Home Trending Latest threads New posts Developer diaries

Albion and Empire - A (very) British Victoria II (NWO) 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.
"Mr. Speaker,

One of the issues that has received little attention as yet in Parliamentary debate has been our archaic and arbitrary system of soft censorship of publications. We, of course, live in a free society where people can speak their minds in whatever way they wish - except, you see, when they can not. We still, like a cabal of frazzled schoolmarms, come down with the proverbial ruler upon the hands of those who dare utter profanities or discuss mature themes. I certainly have no love lost for such works, but it is not a choice that is mine to make if others can read, watch or otherwise consume them as they choose. That is not the hallmark of a free society. I know that there are those among us who will cry "Think of the children!" in reaction. Fine, I say to them, I shall. When my daughter was fourteen and I told her she could not attend a friend's birthday party in lieu of doing her English homework, she responded with a four-letter word beginning with the sixth letter of the English alphabet. I know not where she learned it from, but one might reasonably assume it was an outside source. Did that fill me with undue rage at the filth contaminating our society? Certainly not - I acted like a responsible adult and explained to her that using that word was inappropriate. And she, with all due respect, has turned out quite fine. I know that the Opposition loves to patronize the common man and imagine him a simpleton incapable of understanding more than two-syllable words, but I, for one, believe in the ability of the British people to make rational decisions for themselves. And thus I would like to present the Free Speech Act of 1967:

Free Speech Act of 1967

1) The Government shall make no law requiring censorship of published, performed or broadcast works for any reason, including profanity, drug references or pornography.
2) The Government shall not promote self-censorship of published, performed or broadcast works by penalizing in other ways their writers or distributors for the content of their works.
3) These provisions shall not apply to materials previously and explicitly declared illegal by the government, including child pornography and incitement to racial hatred.
Click to expand...

((Reform Publishing from Censored to Unregulated. Not sure what that "firewall" option is there for and how you access it without the internet...

EDIT: Added "performed" to ensure the theatre is included))
 
Last edited:
((Private - Conservatives))

In the interest of ensuring that party members are aware of the policies of the candidates for leadership, I propose that each of them fill out the following questionnaire.
Conservative Leadership Questionnaire

Please fill out your policies in the following general policy areas as clearly as possible.

Foreign Policy:

Colonial Policy:

Economic Policy:

Industrial Policy:

Social Policy:

Other Policies (if not falling under the above areas):
Click to expand...
~ Arthur Hornesby, MP for Hertford
 
Mr. Speaker,

Perhaps the Prime Minister would like to explain how his Government somehow believes that it is promoting freedom of speech when it has quite clearly rejected the notion altogether with its plans to completely outlaw the legitimate expression of personal belief in regards to race? Perhaps I do not understand, since the summaries of laws we're presented can fit onto paper napkins, but as far as I am aware, isn't it that you can either guarantee freedom of speech, or restrict it? I don't believe you can do both, I don't.


Talfryn Ryley
MP for Monmouth
Shadow Minister for the Environment
______________________________

((Private - Conservatives))​

Conservative Leadership Questionnaire
Talfryn Ryley
​
Foreign Policy:
I support a continuation of many of the policy positions of the Jacobs Government, however, I believe the United Kingdom must play a more activist role internationally, a process which begins with the formation of favorable trade conditions and deals in Africa and East Asia. While our former empire may soon cease to exist in a political sense, it is vitally important that we reassume our position as a world economic power.​

Colonial Policy:
We should reject outright the Labourite attempts to destroy our colonial position, but that is not to say that the Empire as its former existence is necessary. Rather, we should promote greater cooperation between members of the Commonwealth, as well as mandating stability and infrastructure before independence for areas still under our direct rule.​

Economic Policy:
We must abandon protectionism as a failed concept and instead embrace free trade. We should use leverage in the EEC and United Nations to encourage global free trade agreements and strive to open markets to British commercial activity. In addition, we must do our best to combat and keep minute the threat of a budgetary deficit. Additionally, we should examine whether a flat taxation plan is feasible.​

