Third Eutopian Parliament [posting rights restricted to MPs]

[jacob-Lundgren]

*walks in and sits down*
well gentlemen, it feels good to be back.
Mr. deputy speaker, you may continue your work on the bill of workers rights, and if the vote goes through successfully you are given the privalige of putting it into law.

now to the business of the day.

i must agree the committee to investigate the possibility of a monarch should present its findings and disband itself, taking only as much time as is required for a proper report.

as far as making it so the speaker nominations go, in order to make sure events dont run themselves, the government reorganization amendment (not really a normal bill ) should also state that if the former speaker is re-elected to parliament he/she may conduct parliament business until the elections end and a new speaker is possibly elected.

and i would say infrastructure should be a joint job by both the minsitry of home affairs and the ministry of trade, economy and finance, since infrastructure is a job of home affairs but it deals strongly with the economy.

----------------------------


as far as a bill to form the death penalty committee, while agreeing that the committee should be formed soon, i must remind the members of parliament that it is to be formed to work on changes and modernizing the death penalty, not working to simply destroy it and give it a swift *death*

 

[Gathenhielm]

Re: Re: Re: Fiscal Responsibility / Monarchy Bill

Originally posted by heagarty

I base the fact the vast majority though not all Eutopians don't want the monarchy based on the presidential elections and the large mandate won by the anti-monarchy alliance.
I think this was a clear referedum on the issue.

As for the committee, there was an advisory/steering board that several parties could belong to, but the real power was on a smaller board that only CRE members, and a handful of their allies could serve on. Because of this, it became obvious that no real discussion that included the "cons" with the "pros" would take place.

I do not think we need a committee to investigate the best way to reinstate the monarchy if the majority of people do not want the monarchy. That is a waste of time.

Also, the committee did not come close to ever producing any sort of valuable report or recommendation.

I will agree that it probably does not use a lot of government money, but if it fails to meet its purpose and it is obsolete, then there is no reason we should keep paying for it. Any amount, if it is a waste, is too much.

Jack Teano
Moderate Party

I doubt that really believe that all of the royalists voted CRE. CRE is not a party just created to reinstate monarchy. We are a party just like MP. And we have never claimed that we worked for all royalists. And just because that all the other parties got paranoid and created a CPR it does not mean the whole election was about monarchy or not. But yes CRE works monarchy and a vote for CRE is a vote for monarchy. But is not like we are going to inforce monarchy when we get enough seats in the parliament. Off course we are going to have a referedum. I still dont understand all this paronia against CRE.

AFAIK MP has a member on the smaller board.

What wast of time? They havent put any time into it yet

This was because as soon as they did anything everyone complained about that they did something they werent suppose to do.

I could agree that it for the moment does not serve any purpose, but I dont think it has been given a far chance yet.

Daniel Gathenhielm, CRE

 

[unmerged(4271)]

Mssrs. Baner and Gathenhielm,

Let me point out specifically what is so objectionable. From the committee's own charter of organization:

The Investigation Committee is the deciding organ in the Monarchy Investigation, set together by more or less experts. To their help, and to be reached by everyones oppinion, the Investigation Committee has an Advising Committee put together by one representant from every Eutopoan registred party. The Advising Committee will be the base for the decisions by the Investigation Committee.

Investigation Commitee
Duke Kent Johann of St: Brendan (Kent I Wallmi)
Dr.Svein De Vlaminck (Archeolooginspe)
Baron Johan Banér (J Banér)
Jake Langley (Craig Ashley)
Captain Baron Hendrik Johan van Apeldoorn-Tulp (HJ Tulp)

Yes, there was an advisory committee that could have a representative from each party, but the "deciding organ" was a committee that was already stacked with pro-monarchists. Thus, the outcome of any committee "examination" was never in doubt.

Imagine a parliament where the CRE was invited to "advise" but couldn't cast any real votes?

Despite your protests to the contrary our recent history has shown that, with the exception of the Attorney General Mr. Bogle, the CRE really is a one-issue party. You can talk about other issues, but until you suggested this ill-conceived bill to build another university, the CRE has had little to offer than the monarchy.

I truly believe our last election WAS about the monarchy. You gentlemen and I may disagree on that, but I feel the evidence is on my side.

Let us shut down this committee, which you must admit has failed to accomplish the purpose it was created for.

If it doesn't serve you, and it doesn't serve us, because it has failed to accomplish anything, let it end.

Jack Teano
Moderate Party

 

[unmerged(8022)]

I'm tiered to hear that CRE is a one issue party!!!

