Aurentine Constitutional Convention [NSG Senate]

[Yanalia]

Great Nepal you are hereby WARNED, this is unacceptable behaviour and more like it will lead to you being removed from the convention.

On what grounds. Making backdoor deals isn't illegal.

EDIT: And are you even an Admin? Great Nepal is so what authority do you have to issue warnings?

This isn't an admin thread. I believe he has OOC thread ownership, and IC control over the membership of the convention.

[Malgrave]

I'm against any form of monarchy. Our Senate voted to become a Republic. If fellow Senators want this country to become a monarchy then they should attempt to repeal the current republican legislation.

[Of the Quendi]

This isn't an admin thread. I believe he has OOC thread ownership, and IC control over the membership of the convention.

He has IC control over membership of the convention but he can't use OOC comments as a ground for it. OOC the admins are the only ones who can issue warnings OOC warnings in the RP.

[Maklohi Vai]

Great, so thats fine.
Only other monarchist in the convention is OT, and to my knowledge he hasn't objected to elective monarchy.

Objecting now. I demand the right to institute a hereditary monarchy, even if the dynastic founder must be elected and subsequent monarchs confirmed by a vote in the provincial legislature.

Absolutely and unconditionally against. You're going to have to compromise on this if you want any sort of monarch.

[Distruzio]

Great, so thats fine.
Only other monarchist in the convention is OT, and to my knowledge he hasn't objected to elective monarchy.

Objecting now. I demand the right to institute a hereditary monarchy, even if the dynastic founder must be elected and subsequent monarchs confirmed by a vote in the provincial legislature.

With respect, Lord President, satisfaction for an elected Monarch can be beneficial to our cause. Indeed, I believe it is. The monarchist population will see that the individual elected for life will have acted in their best interest and will defer to his progeny, assuming that their interests have been met. Even the usurpers, I believe, will favor a succeeding period of further stability and identity with minor contention. We both desire the political stability and cultural identity that only a monarch can deliver. These requirements are met by even an elected monarchy. But, change can work for the benefit of all. Especially after so long a stable period.

[Distruzio]

Objecting now. I demand the right to institute a hereditary monarchy, even if the dynastic founder must be elected and subsequent monarchs confirmed by a vote in the provincial legislature.

Think of it this way, if the monarchy is the stabilising and uniting force you say it is, the heir of the reigning monarch should have no trouble winning the election on their own. But hereditary is a no-no.

Agreed, sir.

[Malgrave]

Objecting now. I demand the right to institute a hereditary monarchy, even if the dynastic founder must be elected and subsequent monarchs confirmed by a vote in the provincial legislature.

Absolutely and unconditionally against. You're going to have to compromise on this if you want any sort of monarch.

We're a Republic. Surely any move to implement a monarchy needs to be done through the Senate? I mean it directly contradicts the earlier legislature that established the Republic.

[The Nihilistic view]

Objecting now. I demand the right to institute a hereditary monarchy, even if the dynastic founder must be elected and subsequent monarchs confirmed by a vote in the provincial legislature.

With respect, Lord President, satisfaction for an elected Monarch can be beneficial to our cause. Indeed, I believe it is. The monarchist population will see that the individual elected for life will have acted in their best interest and will defer to his progeny, assuming that their interests have been met. Even the usurpers, I believe, will favor a succeeding period of further stability and identity with minor contention. We both desire the political stability and cultural identity that only a monarch can deliver. These requirements are met by even an elected monarchy. But, change can work for the benefit of all. Especially after so long a stable period.

I think the current proposals from GN are better than nothing, whilst not being ideal in my mind it is an acceptable compromise that leaves nobody feeling hard done by.

[Distruzio]

Monarchs are not supposed to be democratic, they are their own man to rise above politics and to transcend ideological forces. They are a figure who sets an example for us all.

That will give them permanent and absolute control over the province for all of eternity, that is simply not acceptable.

Nonsense. We are, both the Lord President and myself, encouraging Provincial Parliamentary oversight of the monarchs actions. Even if my friend and Lord does not agree with me that an elected monarchy benefits the regions in question as well as a hereditary monarchy, he has the foresight to grant the population a reprieve from a despotic absolutist ruler should they choose it. Neither of us are arguing for absolutist autocracy. We are arguing for Provincial stability - albeit from two slightly differing avenues.

