A Federation of "Equals" - A Danubian Federation Interative AAR

[Tapscott]

((Forgot about parties, I'll change the wording around.)) Members can have shares in businesses as long as they do not have a majority stake, as long as they are not the ones making the decisions, otherwise they could make decisions that benefit themselves at the expense of the country. I would also argue that those who own large companies and work in politics are less in tune with the realities of the economy for the everyday citizenry than those who must find meaningful work after their term is over. However, if you are worried about poverty for the politicians, I could add a small pension twice the minimum wage to secure those politicians whose careers are over.)) Again, if anyone has any constructive ideas oh how to improve this bill, they can feel free to voice them.

My father owned the large Kraus industries during his time as President, yet I do not notice any bills being passed that aided him. Indeed, as Kraus Industries tended to specalize in armament production, and it still does matter of fact, his push for peace ran rather counter to what would've benefited his company. I have yet to see any clashing intrests occur between a man's business, and a man's politics. To detach us from our livelihoods makes us much more financially insecure and dependant on the Federal government. The Federation already has control over my choices of government, so I would rather they did not have such a control over my wallet.

~ Henrik Kraus, Chancellor for Austria

 

[theAhawk]

Might I suggest that instead of regulating who can sit in this Congress, which seems entirely immoral, against the principles of democracy and possibly unconstiutional given some of the amendments which have been passed, we would be better to found a register of members' interests?

((Um... Valenta can't change the constitution by executive order. That'll have the be voted upon. [It's just like the fact that he failed to keep Congress in session by executive order and treaties have to be ratified (For the sake of simplicity, when War Aims Acts have been enacted and the treaty is in line with these, I haven't asked Congress again, but if we have a war without such, or where such is unattainable, Congress will have to ratify the treaty.)]))

 

[Tapscott]

Might I suggest that instead of regulating who can sit in this Congress, which seems entirely immoral, against the principles of democracy and possibly unconstiutional given some of the amendments which have been passed, we would be better to found a register of members' interests?

((Um... Valenta can't change the constitution by executive order. That'll have the be voted upon. [It's just like the fact that he failed to keep Congress in session by executive order and treaties have to be ratified (For the sake of simplicity, when War Aims Acts have been enacted and the treaty is in line with these, I haven't asked Congress again, but if we have a war without such, or where such is unattainable, Congress will have to ratify the treaty.)]))

((Well that settles that then. Makes the negotiation results awkward then, as the President promised something he can't deliver.))

An intriguing proposition Councillor. Would you care to elaborate?

~ Henrik Kraus, Chancellor for Austria

 

[Muskeato]

((Um... Valenta can't change the constitution by executive order. That'll have the be voted upon.)]))

((And so nothing has been achieved by anyone! Can we agree in the future to either a) Only make referendums that are fully binding or b) Never hold referendums like this again?))

 

[Tapscott]

((And so nothing has been achieved by anyone! Can we agree in the future to either a) Only make referendums that are fully binding or b) Never hold referendums like this again?))

((I think referendums would normally be binding, but the referendum itself provided a way to prevent it being binding. Either way, I would support us pushing forward an act that states that referendums with super-majority popular consent must be up-held. As a basic outline that is.))

 

[theAhawk]

((Well that settles that then. Makes the negotiation results awkward then, as the President promised something he can't deliver.))

An intriguing proposition Councillor. Would you care to elaborate?

~ Henrik Kraus, Chancellor for Austria

((Only as awkward as a conventional peace treaty, which Congress is perfectly at liberty not to ratify a la Versailles and America... And anyway, that only applies to the Amendment on Monarchies, the rest of it can be achieved through executive order, so I suppose could be assumed to have already happened.))

Quite simply the proposal is to create a Register of Members' Interests allowing MPs to declare any interests that they hold outside Parliament. Interests include outside jobs or consultancy work, gifts or membership of organisations that might affect their position in Parliament, as well as assets and holdings in property, companies and other fixed assets which could have a similar effect. Such a register would be compiled at the start of every Congressional term and copied across the country, perhaps to every state capital for easy access by all. It would of course be free to consult while I would suggest that members face heavy fines for not declaring relevant interests.

 

[Muskeato]

((I think referendums would normally be binding, but the referendum itself provided a way to prevent it being binding. Either way, I would support us pushing forward an act that states that referendums with super-majority popular consent must be up-held. As a basic outline that is.))

((So the clause designed to 'fear' us into voting the result through is what allowed us to reject the referendum? Nice.))

 

[Thoctar]

Might I suggest that instead of regulating who can sit in this Congress, which seems entirely immoral, against the principles of democracy and possibly unconstiutional given some of the amendments which have been passed, we would be better to found a register of members' interests?

