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

[99KingHigh]

((I actually didn't read it haha. I just assumed that title of "Victor of Nice" you've taken was justified there - and if I recall from theAhawk, that battle was led by a Sardinian general.))

((The plans were drawn by me (Revenjo) in the first operational plans, and it was not until the the arrival of the Italian Army of the Danube was victory achieved. I believe that the Sardinian general had IG command because out of the three individual armies present, his forces had the most men. Initially, Hess commanded the forces, and because of IG mechanics, the two Danubian Armies (while contributing more men), had less in the individual armies. Therefore, command went to the Sardinian, which in RL, would not have happened. ))

((The Sardinian may hold the same title as well, makes no difference.))

 

[Otto of england]

Meanwhile In Silesia​

After the speach by Rudolf von Schlesien the people of Silesia went back to their normal daily buisness - including the King who stayed as the King since after Rudolf pointed out that this whole session of congress is illegal nothing they say is law.

"Erhm... Im surprised to still see you here Your Majesty, I thought you would have left after that damned executive order."

"Ah Frydryk, Herr von Schlesien here has recently pointed out that everything the Federal Governmetn is doing doesnt matter one bit - its all illegal! Now isnt that something? So with that in mind and with prompt support of the people I've decided to stay, as abdicating the throne too a young child would be in poor taste, no?"

"That is a good point there Your Majesty. Now wo is Rudolf von Schlesien? I dont recall ever talking or hearing of him before."

"Well a few weeks ago he got into a news paper debate against a radical deputy from here, needless to say I think he won since the radical was calling for me to step down. Now as you can see that hasnt happened yet."

"Well its good to hear that when I say let the Silesians choose there are strong non politcal leaders here. Though on a slightly different note, would you be willing to disolve parliament? A few collegues and I have lsot confidence with Mr. Knittel."

Luitpold sighs

"Frydryk let it go, you didnt get the majority required so let it rest. Anyway that would be a very bad move right now."

"I suppose your right bu...

Frydryk gets cut off as an attendant comes and tells him his train is leaving in 15 minutes. After a quick good bye Frydryk procedes to run to the train station.

 

[Keperry]

I am sick of this. This bill is open to amendments and suggestions, as always.

Democratic Republic Act

I. In accordance with the popular will, the Federation no longer recognizes monarchies as a legitimate form of government within the Federation.
A. This non-recognition does not extend to foreign governments.

II. The Federation cannot ever become a monarchy.

III. No state may become a monarchy.
A. No existing state may change its government to a monarchic one.
B. New states cannot become or remain monarchies. Monarchies cannot enter the Federation; to do so, they must become republics.

IV. All heads of state must be elected by the people or appointed by representatives elected by the people. Succession may not be hereditary.

V. All citizens are equal before the law. No citizen may be sovereign over or subject to another.

VI. All currently existing monarchies may continue to exist until the end of the current monarchy's reign, or until the current monarch reaches majority if he or she is a minor, at which point there will be no succession to the throne and the government will become a republic.

 

[BasilII]

I am sick of this. This bill is open to amendments and suggestions, as always.

Democratic Republic Act

I. In accordance with the popular will, the Federation no longer recognizes monarchies as a legitimate form of government within the Federation.
A. This non-recognition does not extend to foreign governments.

II. The Federation cannot ever become a monarchy.

III. No state may become a monarchy.
A. No existing state may change its government to a monarchic one.
B. New states cannot become or remain monarchies. Monarchies cannot enter the Federation; to do so, they must become republics.

IV. All heads of state must be elected by the people or appointed by representatives elected by the people. Succession may not be hereditary.

V. All citizens are equal before the law. No citizen may be sovereign over or subject to another.

VI. All currently existing monarchies may continue to exist until the end of the current monarchy's reign, or until the current monarch reaches majority if he or she is a minor, at which point there will be no succession to the throne and the government will become a republic.

Sykora's bill has been tried before and has only resulted in bloodshed in Crete and the DRB uprising. Continuous bickering about this will only lead to more bloodshed. The left has to realise that the best solution is simply to let states that are monarchies remain in peace. With that said, I believe the Liberties of States Act originally introduced by Salamon Rosza should be put forward instead. I have reiterated the terms here, with all credit to Mr. Rosza

The Liberty of States Act

1. A State can freely choose it's form of government as long as it has an elected assembly, and either a elected Head of State or Head of Government

2. A State can have a unelected Upper House, that House must thus be more of an advisory institution to the elected Lower House.

