Aurentine Constitutional Convention [NSG Senate]

[Distruzio]

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.

Especially since that region would be retaining and emphasizing, through the monarch, loyalty to Aurentina and the national government.

[Of the Quendi]

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.

It works just fine in a number of jurisdictions. Malaysia, Indonesia, Uganda, UAE are just a few of the states that has subnational monarchies in place and it works just fine for them. What is actually the argument against these subnational monarchies pray tell? I see it as a quite elegant way to deal with the fact that somewhere around a third of the population of Aurentina wanted a monarchy without compromising the republican government the rest of us established. We have had plenty Tyranny of the Majority in the past, lets try to get our new constitution to reflect some inclusivity.

[Fulflood]

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.

It works just fine in a number of jurisdictions. Malaysia, Indonesia, Uganda, UAE are just a few of the states that has subnational monarchies in place and it works just fine for them. What is actually the argument against these subnational monarchies pray tell? I see it as a quite elegant way to deal with the fact that somewhere around a third of the population of Aurentina wanted a monarchy without compromising the republican government the rest of us established. We have had plenty Tyranny of the Majority in the past, lets try to get our new constitution to reflect some inclusivity.

I don't see the problem with establishing a powerless monarchy in one area if the majority of residents want it.

[Distruzio]

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.

Unadulterated nonsense. Your objections have, thus far, senator, been premised entirely upon your own personal opinion of Monarchy. You haven't even considered what it is that the CMP representatives are here saying because of that personal opinion. So much so that you blind yourself to the actual purpose of this convention - to decide upon a national government. It is not a convention to determine the local governments. And even still, we in the CMP are actually conceding that a federal republican form of government is best for this nation and that we wish to ensure it by eliminating any and all vestiges of hostility between the republican and monarchical factions within and without the senate for generations to come. A subnational monarchy is a monarchy without national sovereignty. Turn that sentence over in your head before responding. We monarchists in the CMP are presuming to eliminate any and all further contention within the population by announcing our own support for a federal republic. We only ask that tyranny of the majority over a sizable minority not be embraced once more... which is, in case you've allowed your bloodlust and ignorance to blind you, the actual point of this convention through a course of action that satisfies and secures the nation against further political stalemate and ensures monarchist participation in the senate.

[Battlion]

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?

It's no secret I am not a fan of a monarchy, just tell me how much sense it makes to have a King in one area and none in another. I'm saying all or nothing

[Distruzio]

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

It's no secret I am not a fan of a monarchy, just tell me how much sense it makes to have a King in one area and none in another. I'm saying all or nothing

Waving his hand dismissively, de Medici barks with exasperation, "tyrants will be known by the tenor of their ignorance."

[Battlion]

It's no secret I am not a fan of a monarchy, just tell me how much sense it makes to have a King in one area and none in another. I'm saying all or nothing

Waving his hand dismissively, de Medici barks with exasperation, "tyrants will be known by the tenor of their ignorance."

Says the one who wants an absolute monarchy nationally and to impose Monarchies on a regional level and ignoring what someone else says because you disagree.

[Distruzio]

Waving his hand dismissively, de Medici barks with exasperation, "tyrants will be known by the tenor of their ignorance."

Says the one who wants an absolute monarchy nationally and to impose Monarchies on a regional level and ignoring what someone else says because you disagree.

Once more, dear senator, you speak out of ignorance. I do not desire an absolute monarchy nor am I ignoring your comment. I've actually addressed you already.

[Of the Quendi]

It's no secret I am not a fan of a monarchy, just tell me how much sense it makes to have a King in one area and none in another. I'm saying all or nothing

And I am saying that that sort of unwillingness to compromise is what has made Aurentina the hellhole it is. Democracy isn't simply about rallying a narrow minority to your side and then utterly annihilating anyone with a different opinion; that is the characteristic of a Tyranny of the Majority which Aurentina is well on its way to become. I say we try a different path; the democratic one.