((Um... Valenta can't change the constitution by executive order. That'll have the be voted upon. [It's just like the fact that he failed to keep Congress in session by executive order and treaties have to be ratified (For the sake of simplicity, when War Aims Acts have been enacted and the treaty is in line with these, I haven't asked Congress again, but if we have a war without such, or where such is unattainable, Congress will have to ratify the treaty.)]))

I do not see the problem with not allowing someone who clearly violated conflict of interest laws and/or engaged in corruption to continue influencing our democracy, but if this bill fails I may consider making a registry as a compromise, although I would at least like to keep the anti-bribery part of the law.

 

[Tapscott]

((Only as awkward as a conventional peace treaty, which Congress is perfectly at liberty not to ratify a la Versailles and America... And anyway, that only applies to the Amendment on Monarchies, the rest of it can be achieved through executive order, so I suppose could be assumed to have already happened.))

Quite simply the proposal is to create a Register of Members' Interests allowing MPs to declare any interests that they hold outside Parliament. Interests include outside jobs or consultancy work, gifts or membership of organisations that might affect their position in Parliament, as well as assets and holdings in property, companies and other fixed assets which could have a similar effect. Such a register would be compiled at the start of every Congressional term and copied across the country, perhaps to every state capital for easy access by all. It would of course be free to consult while I would suggest that members face heavy fines for not declaring relevant interests.

((So the clause designed to 'fear' us into voting the result through is what allowed us to reject the referendum? Nice.))

I believe that would be an excellent idea Councillor. If you would care to present a bill detailing such things, I would give it my support.

~ Henrik Kraus, Chancellor for Austria

((So would you rather we have congress vote on the negotation results, or would you prefer if we just accepted them as being forced through executive decision?

Also, aye Musk. Funny how it worked out, eh? ))

 

[Gen. Marshall]

Would perhaps a better alternative be to prevent those whose interests are conflicted from voting? We have seen this happen previously, voluntarily, with those councillors who were involved in the ATC affair.

 

[theAhawk]

I do not see the problem with not allowing someone who clearly violated conflict of interest laws and/or engaged in corruption to continue influencing our democracy, but if this bill fails I may consider making a registry as a compromise, although I would at least like to keep the anti-bribery part of the law.

I think it goes without saying that corruption shouldn't be allowed, but, without consulting the statute book, I am fairly certain that criminal offenses for such crimes are already in force. ((Do you honestly think there isn't an anti-corruption law of one form or another?)) There is no need to impose unnecessary restrictions upon who can be elected to this house or the neighbouring one, and there is certainly no need to impose sanctions of the members' perfectly legitimate business interests under the guise of anti-corruption when no criminal activity has taken place. All that is needed is transparency to hold our elected representatives to account; after all, there is no law against lobbying or restrictions on press freedoms for fear they spread corruption. Why do we need one against our law abiding Federal Representatives?

((Tapscott; I think we'll probably have to vote on it... I'm not sure what will happen if it's rejected though!))

 

[Tapscott]

I think it goes without saying that corruption shouldn't be allowed, but, without consulting the statute book, I am fairly certain that criminal offenses for such crimes are already in force. ((Do you honestly think there isn't an anti-corruption law of one form or another?)) There is no need to impose unnecessary restrictions upon who can be elected to this house or the neighbouring one, and there is certainly no need to impose sanctions of the members' perfectly legitimate business interests under the guise of anti-corruption when no criminal activity has taken place. All that is needed is transparency to hold our elected representatives to account; after all, there is no law against lobbying or restrictions on press freedoms for fear they spread corruption. Why do we need one against our law abiding Federal Representatives?

((Tapscott; I think we'll probably have to vote on it... I'm not sure what will happen if it's rejected though!))

((Oh dear, if it gets voted upon, the negotation results will be rejected. But we do have the DRB leadership in custody though...))

 

[theAhawk]

((Oh dear, if it gets voted upon, the negotation results will be rejected. But we do have the DRB leadership in custody though...))

((I wouldn't be so sure; only the abolition of monarchies needs voting on, and that only failed last time by 2 votes...))

 

[Gen. Marshall]

((Oh dear, if it gets voted upon, the negotation results will be rejected. But we do have the DRB leadership in custody though...))

((It will get rejected with a slight 1/3rd minority against, I'm afraid. Anyhow, if the DRB leadership is already in custody, that's a very interesting situation...))

 

[Tapscott]

((I wouldn't be so sure; only the abolition of monarchies needs voting on, and that only failed last time by 2 votes...))

((It will get rejected with a slight 1/3rd minority against, I'm afraid. Anyhow, if the DRB leadership is already in custody, that's a very interesting situation...))

((So we are just voting on the aboliton of monarchies again? I thought you wanted us to vote on the entire negotation results.

Aye, Schmidt and Nikolic have turned themselves in. So we can say no to the negotations, and look like bastards, but face no organized opposition from those two))

 

[theAhawk]

((So we are just voting on the aboliton of monarchies again? I thought you wanted us to vote on the entire negotation results.

