Home Trending Latest threads New posts Developer diaries

Empire of the Mediterranean: An Interactive Hispania 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.
1. All civilians shall be evacuated from Mainland china possessions to Taiwan.

2. A General advance at full speed from the Indian Corps to take as much territory ASAP. Try to capitulate Malwa as soon we can, capturing costal provinces first then the capital and lastly land territory.

3. Keep at least 3 Corps on the Border at the north of Malwa to prevent any Ming attack from Delhi

4. Send at least 4 Corps in Naval Fleets to Disembark on Ming Sea Coast.

5. Then finally disembark the transport troops and focus on taking Nanjing, the Capital of Ming [Because that name is complicated] and retake the Mainland territories.

6. If they don't capitulate by then, continue taking provinces focusing on the population centers unilt a peace treaty is made, focus on areas with high supply to avoid massive atrittion.
 
zenphoenix said:
Carlos Maria restrained himself from laughing in the middle of Faixon's speech. Once Faixon was done, he stood up.

"The problem of the Cortz?" he said. "The problem? The Cortz is here to represent the interests of the Hispanian nobility, to supplement, not oppose, the will of the people. That was what our Emperor intended when he created Parliament after the Civil War. Why do you think he integrated the older Cortz into Parliament instead of replacing it with an elected body? To keep Hispania from falling back into the chaos of the Civil War, to provide a balancing force.

“But let me now address each of your points. First, you say, the election of the Speaker is a partisan act and that the Speaker is incapable. To that, I say, what evidence is there that the Speaker is acting in a partisan and incapable way? You cite that because he is a noble, he is thus partisan and imply that he is incapable. But has he done anything actually partisan? And has he acted in an incapable way? Define incapable. Define partisan. Are they the same thing?

“Some Cortz members abstained from the Amendment to the Franchise Expansion Act not because they wanted it to fail, but because they felt it was a matter best decided by the Assembly. Of course, this had the side effect of causing the bill to fail. It is a side effect. But should we blame the Cortz and all of its members for obstructing legislation proposed by the Assembly? If you check the Cortz’s records, you’ll see a large part of its members have voted with the Assembly on many matters instead of abstaining or opposing.

“How is the Cortz an antiquated relic? It isn’t dominated by the noble families of the medieval and Enlightenment periods. We have many younger nobles belonging to newly ennobled families sitting on the Cortz. They have a wide range of political views that supplement those of the Assembly. Why should the Cortz be abolished? You argue that the people have demanded the abolition of this body. Who? How many? Show me the evidence for such a movement. You see, the last time you called for the Cortz to be abolished, or at least allegations spread around that you called for such an abolition, that was during the franchise expansion riots. You know what happened afterwards. Only radicals call for the Cortz’s abolition. You’ll see from the data that many Hispanians support the continued existence of the Cortz.

“Why does the Cortz exist? As I said, it is to supplement and balance the will of the people, NOT to oppose it. The Emperor listens to both houses of Parliament. He does not favor the Cortz or the Assembly. He listens to both and respects the outcome produced by both. And to refute your point that Cortz members don’t care about politics, have you remembered the bills that I proposed? That my father proposed? Many of us proposed liberal-leaning pieces of legislation that would benefit the Assembly and the people of Hispania, not just the Cortz. Many of us took a side on votes. We all have our opinions on what we think is right. It may not match with your opinion. But Cortz members have a right to exercise their voting rights, and they may vote with or against Assembly members. So if you think the Cortz is a bunch of self-centered pampered snobs, think again.

“The Assembly has also been at fault lately. You claim that all Assemblymen care. But what about those who also abstained from votes? Those who obstructed Cortz bills that would have benefited them and the people? Safety regulations, workplace reforms, education, health care, the list goes on. The Assembly is just as partisan among itself as the Cortz is.

