why can we give sunject nations seat(s) in parliment?

  • 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.

Rip Off Productions

Colonel
91 Badges
Jun 27, 2015
873
320
  • Crusader Kings II: Jade Dragon
  • Crusader Kings II: Reapers Due
  • Stellaris: Galaxy Edition
  • Stellaris
  • Europa Universalis IV: Mare Nostrum
  • Cities: Skylines - Snowfall
  • Europa Universalis IV: Cossacks
  • Stellaris: Nemesis
  • Europa Universalis IV: Common Sense
  • Crusader Kings II: Conclave
  • Stellaris: Galaxy Edition
  • Stellaris Sign-up
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Cadet
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Colonel
  • Europa Universalis IV: Rights of Man
  • Tyranny: Archon Edition
  • Tyranny: Archon Edition
  • Tyranny: Gold Edition
  • Stellaris: Digital Anniversary Edition
  • Stellaris: Leviathans Story Pack
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Together for Victory
  • Crusader Kings II: Monks and Mystics
  • Cities: Skylines - Mass Transit
  • Europa Universalis IV: Mandate of Heaven
  • Prison Architect
  • BATTLETECH
  • Stellaris: Apocalypse
  • Europa Universalis IV: Rule Britannia
  • Cities: Skylines - Parklife
  • Stellaris: Distant Stars
  • Europa Universalis IV: Dharma
  • Shadowrun Returns
  • Cities: Skylines Industries
  • BATTLETECH: Flashpoint
  • Stellaris: Megacorp
  • Europa Universalis IV
  • Crusader Kings II: Holy Fury
  • Europa Universalis IV: Golden Century
  • Imperator: Rome Deluxe Edition
  • Crusader Kings II: Horse Lords
  • Stellaris: Humanoids Species Pack
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Death or Dishonor
  • Victoria 2
  • Imperator: Rome Sign Up
  • Cities: Skylines - Green Cities
  • Cities: Skylines - Campus
  • Cities: Skylines
  • Europa Universalis IV: El Dorado
  • Crusader Kings II: Way of Life
  • Pillars of Eternity
Thread Title typo: it's supoossed to be "why CAN'T we give SUBJECT nations seat(s) in parliament", if anyone know how I can fix this please tell me...

it would be an interesting way of managing liberty desire, after all one of the big issues that inspired the American revolution was a lack on representation in Parliament, so why not give us the option of having an alternate history where they got it?(maybe even have "give seats in parliament" as some kind of compromise peace option for independence wars that don't generate enough war score to "win" but still did a lot of damage)

giving a subject nation a "seat" in parliament would greatly reduce their liberty desire(let's say something like -50%) but this will give a small boost to the liberty desire of all other subjects that don't(let's say -10% for example) for each subject that does.

subject nation seats would also have much more expensive "bribes" to get them to support you in debates; either in the form of huge "gifts" of money, subsidies, and loans, or things specific to the type of subject they are such as forcing you to turn on/off scutage for Vassals, that you fortify Marches, or reduce tariffs on Colonial Nations, and maybe even on rare occasions demands for provinces they have cores or claims on inside your county(balancing would be kind of hard if that option was possible, even if it was restricted only to cores).

of course if you're on really good relations with the subject already, they may just support you without making any additional demands, and if you're playing as a subject, then you will get event pop-ups and diplomatic options to pick how you act in parliament.
 
Last edited:
  • 3
Reactions:
Might be a necro, but since it didn't get answered...

Parliament is the lawmaking arm of the mother country, and as such is run by and for citizens of that country. Subject nations don't get a say, because they are subjects. They have to wait until they are annexed and become citizens before they can participate in the politics of the suzerain nation.
 
Might be a necro, but since it didn't get answered...

Parliament is the lawmaking arm of the mother country, and as such is run by and for citizens of that country. Subject nations don't get a say, because they are subjects. They have to wait until they are annexed and become citizens before they can participate in the politics of the suzerain nation.
fair point, though I think that should be up to the Overlord to decide how much say they give their subjects, and what about Colonial Nations or PUs in particular? surely it makes sense for those to possibly get some kind of closer relationship with their overlord state?

the whole point of this idea is that giving Parliamentary representation to subject is strictly optional way to lower Liberty Desire in exchange for needing to deal with their demands in the Parliament.
 
