I misjudged you, Mr. Marine. I presumed you were looking solely for a figurehead monarch. I'm glad to hear the party supports a more robust monarchical system.
-
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.
I feel that the Eutopian populace would not agree with that stance. It is essentially taking away the powers of a President and placing them in the hands of a hereditary monarch who is accountable to the people in a very limited way indeed.
What this party needs to do is to inject popular support into instating Queen Maria as Constitutional Head of State. However, she should not have all the powers of an elected representative.
Perhaps the following would be more satisfactory:
1) Power to invoke a 'State of Emergency' for a maximum of 1 year wherein the Monarch and her ministers take full control of Eutopia without the NA's support. This should only be carried with a majority vote in the NA.
2) Power to dismiss a Head of Government without the NA's support - this would undoubtedly protect against tyranny.
3) Power to mobilise elements of Her Armed Forces to quell revolutionary militancy or terrorism.
But, I must emphasise, I feel that we would get nowhere by advocating a return to near-despotic powers for an unelected leader.
Michael Chamberlain-Beaulieu
What this party needs to do is to inject popular support into instating Queen Maria as Constitutional Head of State. However, she should not have all the powers of an elected representative.
Perhaps the following would be more satisfactory:
1) Power to invoke a 'State of Emergency' for a maximum of 1 year wherein the Monarch and her ministers take full control of Eutopia without the NA's support. This should only be carried with a majority vote in the NA.
2) Power to dismiss a Head of Government without the NA's support - this would undoubtedly protect against tyranny.
3) Power to mobilise elements of Her Armed Forces to quell revolutionary militancy or terrorism.
But, I must emphasise, I feel that we would get nowhere by advocating a return to near-despotic powers for an unelected leader.
Michael Chamberlain-Beaulieu
I feel even this is a bit harsh.
Monarch should:
Issue order for full mobilization of army
Power to give Amnesty
Propose bills
Sign laws.
As I said, mainly powers of president. I can't agree with you on some points. State of emergency could never work, why would Na want to vote to lose it's power? I'd say this point would be dead in beginning. Power to dismiss head of state seems also little bit too much on me. Nevermind, these are just details, were simply monarchists, when we will recieve power, we will decide what to do next I propose.
Monarch should:
Issue order for full mobilization of army
Power to give Amnesty
Propose bills
Sign laws.
As I said, mainly powers of president. I can't agree with you on some points. State of emergency could never work, why would Na want to vote to lose it's power? I'd say this point would be dead in beginning. Power to dismiss head of state seems also little bit too much on me. Nevermind, these are just details, were simply monarchists, when we will recieve power, we will decide what to do next I propose.
I like Mr. Marine's suggestions. We would abolish the office of the President and replace it with a Prime Minister; the title is more appropriate for the head of government. What does the party leader say?
Esteva said:
Actually we have an official party new source, it is called The Regal. The Daily Record is a non-partisan organization. If you would like to write a piece for the Regal, I would be more than happy to name you as an editor.
I would invite you all to join the Eutopia Royalist Organization, which is a non-political group.
... Now onto my views concerning our gracious monarch. I feel that Maria has done more than any other claimant to deserve the throne. She has worked ceaselessly to help our country. I am sure that we can gain both her and the ERO's support (especially as I am also head of the ERO).
Now, the RPE has to be moderate at first. We can not expect an instant restoration, it will be slow, gradual and difficult. It must start with an officialy endorsed committee to investigate the realities. We would of course dominate this committee. From there we can present a realistic method of restoration. We start with merely a completely cerimonial figurehead, no power at all but to have the title. If we get that, then I believe we have won.
From there we can give the monarch more power, as we see fit.
~
Now, onto elections. We will run for National Assembly alone. But I will not run for president (I would not win.) I would like to ask the RPE's permission to officialy support the current president in his re-election bid. Here is what I offer in defense: Who else? Talbott has given a leading monarchist a ministry spot (me) and has never been outright against the monarch. Morgan proposed a rather horrible bill two terms ago, which I successfully blocked. And Josephus is a Communist.
So, if this is acceptable?
