Townhall - Eutopia Four

[unmerged(33865)]

Speaker VanDelft has responded, in the GA, to remarks I made while an MGA about aid for New Bengal. As newly appointed Finance Minister, I can no longer be an MGA. For at least some of my comments, he either took them out of context or misinterpreted them, perhaps both. Specifically, he said "Well, whoopie. We have a *partial* estimate from *one* Cabinet member regarding *some* of the line items in his budget. Other than that, we have nothing. Can we get any more vague than this?"

In that, he conveniently ignores what he quoted, that I went on to say, "I stated publicly that I expected no other ministries to come forward with voluntary reductions." and reflected that fact in my much more slimmed down alternative for discussion, which was:

My own suggestion would be:

1. Decrease Defense by 0.45 BP
2. Decrease Surplus by 0.25 BP to zero
3. Allocate the 0.7 BP made available by those changes to New Bengal Aid, to be divided as follows:
   • 0.2 BP to the Tilapian Government for New Bengal recovery projects
   • 0.2 BP to the New Bengal Provincial Government
   • 0.2 BP to Non-Govenmental Organizations for New Bengal humanitarian aid selected by the Presidential Ministry
   • 0.1 BP for purchases of UPE products (including the cost of shipping) to be delivered to the New Bengal Provincial Government to used for either humanitarian relief or reconstruction, to be administered by the Presidential Minstry.

Thus, I was being explicit, the opposite of vague, as I specified the amounts.

This is the President's bill. I understand that he and the Speaker are in some discussions about possible wording changes to deal with some of the nits the Speaker chose to pick and some substantive changes to deal with the one or two real differences. The President's bill provided a framework. The Speaker's alternative fills in some details that would have been filled in by later GA action under the President's bill. I fear that some semi-impalatable clauses might be included in the Speaker's version, since he reasonably expects that it cannot be vetoed, considering the original author and the situation with which it deals. That is why I would prefer a small immediate bill along the lines I suggested, and further action if necessary to follow up. However, as I am no longer in the GA, and am not in the negotiations between the President and Speaker, I will leave it to them to work out something.

 

[unmerged(1522)]

In that, he conveniently ignores what he quoted, that I went on to say, "I stated publicly that I expected no other ministries to come forward with voluntary reductions."

And as an MGA, you can of course make definitive statements of that kind on behalf of all Cabinet Ministers, yes? What you expect or not, Rev Park, is entirely beside the point. What matters is what we know, based on statements by Cabinet Ministers. And what we currently know is nothing.

This is the President's bill.

No. These are your suggestions. Unless and until they are incorporated into the actual text of the proposed bill by way of an amendment, that's all they are. And consequently, the President's bill remains as unacceptably vague as it was on the day it was introduced in the Assembly.

 

[unmerged(33865)]

You continue to misinterpret or twist the meanings from what was intended. The New Bengal Reconstruction Act was proposed by the President. He subsequently accepted a friendly amendment. Thus it is still his bill. When I stated, "This is the President's bill", I was acknowledging his authorship and his sole ability to accept friendly amendments. I was not claiming that the President backed or endorsed my suggestions. If a reader is capable of holding a thought from the beginning of the paragraph to the end, and it was only 6 sentences long, then they would have recognized that I was leaving it, for that reason, to the President to attempt to work out the details with you necessary to reach a consensus, rather than pushing my particular suggestions. If this is how you treat someone that sets their agenda aside on a particular matter to give you a chance to work out yours, then I am duly instructed not to do so again. What the President proposed, via his bill, was a process. There were various steps in the process that would have led to some aid already flowing to New Bengal, but for your objections. The subsequent, more important steps in that process would have been subject to the oversight or approval of the GA. The amount of aid that would have initially been allocated voluntarily by ministers was uncertain, but it was not vague. The President went on record. I made a prediction about the others. If my prediction proved wildly inaccurate, then I sure you wouldn't consider it "beside the point" come the next campaign. I am now in a position to confirm part of my prediction, but since you set no store by my prediction then, and you seem bent on modifying the bill, it might be pointless to do so.