Might be a necro, but since it didn't get answered...

Parliament is the lawmaking arm of the mother country, and as such is run by and for citizens of that country. Subject nations don't get a say, because they are subjects. They have to wait until they are annexed and become citizens before they can participate in the politics of the suzerain nation.


Do colonists cease to become citizens the moment they decide to live in a country's overseas territories though?
 
Do colonists cease to become citizens the moment they decide to live in a country's overseas territories though?
No, but historically no overseas territory/colony has had representation. That was what the American revolution was about after all.
It's still the case today. Overseas territories, like the Falklands, don't have parliamentary representation. The overseas possessions which have, e.g. French Guiana and Greenland, are integral parts of the countries (although might have some degree of autonomy) and hence have parliamentary seats.
 
No, but historically no overseas territory/colony has had representation. That was what the American revolution was about after all.
It's still the case today. Overseas territories, like the Falklands, don't have parliamentary representation. The overseas possessions which have, e.g. French Guiana and Greenland, are integral parts of the countries (although might have some degree of autonomy) and hence have parliamentary seats.
Well it's an ahistorical history sandbox...maybe after a certain research, the option comes there? That'd result in, say, an America which never revolted since it felt the representation to the motherland matched their needs.
 
No, but historically no overseas territory/colony has had representation. That was what the American revolution was about after all.

This is inaccurate. The Spanish colonies in America not only did have representation in the Cadiz Cortes of 1812. Some of their representatives even got to preside them.
 
Well it's an ahistorical history sandbox...maybe after a certain research, the option comes there? That'd result in, say, an America which never revolted since it felt the representation to the motherland matched their needs.
They're trying to make plausible alternative history; now in many areas it falls quite short, but that doesn't change that the intent is to try and simulate the mechanisms behind history (and as such you'll always become "ahistorical"; many things which happened historically were utter flukes and really unlikely. Among them being Charles the Bold dieing heirless at Nancy or the Great Belt freezing exceptionally much allowing the Swedes to march over it.).

I have a hard time seeing any reason why they would have been allowed parliamentary representation. Though perhaps I'm missing something.
 
This is inaccurate. The Spanish colonies in America not only did have representation in the Cadiz Cortes of 1812. Some of their representatives even got to preside them.
I learned something today then.

What was the reason for the difference? Was it connected with how Spain wanted to prevent local upperclasses to gain power (i.e. why governors were replaced very regularly)?
 
I learned something today then.

What was the reason for the difference? Was it connected with how Spain wanted to prevent local upperclasses to gain power (i.e. why governors were replaced very regularly)?

The reason was that the colonies were not seen as colonies, but as the same as any other region of the country, and everyone living in those territories as subjects of the Crown. The constitution that came out of the 1812 cortes even recognised nationality to natives and anyone that had lived in Spanish territories (and this includes American and Asian territories) for 10 years.
 
The reason was that the colonies were not seen as colonies, but as the same as any other region of the country, and everyone living in those territories as subjects of the Crown. The constitution that came out of the 1812 cortes even recognised nationality to natives and anyone that had lived in Spanish territories (and this includes American and Asian territories) for 10 years.
Then that's actually what I said. They were seen as integral areas, like e.g. French Guiana to France and Greenland to Denmark, and hence had parliamentary representation.
 
Then that's actually what I said. They were seen as integral areas, like e.g. French Guiana to France and Greenland to Denmark, and hence had parliamentary representation.

Yep, but there is no way in EU4 to keep as much land as Spain owned in American without that land automatically transforming into a colonial nation. Which is fine: I just think of them as becoming one of the virreinatos and that's it. But with this happening, it does make sense to allow subjects and colonial nations to have seats in your parliament.
 
