• 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.
Status
Not open for further replies.
After hearing the words spoken by the new Deputy Dunăren, I must admit a sense of joy was left upon myself. Such wise words are often unheard of late it seems. An official welcome to the Deputy, may he put his words to action.

- Premier Jovan Lilic
 
We have grown to imperialistic even while we are destabilized at home as seen in this latest revolt.
So you are solving the problem of rampant imperialism by voting for the bill which annexes two territories instead of one?

-J., &c.
 
After further review and study of both bills I vote Nay on both of them the only terms I would accept are ones in which the Spanish pay us back three fold for the war but do not cede any territory and establish the canal as a neutral center for all of the worlds nations to trade through.

((Skimmed through the bills then went back and reread them.))
 
Veto and Impeachment Act: Nay. I support a Presidential veto but oppose Congress having the power to fire government ministers with a majority vote. Congress should also need independent judicial proceedings to confirm that criminal acts have taken place prior to impeachment or removal. Fix the bill for the next session and I'll vote in favor.

War and Emergency Measures Act: Aye. While I do not believe that a national state of emergency should require a Congressional supermajority, this is better than nothing.

Labor Hours Act: Nay. This act would negatively impact our national productivity and slow the process of industrialization.

Regulation of Interests Act: Aye. A useful tool to combat government corruption.

Liberty of States Act: Nay. The referendum was poorly conceived and badly executed, but it was carried out and a vast majority of the electorate supports the abolition of monarchy. Give it to them or we'll see more riots and uprisings, and not just in our perpetual problem areas.

Democratic Republic Act: Aye. See above.

Administration War Aims Act: Nay. The Canary Islands are useless and full of Spaniards. Why bother?

War Aims Act - Small Seizure: Aye. Appropriately punitive and humiliating to the Spanish while not overreaching.

[Romania]
 
Last edited:
Amendment on Presidential Veto and Impeachment: Nay
War and Emergencies Act: Aye
Labour Hours Act: Nay
Regulation of Interests Act: Aye
Liberties of States Act: Nay
Democratic Republic Act: Aye


[Galicia]
 
Amendment on Presidential Veto and Impeachment: ABSTAIN
War and Emergencies Act: NO
Labour Hours Act: YES
Regulation of Interests Act: ABSTAIN
Liberties of States Act: NO
Democratic Republic Act: YES
AMC: YES
SS: NO

[Bohemia]
 
Amendment on Presidential Veto and Impeachment: Abstain
War and Emergencies Act: Yes
Labour Hours Act: Yes
Regulation of Interests Act: Yes
Liberties of States Act: No
Democratic Republic Act: Yes
AMC: No
SS: Yes

[Slovakia]
 
My formal vote is:
AMC - NAY
SS - YEA

O. S.
 
Amendment on Presidential Veto and Impeachment: Nay
War and Emergencies Act: Yea
Labour Hours Act: Nay
Regulation of Interests Act: Yea
Liberties of States Act: Nay
Democratic Republic Act: Yea


[Austria]
 
Given the recent events I was unable to announce this sooner but the next Progressive Society meeting will take place in...Lvov, Galicia! (Galicia correct yes?) Congratulations and see you there next time!
 
AMC- Nay
SS-Aye
 
AMC- Nay
SS-Aye

Also, I will strongly oppose the abolition of the death penalty. There are perverted maniacs who raped and killed young girls. There are bandits who killed dozens of people, in order to rob them. There are terrorists and traitors who tried to undermine the state. Their innocent victims are in their graves - and we will be giving their murderers "сhoices"? Will we be spending taxpayers' money on food and accomodation for these criminals? This not justice, this is sentimental nonsense.

Our Lord has given certain rights to the lawful rulers. Among them there is a right to judge and execute criminals. "Authority does not bear the sword in vain!" (Romans 13:1-5). The Old Testament Law prescribes the death penalty for an extensive list of crimes, and our Saviour said that his mission was not to abolish the Law, but to fulfill it. The commandment "Thou shalt not kill" refers only to unlawful killing ("ratsach").

- Graf Peter von der Pahlen, Deputy for Silesia
 
Last edited:
The good Graf speaks well and eloquently, I think, about the need for the state to act positively and decisively in the assurance of public order. I also will not support any effort to abolish the death penalty, though I will avidly support reforms to make it less prejudicial against those without means to afford adequate legal representation. In that spirit, though, for a government which actively intervenes to ensure public order, I would like to offer the following argument...