“What will happen when you do abolish the Cortz? What will you replace it with? Will you just have a unicameral legislature? Just the Assembly? Or would you rather have two Assemblies, two Assemblies that would be as likely to obstruct and oppose each other as the Cortz and the current Assembly? What would be next? An elected judiciary? An elected bureaucracy? An elected monarchy? Or even a republic? Do you want a Hispanian republic? Because abolishing the Cortz leads down a slippery slope that can lead to a republic. Don’t forget that the Emperor and his family are also nobles. If they oppose your call to abolish the Cortz, which is likely, should they be labeled as an ‘antiquated relic’ and a problem? I admit that the Cortz may have some flaws, but none of them merit a complete repeal and replace. Modernize it, if you will. Make it more representative of the people however you choose. But do not abolish it.

“Or you can just not take my word for it. After all, I am a noble and a Cortz member, and thus I may be biased towards the nobility and the Cortz. But keep in mind my record and that of my late father. Look at the bills we proposed. Look at what we supported. You’ll see that we did not abstain on the majority of the bills voted on, and we proposed many bills that would benefit not just the Assembly but also the people. Ironically, you and other Assemblymen might have opposed or abstained on some of these bills. What gives you the right to call me a someone who doesn’t care about the people?

“Thank you.”
Click to expand...

Faixòn sighed.

"If you had listened to more than just that I said 'the Cortz needs to go', then you would know. I shall, too, address your points one by one.

After the Civil War? The nobility still was powerful back then. There was no other option other than to involve the Cortz in a way or another. Or would you say that the Cortz members still have feudal rights? No, you don't.

The incapable Speaker. Well, you clearly didn't listen. For I said that the Speaker failed his task of demanding the Franchise Amendment to be Assembly-only. Very likely not the last time he will do so too.

Antiquated relic due to the history of its creation. The powerful nobility had to be appeased back then. If nobles want to take part in politics now, they can either have themselves elected into the Assembly like our sad excuse of a Speaker, or be named Minister due to their unquestioned competence, as Minister Mwenemutapa does. There is no comparable power left that needs to be appeased.

Who called for its abolition? Well, it turned out to be one of the main causes of the Valencian crisis. If this isn't reason enough... Do we just want to wait until there is the next riot?

Then again, you show that you didn't listen. I said most Cortz members don't care. You named yourself and your father as active members of the Cortz. That's one seat - what about the others? In contradiction to that, I name the Assembly. Well, if an Assemblyman doesn't care, then he isn't fit to be one and can be replaced. There is an act for that. None for members of the Cortz.

And saying it is a slippery slope is just ridiculous. After a long, hard fight - against your Fraternidad, at times - we finally managed to get rid of another relic that never served any logical purpose and was instituted right after the Civil War. Yes, you all know that I am talking about the appointment. Well, the appointment is gone. Do I bow before some President now or still answer to the Emperor? Just because we remove a relic doesn't mean we change the government at its roots.

Replacement? I just answered that question. The Cortz ceases to exist, and the politically interested members might just run for the Assembly instead. If these men are doing such a good job in the Cortz, surely they would have an easy time getting elected. Some have sadly already done that. Instead of picking their seat in the Cortz. A true testimony of the uselessness of this house, our Minister of Injustice.

The arguments you presented again all come down to 'it has always been that way'. It didn't work for the appointment. Hopefully, now that the Cortz is in the debate, it will take less than multiple decades to get rid of it."
 
- ''At the beginning I didn't planned to answer to your meaningless insults and provocations, but seeing that my apparent ''partisanism'' and ''incapability'' is something so great, then I must give and explanation.

The original Franchise Expansion act was voted by both houses, so it seemed logical to me that if said law is to be amended it needs the approval of both houses.

That's all I have to say.''
 
I think that Faxion will find that the issue with the Cortz is all but solved, without having to change it it's self.

The changes to abstention rules ensure that if the Cortz is to block something, it can no longer hide in mass abstentions. Assuming over 50% (or the relevant percentage) of the Assembly votes for something, the Cortz must beat the Yes vote with a No vote.

This forces them to take a stand if they intend to block something and if they do, they best have a strong argument in front of the people. The Assembly has to do likewise it should wish to block something with majority support in the Cortz, but perhaps as a directly elected body, they'll have a stronger basis for argument.


