In response to my Hungarian colleague, Imre Than, I must speak about the dangers of the Democratic Republic act. If the Democratic Republic Act passes, it will alienate and radicalize a good portion of our population. Monarchists throughout our Federation seek to establish a constitutional monarchy through peaceful and democratic means, as is proven in Silesia. Another thing proven in Silesia is that these constitutional monarchies are very stable and give freedom and democracy to its subjects. However, if this hypocritically named Democratic Republic act passes, the monarchist will not be able to attain their goals through peaceful and democratic means. They will be forced to turn to violence in order to achieve their aims, as was proven on my beautiful island. The monarchists of Crete were afraid that the damned Referendum on Monarchies would deprive them of the ability to implement their beliefs through the democratic process. This act would cause the same thing to occur again in Crete and also in many other states, namely Silesia and Austria. We must adopt a confederalist policy of allowing the states to decide their own government, without the interference of the Federal Government. For in the end, the men of Prague have no place telling the men of Heraklion what their government must be. So, in honor of Mr. Than's moving speech I will dub this poorly named act, the "Oppression of the States Act."
Not at all, Councillor. You quite misunderstand the situation. My good friend and colleague, Silvestro Marconi, thinks the best way to solve our constitutional problems is to stick our heads in the sand and pretend nothing ever happened until the issue disappears. Clearly, this is nonsensical. Things don't get better by wishing for them to; just as a doctor knows, the right medicine has to be prescribed for the patient to get better. Action then is what is needed, and in that action, we are sure to offend one group or another, but the sooner we act, the better it will be; a medicine administered once the patient is already dead will do him no good - we must act before our Federation has the chance to descend into anarchy.
That means we have two options. Either we side with the Liberty of the States Act, and let our Federation dissolve, or we side with the Democratic Republic Act, and our Federation survives. Both options will bring strife, but only one is a cure. The Liberty of the States Act is like proscribing cyanide to cure a patient; he might no longer have the illness, but he's dead too. For that reason, we must support the Democratic Republic Act, even if it might have some unsavory consequences, because it is the best course left open to us.
I would like the respected Councillor to point out exactly where in the bill policing, taxes or social reforms are mentioned. The act is solely about the structures of government. These comments have no purpose other than to distract from the point of the Liberty of States Act.
Why will letting each state have whatever upper house and head of state they want lead to bloody civil chaos? Perhaps fanatics like the DRB will be upset, but are they really the audience we wish to represent? Again, "Tyranny of the States Act" is nothing more than rhetoric, designed to make a bill that will simply allow peoples to democratically decide their form of the executive branch seem like an act to re-establish the Habsburgs. Our Federation is united not by blood, religion or language, but by our commitment to a federal democracy. If an act like the "Democratic Republic Act" passes, the freedom of states to determine their own form of government will be removed. The bloody spectre of nationalism and separatism will be reawakened. Federalism is what has allowed us to survive so long. Federalism is what allows each separate state to live in peace and harmony with the others. If we remove our allegiance to federalism, we will not last ten years.
- Konstantinos Venizelos, Councillor for Crete
This is clearly nonsense; to directly quote from the bill "the Federal Government has no right to interfere in how a State conducts it's affairs". This is as clear as it comes - it means the Federal government loses all rights over the states in all regards. This is about far more than just government types. Not only that, however, because this bill, even without the fourth clause, is not acceptable. It's a slippery slope. The thin end of the wedge. It's the beginning of the end. A Bennite solution. If we say states have the right to choose their government without consultation of the Federal government, where does it end? It provides a pretext for the states to get away with murder, possibly quite literally. You are indeed correct that Federalism is what has allowed us to survive this long. You are not advocating Federalism, however; you are calling for regionalism, confederalism and madness.
((What is happening to Popa? Because there is a by election coming up in Oradea and I want to know who wins))
((I'd quite forgotten about that... I'll get back to you.))
))
