PRIVATE - CPR: Coalition Caucus

[unmerged(4271)]

CPR: Private Coalition Caucus

Coalition to Preserve the Republic
PRIVATE COALITION CAUCUS

(OOC: PLEASE NOTE THE CHANGES MADE TO THIS THREAD!)

Welcome!


This is a closed meeting, open only to members of the Coalition to Preserve the Republic and any specifically invited guests:

Moderate Party
ESRP
Rally for Democracy
Mr. Elijah Hamilton, MECT
Mr. Jacob Lundgren, MILE


This assembly will be used to discuss caucus business, primarily questions of public policy and parliamentary strategy.

Records of PAST parliamentary and issues discussions are maintained here as well.

Specifically this series of meetings is dedicated to working on policy issues supported by the coalition so that the best possible legislation will be introduced in parliament and we can work key changes in this environment.

We invite open and honest discussion and strive to adopt mutually beneficial solutions for our nation's common interests.

Again, thank you for coming.

Jack Teano
Chairman, Moderate Party

For information about the formation of the Coalition to Preserve the Republic, our private meeting minutes may be found here: Archive of CPR Discussions



CPR THIRD TERM Legislative Goals

- Consider a constitutional amendments to secure Eutopia's status as a Republic;

- Enact/Consider (Can't remember which) a workers' bill of rights;

- Reform our military and modernize the military;

- Toughen our environmental laws;

- Consider electoral reform

- Create an intelligence service; and

- Enact anti-terrorist legislation.

 

[unmerged(3748)]

Its good to see that we can finally get down to business. Allow me to present my personal priorities suggestion:

- The President appoints his VP
- A commission with members from accross the political spectrum is formed to analyse the Death Penalty.
- The Workers Bill of Rights is finalised and passed into law.
- The counterterrorism and intelligence bills are finalised and passed into law.

After that, we can see whats happening, but I believe these four things can be easily accomplished. The commission must be formed as soon as possible, so the Borgman Bill does not turn into a dust-gathering file. Also, the two legislative pieces are quite near completion and thus deserve to be brought before parliament.

I wouldn't put your chips on the military reform being finalised this term - All Ive seen there is a lot of haughty ego's and a bunch of bickering about branches. I strongly advise MDIA Hartwell to take a clear and impartial stance in the debate, since he should be moderating instead of polarising it.

Also, I'd like to direct some attention to Dr. De Vlamincks new bill on excavation of archaeologic artifacts that should be coming up within the next few days, and also on Rev. Teano's ideas for the Olympic games. [ooc: mel, can you just confirm that my char knows what happens in parliament? I presume he does, is that correct? If not, disregard the last part of the previous sentence]

Hoping for some swift and effective work,

Sebastian Fitzpatrick
MHSA
Rally for Democracy

 

[Josephus I]

Don't forget the constitutional amendment reaffirming Eutopia as a Republic.

 

[unmerged(4271)]

I'd like to go ahead and drop Yuber's FreePort of Eutopia bill into the parliament for consideration, while we're putting together the more complicated proposals for anti-terrorism and the monarchy.

Now might be a good time to introduce the excavation bill, and we can get a triple-vote on the three issues: Olympics, FreePort, and Excavation?

 

[unmerged(3748)]

Sounds good. If you need my input on the Olympics, you know where to find me.

Mr. Josephus, what are your thoughts on that affirmation? I have yet to see any actual wording on this one, so thats why it isnt on my list.

 

[unmerged(6657)]

Do we have the numbers to get the amendment passed?? I know that CC members weren't for it, the CRE is obviously against it, and Kevyinus is on the fence.
I believe we need seven votes to get the amendment started, and we should confirm that we have all 7 before we introduce legislation.

 

[Josephus I]

Well according to the CPR dissucssions, we have formulated something vague like:

- Enact constitutional amendments to secure Eutopia's status as a Republic;

How would this be set in stone?

Maybe guaranteeing that Eutopia's Head of State is an elected position that can never be passed down through hereditary lineage.

We also flirted with the possibility of banning the use of nobility titles.

Yuber, if the MP is in favour; we may have the seven required, I'm not sure.