[Distruzio]

Absolutely and unconditionally against. You're going to have to compromise on this if you want any sort of monarch.

We're a Republic. Surely any move to implement a monarchy needs to be done through the Senate? I mean it directly contradicts the earlier legislature that established the Republic.

No. Not at all. Surely any move by the Senate to deny the population the representative of their choosing before the national government is undemocratic and authoritarian beyond what we, here, suggest?

[Maklohi Vai]

Absolutely and unconditionally against. You're going to have to compromise on this if you want any sort of monarch.

We're a Republic. Surely any move to implement a monarchy needs to be done through the Senate? I mean it directly contradicts the earlier legislature that established the Republic.

The earlier legislation established republican elections for national office; I don't believe it did so for sub-national office, but I could be wrong there.

[The Nihilistic view]

We're a Republic. Surely any move to implement a monarchy needs to be done through the Senate? I mean it directly contradicts the earlier legislature that established the Republic.

The earlier legislation established republican elections for national office; I don't believe it did so for sub-national office, but I could be wrong there.

No, you are correct in that MV.

[Malgrave]

That will give them permanent and absolute control over the province for all of eternity, that is simply not acceptable.

Nonsense. We are, both the Lord President and myself, encouraging Provincial Parliamentary oversight of the monarchs actions. Even if my friend and Lord does not agree with me that an elected monarchy benefits the regions in question as well as a hereditary monarchy, he has the foresight to grant the population a reprieve from a despotic absolutist ruler should they choose it. Neither of us are arguing for absolutist autocracy. We are arguing for Provincial stability - albeit from two slightly differing avenues.

You are talking about undermining the Republic.

[Distruzio]

Objecting now. I demand the right to institute a hereditary monarchy, even if the dynastic founder must be elected and subsequent monarchs confirmed by a vote in the provincial legislature.

You demand that right? You've already been given enough

Once more, dear Senator, you fail to even hear his words. Moreover, we have not "been given enough." Nothing is set in stone yet. Therefore, literally, nothing has been given. Negotiations continue. You would do well to cease this incessant drive for misrepresentation and false accusation that so typifies your commentary. It's unbecoming of a gentleman.

[Distruzio]

Nonsense. We are, both the Lord President and myself, encouraging Provincial Parliamentary oversight of the monarchs actions. Even if my friend and Lord does not agree with me that an elected monarchy benefits the regions in question as well as a hereditary monarchy, he has the foresight to grant the population a reprieve from a despotic absolutist ruler should they choose it. Neither of us are arguing for absolutist autocracy. We are arguing for Provincial stability - albeit from two slightly differing avenues.

You are talking about undermining the Republic.

Nonsense. We are talking about affirming and reinforcing it from the monarchist camp. Recall the numbers of monarchists in this nation, Senator. Nearly one third of the population favors monarchy. We are deliberately supporting an initiative to permanently settle the dispute between monarchist and republican in favor of republican.

[Distruzio]

I'm against any form of monarchy. Our Senate voted to become a Republic. If fellow Senators want this country to become a monarchy then they should attempt to repeal the current republican legislation.

While I do want the best for Aurentina and feel that lies in the course of monarchy, I admit that the people have spoken - a Republic we are. A Federal Republic, at that. Meaning that, even among the republicans, the population recognizes the innate right of self-determination among the provinces and regions. Who are you to now deny that right?

[Malgrave]

You are talking about undermining the Republic.

Nonsense. We are talking about affirming and reinforcing it from the monarchist camp. Recall the numbers of monarchists in this nation, Senator. Nearly one third of the population favors monarchy. We are deliberately supporting an initiative to permanently settle the dispute between monarchist and republican in favor of republican.

So? The Senate voted for this nation to became a Republic and rejected the principle of a Monarchy, even a constitutional one. Allowing any form of monarchy in this nation even an elected one directly contradicts this legislation.

[The Nihilistic view]

Nonsense. We are talking about affirming and reinforcing it from the monarchist camp. Recall the numbers of monarchists in this nation, Senator. Nearly one third of the population favors monarchy. We are deliberately supporting an initiative to permanently settle the dispute between monarchist and republican in favor of republican.

So? The Senate voted for this nation to became a Republic and rejected the principle of a Monarchy, even a constitutional one. Allowing any form of monarchy in this nation even an elected one directly contradicts this legislation.

Not at all, that legislation was purely at a national level.

