Home Trending Latest threads New posts Developer diaries

Edge of Europe - A Belgian Interactive AAR

Jump to latest Follow Reply
  • We have updated our Community Code of Conduct. Please read through the new rules for the forum that are an integral part of Paradox Interactive’s User Agreement.
czechmasaryk said:
I must oppose the proposition of a Kings as I have little trust in an executive position. Rather I would propose an elected Executive.

The Status of the Prime Minister and the State Minister
I. The Prime Minister is the be the prime executive of the Belgian Nation.
II. He is to act as a figurehead leader of the nation.
III. The Prime Minister is elected by both Houses of the Legislature, the votes of the both houses will be tallied together
and the candidate with the highest percentage is the winner
IV. The Prime Minister has veto powers over legislation passed by the Upper and Lower Houses
V. Said Veto powers can be overridden by a 2/3 majority of the Legislature
VI. The face of the nation in Foreign Relations is to be the State Minister.
VII. The State Minister runs alongside the Prime Minister and if elected is given the position
VIII. The Prime Minister selects his own running mate, upon consent from the individual
IX. The State Minister is to travel around Europe and the World with the purpose of establishing
alliances and diplomatic agreements, as well as appointing and leading the nations diplomatic corps of
ambassadors
Click to expand...

Monsieur Claude, I am most likely the only man in this room who fought for Napoleon and the French Revolution. I have seen first hand the dangers of a Republic. Napoleon did what was necessary be seizing military power, but he did not have the wisdom to give up power. We must have a King whose authority comes from God.
 
Fingon888 said:
Monsieur Claude, I am most likely the only man in this room who fought for Napoleon and the French Revolution. I have seen first hand the dangers of a Republic. Napoleon did what was necessary be seizing military power, but he did not have the wisdom to give up power. We must have a King whose authority comes from God.
Click to expand...

Napoleon did not follow the process of a democracy, he did as you say take power. He was in no instance elected, the Prime Minister is. If he rejects to leave said office then he shall be deposed immediately. Also Monsiuer, Claude would be part of my first name, it is not my last.
 
czechmasaryk said:
I must oppose the proposition of a Kings as I have little trust in an executive position. Rather I would propose an elected Executive.

The Status of the Prime Minister and the State Minister
I. The Prime Minister is to be the prime executive of the Belgian Nation.
II. He is to act as a figurehead leader of the nation.
III. The Prime Minister is elected by both Houses of the Legislature, the votes of the both houses will be tallied together
and the candidate with the highest percentage is the winner
IV. The Prime Minister has veto powers over legislation passed by the Upper and Lower Houses
V. Said Veto powers can be overridden by a 2/3 majority of the Legislature
VI. The face of the nation in Foreign Relations is to be the State Minister.
VII. The State Minister runs alongside the Prime Minister and if elected is given the position
VIII. The Prime Minister selects his own running mate, upon consent from the individual
IX. The State Minister is to travel around Europe and the World with the purpose of establishing
alliances and diplomatic agreements, as well as appointing and leading the nations diplomatic corps of
ambassadors
Click to expand...

I shall not lie, what you have proposed disgusts me. Not only is it an affront to God, but it also is politically ridiculous. We are surrounded by monarchies, Belgium has always been ruled by Monarchs, and now when we have a chance to choose our own Monarch, you would have us destroy the entire concept. What madness has taken hold of your mind? If neccessary, I can perform an exorcism, as I am sure what you have suggested is not what a god-fearing Catholic would ever voice, but rather a demon in man's clothing.

~ Sébastien Delcroix, Bishop of Brabant
 
Fingon888 said:
Monsieur Claude, I am most likely the only man in this room who fought for Napoleon and the French Revolution. I have seen first hand the dangers of a Republic. Napoleon did what was necessary be seizing military power, but he did not have the wisdom to give up power. We must have a King whose authority comes from God.
Click to expand...
While Napoleon did take over the French Republic, the United States, which is a republic is stable. I also belive Mr. de Espania would be willing to let a King exist, he just belives power should reside with the elected officials.
 
