.png){kind=avatar}
It is beyond me why there are members of the GLP that still maintain the farce that they are liberals at all.
-
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.
Secularism Amendment: Nay
Mandate of the African Federation: Nay
Colonial Bill of Rights: Nay
Referendum on the Monarchy: Nay
Elected Senate Amendment: Nay
[RU]
Mandate of the African Federation: Nay
Colonial Bill of Rights: Nay
Referendum on the Monarchy: Nay
Elected Senate Amendment: Nay
[RU]
Secularism Amendment: Nay
Mandate of the African Federation: Nay
Colonial Bill of Rights: Nay
Referendum on the Monarchy: Nay
Elected Senate Amendment: Nay
[RU]
Mandate of the African Federation: Nay
Colonial Bill of Rights: Nay
Referendum on the Monarchy: Nay
Elected Senate Amendment: Nay
[RU]
One could say the same about the NDP, as the Socialists in disguise they are. Ironically, that leaves only the Belgian Constitutional Union as Liberals...
- Senator Sir Maximiliaan van Brabant, OPL
Which would be a curious statement given the zeal for political reform and liberal economics that the NDP displays.
My bad, Deputy Peeters. I was under the impression that it were curious statements we were dealing in. The members of the GLP have been proponents of the monarchy ever since the party was first founded - does that make us any less Liberal?
- Senator Sir Maximiliaan van Brabant, OPL
Is this in reference to some members of the GLP supporting the monarchy and implying that is an unliberal thing to do? If so it shows the deep misunderstanding of the NDP as to liberalism. The NDP seems to think all "liberals" must have the same radical positions as the NDP on abolishing the monarchy. The NDP radicals refuse to acknowledge the difference between a constitutional monarchy and an absolute monarchy.
Liberals have always supported a constitutional monarchy in Belgium and in other nations such as the UK. The Liberal Party of the UK does not advocate Queen Victoria stepping down, that is the province of radical republicans. Moderate liberalism is about securing the rights of the people without attacking and tearing down the institutions of our nation.
Henri Renard - Liege - GLP
You seem to misunderstand Minister Peeters' point. The GLP is not illiberal because it is monarchist. It is illiberal because it chooses to stand with the conservatives, block reform, and prevent the people at large from exercising their democratic rights. The Liberal Democrats are a true liberal party, if a party with whom we disagree on many important issues. The GLP, once a proud beacon of moderate liberalism, has transformed into a vehicle for moderate conservatism. Witness Vanderhoof's platform and campaign speeches; he speaks not of "reform" and "change," but of his "grand old party," "weathering the storm" and "order and stability." Does that sound very liberal to you?
- Pierre Savarin, P.M.
- Pierre Savarin, P.M.
The problem is that the GLP is not supporting the Monarchy, the GLP is forcing the Monarchy down the Belgians' throats. The GLP is refusing to allow the Belgian to freely decide between Monarchy or Republic, thus forcing a King on us all.
I have to think that the GLP wants to keep the Monarchy around, it knows that a Referendum would end with a Republican victory and therefore is now denying the people to exercise their right to decide their own form of government. For a party that claims to be Liberal and Democratic such anti-Democratic behaviour is... What was that term? Oh right, Illiberal.
- Carl Coppens, Socialist Deputy
If you don't want a King leave the country there are places for people like you and they are not here.
I also find it amusing you think that the right wing and sane liberals are scared of a republican victory. That is quite clearly a lie what the right wing and sane liberals are afraid of is that the Republicans wil use there corruptive and decadent powers to bribe or coerce people to form a republic and in addition a referendum such as this creates a bad precedent for the future.
- Jules van de Velde
If that's an accuse of voting frauds you will have to bring solid proofs, and not petty fear-mongering, the Referendum will be fair and just.
The Conservative refusal to hold the Referendum can only be explained as fear and knowledge of the Monarchy's unpopularity, if the Conservatives truly believed that the Monarchy could have won against the Republic they would have used this opportunity to give a fatal blow to the Republican movement, but of course they know that the Republicans are a majority in Belgium, therefore they refuse to let Belgians decide their own form of government as it would end with a Republican victory.
*sigh*
Our "corruptive and decadent" powers...
Conservative idiocy has reached new heights, the next thing I'm expecting to hear is to be accused to drink virgins' blood and to steal young Christian children during the night.
- Carl Coppens, Socialist Deputy
I'm as much conservative as you are monarchist.
I also find it amusing how you use conservative as a derogatory term, it really does make me warm and fuzy inside knowing that the republicans are so well informed on their opposition.
I also like to point out I reject you though that I fear the result of a referendum. Its more like that I consider republicanism an illegitimate ideology and ultimately corruptive, impossible to implement and foolish. Why would any sane man want it?
