A coalition for Eutopian progress

[unmerged(3748)]

Welcome!

This is a place for all parties, organisations and unions to come together and discuss forming a coalition together with the Rally for Democracy.

Let me take the time to introduce myself briefly: I am Sebastian Fitzpatrick, member of Rally for Democracy and currently in charge of initiating negotiations with other parties and groups to form a solid basis for a good future government for Eutopia.

We cordially invite all parties to express their views here.

This is a first attempt to establish a basic common policy from which we can start debating a workable agreement to form the basis of a coalition for the upcoming elections, both presidential and parliamentary:

- Restructuring our defence force, bringing it into the modern age without going above reasonable budgetary considerations.

- Abolishment of the death penalty.

- Taking steps to improve the position of minorities across Eutopia, with specific attention to the often forgotten ones.

- Improving the efficiency of the state and reducing the administrative workload. Implement regulations that make it easier to hire workforce and start businesses so as to encourage private enterprise.

- Finetuning of social security program with the focus on finding/creating new jobs and/or providing re-education for the unemployed. Encouraging people to get back to work is the main objective.

- Careful analysis of current state-run enterprises with the objective of improving their efficiency, without taking the costly step of privatizing them.

- Debate on pollution and environmental concerns, with the objective of forming a law based on the "polluter pays"-principle.

Thank you for your attention and hoping for a productive debate,

Mr. Sebastian Fitzpatrick
Parliamentary Leading Candidate and sorta-PR official for the Rally for Democracy.

 

[Jools]

- Restructuring our defence force, bringing it into the modern age without going above reasonable budgetary considerations.

Not Possible

- Abolishment of the death penalty.

Why not upkeep of DP?

- Taking steps to improve the position of minorities across Eutopia, with specific attention to the often forgotten ones.

Giving out privelidges?

- Improving the efficiency of the state and reducing the administrative workload. Implement regulations that make it easier to hire workforce and start businesses so as to encourage private enterprise.

You mean to loosen up regulations, not implement new ones, to make it easier to hire?

- Finetuning of social security program with the focus on finding/creating new jobs and/or providing re-education for the unemployed. Encouraging people to get back to work is the main objective.

Why should the state poke it's nose into the creation of new workplaces? Private enterprise will handle that. Better.

- Careful analysis of current state-run enterprises with the objective of improving their efficiency, without taking the costly step of privatizing them.

The best way to improve their efficiency is to privatize them.

- Debate on pollution and environmental concerns, with the objective of forming a law based on the "polluter pays"-principle.

What does exactly Eutopia have that is the greatest concern to the environment. Mining, logging? Just asking.

 

[unmerged(4007)]

Moderization of the military-

The FR is very interested in public/private partnership in the area of parts procurement. We believe this would streamline the process and reduce cost while assuring military specifications are met.

Abolishment of the DP-

We are against abolishment of the DP. We are however, for seeing the DP changed to a more humane method (preferably injection), and DNA proof for all murder trials that seek the death penalty.

Minorities-

The FR position is that protection of minorities is best accomplished by a combination of education on the lifestyle of these minorities and federalism to given them the means to protect their interests from the majority.

Improving the efficiency of government-

The most efficient government is the one that can meet the needs of the citizens at the local level. Currently too much power is congregated in EUtopia City, and monolithic government solutions breed inefficiency. The larger the central government gets, the more inefficient it gets. Also each department needs to regularly review itself and report to the public regarding its own efficiency. The people have the right to know when their money is being wasted.

The best way to breed private enterprise is to leave private citizens the capital to invest and get out of the way. Free Enterprise zones in neglected areas of our cities are a positive way to do this.

Unemployment benefits tailored to reeducation and getting people back to work- agreed.

Industries that can make a profit should be privatized. The Government is present to do what the people as individuals cannot. Not to reduplicate their work or take away their initiative. If privatization is seen as expensive (which I'm not sure it is, since someone will have to buy the business from the government), it is only so in the short term. Government lacks the fundamental principle to make itself run industry efficiently--competition. Thus all these studies will do is throw good money after bad.

Environmental concerns- We would agree with polluter pays principles. We also would encourage that industries be given tax credit for their own clean-up efforts (if done apart from regulatory mandate), and also tax credits for money that can be shown to be spent for making industrial processes "greener."

 

[unmerged(3748)]

Re: Re: A coalition for Eutopian progress

Replies in italic

Originally posted by Jools
- Restructuring our defence force, bringing it into the modern age without going above reasonable budgetary considerations.

