PRIVATE - Coalition to Preserve the Republic

[unmerged(1522)]

Originally posted by 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

No; it simply means the CC didn't agree with "us" (and I invite you to point me to the part of my post where I claimed the CC didn't say anything). And it means that the CC apparently doesn't support the core element of the CPR, which makes the CPR rather pointless.

2. you acknowledge of what the esrp said because you agree with it

No. We acknowledge that the ESRP has at least made it clear in the past that it supports the core element of the CPR-platform. I still wish discussion of the issue had been more extensive; that goes for all parties, but especially for the CC and ESRP.

3. you accept that the cc doesnt agree with you but it still makes them in the wrong.

Yes and no. No, the CC has a different worldview than the RD, and that is fine and dandy. Yes, I heartily disagree with most of the CC's platform, just as you presumably disagree with most of the RD's platform. Otherwise, I'm not sure why we'd have two separate parties in the first place.

feel free to correct me

Consider yourself corrected.

P.N.H. Schwarzerd

 

[jacob-Lundgren]

Originally posted by Melanchthon
Precisely.

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;

P.N.H. Schwarzerd

lets see you say the RD and MP are the only ones debating the issue and go on to say at least the esrp supports you, which makes them no problem, yet the cc is a problem.

am i reading that correctly?

 

[unmerged(1522)]

Originally posted by jacob-Lundgren
the MAIN purpose of the CPR is prevent the monarchy from taking over.

The main purpose of the CPR was to pass a constitutional amendment that guarantees Eutopia's status as a democratic republic in perpetuity.

having the CPR exist alone is a block to that.

Having *any* government that is non-Monarchist is a block to Monarchy; we don't need the CPR for 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 [...]

Sorry, but the A./B. section of your post is a bit unclear; could you clarify what you mean?

For the time being, my response would be that A., we're talking about legal means of change, not extra-legal means; after all, we don't question the use of passing anti-terrorist legislation just because terrorists might take over one day and then abolish all anti-terrorist legislation. And B., constitutions aren't drafted in a vacuum; unless there is a fundamental regime change by extra-legal means, I doubt that a new constitution could be passed by simply ignoring the rules of the old constitution.

P.N.H. Schwarzerd

 

[unmerged(1522)]

Originally posted by jacob-Lundgren
lets see you say the RD and MP are the only ones debating the issue and go on to say at least the esrp supports you, which makes them no problem, yet the cc is a problem.

am i reading that correctly?

See my previous posts.

P.N.H. Schwarzerd

 

[Josephus I]

I've posted my views above regarding my feelings about the Anti-Terror Bill. Meanwhile, the ESRP has nominated JohnLiep to represent us on this debate in the MHA HQ.

 

[jacob-Lundgren]

what the a and b ment are that a constitutional amendment preventing the change of EUtopia froma republic is useless. if someone had the power to change it they could either overthrow the govt or simply right a new constitution. an amendment is nothing more then a way to pat yourself on the back that you did your part and be done with it. if the cpr made such an amendment then broke up right afterwards, it ended as a compelte failure. an amendment wont protect EUtopia from change in government.

oh and as lnog as the person disagreeing with you on what the goal of the cpr is you are ok with that eh? but if its a political oposite you say they are wrong? nice standards there.


"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." just spoken by you

also i belive i have given my opinion many times regarding an amendment to gurantee the republic, as has jools i belive. so are you saying that you want the cc to present a writen statement by all of its members and only then will the cc have given some sort of opinion??

"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 )."

what has the cc got to do to speak its voice to you? engrave its opinion in stone and send that stone to your house?

enough double standards. a coalition only works if its members can trust each other and i see little reason to trust you at the moment.

(and the fun times begin to return muhahahaha )

 

[unmerged(4271)]

Ah, Mr. Schwarzerd! It amuses me how you rewrite history to make your own point! Especially for one so fond of quoting others' words back to them.

Please don't take this personal, for I am quite enjoying myself.
You presented a seemingly rational and logical argument that seemed difficult to argue with. But then I did a little research.

As I said, I understand your arguments, but I can't let you continue to make this one point over and over because eventually people might just believe you, and that would be wrong.

Originally posted by Melanchthon
The main purpose of the CPR was to pass a constitutional amendment that guarantees Eutopia's status as a democratic republic in perpetuity.

A noble goal, certainly, but just as certainly this statement is at best an exageration, and at worst an attempt to wrongly condemn the CPR of failure to justify, perhaps, your party's "honorable" exit from the CPR? I won't second guess motives, I will just present my case.

Part I. THE ORIGINAL PURPOSE OF THE CPR

The following legislative agenda has been suggested, and I believe has the potential to unite us.