[Distruzio]

Nonsense. We are talking about affirming and reinforcing it from the monarchist camp. Recall the numbers of monarchists in this nation, Senator. Nearly one third of the population favors monarchy. We are deliberately supporting an initiative to permanently settle the dispute between monarchist and republican in favor of republican.

So? The Senate voted for this nation to became a Republic and rejected the principle of a Monarchy, even a constitutional one. Allowing any form of monarchy in this nation even an elected one directly contradicts this legislation.

Raising an eyebrow, de Medici continues, "sir... perhaps you are confused about the debate at hand? Literally no one, especially not we monarchists, are arguing that the nation remain a republic. The Senate has the mandate of the people. Period. What we, here, are discussing, is the self-determination of the provincial populations to the republican nation government. It is no different than an elected governor, if you will. We simply want that governor to come from royal stock an be elected for life assuming he can maintain his mandate. He would be a subnational monarch. A monarch is service of the national government. A monarch with no sovereignty of his own. A monarch, senator, elected under a republic. "

[Distruzio]

With respect, Lord President, satisfaction for an elected Monarch can be beneficial to our cause. Indeed, I believe it is. The monarchist population will see that the individual elected for life will have acted in their best interest and will defer to his progeny, assuming that their interests have been met. Even the usurpers, I believe, will favor a succeeding period of further stability and identity with minor contention. We both desire the political stability and cultural identity that only a monarch can deliver. These requirements are met by even an elected monarchy. But, change can work for the benefit of all. Especially after so long a stable period.

I think the current proposals from GN are better than nothing, whilst not being ideal in my mind it is an acceptable compromise that leaves nobody feeling hard done by.

What are the Senators suggestions? I must have had my attention elsewhere when he announced them.

[Old Tyrannia]

I'm against any form of monarchy. Our Senate voted to become a Republic. If fellow Senators want this country to become a monarchy then they should attempt to repeal the current republican legislation.

Once again, Senator, no one is advocating establishing a national monarchy. We wish to establish a subnational monarchy in a majority monarchist region.

I think the current proposals from GN are better than nothing, whilst not being ideal in my mind it is an acceptable compromise that leaves nobody feeling hard done by.

I feel hard done by. A monarchy is more than a fancy title, and by making the monarch elected and subject to the whims of both the provincial legislature and the federal government, the so-called "monarchy" becomes little more than a dressed-up republic. The proposed system reminds me most of the Most Serene Republic of Venice. It is frankly insulting that anti-monarchist elements dare to accuse us of being uncompromising while pushing such unfavourable terms on us that we are expected to abandon everything that identifies a monarchy as a monarchy, and accept a "compromise" which is essentially their system dressed up with the baubles of ours.

[The Nihilistic view]

I think the current proposals from GN are better than nothing, whilst not being ideal in my mind it is an acceptable compromise that leaves nobody feeling hard done by.

What are the Senators suggestions? I must have had my attention elsewhere when he announced them.

viewtopic.php?p=16197639#p16197639

[Distruzio]

What are the Senators suggestions? I must have had my attention elsewhere when he announced them.

viewtopic.php?p=16197639#p16197639

Ah yes, that. I have already given my input on that suggestion in favor.

[Malgrave]

I'm against any form of monarchy. Our Senate voted to become a Republic. If fellow Senators want this country to become a monarchy then they should attempt to repeal the current republican legislation.

Once again, Senator, no one is advocating establishing a national monarchy. We wish to establish a subnational monarchy in a majority monarchist region.

You still wish to establish a monarchy, so the scale of this does not matter. It still directly contradicts and undermines the establishment of the Republic, something that was voted on by the Senate. I think any movement to establish a monarchy, even on the local provincial level would require that this legislation be repealed.

[Distruzio]

Once again, Senator, no one is advocating establishing a national monarchy. We wish to establish a subnational monarchy in a majority monarchist region.

You still wish to establish a monarchy, so the scale of this does not matter. It still directly contradicts and undermines the establishment of the Republic, something that was voted on by the Senate. I think any movement to establish a monarchy, even on the local provincial level would require that this legislation be repealed.

You're saying the unicorn doesn't exist while insisting that a chimera isn't dangerous. You want to avoid undermining the republic by advocating anti-democratic actions? That is quite telling, sir. Please, just how is it that the irony is lost on you? How can you insist on a democratic governance while insisting that a third of the population should have no say in their representative?