Edge of Europe - A Belgian Interactive AAR

[SirkTheMonkey]

This is madness. We have no colonies and you are trying to constitutionalize what size garrison needs to be deployed in a non existent colony. Lets lets the government in future deal with these issues as they arise.

It it not madness sir. That provision itself covers a hypothetical colony so I am making sure that it will cover all necessary aspects should it ever be needed. If you think it is unnecessary then you are well within your rights to vote against it if it comes to a vote.

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

 

[Thoctar]

I would like to welcome any additional input on my bill, if not, then I shall try to come up with exact figures on garrisons, policing and such, although the intent was mostly to ensure that the colonies were made an important part of the national agenda.

 

[Plutonium95]

I would like to welcome any additional input on my bill, if not, then I shall try to come up with exact figures on garrisons, policing and such, although the intent was mostly to ensure that the colonies were made an important part of the national agenda.

I will only say that I feel it is too early to define how colonies should be run, when we have no idea what our political, economic, or military's situation will be once we finally gain a colony. It is something best left for another time.

Delegate from Liège, Michel Daret

 

[Tapscott]

((Hmm, I think my bills don't need to be withdrawn, though I could've sworn there was a proposal that essentially covered everything addressed in my King of the Belgians proposal.))

 

[Somberg]

((Hmm, I think my bills don't need to be withdrawn, though I could've sworn there was a proposal that essentially covered everything addressed in my King of the Belgians proposal.))

((Tapscott, unless you can ensure that your executive proposals can get 22 votes, I would recommend withdrawing them. de Merode's Executive Proposal is already a part of the constitution so yours would have to override his.))

 

[Tapscott]

((Tapscott, unless you can ensure that your executive proposals can get 22 votes, I would recommend withdrawing them. de Merode's Executive Proposal is already a part of the constitution so yours would have to override his.))

((I think that is the one I remember incorporating the important points of my proposals. Let me just find the link and confirm that.

Ah, found it. And yep it does indeedy cover my articles.))

As the de Merode Excecutive Proposal has passed, I hereby withdraw both my King of the Belgian's proposal, and my Executive Branch proposal.

~ Sébastien Delcroix, Bishop of Brabant

 

[Marschalk]

I withdraw Aerts Article on the Crown Police of Belgium

---

I would also like to put this back up for debate:

Article for Impeachment and Justice of Goverment officals Revesion 1
-Any offical of the govenment of Belgium can be impeached, and of any branch
-This requires a majority vote of the lower house
-If the Prime Minister is impeached, this is not a vote of no confidence. The rulling party will just put in another PM
-For further clarification on who can be impeached, any member of the Parliment or Senate, Monarch, Prime Minister, any Military Commander, Prime Minister
-Any member of the Judicary must be impeached by the Supreme Court. If a member of the Supreme court needs to be impeached, the rest of the supreme court shall have impeachment power
-All members of Government are subject to the laws of Belgium. They are not to be given any favor by the law. The Monarch is also subject to the same laws
-If a member of the Government is arrested, he has to temporarly step down. If he is convicted, he must steep down perminitly. If he is found not guilty, he can resume his post

This impeachement proposal is unacceptable. I strongly protest against the idea that our Monarch can be impeached. And the author wants the legislature to be able to do it with a simple majority! I hope that all moderate delegate will vote against this proposal, we have already made too much concessions, and this idea will cause great instability and make the office of the King pointless.

- Charles, Prince de Ligne

 

[jeeshadow]

This impeachement proposal is unacceptable. I strongly protest against the idea that our Monarch can be impeached. And the author wants the legislature to be able to do it with a simple majority! I hope that all moderate delegate will vote against this proposal, we have already made too much concessions, and this idea will cause great instability and make the office of the King pointless.

- Charles, Prince de Ligne

((Sorry, I didn't fully look over this. I thought I had removed the refrence to the king being impeached earlier...))

 

[Marschalk]

((Sorry, I didn't fully look over this. I thought I had removed the refrence to the king being impeached earlier...))

((No problem, I was amused, when I suddenly found the King there ))

 

[Tapscott]

I have an issue with one part of the de Merode Excecutive proposal that was never responded to. As such, I propose this alteration be made to the de Merode Executive Proposal.

Delcroix Alteration of Article I. Clause II. of the de Merode Executive Proposal

II. The King's ascent to the throne must be ratified by a majority of the legislature; this shall be the sign of popular approval of the King's reign.

a. Justification to the prevention of the King's ascension must be provided by the legislature, if the King does not receive majority ratification, to prove that the King was denied ratification for legitimate non-political and non-personal reasons.​

My proposed change seeks to prevent abuse of the ratification process from occurring. As it stands, a King could be blocked from ascending to the throne, with no justification being offered. This alteration forces a legitimate justification to be provided.

~ Sébastien Delcroix, Bishop of Brabant

((Man that is very wordy. If anyone can suggest a way for me to make it clearer, I would be very grateful.))

 

[SirkTheMonkey]

Bishop Delcroix, what would constitute a 'legitimate justification'? Who decides if it is valid or not? The Supreme Court?

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

 

[Marschalk]

I have an issue with one part of the de Merode Excecutive proposal that was never responded to. As such, I propose this alteration be made to the de Merode Executive Proposal.



