-
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
Having voted in favour of his first bill, Strasse rose in the chamber to present his second - the Privitisation of Airport Casinos Bill;
"I wish to recommend to the Assembly the following plan to sell off those useless and hopelessly inefficient gambling lounges that were built in our airports. Why our predecessors ever agreed to establish these examples of the creeping intervention of the state in our economy and morality I don't know. These are useless assets not necessary for any government to possess in a modern, efficient state.
"I wish to recommend to the Assembly the following plan to sell off those useless and hopelessly inefficient gambling lounges that were built in our airports. Why our predecessors ever agreed to establish these examples of the creeping intervention of the state in our economy and morality I don't know. These are useless assets not necessary for any government to possess in a modern, efficient state.
Per Braxton stands up
"About the Energy Efficiency Programme you have seemed to miss out tell the people about the benifits of public transport the more people on public transport the less petrol being used in cars."
"About the Energy Efficiency Programme you have seemed to miss out tell the people about the benifits of public transport the more people on public transport the less petrol being used in cars."
Per Strasse, do you have any hard facts to back up your claims about the airport gambling lounges?
"My claims simply follow the wisdom that most of the world has come to accept - that state intervention in any industry, be it steel, or gambling, is not a good thing.
The state simply does not have the dynamism, the sheer ambition and the drive to succeed that the private individual or corporation needs to have to survive. Anyway, what business does the state have running gambling enterprises? It's hardly beneficial to the people. How can the state justify it?"
The state simply does not have the dynamism, the sheer ambition and the drive to succeed that the private individual or corporation needs to have to survive. Anyway, what business does the state have running gambling enterprises? It's hardly beneficial to the people. How can the state justify it?"
"About the energy efficiency, i excluded the transport part willingly, but if the assembly thinks different, we can add another part. I'd prefer, instead, a completely different bill on the issue."
"On the gambling houses: i'd prefer not to have casinos and such things, it's like having legalized thieves draining money from the people. But if we have them, i'd like not to have them sold. Why can't we just give the gambling houses in temporary concessions to private entrepreneurs? THey must prove to follow all the rules, they must prove of running the gambling houses for a good profit, and if they do their work well, concessions can be renewed. If not, the concession goes for bid again.
I would also like to see the creation of a commitee inside the MERL to act as a supervisor of the private buyers (or in case, private concessors), something like a Gambling supervisors Board."
"On the gambling houses: i'd prefer not to have casinos and such things, it's like having legalized thieves draining money from the people. But if we have them, i'd like not to have them sold. Why can't we just give the gambling houses in temporary concessions to private entrepreneurs? THey must prove to follow all the rules, they must prove of running the gambling houses for a good profit, and if they do their work well, concessions can be renewed. If not, the concession goes for bid again.
I would also like to see the creation of a commitee inside the MERL to act as a supervisor of the private buyers (or in case, private concessors), something like a Gambling supervisors Board."
Strasse, wearing a perfectly pressed light grey suit and aquamarine silk tie, addressed the assembly;
"I see that there is a certain amount of opposition to my plans to privitise the limited state gambling industry. As such, I would like to explain to you my full intentions on releasing this bill, and thus answer all points raised in turn.
First, Major McGrath speaks about his justified concern that we open our arms to the gambling industry, like Aaron's golden calf, and abandon the path of truth and integrity. I must say that I agree - gambling undermines the very morals and the very integrity that binds our communities together and that makes us into hardworking and good people. But the fact is that these "gambling lounges" were created, and I think that the argument that suggests that they are small enough not to be too much of a damage to Eutopian citizens is a good one. They are not casinos. They are simply areas in our airports that have provision for a small number of slot machines and gaming tables.
However, I am extremely vehement in my feeling that the state should have no part in providing for an activity that could be seen as immoral. The role of the state is to protect and serve the individual, not to run ventures that sap away at that individual's money.
Second, there are the economic benefits. I have already outlined my beliefs in privitisation as a force for economic growth. To put it simply again - the state cannot and has no intention to run efficient, profitable corporations when it can easily bail out failures with state money.
Thirdly, I think this bill does a lot of good in streamlining government. With this responsibility gone, the minister concerned can devote that bit more of his time to other duties.
I hope I have cleared up any ambiguities in what I am striving for.
Further, in terms of what Major McGrath is saying about some kind of Gambling Supervisory Board, I much agree and I shall amend the bill accordingly."
"I see that there is a certain amount of opposition to my plans to privitise the limited state gambling industry. As such, I would like to explain to you my full intentions on releasing this bill, and thus answer all points raised in turn.
First, Major McGrath speaks about his justified concern that we open our arms to the gambling industry, like Aaron's golden calf, and abandon the path of truth and integrity. I must say that I agree - gambling undermines the very morals and the very integrity that binds our communities together and that makes us into hardworking and good people. But the fact is that these "gambling lounges" were created, and I think that the argument that suggests that they are small enough not to be too much of a damage to Eutopian citizens is a good one. They are not casinos. They are simply areas in our airports that have provision for a small number of slot machines and gaming tables.
