Aurentine Constitutional Convention [NSG Senate]

[Old Tyrannia]

Having the chief magistrate of a province being hereditary rather than elected for a fixed term will not make a significant difference to the relationship between the provincial and federal governments.

You talk about having this where there is a strong CMP presence, but I can't see any CMP blocks on the map.

Most of the party haven't selected their constituencies yet. The intention is to all select our constituencies in the same region.

[Battlion]

Having the chief magistrate of a province being hereditary rather than elected for a fixed term will not make a significant difference to the relationship between the provincial and federal governments.

You talk about having this where there is a strong CMP presence, but I can't see any CMP blocks on the map.

Why should that even be relevant, if the CMP wants a national monarchy or any form of monarchy they can win a majority in the Senate and bring one in themselves then.

The majority of parties thus safely to assume the majority of citizens are opposed to the idea of a Monarchy, so why are we allowing it?

[Britanno]

You talk about having this where there is a strong CMP presence, but I can't see any CMP blocks on the map.

Most of the party haven't selected their constituencies yet. The intention is to all select our constituencies in the same region.

When are you planning it start doing it?

[Old Tyrannia]

Having the chief magistrate of a province being hereditary rather than elected for a fixed term will not make a significant difference to the relationship between the provincial and federal governments.

haha no

Absolutely no way, they all should have the same powers, role and name there is absolutely no point in changing that and it seems like this is only being supported by the CMP and those sympathetic to them.

Any Constitution that allows for monarchies to be set up within the nation is folly and betrays the country.

In what way does it "betray the country?" Surely a country is nothing but the people of the country, and giving the people what they want can hardly be seen as a betrayl.

[Battlion]

haha no

Absolutely no way, they all should have the same powers, role and name there is absolutely no point in changing that and it seems like this is only being supported by the CMP and those sympathetic to them.

Any Constitution that allows for monarchies to be set up within the nation is folly and betrays the country.

In what way does it "betray the country?" Surely a country is nothing but the people of the country, and giving the people what they want can hardly be seen as a betrayl.

When the majority of this country wants any Monarch in any part of this country, I will agree with what you just said.

[Britanno]

Old Tyrannia, we cannot just make one where you say you will get your party members to get constituencies, I need you to actually do it before it's even considered by me.

[Old Tyrannia]

In what way does it "betray the country?" Surely a country is nothing but the people of the country, and giving the people what they want can hardly be seen as a betrayl.

When the majority of this country wants any Monarch in any part of this country, I will agree with what you just said.

So if 99% of, say, Scotland's population voted for independence in 2014, what you're saying is that unless the majority of English, Welsh and Northern Irish voters also supported Scotland becoming independent, you'd force them to remain in the union?

[Old Tyrannia]

Old Tyrannia, we cannot just make one where you say you will get your party members to get constituencies, I need you to actually do it before it's even considered by me.

Give us time, please. Until a few days ago, I didn't even know the constituency map existed and I've been quite busy since then. Also, our Chairman has been inactive.

[Wolfmanne]

Anyway, back to meaningful dicussion.

The Australian approach is that the national government maintains legislative and judicial supremacy, something that must be maintained. The President should also hold the position of Governor, Prefect, whatever, like Australia and Canada (although Governor-Generals in their cases) and there should be a head of government in each as the province's Prime Minister.

I also support a federal district/capital territory to be maintained in our capital and I wish for my constituency of Zelle to be included inside it's jurisdiction. Our capital must be a neutral political ground. However, the American approach of denying voter representation, something against the principle of taxation without representation, is something that must be avoided. The President shall be allotted necessary reserve powers to keep the capital territory neutral, which shall be further balanced with any veto requiring the approval of the Council of State.

I have no quarrel with a federal district but it should be run by the Senate and the PM.

I don't think so. It would be oppressive to have it like that, as the entire country could tell a small strip of land with a large city that is our capital what to do without accountability. I don't think it should suffer from excessive leftist, libertarian or whatever influence and the local citizens have the right to select their government.

This subnational monarchy thing is a stupid argument that I will not participate in.

This is a good direction to take in regards to the division of power (remember, we need to enforce legislative, judicial and executive supremacy): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section_51(xxxvii)_of_the_Australian_Constitution

[Fulflood]

we can't really draw the provinces based on the political alignment of scattered constituencies.

This^. I'd prefer to be in a province that's slightly center-left, but we can't get exactly the one we want.

I agree, despite the swarm of LFPers who have recently descended on my island.

[Wolfmanne]

This^. I'd prefer to be in a province that's slightly center-left, but we can't get exactly the one we want.

I agree, despite the swarm of LFPers who have recently descended on my island.

Well you're screwed.

[Britanno]

If P-CP and NLP do merge, I'll probably change my constituency to avoid being ina province with a load of RGs.

[The IASM]

I do find it rather annoying that I disagree with nearly everything in the constitution.