Our University bill, how much you ever hate it, have proved that we arn't a one issue party. The fact that Sir kevyinus has joined us also shows that we arn't a one issue party.

And you also says (if I understood you right) that our votes doesn't counts. They do indeed. We have four MoP, which make us the biggest party in parliament, and I don't think all other partys think the preservation about the monarchy is so importent that they whatever CRE says say NO.

 

[Gathenhielm]

Originally posted by heagarty
Mssrs. Baner and Gathenhielm,

Let me point out specifically what is so objectionable. From the committee's own charter of organization:



Yes, there was an advisory committee that could have a representative from each party, but the "deciding organ" was a committee that was already stacked with pro-monarchists. Thus, the outcome of any committee "examination" was never in doubt.
Imagine a parliament where the CRE was invited to "advise" but couldn't cast any real votes?

Despite your protests to the contrary our recent history has shown that, with the exception of the Attorney General Mr. Bogle, the CRE really is a one-issue party. You can talk about other issues, but until you suggested this ill-conceived bill to build another university, the CRE has had little to offer than the monarchy.

I truly believe our last election WAS about the monarchy. You gentlemen and I may disagree on that, but I feel the evidence is on my side.

Let us shut down this committee, which you must admit has failed to accomplish the purpose it was created for.

If it doesn't serve you, and it doesn't serve us, because it has failed to accomplish anything, let it end.

Jack Teano
Moderate Party

Still the advisory commitie is vital cause if we get through something that does not have any support in the other parties the commitie is useless. And claim it was only for pro-monarchist does not say anything, the commities goal was not decide monarchy or not.

Well if you think as a CRE as a one issue party I can understand that, but we aint gonna wast time try to set up bills everyone going to vote no for. And I hope you dont believe it yourself cause it wont help you in the future. Dismissing CRE cause we are for the monarchy may not be so healthy.

Then I must be ignorant cause all I heard about a CPR before the election was a lot of parties removing there presidents candidates. I doubt that the normal Eutopian voted any different cause of the CPR, just as sidenot CRE gained one more seat.

I admit it but as I said it before they never got any far chance.

And.. I second the university bill.

 

[Bramarius]

Originally posted by J. Banér
I'm tiered to hear that CRE is a one issue party!!!

Our University bill, how much you ever hate it, have proved that we arn't a one issue party. The fact that Sir kevyinus has joined us also shows that we arn't a one issue party.

And you also says (if I understood you right) that our votes doesn't counts. They do indeed. We have four MoP, which make us the biggest party in parliament, and I don't think all other partys think the preservation about the monarchy is so importent that they whatever CRE says say NO.

And I just can't get enough of it

Seriously, the CRE isn't a one-issue party. It's a none-isue party, ever since they started teh ERO. And the university bill, and Kevyn Fox's defection only support that!

The university bill has barely any work put in it. Even the expers say is't rubbish. The CRE has just said: "come on, let's make a bill, for the fun of it" and then came up with this.

Sir Kevyns defection was there so he could get re-elected, and he can follow his own agenda. The CRE has none, remember? If they had one, he would have never joined you!

But I'm sorry to interrupt parliament with this. Please continue.
(OOC: its all IC and in good fun (intended)guys!)

 

[jacob-Lundgren]

*bangs a mallet*
enough of this personaly bickering now! all of you!

there are important issues to deal with and debate and you will debate those or you will debate nothing!

*muhahaha the power is mine you know you guys will miss me not being in politics after this term *

 

[Gathenhielm]

Originally posted by Bramarius

Seriously, the CRE isn't a one-issue party. It's a none-isue party, ever since they started teh ERO. And the university bill, and Kevyn Fox's defection only support that!

The university bill has barely any work put in it. Even the expers say is't rubbish. The CRE has just said: "come on, let's make a bill, for the fun of it" and then came up with this.

Sir Kevyns defection was there so he could get re-elected, and he can follow his own agenda. The CRE has none, remember? If they had one, he would have never joined you!

But I'm sorry to interrupt parliament with this. Please continue.
(OOC: its all IC and in good fun (intended)guys!)

Why

This bill was worked with the entire election period so it is not something we just created for fun (even if it was fun ) and if the experts dont like it, it is there problem, they can run the country if they know so much then.

If he think that he has totally wrong. CRE has never accepted own agendas and we have never intended to give him a gold pass to the top of the list.

 

[unmerged(4271)]

Mr Baner I MUST object to your continued misrepresentation of what I say.

I NEVER said that your (CRE) votes do not count.

I ASKED you to imagine a parliament where CRE could not vote, just advise.

THAT is just what your Restoration committee was - other party members could TALK and advise, but not vote.