 

[unmerged(6657)]

I know that Mr. Langley is not firmly in our camp regarding this issue, and he may take the CC with him in opposition to the bill.

The CRE have 3 votes
There is 1 indy voter
All the CRE needs is to get 2 CC members to turn against the amendment, and is won't pass

Also, not to be undiplomatic, but Jools has been acting a bit strange, so who knows how he will vote on any given proposal.

 

[unmerged(3748)]

Mr. Jools is definately a liability. Still, thats all the more reason for Mr. Lundgren to follow the CPR voting trend. We all give and take in this coalition, and the CC will have to give its part as well.

Sebastian Fitzpatrick
MHSA & VP
Rally for Democracy

 

[Jools]

Originally posted by UberYuber


Also, not to be undiplomatic, but Jools has been acting a bit strange, so who knows how he will vote on any given proposal.

i can heeeeeaaaaaaarrrrrrr you


muahahahahahaha

 

[hughbartlett]

(OOC:Thanks Heagarty. My server is rather shoddy, so if I dissapear, feel free to take over if you need to. I'll continue from here on this, and I'll appoint you adviser just in case it happens again)

Welcome all, I see the discussions are already going well. I'd just like to apoint Rev. teano as my adviser and deputy if I am ever outside EUtopia City and not in reach again.

 

[Murmurandus]

I'm glad to see things moving along. I'm ready to cooperate here.

 

[unmerged(4271)]

Let's update and address some of these:

- The President appoints his VP
Done. Congratulations, Sebastian.

- A commission with members from accross the political spectrum is formed to analyse the Death Penalty.
The work of the commission will be spelled out in the inevitable passage of the DP Reform bill. Perhaps this, being a criminal justice issue, should fall under the MHA to set up and initiate the discussion? I don't want to put anything unwanted on Yuber, but it should at least have MHA's sanction and authorization, even if he can't take a lead on it.

- The Workers Bill of Rights is finalised and passed into law.
Great progress is being made on this in committee. I think we should review and discuss it here before introduction, but that we will have a fine product. Did anyone see the news from France today? (Sorry, I have France on my mind ) Massive demonstrations and strikes because they, and the Germans, are having to roll back their generous pension programs. With slumping tax revenues and a growing elderly population (too many "baby boomers") the governments can't afford to keep up their promised benefits. Let's remember to plan for these increased costs as we move forward with our plan.

- The counterterrorism and intelligence bills are finalised and passed into law.
This should be our next ambitious project. There were some models discussed already. If nobody brings them up, I'll try to find them and reintroduce them for discussion.


- military reform
This is a tricky topic and too often we see too much debate abo chain of command and conscription and in the meantime the actual state of the armed forces suffers. While I am a little more optimistic about the commission's chances, we need a military spending bill NOW! I would urge commission members and the president to steer the committe toward producing a shopping-list now and let them hash out who gets to control what between now and the end of the term. But that's just me.

- Protecting the Republican form of government
It IS rather hard to debate and promote something if we don't know how far it goes. We need to get a discussion going on a number of topics and see what should or should not go into legislation. For instance:

• 
  - Ending any government subsidy / tax exemption for former royals and their estates
  
  - Ensuring that the military remains under the ultimate authority of the elected civilian government not a monarch
  
  - Rather than banning titles of nobility, perhaps a government policy of "non-recognition" of titles? That is, families can pass down whatever heritage or history they'd like, but none of these names or titles would carry any privilege in the eyes of the government.
  
  - Dissolving any lines of royal succession. Follow me on this one - under the old system we ended up with a situation where no heir could be produced, so the system is invalid anyway. Rather than simply tinkering with it to allow some current noble to win the lottery over his or her peers and be named monarch, let us formally scrap this. If the monarchy were to re-emerge someday it would have to do so from scratch. People may favor someone from a traditional family, but there would be no gender exlcusions and, in theory, anyone could be eligible. Perhaps if we can dismiss any competing claims to the throne that would lead to the personal benefit of certain royals they would less enthusiastic about the monarchy's return? Then, too, we would see how many truly want the monarchy to return and how many simply want the chance of their own to be king?