3. A State can have a unelected Head of State, any unelected officials can only have a symbolic role in government

4. As long as a State follow the principles of Democracy and follow the Constitution of the Danubian Federation, the Federal Government has no right to interfere in how a State conducts it's affairs.

So long as a state enacts democratic elections, it should be allowed to have a monarch. This will end the question once and for all.

- Konstantinos Venizelos, Councillor for Crete

 

[Keperry]

A monarchy cannot follow the principles of democracy, therefore this bill outlaws monarchies.

 

[DensleyBlair]

A monarchy cannot follow the principles of democracy, therefore this bill outlaws monarchies.

Why not, Herr Sykora?

-W.L., Hochmeister von Deutscher Orden, Foreign Minister, Liberal

 

[BasilII]

A monarchy cannot follow the principles of democracy, therefore this bill outlaws monarchies.

Yes, a monarch can. Parliamentary democracy arose in England under a monarch. Mr. Sykora is making a mistake in political terminology again and again. A Republic cannot have a monarch as a head of state. A democracy can.

Democracy - A form of government where free and fair elections are held on topics and/or the election of politicians.
Republic - A form of government where the head of state is not a monarch.

A republic does not necessarily have to have elections. Just look at South America where military dictators rule over the Republics of Argentina, Bolivia and other nations. Our federation was founded on democracy not on republicanism. We were founded as a federation, where states may choose their destinies freely in a form of mutual cooperation. If Mr. Sykora continues spouting his incorrect statement that a monarchy cannot be a democracy then I suggest he read more elementary books on political science.

- Konstantinos Venizelos, Councillor for Crete

 

[Keperry]

In a democracy, people must also elect their own head of state freely and fairly, or at least elect those who appoint their head of state. To say otherwise is hypocritical. You yourself said that a democracy must have elections, so why not on this particularly important topic?

It is quite simply a lie to say that this Federation was not founded on republicanism. This Federation was founded when a monarchy was overthrown and replaced with a republic. How can you say otherwise?

England is not a democracy. England is an aristocratic oligarchy in which only one in five men have the vote. The idea of parliamentary democracy arose there solely to mean parliamentary democracy for the elite few. Fortunately, we have expanded democracy to the truer meaning of the word, in which all citizens are equals, and this necessarily means that no citizens are sovereign over or subject to any other people, as they must necessarily be in a monarchy. I can think of no monarchy that is also a successful democracy.

 

[Ab Ovo]

I oppose Herr Sykora's pathetic attempt at tyranny through disguise and rhetoric.

-Joachim von Kirchberg
&c.

 

[BasilII]

In a democracy, people must also elect their own head of state freely and fairly, or at least elect those who appoint their head of state. To say otherwise is hypocritical. You yourself said that a democracy must have elections, so why not on this particularly important topic?

I am very tired of repeating myself again and again, but I will do so once more. A Democracy can have a monarch! Democracy does not necessarily entail the election of the head of state. This is especially the case when a monarch has little to no actual powers, as in Silesia. Contrary to your rhetoric, citizens in Silesia are just as free as anywhere else in the Federation. Why should they care that they do not get to vote for a person that has no real role in their government? They get to elect the real decision makers. A democracy can exist without an elected head of state. A Republic must have a non-monarch as a head of state, but as we have seen so many times (Cromwell, Robespierre, Santa Anna etc.) almost all republics that have existed in history have been to a large degree non-democratic (exceptions being ourselves, the USA and CSA). Even the Roman Republic bore much more resemblance to an oligarchy than a democracy.

It is quite simply a lie to say that this Federation was not founded on republicanism. This Federation was founded when a monarchy was overthrown and replaced with a republic. How can you say otherwise?

Our federation was not founded on republicanism, mostly because our nation was never officially a Republic. It is true that we used the republican form of government, but our founders created our nation as a Federation, with a series of states joined together in a union. There was no restrictions, at the time of our founding against the creation of monarchies in states so long as this had popular support. Our nation was founded on democracy (free elections) and federalism (states' rights) not republicanism (elected heads of states in all component parts of the Federation).

England is not a democracy. England is an aristocratic oligarchy in which only one in five men have the vote. The idea of parliamentary democracy arose there solely to mean parliamentary democracy for the elite few. Fortunately, we have expanded democracy to the truer meaning of the word, in which all citizens are equals, and this necessarily means that no citizens are sovereign over or subject to any other people, as they must necessarily be in a monarchy. I can think of no monarchy that is also a successful democracy.