To stave off restoration of the Monarchy and to provide a "national unity" government in response to actions taken against Eutopia and Eutopian citizens by the French government.

Those united behind such goals would work to:

• 
  - Enact constitutional amendments to secure Eutopia's status as a Republic;
  
  - Reform our military and modernize the military;
  
  - Toughen our environmental laws;
  
  - Consider electoral reform
  
  - Create an intelligence service; and
  
  - Enact anti-terrorist legislation.

Note, the GOAL is above bold and italicized. Your consitutional amendement was but ONE of several goals. An extremely important goal, I'd agree, but only one of many.

and please note your initial reaction to it.....

The legislative agenda is not set in stone; parties are certainly welcome to suggest additions. The six items outline in the first post seemed relatively non-controversial, which is why they were suggested as a core platform.

EDIT (removed quote from Jools)

Given the monarchist threat and the French crisis, this coalition may be the best thing that can happen to Eutopia.

This leads us to....

Part II. CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT DE-EMPHASIZED!

Before the coalition was agreed to the CC made an important demand....

Now I mentioned early on that I opposed the first part. (EDIT - HE REFERS TO THE FIRST ITEM, THE ENACTMENT OF THE AMENDMENT) I see it as reduntant. It already would take a constitutional change to instute anything but a republic. I feel adding the what is already there to be a waste of time. I ask you, is there anything here you can really object to? I asked you this in private (OOC: PM), but you never responded.

Mr.Teano that is the proposal. All it requires is trust in our joint candiate to do the right thing. Quite frankly, if we don't have that then Jools is right, this coalition is doomed to fail.

--Jacob Langley

The RD then endorsed this change.....

I agree with the proposal as layed out by Mr. Langley, and will retract my candidacy tomorrow, awaiting the advice of my fellow party members. This should not be a problem, and you may consider this as the RD's commitment to a working coalition of these four parties, based on mutual trust and respect.

Sebastian Fitzpatrick
Rally for Democracy

Part III. CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT TO BE "CONSIDERED"

But rather than drop the monarchy question entirely I (as the MP rep) offered this...

Due to some of the debate can we agree that "Consider constitutional amendments to secure Eutopia's status as a Republic" is fair?

I think you all know my position on the monarchy and the hardline I take, but I am willing to use this language as an alternative in case we decide that amendements, as opposed to simple legislation, are in fact unnecessary. I am still supportive but am looking for flexibility.

Also, how is this for the last addition to the official platform:

"Consider a workers' bill of rights"

Which was then also agreed to by the RD....

---Originally posted by Silent Eagle---

Agreed, Mr. Teano.

As did the CC, with reservations....

---Originally posted by Craig Ashley

Mr. Teano, I can agree with your proposed language. I won't make an issue of the possible constitutional change, but if I asked I speak my mind.

CONCLUSION

Soooooo......

As you will note, if you review the minutes, at no point did you, nor any member of the RD object to the removal of the constitutional amendment as a CPR objection when it was proposed, nor did you argue for its reintroduction, as something that would be "considered' when I added it back.

Clearly, as there was MUCH discussion and MUCH examination of this platform, the goal all along as was stated, was to stave off restoration of the Monarchy and to provide a "national unity" government in response to actions taken against Eutopia and Eutopian citizens by the French government.

The constitutional amendment was one MEANS to that END.

Actually, if you look at it with everything in context, the CPR HAS succeeded.

The CPR is certainly NOT superfluous, it HAS staved off restoration of the monarchy, by preventing a CRE-led coalition from controlling the government and it has provided a "national unity" government.

I admit that I had bought into some of the early disappointment about what we had failed to accomplish, but after being prompted by you to review the history of this discussion, I feel better about it than ever!

Thanks!

Jack Teano
Chairman of the Moderate Party

 

[Josephus I]

[ooc: Heagarty: Good job ]

 

[unmerged(11366)]

How about this:

The CPR stays together until we pass an anti-monarchy constitutional amendment. Then I buy y'all a drink of your choice at BREWtopia and we start arguing about killing off the CPR again.

Capisce? (or is it Capeesh?)

 

[unmerged(1522)]

Originally posted by jacob-Lundgren
what the a and b ment are that a constitutional amendment preventing the change of EUtopia froma republic is useless. if someone had the power to change it they could either overthrow the govt or simply right a new constitution.

In that case, I believe I've already answered your objections; see above.

oh and as lnog as the person disagreeing with you on what the goal of the cpr is you are ok with that eh? but if its a political oposite you say they are wrong? nice standards there.

