Edge of Europe - A Belgian Interactive AAR

[Plutonium95]

The Prime Minister should have no say in appointments to the Upper House.

But the Monarch should control appointments in all three branches of government? No, they have agenda's as well, and this gives them too much power to push that agenda. There is no point in us arguing, there is a fundamental difference between us, monarchists versus liberals.

Delegate from Liège, Michel Daret

 

[Tapscott]

But the Monarch should control appointments in all three branches of government? No, they have agenda's as well, and this gives them too much power to push that agenda. There is no point in us arguing, there is a fundamental difference between us, monarchists versus liberals.

Delegate from Liège, Michel Daret

The Monarch, if I recall correctly, is to be barred from joining in the political process, whereas the Prime Minister has his position due to his excelling of that said process. While the Monarch is most likely not going to be fully impartial, surely he is the most informed and least biased choice we can expect?

~ Sébastien Delcroix, Bishop of Brabant

 

[G.K.]

Mr. Daret,

As long as we have effective checks against the king, I don't think that would be a major problem. It is of course complicated by the fact that we still don't know if Loewen's legislature bill will pass.

But I still insist on the need of politically independent justice, and since the UH is still (if Loewen's bill passes) partly appointed by the PM, I am concerned that PM would be able to set up a court with not-so-obvious political motives. Also, the choice here is limited, since there are only a few top-class lawyers and judges here in Belgium to choose from. Therefore, I believe that Monarch's appointment reviewed by LH/approved by PM is sufficient - bear in mind that such an appointment is more of a formality than a decision, since the responsibility in such cases lies upon those who approve/refuse head of state's choice.

And to all of you gentlemen who argue on appointments in Senate - This is exactly why I suggested that the Senate should be elected by highest classes - In that case it could serve as a rather conservative check against both Monarch and LH. This way, it will be either Monarch's tool (Mon. proposals) or a complete mess dependant on both (Lib. proposals).

 

[Plutonium95]

The Monarch, if I recall correctly, is to be barred from joining in the political process, whereas the Prime Minister has his position due to his excelling of that said process. While the Monarch is most likely not going to be fully impartial, surely he is the most informed and least biased choice we can expect?

~ Sébastien Delcroix, Bishop of Brabant

He will likely be one of the most impartial people in government, at least as far as political parties, but that isn't saying a whole lot. Essentially I do not trust one man, a man who cannot be removed from power and was not elected by the people, to appoint the head of government, half of the legislature (UH) and the justices on the supreme court. No matter how much you respect the Monarch, surely that is too much control over the government for one man. If we give him such powers we will only be steps away from the absolute monarch that is despised by so many.

The Justices being appointed by the Prime Minister with approval from the UH would allow for an impartial process.

Delegate from Liège, Michel Daret

 

[Davout]

M. De Graaf, as per my suggestion just before, the judiciary should be left to appoint their own members once the Monarch and the PM work together to establish the initial Appellate Court.

 

[viola]

I decided to take the original bill on rights and apply some necessary changes.
I therefore present the following bills, originally based on the bill of rights:

Social Classes of Belgium

I. Every social class shall be granted their own codes of law and indisputable rights, reflecting the different roles they have in society.
a. The state of Belgium recognizes four social classes: The Clergy, the Nobility, the Great Bourgeoisie and the Commoners. Each of them shall be subjected to a different code of law.

II. Is considered a clergyman anyone who has been ordained as a member of the Catholic Church.

III. Is considered a noble anyone who has not been ordained as a member of the Catholic church, and possesses an aristocratic title recognized by the state of Belgium.

IV. Is considered a grand bourgeois anyone who has not been ordained as a member of the Catholic Church neither possesses an aristocratic title recognized by the state of Belgium, but can afford to pay a high amount of taxes or is landed.

V. Is considered a commoner anyone who doesn't belong to the previous classes.

Belgian Concession of rights

I. The state of Belgium concedes limited Freedom of Speech, Freedom of Press and Freedom to Assemble to the entirety of its people, regardless of social class.
a. All of these Freedoms may be temporary suspended by the Government in the case of civil disorder, war or any other possible danger to the stability of the country.
b. A special "Board of Censors" will be created, it is appointed by the Senate and will have the power to censor any speech, book or journal article deemed sacrilegious, anti-national or revolutionary.