You were quick to state that you had some objections to the bill. You were slow to actually put them forward. When you did so, you did not offer an alternative, but part of your criticism was that you were unsure of the constitutionality and unsure where the process might lead. To fill the vacuum left by negatives you perceived without proposing at the time an alternative, first I, then my colleague Senior Legislator Berenguerr proposed ways the bill could be adjusted to deal with some of your concerns, or in the case of my suggestion, to trim it down to its essence, or rather a first concrete and rapidly implementable step of the President's bill. Mr. Berenguerr and I attempted to light candles, after you had cursed the darkness. That could have kindled a reaction leading to legislative action, but instead the reaction was to finally get you to propose something. As I said before, since I no longer am serving in the GA, I will leave it to you and the President to try to work out something acceptable a majority of the Ga and to the President. For the sake of ultimate beneficiaries, I hope you do so quickly.

Given your active role in the debate and your new appointment of Deputy Speaker, perhaps the process would be speeded handing him the gavel for this matter?

 

[unmerged(1522)]

You continue to misinterpret or twist the meanings from what was intended.

Actually, I'm simply continuing to point out the inaccuracies in your statements.

When I stated, "This is the President's bill", I was acknowledging his authorship and his sole ability to accept friendly amendments. I was not claiming that the President backed or endorsed my suggestions.

And once again, that renders your entire spiel about being "explicit" entirely pointless. As my statement was only four sentences long, I'm surprised the author of a masterful six sentences wasn't able to follow them to the end. Or to understand them, whichever.

If this is how you treat someone that sets their agenda aside on a particular matter to give you a chance to work out yours, then I am duly instructed not to do so again.

The PL and ENP have been waiting for months for the ELP to "set aside its agenda" and come to the table. We, and I personally, have repeatedly asked that you do so. We have also asked several ELP-representatives to provide crucial information. Your party has in turn ignored, dismissed, and ridiculed all such initiatives. Forgive me if your generous offer to "set aside your agenda" rings a bit hollow. Too little, too late, one might say.

Now, if the ELP wishes to engage in constructive debate on New Bengal, the door is still open. As it always have been. But spare me the martyr attitude. There is no moral high ground here for you to occupy.

There were various steps in the process that would have led to some aid already flowing to New Bengal, but for your objections.

In actual fact, sir, there are two reasons why aid has not begun to flow already: one, you saw fit to revive debate on the PDRA. For what reason, I don't know. Two, *your party* wasted months of valuable time doing exactly nothing on locating funding for New Bengal. No attempts at a systematic survey of available funding sources. No examination of the impact re-allocations might have on government programmes. No efforts at a cross-party solution. No hint of a viable legislative proposal.

Once again, do *not* try to take the moral high ground here. All you will accomplish is to lose your last shred of credibility. I'm more than open to talk about concrete funding solutions for New Bengal. I'm not open to playing the silly blame games you seem intent on playing. But let me say this: if you insist on playing the blame game, don't be surprised if it backfires.

The subsequent, more important steps in that process would have been subject to the oversight or approval of the GA. The amount of aid that would have initially been allocated voluntarily by ministers was uncertain, but it was not vague.

The amount was not only vague, it was non-existent. And the NBRA stipulated absolutely *no* GA-controls over "voluntary" funding.

You were quick to state that you had some objections to the bill. You were slow to actually put them forward. When you did so, you did not offer an alternative, but part of your criticism was that you were unsure of the constitutionality and unsure where the process might lead.

Actually, part of my criticism wasn't that I was *unsure* - it was that the bill, as introduced, was unconstitutional, breached the GA-rules, and outlined no details whatsoever about substance or process. My criticism was, in short, that the NBRA was a travesty.

To fill the vacuum left by negatives you perceived without proposing at the time an alternative [...]

Rev Park, if the ELP had bothered to show up at "my little tea party," as you so fondly describe the cross-party effort to find a funding solution for New Bengal, you would have been aware of some of the alternatives that have been actively discussed by the PL and ENP for weeks and months. In fact, your partymate, Dr. Glasser, has been aware of at least some of them for a goodly amount of time.

Dr. Glasser has also been aware of some of the objections to his plans raised by the PL and ENP for a considerably period of time. Regrettably, he has done nothing to address them.

