PRIVATE - Coalition to Preserve the Republic

[Josephus I]

I'm with Phil.

Unless we do what we intended to do, that is set in stone a constitutional decree that bans in perpetuity any monarch; then the pupose of CPR is a bit redundant.

At worst, the CRE might win the presidential election if the remaining four parties split a candidate or two. But the makeup of Parliament will still be the same as if there was CPR.

I agree that we worked will together, and I have gotten along well on a personal level with many of you. But we really need to determine the purpose of CPR if it's to continue. At this rate all future elections will be CPR vs. CRE---leaves very little room for political flavour.

 

[unmerged(4271)]

E' tu, Marx?

I am sorry to hear, from discussions elsewhere, that your comments here have been turned quite critical of the CPR, and that this is not enough for you. Perhaps you (or at least some of your members) are right, that vandalism is they way to bring down the monarchy?

Let's see, the ESRP has gotten their Death Penalty bill passed, a new bill to save the commission (otherwise doomed since no one acted on it) introduced along with a very generous Workers' Bill of Rights up for vote right now.

And the other parties in the CPR have received...what by comparisson?

Seems to me that, for such a small political party, the ESRP has reaped the most rewards from the CPR with the least effort.

If the ESRP wishes to go its own way, so be it. If you wish to jeopardize what we've accomplished by splitting an electoral coalition that could lead to the return of the monarchy, that is in your power, but you will be held responsible.

I would hope that our other coalition partners see more value in this agreement and relationship. If so, let us go forward together. If not, best to announce this now and allow us time to develop a new strategy.

Rev. Jack Teano
Moderate Party

 

[Josephus I]

Mr. Teano, don't be so harsh. The es tu Marxus statement doesn't wash.

First of all the Death Penalty merely got "put aside for now." The Bill of Rights has yet to be passed.

Don't get me wrong, I appreciate the work and cooperation you have done. As I said elsewhere, I'm doing something publicly that others are doing privately. I'm seeking the best outcome for the ESRP in a future government.

I insist on this: the CPR was supposed to bring constitutional change to outlaw, in perpetuity, the monarchy. We joined this alliance due to our strong anti-monarchist stance. The CPR seems unwilling to want to do this. So what's the point? All I see then, in perpetuity, is a CPR vs CRE election, term after term.

I do not wish to see a return of the Monarchy in Eutopia. Far from it. But is this the way to go about it? Does Eutopian politics become one-issued. If the CPR comes up with a reasonable method of dealing with the CRE, other than a continuous coalition, I'm willing to hear it.

Fact remains the RD plans on pulling out of the Coalition. Therefore, without them, I envision the CPR is dead. I must look ahead for the interests of my Party.

[ooc...as Jools pointed out, all of us getting along all the time gets boring ]

 

[unmerged(3748)]

I would like to stress that the Rally for Democracy is currently weighing the possibilities for the next elections.

Nothing has been decided, and Mr. Schwarzerds comments were clearly indicated as his own opinion. Drawing farfetched conclusions such as "Fact remains the RD plans on pulling out of the Coalition." are completely exaggerated at this point in time.

 

[unmerged(4271)]

Originally posted by Josephus I
Mr. Teano, don't be so harsh. The es tu Marxus statement doesn't wash.

First of all the Death Penalty merely got "put aside for now." The Bill of Rights has yet to be passed.

Don't get me wrong, I appreciate the work and cooperation you have done. As I said elsewhere, I'm doing something publicly that others are doing privately. I'm seeking the best outcome for the ESRP in a future government.

I insist on this: the CPR was supposed to bring constitutional change to outlaw, in perpetuity, the monarchy. We joined this alliance due to our strong anti-monarchist stance. The CPR seems unwilling to want to do this. So what's the point? All I see then, in perpetuity, is a CPR vs CRE election, term after term.

I do not wish to see a return of the Monarchy in Eutopia. Far from it. But is this the way to go about it? Does Eutopian politics become one-issued. If the CPR comes up with a reasonable method of dealing with the CRE, other than a continuous coalition, I'm willing to hear it.