If the Cortz remains obstinate without reason, this law will create the conditions to increase future support for reform. But I trust the Cortz will respect it's duty.
 
  • Members of a jury are entitled to police protection for the duration of a trial.
  • Should there be a proven threat to a former jury member, they are entitled to police protection until the threat is proven to be over.
  • A member of a jury may not be punished in any way for their decision in a trial.
  • A juror may request that their name remain undisclosed to the public record for their own safety.
  • Revealing the name of a juror who has requested their name remain private shall warrent a sentence of at most 5 years in prison,

  • This act hereby revokes the The Recognition and Acknowledgement of the Obvious Lack of Transparency and Openness within His Imperial Majesties' Small Council and the Attempt to Exterminate it in Order to Stop and Eliminate Possible Fraudulent and Corrupt Behaviors Act of 1719.
  • All ministries must publish their plans publicly.
  • The Ministries of War and the Navy are exempt from this requirement.
  • The Ministries of War and the Navy are still required to file public budgets.
  • The Prime Minister may decide to classify or declassify plans as they see fit.

Seeing as the Ministry of War did not publish a plan in particularly detailed plan, I propose this plan for an invasion of mainland China. This plan accounts for the abandonment of Hong Kong and Macau, and takes place after Malwa has been subdued. These are modified versions of an earlier plan I proposed. It will require a significant investment in manpower, 15 corps at the least. Seeing as we can not really conduct an invasion of Malwa with only 5 corp, this plan would either need to take place after the Malwans were crushed, or we'd have to recruit more corp and postpone the war again.

The first plan I present is an invasion of the Chinese capital region. In the invasion I propose landing 3 corps each at both Tongzhou and Hangzhou. After the ports are secured, one corp each will stay in the ports, while the two other corp from Hangzhou shall move to secure Ningguo and Taiping, while the two from Tongzhou will move to secure Yangzhou Sizhou, Xuzhou, and Huaian By the time a definitive front line is established, and Nanking, Taicongzhou, and Shanghai are cut off from the rest of China, 2 corp should land in each of the landing ports, and in addition to the corp remaining in Tongzhou, shall move to secure the aforementioned cities, along with any other land still under Ming control in the pocket. Once that is complete, the 5 corp can spread out along the front line, giving priority to the provinces that are flatland.
Anhui%20War%20Plan.png

In the other naval invasion I propose, Guangdong province, as well as lower Fujian province, are the targets. devoting a corp each to retake our mainland ports, 3 corps will also be devoted to a naval invasion of Canton. Once Macau has fallen, the corp that takes it shall move to garrison Canton. One of the corps from Canton shall move to take Shaozhou, one other shall move to take Huizhou, then hold in Ganzhou. The last corp in Canton shall move to take Chaoshou, then move to occupy Tingzhou. Finally, the Corp that retook Hong Kong shall move to Zhangzhou, and then to Quanzhou.
Canton%20War%20Plan.png
((In the zip file down below, I included the Battle plan that you can put into the game.))
((Public))

Senor Faixon seems to conveniently forget that he was the speaker when the Franchise Amendment was initially proposed, and from what I seem to recall, did not demand for it to be assembly only. And as for your claim that the Valencian riots were caused by a desire to reform the Cortz, I see no evidence of that. The only one advocating for abolishing the Cortz in that riot was you and the people you inflamed. As for the power of the nobility, we gave up our feudal rights in exchange for the Cortz being responsible for serving as the voice of the nobility, as established in the Cortz reform acts of 1755 and 1773. And you would seek to deny us the voice that we gave up our feudal power for. And why? So your own house can have all the power?

And it hasn't just been the Cortz blocking positive change, which I will freely admit it has done before. In 1851, when the franchise expansion act failed, it did so because of both houses, and even if you had called for it to be assembly only, it still would have failed, but you didn't do that anyway. Similarly, in 1850, abstains from both houses killed the Cortz reform bill, and the Act for a Fairer Parliament was killed by an inability to gain a sufficient amount of votes in both houses, and again, even if you had called for it to be assembly only, which you didn't, it still would have failed. So I wouldn't be so quick to judge Minister D'Garcia, Senor Faixon. It seems as though you have done just as little as he did in that regard.
 