- Jules van de Velde
Secularism Amendment: Aye
Mandate of the African Federation: Aye
Colonial Bill of Rights: Aye
Referendum on the Monarchy: Aye
Elected Senate Amendment: Aye
[NDP]
Mandate of the African Federation: Aye
Colonial Bill of Rights: Aye
Referendum on the Monarchy: Aye
Elected Senate Amendment: Aye
[NDP]
The radicalisation of the speech of the members of the NDP saddens me to no end. Such hostility is truly an awful sight to behold. I hope that good sense and cooperation can work past this block we have found ourselves in and good governance and stability can be found.
~ Lord Minister, Sir Andrei Popa Vanderhoof, KL, Deputy of Ghent and Minister of Flanders
~ Lord Minister, Sir Andrei Popa Vanderhoof, KL, Deputy of Ghent and Minister of Flanders
The Moderate Liberals and Liberal Democrats are, in fact, the only parties of true liberalism left in Belgium. Republicanism has always been and will be a realm of the radical anarcho-liberals, which is represented by NDP. Let us not mix together two different ideologies.
I must also say that I am amazed by strange ideological clichés existing in the mind of Monsieur Pierre Savarin. Does not he recognize that «order and stability» are important for liberalism as much as for conservatism? And does he indeed believe that constant calling for changes just for the sake of changes is a coherent feature of liberalism? It is just childish, dear Prime Minister.
Of course, I cannot blame you, Mr Savarin, since I remember that such things as peace, order, stability mean nothing to your own party and your partners. We all remember that during the most broad coalition in Belgian history and the most reform-friendly government in Belgian history, during Harfleur years, you have forsaken your constituents, leaving the parliament, and starting provocative street agitation, clearly wishing for our violent removal and violent installment of your dear republic. You already then demonstrated your love for nonconstitutional and nonparliamentary methods of reaching your aims - and try to dodge the constitutional norms on amendments even now! We all see your cooperation with clearly radicalized and marginalized BSU, led by people with criminal record, people who advocated violent rebellion, murder of the King and Senators.
And you truly think that this farce of a government can really be trusted with conducting even a non-binding poll on sheep breeding?
- Alexandre de Lannoy, Duke of Anjou-Brienne, Deputy for Spa
I must also say that I am amazed by strange ideological clichés existing in the mind of Monsieur Pierre Savarin. Does not he recognize that «order and stability» are important for liberalism as much as for conservatism? And does he indeed believe that constant calling for changes just for the sake of changes is a coherent feature of liberalism? It is just childish, dear Prime Minister.
Of course, I cannot blame you, Mr Savarin, since I remember that such things as peace, order, stability mean nothing to your own party and your partners. We all remember that during the most broad coalition in Belgian history and the most reform-friendly government in Belgian history, during Harfleur years, you have forsaken your constituents, leaving the parliament, and starting provocative street agitation, clearly wishing for our violent removal and violent installment of your dear republic. You already then demonstrated your love for nonconstitutional and nonparliamentary methods of reaching your aims - and try to dodge the constitutional norms on amendments even now! We all see your cooperation with clearly radicalized and marginalized BSU, led by people with criminal record, people who advocated violent rebellion, murder of the King and Senators.
And you truly think that this farce of a government can really be trusted with conducting even a non-binding poll on sheep breeding?
- Alexandre de Lannoy, Duke of Anjou-Brienne, Deputy for Spa
Last edited:
Well caught, Monsieur Dupointe, well caught indeed. I have spent a lot of my time as entrepeneur in the transportation business, and in said position, I have often come into contact with seafaring fellows. "My bad" is an idiom of theirs which must have siphoned into my use of the Belgian language. It means "my mistake", obviously, yet oftentimes in a sarcastic way.
- Sir Maximiliaan
Yet again de Lannoy sees fit to launch a tirade of lies. I congratulate your ingenuity sir.
Secularism Amendment: Aye
Mandate of the African Federation: Aye
Colonial Bill of Rights: Aye
Referendum on the Monarchy: Aye
Elected Senate Amendment: Aye
[NDP]
Mandate of the African Federation: Aye
Colonial Bill of Rights: Aye
Referendum on the Monarchy: Aye
Elected Senate Amendment: Aye
[NDP]
Secularism Amendment: Nay
I cannot, in good conscience, support such an amendment. I speak not as an officer or a citizen, but as a Christian. This country was founded on Providence and is preserved by Providence. I would be remiss in my fidelity to the Universal Church if I were to endorse a measure depriving it of official sanction. Moreover, I cannot perceive why such a measure is necessary when this country is so unanimously pious, albeit on diverse doctrinal lines.
Mandate of the African Federation: Nay
This is, indeed, my proposal, and I thank the Prime Minister for presenting it. But on its path from my office to this chamber, it has endured several alterations that I do not believe are unanimously for the better.