Not Possible

Congratulations on your well-thougth, constructive condemnation. Of course it is possible to reform the military without spending much more than we are now. A small increase can still be "witin reasonable budgetary considerations". Basically I meant to say that the military needs modernizing, but not at the cost of ofther initiatives that have a more direct effect on the people.

- Abolishment of the death penalty.

Why not upkeep of DP?

Because in my humanistic opinion, which is shared by quite a few politicians in Eutopia, the death penalty is not the best way to fight crime, nor is it morally defendable. We strive for rehabilitation, re-education and forgiveness for small-time criminals. For the big fish and repeated offenders, we think a life-time of hard labor is more redeeming and ultimately better for society as well. Jail shouldnt be a holiday, but it shouldnt be hell either.

- Taking steps to improve the position of minorities across Eutopia, with specific attention to the often forgotten ones.

Giving out privelidges?

No, equality. Where did I mention priviledges? Paying attention to a certain group because it has been underrepresented in the past isnt handing out priviledges, it is a just concern. And if you must ask, a limited and strictly regulated amount of priviledges for extremely unfortunate minorities can have a positive effect on that minority and through uplifting them to an average level, society as a whole benefits from that. I do realise it is probably not too libertarian to care about the unfortunate.

- Improving the efficiency of the state and reducing the administrative workload. Implement regulations that make it easier to hire workforce and start businesses so as to encourage private enterprise.

You mean to loosen up regulations, not implement new ones, to make it easier to hire?

Yes, probably so. Although some new regulations could help as well - the situation as it is should be studied first.

- Finetuning of social security program with the focus on finding/creating new jobs and/or providing re-education for the unemployed. Encouraging people to get back to work is the main objective.

Why should the state poke it's nose into the creation of new workplaces? Private enterprise will handle that. Better.

My belief in private enterprise is severely shaken. Ive yet to see a multinational truly care about its lowest workers. They are just numbers, and that is a fact. If you are treated as a number who cant find a job your whole life, you will inevitably feel worthless. I sincerely believe the state has a place in this problem: initiatives to motivate the unemployed, offering them possibilities for a new life, tell me now, how can that be bad for the Eutopian populace?

- Careful analysis of current state-run enterprises with the objective of improving their efficiency, without taking the costly step of privatizing them.

The best way to improve their efficiency is to privatize them.

Could you prove your axiom, please? I cannot see how for example public transport, which is a necessity and not a luxury, is sure to be run better by private enterprise? At least initially, price increases will occur, and people will have to cough up if that is their only means of transport. Not to mention the catastrophes that could ensue if private enterprise services go bankrupt due to bad business. But of course, THEN theres always the government to save the service, right? As ive said before, that makes privatizing government enterprises a moot point. Furthermore, I do believe that state enterprises have a tendency to be mismanaged, that is why i suggest thorough audits and analysises, with consequences and solutions attached as well.

- Debate on pollution and environmental concerns, with the objective of forming a law based on the "polluter pays"-principle.

What does exactly Eutopia have that is the greatest concern to the environment. Mining, logging? Just asking.

Some issues up for debate: nuclear energy, sustainable development, tax cuts for environmentally sound companies, rewards for environmentally friendly technology, woodlogging in the Western Eutopian Territory, ... I realise some of these things will sound too much like interfering in the free market to you, but I do prefer working out measure to ensure a survivable future instead of being completely fair to the businesses that could potentially destroy the greatest resource we have.

 

[unmerged(3748)]

Replies in italic

Originally posted by shawng1
Moderization of the military-

The FR is very interested in public/private partnership in the area of parts procurement. We believe this would streamline the process and reduce cost while assuring military specifications are met.

Could you elaborate? Do you mean that private companies should be contacted as much as possible to manufacture goods and parts for the military? I cannot object in that case.

Abolishment of the DP-

We are against abolishment of the DP. We are however, for seeing the DP changed to a more humane method (preferably injection), and DNA proof for all murder trials that seek the death penalty.

And we are against the death penalty for moral reasons. I appreciate your human method of execution. Seriously, what difference does it make? None indeed. DNA is still not one hundred percent conclusive, and it probably never will, hence it is better to be on the safe side. If mistakes can be made, try making them so they can be reversed, to an extent.

Minorities-

The FR position is that protection of minorities is best accomplished by a combination of education on the lifestyle of these minorities and federalism to given them the means to protect their interests from the majority.