If you can understand why that is bad, allowing people to talk but not vote, you will understand why we oppose the Restoration Committee.

Since you did not seem to understand this, I used the example of the parliament.

The CRE is obviously a large party and has many MoP. No one discounts this. No one wants to take away CRE voting in parliament. We are trying to show you why your committee was unfair.

If you do not agree, fine, but do not say that we are trying to take away your votes in parliament. That is not true.

Jack Teano

(OOC: My apologies if your statement was because of a translation error. I know English is not your native language and I am sorry if my message was confusing. But if it was NOT a language error, then all of my comments stand. )

 

[unmerged(4271)]

Mr.Gathenhielm,

I am sorry of you feel that some members of parliament will oppose ANY legislation presented by the CRE.

I do not believe this is true. It seems, though, that there have only been two bills in the last three terms of government offered by the CRE, one on monarchy and one on the university.

In three terms the CRE's attention, as you must admit, has been squarely on the monarchy. To many of us, the university bill did seem rather arbitrary. That is, it seemed like the CRE introduced a university bill only so they could claim to be more than a one-issue party.

The reason I say this is because there was no previous CRE interest in education, that I had seen. Nor was there any justification about WHY a university was needed, until after the bill was criticized.

The educational experts, and I agree, believe that the university is uneeded. That is why we oppose it. Though I am sure some members of parliament may support it.

If the CRE were active in other issues, worked with other parties to develop proposals, and introduced them, I am sure you would see more support from other parties.

The only other issue I have seen the CRE participate in was the Workers Bill of Rights, but the CRE seems opposed to it.

I think the opposition to CRE bills is due to their content, not due to who introduced them.

Jack Teano

 

[unmerged(228)]

Originally posted by jacob-Lundgren
And I would say infrastructure should be a joint job by both the minsitry of home affairs and the ministry of trade, economy and finance, since infrastructure is a job of home affairs but it deals strongly with the economy.

I was personally informed by Mr. Schwarzerd that Infrastructure is indeed divided between the MHA and the MTEF.

(OOC: Here in the Netherlands, we have a seperate ministery that takes care of infrastructure, hence my 'concerns'./OOC)

 

[jacob-Lundgren]

ok as i see it we have the following issues to debate:

1. a quick simple bill setting guidelines to the DP committee
2. a bill to end the monarch committee
3. an amendment to restructure the government

the university issue should be left buried and we should move on. we are not here to debate whether or not the CRE is a 1 issue party and the next person to bring that issue up is going to be escorted out for a cooling down period so that we can continue work in a calm manor.

there is also discussion on an anti-terrorism bill.

the way i see it we should quickly finish debate/ possible alterations on the bill ending the monarch committee. it has had its time and should present findings to the Parliament and public soon. this should take very little time and can begin voting on it soon.

the bill on setting guidelines and deadlines to the DP committee is also straightforward and should have swift debate and begin voting soon.

the issues of anti-terrorism and restructuring of the government will take longer and discussion can continue on those issues,but bear in mind we need to wrap up the other issues i already covered soon.

and i also remind people that they need to vote on the workers bill of right.


i will reply shortly on my feelings of the anti-terrorism committee

 

[unmerged(4271)]

Mr. Speaker,

If you will allow me a moment to make some minor modifications to the government reform bill I will include your suggestions about the role of former speakers and address some of the concerns by Mr. Wellesford and others.

I will present the amendment shortly. In the meantime, I believe I have said all there is to say on the bill for rescheduling the meetings of the Death Penalty Commission. Unless anyone has any questions or comments it's about ready for a vote (though you may want to wait and combine it with a vote on another bill).

Jack Teano
Moderate Party

 

[jacob-Lundgren]

that is fine by me you may rethink the government restructuing amendment.

if there is no further debate and questioning to be had i would like to commence with voting on the DP-deadlines bill and the bill to force the monarch to committee to end, though the bill in my opinion must also give the committee a grace period of 3 days with which to gather its thoughts and prepare a presentation to parliament.


i am in much support of the anit-terrorism bill. i agree with it on most points, however some penalties for certain acts are slightly harse, such as reasonable chance a person might die leading to life in prison, well a papercut can kill certain people so that needs extra defining. also the anti terrorism group should be able to be suspended by parliament and that a 6 yes vote should be required to suspend its activities, in case of abuse.

 

[unmerged(4271)]

Government Reform Bill

A Proposal Concerning Restructuring our Government and the Nomination of Candidates For Speaker

I. Speaker

A party's lead parliamentary candidate is automatically also that party's candidate for the Speakership; if s/he is not eligible for the Speakership, the second-seeded candidate will be the Speaker candidate, and so on. A party not wishing to nominate a candidate for speaker should post notice of their candidate's withdrawl from the race no later than 3 days after the official certification of the election by the CRO.