I'm getting the impression you're conflating two different things: (a) differences in policy, and (b) differences of interpretation regarding the nature of particular events. Regarding (a), I'm saying that parties have different policy stances, which is fine and dandy and the (or at last a) reason they exist in the first place. Regarding (b), I'm saying that it's entirely possible Mr. Teano and I came away from the CPR-negotiations with two different readings about the purpose of the CPR; that doesn't mean one of us is necessarily wrong, it simply means that we have two differing interpretations of the (more or less) same events.

In other words, I can acknowledge that Mr. Teano's view of actual events may differ from mine and, at the same time, believe the RD to be on the right track as far as policy is concerned. Or, to put it differently: you detect a double standard where there is none.

also i belive i have given my opinion many times regarding an amendment to gurantee the republic, as has jools i belive. so are you saying that you want the cc to present a writen statement by all of its members and only then will the cc have given some sort of opinion??

Please refer me to your statements in the CPR or CPR legislative policy threads where you and Jools engage in a substantive debate about constitutional amendments regarding the Monarchy, beyond statements to the effect that "a bill, if worded correctly, about keeping EUtopia a republic/democracy would probably be ok by me, again if worded correctly," or "I just don't understand what the fuss is about. Even if some sort of monarchy is restored then I'm sure we'll still be a republic."

P.N.H. Schwarzerd

 

[unmerged(1522)]

Originally posted by heagarty
Ah, Mr. Schwarzerd! It amuses me how you rewrite history to make your own point! Especially for one so fond of quoting others' words back to them.

I'll respond at a later time, since I'm expected at the RD-HQ in fifteen minutes [OOC: I've spent way too much time on the forum already and need to get some stuff done IRL ].

P.N.H. Schwarzerd

 

[Craig Ashley]

Jack, thanks for stuffing that turkey with his own words. Nice job.

*sighs* I'm tired of people claiming the CC has not participated in the monarch debate, when I have spoken on this proposed ammendment many times. I've voiced my opinion clearly, but let me reiterate for those that have short term memory loss.

A constitutional ammendment to ban the monarchy would be either A) a useless political gesture or B) set a dangerous precedent that could lead to a constitutional crisis.

Option A is an ammendment without an "iron clad" clause. It provides no protection for the republic because it already takes a constitutional ammendment to institute a monarchy. If the will exists to change the constitution once, then it would certainly exist to change it twice.

I do view this type of legislation to be a waste of time and nothing more than a political statement. However, I would not actively oppose this. Making useless political statements could be said to be part of a politicians job. I thank God that I'm not one. Though as stated before, I would speak my mind if asked.

Option B refers to the same amendment with an "iron clad" clause. First off, it would most likely ban any form of a monarchy, even a strictly ceremonial and non state funded monarchy. This type of monarchy, while it could be viewed as a relic who's time has passed and smacking of old world elitism, is certainly not harmful to the Republic. Secondly, and much more importantly, an "iron clad" statement of any kind is a very dangerous precedent in constitutional law. Picture if you would, if the right gained a solid two thirds majority. It could pass all kinds of "iron clad" ammendments, outlawing abortion, affirming the complete and total right to own firearms, outlawing radical left wing parties, ect. Now even though I support some of those ideas (keep in mind I said some, I don't support limiting peaceful political parties) I would still vote against any "iron clad" proposal. A constitution needs to be an adaptable document. It needs to be able to change and grow as time passes and new ways of thinking emerge. It is not wise for one generation to decide for all generations. If they did, we would not have the republic we all cherish today. This type of proposal I would oppose vocally and actively.

Now, does any of this mean I support the monarchy? If you don't know the answer to that, I'll hand you a tape of my last broadcast. As I said before, the CPR in and of itself assures that the CRE will remain isolated and unable to enact it's main goal. Beyond that, as Mr. Fitzgerald alluded to, the CPR and the multi-partisan spirit it has fostered has enabled us to address many issues and lay important groundwork for out nation. Groundwork that was neglected in the past due to bitter, partisan politics. Do we really want to return to the "good ole days"?

I can only speak for the CC, but we remain completely committed to the CPR and hope all of the participating parties remain so as well.

OOC: I feel I need to address this since Josephus found it necessary to send me a PM on the matter. When he referred to Jesus as the first socialist, I took offense, in character. Joe was uncertain if I personally felt the same. I did not. I am what most would call a fundementalist Christian, but when I read that line I actually laughed out loud. I've heard far left wingers truly say that, and it is so bizzare and blatantly untrue, it makes me laugh in RL too. Just to clarify I was not offended and Joe has no reason to apologize. I thought it was a great piece of role playing.