Industrial Policy:
Subsidies should be continued as they are, with only industries with a projected net profit without the aid of subsidies being released from subsidization. With that in mind, however, should explore the possibilty of denationalizing certain industries to a certain extent, so as to encourage competition and the efficiency of private enterprise. Beyond these policies, however, the blatant syndicalism of "workplace democracy" is one that runs counter to the interests of British citizens. Unions should not be attacked directly, however, attempts by Government force increased power for Unions are to be attacked and defeated under nearly all circumstances.​

Social Policy:
We must encourage and promote freedom of speech and expression under all circumstances, especially when they are threatened by a totalitarian institution attempting to recreate the systemic oppression of the Soviet Union. Furthermore, we should strive to create secure mechanisms by which abortion is possible, with the intent to limit abortion to solely the first trimester, with possible exceptions for pregnancies of troublesome origin.​

Other Policies:
Work should be conducted, on an international scale, to promote ecological protection and development. If at all possible, we should use the common future and heritage of humanity as a means to encourage international cooperation and unity. While our current position environmentally in the United Kingdom is quite sound, we must ensure that there are no lapses in judgment or loopholes that might be exploited by the unscrupulous - especially so that nationalized industries are never given a free pass in regard to environmental violations.​
 

‘Mr Speaker,

‘Does the Rt Hon member for Monmouth consider as a “legitimate expression of personal belief” the inciting of violent attacks on black and Asian members of British society? And would he therefore consider his freedom of speech abridged in a world where he were no longer able to do so?’​
 
Mr. Speaker,

To answer the Rt. Hon. member for Monmouth, I find that no more a "legitimate expression of personal belief" than I find yelling "fire" in a crowded theatre to be a legitimate expression of the personal belief that it is amusing to watch people trample each other.

- The Rt. Hon. Alistair Monaghan, Prime Minister
 
DensleyBlair said:
‘Mr Speaker,

‘Does the Rt Hon member for Monmouth consider as a “legitimate expression of personal belief” the inciting of violent attacks on black and Asian members of British society? And would he therefore consider his freedom of speech abridged in a world where he were no longer able to do so?’​
Click to expand...

Mr Speaker,

Setting aside the Home Secretary's use of fallacy in his argument, we must face the simple facts of a free society - that while we personally oppose such speech, it must be allowed to continue. We can not have some freedom of speech. No, we either have such rights or we do not, and the plain truth is that this proposal would make it so that we do not! Certainly, there are already laws outlawing the exercise of violence against all groups, including minorities, so if the concern was for the safety and security of black and Asian citizens, this proposal would be unnecessary at its most basic level. Certainly, the peaceful expression of any opinion is a right that individuals must be entitled - even if that measn that unsavory attitudes are allowed to continue being expressed.

As for the Prime Minister's similar attempt to set up a strawman against the realities of his proposal, I believe that there is very much a distinction between directly committing an abhorrent action and instead voicing one's abhorrent perspective, I do. Once again, we already have laws on the books which punish violence between individuals and groups, so I see no need to outlaw one's ability to express their view in a manner which is not in itself violent or against the already-established laws of this country.


Talfryn Ryley
MP for Monmouth
Shadow Minister of the Environment
 
‘Mr Speaker,

‘This is the House of Commons. Although it may be confusing at times, this is not a sixth form debating society. The Rt Hon member opposite wins no points for analysing our rhetoric. Not in the least as his analyses are, regrettably, flawed.

‘Nevertheless, he is worried about losing his freedom to express his opinions. Mr Speaker, this is a valid worry. The Labour Party has, after all, long been at the forefront of the battle for the freedoms of speech and publication – sometimes the only people fighting. This record has not changed just because we are now clarifying that it is not alright for people to get up in Speaker's Corner and call for the killing, maiming and injuring of whole sections of the population.

‘Mr Speaker, such behaviour is not “an unsavoury attitude”. Such behaviour is psychopathic— certainly sociopathic. There is a very distinct difference between grumbling about immigration, or even making some racially-charged insulting remark, and inciting racial hatred – which is what the bill put before the House seeks to outlaw. Let me be clear about this: unless he seriously wishes to defend the public – and let me stress that: public – inciting of actual racial hatred, his arguments against the bill are merely sensationalist attempts to deflect attention from its actual aim of ensuring that all British people can walk the streets without being harassed or abused.’​
 
((IAAR Quote of the Month.