National Assembly List:
(This seems to be what you all agreed upon)
1.Konstantin Vilms
2.Mike Marine
3.Dr. Voshkod
4.Michael Chamberlain-Beaulieu
(This seems to be what you all agreed upon)
1.Konstantin Vilms
2.Mike Marine
3.Dr. Voshkod
4.Michael Chamberlain-Beaulieu
Acceptable to me. Please let me know what I can do to support you, the Party, and Her Grace.
If anything? Remain active in Eutopian politics, that is our first step towards victory.
Now when I think about it, shall we somehow start campaign? The elections are close, we should buy some advertisments in Television and radio, perhaps do some agitations on street, what do you think?
President; what is it good for? Absolutely nothing.
No man who ever held the office of president would congratulate a friend on obtaining it. For the fallacy of Presidency is so great that it does nothing but corrupt the noble mind, degenerate the moral soul, and destroy the strong body.
We, Eutopians, are living under such a falsehood. Ever since the constitutional crisis erupted after the death of our previous King, Edward IV, our great nation has been plagued by a succession of incompetent and irrelevant Presidents. Each has ignored the rightful and just claim to the throne proffered by the Gracious Lady, Queen Maria Saxe-Coburg-Gotha, just because she is a woman I must add, so that they might accumulate power for themselves.
As you have undoubtedly guessed, I am a member of the Royal Party of Eutopia, who is in favour of a return to the perfect idea of a monarchy. There are some terrible misconceptions about our beliefs and policies. The republicans would have you believe that we are in favour of a tyranny beneath the figure of Her Majesty. The communists would have you believe that we are in favour of inequality beneath Her Majesty. But we are not in favour of either of these things.
The RPE stands against tyranny - that is why we desire a return to Monarchy. The RPE stands against unfairness - again why we want the Queen recognised constitutionally. Let me explain;
In effect, at present, the National Assembly is nothing but a sham. It is nothing but a means to justifying a lack of Monarchy. It is unaccountable to the people, it is undesirable to the people, and it is unrepresentative of the people. To put it simply, the President holds too much power.
We at the RPE want to put power back into the hands of the National Assembly, and take it away from the malignant President. Eutopia under our party would see the reinstatement of Queen Maria as titular Head of State, yet without the sweeping powers of Presidency. She would be a safe-guard, she would be a figure-head, she would be a role-model. And with such a course attained, we would create a new office, Prime Minister perhaps, from which elected executive would flow.
Many of you might ask; what are the benefits of such a course of action?
I would reply:
If you are consensus with our views, please do not hesitate to cast your vote with the Royal Party of Eutopia - the only party with a sensible alternative to the chaos of Presidency.
I just put together this little piece which I reckon could perhaps be published in one of the newspapers. Please say what you think about it.
No man who ever held the office of president would congratulate a friend on obtaining it. For the fallacy of Presidency is so great that it does nothing but corrupt the noble mind, degenerate the moral soul, and destroy the strong body.
We, Eutopians, are living under such a falsehood. Ever since the constitutional crisis erupted after the death of our previous King, Edward IV, our great nation has been plagued by a succession of incompetent and irrelevant Presidents. Each has ignored the rightful and just claim to the throne proffered by the Gracious Lady, Queen Maria Saxe-Coburg-Gotha, just because she is a woman I must add, so that they might accumulate power for themselves.
As you have undoubtedly guessed, I am a member of the Royal Party of Eutopia, who is in favour of a return to the perfect idea of a monarchy. There are some terrible misconceptions about our beliefs and policies. The republicans would have you believe that we are in favour of a tyranny beneath the figure of Her Majesty. The communists would have you believe that we are in favour of inequality beneath Her Majesty. But we are not in favour of either of these things.
The RPE stands against tyranny - that is why we desire a return to Monarchy. The RPE stands against unfairness - again why we want the Queen recognised constitutionally. Let me explain;
In effect, at present, the National Assembly is nothing but a sham. It is nothing but a means to justifying a lack of Monarchy. It is unaccountable to the people, it is undesirable to the people, and it is unrepresentative of the people. To put it simply, the President holds too much power.
