Empire of the Mediterranean: An Interactive Aragon AAR

[Michaelangelo]

I am glad to see Parliament so active, proposing legislation that could greatly improve the lives of Hispanians. I, of course, wish to voice my opinion to ensure that everything is perfected before we commence voting.

I applaud the proposed amendments and additions to the Elementary Education Act. They all seem to be a step in the right direction. We must preserve the culture and values of all Hispanians while providing them with the best education that we can.

The Improvement of Quality of Life Act is quite grandiose and a bold effort, but as the members of the Facció del Fénix have pointed out, wholly unsustainable. Not only do we have nowhere near enough trained doctors for hospitals in every village, town, and city, but the cost of maintaining that many medical facilities would be astronomical. While it will surely benefit Hispanians, it must be scaled back to something manageable.

As for the proposal for improving the fortifications in Canton, I support this effort, although I believe a vote on the matter to be unnecessary. If the Minister of the Interior agrees, he may simply task his ministry with carrying out this suggestion and save us the trouble of voting.

I am not sure what to think of banning the clergy from the Cabinet and Parliament, with the exception of the Minister of Religious Affairs. While I believe it best that the Prime Minister be free to appoint whomever they believe is best suited for each position, I can understand there is a concern that a member of the clergy might be beholden more to their Church than the Crown or Parliament. I also wish to point out that a body of members of all Christian faiths already exists, as this issue has arisen before. It may be more prudent to simply pick the Minister of Religious Affairs from amongst the membership of the Council of Churches rather than create a second body likely to contain much the same members and have them then appoint a minister.

For the Recuperation of Losses Act, it has my full support. It is the Crown's duty to protect and care for its subjects, especially in their most trying times.

The Cultural Autonomy Act attempts to rectify some issues with our system of governance in the areas outside Iberia, although as already voiced I fear its scope will be somewhat limited. At the moment, it would most likely only be applicable to the areas around Provence, a few Romanian provinces, and perhaps parts of Northern Italy. Colonies would not be applicable, seeing as they are already governed either directly by the Crown or through a form of local government due to distance. The alternative is the Regional Administration and Autonomy Act, but I fear that it conflicts with existing laws that may cause an administrative nightmare. Under the Imperial Governance Act, the Empire has already been divided up into administrative regions. The difference here is that the governors are replaced by regional assemblies and that the regions are much larger. This conflict might cripple the current system, seeing as the governors would be outed and then the regions thrown into chaos as they're rearranged and shuffled together. I believe it would be more prudent to use the existing administrative regions, but replace the governors with regional assemblies or local governments, especially since locations such as Provence are not accounted for under the Regional Administration and Autonomy Act.

The laws that most drew my attention were those directly targeted at the Assembly or Cortz. The attempt to remove the appointed positions from the Assembly is understandable, and I am willing to accept whatever the Assembly deems best. The suggestion made that the appointed members should not vote on the matter should be ignored. Just because a law targets a specific group in Parliament or that group has interests different from those proposing the bill does not mean they will be disenfranchised for that vote. As for the Cortz Appointment Act, I'm afraid that in its current form I cannot accept it. While I understand the desire to move the appointed seats to the Cortz, any suggestion of a set number of seats conflicts with how the composition of the Cortz is currently decided. The number of seats will change with the number of nobles applicable, and setting a total number of seats interferes with that. While the law has been adjusted to allow the Cortz to decide the numbers amongst themselves, I believe it more prudent to remove all references to a total number of seats in the Cortz. It would not do to have the Cortz temporarily restricted to 100 seats and then have its members change the number after the law passes.

There is another issue brought up by the previous laws, mainly who should vote on certain laws. Emiliano Faixòn suggested that only the Cortz should vote on the law he proposed. Under our current system, both houses must vote on it, but perhaps that should not be the case. The relationship between the two houses has not been clearly defined. The powers and responsibilities of the Chamberlain and Speakers are also in need of further clarification. I thus wish to propose the following reform to rectify that matter.

Spoiler: The Inter-Parliamentary Relations Act

The Inter-Parliamentary Relations Act​

I. The Cortz and the Assembly shall be recognized as distinctly separate houses of Parliament.
II. The Chamberlain and Speaker shall be formally recognized as the official representatives of their respective houses, the Cortz and the Assembly.

a) The Chamberlain and Speaker shall be charged with organizing and managing all proceedings within their house.
b) The Chamberlain and Speaker shall conduct all votes on reprimands or censure within their own house.

i. Reprimands require a majority vote and serve as a warning for bad behaviour.
ii. Censure blocks the offending member from speaking in Parliament for one electoral term, requiring at least two reprimands and a two-thirds majority vote in favour.
iii. Reprimands and censure votes may only be called for against someone within the same house as the offending member and may only be voted on by members of that house.​

c) The election of a new Chamberlain and Speaker shall be decided by a plurality vote within their respective houses.

i. Any member of a house may call for an election of a new representative of their house.
ii. An election for a new Chamberlain or Speaker while a current one exists may only be called once per electoral term.​

III. No member of the Assembly or Cortz may present legislation for a vote that affects or alters the other house without the permission of the other house's chosen representative, the Chamberlain or the Speaker.
IV. Legislation that affects or alters only a single house on a minimal scale will only be voted on by that house.

a) Any changes to procedures, protocol, and basic functions will only be voted on by the house affected.
b) Any changes to fundamental elements of a house, such as changes to electoral districts, membership requirements, or powers and responsibilities, require the approval of both houses.
c) Any legislation that affects only a single house but also impacts either the Crown or any other body, group, or individual outside Parliament requires the approval of both houses.​

V. The Chamberlain and Speaker are given the responsibility of deciding whether a law is considered as only affecting their house.
VI. The Crown may grant permission for members of either house to propose changes to the other house or decide whether legislation only affects a single house.