And as for the notion that it doesn't make sense to have a monarch in one area and not another I again direct your attention towards the fact that it works perfectly well in a number of places.

[Battlion]

It's no secret I am not a fan of a monarchy, just tell me how much sense it makes to have a King in one area and none in another. I'm saying all or nothing

And I am saying that that sort of unwillingness to compromise is what has made Aurentina the hellhole it is. Democracy isn't simply about rallying a narrow minority to your side and then utterly annihilating anyone with a different opinion; that is the characteristic of a Tyranny of the Majority which Aurentina is well on its way to become. I say we try a different path; the democratic one.

And as for the notion that it doesn't make sense to have a monarch in one area and not another I again direct your attention towards the fact that it works perfectly well in a number of places.

Wait, so I'm not allowed to oppose something because I have to compromise and give up my own ideals for your sake.

Yeh... not going to happen.

[Of the Quendi]

Wait, so I'm not allowed to oppose something because I have to compromise and give up my own ideals for your sake.

Yeh... not going to happen.

What ideals? The ideal that if an overwhelming majority in a specific region favors a policy that doesn't infringe upon the rights of people in other regions then they shouldn't be allowed to? No you are quite right you are not allowed to oppose self-determination.

For someone who purports to be a liberal you are the most status quo obsessed person I know. What are you actually fighting for?

[Fulflood]

And I am saying that that sort of unwillingness to compromise is what has made Aurentina the hellhole it is. Democracy isn't simply about rallying a narrow minority to your side and then utterly annihilating anyone with a different opinion; that is the characteristic of a Tyranny of the Majority which Aurentina is well on its way to become. I say we try a different path; the democratic one.

And as for the notion that it doesn't make sense to have a monarch in one area and not another I again direct your attention towards the fact that it works perfectly well in a number of places.

Wait, so I'm not allowed to oppose something because I have to compromise and give up my own ideals for your sake.

Yeh... not going to happen.

As far as I can tell, Quendi's not a supporter of monarchy. I'm the same. I can't speak for Quendi, but what I am is a supporter of people's right to choose how they are governed, and having a powerless monarch does not infringe on that.

[Distruzio]

And I am saying that that sort of unwillingness to compromise is what has made Aurentina the hellhole it is. Democracy isn't simply about rallying a narrow minority to your side and then utterly annihilating anyone with a different opinion; that is the characteristic of a Tyranny of the Majority which Aurentina is well on its way to become. I say we try a different path; the democratic one.

And as for the notion that it doesn't make sense to have a monarch in one area and not another I again direct your attention towards the fact that it works perfectly well in a number of places.

Wait, so I'm not allowed to oppose something because I have to compromise and give up my own ideals for your sake.

Yeh... not going to happen.

So we have identified a person anti-monarchist and anti-democratic among the convention. This has turned out to be a fascinating development. Tell me, senator, what say you to my elaboration and response earlier? Or are you content to stick your fingers in your ears when a conciliatory attitude is presented at council by your political opponents?

In case you've forgotten,

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.

Unadulterated nonsense. Your objections have, thus far, senator, been premised entirely upon your own personal opinion of Monarchy. You haven't even considered what it is that the CMP representatives are here saying because of that personal opinion. So much so that you blind yourself to the actual purpose of this convention - to decide upon a national government. It is not a convention to determine the local governments. And even still, we in the CMP are actually conceding that a federal republican form of government is best for this nation and that we wish to ensure it by eliminating any and all vestiges of hostility between the republican and monarchical factions within and without the senate for generations to come. A subnational monarchy is a monarchy without national sovereignty. Turn that sentence over in your head before responding. We monarchists in the CMP are presuming to eliminate any and all further contention within the population by announcing our own support for a federal republic. We only ask that tyranny of the majority over a sizable minority not be embraced once more... which is, in case you've allowed your bloodlust and ignorance to blind you, the actual point of this convention through a course of action that satisfies and secures the nation against further political stalemate and ensures monarchist participation in the senate.