II. The state religion of Belgium shall be Roman Catholicism, but violence and repression against other Christian denominations will be prohibited under the law, and the people of Belgium shall have the right to private freedom of religion and worship.

III. All people have a right to their property. It may not be seized by the government except in cases of it being illegally obtained, for use as evidence in legal proceedings, after which it must be returned to its rightful owner, or through a parliamentary vote on the nationalization of said property. In order for property to be seized a judge, or the Prime Minister in the case of a nationalization, must issue a warrant clearly providing an explanation as to why.

IV. A reasonable right to privacy will be held by all citizens, and no search may occur, except in the cases directly defined by the law.

V. The right to be tried by a jury of one's peers shall be preserved under all circumstances, no matter the crime.
a. A jury of one's peers is defined as: a group of people coming from the same social class of the accused.

The first bill will ensure that the God-given rights of the Church and the aristocracy shall be preserved while recognizing the new role of the bourgeoisie, all of this avoiding dangerous Jacobin solutions like "equality before the law".
The second bill will ensure that the Freedoms conceded to the people shall not be abused, that nationalization will be allowed and clarify the concept of "jury of peers".

I'm open to negotiation with any Conservative or fellow monarchist.

- Baron Frederick Van Den Brucke


((And anyway, isn't a bit too early for Universal Suffrage? We would be the first country in Europe to have it with almost a century in advance!))

 

[Plutonium95]

M. De Graaf, as per my suggestion just before, the judiciary should be left to appoint their own members once the Monarch and the PM work together to establish the initial Appellate Court.

That sounds like a reasonable proposal, but if the justices will be choosing their own replacements isn't there some risk of "parties" forming in the court to get a given candidate chosen? Then those parties could transfer over to when they rule on cases. I don't know for sure, but I just want to ensure the justices neutrality when interpreting the law.

Monsieur Van Den Bruke, rights are not conceded to the people, they are held by the people and the Bill of Rights just ensures that they will be protected. Just to mention something others haven't, nationalization of private property should not be allowed. I could never support your proposals.

Delegate from Liège, Michel Daret

 

[Davout]

M. Van Den Brucke, it is 1833, not 1333. Are you sure you don't wish to re-introduce serfdom whilst you are at it?

At least you have guaranteed all the Protestant nobles and bishops will vote against your proposal.

 

[DensleyBlair]

((And anyway, isn't a bit too early for Universal Suffrage? We would be the first country in Europe to have it with almost a century in advance!))

((The 1792 Convention after the French revolution was elected by all males over 25. Switzerland had universal make suffrage in 1848 (though women and to wait until 1990...)

In any case, I do agree. I don't want universal suffrage just yet. To be honest, I don't think it would be any more ahistorical than the prevailing attitude towards having an unelected UH - though I'm telling myself that that's more to do with the fact that I'm used to a House of Lords as opposed to a Senate, and I therefore think it would be put of place in a constitutional monarchy - but I agree it would be somewhat odd.))

 

[Plutonium95]

((The 1792 Convention after the French revolution was elected by all males over 25. Switzerland had universal make suffrage in 1848 (though women and to wait until 1990...)

In any case, I do agree. I don't want universal suffrage just yet. To be honest, I don't think it would be any more ahistorical than the prevailing attitude towards having an unelected UH - though I'm telling myself that that's more to do with the fact that I'm used to a House of Lords as opposed to a Senate, and I therefore think it would be put of place in a constitutional monarchy - but I agree it would be somewhat odd.))

((Funnily enough, I would probably be okay with a weighted universal or wealth system if the UH was directly elected by the people, but since they need to be appointed I want to keep the LH as open as possible.))

