-
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.
Seeing as it has received a second, the motion to temporarily end debate on the TRRA will be put to a vote shortly.
Admiral Tulp enters the General Assembly, though he had taken a shower and a clean set of cloths he still looked like hell.
"Ladies and Gentlepers, my apologies for my absence of the past weeks, naval matters kept me busy but now I'm back.
I and the rest of the ENP fully support aiding the people of New Bengal. I would like to know if it's possible to make money invested into New Bengal tax deductable?"
"Ladies and Gentlepers, my apologies for my absence of the past weeks, naval matters kept me busy but now I'm back.
I and the rest of the ENP fully support aiding the people of New Bengal. I would like to know if it's possible to make money invested into New Bengal tax deductable?"
I would assume so, Admiral Tulp, and I am gratified to hear that the ENP intends to support New Bengal reconstruction - but I will have to remind you that the matters currently on the floor are, technically, the TRRA and the motion to suspend debate on same. I would ask that Members hold off debating the specificities of funding New Bengal reconstruction in the plenary until a bill to that effect has reached the floor of the Assembly. Thank you.
"My apologies for this breach of protocol Per Speaker, I hope we can quickly come to the issues that matter..."
Per Speaker..not sure if there's some confusion.
This is the list of registerd party members eligible to sit in the Assembly
Admiral Tulp (party whip)
Myself, Msgr. Dornez, JB Arioni, Rev. Pollos, are all junior members
[hands a long list of backbenchers]
thanks
This is the list of registerd party members eligible to sit in the Assembly
Admiral Tulp (party whip)
Myself, Msgr. Dornez, JB Arioni, Rev. Pollos, are all junior members
[hands a long list of backbenchers]
thanks
"Per Sykes, your MGAs were asked to personally introduce themselves before the body before acting in voting and talks. Just have future chair holder speak up when they join us, [OOC: Just say their character name/party] and the GA can fill out the proper papers."
"All the issues matter, Admiral, and I would hope we manage to deal with all of them this term.
Hastily trying to pass over subjects that don't cause fevered excitement is not a good idea."
Hastily trying to pass over subjects that don't cause fevered excitement is not a good idea."
*JB Arioni walks into the grand assembly and goes to the reception desk*. Hello im JB Arioni Junior Legislator for the Eutopian Nationalist Party.
Honourable Members, the motion to suspend debate on the TRRA has passed. The current item on the floor is therefore Bill E4-14, the Property Defense Rights Act. Since the bill was introduced by Minister Zhokhyen, I will, once again, take the liberty of reproducing the bill myself for your perusal. I will also invite Minister Zhokhyen to speak to the bill; as it was introduced by him, he has the right to comment on it first. I would ask that anyone else hold off with comments until Mr. Zhokhyen has had a chance to speak.
Per Speaker.
A bit confused. I thought we halted the TRRA in order to debate the New Bengal Reconstruction Act. Why we moving on to something else entirely?
A bit confused. I thought we halted the TRRA in order to debate the New Bengal Reconstruction Act. Why we moving on to something else entirely?
Because those are the terms of the motion the Assembly just passed. I will also point out that there is no New Bengal Reconstruction Act in the legislative queue - at least not yet. Anyone who wishes to propose such an Act is, of course, welcome to do so.Josephus I said:
There is some affirmative grumbling from the ENP backbenchers as Sykes speaks...they appear to feel similarly misled.
This grumbling, however, is nearly outmatched by that heard from the ELP backbenchers, who seemed to be under the same impression. "Per Speaker" says one "are you saying that you tabled the motion on this bill not for the purpose you stated, but instead to move on to a bill that your partymate proposed? The much-maligned 'Shoot First Ask Questions Later' Bill, in fact?" There is increased grumbling, and the backbenchers seem to be thinking this is some fashion of power grab...or subversion of Speaker power...
This grumbling, however, is nearly outmatched by that heard from the ELP backbenchers, who seemed to be under the same impression. "Per Speaker" says one "are you saying that you tabled the motion on this bill not for the purpose you stated, but instead to move on to a bill that your partymate proposed? The much-maligned 'Shoot First Ask Questions Later' Bill, in fact?" There is increased grumbling, and the backbenchers seem to be thinking this is some fashion of power grab...or subversion of Speaker power...
*Jerome, clearly unimpressed with the grumblings from the back benches, waits till the noise dies down*
Colleagues, the motion in question stated quite clearly that debate on the TRRA would be suspended until after the next two bills in line have been discussed. It so happens that the first of these bills is the one currently before us. If you are unhappy with that, perhaps you should not have supported the motion.