While it is true that the United Kingdom does not have the most extended franchise, it has increased dramatically with the Great Reform Bill of 1832 and later reforms. Nevertheless, my main point is that the ideals of a parliament and democratic elections for a head of government first arose in England, under a monarchy. The very democratic system we use (even if not as developed) was created in a monarchy. This system is distinct from all previous democratic systems. Our Federation is much more similar to the United Kingdom than to the Aristocratic Merchant Republic of Venice or the 'democracies' of Ancient Greece (mostly chaotic states with a small oligarchy leading them. Greece's leading philosophers, including Plato and Aristotle agreed that democracy was an inferior form of government). We owe our system of government to a system that developed first under a monarchy.

Quite frankly, I am tired of this continuous debate with Sykora. I realise nothing I say will have any impact on him. I merely hope that more moderate members of Congress will realise that the best way to end this chaos is simply to live and let live, and allow states to do as they please. Is that really so hard?

- Konstantinos Venizelos

 

[Somberg]

Marconi stands up

I stand here, before Congress, regretting my decision of presenting the referendum to these Chambers and actively pushing for Congress to pass the motion to hold it. At that time, I was convinced that the only way to solve the issue of monarchies within the Federation was to hold a national referendum on it. I realize that this was a mistake. Holding a referendum for such a controversial issue only led to violence, bloodshed, and rebellion. The result was equally controversial and was barely rejected by Congress. If I had never proposed it in the first place, thousands would not be dead and the Federation would not have experienced the instability that it has in the last few months.

Now, I do believe that states should have the choice to determine what form of government they should have. I do not view constitutional monarchies as being undemocratic as long as the monarch is only symbolic. Despite my personal views, I decided to vote to uphold the referendum, in part because I presented it and in part because I thought that the will of the people should be followed. I pushed for Congress to uphold it and continued to believe that it should be upheld even after it was not. However, I have come to the realization that bringing this issue back up on a national level only resulted in violence and instability, which would not have existed had the referendum not been held. As such, I find myself feeling guilty about my actions and the betrayal of my own beliefs.

I feel that we should put this whole referendum behind us now. It has caused more trouble than it was worth and has achieved nothing, other than almost plunging our nation into another civil war. This is the very referendum I thought would solve this issue once and but only made it worse. My idealism got the better of me and blinded me to the reality of the situation. To the fact that things were fine they way they were and did not need to be tampered with. But now I wish to put this behind me as well. I feel that we must now focus our efforts on more important issues, such resolving our current war with Spain and rebuilding the Hofburg. The referendum and its aftermath have distracted Congress for long enough.

Marconi sits back down

~ Silvestro Marconi, President of and Councillor for Cisalpina

 

[Terraferma]

(Since voting cycle is upcoming and I've been having some issues visiting the site going to submit war goals on Spain really fast before error 503 visits me)

As to the war on Spain the administration's goals are as follows:

I. Monetary Compensation for their aggression
II. The Balearic Islands/Mallorca
III. The Canary Islands
IV. Full Liberation/Independence of the Spanish held Philippines

President Gabriel Soukup-Valenta

 

[Tapscott]

Marconi stands up

I stand here, before Congress, regretting my decision of presenting the referendum to these Chambers and actively pushing for Congress to pass the motion to hold it. At that time, I was convinced that the only way to solve the issue of monarchies within the Federation was to hold a national referendum on it. I realize that this was a mistake. Holding a referendum for such a controversial issue only led to violence, bloodshed, and rebellion. The result was equally controversial and was barely rejected by Congress. If I had never proposed it in the first place, thousands would not be dead and the Federation would not have experienced the instability that it has in the last few months.

Now, I do believe that states should have the choice to determine what form of government they should have. I do not view constitutional monarchies as being undemocratic as long as the monarch is only symbolic. Despite my personal views, I decided to vote to uphold the referendum, in part because I presented it and in part because I thought that the will of the people should be followed. I pushed for Congress to uphold it and continued to believe that it should be upheld even after it was not. However, I have come to the realization that bringing this issue back up on a national level only resulted in violence and instability, which would not have existed had the referendum not been held. As such, I find myself feeling guilty about my actions and the betrayal of my own beliefs.

