ESRP public meeting (communication thread)

[unmerged(4271)]

Originally posted by Melanchthon
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

Mr. Schwarzerd,

With all due respect, the likelihood of the passage of a constitutional amendment was severely cast in doubt when the RD's parliamentary representation was cut to one member. Now that said member has joined the monarchists, it is extremely unlikely.

My recollections of the CPR formation consist of discussion of a constitutional amendment as a MEANS to prevent the restoration of the monarchy but not the ENDS the coalition was formed to achieve. I still believe important checks and protections can be passed legislatively and a constiutional amendment, if carefully crafted MAY still be an option.

As you know, I have worked with you to try to find a solution, but I would be encouraged if I saw more involvement by our other CPR partners.

I would invite all ESRP members to participate in discussions about the monarchy and what actions they think are appropriate as we complete the second half of this term.

Regards,

Jack Teano
Chairman, Moderate Party

 

[Josephus I]

My personal opinion is this--and I invite other ESRP members to vocie their own opinion.

Mr. Teano, all I hear you say is, "I've worked with you to try find a solution." I say you haven't. What I've said in the past is this: Let's try to make a constitutional amendment [granted we might fail, if the numbers don't back us up--but at least we tried] that specifically outlaws the monarchy and perpetuates Eutopia's republic status in perpetuity. True, we don't know what will happen in the future, and a strong monarchist showing can overrule that constitutionally. However, with those sorts of numbers the CRE would require, the CPR would be unable to stop it.

I repeat what I've said in the past. The CPR has worked well, and you, Mr.Teano, especially deserve kudos for your work here. But I question it's raison d'etre if it's unwilling to take legislative action.

 

[unmerged(1522)]

Originally posted by heagarty
With all due respect, the likelihood of the passage of a constitutional amendment was severely cast in doubt when the RD's parliamentary representation was cut to one member. Now that said member has joined the monarchists, it is extremely unlikely.

I don't disagree that the defection of Mr. Fox has thrown a spanner into the anti-Monarchist works. However, the fact remains that the CPR commands a two thirds majoirty in Parliament even now. If all coalition partners had the political will to pass a constitutional amendment and managed to keep voting discipline, that amendment would pass.

My recollections of the CPR formation consist of discussion of a constitutional amendment as a MEANS to prevent the restoration of the monarchy but not the ENDS the coalition was formed to achieve.

My interpretation of the CPR's purpose is somehat different. I'm not saying one of us is right and the other wrong, I'm just saying that our interpretations differ.

I still believe important checks and protections can be passed legislatively and a constiutional amendment, if carefully crafted MAY still be an option.

Convince me that a constitutional amendment that actually has some teeth can still be passed and would find the CC's support, and I will happily support a four-party coalition once more.

As you know, I have worked with you to try to find a solution, but I would be encouraged if I saw more involvement by our other CPR partners.

I would invite all ESRP members to participate in discussions about the monarchy and what actions they think are appropriate as we complete the second half of this term.

I echo those sentiments, although I would extend the call for more extensive participation to the CC as well (which isn't to ignore Mr. Langley's past statements on the issue ).

P.N.H. Schwarzerd

 

[unmerged(4271)]

I appreciate your willingness to discuss this with me, but I fear I have imposed upon my ESRP friends.

I have looked at your arguments, but after some research, I believe you may be distorting (hopefully unintentionally! ) the true history of the CPR.

I'll move my disussion over the CPR meeting, but thank you for raising these points. They have helped me to develop my arguments for maintaining the coalition. I hope I can convince you all of this, as well.

Jack Teano

 

[I Killed Kenny]

I ask the ESRP If in the Actual Eutopian political sene is any party you would not ally for a goverment coaltion??? I would like a respondce from the Party... I do not need a explanation but if that exist I would like to know


In the Name of the RD

 

[Josephus I]

Vasco,

I speak only for myself; but while we support alllying with all the parties of the CPR, if that fails, I cannot see the ESRP allying with either the CC or the CRE.

We would have no objections, I don't think, to ally either with the RD or an RD-MP coalition.