 

[SirkTheMonkey]

Lord Van Den Brucke, I must ask for a clarification regarding your Social Classes of Belgium proposal:

Spoiler

Social Classes of Belgium

I. Every social class shall be granted their own codes of law and indisputable rights, reflecting the different roles they have in society.
a. The state of Belgium recognizes four social classes: The Clergy, the Nobility, the Great Bourgeoisie and the Commoners. Each of them shall be subjected to a different code of law.
II. Is considered a clergyman anyone who has been ordained as a member of the Catholic Church.
III. Is considered a noble anyone who has not been ordained as a member of the Catholic church, and possesses an aristocratic title recognized by the state of Belgium.
IV. Is considered a grand bourgeois anyone who has not been ordained as a member of the Catholic Church neither possesses an aristocratic title recognized by the state of Belgium, but can afford to pay a high amount of taxes or is landed.
V. Is considered a commoner anyone who doesn't belong to the previous classes.

Where would the priest of my church lie? He is not ordained as a member of the Catholic Church but he is not a man of means thanks to the small size and transitory nature of his flock in Antwerp. Would he be classified as a Commoner?

- L. Percival Willems-Hopegood, Delegate-at-Large

 

[G.K.]

Mr. Burke, I welcome any ideas on a limited autonomy in justice. Do you have any specific proposal in mind or already filed?

If I may propose something: Some organs in the judiciary (e.g. institution covering all advocates and judges, whatever the name) could prepare a list of candidates that either PM or the Monarch would have to choose from.

 

[Davout]

That sounds like a reasonable proposal, but if the justices will be choosing their own replacements isn't there some risk of "parties" forming in the court to get a given candidate chosen? Then those parties could transfer over to when they rule on cases. I don't know for sure, but I just want to ensure the justices neutrality when interpreting the law.

This is true as man is a social animal and will tend to align into groups but Chief Justices tend to pick like minds anyway, and by having the selection subject to consent of both the Monarch and the PM of the day, there is some safeguard. It also provides some (not total) insulation from ploitical interference by the PM. Also the exclusion from sitting in the Upper or Lower Houses will tend to make the courts not an attractive option for ambitious politician-lawyers.

 

[Marschalk]

He will likely be one of the most impartial people in government, at least as far as political parties, but that isn't saying a whole lot. Essentially I do not trust one man, a man who cannot be removed from power and was not elected by the people, to appoint the head of government, half of the legislature (UH) and the justices on the supreme court. No matter how much you respect the Monarch, surely that is too much control over the government for one man. If we give him such powers we will only be steps away from the absolute monarch that is despised by so many.

The Justices being appointed by the Prime Minister with approval from the UH would allow for an impartial process.

Delegate from Liège, Michel Daret

This will not work as an impartial process, as you want at least the half of the UH to be appointed by PM. The monarch appointing the judges, as the supreme, apolitical and independent authority, is a normal checks-and-balances way used in modern democracies. Even Mr de Graaf, an ultraliberal, agrees with that, it seems. I think that we should choose this option, instead of advocating a highly political one. You want to make our King weaker, but do you understand, that you will make our judicial system weaker instead. Come on, should we argue about such an obvious thing? We did not suggest, that the King should appoint the members of the lowerhouse, you know.

- Charles, Prince de Ligne

 

[Plutonium95]

This is true as man is a social animal and will tend to align into groups but Chief Justices tend to pick like minds anyway, and by having the selection subject to consent of both the Monarch and the PM of the day, there is some safeguard. It also provides some (not total) insulation from ploitical interference by the PM. Also the exclusion from sitting in the Upper or Lower Houses will tend to make the courts not an attractive option for ambitious politician-lawyers.

Then such a proposal sounds good to me and I would support it.

Delegate from Liège, Michel Daret

 

[Davout]

Mr. Burke, I welcome any ideas on a limited autonomy in justice. Do you have any specific proposal in mind or already filed?

If I may propose something: Some organs in the judiciary (e.g. institution covering all advocates and judges, whatever the name) could prepare a list of candidates that either PM or the Monarch would have to choose from.