[Osea 767]

While I'm opposed to both monarchies and hereditary privilege, the idea of letting the people of a province choose to have a subnational monarch does have merit.

[Of the Quendi]

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.

Sorry missed this one.

Since taxes would at least to some extent be supervised by the federal government and some social programs being federally mandated I don't think it will be that big an issue. On social policies our party can probably get along quite well and the excesses that I assume my party's economic policies can be seen as will be mitigated from Leishaagen.

As for your thoughts on a federal district I think those makes sense. D.C. was established only after the governor of Pennsylvania had refused to protect the federal government from a mob, do we seriously think there is a risk of that in Aurentina 2013 (come to think of it I actually do, still we don't need a federal government)

As far as I can tell, Quendi's not a supporter of monarchy. I'm the same. I can't speak for Quendi, but what I am is a supporter of people's right to choose how they are governed, and having a powerless monarch does not infringe on that.

I most certainly am not. I am (in this RP) staunchly republican and will oppose any attempt at placing Elizabeth II or anyone else on an Aurentina throne. But this isn't about monarchy vs. republicanism this is exactly about the right of self-determination. The only thing I can accept to stand in the way of the right of any group of people to pursue their own wishes is the integrity of the nation at large. That aint threatened by subnational monarchies, therefore I see no sensible reason to oppose them.

[Battlion]

Wait, so I'm not allowed to oppose something because I have to compromise and give up my own ideals for your sake.

Yeh... not going to happen.

So we have identified a person anti-monarchist and anti-democratic among the convention. This has turned out to be a fascinating development. Tell me, senator, what say you to my elaboration and response earlier? Or are you content to stick your fingers in your ears when a conciliatory attitude is presented at council by your political opponents?

In case you've forgotten,

Unadulterated nonsense. Your objections have, thus far, senator, been premised entirely upon your own personal opinion of Monarchy. You haven't even considered what it is that the CMP representatives are here saying because of that personal opinion. So much so that you blind yourself to the actual purpose of this convention - to decide upon a national government. It is not a convention to determine the local governments. And even still, we in the CMP are actually conceding that a federal republican form of government is best for this nation and that we wish to ensure it by eliminating any and all vestiges of hostility between the republican and monarchical factions within and without the senate for generations to come. A subnational monarchy is a monarchy without national sovereignty. Turn that sentence over in your head before responding. We monarchists in the CMP are presuming to eliminate any and all further contention within the population by announcing our own support for a federal republic. We only ask that tyranny of the majority over a sizable minority not be embraced once more... which is, in case you've allowed your bloodlust and ignorance to blind you, the actual point of this convention through a course of action that satisfies and secures the nation against further political stalemate and ensures monarchist participation in the senate.

I'm not Anti-Democratic, the fact I'd rather have a First Minister elected for every region/province should be the opposite.

And is being Anti-Monarchist a problem?

I'm talking about coherence, not choice, we're going to open the suggestion to having a PM, a King/Queen, an Emperor, President, First Minister, Governor in different areas because of political parties? Why can't we all just have the same?

[Distruzio]

So we have identified a person anti-monarchist and anti-democratic among the convention. This has turned out to be a fascinating development. Tell me, senator, what say you to my elaboration and response earlier? Or are you content to stick your fingers in your ears when a conciliatory attitude is presented at council by your political opponents?

In case you've forgotten,

I'm not Anti-Democratic, the fact I'd rather have a First Minister elected for every region/province should be the opposite.

And is being Anti-Monarchist a problem?

I'm talking about coherence, not choice, we're going to open the suggestion to having a PM, a King/Queen, an Emperor, President, First Minister, Governor in different areas because of political parties? Why can't we all just have the same?

Because that's anti-democratic thinking.

[Battlion]

I'm not Anti-Democratic, the fact I'd rather have a First Minister elected for every region/province should be the opposite.

And is being Anti-Monarchist a problem?