Mr. Berenguerr and I attempted to light candles, after you had cursed the darkness. That could have kindled a reaction leading to legislative action, but instead the reaction was to finally get you to propose something.

What nice imagery, Rev Park. I actually prefer electric light to candles. It's much less fickle. Anyhow. I know the ELP likes to produce legislative proposals in five minutes flat. Personally, I prefer to produce proposals that actually work. If that takes a bit more time initially, so be it. It saves a lot of time in the long run if we don't have to worry about plugging all the holes and leaks.

Given your active role in the debate and your new appointment of Deputy Speaker, perhaps the process would be speeded handing him the gavel for this matter?

My role as Speaker, Rev Park, is separate from my role as debater. Rest assured I'm entirely capable of separating the two.

 

[unmerged(33865)]

Actually, I'm simply continuing to point out the inaccuracies in your statements.

No, you clearly are not, as you somehow think that you understand better than I did, what I was referring to to by the "this" in "this bill". I demonstrated that I was referring too the President's bill, while your earlier diatribe said that I was referring to my suggestion.

The PL and ENP have been waiting for months for the ELP to "set aside its agenda" and come to the table. We, and I personally, have repeatedly asked that you do so. We have also asked several ELP-representatives to provide crucial information. Your party has in turn ignored, dismissed, and ridiculed all such initiatives. Forgive me if your generous offer to "set aside your agenda" rings a bit hollow. Too little, too late, one might say.

I am and was speaking for myself, specifically about my suggestion, which I carefully did not put forward as an amendment, in order to give your self-admitted ungratefulness a chance to work something out with the author of the bill, our President. I was not an MGA when those earlier so-called invitations were issued. If I had been I would have declined as well, and introduced some legislation on my own. Before I took my seat in the GA, the President introduced some legislation, so it was not appropriate for me to do so. Your meetings with ENP did not produce any proposed legislation, merely impertinent questions regarding which poor souls here could be again deprived to avoid cutting Admiral Tulp's playthings budget. What is hollow is the enormous gap between your words and any action in moving closer to getting aid flowing. I am a forgiving man, so I will, as I previously indicated, hope for you and the President to work something out. It is not a conditional offer, requiring something on your part. It is already a fact. My suggestion was not presented as competing amendment. For you to characterize it as an offer is to demean it. You could demean it as a meaningless gesture, but not as an offer.

Now, if the ELP wishes to engage in constructive debate on New Bengal, the door is still open. As it always have been. But spare me the martyr attitude. There is no moral high ground here for you to occupy.

I understood that you were in conversations with the President. Have you broken them off, as your statement implies? Rather than insist he come back to you, I would suggest that you too meet in some neutral venue. Clearly I cannot act as mediator in this case, but perhaps Arthur Brand, who is not affiliated with any party, might be able to serve. His credentials on New Bengal aide are better than yours or the President's.

In actual fact, sir, there are two reasons why aid has not begun to flow already: one, you saw fit to revive debate on the PDRA. For what reason, I don't know.

I was doing my duty as a legislator, trying to fix a bill that was going to be passed and vetoed into something that could have won wider acceptance. My part should have taken a day, as it was over when the author of the bill declined to accept the friendly amendment proposed. You then ground out the proceedings by not proceeding immediately to a vote, when it was clear to everyone but you, that I was only proposing a friendly amendment, and would not be proposing a hostile one.

Two, *your party* wasted months of valuable time doing exactly nothing on locating funding for New Bengal. No attempts at a systematic survey of available funding sources.

The budget, with the possible exception of the military, had no fat in it.

No efforts at a cross-party solution. No hint of a viable legislative proposal.

The President put something on the table, while you were demanding information about how we could oppress our less fortunate who didn't vote for you party.

Once again, do *not* try to take the moral high ground here.

Just because the monarchy referendum was defeated doesn't mean you have any right to tell me what to say or how to say it. The vacated crown was not floating over your head at that moment, given you that authority over me.

I'm more than open to talk about concrete funding solutions for New Bengal.

Then please do so with the author of the bill.

I'm not open to playing the silly blame games you seem intent on playing.

