Edge of Europe - A Belgian Interactive AAR

[Gen. Marshall]

When we are declared upon, the aggressor and our nation are formally at war, and therefore we need not declare war ourselves.

- Maximiliaan van Brabant, Delegate of Antwerp

 

[Harpsichord]

Gentlemen, a thought has occurred to me. Do we need to formally declare war if we are declared on? If the answer is yes, should there be provisions for the declaration of wars while in extreme circumstances, say if we are in an interregnum or if Parliament has been dissolved pending an election?

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

This is a good suggestion! I will work on amending my proposal immediately.

 

[atomicsoda]

I support the van Brabant proposal on the military

 

[SirkTheMonkey]

When we are declared upon, the aggressor and our nation are formally at war, and therefore we need not declare war ourselves.
- Maximiliaan van Brabant, Delegate of Antwerp

This is a good suggestion! I will work on amending my proposal immediately.

It seems that there are differing views on the matter. I ask in case it becomes an issue with military protocols or something similar, say an overly cautious Captain refuses to advance to a more defensible position across a political border until he knows that we are in an 'approved' war.

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

 

[Gen. Marshall]

((Think Pearl Harbour. US Congress never had to approve of WW2.))

 

[ThunderHawk3]

((Think Pearl Harbour. US Congress never had to approve of WW2.))

Actually, they did. I'll find a link in a second.

EDIT:

FDR's Day of Infamy Speech

Subsequent US Declaration of War

((Slightly besides the point, but the future/historical example demonstrates declarations of war.))

 

[Gen. Marshall]

((Oh, heh. Didn't know that.

Was the declaration of war only necessary because the Japanese never did, or does a war always require both sides to declare it?))

 

[ThunderHawk3]

((Oh, heh. Didn't know that.

Was the declaration of war only necessary because the Japanese never did, or does a war always require both sides to declare it?))

I think it's the former, but I couldn't honestly tell you. I suspect declarations of war only have to be unilateral. It's not like it's something the other side has to agree to.

 

[Gen. Marshall]

The Article has been revised in the light of recent confusion:

Declaration of War Article
Revision 2

A. Through the Prime Minister
I. The Prime Minister may request the legislature for approval of a declaration of war.
a. Such a request is made in secret, as is the voting on it, and leaking the existence of such a request to a third party is considered treason.
II. The Lower House must approve of the declaration of war with a simple majority.
III. The Monarch may request for an additional vote in the Upper House.
a. The Upper House must then also approve of the declaration of war with a simple majority.
IV. When Sections I. through IV. are fulfilled, the Monarch must declare war on the specified state within 30 days of the official approval.

B. Through the Monarch
I. The Monarch may request the legislature for approval of a declaration of war.
a. Such a request is made in secret, as is the voting on it, and leaking the existence of such a request to a third party is considered treason.
II. The Upper House must approve of the declaration of war with a simple majority.
III. The Prime Minister may request for an additional vote in the Lower House.
a. The Lower House must then also approve of the declaration of war with a simple majority.
IV. When Sections I. through IV. are fulfilled, the Monarch must declare war on the specified state within 30 days of the official approval.

C. By another nation
I. If another nation, recognized as such by the Belgian state, declares war on Belgium, the Monarch is allowed to send a declaration of war to said state immediately.

 

[SirkTheMonkey]

((Was the declaration of war only necessary because the Japanese never did, or does a war always require both sides to declare it?))

((I'm pretty sure that the Japanese did declare war before the US, just because of issues (I cannot remember if it was intentional or not) it was received after Pearl Harbor.))

In the light of all these revisions I can only be thankful that I caught this matter now before it became an issue. Now *yawns* forgive me friends but I fear tiredness will soon overtake me yet I do not wish to leave the chamber during these robust discussions. If someone catches me asleep I request that a cover of some sort be placed over my eyes.

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

 

[Harpsichord]

It seems that there are differing views on the matter. I ask in case it becomes an issue with military protocols or something similar, say an overly cautious Captain refuses to advance to a more defensible position across a political border until he knows that we are in an 'approved' war.

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

((I was more thinking of this part "say if we are in an interregnum or if Parliament has been dissolved pending an election?" than the bit about counter-declaring war exactly.))

 

[SirkTheMonkey]

((I was more thinking of this part "say if we are in an interregnum or if Parliament has been dissolved pending an election?" than the bit about counter-declaring war exactly.))

((I figure that if we're in that situation then we're not exactly in a position to be declaring wars as an aggressor.))

 

[Harpsichord]

I propose by third and most complete draft of my own proposal.

