donato (Independent)
Minister of Justice: Günther Knittel (NRU)
Minister of Finance: Crepko Obradovic (NRU)

((Let me know if I got any of the parties incorrect))

I must object in the extreme to President Spiros' attempt at appointing known traitor and secessionist Laszlo Szekely to his cabinet. He has betrayed the Federation time and time again and cannot be trusted not to do so in the future, not to mention that he has done absolutely nothing to actually deserve such a position other than fight against the Federation and happen to be a member of the right party at the right time. This Federation is flush with loyal men who have actually worked and accomplished things for her benefit. I recommend appointing one of them instead.

jeeshadow said:

The Spiros Administration​

President: Aetios Spiros (NRU)
Vice-President: Francesco de Palma (RA)
Foreign Minister: Wolfram Liberalen (Independent)
Minister of War: Laszlo Szekely (DPU)
Minister of Security: Jovan Lilic (DPU)
Minister of Internal Affairs: Nicolò Donato (Independent)
Minister of Justice: Günther Knittel (NRU)
Minister of Finance: Crepko Obradovic (NRU)

((Let me know if I got any of the parties incorrect))

Click to expand...

This is completely unacceptable! In no way is this a unity government if it excludes two of the prominent parties of the Federation while including a minor party that holds no influence outside of Cisalpina. If President Spiros is committed to unity then he must include all major parties within the government.

~ Edoardo Vertucci

viola said:

I strongly support this proposal, a stronger Federal government will greatly encourage stability within the states and support for Pan-Danubianism.

- Marco Arpaio

Click to expand...

I also support this proposal, for while I do not propose abolishing the states I do agree with the concept of a strong Federal government, as well as the proposed name change. ((Also, how is the Danubian identity doing? After all, any assimilation would automatically default to Danubian if they're around. Although since we're not exactly an immigrant haven that might not matter too much....))

Somberg said:

This is completely unacceptable! In no way is this a unity government if it excludes two of the prominent parties of the Federation while including a minor party that holds no influence outside of Cisalpina. If President Spiros is committed to unity then he must include all major parties within the government.

~ Edoardo Vertucci

Click to expand...

Comrade Liberalen has been associated strongly with the FDP for many years, while the Republican Alliance is a strong ally of the NRU in Italy and thus can be considered part of the NRU's delegation.

The Galician Reorganisation Act should require a popular Referendum. If Ukrainian and Poles truly wish to live in separate states then I don't see anything wrong in this act, but without a Referendum is hard to determinate if such wish actually exist or not.

- Marco Arpaio

Thoctar said:

I also support this proposal, for while I do not propose abolishing the states I do agree with the concept of a strong Federal government, as well as the proposed name change.

Click to expand...

If you propose stripping states of the ability to legislate, then you do propose abolishing them, in everything but name. How can you claim anything else? What is the point of having states if they are unable to legislate? There could be no state governments at all. Support for a unitary government and opposition to the wholesale abolition of states are contradictory and incompatible.

Thoctar said:

I also support this proposal, for while I do not propose abolishing the states I do agree with the concept of a strong Federal government, as well as the proposed name change. ((Also, how is the Danubian identity doing? After all, any assimilation would automatically default to Danubian if they're around. Although since we're not exactly an immigrant haven that might not matter too much....))

Comrade Liberalen has been associated strongly with the FDP for many years, while the Republican Alliance is a strong ally of the NRU in Italy and thus can be considered part of the NRU's delegation.

Click to expand...

The fact is that Signor Liberalen is not a member of the FDP and never has been. As close as his ties with the party may be, I believe that a member of the FDP should have a place in the government. This also does not address the reason for excluding the A-DCP. As much as I strongly disagree with the ideas of the party, I believe that only by having both our parties represented in the government can this truly be called a unity government.

I also agree with Signor Arpaio that a referendum should be held to determine if Ukrainians and Poles truly wish to have their own states. If I recall correctly, the main reason why Galicia wasn't allowed to separate last time was because no referendum was held to confirm popular support for the partition of the state.

~ Edoardo Vertucci

Keperry said:

If you propose stripping states of the ability to legislate, then you do propose abolishing them, in everything but name. How can you claim anything else? What is the point of having states if they are unable to legislate? There could be no state governments at all. Support for a unitary government and opposition to the wholesale abolition of states are contradictory and incompatible.

Click to expand...

They would continue to exist as purely administrative bodies, maybe with just some autonomies. The Federal government would have the final say on what laws the local government can make and what not.

Anyway, the amount of centralization of the new Federation is but a minor detail. The abolishment of Monarchies is our main objective and we should firmly focus on this element.

- Marco Arpaio

viola said:

They would continue to exist as purely administrative bodies, maybe with just some autonomies. The Federal government would have the final say on what laws the local government can make and what not.

Anyway, the amount of centralization of the new Federation is but a minor detail. The abolishment of Monarchies is our main objective and we should firmly focus on this element.

- Marco Arpaio

Click to expand...

Indeed, because it really would be a shame if a form of government that does not affect you in anyway and is support by its people were allowed to continue.

- Zenel I, King of the Albanians

As a more reasonable alternative to a unitary state, and as a compromise between federalism and unitarianism, I propose the following:

Establishment of Federal Supremacy

I. The Federation is a federal state made up of constituent states.

II. The federal government is supreme and sovereign, and its authority supersedes that of state governments.

III. State governments have the right to make and enforce legislation and policies in their own states, subject to the laws and policies of the Federation, and so long as it does not contradict federal law or the Constitution.

IV. Unilateral secession by states is illegal and illegitimate.

Gentlemen, never have I heard such blatant disregard to others in my presence. This is why I tried to run for president, this right here. The far-left is willing to sacrifice the entire structure of our Federation just for the self-satisfaction of themselves, totally disregarding the people's of those states. And yes, the states are different entities, they were divided a rough culture lines. I will not have a man from Milan making a german from lower-Silesia live how he thinks he should live. That's not democratic, and quite frankly, if we're going to abolish everything that so many hold dear, their racial identity, I don't think this is the right place for many.

The people should have a right too chose, wether that be monarchy or republic, my head-of-state is somewhat simliar to a monarch, does that make it a monarchy? Possibly, but by your definition you just want to abolish the names. Aristocrat, or capitalist, it makes no difference, power is always held somewhere. How we go about this isn't about destroying anything with the name of 'king' or the like, our only goal is to get rid of systems that take the right to chose from the people. Voting here is essential, and as long as the people can vote, then I don't see a problem.

I quite like our current system however, the federal one that is. We cannot chose one to rule over us all, even figuratively, because the Federation isn't just one culture group, it's many. No-one can win in that situation, so a Republic where we are heard is the best in my opinion. The states exist to represent the people living there, now I do think we should refine this so every state is made up people of the same culture, but we shall get to that later. What everyone needs to remember, for all our sakes, is to work through this in moderation. Extremism is bad for both sides, and hardly ever ends up being beneficial.

-Charles Jakopin