• 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.
((Can I have these voted on by just the Assembly, because they only affect the Assembly?))
((Just ask the Speaker - or don't, as he'll do it anyway. Just add that you forgot to name him Deputy PM, which has always been part of our agreement.

And although Faixòn doesn't see how such a small fringe group can threaten Hispania, they remain terrorist in their aim, so he'll support the investigation as well.))

"Surely we must all recognize that there is an idea spreading in the Empire which I advocated for from the beginning: Secularization. Look in our schools, at our art, at the papers. At our parliamentary debates. Even at the jury of such a high-profile trial as Villahermosa's! And at the happy marriage of the Crown Prince with a former heathen - accepted without any form of parliamentary protest! The role of religion has diminished so much that it only persists de iure, and we see their meddling solely Catholic-dominated with one or two Cardinals trying to take part thanks to their one-sided spiritual influence. An influence a modernizing Hispania with far greater distribution of wealth doesn't need on daily or political life. We should adjust the de iure situation to the de facto situation by passing the following bill:
Secularization of State Act
The clergy is to be excluded from any position in governmental bodies and the administration, except for the Ministry of Religious Affairs.

And as the Speaker, I will request that the Act of Voter Privacy as well as the Expansion of the Assembly Act are voted upon solely by this body. Both acts have absolutely no influence at all on the Cortz nor on the society. I also support the Act for a Fairer Parliament to be voted upon solely by the Assembly; while the Cortz will certainly argue that this act would 'empower' or 'embolden' the lower classes of society, they must be aware that these men are mostly literate thanks to our school system envied across the world as well as they represent the majority of the population. And contrary to the Cortz which is a house for the select few of the nobility, the Assembly's role is to represent the people. As such it is my duty as Speaker to strive for fulfilment of that task, which means to offer the entire people a voice in this house. Due to the very different natures of the two houses, it strikes me as a reform only to be voted upon by the Assembly."

Partner,

our liquor factory has achieved its goals perfectly. It has been both a profitable one as well as it has shown that the previous government's factory was just a money-sink doomed from the start. I am of the opinion that we have multiple options for our future partnership:
Either we could expand it to a second factory. I am listening to whatever you have in mind.
Or we could end the partnership, with either one of us buying the other half of the factory or contributing for the construction of another one.
There is another option, to leave it as it is, perhaps discuss something else in the future, but I have to give that something else some more thought.
Of these options, I woud prefer the first one. I hope you share that line of thought. I am awaiting your answer in my Valencian residence.

To a profitable future,
Lluis Faixòn
 
Just add that you forgot to name him Deputy PM, which has always been part of our agreement.
((I totally forgot that.))

Your Majesty, after some deliberation my cabinet, I have decided to make the following changes to it:

Deputy Prime Minister - Lluis Faixon ((alscon))

My apologies for any inconveniences this may cause.
 
((Just ask the Speaker - or don't, as he'll do it anyway. Just add that you forgot to name him Deputy PM, which has always been part of our agreement.

And although Faixòn doesn't see how such a small fringe group can threaten Hispania, they remain terrorist in their aim, so he'll support the investigation as well.))

"Surely we must all recognize that there is an idea spreading in the Empire which I advocated for from the beginning: Secularization. Look in our schools, at our art, at the papers. At our parliamentary debates. Even at the jury of such a high-profile trial as Villahermosa's! And at the happy marriage of the Crown Prince with a former heathen - accepted without any form of parliamentary protest! The role of religion has diminished so much that it only persists de iure, and we see their meddling solely Catholic-dominated with one or two Cardinals trying to take part thanks to their one-sided spiritual influence. An influence a modernizing Hispania with far greater distribution of wealth doesn't need on daily or political life. We should adjust the de iure situation to the de facto situation by passing the following bill:


And as the Speaker, I will request that the Act of Voter Privacy as well as the Expansion of the Assembly Act are voted upon solely by this body. Both acts have absolutely no influence at all on the Cortz nor on the society. I also support the Act for a Fairer Parliament to be voted upon solely by the Assembly; while the Cortz will certainly argue that this act would 'empower' or 'embolden' the lower classes of society, they must be aware that these men are mostly literate thanks to our school system envied across the world as well as they represent the majority of the population. And contrary to the Cortz which is a house for the select few of the nobility, the Assembly's role is to represent the people. As such it is my duty as Speaker to strive for fulfilment of that task, which means to offer the entire people a voice in this house. Due to the very different natures of the two houses, it strikes me as a reform only to be voted upon by the Assembly."