Joe I sent you a PM, and I appreciate your concern. Now back to the game. This is fun when we fight.

 

[Josephus I]

Well, it appears the other members of the ESRP support this coalition, at least for one more term. Therefore, I hereby state, that if ALL the other parties in this coaliton want to continue, then the ESRP will throw in its support for the CPR for another term; and will therefore support a presidential candidate of the coalition's choosing.

 

[Craig Ashley]

Gentlemen, although the current discussion on the future of the CPR has not been resolved, I must prepare for the worst.

There are two major issues that the CPR has addressed. One being the Worker's Bill of Rights, the other the Anti-Terror Bill. One was a pet project of the left, the other the right. The WRB was given priority and a compromise bill formed. I and many others am not entirely pleased with the bill, but I believe it to be an acceptable compromise. As a member of the CPR, I am prepared to endorse it and support it.

However, support from the left for the ATB has been slim to none. I understand you have some concerns, and I would say some of your points are valid. However I fear the ATB will not come to a vote this term and if the CPR were to break up, the left may revert to total opposition to any ATB. That cannot happen.

If the right is willing to compromise on Worker's Rights and allow for some Worker's Gifts, then the left must be willing to compromise on Anti Terror legislation. I want a clear and public statement from the ESRP and the RD stating they will support a ATB that includes at a minimum harsh pentalties for acts of terror and attemtped acts of terror, the creation of a military anti-terror special forces unit, and the creation of a civil intelligence and investigative agency. The specifics can be debated, but those are the three pillars of the ATB. I also want it made clear that they will support this bill in this term, or any other term it should be proposed.

If the ESRP and RD cannot issue a public statement to that affect, then I see no need to compromise on the WRB. I will advise the CC's MoP to vote nay (OOC: Just to note, it seems the CRE is against this bill so that would make for 6 nay votes) and we will propose our own WRB in the next session of parliament.

If the left is not willing to compromise, then the right will not be played for fools.

The CC will not vote on this issue until we hear both party's statements. If the leftist parties do not respond and do not issue the statements I have requested by the time the voting session for the WRB has passed, the CC will take that as a no and vote accordingly. Thank you.

 

[Josephus I]

Mr. Langley,

With all due respect.

The WRB was a long time in the making, and representatives from all spectrums were invited to consult and hammer out an agreement.

Yes, the right compromised, but so did the left.

The ATB surpised me when it was introduced because I had no idea it was being worked out. It is now introduced in Parliament before a fair representative committee could discuss it the way the WRB was.

Discussion is all over the place, in here, in parliament, and in the MHA office. At Teano's request, I have sent our rep., JohnLiep to work on it in the MHA office. He can't debate it in Parliament cause he's not an MP.

I would like us to come to an agreement on this, but let's pull the Bill out of Parliament and reintroduce it when we have a consensus, like you did the WRB.

I give you my word that the ATB will be Priority No. 1.

And why the doom and gloom over CPR. Are you saying you're leaving? I have recently committed the ESRP's support to it.

 

[unmerged(3748)]

Mr. Langley, I think you are turning a blind eye to a serious difference between the WBR and the ATB: There was an extensive effort to seek for a mutually acceptable compromise throughout WBR negotiations, and the CC had not one, but two representatives on the commission. Claiming that the compromise is too this or not enough that, equals slamming your own work.

On the ATB, we have seen no such commission. All we've seen is a big chaos of different ideas seemingly merged at random, which were rather immediately proposed in parliament, without thorough discussion in this coalition.

I will not be pushed with my back against the wall like this. Your attitude is yet again failing you, Mr. Langley. Whereas I used to be somewhat lukewarm towards the ATB as proposed, your threats have turned me into an avid supporter of a thorough revision of the bill.

The only thing you can ask my commitment for, is the formation of a commission on which every party and interest group is represented fairly. The task of this commission should be:

Concerning terrorism:
- Forming a definition of terrorism, terrorist and acts of terror.
- Determining degrees of terrorism.
- Establishing which crimes should be labelled as acts of terror.
- Establishing just punishments for these crimes.

Concerning investigation & intelligence:
- Proposing a basic roadmap to establish a competitive agency in the fight against terrorism, which is capable of aiding similar agencies abroad.

Concerning anti-terrorist forces:
- Proposing a basic roadmap to establish a functional anti-terrorist force, which is capable of protecting citizens across Eutopia.

I would strongly advise against including the death penalty in this piece of legislation.


As a final note, allow me to express my deepest disappointment over this poor display of political leverage, Mr. Langley. So much for trust and respect in the coalition, apparently.