Fact remains the RD plans on pulling out of the Coalition. Therefore, without them, I envision the CPR is dead. I must look ahead for the interests of my Party.

[ooc...as Jools pointed out, all of us getting along all the time gets boring ]

(OOC: Yeah, that's where the "E' Tu" comment came from, trying to spice things up a bit of colorful indignation. )

Mr. Josephus,

I am afraid I still fail to see valid criticism of the coalition. If, as you say, "The CPR seems unwilling to...bring constitutional change to outlaw, in perpetuity, the monarchy. We joined this alliance due to our strong anti-monarchist stance." then why has the ESRP not brought us such a proposal?

You see, the only anti-monarchist proposals I have seen are from Mr. Schwarzerd and myself. He presented an outright ban, which many of us feel may be pointless after Mr. Fox's defection sealed the chances for so strong a constitutional amendment. I presented a number of more modest ideas and recently moved forward with ending the Restoration Committee.

We (Phillip and I) have received very little in the way of constructive comment or feedback from other CPR members, notably in this case, the ESRP.

If you had actively worked toward this issue only to see your efforts frustrated or ignored I would understand your complaint. But to do little, then complain at the end that nothing was done seems a bit....let's say, "unconvincing".

Can you not see why those of us who HAVE worked on this issue and received little support, but toiled away regardless, would take issue with your criticism?

We all may be frustrated by how the situation in parliament changed our options, but some of us are still looking for answers.

Let us know what you think should be done as far as definitive action on the monarchy question, that is, let us know what you find fault with and how to fix it, and I give you my word that all of our efforts will be put toward that goal.

Jack Teano

 

[jacob-Lundgren]

i know i have not spoken here much but there is no time like the present.

though some people seem to belive otherwise, the mere existence of the CPR itself with a commanding majority of parliament is a counter to a return of the monarchy, or of any downfall of EUtopia's democratic way of life. until the cpr loses parliamentary majority there is no need to worry about EUtopia's government becoming anything other then what it is now, baring the restructuring we are debating in parliament.

the work the cpr has started should be commended and the talk of breaking it up and the rumours abounding of, well lets face it, an anti-CRE and anti-CC coalition disturb me. the fact that there may be negotiations right now of blindsiding the CC and forming a coaliton of the left worries me for obvious reasons.

The cre has a large minority of power and large membership base, this however makes it no closer to re-instating a monarch along the lines it desires. there will never again be a monarch ruling this nation with total power and the fact that so many people are so petrified with fear of it just proves how little faith they have in our great republic, and that should bring shame to them.


(hiyo! )

 

[unmerged(11366)]

A little bit of obvious logic:

We NEED to preserve the CPR. It can only be dissolved once its goal, complete abolishment of monarchy, is accomplished.

 

[unmerged(3748)]

Originally posted by Hajji Giray I
A little bit of obvious logic:

We NEED to preserve the CPR. It can only be dissolved once its goal, complete abolishment of monarchy, is accomplished.

And how do you propose to go about this preservation effort?

Surely, we must also focus on things other than the monarchy.

 

[unmerged(4271)]

Surely, and I think we have made strides in coming together for common priorities. We all know we need to improve our national security (defense and security against terrorism), and have moved ahead on other areas (WBR).

Remember that one threat of CRE rule has been that these crucial needs would be abandoned as they eat cake and argue who gets to be king.

I mean, they have been the target of countless criminal acts and they still don't get involved with security issues.

What does it take to get their attention?!?!

The preservation of the Republic is our key goal, but that takes many forms. We are preserving it from the monarchy, but also from anarchy, revolution, and foreign threats.

And...(ack)..

Teano's voice gives out after a busy day in parliament and in political meetings. Embarassed, he leaves for the day to recuperate.

 

[unmerged(11366)]

Originally posted by Silent Eagle
And how do you propose to go about this preservation effort?

Surely, we must also focus on things other than the monarchy.

Simple, we pass anti-monarchy laws, then go our separate ways and forget about the CPR.

