-
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.
- Status
Omnicare should be privatised, at most we shouldn't privatise Medicare but what has the government to do with car insurance?
ENDTech however should remain the way it is.
ENDTech however should remain the way it is.
Indeed, quite my thoughts. For the time being at least, anyway.
I think what our party needs to do is launch a comprehensive study of all the state-owned companies and institutions and then decide on a one-by-one basis which can feasibly be privatised in full (and that market opened up for competition), and which can be divided up and sold in part.
Is anyone willing to help me with this?
I think what our party needs to do is launch a comprehensive study of all the state-owned companies and institutions and then decide on a one-by-one basis which can feasibly be privatised in full (and that market opened up for competition), and which can be divided up and sold in part.
Is anyone willing to help me with this?
Perhaps we can help undo the arms embargo and help relations with Britain by pushing for the government to rescind claims on Bermuda?
"I'm not sure about that, Per von Hapsburg.
After all, a good number of our potential voters are patriots. And patriots do not like to see governments throwing away rightful parts of our nation. I would personally be against such a gesture, seeing as it would be exactly that - a gesture. Britain has little to gain from it, since we are hardly likely to take them back by force. And we have so much to lose.
I've been thinking about our party's policy on reunification. Do you favour a more proactive approach, putting pressure on St. Espirit and Tilapia to have referenda on parts that want to return to us? I think we should emphasise the monarchy argument next election. Tilapia, of course, has a Queen. If Maria, God bless her, is to die, it would be very sensible for us to explain how reunification would be that bit more easy when we share the same monarch. St. Espirit, of course, is a different matter."
After all, a good number of our potential voters are patriots. And patriots do not like to see governments throwing away rightful parts of our nation. I would personally be against such a gesture, seeing as it would be exactly that - a gesture. Britain has little to gain from it, since we are hardly likely to take them back by force. And we have so much to lose.
I've been thinking about our party's policy on reunification. Do you favour a more proactive approach, putting pressure on St. Espirit and Tilapia to have referenda on parts that want to return to us? I think we should emphasise the monarchy argument next election. Tilapia, of course, has a Queen. If Maria, God bless her, is to die, it would be very sensible for us to explain how reunification would be that bit more easy when we share the same monarch. St. Espirit, of course, is a different matter."
Yes, perhaps the time has come to replace the Presidency with the monarchy.
In my opinion, most of the existing government structure should be retained,ie:a loose federal monarchy with an elected prime minister, perhaps that would replace the presidency. On the issue of reuification, perhaps we should wait and see.
The 'crown for union' arguement is a good one though.
In my opinion, most of the existing government structure should be retained,ie:a loose federal monarchy with an elected prime minister, perhaps that would replace the presidency. On the issue of reuification, perhaps we should wait and see.
The 'crown for union' arguement is a good one though.
If we assume that the monarch is to take on the role of Head of State, it leaves us in a bit of a predicament as to how the rest of the business should run.
Should we have a separately elected Head of Government, who doesn't sit in the legislatory chamber and doesn't require its support to remain in office, but still needs a majority in it to pass legislation?
Or do we have a Head of Government who sits in the General Assembly himself and thus needs to have a majority of support there to survive?
I personally prefer the latter, simply because it ensures that we do not have periods of impasse where a Government is unable to get anything done. But on the other hand, it does mean that there may be fairly regular changes of Government, and perhaps even more regular elections.
What do you think?
Should we have a separately elected Head of Government, who doesn't sit in the legislatory chamber and doesn't require its support to remain in office, but still needs a majority in it to pass legislation?
Or do we have a Head of Government who sits in the General Assembly himself and thus needs to have a majority of support there to survive?
I personally prefer the latter, simply because it ensures that we do not have periods of impasse where a Government is unable to get anything done. But on the other hand, it does mean that there may be fairly regular changes of Government, and perhaps even more regular elections.
What do you think?
Due to the abscence of Per /strasse, I move to have myself declared Chairman and MGA pro tem. Is anyone willing to second my motion?
- Status