You are the one that began this by attempting to debate what had been previously entered into the GA record when I was an MGA, but had waited until after I was not longer a member to do so.

The amount was not only vague, it was non-existent. And the NBRA stipulated absolutely *no* GA-controls over "voluntary" funding.

Again you distort, I was clearly referring to the part after the "voluntary" funding.

Actually, part of my criticism wasn't that I was *unsure* - it was that the bill, as introduced, was unconstitutional,

Isn't that for the high court to decide for certain, thus, as you don't do their job, would therefore be uncertain as to their ruling?

breached the GA-rules,

Which would have therefore been amended by the legislation.

and outlined no details whatsoever about substance or process. My criticism was, in short, that the NBRA was a travesty.

Yes, I and I think most people know your opinion on this now. But it had been put to a vote when only you objected to it and passed, then some aid would now be flowing. If you had reacted positively to my straightforward suggestion, instead of needing to refute the echos of my criticisms of your objections, the aid could now be flowing. But neither of those happened, and neither you nor I can change the past. Therefore, as I said, I will leave it too the President's capable hands to work out a deal with you or some other party, as I have a plane to catch.

My role as Speaker, Rev Park, is separate from my role as debater. Rest assured I'm entirely capable of separating the two.

I have my doubts, based on your comment about the GA rules, but that is for the GA to decide, which I am not presently a member of. In many places it is customary for the speaker to hand the gavel to his deputy if he wishes to enter a debate.

Woody leaves the townhall with his luggage, and catches a taxi to the airport for a worldwide convocation for his denomination.
(OOC: see you in a week)

 

[unmerged(28894)]

Per Vandelft, saying something at every opportunity does not make it true. We have outlined proposals for New Bengal funding. We have made General Assembly proposals and if only the President mentioned funds he intended to contribute, I would suggest the other ministries had more than enough time to make suggestions. We could not know absolutely what the funding would be, but for all reasonable purposes we knew how much money we could find from voluntary reallocation of funds.

What is more, I myself turned up to your 'tea-party' (and those were my words, not those of Reverend Park's.) I told you where I believed funding should come from. I may have turned up later than any other guests you received, but I turned up well before you put this amendment forward.

We are not intransigent on this issue, we have been active on it and we are well aware that it will most likely be the most crucial event of this term. Not one of us in the ELP is trying to set himself up as a martyr. The only martyrs will be the New Bengalese if the GA forgets its duty to do what is best for the people in favour of its liking for blackening its rivals.

When even I am calling for an end to the rhetoric and slander, then we have come to a pretty pass. We don't have to like each other, we can suspect each other's motives, but we ought at least to concentrate on the issue first and the political mileage to be made out of it second.

 

[unmerged(27364)]

* A short press briefing by Rev. Pollos regarding the NBRA*

My fellow Eutopians , today , your friends , brothers and sisters in the GA are moving toward finalizing the New Bengal Reconstruction Act , and soon will be voting on the final version which will allow aid to begin flowing to our friends and neighbors in New Bengal.

I would like to take this opportunity to urge the backbenchers from ALL parties to vote in favor of the Vandelft Amendment as it is the ground work for a bi-partisan amendment proposed by members from both the ELP and ENP.

To my brothers and sisters in the WET and elsewhere who have been displaced by the carnage and violence in your homelands, we applaud your enduring vision and pursuit of life. We in the GA are working diligently to ensure that aid is soon available to you and your families.

I urge all Eutopians , all religious organizations and all other charity groups to mobilize aid for our friends who are in such need at this time. Those who do not have to give , please send prayers , to whatever God you might call upon, and ask for mercy and grace for all those in need.

 

[aussieboy]

Cojuanco is next on the podium.

“I thank God that all of us, as a people, have decided to put away our petty differences to unite in helping our countless brothers and sisters affected by the brutal carnage in New Bengal. I urge all backbenchers to support the NBRA, so we may uplift out beleaguered neighbors and those that have fled conflict. I call on individual Eutopians to do anything in their capacity to help these victims of the terrible disease that is war. I call on the countless charitable clergymen to raise money for the uplifting and the development of our neighbors, whom Jesus called us to love. For he said “I was hungry and you fed me, I was thirsty and you gave me drink. I was a stranger and you welcomed me. I was sick and in prison, and you visited me.””