- His Imperial Highness, Alfons IX de Trastámara, Emperor of Hispania, Caesar of Rome, Duke of Bavaria, & Protector of the Greeks

Spoiler: To the Emperor

I hope you did not miss our friend Faixon's latest little speech. His comments about the members of the Cortz, which includs both your mother and son is most concerning.

By accusing the members of the Cortz of being inbred, he is accusing their parents of consanguinity. As you know, consanguinity is a grave crime in the laws of God and Man. By having both your Mother and Son in the Cortz, Faixon is accusing you as well of being a product of consanguinity and in such a relationship yourself.

As you know well, such an accusation to the Emperor is sedition, a capital crime.

Will you allow such a blatant disregard to the law stand? Will you allow such baseless accusations of the Trastamara line be thrown around freely? Personally, I believe a trial is needed.

Spoiler: Private letter to Empress Dowager Sophia.

If I remember correctly, he asked you if you thought that, not that he thought they were inbred. Placing him on trial for asking a question, even a bold one such as that, will only add fuel to the fire and serve to legitimize these false claims. I'd rather not have people thinking me, my son, or any of my family members are inbred. It is better to ignore such a comment instead of risking adding any form of validation to it.

- His Imperial Highness, Alfons IX de Trastámara, Emperor of Hispania, Caesar of Rome, Duke of Bavaria, & Protector of the Greeks

This act should reduce the willingness to levy war taxes 'simply because we can' and only leave them as what they should be, a measure to be taken only if the additional funds are truly necessary.

((I'm trying to figure out the best way of doing this in-game. War taxes technically lower army and navy maintenance, so getting taxes to lower to the same amount gained by the lowered maintenance might be tricky. I can either just try to get into the rough range by creating an event to lower tax income or I can lower army and navy maintenance manually after the war by the appropriate amount to compensate.))

((In case I didn't do it already, here's the marshal's plan: move several armies to the borders of the offending Arabian countries--I think they were Persia and Yemen?))

((We have troops on Yemen's border, seeing as that was the only nation war was proposed for. Also troops in India seeing as they're allied with Malwa. We don't have much of a border with Persia. That's mostly Byzantium on their border.))

 

[zenphoenix]

I am glad to see Parliament so active, proposing legislation that could greatly improve the lives of Hispanians. I, of course, wish to voice my opinion to ensure that everything is perfected before we commence voting.

I applaud the proposed amendments and additions to the Elementary Education Act. They all seem to be a step in the right direction. We must preserve the culture and values of all Hispanians while providing them with the best education that we can.

The Improvement of Quality of Life Act is quite grandiose and a bold effort, but as the members of the Facció del Fénix have pointed out, wholly unsustainable. Not only do we have nowhere near enough trained doctors for hospitals in every village, town, and city, but the cost of maintaining that many medical facilities would be astronomical. While it will surely benefit Hispanians, it must be scaled back to something manageable.

As for the proposal for improving the fortifications in Canton, I support this effort, although I believe a vote on the matter to be unnecessary. If the Minister of the Interior agrees, he may simply task his ministry with carrying out this suggestion and save us the trouble of voting.

I am not sure what to think of banning the clergy from the Cabinet and Parliament, with the exception of the Minister of Religious Affairs. While I believe it best that the Prime Minister be free to appoint whomever they believe is best suited for each position, I can understand there is a concern that a member of the clergy might be beholden more to their Church than the Crown or Parliament. I also wish to point out that a body of members of all Christian faiths already exists, as this issue has arisen before. It may be more prudent to simply pick the Minister of Religious Affairs from amongst the membership of the Council of Churches rather than create a second body likely to contain much the same members and have them then appoint a minister.

For the Recuperation of Losses Act, it has my full support. It is the Crown's duty to protect and care for its subjects, especially in their most trying times.

The Cultural Autonomy Act attempts to rectify some issues with our system of governance in the areas outside Iberia, although as already voiced I fear its scope will be somewhat limited. At the moment, it would most likely only be applicable to the areas around Provence, a few Romanian provinces, and perhaps parts of Northern Italy. Colonies would not be applicable, seeing as they are already governed either directly by the Crown or through a form of local government due to distance. The alternative is the Regional Administration and Autonomy Act, but I fear that it conflicts with existing laws that may cause an administrative nightmare. Under the Imperial Governance Act, the Empire has already been divided up into administrative regions. The difference here is that the governors are replaced by regional assemblies and that the regions are much larger. This conflict might cripple the current system, seeing as the governors would be outed and then the regions thrown into chaos as they're rearranged and shuffled together. I believe it would be more prudent to use the existing administrative regions, but replace the governors with regional assemblies or local governments, especially since locations such as Provence are not accounted for under the Regional Administration and Autonomy Act.

The laws that most drew my attention were those directly targeted at the Assembly or Cortz. The attempt to remove the appointed positions from the Assembly is understandable, and I am willing to accept whatever the Assembly deems best. The suggestion made that the appointed members should not vote on the matter should be ignored. Just because a law targets a specific group in Parliament or that group has interests different from those proposing the bill does not mean they will be disenfranchised for that vote. As for the Cortz Appointment Act, I'm afraid that in its current form I cannot accept it. While I understand the desire to move the appointed seats to the Cortz, any suggestion of a set number of seats conflicts with how the composition of the Cortz is currently decided. The number of seats will change with the number of nobles applicable, and setting a total number of seats interferes with that. While the law has been adjusted to allow the Cortz to decide the numbers amongst themselves, I believe it more prudent to remove all references to a total number of seats in the Cortz. It would not do to have the Cortz temporarily restricted to 100 seats and then have its members change the number after the law passes.