@DensleyBlair "This is the House of Commons. Although it may be confusing at times, this is not a sixth form debating society."))
 
  • 2
Reactions:
Name: Sir Somerset L. Goldsmith
Occupation: Prime Minister of Libya
Party: Labour Party of Libya

Bio: Coming soon to an IAAR near you
 
While the concern over whether free speech should trump laws restricting certain parts of it is indeed important, I am more concerned with how this law will be implemented. Who will determine what is considered racial hatred? The law itself is so vague that it does not state such. Will it be a judge? Some government committee? Or worse, anyone who feels they are a victim of such a crime? The topic itself is very subjective and unless clearly defined, you will have people wasting our judicial system's resources because they feel their feelings are hurt. Labour had quite a time criticizing the Conservative Party over the likely inability to enforce its long-ago laws against pornography, but I say this will be even harder to enforce. What one person might consider racial hatred, another may consider a harmless comment. And how does one even prove such a thing when in most cases it will be the accuser's testimony against the defendant's? We may well see people using such a law to accuse people of racial discrimination for ulterior motives simply because they know that it can't be easily proven that someone didn't do it. You cannot tackle such a subject with a single-sentence law.

And now we see the final death toll of British industry with the Industrial Democracy Act. What business owner in their right mind would establish any business in the UK knowing that they'd lose control of their company once they reached a certain number of employees? A man could put his entire life's work into such a business, but this law would deprive him of majority ownership of his own company. What's to say the employees won't just use their artificially enforced majority ownership to keep the owner out of his own business's decision-making process? Any owner could essentially find themselves powerless within their own business. This meddling of the government in private industry will only damage it in the long run. Perhaps the employees may enjoy their newfound power, but it will mean little when business owners decide to move their operations to another country where their hard work and rightful ownership is respected. If this is the government's intention to drive private industry from Britain, why not just nationalize all industries, institute your communist dictatorship, and be done with it.

- Timothy Blake, Tory MP for Kensington South
 
DensleyBlair said:
‘Mr Speaker,

‘This is the House of Commons. Although it may be confusing at times, this is not a sixth form debating society. The Rt Hon member opposite wins no points for analysing our rhetoric. Not in the least as his analyses are, regrettably, flawed.

‘Nevertheless, he is worried about losing his freedom to express his opinions. Mr Speaker, this is a valid worry. The Labour Party has, after all, long been at the forefront of the battle for the freedoms of speech and publication – sometimes the only people fighting. This record has not changed just because we are now clarifying that it is not alright for people to get up in Speaker's Corner and call for the killing, maiming and injuring of whole sections of the population.

‘Mr Speaker, such behaviour is not “an unsavoury attitude”. Such behaviour is psychopathic— certainly sociopathic. There is a very distinct difference between grumbling about immigration, or even making some racially-charged insulting remark, and inciting racial hatred – which is what the bill put before the House seeks to outlaw. Let me be clear about this: unless he seriously wishes to defend the public – and let me stress that: public – inciting of actual racial hatred, his arguments against the bill are merely sensationalist attempts to deflect attention from its actual aim of ensuring that all British people can walk the streets without being harassed or abused.’​
Click to expand...

Mr Speaker,

Setting aside the childish attacks from the Home Secretary, perhaps I have misunderstood and he plainly does not understand the line that must be drawn - that there is no value in walking the streets without harassment if the cost of being able to walk those streets is to be restricted from expressing an opinion. Not in the least neglecting the fact that there is little statistical evidence that visible minorities are seriously being harmed or abused to a degree much higher than any other group in the United Kingdom, but even beyond such matters, that the Home Secretary legitimately believes that protecting a small subset of individuals from the opinions of other individuals at the cost of restricting freedom of speech is desirable. But if it is truly the case that certain people have developed such thin skin that simple words against them are cause for an ill-defined punishment, then I fear for other aspects of their lives, as well as the future of this country.