First, it was my desire to have cross-party support on this proposal, which it has failed to achieve. In this charged atmosphere, the aspiring neutral nomenclature of the proposal has been contextualised as advocacy for a political position - which was not my intention. Others have highlighted inconsistencies in the text; this was, after all, a draft document composed by my Staff, who have no legal experience, intended only to establish the foundations of the new government in Africa rather than the body as a whole. It is my belief that the state of Africa is a common cause for all Belgians. Therefore, its condition should not be prey to partisan rivalry. Since only the simplest revisions would address these concerns, and thus garner greater support, I cannot let it pass in its current condition.
Second, there have been several additions made to the proposal since its creation. The Prime Minister had consulted me previously on these changes - in stark contrast to one of his cabinet colleagues - and I thank him for his consideration. If he believes that these amendments are for the better, then it is his right to include them. But I cautioned against them before, and I oppose them now:
Lastly, and this was not discussed before, but the proposal has been bizarrely extended to cover the Free State of Batavia, and whole sections edited to apply to this jurisdiction. I cannot fathom why Batavia should be embedded in the mandate for the African Federation. The host of administrative, legal and practical problems this would create are unimaginable. I believe that these references should be excised, and a separate document crafted to pertain to Batavia.
Colonial Bill of Rights: Nay
It would be palatable if these were rights, say, of the Federation, enshrined in Federal statute. But the text of the bill explicitly indicates that these rights would be guaranteed by the Belgian Government, which would also be empowered to expand these rights without limit or hindrance. It was to evade the conflict of Belgium and her possessions that I proposed to federate Africa independently, so that the rights and laws of one polity would not bleed into another. The needs of Belgium, Africa and Batavia are so diverse that they cannot be underpinned by a single bill. Each must have its own arrangements. As such, I vote against this universal bill.
Referendum on the Monarchy: Nay
I agree that this debate has been dragging on for too long and bearing little fruit, as well as distracting the energies of this chamber from other pressing issues. And I share the sentiment that, this being the case, the only means of settlement is by appeal to the popular will. What I cannot abide by, however, is the clause that leaves the alteration of the Constitution in the hands of an unelected, unaccountable government while parliament is dissolved. We cannot simply entrust the Constitution to the good intentions of a cabal. Furthermore, who is to determine what "republican lines" the new Constitution will adopt or what articles are pertinent to this transformation? Any transition from a monarchical form of government to a republican one must be accompanied by a Constitutional Convention to determine the shape of the new system.
On a more minor note, I believe that the posed query is partial and suggestive. An alternative phrasing would be: "Should Belgium become a republic?"
Elected Senate Amendment: Abstain
[MLP]
I cannot, in good conscience, support such an amendment. I speak not as an officer or a citizen, but as a Christian. This country was founded on Providence and is preserved by Providence. I would be remiss in my fidelity to the Universal Church if I were to endorse a measure depriving it of official sanction. Moreover, I cannot perceive why such a measure is necessary when this country is so unanimously pious, albeit on diverse doctrinal lines.
Mandate of the African Federation: Nay
This is, indeed, my proposal, and I thank the Prime Minister for presenting it. But on its path from my office to this chamber, it has endured several alterations that I do not believe are unanimously for the better.
First, it was my desire to have cross-party support on this proposal, which it has failed to achieve. In this charged atmosphere, the aspiring neutral nomenclature of the proposal has been contextualised as advocacy for a political position - which was not my intention. Others have highlighted inconsistencies in the text; this was, after all, a draft document composed by my Staff, who have no legal experience, intended only to establish the foundations of the new government in Africa rather than the body as a whole. It is my belief that the state of Africa is a common cause for all Belgians. Therefore, its condition should not be prey to partisan rivalry. Since only the simplest revisions would address these concerns, and thus garner greater support, I cannot let it pass in its current condition.
Second, there have been several additions made to the proposal since its creation. The Prime Minister had consulted me previously on these changes - in stark contrast to one of his cabinet colleagues - and I thank him for his consideration. If he believes that these amendments are for the better, then it is his right to include them. But I cautioned against them before, and I oppose them now:
(a) The amended proposal would retain the Free States, which is completely against the spirit of the African Federation. The entire basis of my proposal was that the Free States were obsolete and unfit for purpose; that it was deleterious to defence and good government to divide our African possessions; and that it made little sense for the Congo and Benin to be on an equal administrative footing when one so completely dwarfed the other. The solution was to abolish this antiquated model in favour of a full federation. But the amended proposal will simply slot another layer of bureaucracy on top, solving nothing and indeed exacerbating the problems.