The Peeters' Declaration of War Proposal, third draft

I. The Monarch alone is invested with the power to declare war.
I.a. The Monarch may delegate this power to the Prime Minister, as they see fit. The Prime Minister will be bound by this article as the Monarch would.

II. The Monarch must directly request consent of both the Upper and Lower Houses (hereafter referred to as the legislature) prior to any declaration of war.
II.a. The Prime Minister must be informed of this request prior to it being presented to the legislature, and vice versa if the Prime Minister has been delegated the power.
II.b. Approval is considered to be granted if supported by a simple majority (50%+1) in both Houses.

III. Upon receiving the consent of the legislature, the declaration of war must be signed within 30 days.

IV. Both the Monarch and the Prime Minister must signed the declaration of war, indicating their joint consent.

V. If the legislature does not give consent, or either the PM or Monarch do not sign, any declaration of war is to be considered invalid.

VI. Due to circumstance and in emergencies, the Monarch and/or the Prime Minister may be unable to sign a necessary declaration of war. The following sub clauses account for such dire circumstances.
VI.a. If the Monarch is unable to sign (either due to mental or physical impediment), their Regent is entitled to sign on their behalf. If there is no Regent, the first in line for the throne shall sign, and so on.
VI.b. If the Prime Minister is unable to sign (either due to mental or physical impediment), then the next most senior member of Cabinet shall sign, and so on. For this purpose, the seniority of Cabinet (after the Prime Minister) is thus: Minister of Foreign Affairs, Minister of Finance, Minister of the Interior, Minister of War, Minister of Justice.

VII. If a foreign nation declares war upon our nation, Belgium shall automatically be considered at war with said nation.

VIII. All requests and votes under this Article are made in secret, and leaking their existence to a third party shall be considered treason.

 

[Thoctar]

I am concerned that not enough is being discussed at this convention of the necessity for us to deliver the rest of the unenlightened world into our loving embrace of civilization. There are multitudes toiling in ignorance of God, or even the basic necessity of currency, or all manners of things we take for granted. Therefore, I would like to make a proposal.

Article Defining the Rights and Duties of Belgians Abroad:

1. All future governments are encouraged to the utmost to spread Christianity (Of any denomination) and civilization throughout the world. ((Mostly just a statement of intentions))
2. All missionaries working overseas and all organizations devoted to spreading Christianity or Civilization, including any colonization societies, are immune from any and all forms of taxation, although the Government has the right to request financial information from these organizations.
3. Any actions undertaken by Belgian citizens in foreign countries are exempt from Belgian laws if they are undertaken against nationals of that country.
4. The Government is required to maintain a standing police force in the area equal to the same force that would be in place if all Belgian citizens in the area were part of a Belgian state, and for other security purposes the colony will be treated as a Belgian state with all Belgian citizens of the colony treated as Belgian citizens within the colony, with extra security for the native inhabitants at the whim of the current government.

 

[Harpsichord]

I am concerned that not enough is being discussed at this convention of the necessity for us to deliver the rest of the unenlightened world into our loving embrace of civilization. There are multitudes toiling in ignorance of God, or even the basic necessity of currency, or all manners of things we take for granted. Therefore, I would like to make a proposal.

The Responsibilities of Future Governments Act:

1. All future governments are encouraged to the utmost to spread Christianity (Of any denomination) and civilization throughout the world. ((Mostly just a statement of intentions))
2. All missionaries working overseas and all organizations devoted to spreading Christianity or Civilization, including any colonization societies, are immune from any and all forms of taxation, although the Government has the right to request financial information from these organizations.
3. Any actions undertaken by Belgian citizens in foreign countries are exempt from Belgian laws if they are undertaken against nationals of that country.
4. The Government is required to maintain a minimum level of security for all Belgian nationals living in overseas colonial territory, including a military garrison if the threat is warranted.
5. All Belgian citizens living in overseas colonial territory are immune from taxation and conscription, although non-domestic inhabitants of the territory may still be subject to taxation and conscription.

While it probably goes without saying, I fully object to anything of this religious nature entering the constitution. If you wish to bring it forth as legislation once the Convention is over and the government has formed, feel free.

 

[Gen. Marshall]

The Responsibilities of Future Governments Act:

1. All future governments are encouraged to the utmost to spread Christianity (Of any denomination) and civilization throughout the world. ((Mostly just a statement of intentions))
2. All missionaries working overseas and all organizations devoted to spreading Christianity or Civilization, including any colonization societies, are immune from any and all forms of taxation, although the Government has the right to request financial information from these organizations.
3. Any actions undertaken by Belgian citizens in foreign countries are exempt from Belgian laws if they are undertaken against nationals of that country.
4. The Government is required to maintain a minimum level of security for all Belgian nationals living in overseas colonial territory, including a military garrison if the threat is warranted.
5. All Belgian citizens living in overseas colonial territory are immune from taxation and conscription, although non-domestic inhabitants of the territory may still be subject to taxation and conscription.

