-
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.
I think we all agree that the bottom line is a Professional Army of Volunteers is to be preferred over the essentially unmilitary Conscript army, which dilutes the elan of the fighting force.
In wartime obviously, the draft should be reinstituted, but apart from war or pre-war emergencies, I see no need for a draft.
In wartime obviously, the draft should be reinstituted, but apart from war or pre-war emergencies, I see no need for a draft.
I agree with Mr. Galloglaigh on this matter.
We should however think about how that will influence the way our Army needs to be build.
I propose that issue to be discussed after the elections and that we now focus on forming a coalition for the above mentioned elections. (which was the purpose of this meeting...
)
We should however think about how that will influence the way our Army needs to be build.
I propose that issue to be discussed after the elections and that we now focus on forming a coalition for the above mentioned elections. (which was the purpose of this meeting...
)
Good question.
Really, the only issues of consequence that I can see causing difficulties for a coalition are the DP and abortion, which we did not discuss here. Even abortion I think since we are willing to open it up on non-contraception matters we can offer a political advance for your parties there. And you could probably say the same thing on the DP if you wanted to, obviously moving away from the barbaric method of hanging is a victory, and mandating the maximum of physical evidence to even seek the DP means that no one will be executed on circumstantial evidence.
As for whether or not marital rights should be extended to homosexual couples, that is an issue more complicated than you are making it. Aside from the rather large ethical question, there is among other issues, the issue of people taking advantage of domestic partnerships to evade taxes, far from an unheard of event. We would suggest that before any such matters were seriously put forward, the economic impact needs to be examined thoroughly.
Legalization of drugs we would also consider an issue for further study. We understand the arguments here, but the issue is that we are not sure that there is evidence that legalization of soft drugs stops the progression to hard drugs. We consider that a matter that needs thorough examination aside from the ethical issues.
Legalization of prostitution we consider a local/provincial issue, not a national one. It should not be the business of the central government to dictate this upon private communities that may not like it. Nor should the state stand against private communities that will support it. It's simply not a national issue.
I believe that Mr Fitzpatrik and myself have already demonstrated on the economic sphere that there is plenty of room for common working. We would agree that before privatizing any industry, there must be reasonable evidence that it private investors can run it profitably, in their mind. Also we could agree, if necessary, to ensuring that these are sold to EUtopian nationals, if privatized, not outside interests that would "take away" EUtopian jobs or capital. Otherwise there's considerable agreement.
On the military, I think we are almost entirely in agreement. The same can basically be said in the environmental sphere. We would desire to emphasize the carrot to encourage industry to think green before the stick of increased regulation. But if industry does not clean itself up with tax incentives to do so, we would not, given the current crisis, be against stiffer measures, stringently enforced, as long as they do not become crippling to the economy. We are also for studying the question of nuclear energy. Disposal is an issue, but aside from disposal, it is one of the cleanest forms of energy in existence, and definitely the most efficient.
In short, I think there is plenty of opportunity for a centist coalition. The question is, will you accept the offer? Obviously, if so, there is room for further negotiations.
Really, the only issues of consequence that I can see causing difficulties for a coalition are the DP and abortion, which we did not discuss here. Even abortion I think since we are willing to open it up on non-contraception matters we can offer a political advance for your parties there. And you could probably say the same thing on the DP if you wanted to, obviously moving away from the barbaric method of hanging is a victory, and mandating the maximum of physical evidence to even seek the DP means that no one will be executed on circumstantial evidence.
As for whether or not marital rights should be extended to homosexual couples, that is an issue more complicated than you are making it. Aside from the rather large ethical question, there is among other issues, the issue of people taking advantage of domestic partnerships to evade taxes, far from an unheard of event. We would suggest that before any such matters were seriously put forward, the economic impact needs to be examined thoroughly.
Legalization of drugs we would also consider an issue for further study. We understand the arguments here, but the issue is that we are not sure that there is evidence that legalization of soft drugs stops the progression to hard drugs. We consider that a matter that needs thorough examination aside from the ethical issues.