Oskar Schultheiß adjusted his spectacles as he produced a prepared paper, from which he commenced to read aloud. At the top of the page his immediate neighbours could clearly discern, in a miniscule but neat and unmistakable hand, the words The Conservative Case for a Limited Workday.

Currently up for consideration in the Congress of the Danube is an Act of immense value to the cause of conservatism, particularly for that brand of it which considers itself Christian. It is a bill which will ensure social stability and a right order between the various social classes, which will uphold and bolster the sacred institution of the family, and which will contribute to the organic harmony of our confederation’s member nations.

What is this miracle Act, you ask? Is it aimed at preserving a balance of power between the President and this Congress, or at achieving readiness for defensive war? Does it demand transparency of the members of this Congress, to proclaim their sources of outside income? Does it proclaim the liberty of member nations to organise their own governments as they see fit?

No, my friends and colleagues: this is the Labour Hours Act, which institutes over the next six years a reduction in the maximum hours of the working day from over 14 to a mere 10, and which will guarantee a modest rise in the minimum wage.

I can already sense the recoils of disbelief and derision amongst the sceptical members of my own Party. Please allow me the charity of explaining myself, and permit me to state my case. We who call ourselves ‘conservatives’, in the true sense of wishing to conserve things worthwhile which have been entrusted to us from past generations, for the benefit and enjoyment not only of ourselves but of those who come after us, must by that sense retain a certain character, a certain scepticism about recent modes of thinking. I do not mean to offer any sort of manifesto, only to appeal to certain modes of thinking which I have observed amongst my fellow conservatives.

We have witnessed a rise in ideology over the past years of the existence of this Confederation; that ideology may go by different names – liberalism, radicalism, nationalism – but at its root it is a faith in the march of Progress, at the hands of Business and Industry. This is a faith which is as alien to conservatism as that of the Socialists. Nay, even more alien, for at the very least the Socialists understand institutions, have a basic notion of Christian charity (expressed in however secular terms) and have been known upon occasion to show a glimmer of awareness of original sin (though they usually call it ‘exploitation’). The ideology of Progress knows no such natural limitation or realism, and those who benefit from it know of no loyalty except that of faction and of naked interest.

It is this ideology that this bill seeks to slow. And it appeals the justice of our cause directly to the hearts of the working men, who above all else seek their own stability of livelihood!

We must observe the blunt fact that a 14-hour workday is immensely destructive to family life, which is the very bedrock of our social fabric. Not even the serfs of the Middle Ages, whose servile condition was promptly abolished in the founding of our Confederation, were made to work under such repressive constraints. Men working 14 hours per day have no time to spend caring for their wives and educating their children – who are often also employed for mere pittances, for similar hours under similar conditions. The children, (whose wretched fate in such families can hardly be called an ‘upbringing’, being lacking in natural affection for a father in their life, or often even a mother!), will in their isolation from the natural societies which are their families, grow cynical, antisocial, self-destructive, perverse and violent. Is this truly such a nation as we seek to conserve?

On the other hand, the more time can be allotted to the home life within the family and the more involved a parent can be in the child’s upbringing, the less strain is exerted on the state for the children’s care and eventual majority. To all assertions that this Act results in the loss of ‘productivity’ this argument must be made: would we truly sell the future that we may profit today? Does this abstraction of the national ‘productivity’ reach the great majority of those pious little platoons which actually make up this confederation, or does the sum total of that power merely disappear into the pockets of a rootless business elite loyal only to their own interest and to the ideology of Progress which gives it licence?

I leave it to my fellow Conservatives to follow the dictates of their own consciences, and pray that those consciences are guided to support this Act by a consideration of the natural law and the organic order that law sustains.
 
Veto and Impeachment Act: Nay. I support a Presidential veto but oppose Congress having the power to fire government ministers with a majority vote. Congress should also need independent judicial proceedings to confirm that criminal acts have taken place prior to impeachment or removal. Fix the bill for the next session and I'll vote in favor.

Councillor Dunăren, I will take your suggestion into consideration and possibly present an amended version for next session. However, I am afraid that this amended bill could have some competition from an impeachment bill that will most likely be presented by Deputy Papp, who opposes allowing the President to veto legislation passed by Congress and wishes to give Congress more power than the President.

~ Silvestro Marconi, President of and Councillor for Cisalpina
 
Status
Not open for further replies.