Sincerely,

Sebastian Fitzpatrick
MHSA & VP
Rally for Democracy

 

[Craig Ashley]

Allow me to clarify as it seems I have been misunderstood.

1) The CC has not stated any intentions of leaving the CPR. I believe this is a valuable organization. However, I do believe it is possible, if not likely, the RD will pull out. I also believe the ESRP will follow the RD's lead.

2)I'm not slamming the WRB. I'm not in agreement with the entire bill, but by and large it is an acceptable compromise. All ask is that the left be willing to compromise on ATB.

3) I'm not asking for anyone to support the ATB blindly as it stands. I agree there needs to be more discussion and probably revision to the current version of the bill.

4) What I want from the ESRP and RD is simply a public statement saying you support the basic ideas behind the ATB, not the current bill itself.

5) If the CPR would break apart, I believe the left would revert to its almost uniform opposition to the ATB. That would mean the right compromised on WRB, but the left gave nothing in return.
I want to be sure that this important issue is not swept under the rug, or falls victim to Eutopia's infamous partisan politics.

I have no problem pulling the current bill - as it is not likely to pass in its current form anyway. However, commissions set up by one adminisration have a poor survival rate when the next administration comes around. All I want is a public commitment to the issue, and a statement of agreement on the basics. We can debate and negotiate the particulars in this term and the next if necessary.

As to the death penalty, it would hypocritical to not include the DP for acts of terror that result in death. Currently Eutopia has the DP on the books, though executions are temporarily on hold while the system is reorganized. Juries and judges can still sentance the DP. If murder warrants the DP, then doesn't the mass murder that is terrorism?

If Eutopia should ever abolish the DP, then that law would affect the ATB just as it would any other sentencing guideline. So there is no reason not to include the DP.

All I want is a public commitment to the basic principals of the bill, is that too much to ask?

 

[unmerged(4271)]

I share some of Mr. Langley's concerns over the WBR and the ATB, but I am willing to recognize the clear differences in how the two have been pursued.

There were two schools of thought within the Moderate Party: on one hand, that action was needed immediately, on the other hand that we needed a thorough investigation. When asked to choose between these two options it appears we chose both.

The blanket opposition to the ATB by members of the left really rankled me, but I accept their good faith efforts to move forward with the legislation. I also accept that while the WBR may have some negative repercussions on business, that it was a victory labor won honorably and I'll stand by my part of the deal.

Therefore, what I'd like to ask each of you is this:

1) Can we agree on an immediate creation of an anti-terrorism branch of law enforcement and a special anti-terrorism military unit, as proposed in Mr. Morgan's bill?

2) Can we agree to look at questions of special powers for law enforcement, as well as punishments for crimes of terror in a special commission managed by the MHA? This would mean removing these provisions from Mr. Morgan's current bill for closer review.

3) Can we agree to move ahead as a coalition on the WBR as the deadline on voting has almost expired? I would be willing to review suggestions from left and right during the next term to look at improvements, if any are needed, in what was adopted.

I will admit, I have felt very politically charged about both issues, and with the campaign season approaching both issues seemed like sticks that could be used against the left and right if they looked like they might balk at cooperating in the future.

However, and this might be poor politics to give up a potential bit of leverage, but I'm willing to put these aside so we can go forward.

Let us pass the Workers Bill of Rights.

Let us create an immediate law enforcement and military response to terrorist threats.

Let us look at the greater underlying issues of how we investigate, prevent, and punish terrorism in greater detail.

Does that sound agreeable to everyone?

Jack Teano
Moderate Party Chairman

 

[Craig Ashley]

As usual, Jack, you find the diplomatic way to say what I said with my guns ablazing. Your compromise is a good place to start, but I still want public assurance. Even on military and civillian anti terror agencies or forces, there may be a need to examine the ramifcation and the specifics before enacting them into law. I'm not asking for the immediate passage of anything. I just want to know the left is committed to the issue and through what means (namely the three ideas of military units, a civillian agency, and harsh sentencing.) The details of who can do what, who answers to whom, and how harsh can all be answered later.

Like I said, the survival rate of old commissions is notoriously poor in Eutopia. I want to make sure that this issue stays alive and doesn't fall victim to partisan politics or indifference. In fact, if minister Hellsford would like, I would happily head up the committee to examine these issues.

 

[unmerged(3748)]

Langley, I've proposed a draft for the RD public statement, and will issue the final version later today.

I hope you do realise that your members of parliament will vote in favor of the WBR immediately after that. If your MoP's fail to vote, I'm sure you can imagine the unpleasant consequences this would have for our cooperative relations.

Sebastian Fitzpatrick