However, I am extremely vehement in my feeling that the state should have no part in providing for an activity that could be seen as immoral. The role of the state is to protect and serve the individual, not to run ventures that sap away at that individual's money.
Second, there are the economic benefits. I have already outlined my beliefs in privitisation as a force for economic growth. To put it simply again - the state cannot and has no intention to run efficient, profitable corporations when it can easily bail out failures with state money.
Thirdly, I think this bill does a lot of good in streamlining government. With this responsibility gone, the minister concerned can devote that bit more of his time to other duties.
I hope I have cleared up any ambiguities in what I am striving for.
Further, in terms of what Major McGrath is saying about some kind of Gambling Supervisory Board, I much agree and I shall amend the bill accordingly."
Major McGrath answers:
"Per Strasse, i've still a question on the whole operation. Wouldn't be possible to create directly a PLC of the EAC? Of course it would be ran as a private company, with all the benefits."
After looking at a few papers on his desk, he continues:
"I would also talk about the article published by fellow Assembly member Strasse on his newspaper, The Indipendent.
THe journalist labels the bill on Energetic Efficiency as a gimmick measure, with no effect on the matter. It's easy, very easy indeed, to criticize. Do Per Strasse have ideas on the matter? Saving electric energy can save money, help the enviroment because the less we waste the less power we have to produce, the less oil, coal or whatever we have to burn. Is that a gimmick? I don't know, but with little measures like encouraging the use of new and low impact technologies we can do a lot. It's criminal for a government not to face the problem."
"Per Strasse, i've still a question on the whole operation. Wouldn't be possible to create directly a PLC of the EAC? Of course it would be ran as a private company, with all the benefits."
After looking at a few papers on his desk, he continues:
"I would also talk about the article published by fellow Assembly member Strasse on his newspaper, The Indipendent.
THe journalist labels the bill on Energetic Efficiency as a gimmick measure, with no effect on the matter. It's easy, very easy indeed, to criticize. Do Per Strasse have ideas on the matter? Saving electric energy can save money, help the enviroment because the less we waste the less power we have to produce, the less oil, coal or whatever we have to burn. Is that a gimmick? I don't know, but with little measures like encouraging the use of new and low impact technologies we can do a lot. It's criminal for a government not to face the problem."
Per Strasse, I understand your points, and am willing to discuss the issue of privatization further. I also definitely agree that we need a control on the gambling industry. It's actually something I've been privately toying with for a while now.
The board's main tool for regulating gambling should be the threat of revoking an establishment's gambling license. The licenses will be issued and revoked by the board, which operates under the authority of the MERL.
And protecting the consumer is good, but we need to set up limits. Everyone who loses money at a casino shouldn't be allowed to arbitrarily sue the casino because of a lack of self control. How a man spends his money is his responsiblity.
A license should only be revoked in the event that a gambling facility has actually broken the law. This prevents an anti-gambling MERL from simply acting unilaterally to shut down the gambling industry.
Thoughts?
The board's main tool for regulating gambling should be the threat of revoking an establishment's gambling license. The licenses will be issued and revoked by the board, which operates under the authority of the MERL.
And protecting the consumer is good, but we need to set up limits. Everyone who loses money at a casino shouldn't be allowed to arbitrarily sue the casino because of a lack of self control. How a man spends his money is his responsiblity.
A license should only be revoked in the event that a gambling facility has actually broken the law. This prevents an anti-gambling MERL from simply acting unilaterally to shut down the gambling industry.
Thoughts?
Hmm.. yes I do see where you're coming from.
Perhaps we should start this bill again from scratch and instead of selling off all the assets completely, we should only sell off the gambling machines themselves? Then, since the property is only leased to the investor, the MERL would have the opportunity to terminate that lease if the situation is necessary. Of course a gambling commission would operate to receive bids on that lease as well as to regulate the gambling lounges.
But this opens a whole new kettle of worms. We'll have to legislate separately to sell of the tangible assets (the slot machines, the sofas, the pot plants etc.) and to start up this leasing programme. But also we'll need to establish exactly what constitutes the gambling lounges acting illegally. I would say that only a very general examination of the gambling commission's powers is necessary since most of this is probably already in the Criminal Code.
I will make the necessary amendments to the bill if people think what I'm saying is appropriate.
On another matter, I want to ask the Assembly what we should be doing about the question of New Bengal. The CUE is very eager to push for a referendum there on the prospect of them rejoining our nation. Would other assembly members be willing to to put their name to a motion setting up a commission on this matter?
Perhaps we should start this bill again from scratch and instead of selling off all the assets completely, we should only sell off the gambling machines themselves? Then, since the property is only leased to the investor, the MERL would have the opportunity to terminate that lease if the situation is necessary. Of course a gambling commission would operate to receive bids on that lease as well as to regulate the gambling lounges.