I would tend to agree. Knowledge of ones roots is important in wanting to protect and preserve them. Museums and cultural funding has a role to fulfill here. these should be museums and libraries all over Eutopia, not just in the capitol and large cities.

Improving the efficiency of government-

The most efficient government is the one that can meet the needs of the citizens at the local level. Currently too much power is congregated in EUtopia City, and monolithic government solutions breed inefficiency. The larger the central government gets, the more inefficient it gets. Also each department needs to regularly review itself and report to the public regarding its own efficiency. The people have the right to know when their money is being wasted.

I agree with your last sentence. Decentralisation has its dangers though. More chance to have incompetent politicians.

The best way to breed private enterprise is to leave private citizens the capital to invest and get out of the way. Free Enterprise zones in neglected areas of our cities are a positive way to do this.

Good to see that you realise the government has to maintain some level of intervention in the economic process in order to make sure nobody is left out and Eutopia can progress as a whole, instead of at different speeds.

Unemployment benefits tailored to reeducation and getting people back to work- agreed.

For me personally, the same goes for immigrants: benefits tailored to participation in language, history and citizenship classes and also willingness to find a job.

Industries that can make a profit should be privatized. The Government is present to do what the people as individuals cannot. Not to reduplicate their work or take away their initiative. If privatization is seen as expensive (which I'm not sure it is, since someone will have to buy the business from the government), it is only so in the short term. Government lacks the fundamental principle to make itself run industry efficiently--competition. Thus all these studies will do is throw good money after bad.

Please see my reply to Mr. Jools' post above. In addition, I would like to ask you which sectors can make a profit in your eyes?

Environmental concerns- We would agree with polluter pays principles. We also would encourage that industries be given tax credit for their own clean-up efforts (if done apart from regulatory mandate), and also tax credits for money that can be shown to be spent for making industrial processes "greener."

Splendid idea to positively encourage industry instead of punishing.

 

[Jools]

Re: Re: Re: A coalition for Eutopian progress

SE:Restructuring our defence force, bringing it into the modern age without going above reasonable budgetary considerations.

J:Not Possible

SE:Congratulations on your well-thougth, constructive condemnation. Of course it is possible to reform the military without spending much more than we are now. A small increase can still be "witin reasonable budgetary considerations". Basically I meant to say that the military needs modernizing, but not at the cost of ofther initiatives that have a more direct effect on the people.

First of all I do not understand why you think there are more important things than the military. The military & police are the states primary duties, that is upkeeping a modern, well trained and able police and military force. These two things are the principles of a sovereign and independant state. I am for a professional, medium sized army with a tint towards the navy. Why should we spare on the guns?

==============================================

SE:Abolishment of the death penalty.

J:Why not upkeep of DP?

SE:Because in my humanistic opinion, which is shared by quite a few politicians in Eutopia, the death penalty is not the best way to fight crime, nor is it morally defendable. We strive for rehabilitation, re-education and forgiveness for small-time criminals. For the big fish and repeated offenders, we think a life-time of hard labor is more redeeming and ultimately better for society as well. Jail shouldnt be a holiday, but it shouldnt be hell either.

So what is so immoral in the Death Penalty? Is more or less immoral than taking the income of individuals to the state coffers, as this is blatantly a form of legalised robbery. I am not for a state which every smallest crime will be punished with an arm amputation and shoplifting will be the basis for a death sentance. The possibility of recieving a death sentance will make any potential murderer think twice. Even a madman will take into consideration

==============================================
SE:Taking steps to improve the position of minorities across Eutopia, with specific attention to the often forgotten ones.

J:Giving out privelidges?

SE:No, equality. Where did I mention priviledges? Paying attention to a certain group because it has been underrepresented in the past isnt handing out priviledges, it is a just concern. And if you must ask, a limited and strictly regulated amount of priviledges for extremely unfortunate minorities can have a positive effect on that minority and through uplifting them to an average level, society as a whole benefits from that. I do realise it is probably not too libertarian to care about the unfortunate.

Minorities are underrepresented because... well, THEY ARE MINORITIES. Human beings are not equal, will never be equal and can't be equal. They can all be equal to the law and any attempt at making someone more 'equal' than the other will imminently go towards giving out priveledges.

==============================================
SE:Improving the efficiency of the state and reducing the administrative workload. Implement regulations that make it easier to hire workforce and start businesses so as to encourage private enterprise.

J:You mean to loosen up regulations, not implement new ones, to make it easier to hire?