As to the accusation that I'm subverting the purpose of the motion for partisan purposes: ridiculous as that charge is, let me respond by emphasizing, once again, that the purpose of the motion was to provide Eutopia with an opportunity to explore potential funding sources for New Bengal reconstruction. Once that exploration is complete, I expect we can have a *fruitful* parliamentary debate on how to fund reconstruction. As opposed to having a discussion on funding issues now, which would proceed on the basis of little but baseless speculation.
That said, if anyone wishes to submit a bill on New Bengal reconstruction, they are free to do so at the Speaker's Office at any time. Personally, I think that doing so would be unwise at present, seeing as there has not yet been any comprehensive exploration of potential funding sources. Once there has been sufficient opportunity to explore funding, I will, needless to say, be happy to fast-track any such legislation.
However, until we have a bill concerning New Bengal reconstruction *on the floor*, discussing the matter would be out of order. Anyone who wants to belabour this issue further is free to do so outside this Assembly. In the meantime, we have business to attend to.
Colleagues, the motion in question stated quite clearly that debate on the TRRA would be suspended until after the next two bills in line have been discussed. It so happens that the first of these bills is the one currently before us. If you are unhappy with that, perhaps you should not have supported the motion.
As to the accusation that I'm subverting the purpose of the motion for partisan purposes: ridiculous as that charge is, let me respond by emphasizing, once again, that the purpose of the motion was to provide Eutopia with an opportunity to explore potential funding sources for New Bengal reconstruction. Once that exploration is complete, I expect we can have a *fruitful* parliamentary debate on how to fund reconstruction. As opposed to having a discussion on funding issues now, which would proceed on the basis of little but baseless speculation.
That said, if anyone wishes to submit a bill on New Bengal reconstruction, they are free to do so at the Speaker's Office at any time. Personally, I think that doing so would be unwise at present, seeing as there has not yet been any comprehensive exploration of potential funding sources. Once there has been sufficient opportunity to explore funding, I will, needless to say, be happy to fast-track any such legislation.
However, until we have a bill concerning New Bengal reconstruction *on the floor*, discussing the matter would be out of order. Anyone who wants to belabour this issue further is free to do so outside this Assembly. In the meantime, we have business to attend to.
I'm informed that Minister Zhokhyen has declined to speak on the Property Defense Rights Bill. Consequently, the floor is now open for comments from others.
Berenguerr looks around to see if anybody wants to speak in favour of the bill. Seeing nobody about to open their mouths, he begins to speak.
"Mr Speaker, if we must debate this bill now, you should be aware that the debate will drag on for some time, since in this gathering there is a massive groundswell of opposition to this unnecessary, unsafe and unconscionable piece of legislation, but Per Zhokhyen's advocacy of it can't just be related to his desire to protect his television, so he or, if he does not feel able to come in here and say why this bill has the barest shred of merit, his willing drones are sure to try and keep up the fight. With that in mind, I suggest that when a bill to aid New Bengal is good enough to receive a second we should immediately adjourn from this debate and deal with an issue that will save lives rather than unnecessarily curtailing them.
Until I hear your decision, however, I shall give a brief precis of my opinion of this bill. To be frank, it's a travesty. There are far too few checks in this bill. No warning needs to be given and there is no obligation to use reasonable force.
Reasonable force, in case the PoL members I argued with in the Town Hall are unaware, means exactly that. It means that when there is a threat to your person or that of another, you can take appropriate measures to defend yourself, up to and including lethal force if necessary. It's hard to see why that would be unacceptable.
With this bill, on the other hand, shooting a fleeing man in the back or a seven-year old trespassing on a neighbour's lawn would be perfectly acceptable.
Perhaps even worse, we see how little the Minister of the Interior cares about human life. Any theft of the value of $300 or above can be dealt with by use of lethal force without liability. Quite apart from the fact that this grotesquely badly worded bill doesn't specify whether the value is to be calculated from the original retail price or the item's current value, it essentially resurrects the wergild, for the abominably low price of $300. This law isn't just medieval in its uncaring psychosis, but a bill in the direct tradition of Draco.
If the man on the street proposed this kind of thing, there'd be good grounds for institutionalising them. Considering our previous presidential history, perhaps Per Zhokhyen would like to prove that he is at present of sound mind by removing this abortion of a bill before he abdicates himself from all dignity."
"Mr Speaker, if we must debate this bill now, you should be aware that the debate will drag on for some time, since in this gathering there is a massive groundswell of opposition to this unnecessary, unsafe and unconscionable piece of legislation, but Per Zhokhyen's advocacy of it can't just be related to his desire to protect his television, so he or, if he does not feel able to come in here and say why this bill has the barest shred of merit, his willing drones are sure to try and keep up the fight. With that in mind, I suggest that when a bill to aid New Bengal is good enough to receive a second we should immediately adjourn from this debate and deal with an issue that will save lives rather than unnecessarily curtailing them.