There is another issue brought up by the previous laws, mainly who should vote on certain laws. Emiliano Faixòn suggested that only the Cortz should vote on the law he proposed. Under our current system, both houses must vote on it, but perhaps that should not be the case. The relationship between the two houses has not been clearly defined. The powers and responsibilities of the Chamberlain and Speakers are also in need of further clarification. I thus wish to propose the following reform to rectify that matter.

Spoiler: The Inter-Parliamentary Relations Act

The Inter-Parliamentary Relations Act​

I. The Cortz and the Assembly shall be recognized as distinctly separate houses of Parliament.
II. The Chamberlain and Speaker shall be formally recognized as the official representatives of their respective houses, the Cortz and the Assembly.

a) The Chamberlain and Speaker shall be charged with organizing and managing all proceedings within their house.
b) The Chamberlain and Speaker shall conduct all votes on reprimands or censure within their own house.

i. Reprimands require a majority vote and serve as a warning for bad behaviour.
ii. Censure blocks the offending member from speaking in Parliament for one electoral term, requiring at least two reprimands and a two-thirds majority vote in favour.
iii. Reprimands and censure votes may only be called for against someone within the same house as the offending member and may only be voted on by members of that house.​

c) The election of a new Chamberlain and Speaker shall be decided by a plurality vote within their respective houses.

i. Any member of a house may call for an election of a new representative of their house.
ii. An election for a new Chamberlain or Speaker while a current one exists may only be called once per electoral term.​

III. No member of the Assembly or Cortz may present legislation for a vote that affects or alters the other house without the permission of the other house's chosen representative, the Chamberlain or the Speaker.
IV. Legislation that affects or alters only a single house on a minimal scale will only be voted on by that house.

a) Any changes to procedures, protocol, and basic functions will only be voted on by the house affected.
b) Any changes to fundamental elements of a house, such as changes to electoral districts, membership requirements, or powers and responsibilities, require the approval of both houses.
c) Any legislation that affects only a single house but also impacts either the Crown or any other body, group, or individual outside Parliament requires the approval of both houses.​

V. The Chamberlain and Speaker are given the responsibility of deciding whether a law is considered as only affecting their house.
VI. The Crown may grant permission for members of either house to propose changes to the other house or decide whether legislation only affects a single house.

- His Imperial Highness, Alfons IX de Trastámara, Emperor of Hispania, Caesar of Rome, Duke of Bavaria, & Protector of the Greeks

Spoiler: Private letter to Empress Dowager Sophia.

If I remember correctly, he asked you if you thought that, not that he thought they were inbred. Placing him on trial for asking a question, even a bold one such as that, will only add fuel to the fire and serve to legitimize these false claims. I'd rather not have people thinking me, my son, or any of my family members are inbred. It is better to ignore such a comment instead of risking adding any form of validation to it.

- His Imperial Highness, Alfons IX de Trastámara, Emperor of Hispania, Caesar of Rome, Duke of Bavaria, & Protector of the Greeks

((I'm trying to figure out the best way of doing this in-game. War taxes technically lower army and navy maintenance, so getting taxes to lower to the same amount gained by the lowered maintenance might be tricky. I can either just try to get into the rough range by creating an event to lower tax income or I can lower army and navy maintenance manually after the war by the appropriate amount to compensate.))



((We have troops on Yemen's border, seeing as that was the only nation war was proposed for. Also troops in India seeing as they're allied with Malwa. We don't have much of a border with Persia. That's mostly Byzantium on their border.))

((Okay, got it. Also, I'll be submitting an overhaul to the Quality of Life Act sometime later today or over the weekend. Is it possible to have the overhaul replace the originally proposed bill in the vote?))

 

[Michaelangelo]

((Okay, got it. Also, I'll be submitting an overhaul to the Quality of Life Act sometime later today or over the weekend. Is it possible to have the overhaul replace the originally proposed bill in the vote?))

((As long as the vote hasn't started, anyone who has proposed a bill can edit and make changes to their bills. It's usually good practice to tell people when it's been edited just in case amendments have been proposed or people are considering making one.))

 

[Mach Twelve]

As previously stated, there are concerns with granting local autonomy effectively without throwing the current system away.

Perhaps a modification to the Imperial Governance Act will be for the best.

Local Autonomy Amendment to the Imperial Governance Act

I. All Governors are to be selected from the area from which they are to govern.

II. All areas are permitted to form a legislative body. The exact details of this body are to be decided by the area.

III. This body will be allowed to pass local ordinances and raise local taxes provided they are approved by the governor before being put into force.

IV. These ordinances are not permitted to interfere with the activities of the Imperial Government in any form, direct or indirect.

V. These ordinances are not allowed to conflict with the Hispanian Code of Laws at any time. Should such conflict occur, the ordinance in question is to be nullified.

((Illuminati))

I would like to discuss our choices on which laws to support and which to ignore.

Also, I would like to have Saint Pierre join our group. Do either of you support it?