Attachments

  • War Plan Orange.zip
    2,9 KB · Views: 15
After hearing Alfonso's opinion, Manuel decided to speak, filled with determination.

'' - After a lot of consideration, I have arrived to a conclusion, I wish to call, in my position of Speaker of the Assembly, to call for a vote to give a reprimand to the señor Lluis Faixon, under the reasoning that, as we all have seen through all this years, he is a violent and erratic man. Just last year we saw him ranting out of the Assembly in the middle of a session. For years we all have seen how he tries to criticize without proofs and in a violent manner, insulting and demoting in any chance he haves. Clear examples is how his trying to lie saying that the Valencia Riots where driven by an anti-Cortz movement, when in reality it was him who started that movement. I think he has gone unstopped for too long, and we need to do something before his radicalism and violence poisons our mighty house even more''

After finishing, Manuel looked directly at Faixon. ''Who is the inactive Speaker now, friend'' Manuel thought as he sited while lighting a cigarette.
 
After the advocacy by the Australian Colonial ministers, the ministry has decided to change its policy to support resources devoted to colonizing Australia, moving from West to East.

With the amendment to the Quorum Act having passed I will once again propose Amendment to the Franchise Expansion Act of 1851 considering it's huge support in the Assembly and the fact that it has gone unopposed in the Cortz.
 
ManuelD'Garkia said:
((I will probably be out for some days do to my country's situation, I leave my decisions and character to @TylerCraigofPrussia while I'm gone as I trust his judgement and I trust him to know me well enough to know how I will deal with situations, I will try to come back as soon as possible))
Click to expand...
((Be safe Manuel))
 
((Public ~ Assembly))
​
Amused by Faixon's antics and resulting punishment Del Toro decided to get up to some mischief of his own; he could hardly be blamed for it seeing as it was Faixon himself who had brought it up, a perfect opportunity to start the fight to restore full power to the Emperor. With this in mind he stood and began to speak, "So great of the good Señor Faixon to mention the abolishment of appointed seats in correlation to abolishment of the Cortz, especially for him to claim it as evidence that there is no slippery slope for him to descend down. Why, that appointment was abolished indicates quite the opposite of what the señor suggests; it might be said that the abolishing of appointment was the first step onto the slippery slope of republicanism and that abolishing the Cortz would be the second. If anything we must scramble back off this dangerous incline by first reestablishing appointment; from there it would be best to creep back from the cliff so that we might not fall off again, we might achieve this by abolishing the elected seats in the Assembly. Perhaps that might be more agreeable to señor? I should like the Assembly recognize that the Return to Normalcy Act (1836) and the Electoral System Act (1847) contradict with the Appointment Removal Act of 1847. The Return to Normalcy Act (1836) states that "one hundred seats shall be designated as appointed seats" which is contradicted by the later legislation, the Appointment Removal Act of 1847 which states that "there shall be no more appointed seats in the Assembly". Although we are somewhat lacking in a fully legislated system for determining conflicts in legislature the generally accepted manner is that newer legislation overrules older legislation, this suggests that the Return to Normalcy Act (1836) is overruled by the Appointment Removal Act of 1847; a problem occurs when legislation is passed in the same session, like the Appointment Removal Act of 1847 and the Electoral System Act (1847). The Electoral System Act (1847) states that "the proportion of appointed members in the Assembly shall be currently designated as the Return to Normalcy Act (1836)", which lies in direct contradiction to the Appointment Removal Act of 1847. Although some in this situation might call for a Royal Commission I instead propose a more simple, yet elegant, solution: revoke the Appointment Removal Act of 1847. Need I mention once more the benefits of appointment? Somehow I feel it might be necessary. Not only does appointment give the Emperor a voice in the Assembly it also gives the disenfranchised of Hispania a voice; the poor who fail to meet the property requirements, the women who stay strong and silent at their husband's sides, those who live on our frontiers, who bring civilisation to primitive peoples the world over. To deny appointed seats in the Assembly is to deny them a voice, it is to be the cruel hand that clamps down on their mouths, that silences them as they cry out for recognition. I look around at this Assembly and I see an Assembly that represents the people, an Assembly that chose to give the people the right to gather in groups, an Assembly that chose to give the people the right to publish free of censorship, an Assembly that can now chose to give the people the right to a voice in their government. As these proposals are ones which would only affect the Assembly I request that the Speaker consider proposing that they will only be voted upon in this chamber and not the other."