We at the RPE want to put power back into the hands of the National Assembly, and take it away from the malignant President. Eutopia under our party would see the reinstatement of Queen Maria as titular Head of State, yet without the sweeping powers of Presidency. She would be a safe-guard, she would be a figure-head, she would be a role-model. And with such a course attained, we would create a new office, Prime Minister perhaps, from which elected executive would flow.
Many of you might ask; what are the benefits of such a course of action?
I would reply:
- Longevity. The Queen would be able to offer her immense experience at the pinnacle of Eutopian politics to the Prime Minister and his staff throughout her entire reign.
- Safety. The Queen should have the power to dismiss the Prime Minister if it is clear that he wishes for nothing but despotism
- Morality. The Queen is both a morally upstanding and very intelligent woman. She would offer to the nation an example of how to correctly live a good life.
- Equality. The Queen is quite clearly a very cosmopolitan woman. She would be the focus of national attention, and would help to draw together fractious ethnicity.
If you are consensus with our views, please do not hesitate to cast your vote with the Royal Party of Eutopia - the only party with a sensible alternative to the chaos of Presidency.
--- --- ---
I just put together this little piece which I reckon could perhaps be published in one of the newspapers. Please say what you think about it.
It sounds very good for the moment, however as always I am rather moderate so I would rather not use this version in public after elections, but for now it is very good when we think of tobacco protests and of course privatizations, as we all know public is now very angry and restless therefore I am sure they will love that part that "NA is a sham" .
I was thinking of it more as a pre-campaign newsletter than anything else. But of course, I will respect yours and Mr. Vilm's opinion on it if you think it too radical.
My only question so far is, what chance do we have of getting any representatives into the National Assembly. Of course I have little doubt over Mr. Vilm's and your chances, Mr. Marine, but what of Dr. Voshkod and I?
My only question so far is, what chance do we have of getting any representatives into the National Assembly. Of course I have little doubt over Mr. Vilm's and your chances, Mr. Marine, but what of Dr. Voshkod and I?
Well your idea is very good.
About seats:
Well this seat will serve rather as a vote of our party than a seat of someone in particular, it means that if we will all agree upon something, our man in parliament will just and only say what our party thinks. He acts as a simple messenger, altought well paid.
About seats:
Well this seat will serve rather as a vote of our party than a seat of someone in particular, it means that if we will all agree upon something, our man in parliament will just and only say what our party thinks. He acts as a simple messenger, altought well paid.
Well, chances are varied. Here is why.
Last election We had a party of one (1) man. Lundgren was able to get two seats, even though his party was merely a personal party relying soley on his father's name. So if he could do it, I dont see why we couldn't. What we need to do is target the following in the general Eutopian populace-
Ex-CRE members
Disgruntled CC members
Farmers upset with the government
The upper-class
The poor
~
These are most likely our easiest targets. The Intellectuals will most likely go left, and the middle class most likely will go right. We should be good with the disgruntled, as we are the only party who was opposed to the cigarrette bill. We need to play on that. We are the party who says that enough is enough. When the government sticks its nose where it doesn't belong, bad things happen.
To get the old CRE members, the poor and the aristocracy, focus on the monarchy and tradition. The CRE should come due to monarchy, especially the conservative elements. The poor and rich we can focus on traditions, and their importance.
Now, when we campaign I want the following things:
1. Do not be too specific. Vagueness is a politicians chief weapon. When giving a speech, do not come out and say "I will do..." instead "I will work to..." this is just covering our bases from potentional attacks.
2. Avoid using other party names or party officials' names. Use more vague terms like the "left" but do not use the term "moderates" when describing the coaltion of central parties. Try your best to use terms like "unaligned" or the politicians who are "in between".
3. Be calm. Don't let yourself get drawn into an argument with anyone. Here is why: While you are all very verbose and intelligent, you are also all very new to Eutopian politics. There are people here (Morgan, Josephus, etc.) who have been in Eutopian politics for a long while. They will not be easy to get around. So try not to confront them.
Thats all for now.
~
Oh and the article looks good. Consider yourself an editor of The Regal.