Thank you all”

 

[unmerged(33865)]

Admiral Tulp has seen fit to propose an "Anti Bureacracy Investigation Act". It had not yet been seconded. I hope it stays that way. The act would create more bureacracy, which it hopes to reduce, by creating another committee. It is the responsibility of each minister to get their Ministry to operate efficiently. They can consult outside experts if needed. The bill attempts to do this part of each Cabinet Ministers' job. If Admiral Tulp believes that a minister is not doing his job, let him call for that individual to be impeached. If not, let us get on with our work, without this unnecessary interference.

The proposed legislation is also regrettable in that it denigrates public service as a profession. How can we attract the best and the brightest who want to make their country better if we stigmatize their work in this way. Perhaps Admiral Tulp does not, but I for one appreciate and applaud the continual striving of out public sector workers to serve the citizens of our fair land.

 

[HJ Tulp]

"A committee adds to bureacracy? On the contrary, this committee will simply investigate if there is needless bureacracy so that if there is we can do something about it. I have nothing but respect for people that serve the nation but I do recognise the fact that they are only human. They can make mistakes, they can get carried away, they can do things that make things inefficient by accident.

Furthermore, I haven't heard of any measure done by Ministers fighting bureacracy. Ofcourse I could try to get every single minister and the President impeached but that would ofcourse fail, if not through partisan politicians then certainly because the idea is silly."

 

[unmerged(33865)]

Committees in Eutopia are notorious for accomplishing nothing other than producing a report. We had a committee to revitalize the automobile industry here, which has since shut down. Judging by that performance, your committee is sure to increase bureacracy. Even without that perverse outcome, it is certain that public servants will be obliged to divert time to deal with this committee when they could be serving the public.

If you "...haven't heard of any measure done by Ministers fighting bureacracy..." and don't want to resort to use the already existing tool of impeachment, then why don't you have a conversation with the Minister appointed by your party, the Attorney General, to find out what they have or haven't done? If they are as lax as you claim then encourage them to try your suggestion within their department, as a pilot program to see how much time it wastes, er, to see how well it does or doesn't work? I suspect you might meet some resistance from your own hand-picked cabinet minister, who probably thinks he is running his Ministry ably, given his experience in that job.

 

[unmerged(27364)]

* Rev. Pollos press release*

Today , Per Berenguerr and I have introduced and had moved to a vote , an amendment to the New Bengal Aid Bill , which would allow for immediate assistance to start flowing to our brothers and sisters , our nieghbors in the WET. This revision will allow those on our soil to be aided as soon as the final version of this act is voted upon.

I therefore , URGE , all backbenchers , from all parties to please support this effort in aiding our friends, and vote AYE , for the Berenguerr-Pollos amendment to the NBRA.

After all , anything that brings me togather with Per Berenguerr , must be a worthwhile adventure.

* John leaves the microphones and cameras, smilling , almost laughing at that last part *

 

[Estonianzulu]

Alastar Cain once again takes the stage as ELP Party Chair.

"Greetings. With the recent court rulings, we find ourselves with an open ministry, the MoSS. After much deliberation within the party, we have chosen who should replace the esteemed minister in our government. Our choice represents the best of what Eutopia has to offer, not only to itself, but to the world. As a member of our legislature, our choice has led the way in bridging the gap between the parties, and keeping this country going in the right path. I would like to ask you all to welcome your newest MoSS, Francisco Cojuanco."

 

[aussieboy]

Thank you very much, Alastar.

Does anybody have any questions?

 

[unmerged(33865)]

While I appreciate the desire of some members of the GA, including those from my own party, not to slow down the legislative process, perhaps the Deputy Speaker could ask for nominations for Speaker/VP to be submitted at the Speaker's office? This would not interfere with the current debate, and would give every party a chance to make their nominations, assuming they wished to do. Thus when a deadline had arrived or when every party had made a nomination of indicated it didn't wish to do so, the vote could commence, either immediately or after each candidate has had a chance to make a statement, according to the wishes of the GA.