Legalization of prostitution we consider a local/provincial issue, not a national one. It should not be the business of the central government to dictate this upon private communities that may not like it. Nor should the state stand against private communities that will support it. It's simply not a national issue.
I believe that Mr Fitzpatrik and myself have already demonstrated on the economic sphere that there is plenty of room for common working. We would agree that before privatizing any industry, there must be reasonable evidence that it private investors can run it profitably, in their mind. Also we could agree, if necessary, to ensuring that these are sold to EUtopian nationals, if privatized, not outside interests that would "take away" EUtopian jobs or capital. Otherwise there's considerable agreement.
On the military, I think we are almost entirely in agreement. The same can basically be said in the environmental sphere. We would desire to emphasize the carrot to encourage industry to think green before the stick of increased regulation. But if industry does not clean itself up with tax incentives to do so, we would not, given the current crisis, be against stiffer measures, stringently enforced, as long as they do not become crippling to the economy. We are also for studying the question of nuclear energy. Disposal is an issue, but aside from disposal, it is one of the cleanest forms of energy in existence, and definitely the most efficient.
In short, I think there is plenty of opportunity for a centist coalition. The question is, will you accept the offer? Obviously, if so, there is room for further negotiations.
Well, on the economical issue, I think Mr. Fitzpatrick is far more in advance than his colleagues from the RD.
Originally posted by Apebe
Well, on the economical issue, I think Mr. Fitzpatrick is far more in advance than his colleagues from the RD.
This could very well be true. I am aware of the fact that I am probably the "right wing" of my party, to use a strong term. That is why I believe I am ideally placed to conduct negotiations between all parties present here.
I will present your offer to my party, Mr. Galloglaigh. I cannot decide for them, although I am tempted to agree with quite a few of your points above. I notice you are sincerely offering constructive compromises and ideas, and I greatly appreciate that.
Mr Fitzpatrick,
Your interest is appreciated, and as noted, I personally am inclined towards further negotiations. I would rather have a governing centrist coalition than one formed with the parties to either opposing side. I would not be opposed to a grand centrist alliance that covers all 3 major centrist EUtopian parties, if that were plausible as well.
We would much prefer that to a brutal election fight that would end in ill feelings. That said, I personally feel if a centrist coalition is to happen, it almost certainly must prior to the election. I am not saying that as a threat, merely a political reality I think you can equally understand, as the more extreme members of both our parties will be given free reign in an election fight. After that, coming to mutual terms will be difficult if not impossible and whoever wins will be forced to have done so by granting concessions to the extremes of the spectrum in order to govern.
Your interest is appreciated, and as noted, I personally am inclined towards further negotiations. I would rather have a governing centrist coalition than one formed with the parties to either opposing side. I would not be opposed to a grand centrist alliance that covers all 3 major centrist EUtopian parties, if that were plausible as well.
We would much prefer that to a brutal election fight that would end in ill feelings. That said, I personally feel if a centrist coalition is to happen, it almost certainly must prior to the election. I am not saying that as a threat, merely a political reality I think you can equally understand, as the more extreme members of both our parties will be given free reign in an election fight. After that, coming to mutual terms will be difficult if not impossible and whoever wins will be forced to have done so by granting concessions to the extremes of the spectrum in order to govern.
I'm not here representing or speaking for anyone but meself Here's my opinion
Abso-fraggin-lutely. More than just the litteral upgrading of equipment, training etc we need to make a fundamental doctirnal change away from a military designed to fight 'traditional' wars and geared to more modern challenges. We especially need to be prepared to deal with so-called 'Low intensity' conflicts and counter-terrorism ops.