Last election We had a party of one (1) man. Lundgren was able to get two seats, even though his party was merely a personal party relying soley on his father's name. So if he could do it, I dont see why we couldn't. What we need to do is target the following in the general Eutopian populace-
Ex-CRE members
Disgruntled CC members
Farmers upset with the government
The upper-class
The poor
~
These are most likely our easiest targets. The Intellectuals will most likely go left, and the middle class most likely will go right. We should be good with the disgruntled, as we are the only party who was opposed to the cigarrette bill. We need to play on that. We are the party who says that enough is enough. When the government sticks its nose where it doesn't belong, bad things happen.
To get the old CRE members, the poor and the aristocracy, focus on the monarchy and tradition. The CRE should come due to monarchy, especially the conservative elements. The poor and rich we can focus on traditions, and their importance.
Now, when we campaign I want the following things:
1. Do not be too specific. Vagueness is a politicians chief weapon. When giving a speech, do not come out and say "I will do..." instead "I will work to..." this is just covering our bases from potentional attacks.
2. Avoid using other party names or party officials' names. Use more vague terms like the "left" but do not use the term "moderates" when describing the coaltion of central parties. Try your best to use terms like "unaligned" or the politicians who are "in between".
3. Be calm. Don't let yourself get drawn into an argument with anyone. Here is why: While you are all very verbose and intelligent, you are also all very new to Eutopian politics. There are people here (Morgan, Josephus, etc.) who have been in Eutopian politics for a long while. They will not be easy to get around. So try not to confront them.
Thats all for now.
~
Oh and the article looks good. Consider yourself an editor of The Regal.
Superb. My only question is; when do we begin campaigning?
Also, I have been thinking about our manifesto and policy pledges. I have mapped them out as below:
I reckon that we should clarify this a little. Perhaps instead of being in favour of monarchy in general, we should state eg, "We are in favour of a constitutional monarchy under Queen Maria Saxe-Coburg-Gotha," or similar.
My argument for doing this is clarity. If voters know exactly what we intend to do, in my eyes it makes us seem more trustworthy and open.
I agree with the current stance on the USA. However, instead of just stating that we want increased trade with Europe, we should state why, eg, "We believe that increasing trade with West and Central Europe is an important part of expanding the exportation of our agricultural and industrial produce, and thus enlarging the profitability of the Eutopian economy."
Also, I really do feel that we should include a clause about Bermuda. Surely by reactivating this important part of our heritage we can appeal to voters as a party of Eutopian traditionalists. Perhaps we should market it as some sort of Golden Renaissance.
I agree with the sentiment shown by Dr. Voshkod. He suggested a widespread modernisation of military forces. I believe a consensus was reached in agreement with it.
I however think we should specify exactly what we intend to do. For instance, just thinking off the top of my head, "We intend to reduce the size of the ill-disciplined Eutopian Armed Forces, and instead create a modern, fast, efficient Rapid Reaction Force."
I agree with it all apart from the issue of farm subsidies. Are we not supposed to be appealing to the poor? I believe we should instead of offering subsidies, instate a commission for the development and increased efficiency of our nations agricultural sector. Perhaps we should consider offering grants to farmers in order to compel them to modernise and expand their practices?
I do not understand your phrase about 'secondary education requires some commitment by the individual'. Do you mean that people should pay for secondary education? If so, I believe this is a severe misjudgement. We should advocate free secondary education for all, and aim for 100% literacy and numeracy amongst the population. Perhaps we should also offer grants, linked in some way to the Royal Family to give it a populist edge, for people to be able to go to university or college.
I agree with all this. What is our position over the death penalty? I agree with it.
Please comment as you see fit.
Michael Chamberlain-Beaulieu.
Also, I have been thinking about our manifesto and policy pledges. I have mapped them out as below:
I reckon that we should clarify this a little. Perhaps instead of being in favour of monarchy in general, we should state eg, "We are in favour of a constitutional monarchy under Queen Maria Saxe-Coburg-Gotha," or similar.
My argument for doing this is clarity. If voters know exactly what we intend to do, in my eyes it makes us seem more trustworthy and open.
I agree with the current stance on the USA. However, instead of just stating that we want increased trade with Europe, we should state why, eg, "We believe that increasing trade with West and Central Europe is an important part of expanding the exportation of our agricultural and industrial produce, and thus enlarging the profitability of the Eutopian economy."