 

[zenphoenix]

"Honored members of the Parliament, I thank you for your advice. I admit that the original proposal has several flaws making it impractical to enforce. Therefore, I have put my full support behind the proposed amendment to the Quality of Life Act, as such an amendment would make the Act financially viable."

((Illuminati))

"I recommend supporting everything other than the ones regarding the Parliament and religion as proposed by Faixon. I am not sure about the Emperor's proposals or the cultural autonomy act though."

 

[Mach Twelve]

((Illuminati))

Faixon's government reforms are insane. Works of a man who would see the Empire burn than prosper! The same with that Campos fool's proposal. Dividing the Empire into six large areas. One being almost half the Empire. In two generations the six regions will have diverged enough to desire to break free of the Empire. Especially Italy! It should be no surprise an Italian would attempt to try to form an independent Italy! Not to mention my people under perpetual martial law! Unacceptable! Completely Unacceptable! I am not sure whether our Archbishop's law would be effective, but I suppose no harm would come from passing it...

But for the rest? They are effective and they will not conflict with another. Even Faixon's social reforms. And they would do good, so we should support them.

 

[hirahammad]

((Illuminati))
All we need to do is prevent Faixon from destroying the government. Social reforms, cultural, autonomy, they are all secondary, and should be considered a means to the end. Take care the parties do not seem the same. By surrounding the Phoenix with invisible enemies, we best contain it, and so we must take away its support from all but the lunatics. As for the Emperor, his reforms are well, and so let take whatever stance suits the party.

 

[Duke Dan `the Man`]

Spoiler: The Inclusion Act

1. The provinces of Northern Africa and the Holy Land shall henceforth be included within the representation of the Cortz

Spoiler: Amendments to the Inter-Parliamentary Relations Act

Remove Points III-VI

"I do not believe it necessary to limit the ability of both parts of Parliament by limiting their capabilities to pass legislature. It is the job of both parts of the Parliament to check the other's power and this will only limit the capabilities of the other house to do so.

 

[Mach Twelve]

((Illuminati))
All we need to do is prevent Faixon from destroying the government. Social reforms, cultural, autonomy, they are all secondary, and should be considered a means to the end. Take care the parties do not seem the same. By surrounding the Phoenix with invisible enemies, we best contain it, and so we must take away its support from all but the lunatics. As for the Emperor, his reforms are well, and so let take whatever stance suits the party.

((Illuminati))

Indeed. I do not think I will have the Imperials be united in some issues regardless, personally.

But I would not see Los Campos suggestion pass. And I would like support.

Also, if any of you will not reject it, I will invite Saint Pierre to join us.

 

[alscon]

I believe that I already expressed my support for a punitive action against the Arabs before. Hispania must guarantee the safety of its citizens.

As for the proposal for improving the fortifications in Canton, I support this effort, although I believe a vote on the matter to be unnecessary. If the Minister of the Interior agrees, he may simply task his ministry with carrying out this suggestion and save us the trouble of voting.

I am not sure what to think of banning the clergy from the Cabinet and Parliament, with the exception of the Minister of Religious Affairs. While I believe it best that the Prime Minister be free to appoint whomever they believe is best suited for each position, I can understand there is a concern that a member of the clergy might be beholden more to their Church than the Crown or Parliament. I also wish to point out that a body of members of all Christian faiths already exists, as this issue has arisen before. It may be more prudent to simply pick the Minister of Religious Affairs from amongst the membership of the Council of Churches rather than create a second body likely to contain much the same members and have them then appoint a minister.

The Cultural Autonomy Act attempts to rectify some issues with our system of governance in the areas outside Iberia, although as already voiced I fear its scope will be somewhat limited. At the moment, it would most likely only be applicable to the areas around Provence, a few Romanian provinces, and perhaps parts of Northern Italy. Colonies would not be applicable, seeing as they are already governed either directly by the Crown or through a form of local government due to distance. The alternative is the Regional Administration and Autonomy Act, but I fear that it conflicts with existing laws that may cause an administrative nightmare. Under the Imperial Governance Act, the Empire has already been divided up into administrative regions. The difference here is that the governors are replaced by regional assemblies and that the regions are much larger. This conflict might cripple the current system, seeing as the governors would be outed and then the regions thrown into chaos as they're rearranged and shuffled together. I believe it would be more prudent to use the existing administrative regions, but replace the governors with regional assemblies or local governments, especially since locations such as Provence are not accounted for under the Regional Administration and Autonomy Act.

The laws that most drew my attention were those directly targeted at the Assembly or Cortz. The attempt to remove the appointed positions from the Assembly is understandable, and I am willing to accept whatever the Assembly deems best. The suggestion made that the appointed members should not vote on the matter should be ignored. Just because a law targets a specific group in Parliament or that group has interests different from those proposing the bill does not mean they will be disenfranchised for that vote. As for the Cortz Appointment Act, I'm afraid that in its current form I cannot accept it. While I understand the desire to move the appointed seats to the Cortz, any suggestion of a set number of seats conflicts with how the composition of the Cortz is currently decided. The number of seats will change with the number of nobles applicable, and setting a total number of seats interferes with that. While the law has been adjusted to allow the Cortz to decide the numbers amongst themselves, I believe it more prudent to remove all references to a total number of seats in the Cortz. It would not do to have the Cortz temporarily restricted to 100 seats and then have its members change the number after the law passes.

There is another issue brought up by the previous laws, mainly who should vote on certain laws. Emiliano Faixòn suggested that only the Cortz should vote on the law he proposed. Under our current system, both houses must vote on it, but perhaps that should not be the case. The relationship between the two houses has not been clearly defined. The powers and responsibilities of the Chamberlain and Speakers are also in need of further clarification. I thus wish to propose the following reform to rectify that matter.