Right again The DP simply doesn't work as a deterrent, so we get no upside. On the downside, there are the moral implications, the fact that even in the best system innocent people will, from time to time, be executed, and the fact that it represents a barrier to joining the EU in the future (if we want to). Seems like a no-brainer to me
This is tricky. On the one hand, minorities do face discrimination and should be helped to overcome it. On the other, handing out privliges actually perpetuates racial discord (IMHO). I would say the goal here is a system wherin the law does not recognize any person as being anything but a Eutopian citizen. This cuts both ways; it means that gays should have the right to marry and adopt, but it also means that afirmative action programs should be phased out and replaced with programs to help those who really need it (i.e, those below the poverty line)
Also here I would like to emphasise the need for help saving endangered languages, particular Native Eutopian ones and Old Norse, that are on the verge of dying out. These can be saved (see the resurgance of the various Celtic languages from a similar situation at the turn of the century) and should be saved. Plus, as anyone who saw Windtalkers knows, linguistic diversity is good for national security
It really should be easier to get fired from a government job (especially the elected ones). It helps remove waste. Are you referring to the STATE starting buisnesses, or pro-small buisness policies in that last part?
Manpower is precious, and we're not so rich that we can afford to waste it. This is a good goal, but how, specifically, are you going to go about it?
This seems like a good position. These firms could always be run better and should, like private firms, be perpetually improving them. maybe change how their top brass is apointed, and try to remove politics from the process?
Polluter pays is a good principle because it provides both carrot and stick in one go. It gives them an incentive to apply all that wonderfull ingenuity that the private sector has to being more green.
However, the other big source of pollution, private consumers, get off easy. And their cars and SUV's are part of the problem (not to mention energy consumption). The best way to deal with this is to nibble at it from the sides. Improve and extend light rail, give tax incetives to buying cars certified as low-emmision, encourage production and use of solar cells (Japan and Germany have had some success with this one), use 'green' architecture in new public buildings, etc etc
Well, thank you!
Here's my opinionAbso-fraggin-lutely. More than just the litteral upgrading of equipment, training etc we need to make a fundamental doctirnal change away from a military designed to fight 'traditional' wars and geared to more modern challenges. We especially need to be prepared to deal with so-called 'Low intensity' conflicts and counter-terrorism ops.
Right again
The DP simply doesn't work as a deterrent, so we get no upside. On the downside, there are the moral implications, the fact that even in the best system innocent people will, from time to time, be executed, and the fact that it represents a barrier to joining the EU in the future (if we want to). Seems like a no-brainer to meThis is tricky. On the one hand, minorities do face discrimination and should be helped to overcome it. On the other, handing out privliges actually perpetuates racial discord (IMHO). I would say the goal here is a system wherin the law does not recognize any person as being anything but a Eutopian citizen. This cuts both ways; it means that gays should have the right to marry and adopt, but it also means that afirmative action programs should be phased out and replaced with programs to help those who really need it (i.e, those below the poverty line)
Also here I would like to emphasise the need for help saving endangered languages, particular Native Eutopian ones and Old Norse, that are on the verge of dying out. These can be saved (see the resurgance of the various Celtic languages from a similar situation at the turn of the century) and should be saved. Plus, as anyone who saw Windtalkers knows, linguistic diversity is good for national security
It really should be easier to get fired from a government job (especially the elected ones
). It helps remove waste. Are you referring to the STATE starting buisnesses, or pro-small buisness policies in that last part?Manpower is precious, and we're not so rich that we can afford to waste it. This is a good goal, but how, specifically, are you going to go about it?
This seems like a good position. These firms could always be run better and should, like private firms, be perpetually improving them. maybe change how their top brass is apointed, and try to remove politics from the process?
Polluter pays is a good principle because it provides both carrot and stick in one go. It gives them an incentive to apply all that wonderfull ingenuity that the private sector has to being more green.
However, the other big source of pollution, private consumers, get off easy. And their cars and SUV's are part of the problem (not to mention energy consumption). The best way to deal with this is to nibble at it from the sides. Improve and extend light rail, give tax incetives to buying cars certified as low-emmision, encourage production and use of solar cells (Japan and Germany have had some success with this one), use 'green' architecture in new public buildings, etc etc
Well, thank you!
Last edited:
Dear fellow politicians,
Please stop trying to steal Mr. Fitzpatric from our Party.
He was appointed by the RD for his diplomatic skills in order to form a coalition with 'similar' minded parties.
The RD would like to keep him, because he seems to be doing a great job...
MMDS
Please stop trying to steal Mr. Fitzpatric from our Party.
