Please note that there are already universities in the Spanish Speaking areas. 
Rev. Jack Teano
Chairman, Moderate Party
Rev. Jack Teano
Chairman, Moderate Party
-
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.
I would ask Bramarius and dr. Vlamnick to seriously consider this Bill. As much of our demographics is now slowly moving into adulthood (the Gen Y baby boom); another publicly-funded, free university is a good idea.
I would consider the bill, if this institution is a truely Latin university. (Fench/Spanish used for teaching) Since there's only one of these
I have done clarified in the bill that the University should focus on eduation in Spanish and french. And this region is not the richest region in the country, and the University should be free which will giva all possibilities to educate themselves.
I know we have very few things that we agree completely on, but the WTO is one of them. The commission is taking a final vote so I am here to remind your reps to vote a loud and clear no! Thank you.
Shiiuga--Patrick Murray--if you remember, you're on the WTO commission. If you have time, please vote "no" to WTO in the commission HQ.
Thanks
Thanks
I would invite any ESRP members of parliament to co-sponsor/second the Workers. Bill of Rights.
It will not advance until someone seconds it.
Thanks,
Jack Teano
Moderate Party
It will not advance until someone seconds it.
Thanks,
Jack Teano
Moderate Party
Thanks,
Some of the MP constituency isn't real comfortable with the bill, but I was part of the committee and I will honor the compromise we worked out and work for passage of the bill. I encourage my fellow MP MoP's to support the bill, and hope we can cooperate on other issues down the road.
Jack Teano
Moderate Party.
Some of the MP constituency isn't real comfortable with the bill, but I was part of the committee and I will honor the compromise we worked out and work for passage of the bill. I encourage my fellow MP MoP's to support the bill, and hope we can cooperate on other issues down the road.
Jack Teano
Moderate Party.
Dear members of the ESRP,
I understand that there is some apprehension and/or opposition about the anti-terrorism proposals being suggested by the government.
The Coalition to Preserve the Republic agreed to address many issues that were recognized as urgent priorities for our nation.
One of these, which was not an original issue but was added, was the Workers Bill of Rights. Many members of the Moderate Party are somewhat critical of this legislation, even the compromise, but I stand firm in my support of it and remain its only champion in the legislation (Minus Mr. Borgman's second, of course).
A comprehensive anti-terrorism plan is essential for Eutopia and we need ESRP support of a legislative package to enact such a plan.
However, I undertand your concerns about current legislation.
Just as Moderate Party representatives participated in serious discussion about the WBR, I would ask ESRP representatives to visit the MHA's office and to engage in a serious examination of your own of the issue.
You may have legitimate concerns about what has been proposed, and that is to be expected. However, we need you to not simply dismiss the proposal but to work with us for developing a consensus proposal that all CPR members can support.
Will you work with us on this?
Please join the MHA's examination of this issue. I am sure that this would be a gesture of good will that would help ensure the support of other CPR members for proposals such as the WBR which they might be less than enthusiastic about themselves.
Thank you for your consideration of this request,
Rev. Jack Teano
Chairman, Moderate Party
I understand that there is some apprehension and/or opposition about the anti-terrorism proposals being suggested by the government.
The Coalition to Preserve the Republic agreed to address many issues that were recognized as urgent priorities for our nation.
One of these, which was not an original issue but was added, was the Workers Bill of Rights. Many members of the Moderate Party are somewhat critical of this legislation, even the compromise, but I stand firm in my support of it and remain its only champion in the legislation (Minus Mr. Borgman's second, of course
).A comprehensive anti-terrorism plan is essential for Eutopia and we need ESRP support of a legislative package to enact such a plan.
However, I undertand your concerns about current legislation.
Just as Moderate Party representatives participated in serious discussion about the WBR, I would ask ESRP representatives to visit the MHA's office and to engage in a serious examination of your own of the issue.