But this opens a whole new kettle of worms. We'll have to legislate separately to sell of the tangible assets (the slot machines, the sofas, the pot plants etc.) and to start up this leasing programme. But also we'll need to establish exactly what constitutes the gambling lounges acting illegally. I would say that only a very general examination of the gambling commission's powers is necessary since most of this is probably already in the Criminal Code.
I will make the necessary amendments to the bill if people think what I'm saying is appropriate.
On another matter, I want to ask the Assembly what we should be doing about the question of New Bengal. The CUE is very eager to push for a referendum there on the prospect of them rejoining our nation. Would other assembly members be willing to to put their name to a motion setting up a commission on this matter?
Per Olson moves towards the center of the GA. He is holding a large group of newspaper clippings, most of which deal with China and the court martial of Admiral Tulp. Olson clears his throat and begins.
"The Hainan Star incident was incredibly unfortunate. Any time people are killed, it is clearly a tragedy. I will not try to offer my opinion as to the guilt or innocence of Admiral Tulp. I honestly admit that I am unqualified to speak on that, and I will leave the court martial to the professionals.
"That being said, there is something that I feel compelled to talk about. The reaction of the Chinese government has been excessive and undiplomatic. I can understand China's perspective, but there demands are too much. They demand the return of the Chinese refugees that were fortunate enough to live through the incident. I feel that to send the refugees back to China would be criminal. The refugees do not want to return, and I believe we should grant them asylum.
"There have also been demands for money, demands for UN resolutions, so on and so forth. China is a powerful nation, but Eutopia is a proud nation as well. I believe that every nation on earth is equally soverign and that it is wrong for a large powerful nation to bully a weaker country. If reparations are paid, that is fine, but they should be negotiated not demanded. To transfer Admiral Tulp to the Hague would be acceptable, in my opinion, but to send him to China would be utterly foolish. Eutopia may not be the largest nation in the world, but it isn't as if we had intentionally killed those poor refugees. Once again, I must state my belief that to deport the remaning refugees would be morally unacceptable.
"It is important not to make a bad situation worse by overreacting. I do not believe that we should give into China's demands.
"Thank you."
"The Hainan Star incident was incredibly unfortunate. Any time people are killed, it is clearly a tragedy. I will not try to offer my opinion as to the guilt or innocence of Admiral Tulp. I honestly admit that I am unqualified to speak on that, and I will leave the court martial to the professionals.
"That being said, there is something that I feel compelled to talk about. The reaction of the Chinese government has been excessive and undiplomatic. I can understand China's perspective, but there demands are too much. They demand the return of the Chinese refugees that were fortunate enough to live through the incident. I feel that to send the refugees back to China would be criminal. The refugees do not want to return, and I believe we should grant them asylum.
"There have also been demands for money, demands for UN resolutions, so on and so forth. China is a powerful nation, but Eutopia is a proud nation as well. I believe that every nation on earth is equally soverign and that it is wrong for a large powerful nation to bully a weaker country. If reparations are paid, that is fine, but they should be negotiated not demanded. To transfer Admiral Tulp to the Hague would be acceptable, in my opinion, but to send him to China would be utterly foolish. Eutopia may not be the largest nation in the world, but it isn't as if we had intentionally killed those poor refugees. Once again, I must state my belief that to deport the remaning refugees would be morally unacceptable.
"It is important not to make a bad situation worse by overreacting. I do not believe that we should give into China's demands.
"Thank you."
I believe if we are going to give over control of the gambling lounges to a corporation, we should give them over entirely.
I agree with a vague definition of powers for the gambling board. It should basically just to be grant and revoke the licenses of gambling establishments.
I will think about the New Bengal issue while we wrap up the gambling bill. All I will say at the moment, is that we must approach the subject carefully.
I agree with a vague definition of powers for the gambling board. It should basically just to be grant and revoke the licenses of gambling establishments.
I will think about the New Bengal issue while we wrap up the gambling bill. All I will say at the moment, is that we must approach the subject carefully.
This might go against some people but I think we should leave the Airport gambling houses alone.
Perhaps we should split the gambling bill into two bills: one for privatization and one for the gambling control board.
This way we can pass the control board bill, which I think we all agree on, and keep talking about privatization.
This way we can pass the control board bill, which I think we all agree on, and keep talking about privatization.
Major Braxton noticing lull in the discusion of the Gambling bill decides to present a new bill
"Pers Assembly members, i would like to announce directly to you all that the President gave me the opportunity to help our country in a new way, as Minister for Infrastructure and Domestic Affairs. I resign my seat in this Assembly. I would also like to thank all of you, and wish you keep up the good work we were doing."
"I think the bill i proposed a few days ago isn't cancelled, i submitted it to the assembly, and that's all i had to do with it."
Assemblyper McGrath, I'm not going to immediately accept your resignation.
First, I need you to confirm that you know that you don't have to resign here to accept the ministry.
First, I need you to confirm that you know that you don't have to resign here to accept the ministry.
"Per O'Floinn, i'm really glad you are much wiser than me. In fact if the rules doesn't state that i have to leave, then i'll keep my GA seat. I'm sorry, i apologize with all the other Assemblypers for the disturb."
- Status