 

[Gathenhielm]

the CRE would like to thank the ESRP for its support on the University bill. We are always open for discussion on bills in the future and will remember your support.

 

[unmerged(8022)]

Originally posted by Josephus I
Vasco,

I speak only for myself; but while we support alllying with all the parties of the CPR, if that fails, I cannot see the ESRP allying with either the CC or the CRE.

We would have no objections, I don't think, to ally either with the RD or an RD-MP coalition.

Well, I think we are closer to you than MP, except the Monarchy.

What should you say about a CRE_ESRP_RD coalition??

Baron Johan Banér CRE

 

[Josephus I]

Well, your recent rejection of the Workers Bill doesn't say very much for a coaliton.

 

[unmerged(3748)]

Originally posted by Josephus I
Well, your recent rejection of the Workers Bill doesn't say very much for a coaliton.

To be fair, you can say the same about the CC.

Or about the ESRP on the university bill, for that matter. [ooc: just stirring things up a little ]

 

[Josephus I]

Originally posted by Silent Eagle

Or about the ESRP on the university bill, for that matter. [ooc: just stirring things up a little ]

Right, the CRE is asking us for a coalition. WE SUPPORTED their bill, they didn't support the Workers Bill.

 

[jacob-Lundgren]

Originally posted by Silent Eagle
To be fair, you can say the same about the CC.

Or about the ESRP on the university bill, for that matter. [ooc: just stirring things up a little ]

to be fair you could pat attention to facts there is still a 6-5 running vote on the bill. it has not been turned down by the CC

 

[unmerged(3748)]

Originally posted by jacob-Lundgren
to be fair you could pat attention to facts there is still a 6-5 running vote on the bill. it has not been turned down by the CC

No, but Mr. Langleys bombastic threats to me and Mr. Josephus sure lost a bit of power when Mr. Jools cast his nay vote mere hours later.

 

[unmerged(4271)]

Personally, I think you all owe Mr. Lundgren your thanks and gratitude. Perhaps a party in his honor is in order?
Rev. Jack Teano
(Envisioning a party held by the socialists for Lundgren)

 

[Josephus I]

I don't know about a party.....but if J-L joins me at Brewtopia, I will buy him drinks all night. [expensed to the ECL]

 

[Gathenhielm]

Originally posted by Josephus I
Right, the CRE is asking us for a coalition. WE SUPPORTED their bill, they didn't support the Workers Bill.

I dont understand this hang up on this bill. CRE has never said we would support your bill. Your support on the university bill was AFAIK not dependent on that we should support workers bill.

I would be angry on Jools instead. If I get it right you have some coallition. If I where you I would see Jool's no as a betrayal. But maybe I am wrong about your coallition.

 

[Gathenhielm]

But as a compensation we could give you your support on the coffe bill.

 

[unmerged(1522)]

I actually have to agree with the CRE on this one: simply because Party A supports one piece of legislation by Party B does not mean Party B is now obligated to support a piece of legislation by Party A, *unless* there has been a deal to that effect.

Additionally, the CRE is an opposition party; I'm not sure why they would be under any obligation to support a government bill. It might be politically astute to support such a bill if it makes potential future coalition partners happy, but that's a question of strategy that's for the CRE to weigh and decide.

Just my two ducats.

P.N.H. Schwarzerd

 

[Josephus I]

You're right Schwarzed, of course. However, it's not as though the CRE/ESRP are bedfellows, anyways. The CRE asked us if we'd be interested in forming a coalition with them...I find it unreasonable given that they wouldn't support a basic labour bill--especially when we scratched their back.

 

[Josephus I]

Originally posted by Gathenhielm
I dont understand this hang up on this bill. CRE has never said we would support your bill. Your support on the university bill was AFAIK not dependent on that we should support workers bill.

I would be angry on Jools instead. If I get it right you have some coallition. If I where you I would see Jool's no as a betrayal. But maybe I am wrong about your coallition.

It's not so much a hangup. The fact is the ESRP is a labour party. That the CRE wouldn't support a labour law, means, in my opinion, we don't have anything in common.