Spoiler: The Inter-Parliamentary Relations Act

The Inter-Parliamentary Relations Act​

I. The Cortz and the Assembly shall be recognized as distinctly separate houses of Parliament.
II. The Chamberlain and Speaker shall be formally recognized as the official representatives of their respective houses, the Cortz and the Assembly.

a) The Chamberlain and Speaker shall be charged with organizing and managing all proceedings within their house.
b) The Chamberlain and Speaker shall conduct all votes on reprimands or censure within their own house.

i. Reprimands require a majority vote and serve as a warning for bad behaviour.
ii. Censure blocks the offending member from speaking in Parliament for one electoral term, requiring at least two reprimands and a two-thirds majority vote in favour.
iii. Reprimands and censure votes may only be called for against someone within the same house as the offending member and may only be voted on by members of that house.​

c) The election of a new Chamberlain and Speaker shall be decided by a plurality vote within their respective houses.

i. Any member of a house may call for an election of a new representative of their house.
ii. An election for a new Chamberlain or Speaker while a current one exists may only be called once per electoral term.​

III. No member of the Assembly or Cortz may present legislation for a vote that affects or alters the other house without the permission of the other house's chosen representative, the Chamberlain or the Speaker.
IV. Legislation that affects or alters only a single house on a minimal scale will only be voted on by that house.

a) Any changes to procedures, protocol, and basic functions will only be voted on by the house affected.
b) Any changes to fundamental elements of a house, such as changes to electoral districts, membership requirements, or powers and responsibilities, require the approval of both houses.
c) Any legislation that affects only a single house but also impacts either the Crown or any other body, group, or individual outside Parliament requires the approval of both houses.​

V. The Chamberlain and Speaker are given the responsibility of deciding whether a law is considered as only affecting their house.
VI. The Crown may grant permission for members of either house to propose changes to the other house or decide whether legislation only affects a single house.

- His Imperial Highness, Alfons IX de Trastámara, Emperor of Hispania, Caesar of Rome, Duke of Bavaria, & Protector of the Greeks

((I'm trying to figure out the best way of doing this in-game. War taxes technically lower army and navy maintenance, so getting taxes to lower to the same amount gained by the lowered maintenance might be tricky. I can either just try to get into the rough range by creating an event to lower tax income or I can lower army and navy maintenance manually after the war by the appropriate amount to compensate.))

I see no faults in improving the fortifications of Canton. The existing fortifications shall then be upgraded to the latest technology, as well as key forts in India. What these key forts are should be defined by the ministry of war, as they certainly have the best insight on strategic matters.

Not only does the clergy have conflicting loyalties, but it also doesn't fit in the least into our current system. In feudal times, the clergy stood higher than nobility and the common man. What house should a clergyman sit in? Certainly not in the lower house of the commoners. And the Cortz has one seat per county for the nobility, therefore no place for the clergy either. Secularization is the only answer. Or to expand the Cortz, for certainly no clergyman has a place in the Assembly. ((Where would they sit now, by the way? Nowhere's the only viable option.))

The Cultural Autonomy Act is useless. I do find Your Majesty's idea to modify the Imperial Governance Act an excellent idea, one that should be enacted as soon as possible. The Regional Administration and Autonomy Act can still be prepared for a vote, yet only the current administration should, under the modification, slowly be readied for that further reform shall it pass.

So be it then, I will leave any absolute number out of the Cortz Appointment Act. A relative third of the seats added to whatever the current number achieves the same effect, and allows this law to leave the never-ending discussion and shift the attention back to its actual use. ((edited the act)) As for the appointed vote, I cannot say that I am not disappointed. Let me use a comparison: We have a merchant company council. One quarter of that council trades solely in one area. The company votes upon leaving the area, as it is detrimental to the company as a whole and gives far more trouble and less money than it is worth. What is this quarter going to vote for? Will the other members let them vote, or rather exclude them and advise them to found their own company should they still want to trade in the area? It is the same for these appointed members.

Your Inter-Parliamentary Act is a most welcome addition. One house shouldn't meddle in the interior affairs of the other. What the Countess wants to say - I'll put it into other words - is that the Cortz wants to keep a tight leash on the Assembly as far as they can. For I cannot imagine any situation in which a simple reform of an house's inner procedure gives it more power. All other cases are regulated in IV.b and IV.c, so her amendment lacks any justification.

And as Your Majesty suggested, I would not consider the Dowager Empress' half step forward, two steps backward 'reform'. These modifications have to be made to make it conform with Your proposal and to restrict the total grasp she wants to continue to exert, make it a true local autonomy instead of only giving the illusion of it. The people has been subject to enough political illusions for multiple generations. Here would be a combination of both laws according to Your suggestion without the puppet the Dowager Empress imagines.

Local Autonomy Amendment to the Imperial Governance Act

I. All Governors are to be selected from the area from which they are to govern.

II. All areas are permitted to form their own regional assemblies.

III. This body will be allowed to institute their own local laws, make local legal determinations and raise local taxes provided they are approved by the governor before being put into force.

IV. The authority vested in these provinces shall be secondary to the authority vested in Parliament, and they shall be restricted from any attempts to create their own currency or raise troops without Imperial permission.

V. These ordinances are not permitted to interfere with the activities of the Imperial Government in any form, direct or indirect.