SE:Yes, probably so. Although some new regulations could help as well - the situation as it is should be studied first.

Well it's quite simple to me. The less regulations the easier it is to start a business and start hiring people.

==============================================

SE: Finetuning of social security program with the focus on finding/creating new jobs and/or providing re-education for the unemployed. Encouraging people to get back to work is the main objective.

J:Why should the state poke it's nose into the creation of new workplaces? Private enterprise will handle that. Better.

SE:My belief in private enterprise is severely shaken. Ive yet to see a multinational truly care about its lowest workers. They are just numbers, and that is a fact. If you are treated as a number who cant find a job your whole life, you will inevitably feel worthless. I sincerely believe the state has a place in this problem: initiatives to motivate the unemployed, offering them possibilities for a new life, tell me now, how can that be bad for the Eutopian populace?

Why do you think a employer should 'care' for his employees? Can't the employee care for himself? Or will the state care better for him?

==============================================
SE: Careful analysis of current state-run enterprises with the objective of improving their efficiency, without taking the costly step of privatizing them.

J:The best way to improve their efficiency is to privatize them.

SE:Could you prove your axiom, please? I cannot see how for example public transport, which is a necessity and not a luxury, is sure to be run better by private enterprise? At least initially, price increases will occur, and people will have to cough up if that is their only means of transport. Not to mention the catastrophes that could ensue if private enterprise services go bankrupt due to bad business. But of course, THEN theres always the government to save the service, right? As ive said before, that makes privatizing government enterprises a moot point. Furthermore, I do believe that state enterprises have a tendency to be mismanaged, that is why i suggest thorough audits and analysises, with consequences and solutions attached as well.

Public transport. Poland - public sphere. Sitting places in bus 56, standing places in bus 112... People in bus 350. This can also apply to a private company no doubt. But if the private company has such statistics then it will bankrupt and most probably be swept off the market by a more competent company. If the state run company has such statistics it will keep on going to the collective frustration of the carless people.

==============================================
SE: Debate on pollution and environmental concerns, with the objective of forming a law based on the "polluter pays"-principle.

J:What does exactly Eutopia have that is the greatest concern to the environment. Mining, logging? Just asking.

SE:Some issues up for debate: nuclear energy, sustainable development, tax cuts for environmentally sound companies, rewards for environmentally friendly technology, woodlogging in the Western Eutopian Territory, ... I realise some of these things will sound too much like interfering in the free market to you, but I do prefer working out measure to ensure a survivable future instead of being completely fair to the businesses that could potentially destroy the greatest resource we have.

I think it's simple. Make national parks of specific areas: national heritage, large forests, rivers, swamps, habitats of endangered species etc... Leave the rest open to private enterprise.

 

[unmerged(5662)]

On capital punishment

A STATEMENT FROM THE PRIMATE OF THE ANGLICAN CHURCH OF EUTOPIA

The Anglican Church of Eutopia believes that it is important for the government to institute an immediate moratorium and subsequent abolition of the imposition of capital punishment.

The ACE has long opposed capital punishment, and at the most recent General Synod reaffirmed the Church's opposition to the death penalty. In our baptismal covenant, we swear to respect the dignity of every human being, and commit ourselves to strive for justice and peace among all people. The ACE will continue to decry the revenge of state-sanctioned homicides. We abhor the ethnic and racial discrimination, and economic injustices evident in our criminal justice system.

The ACE calls upon all members to strengthen efforts to abolish the death penalty, and simultaneously find the sensitive capacity to stand with the friends and families of murder victims as they struggle to redeem this tragedy in their lives.

 

[HJ Tulp]

I'll state my opinion about certain things here.

Your first point about the Military Mister Fritzpatrik.
What Mr. Jools said is true, you can't have a modern military on low cost. I must also say that Mr. Galloghain proposal isn't very good in my humble opinion, The government should manufacture or buy his own equiptment. Private Company's want to have as much profit as possible. That means they want to spend as little as possible and gain as much as they can.

A little note on my opinion on the DP:
Abolish it in the civic sector. Still DP during war.

 

[unmerged(3748)]

Originally posted by HJ Tulp
I'll state my opinion about certain things here.

Your first point about the Military Mister Fritzpatrik.
What Mr. Jools said is true, you can't have a modern military on low cost. I must also say that Mr. Galloghain proposal isn't very good in my humble opinion, The government should manufacture or buy his own equiptment. Private Company's want to have as much profit as possible. That means they want to spend as little as possible and gain as much as they can.

