-
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.
Actually, I'm going to have to revise my own bill, there has been a mistake in it. I meant to say that either the GA or the Senate needs to have 6 votes in order to reject the veto, not both.
OOC: Got it confused with what I was saying in an earlier post about impeachment, sorry.
OOC: Got it confused with what I was saying in an earlier post about impeachment, sorry.
Regarding REPPA, I support the veto and the override, but I do not support the vote on ministers. Perhaps these should be seperated and voted as different issues.
On to other matters: Is Democracy dead in Eutopia? What has this body done during this term? Almost nothing. What has this administration done? Almost nothing. I propose the following motion:
Secondly, I request a second for my Amendment for Subpoena powers, and I second the IFAA and request it be brought to a vote.
Thirdly, I propose the follow act:
I request a second, and am prepared for debate on the matter.
This Assembly has failed the people of Eutopia. We've done nothing, and it is time to move forward. Now.
Lest the people echo Oliver Cromwell: "You have sat too long for any good you have been doing lately... Depart, I say; and let us have done with you. In the name of God, go!"
In the name of the people of Eutopia, let us do some of the peoples' work, or let us go.
On to other matters: Is Democracy dead in Eutopia? What has this body done during this term? Almost nothing. What has this administration done? Almost nothing. I propose the following motion:
Secondly, I request a second for my Amendment for Subpoena powers, and I second the IFAA and request it be brought to a vote.
Thirdly, I propose the follow act:
I request a second, and am prepared for debate on the matter.
This Assembly has failed the people of Eutopia. We've done nothing, and it is time to move forward. Now.
Lest the people echo Oliver Cromwell: "You have sat too long for any good you have been doing lately... Depart, I say; and let us have done with you. In the name of God, go!"
In the name of the people of Eutopia, let us do some of the peoples' work, or let us go.
"Mr Speaker, Members of the House, I propose this bill for consideration:
Any suggested alterations would be helpful."
Any suggested alterations would be helpful."
"Lt General, on the subject of the Military Modernization Bill I have no desire to repeat the dogma (on both sides) about the issue, but the fact is that Eutopia cannot afford 25 Billion Ducats to be spent on the Military."
"I fear, Mr. Gonzov, that we can't afford not to modernize. If there is ever a time to accept some extra debt, this is the time. The military cannot - I cannot - guarantee the survival of the nation if we are attacked. Let me be clear - the military will fight to defend the country - I will fight to defend the country - but in our current state, I will not guarantee the outcome. Does this place a debt burden on future Eutopians? Yes. But it helps ensure that there will be future Eutopians."
Mr. Gonzov, that is just about the same exact bill as you have already proposed. That was rejected because it did not give powers to the GA. Quite honestly, I see you preparing yourself for a presidency next term in which you have absolute power. You must learn to compromise, as I have, make concessions; don't merely try to jam the same thing down everyone's throats again and again.
I utmostly agree with Mr. Levarge; we must have a military able to defend our country, and we have certainly done little this term, something that must be remedied. The military needs this money. You remember during the Secession Crisis, when we could not put a single plane into the air to defend ourselves, do you not? Without the implementation of the Tilly reforms, our army, navy, and especially "air force" will stand helpless against the powers of the world, and possibly even our former citizens in Tilapia and St. Esprit.
Furthermore, Mr. Levarge, I see no other way to balance the power between the Legislative and the Executive. Currently it is favoring the GA too much, but if we give the president the power to veto without any balance for the GA, it will favor the president.
Also, I second the Subpoena Powers Amendment.
One more thing, I do not support the VAT bill as it stands, especially with the 5% increase/decrease. I believe it needs to be a flat 10% VAT, and it seems to me to be an excuse to tax those who do not agree with your views on the environment (animal fur clothing, etc.).
Furthermore, Mr. Levarge, I see no other way to balance the power between the Legislative and the Executive. Currently it is favoring the GA too much, but if we give the president the power to veto without any balance for the GA, it will favor the president.