 

[Craig Ashley]

Josephus, I must say I am a bit shocked by your attitude. I've come to expect this sort of drivel and partisan bickering from Schwarzerd, but I thought you were above this. Despite our vast idealogical differences, I've found you to be a realistic and pragmatic leader, but you can't in any credible way state that the CPR has not been an overwhelming success. Once the worker's rights bill and the anti terror bill pass, this will easily be the most historic and active term since the monarchy was dissolved.

Whether or not we pass the longed for no monarchy ammendment, the CPR is a bluwark against any threat to our republic. The fact is, if the CPR breaks up, it is possible if not likely that some parties will go looking for support from the CRE. The CRE alone will never be able to alter the constitution, but with a strong coaltition partner, who knows?

You state without the RD, the CPR is dead. I don't agree. We all know there was very nearly a ESRP-CC-MP alliance. Such a coalition could still emerge, at least in my eyes it could, and would provide protection from the CRE's agenda, though it would be by a much more narrow margin.

Oddly enough, you criticize the ATB, but don't offer any suggestions or ideas. Yet you claim to support the idea of anti terror legislation. I for one would like to see proof of your support for this imortant and greatly needed form of legislation. The CC and even the MP could easily threaten to pull support for what some have called the excessive Worker's rights bill, if you continue to hold up the ATB. However, though I do not like every aspect of the WRB, I believe it is a decent compromise and I am willing to stand behind it. However, I expect the same of my coalition partners on other issues. This is politics, gentlemen. You stratch my back, I stratch yours.

Mr. Fitzpatrick, I am pleased to see that not everyone from the left is so eager to blow apart this fine coalition and the spirit of friendship that has been built. I hope your reasonable voice is heard above Mr. Schwarzerd's high pitched partisan cries. It has been a pleasure working with you.

On the proposed ammendment, I am a little leery of making a iron clad, can't be changed, ammendment of any kind. It opens a scary precedent. The US constitution allowed for slavery and the disenfranchisment of millions, including blacks and women. If it were not a living document, then those changes would have been much more difficult to make. Do we really want to become a country that goes through a constitution a week? That said, I have repeatedly said I am willing to listen to discussion on this before I make my final decision, but I have heard nothing further on the issue.

I do believe the best defense agains the CRE's nightmare vision of a monarchy is constant vigilance. The CPR provides that. Therefor, I see it as a valuable thing and should not be cast out without careful consideration.

 

[Josephus I]

Mr. Langley,

You are right I have vented against the Terror Bill and have not proposed a solution. For that I erred and beg forgiveness. I'm not sure where the best place is, so I'll do it here, in the CPR HQ within the next 24 hours.[ooc: Stanley Cup final beckons.]

Regarding the CPR, you're right again; a CRE-MP (for the sake of example, please) coaliton could be deadly. But the fact remains the MP (or any other exisiting Party) is against monarchy and is unlikely to support a monarchist stance.

All I'm saying is we all agreed to look into setting up a Constitutional amendment of some sort. If the majority of the Coaliton is against it--fine. I submit. But if that's the case, then, why not make the CPR an official Party? We have a defacto two-party nation, then. The monarchists and the Republicans.

The CPR, despite the odds stacked against it, and a rough beginning, HAS DONE GREAT THINGS. I have never denied that. All I'm saying is, are we going to do this IN PERPETUITY? I have to defend, to my Party and my supporters, why I'm constantly seeking an alliance with elements that--amongst other things have said the ESRP has sponsored State Terrorism. I have worked well with you, and I have worked well with Mr. Teano and a few others; but there are others here who would just as soon as have me "removed."

In short, I find this Coalition a relatively a hostile environment to work in both from within and from without. I seek, first and foremeost to remove the threat of monarchy...but it seems to me Parliament will have the numbers even outside of a Coalition.

So, in long, [faceoff's about to drop] Can we have at least one rep from each party on the coalition vote on this one issue: Should we seek constitutional redress vis-a-vis the monarchy. In case of a tie (we have four parties), the President can cast the deciding vote. If the motion is defeated I will drop this INDEFINATELY.

Finally, this whole thing came to light because I was publicly trying to guage the RD's opinion on the matter [strangely, they've been the only ones who've kept quiet] SHOULD this coalition fall apart. We did this last term, you and I, only privately. I should have called Phil [ooc PM] and none of this would have happened. [ooc, but you must admit some 'fun' came out of it.]