Talfryn Ryley
MP for Monmouth
Shadow Minister for the Environment
 
Michaelangelo said:
While the concern over whether free speech should trump laws restricting certain parts of it is indeed important, I am more concerned with how this law will be implemented. Who will determine what is considered racial hatred? The law itself is so vague that it does not state such. Will it be a judge? Some government committee? Or worse, anyone who feels they are a victim of such a crime? The topic itself is very subjective and unless clearly defined, you will have people wasting our judicial system's resources because they feel their feelings are hurt. Labour had quite a time criticizing the Conservative Party over the likely inability to enforce its long-ago laws against pornography, but I say this will be even harder to enforce. What one person might consider racial hatred, another may consider a harmless comment. And how does one even prove such a thing when in most cases it will be the accuser's testimony against the defendant's? We may well see people using such a law to accuse people of racial discrimination for ulterior motives simply because they know that it can't be easily proven that someone didn't do it. You cannot tackle such a subject with a single-sentence law.

And now we see the final death toll of British industry with the Industrial Democracy Act. What business owner in their right mind would establish any business in the UK knowing that they'd lose control of their company once they reached a certain number of employees? A man could put his entire life's work into such a business, but this law would deprive him of majority ownership of his own company. What's to say the employees won't just use their artificially enforced majority ownership to keep the owner out of his own business's decision-making process? Any owner could essentially find themselves powerless within their own business. This meddling of the government in private industry will only damage it in the long run. Perhaps the employees may enjoy their newfound power, but it will mean little when business owners decide to move their operations to another country where their hard work and rightful ownership is respected. If this is the government's intention to drive private industry from Britain, why not just nationalize all industries, institute your communist dictatorship, and be done with it.

- Timothy Blake, Tory MP for Kensington South
Click to expand...

Mr. Speaker,

Either the Hon. Member for Kensington is having undue visions of apocalypse or he has not read the proposal in its entirety. Firstly, we already have several nationalized industries in this nation, where, need I remind you, the entirety of "rightfully owned" industries were taken from their owners. It, by all means, was a far more radical act than this. And did this herald the death of British industry? Did it cause panicked capitalists to flee the country? No, it did not. Instead, it provided a modicum of economic fairness and guaranteed employment to the workers within the industry while allowing British society to function as normal. By no means does the Industrial Democracy Act exclude managers from the running of their corporations. It instead obligates them to cooperate with their employees, to whom they are ultimately responsible for providing livelihood, to accomplish the goals both desire. It need not be said, as I'm sure the Honorable Gentleman is cognizant of basic economic principles, that the workers will seek to maximize the value of what they own by increasing company performance. It gives the laborers a direct stake in corporate success, and it will improve industrial productivity rather than hinder it. The issue, then, is not the viability of business but the privileged position of the managerial class. If the Honorable Gentleman wishes to talk of respect, perhaps he could spare a moment for those who receive the least respect of all - the hard-working men and women whose blood, sweat and tears, and not romantic myths of great men and their capital, actually keep the wheels of British industry turning. If the Industrial Democracy Act will rectify the outsize power of men of means over those who are dependent upon them for a decent life, then I think that is something to celebrate rather than condemn.

- Alistair Monaghan, Prime Minister
 
Michaelangelo said:
While the concern over whether free speech should trump laws restricting certain parts of it is indeed important, I am more concerned with how this law will be implemented. Who will determine what is considered racial hatred? The law itself is so vague that it does not state such. Will it be a judge? Some government committee? Or worse, anyone who feels they are a victim of such a crime? The topic itself is very subjective and unless clearly defined, you will have people wasting our judicial system's resources because they feel their feelings are hurt. Labour had quite a time criticizing the Conservative Party over the likely inability to enforce its long-ago laws against pornography, but I say this will be even harder to enforce. What one person might consider racial hatred, another may consider a harmless comment. And how does one even prove such a thing when in most cases it will be the accuser's testimony against the defendant's? We may well see people using such a law to accuse people of racial discrimination for ulterior motives simply because they know that it can't be easily proven that someone didn't do it. You cannot tackle such a subject with a single-sentence law.