Also, I really do feel that we should include a clause about Bermuda. Surely by reactivating this important part of our heritage we can appeal to voters as a party of Eutopian traditionalists. Perhaps we should market it as some sort of Golden Renaissance.
I agree with the sentiment shown by Dr. Voshkod. He suggested a widespread modernisation of military forces. I believe a consensus was reached in agreement with it.
I however think we should specify exactly what we intend to do. For instance, just thinking off the top of my head, "We intend to reduce the size of the ill-disciplined Eutopian Armed Forces, and instead create a modern, fast, efficient Rapid Reaction Force."
I agree with it all apart from the issue of farm subsidies. Are we not supposed to be appealing to the poor? I believe we should instead of offering subsidies, instate a commission for the development and increased efficiency of our nations agricultural sector. Perhaps we should consider offering grants to farmers in order to compel them to modernise and expand their practices?
I do not understand your phrase about 'secondary education requires some commitment by the individual'. Do you mean that people should pay for secondary education? If so, I believe this is a severe misjudgement. We should advocate free secondary education for all, and aim for 100% literacy and numeracy amongst the population. Perhaps we should also offer grants, linked in some way to the Royal Family to give it a populist edge, for people to be able to go to university or college.
I agree with all this. What is our position over the death penalty? I agree with it.
Please comment as you see fit.
Michael Chamberlain-Beaulieu.
We can start campaigning today, I will re-open the campaign building soon.
I agree as well on your editing of the monarchy issue, it will be fixed.
However, I see no reason why Eastern Europe should be excluded from our trade, why focus soley on West and Central?
We will be changing our stance on the military, I just haven't done it yet.
On the farm subsidies: I like your idea, the commission plan. Perhaps we could focus on this with the outcry against the Marticon privatization.
I believe that secondary education (I am referring to colleges and universities) should require some sort of financial commitment. I am not considering anything large. Just 2 or 3 hundred. This will work slightly to offset the losses we face with education spending.
I had not yet considered the Death Penalty. What do the member's say?
I agree as well on your editing of the monarchy issue, it will be fixed.
However, I see no reason why Eastern Europe should be excluded from our trade, why focus soley on West and Central?
We will be changing our stance on the military, I just haven't done it yet.
On the farm subsidies: I like your idea, the commission plan. Perhaps we could focus on this with the outcry against the Marticon privatization.
I believe that secondary education (I am referring to colleges and universities) should require some sort of financial commitment. I am not considering anything large. Just 2 or 3 hundred. This will work slightly to offset the losses we face with education spending.
I had not yet considered the Death Penalty. What do the member's say?
Last edited:
Oh no, that wasn't a purposeful emission. I was merely following on from what is written in the current manifesto. Of course, Eastern Europe would be a valuable trading partner, although one would of course have to question the validity of trading jet fighters to Moldova.
And I misunderstood you on the matter of secondary education. I had mistakenly taken the liberty of assuming it was schooling between 11 and 16. Yes, of course, this should only be offered to those who are willing to make committment - however I stick by the possibility of offering 'Royal Grants' to promising students of poor backgrounds - particularly amongst the poorer ethnic communities, I would suggest.
And I misunderstood you on the matter of secondary education. I had mistakenly taken the liberty of assuming it was schooling between 11 and 16. Yes, of course, this should only be offered to those who are willing to make committment - however I stick by the possibility of offering 'Royal Grants' to promising students of poor backgrounds - particularly amongst the poorer ethnic communities, I would suggest.
Last edited:
The death penalty, much like pardon, could be made a Royal perogative.
Regarding our military stance, a Defensive Rapid Reaction Force is sufficiently nebulous to let us adapt as necessary.
Frankly, Eutopia's military is bloated and inefficient. The Minister does not appear to want to hear that from me, however. We need massive restructuring and cuts, especially to naval and air forces.
I hope to have a chance to pitch that to the Minister at some point.
Regarding our military stance, a Defensive Rapid Reaction Force is sufficiently nebulous to let us adapt as necessary.
Frankly, Eutopia's military is bloated and inefficient. The Minister does not appear to want to hear that from me, however. We need massive restructuring and cuts, especially to naval and air forces.
I hope to have a chance to pitch that to the Minister at some point.