My proposed change seeks to prevent abuse of the ratification process from occurring. As it stands, a King could be blocked from ascending to the throne, with no justification being offered. This alteration forces a legitimate justification to be provided.

~ Sébastien Delcroix, Bishop of Brabant

((Man that is very wordy. If anyone can suggest a way for me to make it clearer, I would be very grateful.))

Maybe a list of such reasons can be drafted? And the prevention of the King's ascension should be ratified by the Supreme Court as well? We need a guarantee, that there will be no political removals.

- Сharles, Prince de Ligne

 

[jeeshadow]

((No problem, I was amused, when I suddenly found the King there ))

((I'll change it when I A) get ready for the vote B) Get more ideas for changes. I don't think that by itself requires me to write up another revision))

 

[Tapscott]

Bishop Delcroix, what would constitute a 'legitimate justification'? Who decides if it is valid or not? The Supreme Court?

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

Maybe a list of such reasons can be drafted? And the prevention of the King's ascension should be ratified by the Supreme Court as well? We need a guarantee, that there will be no political removals.

- Сharles, Prince de Ligne

I believe that they, the Supreme Court, would be best suited to determine legitimate reasons. However, I am quite happy to more clearly define why the appointment can and cannot be blocked. Perhaps the legitimate justification for blocking the King's ascension must be that the King's rule, or rather the King-to-be, would be actively detrimental to the security of the Belgian state? I am eager to hear your thoughts on how to better define my proposal, as I am currently rather ill, and it makes thinking clearly so much harder! ((Still sick IRL ))

~ Sébastien Delcroix, Bishop of Brabant

 

[Marschalk]

((I'll change it when I A) get ready for the vote B) Get more ideas for changes. I don't think that by itself requires me to write up another revision))

There are some other issues in this proposal, that worry me. First of all, it makes political removals a very easy thing. The ruling party will be able to remove people with a simple majority vote for no reasons at all. For example, this proposal gives them power over other members of Legislature, deputies and Senators. They will easily impeach all their political opponents. Frankly speaking, I dont think that legislative members should be able to impeach other deputies or Senators at all. What do we have the Supreme Court for?

More than that, the lowerhouse can remove in such way not only the PM or other govermental ministers (though they are not mentioned), but also the military commanders! It is a breach of military discipline and a usupation of Commander-in-Chiefs rights. I think it is a very absurd idea, that the lowerhouse should be able to replace, say, a regiment commander or an admiral.

- Charles, Prince de Ligne

((There, some other concerns))

 

[jeeshadow]

I hope this adresses some concerns people have in regards to impeachment

Article for Impeachment and Justice of Goverment officals Revesion 2

-Any offical of the govenment of Belgium can be impeached, and of any branch
-Impeachment is for if someone has abused the powers of their office
-This requires a majority vote of the lower house
-If an offical is Impeached, the Senate will hold an Conviction trial. A simple majority of the Senate will be Convicted. If an offical is not convicted, they do not have to step down
-The Supreme Court can overturn any impeachment
-If the Prime Minister is impeached, this is not a vote of no confidence. The rulling party will just put in another PM
-For further clarification on who can be impeached, any member of the Parliment or Senate, Prime Minister, any Military Commander
-Any member of the Judicary must be impeached by the Supreme Court. If a member of the Supreme court needs to be impeached, the rest of the supreme court shall have impeachment power
-All members of Government are subject to the laws of Belgium. They are not to be given any favor by the law. The Monarch is also subject to the same laws
-If a member of the Government is arrested, he has to temporarly step down. If he is convicted, he must steep down perminitly. If he is found not guilty, he can resume his post

 

[SirkTheMonkey]

-If a member of the Government is arrested, he has to temporarly step down. If he is convicted, he must steep down perminitly. If he is found not guilty, he can resume his post

Mister Aerts, what is to stop a conspiracy of police arresting the parliament on trumped-up charges then using their confederates in the rump body from taking power?

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

 

[jeeshadow]

Mister Aerts, what is to stop a conspiracy of police arresting the parliament on trumped-up charges then using their confederates in the rump body from taking power?

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

If the police are conspiring against the government in the first place, I don't think their is much the consitution will do to stop them...

 

[Tapscott]

Delcroix Alteration of Article I. Clause II. of the de Merode Executive Proposal V.2.

II. The King's ascent to the throne must be ratified by a majority of the legislature; this shall be the sign of popular approval of the King's reign.

a. In the event that the legislature does not ratify the King’s ascension, the Supreme Court will determine if the reasoning provided by the legislature is legitimate and in the interests of the Belgian state and people

i. The legislature can only block the King’s ascension if they have conclusive evidence that the Monarch’s rule would be detrimental to the Belgian state, people and government.
ii. Political and/or personal grievances and/or motivations are not legitimate reasons to block the ascension of the Monarch.​

I have attempted to better define what reasons could be provided, and what reasons cannot be provided, to the blocking of the ascension of the Monarch. As always, I am eager to hear the thoughts of my colleagues.

~ Sébastien Delcroix, Bishop of Brabant

 

[Ignominius]

I would live to withdraw the Verxanellmes Statute

((Sorry about being gone, I'm on vacation and on't be back for a few weeks))