He was appointed by the RD for his diplomatic skills in order to form a coalition with 'similar' minded parties.
The RD would like to keep him, because he seems to be doing a great job...
MMDS
And you've said so repeatedly in the past.Originally posted by Apebe
sometimes I feel you simply belong to the Liberals
I'm confident that SE knows his own mind best - so if he has chosen the RD over the LD, I'd suggest to assume that there are good reasons for his choice. Needless to say, the RD is happy to count him among our members, and appreciates his hard work on behalf of the party and all of Eutopia. 
The Anglican Church of Eutopia has a clear position on the death penalty which is the position adopted by the international Anglican church, as well.
Obiviously, we must protect society from all threats to the its citizens. I believe the Archbishop will agree that the church is not "soft of crime", but rather that there are some decisions that are God's and not man's to make.
As my instructor in the seminary put it: "We, of course, wish to see punishment exacted on people who commit violence, but we don't believe death is in our hands as punishment to be exacted."
However, Mr. Fitzpatrick seems to be trying to reach some form of consensus.
Perhaps some compromise can at least me reached on the state's method of execution? Similarily, perhaps some agreement can be reached on the prohibition of the death penalty against the mentally retarded. If those that advocate the death penalty believe it to be punishment for a premeditated, willful act of sin and evil, then perhaps there can be some agreement that those who commit wrongful acts WITHOUT the proper knowledge of good evil can be spared this punishment?
We must protect society, but surely the barbarism of hanging can end?
I applaud Mr. Fitzpatrick for his efforts to improve our society, and those, like Mr.Galloglaigh, that are willing to meet with him for an honest discussion of the issues.
Rev. Jack Teano
Anglican Church of Eutopia
Obiviously, we must protect society from all threats to the its citizens. I believe the Archbishop will agree that the church is not "soft of crime", but rather that there are some decisions that are God's and not man's to make.
As my instructor in the seminary put it: "We, of course, wish to see punishment exacted on people who commit violence, but we don't believe death is in our hands as punishment to be exacted."
However, Mr. Fitzpatrick seems to be trying to reach some form of consensus.
Perhaps some compromise can at least me reached on the state's method of execution? Similarily, perhaps some agreement can be reached on the prohibition of the death penalty against the mentally retarded. If those that advocate the death penalty believe it to be punishment for a premeditated, willful act of sin and evil, then perhaps there can be some agreement that those who commit wrongful acts WITHOUT the proper knowledge of good evil can be spared this punishment?
We must protect society, but surely the barbarism of hanging can end?
I applaud Mr. Fitzpatrick for his efforts to improve our society, and those, like Mr.Galloglaigh, that are willing to meet with him for an honest discussion of the issues.
Rev. Jack Teano
Anglican Church of Eutopia
Last edited:
I'm starting to feel like a specially bred prize bull... Thanks for the appreciation, everyone. *tear*
Dear Brothers and Sisters
Since the ECL has been invited in these discussions, I dare propose you to discuss our platform.
If your coalition is successful, we'll have to negociate with you at the government. Workers and voters want also to know what your attitude will be towards our demands
I. Wages
1. Institution of a minimal wage, indexed to the inflation rate. Its amount should equal the minimum wage currently provided by the public administration
2. Rescheduling of all the wages on the basis of point 1
3. 2 weeks a year of paid leaves
4. Institution of a christmas subsidy (amount to fix in absolute numbers).
II. Working conditions
1. Institution of local representative commissions with effective powers in preserving the health and security of their workmates and connection to state authorities
2. Doubling the number of Government inspectors concerned with health and safety and respect of labour laws
3. Minimum age to work : 16.
III. Health care
1. Insurance premium financed by 1/3-2/3 (1/3 paid by the worker, 2/3 by the employer)
IV. Workers rights
1. Guarantee the union rights inside the firms
2. Make possible for unions to sue firms that don't respect labour laws
3. Minimum age to vote in professional elections : 16
V. Education and training
1. Encourage trainee education by the age of 14. Volunterring rainees would be taught specific professional knowledge and general education at the same time, both inside the school system . By the age of 18 (at least), they would make more and more work experiences and progressively specialize themselves. We need the trainng programs to be well-thought and seek for real partnership between enterprises and school.