There might indeed be merit in this proposal, but there are two things I'd like to see clarified.

Section 3 states that actions undertaken by Belgian citizens in foreign countries are exempt from Belgian laws - which implies that they should be subject to the laws of the country they reside in. Is that a correct interpretation?

Furthermore, Section 5 exempts all Belgians in any formed colonies from taxation. Given the fact that colonial plantations are a major source of income for both the exploiter and, though taxation, the Government, this law would cost us a lot of money. What is your reasoning behind this Section? If you are worried that the private exploitiation of colonies wouldn't be profitable enough, I assure you that the British and Portugese have shown us that there is no need for such worries.

More trivially, I'd rename the Article to something along the lines of "Article Defining the Rights and Duties of Belgians Abroad".

- Maximiliaan van Brabant, Delegate of Antwerp

 

[atomicsoda]

((Oh, heh. Didn't know that.

Was the declaration of war only necessary because the Japanese never did, or does a war always require both sides to declare it?))

((WW2 was the last time the US has declared war. So it is quite possible to engage in military hostilities without a declaration of war))

I object to the responsibilities of government act. This looks like a piece of legislation. Not something for a constitution

 

[Thoctar]

There might indeed be merit in this proposal, but there are two things I'd like to see clarified.

Section 3 states that actions undertaken by Belgian citizens in foreign countries are exempt from Belgian laws - which implies that they should be subject to the laws of the country they reside in. Is that a correct interpretation?

Furthermore, Section 5 exempts all Belgians in any formed colonies from taxation. Given the fact that colonial plantations are a major source of income for both the exploiter and, though taxation, the Government, this law would cost us a lot of money. What is your reasoning behind this Section? If you are worried that the private exploitiation of colonies wouldn't be profitable enough, I assure you that the British and Portugese have shown us that there is no need for such worries.

More trivially, I'd rename the Article to something along the lines of "Article Defining the Rights and Duties of Belgians Abroad".

- Maximiliaan van Brabant, Delegate of Antwerp

The idea behind section 5 was that it would encourage Belgians to move abroad into the colonies until those colonies are more fully brought into the mother state. However, if it is felt that this would be an undue burden upon the taxpayer then it can be renamed. Yes, this is meant to relieve us from the burden of having to police foreign territory. However, if we feel that the laws of the home country are unjust, we could lodge a complaint and apply various means of pressure. ((Will rename))

 

[Marschalk]

There might indeed be merit in this proposal, but there are two things I'd like to see clarified.

Section 3 states that actions undertaken by Belgian citizens in foreign countries are exempt from Belgian laws - which implies that they should be subject to the laws of the country they reside in. Is that a correct interpretation?

Furthermore, Section 5 exempts all Belgians in any formed colonies from taxation. Given the fact that colonial plantations are a major source of income for both the exploiter and, though taxation, the Government, this law would cost us a lot of money. What is your reasoning behind this Section? If you are worried that the private exploitiation of colonies wouldn't be profitable enough, I assure you that the British and Portugese have shown us that there is no need for such worries.

More trivially, I'd rename the Article to something along the lines of "Article Defining the Rights and Duties of Belgians Abroad".

- Maximiliaan van Brabant, Delegate of Antwerp

It is a very good idea, Monsieur van Brabant. We are are Christian state, and our mission is to spread the holy faith. And we should also think about acquiring certain overseas territories. But our state faith is Roman Catholicism, and I do not think that we should indicate advocacy of, say, Protestantism as our goal. We will be tolerant to our Protestant citizens, we will respect their faith, but they are indeed a minority, and their religion is not a part of our ideology, while Roman Catholicism should be. So, "Сhristianity of any denomination" should be replaced with "Roman Catholicism", I think.

- Charles, Prince de Ligne

 

[Gen. Marshall]

Having a constitutional Article stating that the government should spread "Christianity (Of any denomination)" is hardly a problem in my eyes, as surely our Catholic majority will spread out as such to any colonies, under the guidance of a Catholic majority government. My issue is really with including Section V, this encouragement for people to come to the colonies, in the Constitution. Surely, it would be better if we would determine the need for such encouragement when it is relevant, and pass a regular law to lessen the colonists' burden?

- Maximiliaan van Brabant, Delegate of Antwerp