I feel that we should put this whole referendum behind us now. It has caused more trouble than it was worth and has achieved nothing, other than almost plunging our nation into another civil war. This is the very referendum I thought would solve this issue once and but only made it worse. My idealism got the better of me and blinded me to the reality of the situation. To the fact that things were find they way they were and did not need to be tampered with. But now I wish to put this behind me as well. I feel that we must now focus our efforts on more important issues, such resolving our current war with Spain and rebuilding the Hofburg. The referendum and its aftermath have distracted Congress for long enough.

Marconi sits back down

~ Silvestro Marconi, President of and Councillor for Cisalpina

Marconi is correct. Abolitioning monarchies will never be approved by those of us who favour the people being allowed to choose their own form of government, just like monarchies can never be formally codified as lawful governments due to the opposition of a few diehards. It is time to leave this debate behind, and actually move onwards. To dwell on it any further will only infuriate one group or the other. Just look at the polarization developing between Vienna and Bratislava. Nothing good can come of it, not anymore.

~ Henrik Kraus, Chancellor for Austria

 

[99KingHigh]

(Since voting cycle is upcoming and I've been having some issues visiting the site going to submit war goals on Spain really fast before error 503 visits me)

As to the war on Spain the administration's goals are as follows:

I. Monetary Compensation for their aggression
II. The Balearic Islands/Mallorca
III. The Canary Islands
IV. Full Liberation/Independence of the Spanish held Philippines

President Gabriel Soukup-Valenta

((If we took just the colonies, we wouldn't have to bother with a continued war that could...go very badly...))

 

[Tapscott]

(Since voting cycle is upcoming and I've been having some issues visiting the site going to submit war goals on Spain really fast before error 503 visits me)

As to the war on Spain the administration's goals are as follows:

I. Monetary Compensation for their aggression
II. The Balearic Islands/Mallorca
III. The Canary Islands
IV. Full Liberation/Independence of the Spanish held Philippines

President Gabriel Soukup-Valenta

((Well if it ends the war quicker, I would support just the first three. Do we need to vote through another war aims Act?))

 

[atomicsoda]

In order to concentrate more fully on politics and avoid conflicting interests, I am announcing that I am selling a majority stake in Castelli Shipping and Trade to a consortium of investors who will take over operations of the company. I am stepping down as chairman and will retain a 20% interest in the company.

 

[unmerged(418334)]

(Since voting cycle is upcoming and I've been having some issues visiting the site going to submit war goals on Spain really fast before error 503 visits me)

As to the war on Spain the administration's goals are as follows:

I. Monetary Compensation for their aggression
II. The Balearic Islands/Mallorca
III. The Canary Islands
IV. Full Liberation/Independence of the Spanish held Philippines

President Gabriel Soukup-Valenta

That dying and decadent former world power has overstepped its bounds and must be soundly punished! I see no better way to further the Danubian agenda while simultaneously humbling a nation that may yet hope to rival our dominance on the world stage. I would, however, posit the notion that the annexation of the Canarias - which hold substantial strategic value with regards to the African continent - be considered more pressing than the annexation of the Balearic Islands. Although the latter islands would, if lost to Spain, be a crushing blow to Madrid's morale, the Canary islands are positioned in a more key position and could, if taken, work as a trading and military depot as our explorers strike out into the Maghreb.

--Kerhasi--

 

[Muskeato]

While I seek to abstain from politics in general, I have heard speeches that someone named Sykora has been giving. The man clearly has no interest or knowledge of democracy - I wonder where he gained such ideas.

 

[Terraferma]

That dying and decadent former world power has overstepped its bounds and must be soundly punished! I see no better way to further the Danubian agenda while simultaneously humbling a nation that may yet hope to rival our dominance on the world stage. I would, however, posit the notion that the annexation of the Canarias - which hold substantial strategic value with regards to the African continent - be considered more pressing than the annexation of the Balearic Islands. Although the latter islands would, if lost to Spain, be a crushing blow to Madrid's morale, the Canary islands are positioned in a more key position and could, if taken, work as a trading and military depot as our explorers strike out into the Maghreb.

--Kerhasi--

A fair observation, do any other members of the chambers agree? If more consider this then I will switch the priority of the war goals to make the Canarias more of a priority than the Balearic Islands.

President Gabriel Soukup-Valenta

 

[unmerged(718634)]

A fair observation, do any other members of the chambers agree? If more consider this then I will switch the priority of the war goals to make the Canarias more of a priority than the Balearic Islands.

President Gabriel Soukup-Valenta

I strongly agree with this.