Tapscott said:
I shall not lie, what you have proposed disgusts me. Not only is it an affront to God, but it also is politically ridiculous. We are surrounded by monarchies, Belgium has always been ruled by Monarchs, and now when we have a chance to choose our own Monarch, you would have us destroy the entire concept. What madness has taken hold of your mind? If neccessary, I can perform an exorcism, as I am sure what you have suggested is not what a god-fearing Catholic would ever voice, but rather a demon in man's clothing.

~ Sébastien Delcroix, Bishop of Brabant
Click to expand...

Well, I must first tell you sir that I am not a Catholic as your statement to me so well reminds me of the reason I left the Roman Catholic Church.
Secondly, I understand the king is an important figure of society, but he should not be the executive. If you wish to have him that is fine, but I have no interest in a King dictating any decisions here.
 
jeeshadow said:
While Napoleon did take over the French Republic, the United States, which is a republic is stable. I also belive Monsieur Claude would be willing to let a King exist, he just belives power should reside with the elected officials.
Click to expand...

czechmasaryk said:
Well, I must first tell you sir that I am not a Catholic as your statement to me so well reminds me of the reason I left the Roman Catholic Church.
Secondly, I understand the king is an important figure of society, but he should not be the executive. If you wish to have him that is fine, but I have no interest in a King dictating any decisions here.
Click to expand...

The United States is also on the other side of the world. Would you have us ape a Protestant republic? We are Wallons and Flems. Belgians. We are not Americans, and we are certainly not Protestant!

Well then sir, if you wish to throw away your chance of salvation so be it. Just do not try and drag the rest of the Belgian people down to hell with you, as you cavort in Sodom. You may find it pleasant, and fitting, to play with whores and sodomites, but I assure you that the god-fearing people of Belgium shall not listen to a soulless wretch like yourself. Even though you are actively damning yourself to hell, I shall pray for your soul.

~ Sébastien Delcroix, Bishop of Brabant
 
czechmasaryk said:
Napoleon did not follow the process of a democracy, he did as you say take power. He was in no instance elected, the Prime Minister is. If he rejects to leave said office then he shall be deposed immediately. Also Monsiuer, Claude would be part of my first name, it is not my last.
Click to expand...

Indeed. I had the honour of not fighting for France during the Republic, but I have seen the results of what Republics create. They create chaos, which creates the need for a military takeover. Once that has been achieved, there is a possibility that the military will hold onto power, as in Napoleon's case.

As for the comments on the United States, they are a nation formed the refuse of honest European peoples. They have no traditions. They should be not be held as an example, especially after they have just experienced a peasant revolt and continued unrest.
 
Marschalk said:
Sir, in most liberal countries the King, as the head of the executive, has wider powers, than in this draft Consitution. For example, in accordance with the French Constitutional Charter, the monarch "is the supreme head of the state, commands the land and sea forces, declares war, makes treaties of peace, alliance and commerce, appoints to all places of public administration, and makes the necessary regulations and ordinances for the execution of the laws and the security of the state". He appoints officials, judges and ambassadors, he proposes laws. Do you want to make our King no more than a useless figurehead, and take from him even the meagre powers that were proposed?

We are not in revolutionary France, we are in a civilized and traditional country. The Crown should have appropriate powers. I think, that at least some of the ministers (the war minister and and the foreign minister, for example) should be appointed by the King. It will create a proper balance of powers.

- Charles, Prince de Ligne
Click to expand...

Truthfully I do not see the need for a king at all, but it is what tradition demands and so I am willing to have one, but the people must hold the power to determine their own fate. I would ask that you sir look at nations with powerful monarchies, such as Russia and Austria. They stagnate, clinging to tradition for the sake of tradition, while countries like the United States have begun the process of industrialization. I have studied economics, and I can promise you that countries such as the United States, which grant their people power, and allow innovation rather than embrace tradition shall become world powers in this coming century. I am sure that you know of my company, why this building is heated with coal from my mines, and I assure you that it isn't a monarchy that that is keeping you warm, but rather the work of people in my mines, and clerks in my offices, and conductors on my trains. To give these people control of what their country does will lead us to a golden age, and I intend for Belgium to be great if I have to drag it kicking and screaming.

Delegate from Liège, Michel Daret
 
Monsieur Claude, your speeches disgust me. You are trying to use our great national revolution to further the cause of godless radicalism and republicanism. We must remember what happened in 1789, sirs. We need to unite under a Catholic banner and chose a god-annointed King - or or country will perish. We need a legitimate government, that will respect our traditions. And that will be respected in other states, by their crowned sovereigns.