It is common in some countries for the Chief Justice to submit a list of proposed judges to the Attorney General to then pick replacement judges. I don't believe we have an attorney general listed in the proposed ministries. My suggestion of the Chief Justice putting forward a name to the PM and the Monarch to consent to was designed to achieve the same result. In the end, it does not matter whether the PM and the Monarch are chooising or consenting as the result is the same - the flow is from the Judiciary to the other 2 arms of government for ratification.

 

[G.K.]

Excellent idea.

As for the ministries/AG, i fell no need to bring them up to the constitution, a simple law will be much more flexible.

Anyway, I would be glad to see such a proposal here. In case You'll start working on it and need some help, feel free to ask.

 

[Plutonium95]

Since today we are also discussing citizenship and the rights of those citizens I would ask for a second on the following articles.

Belgian Citizenship Revised

I. To be a citizen of the Belgian nation, a person must be at least one of the following things:
a. Born in the country of Belgium
i. This definition includes those born in the regions of Wallonia and Flanders before the official formation of the Belgian nation
ii. Children of foreign dignitaries, and children of wartime enemy soldiers, do not receive citizenship from their birth in Belgium
b. Have lived in Belgium for a minimum of ten years
i. This definition requires the applier to have been working in Belgium for a minimum of 6 years, if the applier is an adult male
c. Have a parent who holds Belgian citizenship
i. This definition does not apply to those who have been found guilty, or are in the process of being charged with, a crime
ii. The parent of Belgian citizenship must not have been found guilty of any crime for this clause to be enacted

II. Belgian citizenship confers upon its holder the right to all rights held by Belgian citizens, as well as all responsibilities that also are held by Belgian citizens

III. All men of 21 years or older of foreign birth living within Belgium for a period of not less than 2 years prior to the commencement of the Constitution are entitled to become citizens of Belgium as of right.

and

Joint Bill of Rights V4
I. All people born in Belgian territory, or having at least one parent who is a citizen, have the right to claim Belgium citizenship. In the event of a person with a Belgian parent being born outside the country, they must apply for citizenship, but when granted it they shall be a full citizen.

II. Immigrants and other non-Belgians can apply for Belgian citizenship after having lived, and worked, in Belgium for a period of no less than ten years. Marriage to a Belgian citizen does not qualify one as being a Belgian citizen themselves.

III. All men will be viewed as equal under the law, with no prejudice based on race, social class, or beliefs.

IV. The state religion of Belgium shall be Roman Catholicism, but all religions shall be protected under the law, and the people of Belgium shall have the right to freedom of religion and worship.

V. All people shall have a right to freedom of speech, freedom of the press, and the right to assemble, which shall not be abridged.
a. The Freedom of the Press shall be moderately restricted by the Government, but only in the case of actively trying to dismantle or otherwise seriously harm the Belgian state. Political dissension and disagreement with government practices are still protected forms of speech. ((The definition will be better defined through legislation at a later date))

VI. All people have a right to their property. It may not be seized by the government except in cases of it being illegally obtained, or for use as evidence in legal proceedings, after which it must be returned to its rightful owner. In order for property to be seized a judge must issue a warrant clearly providing an explanation as to why.

VII. A reasonable right to privacy held by all citizens, and no search may occur, except in the cases directly defined by the law.

VIII. The right to a trial by a jury of peers shall be preserved under all circumstances, no matter the crime.

IX. The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

 

[Davout]

I second the Belgian Citizen Revised Article and the Joint Bill of Rights V4 Article.

M. De Graaf, hopefully M. Galler can take on board my suggestions as his proposal otherwise adequately covers the judiciary in my view. Unfortunately I must go to bed now. I will see you gentlemen tomorrow.

 

[Tapscott]

I have two points I wish to make, though I agree with everything else in the articles. For clause III. in the Belgian Citizenship proposal, doesn't clause I. a. i. Cover that well enough? If it does not, could the time listed in the III clause be extended to 5 years, to ensure that the squatters who stayed in the country due to the Dutch occupation in its later years are appropriately denied citizenship. As for the Joint Bill of Rights, does Clause II. need to be included? It seems that that issue is already covered by the more relevant Belgian Citizenship proposal.

~ Sébastien Delcroix, Bishop of Brabant