((Private))​

"You don't really think it'll pass do you?" asked one of his fellow Reformistas. Del Toro turned and gave the man a long look before giving off a resigned sigh, "there is always hope Enrique, always hope".\

((Public))​

cmjXmf9.png

Partido Reformista Monárquica
[Protectionism - State Capitalism - Moralism - Jingoism - Limited Citizenship]

Political Position: Right-Wing
Ideology: Monarchism, Absolutism, Imperialism, Assimilationism
Motto: Para el Emperador, Para el Pueblo, Para la Hispania
Colours: Black & Gold

Members:
Rafael del Toro, Assemblyman
​
The Partido Reformista Monárquica (formerly known as the Partido Reformista) emerged from the Faccion Imperial following the death of Emperess Dowager Sophia de Trastamara. It had previously formed the rightmost bloc of the Faccion, those most opposed to the political reforms of the liberals. Its members stand in direct opposition to the Partido Fenix and advocate the roll back of many political reforms including those regarding appointment, voting, worship and censorship; this is in the interest of returning Hispania to an absolute monarchy under an enlightened and benevolent Emperor, a recipe they believe will produce the most benefit for Hispania as a whole. Although they despise heathens the Reformista are open to accepting peoples, colonial or conquered, into the Hispanian family; they encourage others to enter Hispanian society so that they might assimilate into Hispanian culture and contribute to the betterment of Hispania. Unlike most other reactionaries the Reformista are only mildly nationalistic, holding the interests of Hispanian people above those of other nations but willing to make sacrifices to assist those in need. If one thing were to be said about a member of the Reformista it would be that they were honest; unless that person were a member of the Partido Fenix, then they would probably say that the Reformista were lying scum.

((Just thought that it would be nice to give the Reformista a bit of an update and clean up.))
 
zenphoenix said:
Dear Sir,

Over the last few years, we have made much progress in mending the relations between our two great powers. Our two colonial empires dominate the world in trade, influence, and prestige. But there are ways we could make our two empires even greater, by setting spheres of influence so that we don’t compete with each other’s interests. With that in mind, I’d like to propose a trade of colonies. The Hispanian government would like to cede its colonies in Columbia, except Vancouver Island, for the French colonies in Africa, so that the Pacific Northwest will be placed under French influence. Both of us would benefit from this trade, as our spheres of influence would no longer clash in the Pacific Northwest and Africa. What do you say?

I look forward to your response,
Carlos Maria de Leon, Foreign Minister of Hispania
Click to expand...

CqtOYoW.png

My Foreign Minister passed along your message to us, for we find such important matters are best left for the reigning sovereign rather than an appointed underling. We find it odd that such a request did not bear a royal seal. Did His Imperial Highness not authorize this offer? We prefer to treat with our equals, and your Emperor is one of the few who deserve to be called that. We suppose that such matters are different in Hispania, where your Emperor may chose to delegate his authority to others. We prefer a more direct approach to ruling and shall be taking charge of all negotiations from now on.