If there is a strong demand to continue this Coalitilon another term, I assure you we will support it. But don't deny that your party and others are having private talks regarding Coalition forming. As one of the greatest Socialists once said, "let him without sin cast the first stone."

 

[unmerged(3748)]

Since I can imagine people are starting to wonder what the RD sentiment towards the coalition is, I will try to shed some light on this issue:

We are currently debating which possibilities are open for the upcoming elections, and I have the honesty to say that we are a bit split on the matter. I guess that a more definate and clear answer will be decided upon by our membership in a few days.

Personally, I will not hide my appreciation for the work weve been able to do, both in government and in parliament. I have tried to run my ministry in a way that laid a groundwork for the future, and I hope that I am succeeding in this. This is how I see the CPR as a whole: laying the groundwork, the basic structures of how our nation needs to be guided towards the future. This effort is not over yet, and the only logical conclusion can be that it is worthwile considering another round of CPR.

I hope this sheds at least some light on the RD sentiment.

Sebastian Fitzpatrick
MHSA & VP

 

[unmerged(228)]

I have so far missed one consideration in the discussions about a new CPR term. Planning a constitutional change is a monumental task and requires a lot of attention of experienced legislators. Sofar, many of our most skilled politicians have commited themselves on other issues, and these were important issues too. Now, our options are more open to discuss constitutional change than they were at the beginning, and we have a very skilled team ready to do it. Consider this well people, the CPR hasn't withered or failed, it has grown and matured!

Now that I have everyone's attention, if you feel that progress on an anti-terrorism bill has been slow, I have to agree with you. To be honest, the task is a daunting one, and I can use some help on it. I want to do this step by step, and go for a definition of terrorism first, have that legislated (this term), and then proceed further. Does this sound like an acceptable 'roadmap' to you?

 

[Josephus I]

Sounds like a good plan Timothy.

My basic beef with the anti-terror bill as currently worded, apart from the silly nonsense at the end, is it makes no distinction between suspects whom evidence directly links them to terror acts and those merely under suspicion.

I think basic human rights and the criminal code should not be violated. If evidence exists that a person is linked to a terror act, then the criminal code is in place; the person is arrested and charged immediately. That person then has all the recourse to the law.

If the powers that be determine that a person MAY BE linked to terror, but no concrete evidence exists, then that person can not be arrested. He may be tailed, followed, like a normal criminal and the police try to obtain evidence the normal, legal, way. Police may apply to a judge for "abnormal" powers of surveillance, IF there is sufficient circumstantial evidence linking that person to terror.

Standard "Just cause" rules apply. If police receive a tip that a terror act is about to take place, they may obtain judicial right to launch an immediate raid/ arrest. They then have 24 hours to present their case.

But standard round ups, like what took place in America post 9-11 have no place here. I fear the legislation as worded gives legal power to police to arrest, for example, any monarchist, or socialist, --or any other scapegoat, without just cause.

This, of course, in addition to what Timothy said, about first defining what a "terrorist" and a "terror act" are.

 

[Craig Ashley]

Josephus, first off I am not amused when you attempt to portray a religious figure for political means. That said I look forward to your ideas on the ATB. I would agree that there needs to be some standard of "justifiable cause" for searches, taps, ect. How high or low that standard is, will probably be a point of debate.

On the proposed ammendment, I have repeatedly said, I have my doubts, but I am willing to discuss it. I will say, I am almost certianly opposed to any ammendment that contians an "iron clad" clause making it unchangeable by future generations. It sets a bad precendence and would make our constitution rigid. If this practice became common place, we could end up with a constitutional crisis at some point.

As to my discussions with other parties, I have had one brief conversation with Jack Teano. I will produce a copy of my letter, if need be, but in it I stated my strong preference and commitment for the CPR and simply wanted to see what the MP thought. I did briefly bring up a what if scenario if the ESRP and RD pulled out, but the main thrust of it was support for the CPR.

Mr. Fitzpatrick, I simply must say, I have admired your work this term and hope your voice can persuade your party to remain in the CPR.