VI. These ordinances are not allowed to conflict with the Hispanian Code of Laws at any time. Should such conflict occur, the ordinance in question is to be nullified.

((As for the war taxes proposal, the simple way would be to create an event that gives corresponding mali (higher army maintenance etc.), though that would only work if maintenance is left at the same level. The other way would be to look at the budget before and after raising war taxes, and then have the event substract the difference from the treasury each month for the two years.))

 

[Mach Twelve]

((War Taxes are a fixed amount for a fixed period. Perhaps a simple monthly cost x % reduction x time cost post war?))

 

[Michaelangelo]

((Where would they sit now, by the way? Nowhere's the only viable option.))

((At the moment, they can be elected to the Assembly, but I expect that to be controversial and probably why someone would push for secularization.))

And as Your Majesty suggested, I would not consider the Dowager Empress' half step forward, two steps backward 'reform'. These modifications have to be made to make it conform with Your proposal and to restrict the total grasp she wants to continue to exert, make it a true local autonomy instead of only giving the illusion of it. The people has been subject to enough political illusions for multiple generations. Here would be a combination of both laws according to Your suggestion without the puppet the Dowager Empress imagines.

((Just want to make sure but are you proposing that as an amendment to Mach's law or just suggesting revision? All this legislation thrown at me has addled my brain. ))

((As for the war taxes proposal, the simple way would be to create an event that gives corresponding mali (higher army maintenance etc.), though that would only work if maintenance is left at the same level. The other way would be to look at the budget before and after raising war taxes, and then have the event substract the difference from the treasury each month for the two years.))

((War Taxes are a fixed amount for a fixed period. Perhaps a simple monthly cost x % reduction x time cost post war?))

((Yeah, I figured lowering maintenance wouldn't work exactly as hoped. I have a general idea of how much more money we gain with war taxes, so having it deducted each month might work, although I'm not quite sure how to get the treasury to be lowered every month. Creating a replacement event for war taxes themselves might work. Instead of using in-game war taxes, I could use a custom event raising taxes for two years, and in turn can then use another event lowering it by the same percentage right after. That would make it more exact))

 

[hirahammad]

((Illuminati))

Indeed. I do not think I will have the Imperials be united in some issues regardless, personally.

But I would not see Los Campos suggestion pass. And I would like support.

Also, if any of you will not reject it, I will invite Saint Pierre to join us.

((Illuminati))
If you wish, take him into your company, but wait to inform him of the true cause until you are certain he shall not, and can not waver.

Not only does the clergy have conflicting loyalties, but it also doesn't fit in the least into our current system. In feudal times, the clergy stood higher than nobility and the common man. What house should a clergyman sit in? Certainly not in the lower house of the commoners. And the Cortz has one seat per county for the nobility, therefore no place for the clergy either. Secularization is the only answer. Or to expand the Cortz, for certainly no clergyman has a place in the Assembly. ((Where would they sit now, by the way? Nowhere's the only viable option.))

The Cultural Autonomy Act is useless. I do find Your Majesty's idea to modify the Imperial Governance Act an excellent idea, one that should be enacted as soon as possible. The Regional Administration and Autonomy Act can still be prepared for a vote, yet only the current administration should, under the modification, slowly be readied for that further reform shall it pass.

"I agree the Cultural Autonomy Act has been superseded by better designed acts. Not useless, I say, for perhaps if it had never been proposed the more efficient acts would have languished in the back of an Assemblyman's head, not as urgent as accusing his enemies of corruption.

But realize this: Clergymen have no split loyalties. First let us see the simple and obvious arguments. Clergymen of the Lutheran and Calvinist denomination within the CJC are free entities. That leaves the Catholic clergy, the majority even now. Despite what you may think, Archbishops, Bishops, and Friars are not all henchmen of the Pope, but rather take guidance from him. Their loyalty is to Christianity and the Bible and God first. If you see any split loyalty here, then you must see a split between Christianity and Hispania. But I concede, the Pope is a different matter. Not because the Pope is evil, not because he wishes to subvert the God-Given Order, but that he must view any event from all angles, standing for all Catholics. If he is also a Minister of other than Religious Affairs, his loyalty to Hispania becomes unfair to other Catholics, such as those in France, and even Austria. For the Austrian people certainly did not choose to betray their allies, and so how can the Pope claim to act as a moral authority for all Catholics if he is tied up to one government? Truly, the Papal Act is not for the good of Hispania. It makes very little difference to Hispania. It is simply to aid Catholics around the world. This Act is an act of altruism to rest any doubt non-Hispanians could possibly have in the Pope.

Your second argument seems strange, for, you seem to be saying, 'I don't think the current situation of Clergy seating is optimal, so we should just completely forswear moral guidance in policy and governance.' While I ponder the seating of the Clergy, I do know removing Christianity from the Assembly is foolish."

 

[BelisariustheGreat]

"Since the Civil War our political system has seen tremdous changes, but one has been missed by the people for years now: A ministry of Justice. "My personal opinion on this matter is to install such a kind of ministery, and fill it with men who know law.

Ministery of Grace and Justice
I. A ministery of Grace and Justice should be formed.
II. All who want to apply to the position of a "Minister of Grace and Justice" have to study law at any well known University in Europe or the UKA.
III. The "Ministery of Grace and Justice" shall have two bodies, one for thievery, deception or similar crimes, the other one for Murder, rape or similar crimes
a)Every body shall be lead by a
commitee of 7 judges who have
to inform the Minister of Grace and Justice
about their action
IV.The High Court is allowed to convict every
person except the Emporer.