No, but historically no overseas territory/colony has had representation. That was what the American revolution was about after all.
It's still the case today. Overseas territories, like the Falklands, don't have parliamentary representation. The overseas possessions which have, e.g. French Guiana and Greenland, are integral parts of the countries (although might have some degree of autonomy) and hence have parliamentary seats.

You cannot differentiate between how the Falklands and French Guiana behave IRL in relation to the mother country, baring ability to vote in national elections. So your commrnt is just a way to force historical outcomes, without thoughthe to how those causal outcomes came to be. In the case of the aforesaid overseas territories, in game terms, French Guiana was give a seat in parliament, whereas the Falkland has not. In terms of a period example, Spanish colonies got seats in 1812 (as referenced above) and the Thirteen Colonies did not.

So why would their be divergent treatment of colonies? In game terms the answer is easy, in 1812 Spain had high war exhaustion and low stability so giving the seats lower liberty desire (albeit not enough), whereas England figured it could deal with the liberty desire in the short term and not giving the seats would be a long term benefit (or at least that's what they thought). It can be seen then, that this is easily approximated as allowing Colonial subjects (maybe PUs) to be granted Seats (maybe several?), and colonial seats having higher opportunity cost demands (-x% tariffs, +money from treasury, etc). If balanced correctly, you would get similar outcomes IRL, where seats are only given when there the fear of liberty desire is higher than the cost of having another more expensive seat to deal with.

The above description, can also be applied to Modern France. Since it can be seen that French Guiana, Guadeloupe, Reunion, etc. only got seats fairly recently (last 100 years or so; I think it was the 60s but I don't remember atm), and that was under an effort to make overseas territories feel like they were part of France proper. For the most part this strategy worked (exceptions including Algeria) and is functionally identical to the mechanic described by the OP.
 
Yep, but there is no way in EU4 to keep as much land as Spain owned in American without that land automatically transforming into a colonial nation. Which is fine: I just think of them as becoming one of the virreinatos and that's it. But with this happening, it does make sense to allow subjects and colonial nations to have seats in your parliament.
Hadn't thought of the CL problem---that does complicate things indeed.
Allowing subjects seats seems like a good idea then---albeit I think that some proper background mechanic preferably should be implemented to properly model these things.

You cannot differentiate between how the Falklands and French Guiana behave IRL in relation to the mother country, baring ability to vote in national elections. So your commrnt is just a way to force historical outcomes, without thoughthe to how those causal outcomes came to be. In the case of the aforesaid overseas territories, in game terms, French Guiana was give a seat in parliament, whereas the Falkland has not. In terms of a period example, Spanish colonies got seats in 1812 (as referenced above) and the Thirteen Colonies did not.
I think you misread me. I mentioned the Falklands as an IRL example of a current day non represented overseas territory. I didn't say that things couldn't have worked out differently.
I'm exactly saying that you should look at the causes and preferably have mechanics be universal and give plausible results. (And plausible does not mean historical, since as mentioned there were loads of very implausible flukes happening in history which ended up being really important to the development of the World.)
 
Probably because it wouldn't make sense for all types of subjects. While some could be classified as more autonomous parts of your state, most are their own countries with their own law-making bodies.
 
UK learned from their misake in the USA by examining Canada. This led them to federalize the territories within Canada and Australia and to allow them to have their own governments subject to the crown in the early 1800s.

The colonist's complaint was that they were British citizens who lived overseas and that they are as British as the British in Britain and thus should be equally represented in Parliament. The Glorious Revolution of 1688 stopped the Stuart's centralization process and encouraged the colonists to treat their colonial assemblies as powerful entities equal to that of Westminster Parliament. Later on Britain tried to centralize power in the colonies to ensure a closer relationship and loyalty from their subjects. The American colonies had governors appointed by Parliament which would later on cause a tug of war with the colonial assemblies. The colonists wanted the same type of relationship Scotland had with England before the unification. Socially speaking, the British from Britain were treated with respect in the colonies but the colonial British were seen as being of a lower status which caused eventually caused some friction (same attitudes occured between the peninsulares and the creoles in Spanish colonies).