Until I hear your decision, however, I shall give a brief precis of my opinion of this bill. To be frank, it's a travesty. There are far too few checks in this bill. No warning needs to be given and there is no obligation to use reasonable force.
Reasonable force, in case the PoL members I argued with in the Town Hall are unaware, means exactly that. It means that when there is a threat to your person or that of another, you can take appropriate measures to defend yourself, up to and including lethal force if necessary. It's hard to see why that would be unacceptable.
With this bill, on the other hand, shooting a fleeing man in the back or a seven-year old trespassing on a neighbour's lawn would be perfectly acceptable.
Perhaps even worse, we see how little the Minister of the Interior cares about human life. Any theft of the value of $300 or above can be dealt with by use of lethal force without liability. Quite apart from the fact that this grotesquely badly worded bill doesn't specify whether the value is to be calculated from the original retail price or the item's current value, it essentially resurrects the wergild, for the abominably low price of $300. This law isn't just medieval in its uncaring psychosis, but a bill in the direct tradition of Draco.
If the man on the street proposed this kind of thing, there'd be good grounds for institutionalising them. Considering our previous presidential history, perhaps Per Zhokhyen would like to prove that he is at present of sound mind by removing this abortion of a bill before he abdicates himself from all dignity."
I'm in agreement with Per Berangeur.
I do believe Eutopians should be allowed to protect themselves, and to be given the means to protect themselves.
But this Bill does nothing other than turn this country into the Wild West. Shoot first, ask questions later. This Bill undermines law and order and will make policing and law enforcement a nightmare.
Killing someone for making off with a $301 vehicle?
I see that Per Zhyokyen can't even be bothered to show up, realizing what a poor piece of legislation it is.
On another note, Per Speaker, I suggest that if no one tables any discussion for the New Bengal Reconstruction Project within a week, that we retable the Tax Bill.
I do believe Eutopians should be allowed to protect themselves, and to be given the means to protect themselves.
But this Bill does nothing other than turn this country into the Wild West. Shoot first, ask questions later. This Bill undermines law and order and will make policing and law enforcement a nightmare.
Killing someone for making off with a $301 vehicle?
I see that Per Zhyokyen can't even be bothered to show up, realizing what a poor piece of legislation it is.
On another note, Per Speaker, I suggest that if no one tables any discussion for the New Bengal Reconstruction Project within a week, that we retable the Tax Bill.
I echo Per Sykes. I realise that the details of the bill are being worked out, but concrete deadlines work wonders in making people get to the point.
“Okay, Pers Berenguerr and Sykes, you have laid down your fundamental objections to the bill. Perhaps, you can be inclined to offer your thoughts on revisions so we can channel your outrage into constructive revision? If you don’t think the use of force is acceptable at $300, propose when. If you desires reasonable checks upon the powers of the bill, why not put some concepts out of the floor for us to mull over? As to the drafter’s absence, I remind you that he holds a cabinet post and, doubtless, has many tasks to perform. We can not expect the minister to be at our beck and call.”
Per. Speaker , I would say that in its current state , the bill in question allows for to many "grey areas". Although , that is fine in sports rules , in matters of life and death , we must be precise. I do realize that we cannot hope to provide a condition for every possible situation. I believe that a more precise set of definitions would help.
I do believe that Eutopians should be allowed to defend thier lives with force , if neccessary. But killing another person is always a last resort. Life is precious , and I do not think that any one of us , would like to hear that one our loved ones succumbed to an attack which was defended by this legislation.
However , unlike a person's life , property is replacable. I know that some property may seem precious , but a life cannot be given back , you can always replace your car or home.
I would be most willing to work with any member of this assembly to amend this bill , so that force will only be excused in the most dire of situations , like an immediate threat to a persons life. Such a change , would , I feel salvage this legislation and allow us to make some progress on behalf of our fellow Eutopians.
I do believe that Eutopians should be allowed to defend thier lives with force , if neccessary. But killing another person is always a last resort. Life is precious , and I do not think that any one of us , would like to hear that one our loved ones succumbed to an attack which was defended by this legislation.
However , unlike a person's life , property is replacable. I know that some property may seem precious , but a life cannot be given back , you can always replace your car or home.
I would be most willing to work with any member of this assembly to amend this bill , so that force will only be excused in the most dire of situations , like an immediate threat to a persons life. Such a change , would , I feel salvage this legislation and allow us to make some progress on behalf of our fellow Eutopians.