A little note on my opinion on the DP:
Abolish it in the civic sector. Still DP during war.

I never said I wanted a low cost military. What we need, is a good cost/quality relation. This can only be achieved by investing more in the first years to come, although there are other things to focus on. For example, healthcare and education are more important than the military at this time. We must await financial data before speaking of funding.

Why would you want the DP during war? That greatly increases the risk of bad judgement and hence innocent condemned.

 

[unmerged(4007)]

Mr Fitzpatrik,

Thank you for you considered responses.

1. Basically. I believe that encouraging competition, as long as certain needed specifications are met via Quality Assurance, is the best way to ensure lower costs while maintaining the proper specifications are met. To aid in this, if the military believes those specs have not been met, they should have the right to "opt out" at the private company's loss, until they begin to procure the material. Also abolition of the draft (in non emergencies) will allow for a hardened core of better-paid, more-dedicated professional servicemen to do most of the same work with less cost.

2. As I am not a humanist, I reject your fundamental premise. As for "many politiicians," since when does popularity override justice? Many people accepted Hitler too. That didn't make the act just or wise. Unfortunately also, the ACE is also, on this issue, acting unbiblically. The fundamental issue is whether justice is primarily punitive or rehabilitive. I submit that we have seen, by the spiking rates of recidivism in the West, that rehabilitation without either proper punishment or restoration is a myth. The central issue is what is just. Not what may rehabilitate the murderer. In the end, I have to side with Gen 7, He who sheds man's blood shall have his blood shed by man. As for DNA not being 100%, DNA+ trial is as close to 100% as humanity will ever get. DNA is in excess of 98% exact. Trail by jury is not an impercise method either. So it does, contra your statement, make considerable difference. We are requiring judgment by peers + scientific evidence. If both do not exist, no death penalty. More discussion on this issue will be present in an upcoming issue of the VoR. If that's legislating morality, as the FR has maintained consistently, all law is ultimately moral law. Of course, you attempted to argue this morally before, so you can't claim disagreement that this is a moral legislation issue anyway.

Besides which, I would say your claim to protecting human life is more than slightly complicated by your party's promotion of taking human life for convenience. I would submit that innocent human life is more deserving of protection by a just society than guilty human life. And there is no medically demonstrable point at which life can be shown to begin other than conception. Also there is the issue of punishment fitting the crime. You are not able to raise a murder victim from the dead. That person is lost from society, and their family is eternally marred by that crime. Life in prison not only is a failure to bring closure to the family so wounded, it leaves the opportunity for release and recidivism or escape and a return to murderous living. There is no equitable punishment for the taking of a life but the death penalty. Fundamentally, your desire is to protect murderers. Mine is to protect the innocent. I would submit the just society concerns itself with the plight of the innocent above all.

3. Decentralization may introduce more incompetent politicians. But it prevents one incompetent politician from crushing the whole country. Also it makes lower levels more accountable. It's hard to overthrow one faceless bureaucrat in Eutopia City who can shield anyone from seeing him. It's entirely different when the bureaucrat is provincial and accountable to someone ABOVE him as well as the people. Also regional solutions can be tailored to the people of the region in question. Solutions bred in EUtopia City will not meet the needs of disparate cultures in disparate places.

4. We believe that it is better to error on the side of less intervention than more. But also we would say that public/private partnerships on educating and encouraging the development of the entrepeneurial spirirt in our citizens regardless of age, race, creed, or skin color.

5. Agreed. Provided they are legal immigrants.

6. I disagree that all multinational corporations show disdain for their workers. I also think that's a fundamentally unprovable assertion. "You have yet to see it" does not prove it doesn't exist, nor does it prove that they cannot exist. It only proves either 1) you've looked and haven't found any yet, or 2) you haven't been looking. I don't know which one that would be. I'll assume for the sake of argument you have been looking. That still leaves it unprovable.

As for what industries can be supported privately. That's almost always a question best left to the private sector to see what ideas investors think. We would have to study that in detail with willing entrepeneurs.

7. I thought so.

Once again, this dialogue is appreciated, and our sole purpose is to explain what our view is as a party. If this means we can reach a point of mutual understanding and cooperation, that is wonderful. If not, then the value of dialogue, regardless of differences, is that it gives democracy in any form a chance to flourish.