And now we see the final death toll of British industry with the Industrial Democracy Act. What business owner in their right mind would establish any business in the UK knowing that they'd lose control of their company once they reached a certain number of employees? A man could put his entire life's work into such a business, but this law would deprive him of majority ownership of his own company. What's to say the employees won't just use their artificially enforced majority ownership to keep the owner out of his own business's decision-making process? Any owner could essentially find themselves powerless within their own business. This meddling of the government in private industry will only damage it in the long run. Perhaps the employees may enjoy their newfound power, but it will mean little when business owners decide to move their operations to another country where their hard work and rightful ownership is respected. If this is the government's intention to drive private industry from Britain, why not just nationalize all industries, institute your communist dictatorship, and be done with it.

- Timothy Blake, Tory MP for Kensington South
Click to expand...
The law will be enforced by those who have always enforced it: the police. If the honourable gentleman does not like that then he is welcome to voice that opinion. However, it really does say something about this country when the Conservative Party begins to see doubt in one of its greatest institutions. Furthermore, is he so terrified of ordinary workers that he makes them out to be some kind of foul abomination set to turn the country asunder? The Industrial Democracy Act will ensure that workers have a say in the running of their employment, much as the Members of Parliament are ensured by the constitution that they can have a say on the running of the government, and it should be the duty of all parties to see that this expanded.

- John Epping, MP for Redcar, Secretary of State for Employment, Productivity and Labour
 
((For reference, seeing as the idea that the laws really are only each a sentence long is absurd, here is what ‘incitement to racial hatred’ entails.))

‘Mr Speaker,

‘In answer to the worries of the Hon member for Kensington, the law will not, I think, suffer from unenforceability. People who walk the streets shouting “death to the darkies!” don't exactly shirk from the limelight, as we have seen. Neither, I think, would it be argued by any rational person that such a comment was “harmless”.

‘In answer to the tenacious Rt Hon member for Monmouth, calling for attack or injury to an ethnic group is not an opinion. Never mind his refusal to see various race riots to have occurred over the last decade as evidence that protection for our minorities is needed, as we have discussed it is very different to say “I would rather X group of people go home” than to say “X group of people should be systematically beaten and killed”.’​
 
Last edited:
((Private-Conservatives))

Candidate: Ryley

Of the candidates that have declared their candidacy, I must say that it has been a difficult choice. They all have the experience, having served at various levels in the cabinet, and they all have sound beliefs. Perhaps it is a sign of the unity of our party when one can firmly say that they shall be happy serving any of the candidates for the leadership in government. However, I must come to a decision. And I have decided that the Honorable Member for Monmouth shall lead the Conservative Party in a more successful fashion than the other two.

- Clarence D. Abel, Conservative MP for Breckenham
 
Scrapknight said:
Mr. Speaker,

Either the Hon. Member for Kensington is having undue visions of apocalypse or he has not read the proposal in its entirety. Firstly, we already have several nationalized industries in this nation, where, need I remind you, the entirety of "rightfully owned" industries were taken from their owners. It, by all means, was a far more radical act than this. And did this herald the death of British industry? Did it cause panicked capitalists to flee the country? No, it did not. Instead, it provided a modicum of economic fairness and guaranteed employment to the workers within the industry while allowing British society to function as normal. By no means does the Industrial Democracy Act exclude managers from the running of their corporations. It instead obligates them to cooperate with their employees, to whom they are ultimately responsible for providing livelihood, to accomplish the goals both desire. It need not be said, as I'm sure the Honorable Gentleman is cognizant of basic economic principles, that the workers will seek to maximize the value of what they own by increasing company performance. It gives the laborers a direct stake in corporate success, and it will improve industrial productivity rather than hinder it. The issue, then, is not the viability of business but the privileged position of the managerial class. If the Honorable Gentleman wishes to talk of respect, perhaps he could spare a moment for those who receive the least respect of all - the hard-working men and women whose blood, sweat and tears, and not romantic myths of great men and their capital, actually keep the wheels of British industry turning. If the Industrial Democracy Act will rectify the outsize power of men of means over those who are dependent upon them for a decent life, then I think that is something to celebrate rather than condemn.

- Alistair Monaghan, Prime Minister
Click to expand...