 

[unmerged(27364)]

*Press Release by Rev. Pollos*

I would like to take this opportunity to thank Per Berenguerr from across the aisle and congratulate him on his wonderful effort in ensureing that funding for the displaced persons in the WET would be made available in the NBRA.

I hope that this type of cooperation is a sign of things to come in our near future and that we can when needed, compromise and move on to help our brothers and sisters here in Eutopia.

*End Press Release*

 

[unmerged(28894)]

"I'm sure you've all seen Queen Maria's comments to Newslink in the wake of the new census report. Firstly, I'd like to apologise to anyone who feels belittled by my mistitled bill. It was entirely unintentional, as I was working from severely outdated information when I composed the bill, but I nevertheless take full responsibility.

However, Queen Maria is in error when she says that Western Eutopia has been ignored. We are even now voting on a bill to take over responsibility for the displaced New Bengalis from Governor Thorsbeard's administration, whereas no other province has had a bill specifically devoted to it this term.

Nor do I believe that the Topa have been neglected. Major Braxton of the ELP proposed a bill this term to help rehabilitate Topans suffering from addiction. Mrs Saxe-Coburg-Gotha claims discriminatory hiring practices by oil companies. I have not yet seen evidence of this, but if this is indeed the case any who have suffered as a result of it should seek redress from the courts and the ELP will endeavour to help them in this.

Finally, I am concerned that Mrs Saxe-Coburg-Gotha is concerned about the migration of many young Topans away from Western Eutopia. Western Eutopia is not their 'homeland.' Before Europeans settled here Topans were found across the length and breadth of this island. Their culture should be preserved, but that does not necessitate a Topan ghetto on our western shores. Ethnic and cultural diversity is desirable for Eutopia, not just in Western Eutopia but in every province. The hispanophone population of the UPE has almost halved since the last census (not including those areas now part of Tilapia) and our French population is largely restricted to Nouvelle Anjou and Nouvelle Aquitaine, so the fact that the Topa are not following the trend is hugely encouraging to me. As Per Gattelheim said, we are the melting pot of the Atlantic. We are Eutopians first, French or Anglo or Western Saharan or Norse or Spanish or Topa or New Bengali or whatever else we wish to be second.

 

[unmerged(27364)]

* Press Release from Rev. Pollos of the ENP *

My fellow MGAs of all parties and back benchers of all political leanings. Stand togather today with Per. Sykes of the ENP , of Eutopia and stand for action and hard work within our government.

Per. Sykes record of hardwork and dedication to duty show us all what a politician should be, a man of honor and dedicated to his position and his people. Support Per. Sykes in the upcomming speakers election and support a man who will lead our nation by example , will lead our nation through hardwork and diligence.

Vote for Jim Sykes for Speaker!

Thank You

*Rev. Pollos steps away *

 

[unmerged(28894)]

"To any members of the GA making up their minds on whether or not to vote for the WETS, I urge you to vote for the measure.

It is crucial we act on this issue and since we are nearing the end of term XIV and no substantitive proposals for military spending have been made, military funding seems the best place to take funding from.

This measure will not endanger the UPE and it will be a great humanitarian act. I call upon ELP, PoL, PEL, even any of the ENP who disagree with Admiral Tulp's arguments to vote for this bill."

 

[unmerged(33865)]

I urge the Members of the General Assembly from the PL and PEL to vote for Alastar Cain for Speaker/VP. It is becoming increasingly apparent that whoever is elected to that office will succeed rapidly to the Presidency. This will allow the selection of another Speaker/VP to in that role for hopefully the remainder of the term. Thus, the characteristics to be considered for this election are those needed for a Presidential candidate, and any performance, good or bad, of the current Deputy Speaker in his current job are relevant to the second election, not the first. I would comment that the current Deputy Speaker is still learning on the job. He has been slow to start votes when required and has not always understood the implications of the votes. In the GA, this is not too much of a problem, as any MGA can point out the right way with a point of order. Our President doesn't have 99 other people in the same room keeping him from making a gaffe.


I therefore commend Alastar Cain to you for the post of Speaker/Vice President, because he is ready for the job, he understands what is required by a cabinet minister and a President.