((Technically the position of Deputy PM does not exist, at least not de jure, although there is a precedent for its existence. Perhaps someone may want to formalize it to avoid controversy if something happens to the PM. ;)

I also need @DragonOfAtlantis to confirm that the Act of Voter Privacy, Expansion of the Assembly Act, and Act for a Fairer Parliament will be voted on solely by the Assembly.))

((I totally forgot that.))

Your Majesty, after some deliberation my cabinet, I have decided to make the following changes to it:

Deputy Prime Minister - Lluis Faixon ((alscon))

My apologies for any inconveniences this may cause.

5W1lKXZ.png

It is not necessary in the future to provide me with a Deputy Prime Minister when forming a government. The position does not exist in our laws. I shall, of course, take your decision into consideration if circumstances arise where you are unable to perform your duties or require someone to act in your stead.

- His Imperial Highness, Ferran VI de Trastámara, Emperor of Hispania, Caesar of Rome, & Protector of the Greeks

((Tell me, how popular would my movement be ? [Italian Separatist Movement] Any minimal chance of a revolt being successful ?))

((I've added in a independence movement coup to the rules. I imagine it would be as difficult to pull off as toppling the government, so I've merged it with that one. That means it'd require 80% of all player VP to succeed when a coup vote is called, so the chances of pulling it off alone are pretty much nil. You'd need to get more players on your side or gather support over time. The latter lowers the required amount of VP by 1% per year, but also requires an explicit request to do so since I perform a roll every year to see if the movement is discovered. Militancy and any associated movements or rebel groups also lower the amount of VP required. At the present, militancy is incredibly low and the movement associated with Italian independence only has a few hundred people, so there are minimal bonuses from either. You'd still need 80% of player VP to succeed.

The alternative is to tie yourself to the in-game rebel group. If they succeed, so do you; if they fail, your movement does too. Of course, you don't have to tie yourself to them and then their fate won't affect you at all.))
 
((Technically the position of Deputy PM does not exist, at least not de jure, although there is a precedent for its existence. Perhaps someone may want to formalize it to avoid controversy if something happens to the PM. ;)

I also need @DragonOfAtlantis to confirm that the Act of Voter Privacy, Expansion of the Assembly Act, and Act for a Fairer Parliament will be voted on solely by the Assembly.))



5W1lKXZ.png

It is not necessary in the future to provide me with a Deputy Prime Minister when forming a government. The position does not exist in our laws. I shall, of course, take your decision into consideration if circumstances arise where you are unable to perform your duties or require someone to act in your stead.

- His Imperial Highness, Ferran VI de Trastámara, Emperor of Hispania, Caesar of Rome, & Protector of the Greeks



((I've added in a independence movement coup to the rules. I imagine it would be as difficult to pull off as toppling the government, so I've merged it with that one. That means it'd require 80% of all player VP to succeed when a coup vote is called, so the chances of pulling it off alone are pretty much nil. You'd need to get more players on your side or gather support over time. The latter lowers the required amount of VP by 1% per year, but also requires an explicit request to do so since I perform a roll every year to see if the movement is discovered. Militancy and any associated movements or rebel groups also lower the amount of VP required. At the present, militancy is incredibly low and the movement associated with Italian independence only has a few hundred people, so there are minimal bonuses from either. You'd still need 80% of player VP to succeed.

The alternative is to tie yourself to the in-game rebel group. If they succeed, so do you; if they fail, your movement does too. Of course, you don't have to tie yourself to them and then their fate won't affect you at all.))
((Got it. @alscon, assume I named you Deputy PM at some point. I'm quite busy right now.))
 
((Then link us to movement realista since is basically the only relevant one.))

((That would mean your goal would be to change the government to an absolute monarchy. Independence would not be an option since the reactionary rebels don't want that. You'd have to associate with the Italian unification movement to achieve your goal if they succeed.))
 
Poor Taxes: 15%

Middle Taxes: 10%

Rich Taxes: 75%

Army Stockpile: 10%

Naval Stockpile: 100%

Construction Stockpile: 100%

Education: 10%

Administration: 10%

Social: 100%

Military: 20%

Surplus Conditionals:

Lower Middle Class Tax by 5% intervals until 0% is reached. If middle class taxes are 0%, begin decreasing poor taxes by 5% intervals if possible.