Mr. Speaker, in the instances of nationalization, the owners were properly compensated for their loss. Here they would be forced to slowly hand over control of their company with no compensation. It should also be noted that nationalization only targeted key industries, while this is aimed at all businesses in the UK. I do not doubt that employees would desire the company they work for to be profitable, but what does the average employee know about running a business? In most instances, they will choose a path that most benefits them and their fellow employees without fully recognizing any long term damages it may cause, by no fault of their own. An owner or employer is in a unique situation to see the larger picture from the top and thus make the big decisions from an informed position. One could look to our own government. The people may vote us into office, but it is up to us as members of the House of Commons to make the big decisions because we are the ones best informed on such decisions. I do not deny that employees should have some say in the company they work for, but that does not necessarily mean supplanting the owner from his position, which is what will essentially happen if this law passes. There simply will be no need for the owner or employer if all employees are given majority ownership and the power to make decisions without them. The employer is in their position because they know how to best run it, otherwise the business would have gone bankrupt. Let the employees have their say, but not by turning the employer virtually into a non-entity within their own company.

TheHatMan98 said:
The law will be enforced by those who have always enforced it: the police. If the honourable gentleman does not like that then he is welcome to voice that opinion. However, it really does say something about this country when the Conservative Party begins to see doubt in one of its greatest institutions. Furthermore, is he so terrified of ordinary workers that he makes them out to be some kind of foul abomination set to turn the country asunder? The Industrial Democracy Act will ensure that workers have a say in the running of their employment, much as the Members of Parliament are ensured by the constitution that they can have a say on the running of the government, and it should be the duty of all parties to see that this expanded.

- John Epping, MP for Redcar, Secretary of State for Employment, Productivity and Labour
Click to expand...

The police may enforce it, but interpretation is usually the task of the judicial system. I do not doubt the ability of our police force to enforce our laws, but first we must clearly define them so they can do their job.

DensleyBlair said:
((For reference, seeing as the idea that the laws really are only each a sentence long is absurd, here is what ‘incitement to racial hatred’ entails.))

‘Mr Speaker,

‘In answer to the worries of the Hon member for Kensington, the law will not, I think, suffer from unenforceability. People who walk the streets shouting “death to the darkies!” don't exactly shirk from the limelight, as we have seen. Neither, I think, would it be argued by any rational person that such a comment was “harmless”.

‘In answer to the tenacious Rt Hon member for Monmouth, calling for attack or injury to an ethnic group is not an opinion. Never mind his refusal to see various race riots to have occurred over the last decade as evidence that protection for our minorities is needed, as we have discussed it is very different to say “I would rather X group of people go home” than to say “X group of people should be systematically beaten and killed”.’​
Click to expand...

I must apologize to the Home Secretary. It would seem that my assistant gave me the abridged version of his law. And of course there will be cases when such racial discrimination is quite public and obviously hateful, but there will also be times when only such activity might be conducted where there are no witnesses and thus it becomes much more murky. We should be prepared for such circumstances, because they are bound to happen.

- Timothy Blake, Tory MP for Kensington South
 
Note: Tariffs are no longer in PC control. As a result of the EEC, tariffs will be gradually reduced in set increments.
 
A Note On Economics
​
If you hadn't noticed by now, I'm presently updating ABE's economic rules to better reflect the time period, and ensure that we can have all those interesting debates about national debts, interest rates, etc, etc etc.

Now, I would first like to address some changes on how deficits and debt will be conducted. To account for what has been a rather prevalent perspective among 20th century economists, deficits and debt are not to be considered the absolute evil. The first thing that I am doing is reforming the way I convey and handle deficits. Because it is just as historically inaccurate to have every year be a surplus year (especially when we've more or less matched/exceeded IRL expenditures), I've done a few things. Primarily, I have balooned costs for reforms. As a trade-off, I've also matched/exceeded the increase in expenditure with the positive impact of whatever reform has been enacted.

The next thing I'm doing is going to be to create a 'base' National Debt. Before, debt owed to the US or whoever was executed via event, taking money directly from our treasury reserves. But in the modern era, treasuries have reserves (particularly of foreign currency) AND considerably large national debts. Barring surplus years or administrations that love their taxes or their cutting, you can expect the National Debt to rise. Don't panic. The Treasury will also consistently increase by the merit of printing cash or stockpiling foreign reserves - AKA what we do in real life. So we're not going bankrupt nor will likely approach it. The extent to which the size of the National Debt actually matters IG is for you to debate and for me to decide; but given the Bretton Woods event in NWO, Vicky 2 interest costs are practically microscopic.