Also, I second the Subpoena Powers Amendment.
One more thing, I do not support the VAT bill as it stands, especially with the 5% increase/decrease. I believe it needs to be a flat 10% VAT, and it seems to me to be an excuse to tax those who do not agree with your views on the environment (animal fur clothing, etc.).
Last edited:
Mr. Reczynski, I will support your amendment to Article 19. I believe it is a seperate issue from your amendment to Article 7, however. I urge you to break it into two bills, and I will second Article 19, and further discussions can be had on Article 7.
I believe they are one in the same issue: checks and balances. If we introduce Art. 19, we will be overpowering the president, which will not achieve my goal for this amendment, which is to balance the powers not just grant more power to the Executive.
I respectfully disagree, sir. I will second Mr. Gonzov's version if I must, but I would prefer that you get the credit due as the person who first proposed it.
"Mr Reczynski, SREPPA gives powers for the GA to stop a Veto, therefore I have altered my original bill and it does give balance to the Legislative. I do not see why you are complaining about my trying to prepare myself absolute power next Term, as that point is neither here nor there."
No, it does not give a balance. It gives a way to defeat a veto, but the GA is still in a much, much weaker position than previously. Any balance, however slight, would give this bill much more favor. It is not necessarily the fact that I want the balance, it is the fact that I want this bill to pass, and I am willing to compromise in order to do so.
Sterkarm said:
"Mr Reczynski, I belive that the Legislative was already overpowered and a Veto power was needed for the President. Now, if you want to give powers to the GA to overturn a Veto and choose Ministers, then that goes beyond balancing the power. It goes into giving extra power to the GA for no good reason. I too am willing to compromise, and I have done so."
Giving the GA the power to overturn a veto is not granting extra power, it is making sure the president's veto power is not ultimate, just a possible stumbling block for bad legislation.
I would like to submit a new idea to the GA: The breakup of the monopoly of ENDTech over defense contracts. This would allow MDIS to get the biggest bang for their buck, relieving the strain on the budget somewhat; something we desperately need at this point. There are three ways to go about this:
1) Do it through ENDTech. We pass legislation stating that ENDTech must outsource certain contracts or even all production to other companies. However, this would mean ENDTech gets to choose the companies and would still to some extent have a monopoly over arms production.
2) All production contracts to different companies (chosen by defense department, not ENDTech), research stays at ENDTech. However, we could also just open production contracts up to any company, including ENDTech.
3) Break ENDTech's monopoly and open up all defense contracts to any company. This includes ENDTech, but they will have to compete for it. This gives the defense department more control and less expense.
I support option 3, it will overall be best for the defense budget, I believe. Furthermore, we may want to consider the privatization of ENDTech, ala Marticon. While Marticon has gone into deep debt in recent years, we have learned from our mistakes and perhaps are ready to do it again.
1) Do it through ENDTech. We pass legislation stating that ENDTech must outsource certain contracts or even all production to other companies. However, this would mean ENDTech gets to choose the companies and would still to some extent have a monopoly over arms production.
2) All production contracts to different companies (chosen by defense department, not ENDTech), research stays at ENDTech. However, we could also just open production contracts up to any company, including ENDTech.
3) Break ENDTech's monopoly and open up all defense contracts to any company. This includes ENDTech, but they will have to compete for it. This gives the defense department more control and less expense.
I support option 3, it will overall be best for the defense budget, I believe. Furthermore, we may want to consider the privatization of ENDTech, ala Marticon. While Marticon has gone into deep debt in recent years, we have learned from our mistakes and perhaps are ready to do it again.
Mr. Reczynski, while I respect the work you put into making MDIS more economically efficient, all these suggestions open up various security issues. Should private companies have ability and access to military equipment, and how this might affect stability and order in Eutopia? How closely will such production be controlled? While it might not be the most economically efficient solution I feel more at ease knowing that the government has control over all weapons industry and therefore making domestic weapons industry a hardly accessible source for various groups that might threaten internal safety of our great nation.