Deficit Conditionals:

Increase middle class tax by 5% intervals until surplus

Rebellion:

Army Stockpile goes to 100%, until end of hostilities, then returns to 10%.

War:

Army Stockpile goes to 100%, until end of hostilities, then returns to 10%, if allowed by the Minister of War, a deficit is to be allowed to pay for this without tax increases.


Influence expenditure:
1. All Influence goes to sphering Sunda.
2. If discredited in Sunda, all influence goes to Scotland until discredit effect is over, then continue to Sunda
3. When Sunda is sphered, all influence goes to sphereing scotland.
4. If discredited in Scotland, all influence goes to sphereing Ireland until discredit/ban is over, then continue to sphere scotland.
5. Once scotland is sphered, all influence goes to sphereing Ireland.
6. If discredited in Ireland, all influence goes to sphereing Mali until discredit/ban is over, then continue to sphere Ireland.
7. If discredited in Mali, spread influence across all sphered nations below cap.

Note: If another nation of equal or greater opinion than Hispania has "influence points" above 60 with target, move on to next step until those influence points drop below 60.

Diplomatic points expenditure:
1. Increase relations with Scotland
2. If possible, sign military access both ways if possible.
3. Diplomatic points are to only be used on Scotland.

Excepting agreements:
1. Anyone who asks for military access while it war with a great power that isn't Byzantium, gets it.
2. Anyone who asks for alliance and is in our sphere gets it, EXCEPT SCOTLAND.
3. Nobody else gets an alliance accepted.
 
((Okay, I took a break from guard but I don't much time, so in the Ministry of Justice repeat the same plans, and in the Ministry of Colonial Affairs I wish to pull a vote to enact the former integration plan, I will elaborate as soon as I get to home, I say this only in case I get home too late))
 
Over the years, I have noticed a trend developing within Parliament in regard to the laws it proposes. There has been a habit to treat certain laws as more important than others. Various strategies have developed to protect these laws to ensure they aren't needlessly revoked, as well as to ensure it is more difficult to implement laws altering them. None of them truly work.

The Institutionalization of Parliament Act is a key example, an act that's purpose is to make it more difficult to enact laws related to matters deemed of importance. Yet in reality, that law is but a mere roadblock. Any large faction in Parliament intent on enacting such a law, but that doesn't have the required 60%, merely needs the 50% required for any normal law to revoke or amend the Institutionalization of Parliament Act, and then in the next session go forward with their original plan but now only needing 50% because they revoked or amended the act blocking them. We may well be seeing this strategy occurring right now.

Then we have another strategy, as presented by the Guarantee of Guarantee of Freedoms Act, where the law takes the process of revoking the law completely out of Parliament's hands and ensures only the Crown can remove it. It seems a problematic process to be able to pass a law with 50% approval but have it so Parliament can never revoke it by itself. While a better way of ensuring an important act is not tampered with, it is detrimental to the parliamentary process.

It is clear from this that we need to establish a clear level of importance for our legislation. Some laws are naturally more important than others, and thus should require greater support to enact, amend, or revoke. We should not be implementing temporary roadblocks, nor should we allow laws to make themselves nearly impossible to amend or revoke when they require a simple majority to enact. Allowing this to continue only opens our system to abuse. As a means of solving this dilemma, I thus propose the following act:

The Establishment of Levels of Legislation Act

I. Recognizing that certain laws are considered of greater importance than others, and that said laws thus must require greater support to enact, amend, or revoke, four separate levels of legislation shall be introduced.

II. The first level shall be known as minor laws. These type of laws shall have no special privileges and be treated as normal laws.

III. The second level shall be known as major laws. These type of laws shall be considered of greater importance than minor laws and thus require 60% approval from Parliament to enact, amend, or revoke.

IV. The third level shall be known as fundamental laws. These type of laws shall be considered of the greatest importance and thus require 75% approval from Parliament to enact, amend, or revoke.

V. The fourth and final level shall be known as royal decrees. These type of laws shall consist of any law passed unilaterally by the Crown and may only be amended or revoked with the approval of the Crown.