I'm talking about coherence, not choice, we're going to open the suggestion to having a PM, a King/Queen, an Emperor, President, First Minister, Governor in different areas because of political parties? Why can't we all just have the same?

Because that's anti-democratic thinking.

No, it's being sensible and realising it makes far more sense for every region to be the same in local government rather than everything split up differently.

If I was saying "abolish this and prevent that" then ok that would be anti-democratic, I'm thinking more for the national picture.

Also, "why can't we all just have the same local governments?"

[Distruzio]

Because that's anti-democratic thinking.

No, it's being sensible and realising it makes far more sense for every region to be the same in local government rather than everything split up differently.

If I was saying "abolish this and prevent that" then ok that would be anti-democratic, I'm thinking more for the national picture.

Also, "why can't we all just have the same local governments?"

Raising an eyebrow and taking a small sip of bourbon, de Medici repeats himself, "because that is anti-democratic thinking." Then, feigning surprise, "dear me Senator! Are you suggesting that the people shouldn't have a choice in both who and how they are represented before the national government? Are you suggesting that Aurentina be made so equal that no one enjoy the freedom of choice? It seems to me that you are, indeed. Tsk tsk. And here I was thinking that you were concerned that my own loyalty to monarchy and royalty were more authoritarian than your own political insight. How you wound me, sir! It isn't that you fear I am too authoritarian. You fear that I'm not authoritarian enough! No wonder you oppose monarchism!

But, aside from that, sir, this isn't the convention for that discussion. Recall the nature of this convention and its subject - a national government."

[Battlion]

No, it's being sensible and realising it makes far more sense for every region to be the same in local government rather than everything split up differently.

If I was saying "abolish this and prevent that" then ok that would be anti-democratic, I'm thinking more for the national picture.

Also, "why can't we all just have the same local governments?"

Raising an eyebrow and taking a small sip of bourbon, de Medici repeats himself, "because that is anti-democratic thinking." Then, feigning surprise, "dear me Senator! Are you suggesting that the people shouldn't have a choice in both who and how they are represented before the national government? Are you suggesting that Aurentina be made so equal that no one enjoy the freedom of choice? It seems to me that you are, indeed. Tsk tsk. And here I was thinking that you were concerned that my own loyalty to monarchy and royalty were more authoritarian than your own political insight. How you wound me, sir! It isn't that you fear I am too authoritarian. You fear that I'm not authoritarian enough! No wonder you oppose monarchism!

But, aside from that, sir, this isn't the convention for that discussion. Recall the nature of this convention and its subject - a national government."

No, I have no issue with a local government, I proposed a form of local government be adopted under the unitary system but this wasn't agreed by the convention. Everyone should have the freedom of choice, however you need to recognise that having a King in one place, a PM and a President in another region it makes very little sense and will make the whole system far more complicated. I'd rather you be less authoritarian and stop saying I don't support democracy because I don't support a Monarchy.

Plus, I think we do need to discuss local government and it's relevance to the constitution

[Old Tyrannia]

While I'm opposed to both monarchies and hereditary privilege, the idea of letting the people of a province choose to have a subnational monarch does have merit.

Thank you, sir, for your open-mindedness.

[Distruzio]

Raising an eyebrow and taking a small sip of bourbon, de Medici repeats himself, "because that is anti-democratic thinking." Then, feigning surprise, "dear me Senator! Are you suggesting that the people shouldn't have a choice in both who and how they are represented before the national government? Are you suggesting that Aurentina be made so equal that no one enjoy the freedom of choice? It seems to me that you are, indeed. Tsk tsk. And here I was thinking that you were concerned that my own loyalty to monarchy and royalty were more authoritarian than your own political insight. How you wound me, sir! It isn't that you fear I am too authoritarian. You fear that I'm not authoritarian enough! No wonder you oppose monarchism!

But, aside from that, sir, this isn't the convention for that discussion. Recall the nature of this convention and its subject - a national government."