[Of the Quendi]

I agree, despite the swarm of LFPers who have recently descended on my island.

Well you're screwed.

Tsk, you make it sound like my party are planning a political purge on Rästenbai. My constituency at least is willing to pursue a tolerant and compromising policy on that island with anyone who are willing to cooperate.

[Britanno]

I do find it rather annoying that I disagree with nearly everything in the constitution.

I do find it rather annoying that people who are not part of the ACC post here.

[The IASM]

I do find it rather annoying that I disagree with nearly everything in the constitution.

I do find it rather annoying that people who are not part of the ACC post here.

[It was not a tag and I'll go now]

[Great Nepal]

Have we decided how the provinces are laid out?

[Britanno]

I do find it rather annoying that people who are not part of the ACC post here.

[It was not a tag and I'll go now]

Fair enough.

[Britanno]

Have we decided how the provinces are laid out?

Not yet no.

[Battlion]

When the majority of this country wants any Monarch in any part of this country, I will agree with what you just said.

So if 99% of, say, Scotland's population voted for independence in 2014, what you're saying is that unless the majority of English, Welsh and Northern Irish voters also supported Scotland becoming independent, you'd force them to remain in the union?

That is a poor example, if Scotland wants to go Independent that is Scotlands choice.

If Aurentina wants a monarch, it's Aurentinas choice.

[Old Tyrannia]

So if 99% of, say, Scotland's population voted for independence in 2014, what you're saying is that unless the majority of English, Welsh and Northern Irish voters also supported Scotland becoming independent, you'd force them to remain in the union?

That is a poor example, if Scotland wants to go Independent that is Scotlands choice.

If Aurentina wants a monarch, it's Aurentinas choice.

If a region of Aurentina wants a monarch, it's the region's choice. The rest of the country have no right to poke their nose in, anymore than the rest of the UK has the right to overrule the right to self-determination of the Scottish people.

[Of the Quendi]

I don't think so. It would be oppressive to have it like that, as the entire country could tell a small strip of land with a large city that is our capital what to do without accountability. I don't think it should suffer from excessive leftist, libertarian or whatever influence and the local citizens have the right to select their government.

This subnational monarchy thing is a stupid argument that I will not participate in.

This is a good direction to take in regards to the division of power (remember, we need to enforce legislative, judicial and executive supremacy): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section_51(xxxvii)_of_the_Australian_Constitution

The president is as much elected by the entire country as the Senate is. Unlike the PM he is however no necessarily bound by a broad 50 % + coalition and as such can represent excesses and extremism to a much greater extent than the PM. But I agree that local citizens should run local affairs, in the federal district as well as everywhere else so how about the President can be the Governor (or whatever) of the federal district with no actual powers and then the district can elect their own local parliament and appoint a Premier (or whatever) that will then run the local affairs.

I don't understand the hostility to the subnational monarchy. If the relatively large minority of senators favoring a monarchy form a province why shouldn't they be allowed to appoint a monarch as their Governor (or whatever)?

The Australian model look interesting and is certainly something we could look into.

[Battlion]

That is a poor example, if Scotland wants to go Independent that is Scotlands choice.

If Aurentina wants a monarch, it's Aurentinas choice.

If a region of Aurentina wants a monarch, it's the region's choice. The rest of the country have no right to poke their nose in, anymore than the rest of the UK has the right to overrule the right to self-determination of the Scottish people.

I think the key point remains that we're suggesting we allow someone have a monarchy to keep them happy in this convention, when this meant to be coming up with a coherent constitution. Suggesting different forms of government across the country isn't coherent and it doesn't make any sense, no monarchy not on my watch.

[Old Tyrannia]

If a region of Aurentina wants a monarch, it's the region's choice. The rest of the country have no right to poke their nose in, anymore than the rest of the UK has the right to overrule the right to self-determination of the Scottish people.

I think the key point remains that we're suggesting we allow someone have a monarchy to keep them happy in this convention, when this meant to be coming up with a coherent constitution. Suggesting different forms of government across the country isn't coherent and it doesn't make any sense, no monarchy not on my watch.

Are you sure it's not because you hate monarchies and you want to enforce your opinions across the whole country?

[Fulflood]

Well you're screwed.

Tsk, you make it sound like my party are planning a political purge on Rästenbai. My constituency at least is willing to pursue a tolerant and compromising policy on that island with anyone who are willing to cooperate.

We're both liberals I suppose, and fairly moderate. Although we may end up with barely any taxes, social policy'll probably mostly fit my ideals.

And it's not like I'm not used to this OOCly, considering I live in Toryland.

---

On the question of a federal district: they're pointless; we might as well give the people of Leishaagen the same say that everyone else would have. It's possible that central government buildings could be extra-territorial with regards to provinces, but there's no real reason to necessitate that the capital lies outside the province structure.