SG

 

[HJ Tulp]

Originally posted by Silent Eagle
I never said I wanted a low cost military. What we need, is a good cost/quality relation. This can only be achieved by investing more in the first years to come, although there are other things to focus on. For example, healthcare and education are more important than the military at this time. We must await financial data before speaking of funding.

Why would you want the DP during war? That greatly increases the risk of bad judgement and hence innocent condemned.

Off course healthcare and education are very important but in these times there's a 'trend'on terrorism. Though we're neutral we might not be in the near future like if we join NATO (I'm for BTW) and you never know how desperate ethnic minorities can be.

I'm for DP in war-time because of traitors, plunderers, desertors etc.

 

[Apebe]

Hello. I'm a litttl busy this week so I will be brief :

concerning the army . Before asking yourself if you want to increase or decrease the defence budget you have to ask yourself what 'Mission' you are giving to the Army.

Mr. Besuchov from LD started drawing some lines to delineate the Army's mission.

- first of all, we don't need an Army based on the Soviet threat. So massive division of Panzers and Tanks D) aren't required. Some are needed but not as much ... maybe 50 or 60 (Leopard II or Leclerc type) and 30 or 40 Long distances cannons.
Developping a Research and Construction Program for so few tanks is nonsense so we shall enter European conjoint progs. such as Eurofighter, Eurocopter ...etc
- We need Divisions that are relatively autonomous and can be deployed rapidly all over the world. So we need Heavy air carrier and a supportive navy. Our Navy should be organised around 2 Carriers.

So basically we do not need to increase Defense Budget, just resize the Army by abandonning Conscription and resetting the missions.

 

[HJ Tulp]

If we want to join peacekeeping missions we do need Panzers. Other nations have had problems with their peacekeeping forces not able to defend themselves nor the people they should have protected.
The budget NEEDS to go up, we NEED to modernise our military.
Abolishment of conscription would be bad in my opinion since it does helps young people to become more responsible. Plus the fact that they're cheap.

 

[Apebe]

Originally posted by HJ Tulp
If we want to join peacekeeping missions we do need Panzers. Other nations have had problems with their peacekeeping forces not able to defend themselves nor the people they should have protected.
The budget NEEDS to go up, we NEED to modernise our military.
Abolishment of conscription would be bad in my opinion since it does helps young people to become more responsible. Plus the fact that they're cheap.

You're just contredicting yourself in the same paragraph.
If we want to be participating in peacekeeping campaigns we need professional as you can't send conscripts without parliamentary approval. Thats why major nations have abandonned conscriptions. Just see how complicated it is for Germany to send a "one batalion" . Now you don't need 600 or 700 Panzers...60 or 70 best modern type are enough.

 

[HJ Tulp]

I do not see why the constitution couldn't be changed.
Conscripts who have completed the training could be used for peacekeeping missions. And I didn't said we should have 700 Panzers. But 300 should be a reasoneble number.

 

[Apebe]

Originally posted by HJ Tulp
I do not see why the constitution couldn't be changed.
Conscripts who have completed the training could be used for peacekeeping missions. And I didn't said we should have 700 Panzers. But 300 should be a reasoneble number.

You can't use conscripts in foreign countries ....unless you're in war status. Every time a country sends troops for peacekeeping missions they're professionals (or Vonlunteering conscripts who have finished their class). You can't send conscripts without their will or you need a vote in parliament (=> war status).
Thats why it's a mess to set up batalions, the're just fast set up troops in contrary to professional armies.
Belgium can for example send much faster much more troop than Germany who has an Army many times bigger. Thats why France abandonned conscription (with a rightwinged President !).

 

[Jools]

SIXTY TANKS?! It's better to have none than have SIXTY tanks.

 

[Apebe]

peacekeeping missions are multinational. No nation sends more than 20 or 30 panzers

 

[unmerged(1522)]

Originally posted by Apebe
If we want to be participating in peacekeeping campaigns we need professional as you can't send conscripts without parliamentary approval.

[OOC:

Just a quick note: there is currently no constitutional stipulation in Eutopia that requires parliamentary approval for the deployment of conscripts abroad.]

 

[Apebe]

Originally posted by Melanchthon
[OOC:

Just a quick note: there is currently no constitutional stipulation in Eutopia that requires parliamentary approval for the deployment of conscripts abroad.]

that is a failure in the system, should be changed immediately. Difference must be made between at war / peacekeeping missions. Thats common in conscription laws. Always. No nation would permit to loose a conscript abroad in a peacekeeping mission if he is not volunteer...