These may be reasonable enough that we can build support necessary for constitutional amendments, and if not they could simply be changes to the standard laws of our nation.


Just some ideas for discussion. I will, once again, be jetting to France and may have some limited availability after this evening. (OOC: RL business trip coming up. Yay. :Rolleyes

 

[unmerged(1522)]

Originally posted by UberYuber
I believe we need seven votes to get the amendment started, and we should confirm that we have all 7 before we introduce legislation.

Constitutional amendments require a two thirds majority of votes cast, and a minimum of six votes in favour. Given Mr. Fox's newly-discovered soft spot for the Monarchy, I think we can count him out in this case. Which still leaves us eight votes, provided the CC does not withhold its support.

Originally posted by Josephus I
Well according to the CPR dissucssions, we have formulated something vague like:

- Enact constitutional amendments to secure Eutopia's status as a Republic;

How would this be set in stone?

If I may make a concrete suggestion for a constitutional amendment as a starting point for debate:

Amendment to Safeguard Eutopian Democracy

The following are fundamental characteristics of the Eutopian state; the Constitution may not be altered in ways which abolish or undermine them. Firstly, Eutopia is a democratic republic; popular sovereignty is the only basis of legitimate government. Accordingly, Eutopia's Head of State, Head of Government and legislative body must be elected by the citizenry, either directly or indirectly, in regular and frequent democratic elections. Secondly, no public office may be inherited, and any public office must be acquired, held and exercised in accordance with procedures decided upon by the elected and properly constituted authorities of Eutopia, to which all such offices are ultimately accountable. Thirdly, titles of nobility confer no special rights, claims, privileges or exemptions in the eyes of the Eutopian state. Finally, equivalent provisions apply to all sub-national levels of government.

P.N.H. Schwarzerd

 

[unmerged(1522)]

On reflection, the second point would probably need to be changed in a way that clarifies that it does not infringe on judicial independence. Any suggestions?

P.N.H. Schwarzerd

 

[unmerged(4271)]

If I may make a concrete suggestion for a constitutional amendment as a starting point for debate:

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Amendment to Safeguard Eutopian Democracy

The following are fundamental characteristics of the Eutopian state; the Constitution may not be altered in ways which abolish or undermine them. Firstly, Eutopia is a democratic republic; popular sovereignty is the only basis of legitimate government. Accordingly, Eutopia's Head of State, Head of Government and legislative body must be elected by the citizenry, either directly or indirectly, in regular and frequent democratic elections. Secondly, no public office may be inherited, and any public office must be acquired, held and exercised in accordance with procedures decided upon by the elected and properly constituted authorities of Eutopia, to which all such offices are ultimately accountable. Thirdly, titles of nobility confer no special rights, claims, privileges or exemptions in the eyes of the Eutopian state. Finally, equivalent provisions apply to all sub-national levels of government.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Well, not that there's anything wrong with that, but as far as STARTING the debate, were my suggestions for a lower key approach not worthy of consideration?

I think your plan is ambitious but should be debated. I am just saying that a back-up plan might attract more support from those not as fiercely pro-Republic as you and I.

Just a thought.

Gotta go, these international calls from France are expensive!

 

[unmerged(1522)]

Originally posted by heagarty
Well, not that there's anything wrong with that, but as far as STARTING the debate, were my suggestions for a lower key approach not worthy of consideration?

Admittedly, my proposal is more radical and may be a tougher sell, but I tried to formulate it in a way that would cover all or most of the suggestions you made under "Protecting the Republican form of government."

Also, my proposal isn't intended to *start* the debate, since the latter is obviously underway already. All it is intended to be is a starting point (or point of reference, if you will) for debate, as I felt it would be helpful to have a concrete text we could fiddle with or argue over.

P.N.H. Schwarzerd

 

[unmerged(1522)]

*shoos away a couple of forlorn crickets*

Since we're discussing constitutional changes already, I'd like to renew discussion on a broader set of institutional reforms - specifically regarding the roles of the President and other Cabinet members. Given the recent discussions about a separate VP, the Speaker election, and the fact that the President's job currently pretty much exhausts itself in appointing Ministers, reforming government structures may have considerable benefits. I hope the following can serve as a foil for discussion.