- Charles, Prince de Ligne
 
Tapscott said:
The United States is also on the other side of the world. Would you have us ape a Protestant republic? We are Wallons and Flems. Belgians. We are not Americans, and we are certainly not Protestant!

~ Sébastien Delcroix, Bishop of Brabant
Click to expand...

You are speaking to a Protestant Monsieur Delcroix.

As well, Monsieur Damseaux, you continue to only bring up the case of France. Yes that was a tragedy, but only one example.

Marschalk said:
Monsieur Claude, your speeches disgust me. You are trying to use our great national revolution to further the cause of godless radicalism and republicanism. We must remember what happened in 1789, sirs. We need to unite under a Catholic banner and chose a god-annointed King - or or country will perish. We need a legitimate government, that will respect our traditions. And that will be respected in other states, by their crowned sovereigns.

- Charles, Prince de Ligne
Click to expand...

and might I ask what tradition you speak of? As well, I am not Catholic, we are not all Catholics here.

((Guys, Claude is not is last name))
 
czechmasaryk said:
You are speaking to a Protestant Monsieur Delcroix.

As well, Monsieur Damseaux, you continue to only bring up the case of France. Yes that was a tragedy, but only one example.
Click to expand...
I do not belive that Mijnheer de Espana is suggesting we should not have a King, he, like I have stated before, is suggesting that power should rest with the Elected Officials. You point to France as a failed example of elected governess. I point to the British Empire, whose Parlement and Prime Minister run the country. Think about that. I also would like to point out, that I am also a Protestant. Remeber this.
 
czechmasaryk said:
You are speaking to a Protestant Monsieur Delcroix.

As well, Monsieur Damseaux, you continue to only bring up the case of France. Yes that was a tragedy, but only one example.

and might I ask what tradition you speak of? As well, I am not Catholic, we are not all Catholics here.

((Guys, Claude is not is last name))
Click to expand...

Sébastien shakes his head and touches his cross, offering a quick prayer.

((You will need to start posting your guy's name, because I have no idea what his name actually is, and apparently no-one else does either. :p))

The Executive Branch​
I. There shall be two executive positions, ruling as Head of State and Head of Government separately. These positions shall be occupied by the King of the Belgians and the Prime Minister, respectively.
II. The position of Head of State shall be occupied by the King of the Belgians, and shall have the following powers:
a. The power to dismiss and appoint a Prime Minister
b. The power to summon and prorogue Parliament
c. The power to grant or refuse Royal Assent to bills (making them valid and law)
d. The power to commission officers in the Armed Forces
e. The power to command the Armed Forces of Belgium
f. The power to appoint members to the King’s Council
g. The power to grant Prerogative of mercy
h. The power to grant honours
i. The power to create corporations via Royal Charter
j. The power to ratify and make treaties
k. The power to declare War and Peace
l. The power to deploy the Armed Forces overseas
m. The power to recognise states
n. The power to credit and receive diplomats​
III. The position of Head of Government shall be occupied by the Prime Minister, and shall have the following powers:
a. Power to appoint, reshuffle or dismiss ministers
b. The power to dismiss and appoint other ministers
c. Power to create peers
d. Power to give out honours
e. Power to appoint chairs of nationalised industries
f. Power to make other appointments (e.g. top civil servants, ambassadors, bishops, judges)
g. Power over ministerial conduct
h. Powers relating to government business (e.g. setting the agenda for Cabinet meetings, setting up Cabinet committees and choosing whether or not to circulate minutes or papers)
i. Powers over information (e.g. deciding whether or not to inform Parliament about government activities)
j. Powers in international relations​
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
Tapscott said:
Sébastien shakes his head and touches his cross, offering a quick prayer.

((You will need to start posting your guy's name, because I have no idea what his name actually is, and apparently no-one else does either. :p))
Click to expand...

((I think it is de Espana, but I didn't like the idea of his last name being of Spain.))
 
jeeshadow said:
I do not belive that Mijnheer de Espana is suggesting we should not have a King, he, like I have stated before, is suggesting that power should rest with the Elected Officials. You point to France as a failed example of elected governess. I point to the British Empire, whose Parlement and Prime Minister run the country. Think about that. I also would like to point out, that I am also a Protestant. Remeber this.
Click to expand...