 

[Mach Twelve]

((Illuminati))

Indeed. I will contact him immediately.

Also, I do believe this insane suggestion of removing removing an Imperial Representative from the local governments that will be formed should be ignored. My amendment to the Imperial Governance Act should prove effective with what we already have and what is needed. A direct link from the Imperial Government to the local governments is necessary, one that will prove to enforce Imperial Primacy. Having the governments of Hispania under the Emperor is a needed measure to ensure that Hispania remains intact.

((Private - Saint Pierre))

Greetings Saint-Pierre, your family's reputation precedes you. I would like to ask, do you approve of the direction the likes of the Campos and Phoenix would take us? And if you don't, would you do something about it?

((Planning time!))

-Improve relations with our allies
-Continue the plans for war against the Arab Nations
-Morocco is our next victim, that little rump state on our border needs to go before Mali eats them.
-Continue colonization in Oceania, but include the Philippines as well.

Spoiler: Letter to the Emperor

Perhaps his words cannot be taken as sedition but they pose a problem nonetheless.

The Phoenix War ended three decades ago. Time makes even the gravest of injuries fade. Children too young to truly grasp the nature of that war are parents now. And their children almost adults! The lessons of the civil war are fading quickly. You may have great power, but you have never used it. Power not used is power soon forgotten in the eyes of men. By accepting every act of Parliament, you have sent a message to the world. One that some are seeing as a sign that they are the ones who hold power, not you. Already the likes of Faixon are brazenly insulting the Imperial Family, a clear sign of disrespect knowing that no punishment for their action will come to pass. That disrespect will eventually become something more. I fear a Second Phoenix War will be due soon if no action is taken.

Correct this mistake. Prove to the world that it is you who rules them, not the other way around.

 

[DragonOfAtlantis]

((Sorry I was busy today so that's why I'm posting just now.

Minister of Trade Plan:
No change since I haven't checked my computer recently.))

 

[Michaelangelo]

((I obviously didn't get around to starting the vote today, so I'm going to delay it until Monday or Tuesday. Wednesday wouldn't have worked for a playthrough since I need time to study for my exam this week.))

Spoiler: The Inclusion Act

1. The provinces of Northern Africa and the Holy Land shall henceforth be included within the representation of the Cortz

Spoiler: Amendments to the Inter-Parliamentary Relations Act

Remove Points III-VI

"I do not believe it necessary to limit the ability of both parts of Parliament by limiting their capabilities to pass legislature. It is the job of both parts of the Parliament to check the other's power and this will only limit the capabilities of the other house to do so.

"Since the Civil War our political system has seen tremdous changes, but one has been missed by the people for years now: A ministry of Justice. "My personal opinion on this matter is to install such a kind of ministery, and fill it with men who know law.

I feel I must address two laws that may have good intentions but unintended consequences. For the Inclusion Act, it might seem a genuine attempt to include more nobles on the Cortz, if there were any eligible. Seeing as North Africa and the Holy Land are colonies and thus administered directly by the Crown, all provinces granted Cortz representation would be considered Crown provinces. I do not believe it would be fair to the nobles of Hispania if the Crown was granted a few dozen more seats on the Cortz from all those colonies. Even if they were not Crown provinces, there are no nobles of sufficient rank to claim a seat on the Cortz within that region anyway, unless one was to consider the Muslims nobles deposed long ago when Hispania first claimed the region. I doubt anyone wants to grant seats to the scattered descendants of the deposed Muslim nobles, if they still even live, or create even more Crown appointed seats.

As for this law proposing a Ministry of Grace and Justice, I'm afraid this law is completely unnecessary. A Ministry of Justice already exists, and has existed for 15 years since I proposed its creation. Hispania already has a Supreme Court to handle serious trials. Everything proposed in this law has already been created. Admittedly, the Ministry has not been in the public eye since its creation, but it does exist and functions well.

- His Imperial Highness, Alfons IX de Trastámara, Emperor of Hispania, Caesar of Rome, Duke of Bavaria, & Protector of the Greeks

Spoiler: Letter to the Emperor

Perhaps his words cannot be taken as sedition but they pose a problem nonetheless.

The Phoenix War ended three decades ago. Time makes even the gravest of injuries fade. Children too young to truly grasp the nature of that war are parents now. And their children almost adults! The lessons of the civil war are fading quickly. You may have great power, but you have never used it. Power not used is power soon forgotten in the eyes of men. By accepting every act of Parliament, you have sent a message to the world. One that some are seeing as a sign that they are the ones who hold power, not you. Already the likes of Faixon are brazenly insulting the Imperial Family, a clear sign of disrespect knowing that no punishment for their action will come to pass. That disrespect will eventually become something more. I fear a Second Phoenix War will be due soon if no action is taken.

Correct this mistake. Prove to the world that it is you who rules them, not the other way around.

Spoiler: Private letter to Empress Dowager Sophia

I will rule as I see fit, yet I am not a tyrant. A monarch who does not listen to their subjects is a poor one. Do not mistake my inaction for weakness. I watch and listen, and if something does arise that concerns me, I will intervene. Every threat that I've witnessed has fallen aside, but I am aware that there will always be danger. When the time comes, I will be prepared. Blatant shows of power for no purpose other than to show off will do more harm than good.

- His Imperial Highness, Alfons IX de Trastámara, Emperor of Hispania, Caesar of Rome, Duke of Bavaria, & Protector of the Greeks

 

[alscon]

((Just want to make sure but are you proposing that as an amendment to Mach's law or just suggesting revision? All this legislation thrown at me has addled my brain. ))

((I believe it would be yet another law to vote on exclusively with Mach's, not that it would make much of a difference anyway. At least my first amendments haven't been criticized and acknowledged by zenphoenix, so these can be combined in the vote.))