You may have legitimate concerns about what has been proposed, and that is to be expected. However, we need you to not simply dismiss the proposal but to work with us for developing a consensus proposal that all CPR members can support.
Will you work with us on this?
Please join the MHA's examination of this issue. I am sure that this would be a gesture of good will that would help ensure the support of other CPR members for proposals such as the WBR which they might be less than enthusiastic about themselves.
Thank you for your consideration of this request,
Rev. Jack Teano
Chairman, Moderate Party
So, based on your lack of response and recent communications in the RD communication office I'll take that as a no? Great...this is what we get for being inclusive.
Great...this is what we get for being inclusive.
Originally posted by heagarty
So, based on your lack of response and recent communications in the RD communication office I'll take that as a no?
Please note that what Our Great Leader said in the RD communications office is not our Party's official stance, and I personally think it's a good idea to continue with the CPR.
(Returns to ESRP Comm office after leaving the CPR Meeting to see latest communication)
What? Hmmm, then perhaps I've overreacted?
I would appreciate continued cooperation with the ESRP but I suppose I am a little sensitive to recent criticisms.
Please advise us as soon as you are able as to your party's official position on this issue.
I would hope that we could continue to work together, but if the ESRP sees no value to the relationship we certainly won't burden you with the association.
Jack Teano
What? Hmmm, then perhaps I've overreacted?
I would appreciate continued cooperation with the ESRP but I suppose I am a little sensitive to recent criticisms.
Please advise us as soon as you are able as to your party's official position on this issue.
I would hope that we could continue to work together, but if the ESRP sees no value to the relationship we certainly won't burden you with the association.
Jack Teano
Originally posted by heagarty
So, based on your lack of response and recent communications in the RD communication office I'll take that as a no?
A no to what? I tried to get someone to discuss the anti-terror Bill with you but he is busy right now. If you'd like, I'd love to work on it with you. Just direct me to the proper HQ. Thanks.
I'm only looking into our options for the future. [ooc: and not using PMs, like others do, in the interest of the game.] Phil of the RD has stated explicitly his disinterest in the CPR. Without RD involvement there is no CPR. So, knowing that an alliance with either the MP or CC is out of the question, I'm seeking what's best for the Party.
Why does the lack of one party make us suddenly unable to protect the republic? And why is an alliance with the MP out of the question? I will take this as offensive until something by way of explanation is offered.
Mr. President,
I forsee an alliance with the MP as "out of the question" ONLY because my own intelligence sources indicate that the majority of your Party members have no interest in an alliance with us. Personally, I have no gripes with the work done by your Party [truthfully, they've been the most active this term]. In fact, I do not see anything wrong with an ESRP-RD-MP alliance.
I forsee an alliance with the MP as "out of the question" ONLY because my own intelligence sources indicate that the majority of your Party members have no interest in an alliance with us. Personally, I have no gripes with the work done by your Party [truthfully, they've been the most active this term]. In fact, I do not see anything wrong with an ESRP-RD-MP alliance.
May I just point out that whatever my personal opinion may be, the RD has yet to take an official stance on future coalitions. As our colleagues from other parties may have noted, there are a number of influential RD-members who are in favour of continuing the CPR. This is an issue that the RD still has to decide on internally; at this point, I cannot give you a reliable prediction regarding the outcome of discussion within the RD. Much will depend on the development of negotiations with other parties, and on concrete coalition offers they may make.
It doesn't. However, this is a bit of a red herring. The issue is not whether to protect the republic or not; the republic will be protected as long as the Monarchists do not obtain a two thirds majority in Parliament (whether alone or in a coalition). The issue is, rather, *how* to protect the republic. My personal disappointment with the CPR - its achievements during this term notwithstanding - stems from the fact that it was intended to protect the republic by implementing constitutional reforms; it has not done so, and there is no indication that it would be likely to do so in the future. Hence, the CPR is superfluous.
P.N.H. Schwarzerd