(b) The amended proposal would have the Chancellor appointed by the Prime Minister, not the President (ergo, the Monarch). The Prime Minister has no legal basis in the Federation; he vicariously exercises the powers of the Monarch in Belgium, not of the President of the Federation. It is therefore a crude and confusing intervention of the metropolitan polity to have the Chancellor of the Federation appointed by an extrafederal figure. Furthermore, it would be unnecessarily complicated to have the Monarch appointing the Prime Minister, who in turn appoints the Chancellor, who in turn appoints the Minister-Presidents, and so on and so forth. If one link in this chain should be severed - by a motion of confidence in the Prime Minister, for example - then the whole system collapses. Just as the Monarch appoints the Prime Minister in Belgium, so should the President appoint the Chancellor.
(c) The amended proposal incorporates a federal legislature. I believe that this is premature; by all reports, the enfranchised population of Africa is dwindling rather than growing. I doubt if there enough men to staff such a congress, never mind make it feasible. Moreover, to leave such legislative assemblies in the pockets of the corporate and landed elite - the very individuals whose malfeasance has caused all our crises in Africa - would be to consign the inhabitants of Africa to despotism and despair. Far better that the welfare of the African people and the benevolence of their government be guaranteed by the distant and impartial legislators of Belgium. The Prime Minister evidently agrees, as he incorporates the supremacy of Belgian law. If he does not trust the overseas communities to legislate in the popular interest - and he is right to do so - then why bestow such power?
(b) The amended proposal would have the Chancellor appointed by the Prime Minister, not the President (ergo, the Monarch). The Prime Minister has no legal basis in the Federation; he vicariously exercises the powers of the Monarch in Belgium, not of the President of the Federation. It is therefore a crude and confusing intervention of the metropolitan polity to have the Chancellor of the Federation appointed by an extrafederal figure. Furthermore, it would be unnecessarily complicated to have the Monarch appointing the Prime Minister, who in turn appoints the Chancellor, who in turn appoints the Minister-Presidents, and so on and so forth. If one link in this chain should be severed - by a motion of confidence in the Prime Minister, for example - then the whole system collapses. Just as the Monarch appoints the Prime Minister in Belgium, so should the President appoint the Chancellor.
(c) The amended proposal incorporates a federal legislature. I believe that this is premature; by all reports, the enfranchised population of Africa is dwindling rather than growing. I doubt if there enough men to staff such a congress, never mind make it feasible. Moreover, to leave such legislative assemblies in the pockets of the corporate and landed elite - the very individuals whose malfeasance has caused all our crises in Africa - would be to consign the inhabitants of Africa to despotism and despair. Far better that the welfare of the African people and the benevolence of their government be guaranteed by the distant and impartial legislators of Belgium. The Prime Minister evidently agrees, as he incorporates the supremacy of Belgian law. If he does not trust the overseas communities to legislate in the popular interest - and he is right to do so - then why bestow such power?
Lastly, and this was not discussed before, but the proposal has been bizarrely extended to cover the Free State of Batavia, and whole sections edited to apply to this jurisdiction. I cannot fathom why Batavia should be embedded in the mandate for the African Federation. The host of administrative, legal and practical problems this would create are unimaginable. I believe that these references should be excised, and a separate document crafted to pertain to Batavia.
Colonial Bill of Rights: Nay
It would be palatable if these were rights, say, of the Federation, enshrined in Federal statute. But the text of the bill explicitly indicates that these rights would be guaranteed by the Belgian Government, which would also be empowered to expand these rights without limit or hindrance. It was to evade the conflict of Belgium and her possessions that I proposed to federate Africa independently, so that the rights and laws of one polity would not bleed into another. The needs of Belgium, Africa and Batavia are so diverse that they cannot be underpinned by a single bill. Each must have its own arrangements. As such, I vote against this universal bill.
Referendum on the Monarchy: Nay
I agree that this debate has been dragging on for too long and bearing little fruit, as well as distracting the energies of this chamber from other pressing issues. And I share the sentiment that, this being the case, the only means of settlement is by appeal to the popular will. What I cannot abide by, however, is the clause that leaves the alteration of the Constitution in the hands of an unelected, unaccountable government while parliament is dissolved. We cannot simply entrust the Constitution to the good intentions of a cabal. Furthermore, who is to determine what "republican lines" the new Constitution will adopt or what articles are pertinent to this transformation? Any transition from a monarchical form of government to a republican one must be accompanied by a Constitutional Convention to determine the shape of the new system.
On a more minor note, I believe that the posed query is partial and suggestive. An alternative phrasing would be: "Should Belgium become a republic?"
Elected Senate Amendment: Abstain
[MLP]
Colonel-General
Xavier-Pierre Florian Thaddée
GKLS DSO POM FPS
Chief of the General Staff
Xavier-Pierre Florian Thaddée
GKLS DSO POM FPS
Chief of the General Staff