Credit/Stock Market is our primary RGO and a large portion of our revenue. Depending on the government in power, and their relation to the business world, this RGO will receive a bonus or a penalty. Here too, however, there's a trade off. A Maggie Thatcher government would get a nice bonus in the Credit/Stock Market, but a stinging penalty in coal/industrial RGOs across the nation (yielding IG unemployment and a decreased industrial score.) And given that we don't have an empire anymore, it's easier to actually implement this.

The European Economic Community will evolve over time. At the moment, you can expect a slow diminishment of tariffs and the enforcement of an annual fee to Brussels (as in real life). There certainly will be other things, such as European regulations and benefits, but that's for me to know and you to find out later.

Union Power is a thing. Beware. It has direct consequences on Political Power and (presumably) economic stuff; although I've yet to figure out how to incorporate Trade Union clout into some Vicky 2 economic device.
 
House of Commons, 1967
Debate on the Bill of Labour Rights 1967

"Thank you Mr. Speaker. I must say it is with a fair measure of worries that I speak today about the Bill of Labour Rights. While the Bill aims to better the lot of the working man, it represents a drastic departure from the actual situation in the workplace.

This Government's grasp on economic concepts is tenuous at best, as exemplified by this Bill, which is so unequivocally loaded in favour of the unions that it throws out of the window any prudence and the necessary balance between the wishes of the workers and the sustainability of business. We now understand that this Bill is part of the mortgage payment this government owes to the unions which so lavishly supported its electoral campaign.

Article 1 of this Bill forces the employer to offer a generous compensation in case of disturbance in employment. The justification is left to the complete arbitrary power of the unions. One doesn't need to think long to see how this will lead to excesses and will utterly destroy the delicate balance of power between labour and management in any business. What is a generous compensation is also not described. Are we to understand that a factory owner who's business is in a precarious situation due to the economy will not be able to reduce his workforce without bleeding himself dry and therefore, tanking his business in the ground?

While there are some much needed elements in this bills, they are completely overshadowed by the lack of sheer decency. While this government is hard at work to build its socialist utopia, it will render Britain unattractive to investment, it will drive away good jobs and businesses and it will ultimately do disservice to the workers when their factories closes because they will never be competitive with such enormous social charges, all heaped on the shoulders of business at once."

Lochlan G. Fitzpatrick - MP for South Antrim
 
The Guardian

EEC and Britain:
Power Through Cooperation
​
Since it's founding, the European Economic Community has been a driving force of economic growth for it's member countries and allows them to share a small part of their sovereignty for the wider progress of all involved. Britain today stands in between in it's commitment of economic growth, and the party interests of militant views from both the far-left and far-right of the political spectrum. It can be well argued that for both the Conservative Party and the Labour Party, there is no clear consensus for this important issue, as radical union members and extreme nationalists push pressure on both to block the opportunity for the community to prosper. While in addition to dropping the illusions of military and economic grandeur inaccurately shown to the British people, British industry needs the wider horizon of the Common Market. In the past years prior under, British exports to Europe have suffered badly from our exclusion from the EEC. Waiting for something to turn up is not a policy, nor judging the mood of the party base or the electorate. The Liberal Party have been resolute in our belief that Britain must declare now her unwavering commitment to the European Community as a commitment to economic prosperity and national progress. As the first major political party to promote the EEC, it is evident while the Tories and Labour may claim their pledges to Western Europe are valid, the Liberals surely showcase our loyalty to the overall progress of both Britain and our European allies. With Britain in the EEC we may be able to not only strengthen the Community as a whole, but allow ourselves to experience the splendid economic growth for our citizens that nations such as France, West Germany, and Italy currently hold. Today we of the Liberal Party stand for this critical economic issue, and we encourage our counterparts in Labour and Conservative, if they do hold true to their convictions on Europe, to either join the Liberals in their stance for economic progress, growth, and prosperity, or to take a solid position on the future of the British economy. ​
​
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom
Back