If the former Speaker is re-elected to parliament, it is his responsibility to preside over the parliament and organize the election of the new Speaker. Prior to the election of the new Speaker only proposals for parliamentary and debate rules and the actual election may be considered.

If the former Speaker is not re-elected, the responsibility for organizing the parliament will to the former Deputy Speaker. If the former Deputy Speaker was not re-elected either, the duty will fall to the CRO.

II. Government

The number of Cabinet positions will be increased by one as described in the scheme below.

The President will continue to select ministers to fill each ministry. He will select a Vice-President who shall also govern a ministry. The Pesident, at his discretion, may choose to administer one of the ministries himself, rather than appoint a minister to each position.

The President will be a member of all governmental Commissions, the VP a non-voting member of all parliamentary Commissions (i.e., Commissions set up by or at the behest of Parliament).

New Organization of Ministries

1. MINISTRY OF DEFENSE AND INTERNATIONAL AFFAIRS (MDIA)
Defense
International Affairs
Public Company: ENDTech (Defense)

2. MINISTRY OF TRADE, ECONOMY, AND FINANCE (MTEF)
Finance
Economy
Trade
Domestic transportation (rails and highways, domestic air travel regulation) *
Public works (water & sewer, dams, public works projects)
Forestry, fisheries
Energy & public utilites (regulation of energy and telephone)
Agriculture
Natural resources & mining
Public Company: Recom (Resource Conservation and Management)

* = primarily construction, maintenence, & regulation as is pertains to interprovincial transport and trade.


3. MINISTRY OF IMMIGRATION AND LAW ENFORCEMENT(MILE)
Law enforcement
Coast Guard
Customs
Justice, property and civil rights
Immigration, citizenship
Postal service
International transport
Navigation and shipping
Public Company: Marticon (Shipyards & Maritime Construction)

4. MINISTRY OF HEALTH & SOCIAL AFFAIRS (MHSA)
Environment
Health
Labour
Welfare
Family
Youth
Public Company: Medicure (Health Care)
Public Company: Omnicare (Health Insurance)


5. MINISTRY OF EDUCATION, CULTURE AND TECHNOLOGY (MECT)
Education
Language
Culture
Communities
Science, Technology
Communication, media (broadcast communications, not telephone)
Sports
National parks

This is the modified proposal. Please note the following changes.

• 
  1)MHA has been renamed MILE.
  
  2)MSOC has been renamed MHSA
  
  3)Public companies have been reassigned to Ministries more appropriate to their function. This keeps experts in certain areas within the same ministry and avoids problems of overlapping jurisdiction.
  
  4)A procedure has been added designating the Speaker, then Deputy Speaker, then CRO as being responsible for organizing parliament. I do NOT believe that a former speaker should be able to allow debate on bills until a new speaker is chosen, but this does help speed up the election and allow any changes to rules about parliamentary debate (deadlines, etc.) I made the CRO the organizer of last-resort so that a permanent government official would always be available for this task. Alternatively we could assign this duty to the president, but as the CRO certifies (and I would guess swears into office) the new MoP's, it seemed plausible that he could hold the vote for Speaker.
  
  5) Concerns about where different infrastructure functions would fall have been specifically addressed.
  

I urge you to support this proposal.

Jack Teano
Moderate Party

 

[Gathenhielm]

Originally posted by heagarty
Mr.Gathenhielm,

I am sorry of you feel that some members of parliament will oppose ANY legislation presented by the CRE.
I do not believe this is true. It seems, though, that there have only been two bills in the last three terms of government offered by the CRE, one on monarchy and one on the university.
In three terms the CRE's attention, as you must admit, has been squarely on the monarchy. To many of us, the university bill did seem rather arbitrary. That is, it seemed like the CRE introduced a university bill only so they could claim to be more than a one-issue party.

The reason I say this is because there was no previous CRE interest in education, that I had seen. Nor was there any justification about WHY a university was needed, until after the bill was criticized.

The educational experts, and I agree, believe that the university is uneeded. That is why we oppose it. Though I am sure some members of parliament may support it.

If the CRE were active in other issues, worked with other parties to develop proposals, and introduced them, I am sure you would see more support from other parties.

The only other issue I have seen the CRE participate in was the Workers Bill of Rights, but the CRE seems opposed to it.
I think the opposition to CRE bills is due to their content, not due to who introduced them.