Your proposal has some merit, for we already have a sizable presence in North America and would surely desire to extend that presence. Access to the sea for Columbia would be beneficial, especially after some minor border disputed removed such access. ((The converter landlocked French Columbia, one of many irregularities.)) Yet we find your offer not to be to the full benefit of France. The refusal to offer Vancouver Island as part of the trade makes possession of Columbia useless, for whoever controls that island can control who may access Columbia through the strait. If Hispania truly wishes to grant France possession of the region, all land there must be ceded. As for Africa, while such land is small and likely worth much less than your country's possessions in Africa, we do not see a need to relinquish our presence on the continent. To do so would to surrender all interests in the continent, and the relinquishment of all land in Africa would prove detrimental to French relations with Mali. To be frank, your nation has shown a willingness to undermine French interests in her economic partners. We have reason to believe that surrendering all claim to Africa will likely lead to the continuation of Hispania's aggressive policy against our sphere of influence in regards to Africa. If Hispania truly wishes to trade as equals, perhaps she should learn not to speak sweetly to her neighbours while holding a knife behind her back.

- His Imperial Highness, Charles IX de Valois-Orléans, Emperor of France

zenphoenix said:
Dear Sir,

I’d like to ask your opinion on a certain matter. The Hispanian government would like to propose a trade with the Scottish government in which Hispania will cede West New Guinea and its rich resources to Scotland in exchange for the Scottish colony of Baja California. Both of us would benefit from this trade, as you get a resource rich colony and wash your hands of a colony that is difficult to supply and is resource scarce. What do you say?

I look forward to your response.
Carlos Maria de Leon, Foreign Minister of Hispania
Click to expand...

I'm afraid that my government must decline your offer. While West New Guinea may indeed be a land of valuable resources, Baja California retains strategic importance for our nation in regard to logistics. As your government may well be aware, we have recently decided to extend our colony in Alaska. Baja California, along with our possessions in South America, thus serve as valuable way-stations and trading ports to fuel our colonization efforts. Our colony in Baja California thus is valued for its ability to allow us to sustain our other colonies that are a greater distance from the Scottish homeland.

However, while we cannot accept the offer as it stands, we are entirely willing to negotiate. I wish you to understand that if we are to exchange Baja California for West New Guinea, we will need certain assurances, both financial and logistical, to ensure that the loss of such lands does not disrupt both our other colonies and our nation's finances. If Hispania could provide compensation for the greater costs of supplying our colonies in Alaska and provide us with some form of agreement granting us access to trade ports in Hispania's colonies in the Americas, we would be much more amicable to ceding Baja California.

His Majesty, King James IX Stuart of Scotland, wishes you to know that he fully encourages such cooperation between our two nations. We have benefited in the past from such arrangements and will gladly accept another if it truly benefit Scotland. May Hispania and Scotland continue to share such warm relations for decades to come.

- John Russell, Foreign Minister of Scotland

zenphoenix said:
An elected judiciary?
Click to expand...

((Amusingly enough, the Citizenship Act, 1816, suggests that citizens can participate in elections for the retention of judges. Of course, no prior law established elected judges, only appointed ones, so really it's the right to participate in judicial elections that don't exist. :p))

zenphoenix said:
((Nanjing is a traditional Chinese capital and a major city in real life. I assume he just got a little confused. However, this begs the question of why is Ming's capital in Taicangzhou? It should at least be in Nanjing or something.))
Click to expand...

TylerCraigofPrussia said:
((I'd assume it's some weird thing the converter did. I do know about Nanking being a traditional capital, and I understand that it was probably a mistake, but he should have checked first.))
Click to expand...

((I noticed that too. I couldn't manage to load up my EUIV save to check, but I did find a screenshot that showed that when we first conquered Canton, Beijing was actually the capital. Guess they moved it after that point. Guess Ming wanted something different for the capital this time. :p))

* * * * *

((Sorry for the delayed vote. I went on a bit of a road trip and didn't get back until later. Just wanted to point out that while reprimanding Lluis Faixòn is an Assembly only vote, Cortz members can still vote just in case no one in their party in the Assembly ends up voting. The various 60% requirements are from granting statehood to colonies, changing the administration in certain colonies, and altering the juries.