Exactly, I understand the belief that we should have a king. I do not believe he should have any role in the executive processes.
I also point out to all of you that I was a Catholic, I am now as I always have been Christian. Simply Christian.

~Pierre Claude de España, Delegate of Arlon

Fingon888 said:
((I think it is de Espana, but I didn't like the idea of his last name being of Spain.))
Click to expand...

((There is a historical background to it))
 
czechmasaryk said:
Exactly, I understand the belief that we should have a king. I do not believe he should have any role in the executive processes.
I also point out to all of you that I was a Catholic, I am now as I always have been Christian. Simply Christian.
Click to expand...

Then you agree that ultimate power comes from the mandate of Heaven. The only other power on this Earth is force of arms. When the will of God is disregarded then men will rise up with arms, as in the case Caesar and Napoleon.
 
Fingon888 said:
Then you agree that ultimate power comes from the mandate of Heaven. The only other power on this Earth is force of arms. When the will of God is disregarded then men will rise up with arms, as in the case Caesar and Napoleon.
Click to expand...

The will of God is the goodwill of men, not the power of the un-elected individual. Jesus did not come down to us as a powerful king of men. There is certainly a reason for that.
 
czechmasaryk said:
The will of God is the goodwill of men, not the power of the un-elected individual. Jesus did not come down to us as a powerful king of men. There is certainly a reason for that.
Click to expand...

When was the last time you attended mass? Jesus came from the Kingdom of Heaven. God is called, Our Lord. Do not speak of religion if you do not understand it.

Here, let me educate you:

John 12:15:

“Fear not, daughter of Zion; behold, your king is coming, sitting on a donkey's colt!”

~ Sébastien Delcroix, Bishop of Brabant

((For the curious, the list of powers of the Head of State and Government I have ripped from the UK :p))
 
Tapscott said:
When was the last time you attended mass? Jesus came from the Kingdom of Heaven. God is called, Our Lord. Do not speak of religion if you do not understand it.

~ Sébastien Delcroix, Bishop of Brabant

((For the curious, the list of powers of the Head of State and Government I have ripped from the UK :p))
Click to expand...

Exactly! God is our Lord. No man should take that title.
 
Plutonium95 said:
Truthfully I do not see the need for a king at all, but it is what tradition demands and so I am willing to have one, but the people must hold the power to determine their own fate. I would ask that you sir look at nations with powerful monarchies, such as Russia and Austria. They stagnate, clinging to tradition for the sake of tradition, while countries like the United States have begun the process of industrialization. I have studied economics, and I can promise you that countries such as the United States, which grant their people power, and allow innovation rather than embrace tradition shall become world powers in this coming century. I am sure that you know of my company, why this building is heated from coal from my mines, and I assure you that it isn't a monarchy that that is keeping you warm, but rather the work of people in my mines, and clerks in my offices, and conductors on my trains. To give these people control of what their country does will lead us to a golden age, and I intend for Belgium o be great if I have to drag it kicking and screaming.

Delegate from Liège, Michel Daret
Click to expand...

Sir, the Crown has wide powers in France. Is this country stagnating? The Crown has wide powers in Spain. Is this country stagnating? Tbe Crown has wide powers in Denmark. Is this country stagnating? The Crown has wide powers in Prussia. It this country stagnating? Even in Great Britain the monarch is not a figurehead. And both of the countries you mentioned, Russia and Austria, are among the most powerful countries in Europe. Is the whole Europe stagnating, my dear friend? All civilzed and successfull states are monarchies at the moment - and nearly everywhere the monarch plays a very imporant role. And what about republics? There is only the USA - and some of these petty states in South America, that are ruled by robber barons and warlords!

You have your dreams - but we should be realistic. A strong monarchy gives a country stability. It gives us continuity of leadership, it protects our traditions, defends our from rash radicalism - and at the same time helps the country to renovate itself. The monarchy is above parties and classes, it cannot be corrupted, it is a just and independent power, that defends the interests of the whole nation. It is a civilized way. It is a Christian way.

Charles, Prince de Ligne
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom
Back