First and foremost, I think we could get rid of the separate Speaker and Deputy Speaker positions; their jobs could be done by the President and VP. This would give the President, and potentially the VP (as VP, rather than as Minister), a substantial role throughout the term. This measure would also have the distinct advantage that Parliament wouldn't lose almost two weeks at the start of a term for Speaker elections...

Secondly, I'd suggest to make the VP an ex officio member of all Commissions (someting that has been discussed before and seemed to find general consent); this would make the position more attractive, and it'd be in keeping with the President's role as Chair of the most important of all Commissions - i.e., Parliament. Also, like the President, the VP should be barred from being an MP at the same time; this would avoid potential problems in case the VP has to temporarily assume the President's duties.

Thirdly, if changes of this sort were to be implemented, we may want to reduce the burden of the President and VP in other respects. In the case of the President, that could be done in a pretty straightforward manner by moving Finance to another Minister.

It's a bit more tricky as far as the VP is concerned, *unless* the VP is simply made into a separate position. If the VP is kept integrated with a Ministry, we could increase the number of Ministries to reduce the workload for all of them, just to make sure that whichever Ministry is settled with the VP in any given term isn't bogged down in too much work.*

That said, *if* the VP were kept integrated (and I think it should be, otherwise the position is not terribly attractive), a possible way of redefining Ministries could perhaps be the following:

1. MINISTRY OF DEFENSE AND INTERNATIONAL AFFAIRS (MDIA)
Defense
International Affairs

2. MINISTRY OF TRADE, ECONOMY, AND FINANCE (MTEF)
Finance
Economy
Trade
Postal service
Transport
Public companies, public investments

3. MINISTRY OF THE ENVIRONMENT, NATURAL RESOURCES AND
AGRICULTURE (MENA)
Environment
National parks
Natural resources
Forestry, fisheries
Energy
Agriculture

4. MINISTRY OF THE INTERIOR (MINT)
Law enforcement
Coast Guard
Customs
Navigation and shipping
Justice, property and civil rights
Immigration, citizenship

5. MINISTRY OF SOCIAL AFFAIRS (MSOC)
Health
Labour
Welfare
Family
Youth

6. MINISTRY OF EDUCATION, CULTURE AND TECHNOLOGY (MECT)
Education
Language
Culture
Communities
Science, Technology
Communication, media

The Latin provinces are autonomous in the areas of education, language and culture, so I guess it would make sense to keep all of those together in one portfolio (#6).

P.N.H. Schwarzerd


* [OOC: Increasing the number of Ministries (slightly) would also (a) give more players the possibility to participate in Cabinet, (b) reduce the demands on players associated with being a Minister, and (c) make up a bit for the potential abolition of two high-profile positions (Speaker and Deputy). On the other hand, it might mean that some Ministers have relatively little to do - but that could be fixed easily, e.g. through game events. ]

 

[Jools]

Schwarzerd,
I agree with you. We should expand the powers of the president and I am for a limited enlargement of ministerial seats (6 should be enough). Though I don't think that a President should be the Speaker of parliament. The President should be controlled and monitered by parliament.

 

[unmerged(4271)]

1) Anti-terrorism: No takers on this? I think this is something that ties into the discussion about militias, etc. If no one else has a proposal I try to resurrect one of the earlier plans being circulated.

2) Monarchy: I don't so much disagree as simply feel concerned about the proposal failing to get enough support. I could support the provision as drafted, but would need to run it past the caucus to make sure all three of our MoPs agree.

3)Constitutional Offices: : So almost 20% of our voting population will have a leadership office?

Think about it, say we don't have a coalition government some day. There would be more ministries than party members to fill them.

Not that I have any real strong objections to expanding the ministries, I just wonder if we can keep everything filled. I have some different ideas about VP and will discuss them separately.

4) Other issues : Worker benefits seem to be developing in committee but I wonder if we'll get a military bill out of the MRC or not? The sorry state of our armed forces is too important an issue for it to die in a bueaucratic quagmire.

Any other issues we need to discuss?