Jack Teano

Mr. Teano

So you mean that the bills that mr. Banér proposed as minister wasnt bills from our party? [OOC: Did he proposed any of his bills, I dont remember] The university bill is not the second bill by CRE. But as I stated before then people create this CPR an anti-CRE alliance, it does not encourage us to create more bills. I mean when all the other parties create a coallition to keep us out of power instead of work together with CRE.

Have ther been any interest for education from any other party?

More people than you may think mr. Teano...

Sure when you rule Eutopia from your closed meatings...

Based on some part of the content, yes.
And we havent created coallitions directed against other parties.

 

[Gathenhielm]

I have talked to some of the members in the restoration of the monarchy commitie. He didnt had any motivations to carry on his worked due to all critscism, not here in parliamet but earlier.
I say burn it all then. Even if I dont like it.

 

[Archeolooginspe]

*Member of Parliament De Vlaminck of The ESRP brings forth a personal bill proposal*

I'm a bit of a political activist and i've seen many a time the police stations from the inside and always amazed me how bad the quality of the coffee and the donuts there is. I often heared those officers also complain about it when i was being interrogated again. So here it is a way to improve the quality of the coffee and the donuts and probably the productivity of the force

The Donut and coffeemachine on police stations bill proposal

Hereby the legislator concludes that every polise station should have per member personel a delivery of 5 donuts a day and per 25 personel a coffee machine. The Donuts and coffee are bought by the station itselves, but have to go under a quality testing by the advisory board of culture which will decide if they are good enough or not.

 

[unmerged(4271)]

I must rise to oppose my colleague Mr. DeVlaminck's proposal, though I understand his good intentions.

What I am afraid my colleague does not understand is that the resulting increase in the quality of dessert pastry till lead to increased consumption. This will, quite obviously, incredible increases in the operating costs of our already overworked police force.

Let us consider just a few of these costs...

• 
  
  1) More money for higher prices of better donuts and coffee
  
  2) More money for greater quantity of better donuts and coffee (people eat more because they are yummy)
  
  3) Cost of ordering of new XXL sized police uniforms to accommodate guaranteed weight gain by officers
  
  4) Increased costs for uniform dry cleaning because we know that the best donuts are the ones with gooey filling that tends to drip or leak out and stain
  
  5) Cost of retooling the suspensions in all police cars, and more frequent maintenence, to accommodate grossly overweight officers, plus the waste when all the motor-cycle fleet is rendered obsolete because fat officers can't ride them.
  
  6) Increased health insurance premiums (paid for by government) for officers new less healthy lifestyle
  
  7) More free food hurts local economy by reducing business for neighborhood coffee houses, diners, etc.
  
  8) Costly lawsuits state will face after claims the new program discriminates against diabetic officers
  
  9) Too much sugar and caffeine will reduce officer's ability to aim and shoot straight, leading to untold damage of civilian property and risk to bystanders.
  
  10) This will unfairly discriminate against the croissant and baguette vendors in my home province of Nouvelle Anjou!

Vote no on fat police!

If we want to increase morale, let us consider a pay increase or increased benefits for law enforcement officers. Then they can buy all the coffee they want on their own!

 

[unmerged(4271)]

Originally posted by Gathenhielm
Mr. Teano

So you mean that the bills that mr. Banér proposed as minister wasnt bills from our party? [OOC: Did he proposed any of his bills, I dont remember] The university bill is not the second bill by CRE. But as I stated before then people create this CPR an anti-CRE alliance, it does not encourage us to create more bills. I mean when all the other parties create a coallition to keep us out of power instead of work together with CRE.

Have ther been any interest for education from any other party?

If the Speaker will allow me respond to this, I would like to answer these questions and statements directed at me...

Mr. Gathenhielm, I am afraid you are incorrect. The university bill is the second bill ever sponsored by the CRE in our modern government. Please consult the Eutopian Law Gazette for a list of the laws enacted by parliament.

I don't think you can claim that other parties haven't wanted to work with the CRE on other issues when the CRE hasn't proposed, until now, any other issue.

As for other parties working on education, the group that you criticize, the CPR, under Moderate Party President John O'Floinn and RD Vice President Sebastian Fitzpatrick have increased government attention to education. Though more can certainly be done, Mr. Fitzpatrick has brilliantly reorganized the MHSA to give more priority to educational issues. His deputy, Elijah Hamilton, is one of our nation's preeminent experts on educational reform.

I am unsure about the meaning of the rest of your comments, but I would urge you, and all of your party members, to be a bit more thorough in your research about the nation (Eutopia) in which you live.

Jack Teano
Moderate Party