 

[unmerged(1522)]

Originally posted by Silent Eagle
Nothing has been decided, and Mr. Schwarzerds comments were clearly indicated as his own opinion. Drawing farfetched conclusions such as "Fact remains the RD plans on pulling out of the Coalition." are completely exaggerated at this point in time.

Precisely.

Originally posted by Hajji Giray I
We NEED to preserve the CPR. It can only be dissolved once its goal, complete abolishment of monarchy, is accomplished.

I would agree *if* the CPR had actually made any progress regarding anti-Monarchist legislation. For this entire term, debate about this core issue of the CPR has been more or less limited to the MP and RD. Unlike Mr. Teano, and probably not surprising given our respective party affiliations, I see the problem more with the CC than the ESRP: the ESRP has made it clear in the past that they would support anti-Monarchist legislation and constitutional amendments; the best that can be said about the CC is that it seems iffy on the issue. Please note that this is not a dig against the CC - they are entitled to their opinions and policy stances as much as we are to our own. However, given that this is the situation, I don't see the value of continuing the CPR (and let me once again emphasize that this is my personal opinion).

P.N.H. Schwarzerd

 

[jacob-Lundgren]

actualy its pretty easy to sum up what you just said
1. the cc doesnt agree with us so that meens it never said anything cuz we didnt here what we wanted
2. you acknowledge of what the esrp said because you agree with it
3. you accept that the cc doesnt agree with you but it still makes them in the wrong.


feel free to correct me

 

[unmerged(1522)]

Originally posted by Craig Ashley
I've come to expect this sort of drivel and partisan bickering from Schwarzerd, but I thought you were above this.

So, stating that the CPR has failed to achieve its core objective, is unlikely to do so, and is therefore superfluous qualifies as "drivel" and "partisan bickering"? I must say, I'd appreciate it if you could put a minimum amount of effort into your ad hominem attacks; this one was singularly unconvincing, and I'm mildly offended that you couldn't be bothered to use a bit of imagination. We all know you can do better than that.

Alternatively, you may wish to engage in a debate of the issues rather than in transparent personal attacks. Convince me that my assessment of the CPR is mistaken, and I will happily reconsider my stance - happily, since, unlike some of us here, I was a staunch proponent of the CPR when it was conceived. Note that my beef is not with the CPR's legislative accomplishments this term, but with its raison d'etre.

P.N.H. Schwarzerd

 

[jacob-Lundgren]

Originally posted by Melanchthon
So, stating that the CPR has failed to achieve its core objective, is unlikely to do so, and is therefore superfluous qualifies as "drivel" and "partisan bickering"? I must say, I'd appreciate it if you could put a minimum amount of effort into your ad hominem attacks; this one was singularly unconvincing, and I'm mildly offended that you couldn't be bothered to use a bit of imagination. We all know you can do better than that.

Alternatively, you may wish to engage in a debate of the issues rather than in transparent personal attacks. Convince me that my assessment of the CPR is mistaken, and I will happily reconsider my stance - happily, since, unlike some of us here, I was a staunch proponent of the CPR when it was conceived. Note that my beef is not with the CPR's legislative accomplishments this term, but with its raison d'etre.

P.N.H. Schwarzerd

the MAIN purpose of the CPR is prevent the monarchy from taking over. last i knew there wasnt a king on the throne but i could be wrong i suppose. having the CPR exist alone is a block to that. Making an amendment that prevents monarchy or government switching does nothing because A. if its not monarchists they could just overthrow the government and at that time the constitution is dead anyways, and B. if it is the monarchists they would obviusly have enough power to make 2 amendments as is said. and if you try and make an amendment that states you cant change this amendment then they would just write a new constitution and ignore the old one.

the easiest and most guranteed way to prevent a king ruling EUtopia is to prevent the CRE from being the biggest political force. without the CPR any other coalition is likely to either be small or force a rouge party into the mix. as we are well aware by the recent example by a former RD member, its lonely when you are by yourself and the party that was blindsided would very likely turn to the CRE at least in a limtied way which would only further weaken the coalition trying to rule when suddenly it loses control of parliament.