No, I have no issue with a local government, I proposed a form of local government be adopted under the unitary system but this wasn't agreed by the convention. Everyone should have the freedom of choice, however you need to recognise that having a King in one place, a PM and a President in another region it makes very little sense and will make the whole system far more complicated. I'd rather you be less authoritarian and stop saying I don't support democracy because I don't support a Monarchy.

Plus, I think we do need to discuss local government and it's relevance to the constitution

"It's clear that when I say potato you say mashed and that when you say potato I wonder how you like them made. You are being anti-democratic by denying the people a right of choice. This is the first time you've wondered at the actual mechanics of the political structure. Therefore, each of your previous protests are clearly anti-democratic in nature. Even now that you wonder at the "complicated" nature, you hint at your inner authoritarian. How so? Because a true democratist does not fret over the "complicated" nature of equality or freedom. You, however, do. It seems that you're trying to convince yourself that you're a centrist because it is clear to me and all in the convention that this 'argument' against self-determination you espouse clothes you in a way that even an emperor is ashamed of... especially when he's naked.


But, that said, you are correct that we must discuss the relevance of local government to the national government defined by the impending constitution. But... curiously enough, dear Senator... it would seem that it is in this way, in particular, that we see your authoritarianism for what it is. Because the relevance of a local government to the national government not yet defined is how those two jurisdictions relate to one another. Meaning that this convention would have to acknowledge that the local peons, as you would say, have a choice available to them," then, eyes going suddenly somber and serious, "Subnational monarchy is no encumbrance to national government. Subnational monarchy is political representation before the national government for those who would choose it. If you want the monarchist element of this nation to acknowledge their shared tradition and culture with the republican element... the monarchists will have to be acknowledged. It isn't like the Classical Monarchists are being stubborn about this. You and all those who think like you, however, are."

de Medici gestures to the entire convention, raising his voice above the rest.

"This is a convention for the benefit of all of Aurentina, is it not? This is a convention by the duly elected representatives of the people of Aurentina, is it not? Then I ask you," he lowers his arm and points to Senator Battlion specifically, "how is what you suggest representative of the will of the people? Clearly there are monarchists in this nation and, clearly, their constituency is well organized and carries great weight. After all, our very own President, your intended employer, would not be president were it not for the support of the monarchist constituencies. Why should we, therefore, not acknowledge their right to self-determination? Especially when it would go so far in creating a more equitable society than before?

Unless, dear sir, you really don't give a damn about the desires of the pleebs?"

[Battlion]

You're a liar and putting words into my mouth, I am not against the right to self-determination at all, what I am saying is trying to ensure coherence.

[Old Tyrannia]

You're a liar and putting words into my mouth, I am not against the right to self-determination at all, what I am saying is trying to ensure coherence.

"Coherence?" Whatever sort of "coherence?" Do you mean uniformity? Because if so, I fail to see the inherent value.

[Distruzio]

You're a liar and putting words into my mouth, I am not against the right to self-determination at all, what I am saying is trying to ensure coherence.

You may gnash your teeth all you like, but you're naked before me now, Senator. An emperor himself could see you. You've yet to oppose a subnational monarchy beyond ignorance of it's workings and an admitted personal bias. This alone renders your own perspective on the matter irrelevant. Utterly. That you would continue to make this mewling opposition in the name of democracy exposes your rejection of freedom and equality itself. I haven't lied at all. I've let you say everything in front of everyone here. All I've done is call you out for it. Me. A monarchist. An anti-democrat. Chastising an authoritarian autocrat for being too inconsiderate of the desires of the people. If anything, I'm being ironic.

The fact is that you favor "coherence" at the expense of self-determination. At the expense of political equality. At the expense of individual liberty. Why haven't you asked before now how this thing we suggest will work within a greater federal republic? Because you couldn't care less about how it works or it's coherency. You're only interested in oppressing a minority.

But, if you ask nicely, I can explain the structure of such a government.... should you be interested.