But realize this: Clergymen have no split loyalties. First let us see the simple and obvious arguments. Clergymen of the Lutheran and Calvinist denomination within the CJC are free entities. That leaves the Catholic clergy, the majority even now. Despite what you may think, Archbishops, Bishops, and Friars are not all henchmen of the Pope, but rather take guidance from him. Their loyalty is to Christianity and the Bible and God first. If you see any split loyalty here, then you must see a split between Christianity and Hispania. But I concede, the Pope is a different matter. Not because the Pope is evil, not because he wishes to subvert the God-Given Order, but that he must view any event from all angles, standing for all Catholics. If he is also a Minister of other than Religious Affairs, his loyalty to Hispania becomes unfair to other Catholics, such as those in France, and even Austria. For the Austrian people certainly did not choose to betray their allies, and so how can the Pope claim to act as a moral authority for all Catholics if he is tied up to one government? Truly, the Papal Act is not for the good of Hispania. It makes very little difference to Hispania. It is simply to aid Catholics around the world. This Act is an act of altruism to rest any doubt non-Hispanians could possibly have in the Pope.

Your second argument seems strange, for, you seem to be saying, 'I don't think the current situation of Clergy seating is optimal, so we should just completely forswear moral guidance in policy and governance.' While I ponder the seating of the Clergy, I do know removing Christianity from the Assembly is foolish.

You say there is no split, yet in almost the same sentence, you say that there is a split. Of course Christianity and Hispania are different! The church and the state! There are countless examples of conflicting interests between these two. Countless ways to prove that you are still providing arguments against your own conviction! Let me name the most obvious ones:
Diplomacy, leading to war. Surely it is not in the church's interests to fight fellow Christians, while each heathen should be converted to see the light no matter the cost. The importance of such decisions can't be weighed enough, has to be thoroughly planned, yet the church provides a clear guideline in that case - not to say that there is a rift between our tolerated beliefs as well.
A Catholic might be loyal first and foremost to Christianity and the Bible. Therefore he says A. The Protestant says B, for the same reasons. And unlike in a Parliament, there can be no compromise. Both are right in their way. The purpose of the Parliament is to encourage a debate and advise His Majesty with, in the best case, a compromise different clergy can't achieve.
For clerical matters, there is only the advice of the clergy, as it should be. How would you react if assemblymen join your councils, add their own opinions and impact the final decision with their vote? They don't belong there, as much as the clergy belongs to the Assembly.
This difference between henchmen and guidance seems a lot of a stretch to me. Why, we have the perfect example in our own house, how henchmen are detrimental to the Assembly! The Imperials! Officially elected by the people. Voting perhaps with nothing but the guidance of the Dowager Empress. A 'guidance' that makes them nothing but henchmen, using their votes against what could threaten their leader's position by empowering this Assembly they themselves are sitting in! Why should any clergyman raise his voice against something that is directed against the pope, or the church itself? Assume that there is a proposal to abolish privileges of the Catholic church, as our tolerant policies would dictate, such as the secularization of the land. The Catholic church owns land, unlike other, equal beliefs. Good for Hispania, without a doubt. Without a doubt bad for the Catholic church. How would you vote? Right. Not at all a split loyalty.

My second argument goes hand in hand with the first and is not strange at all. The estates of feudalism have transitioned into this partly new government - for the commoners, the Assembly. For the nobility, the Cortz. For the clergy? No house. In the reform itself the secularization of the government was already formulated. If there would be a place for the clergy, then it would have been included. What kind of moral guidance should force the clergy into the Assembly? And how would that remove Christianity from the Assembly? Are you saying that we are all heathens? Wouldn't it be easier for you if that was the case and we would all end up at the stake? That simply isn't true. All you know is that you would like to have a seat in the Assembly. Something that would be very wrong.

Then I once again have to raise my voice against the Minister of Foreign Affairs, who seems to be obsessed by the goal to wage as many wars as possible and ruin Hispania's diplomatic reputation entirely. The stance of the Dowager Empress towards war is diplomatically totally unsustainable! Next victim! What kind of thinking is that! I pick the victim, for no reason, just because I can - or is there a reason? 'Before Mali eats them' - have you ever heard a more pathetic excuse for baseless warmongering? Not even trying to justify the declaration of war with, as the church would have done, a religious cause. No. Mali? As if that would be any danger to Hispania - as far as I know, the African colonies have lived in peace with the Malian neighbour for a very long time. There is no reason to attack Morocco. And it is only detrimental to view states as victims, what should other realms think of us? That they are the next on the Dowager Empress' endless list? We have to put an end to that meaningless warmongering!

 

[Mach Twelve]

((That plan was meant to be in OOC comments. Too late now I suppose... But having a Sunni state so close to Iberia really shouldn't be popular. But there is another thing that I noticed in Alscon's post.))

Spoiler: To the Emperor

As you know, declarations of war are to be held in confidence of the Cabinet as stated in the Operational Security Act. As clearly stated in the act, breaches of this confidence is treason unless allowed by you. Faixon has just broken this confidence openly on the Parliament floor. Questionable sedition is one thing, but our friend has just committed outright treason! Will you allow this to stand?

 

[alscon]

((Wondered about that, but then it was explicitly not in brackets, so I had to make use of it. ))