Aye, Schmidt and Nikolic have turned themselves in. So we can say no to the negotations, and look like bastards, but face no organized opposition from those two))

((Only the bits that cannot be upheld by an Executive Order need voting upon, and in this case that is just the abolition of monarchies.))

 

[Tapscott]

((This has been written with GM approval))

Vienna, Austria

The rain poured onto the dirty streets, and people hurried along fearfully, their eyes downcast. Discarded DRB pamphlets and posters lay in the gutters, and the city tried to rebuild itself, again, from the violence that had shook it. However, in the plaza, a very large crowd had formed. Despite the rain cascading down onto them, the destruction around them, and the misery amongst them, they all talked with an excited gleam in their eyes, and a smile on their lips. Talk had arisen of restoring the Archduchy. Restoring an Archduke to Austria. This idea was only supported by a handful of the group, even though they were the most vocal, but the rest wanted them to be allowed to voice their opinion. The monarchists of Vienna, and Austria as a whole, had suffered at the hands of the Danubian Revolutionary Brigades. Those with monarchical sympathies were abused on the streets, their businesses torched, their homes raided, themselves attacked. A number of people had flocked to the banner of the decimated monarchists, but many, many more had joined the large group demanding the unrestricted right to choose and decide their own government. Resentment was widespread after the anti-monarchist repression that had been enforced across the city during the occupation of Vienna by the Danubian Revolutionary Brigades, and that resentment was manifesting itself in the form of peaceful protesting. A cry had emerged amongst the people, “Let me live as I choose, or let me live alone!” The monarchists were generally pro-Federation, the rest of the mob merely pro-choice, yet both wanted one thing. The right for Austria to choose her own government, to not be dictated by the feelings of strangers from Bratislava or Milan. The people of Vienna were excited. They wanted to be given the right to choose their own government, and to not be restricted as they had been under the DRB. Freedom of choice, or peaceful secession. An awkward situation for the triumphant federal government, as they now had to deal with an Austrian people, fiercely determined to have their right to choose their own government left in their hands. Their protests were peaceful, but only time would tell if they would remain as such.

 

[Thoctar]

I think it goes without saying that corruption shouldn't be allowed, but, without consulting the statute book, I am fairly certain that criminal offenses for such crimes are already in force. ((Do you honestly think there isn't an anti-corruption law of one form or another?)) There is no need to impose unnecessary restrictions upon who can be elected to this house or the neighbouring one, and there is certainly no need to impose sanctions of the members' perfectly legitimate business interests under the guise of anti-corruption when no criminal activity has taken place. All that is needed is transparency to hold our elected representatives to account; after all, there is no law against lobbying or restrictions on press freedoms for fear they spread corruption. Why do we need one against our law abiding Federal Representatives?

((Tapscott; I think we'll probably have to vote on it... I'm not sure what will happen if it's rejected though!))

((We hadn't abolished serfdom yet until legislation was passed, so I didn't think I should assume, okay, I'll introduce that bill later tonight))

 

[Tapscott]

((I'm assuming we have returned to the Hofburg, as damaged as it is, what with hostilities ending.))

Gentlemen, here we stand again in the Hofburg, as damaged as she may be from the fire she endured, and we stand triumphant over the revolutionary traitors of the Danubian Revolutionary Brigades. While the peace-terms left much to be desired, and I say that lightly, at least we have peace. Already Austria is recovering and Vienna is working to repair herself, just as the Hofburg is being repaired. The West Wing was the most damaged by the fire started by the DRB dogs, and the repair time of that is estimated at being around three weeks. However all is not well in Vienna. The people are protesting, peacefully though, about the President's promise to abolish monarchies across the Federation. The fact that he agreed to this down the barrel of a gun that did not exist aside, the people of Vienna, and indeed it seems Austria, wish to be unfettered in choosing their own form of government. The monarchist supporters and sympathizers were routinely harrassed, abused and attacked by DRB troops, and those that welcomed them. The people are clear in that they wish to be unrestricted in choosing their government and its form. They have witnessed, first-hand, the effects of illegalizing and criminalizing such a thing leads to. Discrimination and violence. I, ever desirious of aiding the Austrian people, agree with them. Criminalizing monarchies will lead to the supporters of such an insitution being abused and reviled. This Federation is one of toleration, so I do not see why we should suddenly no longer tolerate monarchies. Bigotry is not the way for a state such as ours to function. We must be tolerant, we must stand united, and we must work together for a better future.

~ Henrik Kraus, Chancellor for Austria

 

[Ab Ovo]

It seems the recent rebel occupation has provoked a Confederalist renaissance in my lovely Österreich. Be wary gentlemen, if the people's demands are not met we may find a civil war in miniature.

-Joachim von Kirchberg
Councillor for Austria, &c.