2. New ambitious programs to provide training to unemployed
VI. Employment policies
1. Unemployment Benefits rised to 75% of the average wage of the last employed year
2. Unemployment insurance contribution financed at the 1/3-2/3 rate
3. Governmental control of scheduled lay-off programs of firms which do make benefits
4. Groups are the relevant level at which careers develop; Transfered employees keep their rights (time of service, and so and so)
VII. Retirement
1. Homogenization of the Retirement rights, with a stronger state involvement (by cross-subsidization between the different funds)
2. Aim to full retirement rights after 40 years of full contribution
3. All the retired workers have the right to a 13th month pension (double pension paid in January)
On top of that, opening of round table talks in every professional fields, as well as in the public administration
These demands will be more precise as soon as the GM give the figures of EUtopian economics (which we are waiting for so long...)
Since the ECL has been invited in these discussions, I dare propose you to discuss our platform.
If your coalition is successful, we'll have to negociate with you at the government. Workers and voters want also to know what your attitude will be towards our demands
I. Wages
1. Institution of a minimal wage, indexed to the inflation rate. Its amount should equal the minimum wage currently provided by the public administration
2. Rescheduling of all the wages on the basis of point 1
3. 2 weeks a year of paid leaves
4. Institution of a christmas subsidy (amount to fix in absolute numbers).
II. Working conditions
1. Institution of local representative commissions with effective powers in preserving the health and security of their workmates and connection to state authorities
2. Doubling the number of Government inspectors concerned with health and safety and respect of labour laws
3. Minimum age to work : 16.
III. Health care
1. Insurance premium financed by 1/3-2/3 (1/3 paid by the worker, 2/3 by the employer)
IV. Workers rights
1. Guarantee the union rights inside the firms
2. Make possible for unions to sue firms that don't respect labour laws
3. Minimum age to vote in professional elections : 16
V. Education and training
1. Encourage trainee education by the age of 14. Volunterring rainees would be taught specific professional knowledge and general education at the same time, both inside the school system . By the age of 18 (at least), they would make more and more work experiences and progressively specialize themselves. We need the trainng programs to be well-thought and seek for real partnership between enterprises and school.
2. New ambitious programs to provide training to unemployed
VI. Employment policies
1. Unemployment Benefits rised to 75% of the average wage of the last employed year
2. Unemployment insurance contribution financed at the 1/3-2/3 rate
3. Governmental control of scheduled lay-off programs of firms which do make benefits
4. Groups are the relevant level at which careers develop; Transfered employees keep their rights (time of service, and so and so)
VII. Retirement
1. Homogenization of the Retirement rights, with a stronger state involvement (by cross-subsidization between the different funds)
2. Aim to full retirement rights after 40 years of full contribution
3. All the retired workers have the right to a 13th month pension (double pension paid in January)
On top of that, opening of round table talks in every professional fields, as well as in the public administration
These demands will be more precise as soon as the GM give the figures of EUtopian economics (which we are waiting for so long...)
Last edited:
Strangely, there are no answers... You are to rule the country and these matters don't interest you? The workers won't have any confidence in candidates who haven't deal with their closest concerns....
well you put your proposals on the table. lets wait till after the election to find out who it is you are to work with. i know not who you plan to vote for but suspect it might already be decided.
The ECL has been invited in this coalition. We said that we wouldn't enter any coalition, but we wished to discuss with every party before the elections in order that parties take a commitment on the social issues we promote.
Personally, I'm not sure who to vote for, since no candidate party has expressed an interest for my concerns...
Personally, I'm not sure who to vote for, since no candidate party has expressed an interest for my concerns...
I believe the RD will be willing to work with you in parliament to see some of your proposals pass into law, but I would not want to provide you with a tick-off to-do list that has to be concluded. Remember, we want to work for the interest of ALL Eutopians, not just the workers. But of course, if there is injustice and inequality, we will try to combat it with all means at our disposal.