VI. All laws must clearly state either in a specific clause or the preface what level of law they are considered to be, otherwise the law in question shall be considered a minor law. All laws passed unilaterally by the Crown are considered royal decrees, and only the Crown may designate laws as royal decrees.

VII. This act shall be applied retroactively in part to all existing laws. Any act that requires Crown approval to amend or revoke shall be elevated to the level of fundamental law if passed by Parliament or elevated to the level of royal decree if enacted unilaterally by the Crown.

VIII. Any existing law may have its level altered by vote, with the number of votes required to change its level based on its current level or level to be adopted, whichever requires higher approval. Royal decrees may only have their level altered with Crown approval and shall require 75% approval from Parliament to amend or revoke unless otherwise decided by the Crown.

IX. Due to the importance of this act in establishing a set level of laws and to avoid abuse by revoking this law to lower the number of votes required to amend or revoke other laws, this act shall be considered a fundamental law and may only be enacted, amended, or revoked with 75% approval of Parliament.

- His Royal Highness, Crown Prince Alfons de Trastámara, Duke of Roma
 
Last edited:
I'd very much prefer if The Establishment of Levels of Legislation Act did not retroactively elevate some laws over others, instead letting existing and future parliaments decide by amendment, which laws are to be elevated above others.

It is very unfortunate that the Institutionalization of Parliament Act was used to block the expansion franchise in the first place, as if the fact that the law was proposed by alongside separate one that was supposed to deal with the franchise, which makes it quite obviously clear that it was not intended to block the expansion of the franchise.

Speaking of which, it is quite inconsistent that a law intended to protect the "composition of the parliament" didn't come into play when we literally changed the composition of the parliament by dropping appointed seats, something which didn't require 60%, yet some how it applies to the composition of the electorate.

One could easily come to the conclusion that the invocation up until now of the "Institutionalization of Parliament Act" had absolutely nothing to do with actually protecting the composition of the parliament, but simply blocking the expansion of the franchise.
 
I'd very much prefer if The Establishment of Levels of Legislation Act did not retroactively elevate some laws over others, instead letting existing and future parliaments decide by amendment, which laws are to be elevated above others.

It is very unfortunate that the Institutionalization of Parliament Act was used to block the expansion franchise in the first place, as if the fact that the law was proposed by alongside separate one that was supposed to deal with the franchise, which makes it quite obviously clear that it was not intended to block the expansion of the franchise.

Speaking of which, it is quite inconsistent that a law intended to protect the "composition of the parliament" didn't come into play when we literally changed the composition of the parliament by dropping appointed seats, something which didn't require 60%, yet some how it applies to the composition of the electorate.

One could easily come to the conclusion that the invocation up until now of the "Institutionalization of Parliament Act" had absolutely nothing to do with actually protecting the composition of the parliament, but simply blocking the expansion of the franchise.

The number of laws that will be elevated by the act are few in number, and the purpose of such is to ensure all our laws meet the new standards. I can only think of three off-hand, and two of them I have mentioned previously. As I've said, it is foolish that we can amend or revoke laws that impose a 60% requirement for other laws but not for itself. However, I do see the wisdom in allowing future Parliaments to decide the matter. I have thus changed the clause to instead only elevate laws that require Crown approval to amend or revoke, which should do very little to change the acts themselves.

The inconsistent use of the Institutionalization of Parliament Act has indeed caused numerous problems. We have already had to seek further clarification on the law previously, and its interpretation is still dubious. I am personally of the opinion that the first clause should be scrapped entirely and rewritten. The word "composition" is far too vague. A clear definition of what changes require 60% approval is needed.

- His Royal Highness, Crown Prince Alfons de Trastámara, Duke of Roma

((This is why I hate vague laws. I totally missed that with the appointed seats. It shouldn't have passed. Oh well, too late now. :rolleyes:))
 
((OH FOR F** SAKE GOD WHY NO ONE F** REMEMBERED THAT F** LAW ! CAN WE REMEMBER THIS LAW IN THIS TIME TO AVOID A FRANCHAISE EXPANSION ?! FOR F** SAKE ! I CANT KEEP THIS FAMILY F***ING FRIENDLY FOR F***SAKE ! :mad::mad::mad::mad::mad::mad::mad::mad::mad::mad::mad::mad::mad::mad::mad::mad::mad::mad::mad::mad::mad::mad::mad::mad::mad::mad::mad:))

((
2gO3XUH.gif
:D ))