Amendment to the Creation of Free Trade Unions: Yes/No/Abstain
Committee for Entrepreneurial & Social Progress: Yes/No/Abstain

Telegraphic Governmental Proceedings Network: Yes/No/Abstain
Colonial Integration Act of 1854 (60% required): Yes/No/Abstain
Restoration of Nueva Sicilia Act (60% required): Yes/No/Abstain
Jury Protection Act (60% required): Yes/No/Abstain
Transparency Reform Act: Yes/No/Abstain
Revoke the Appointment Removal Act of 1847: Yes/No/Abstain
Amendment to the Franchise Expansion Act of 1851: Yes/No/Abstain

Reprimand Lluis Faixòn (Assembly Only): Yes/No/Abstain

Players have until Tuesday at 12PM PST to vote (the deadline is a little later than usual since I took so long to start the vote). Please bold your votes and include your character's name and class.))
 
Last edited:
"Different circumstances. Circumstance is very important. Just as the political climate of the moment, where I seem to be the only one who acts consistently throughout the times. Why did I not call for the Franchise Expansion or its amendment to be Assembly-only? Because the Chamberlain had made his stance on that matter fairly clear. Villanova was one of these rare honest men here who you could trust in keeping their word.

That reprimand you are trying to issue is just further proof that the Speakership is merely being used as a political instrument right now, and not truly representative of the Assembly. If you truly wanted that, then you'd have to issue reprimands to a lot of Assemblymen, yourself included. Also, how can the Speaker reprimand an Assemblyman for trying to strengthen this house's position? Do you forget the task of that office?

'Gave up feudal rights'. That sounds so innocent, so voluntarily. Face the truth, it was either that or lose everything. When nobles aren't forced to sit in the Cortz as 'their house', then 'giving up feudal rights' is not a valid argument.

The people have spoken. I will not try to hide my part in it, but you can't negate this. No matter how the idea came to be, you cannot just kill an idea. It spreads. And then we must find a way to appease it. And the easiest way is to accept a fully reasonable request."

Faixòn also wholly ignored personal attacks. He was used to them now.
 
Amendment to the Creation of Free Trade Unions: No
Committee for Entrepreneurial & Social Progress: No

Telegraphic Governmental Proceedings Network: Yes
Colonial Integration Act of 1854 (60% required): No
Restoration of Nueva Sicilia Act (60% required): Yes
Jury Protection Act (60% required): No
Transparency Reform Act: No
Revoke the Appointment Removal Act of 1847: Yes

Reprimand Lluis Faixòn (Assembly Only): Yes

"In the words of Lluis Faixòn, "the people have spoken", they have spoken out for a voice and, once more quoting the good señor, we should "accept a fully reasonable request", we should give people their appointed seats back. I reminisce of when Señor Faixòn spoke of how a proposal that had the support of both reactionaries and radicals could only possibly be a good one; here again it would appear radical sides with reactionary in support of a beneficial proposal, thank you Señor Faixòn for your endorsement."
 
Last edited:
Amendment to the Creation of Free Trade Unions: Abstain
Committee for Entrepreneurial & Social Progress: No

Telegraphic Governmental Proceedings Network: No
Colonial Integration Act of 1854 (60% required): Yes
Restoration of Nueva Sicilia Act (60% required): Yes
Jury Protection Act (60% required): Yes
Transparency Reform Act: Yes
Revoke the Appointment Removal Act of 1847: Abstain
Amendment to the Franchise Expansion Act of 1851: Yes

Reprimand Lluis Faixòn (Assembly Only): Yes

Alfonso de Alejandría
Conde de Alejandría
Chamberlain of the Cortz
Parta Marina
 
Last edited:
texasjoshua said:
((Mike, did you miss my re propose of the Amendment to the Franchise Expansion Act of 1851, or just skipping because i was past deadline? If it's the first I'd like to have it on there :p if it's the second I understand.))
Click to expand...

((No, I just missed it. Sorry about that. I only got home late in the evening and wanted to get that vote up quickly. I've edited the original vote post to include it. @liefwarrior, @Sancronis, @TylerCraigofPrussia, and @antonioneto232 may edit their posts to include it if they want, or just post a new separate vote for that one law.))
 
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom
Back