Aurentine Constitutional Convention [NSG Senate]

[Quirina]

Senator Quirina walks into the Hall, surprised by the work happening around him, paced calmly and shook hands with Senator Bates and raised his hand with a loud but uninterrupting voice, "Mr. President, Senator Quirina!" Then stoods up, bows down at sat back again.

[Of the Quendi]

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.

Yet you oppose self-determination at any step with an argument that in its call for uniformity seems almost totalitarian.

This issue isn't at all about monarchy it is about pluralism. Its about acknowledging that not everyone wants the same things and to accept that nor should they have to.

[Wolfmanne]

After giving it some thought, whilst I support republicanism on a national level, I believe that a subnational monarchy is ok. I expect support for my 'National Capital Region' that I want my constituency to be a part of in return though.

[Welsh Cowboy]

Could I just point out a potential flaw in the argument: "let everyone choose their own system of government"?

Surely we can all agree that everyone should have the rights to some things, such as freedom of speech, the press, right to a fair trial, etc. If we accept this, then we can't just allow a provincial government to take away those rights from some, whether it's democratically elected or not.

I don't know where I stand on subnational monarchies. But it's not a simple case of "let the people choose their government."

[Old Tyrannia]

Could I just point out a potential flaw in the argument: "let everyone choose their own system of government"?

Surely we can all agree that everyone should have the rights to some things, such as freedom of speech, the press, right to a fair trial, etc. If we accept this, then we can't just allow a provincial government to take away those rights from some, whether it's democratically elected or not.

I don't know where I stand on subnational monarchies. But it's not a simple case of "let the people choose their government."

No one has suggested anything of the sort. Everyone is quite clear that provinces won't be able to retract rights granted by the federal constitution to all Aurentine citizens.

After giving it some thought, whilst I support republicanism on a national level, I believe that a subnational monarchy is ok. I expect support for my 'National Capital Region' that I want my constituency to be a part of in return though.

I have no problem with this.

[Welsh Cowboy]

Could I just point out a potential flaw in the argument: "let everyone choose their own system of government"?

Surely we can all agree that everyone should have the rights to some things, such as freedom of speech, the press, right to a fair trial, etc. If we accept this, then we can't just allow a provincial government to take away those rights from some, whether it's democratically elected or not.

I don't know where I stand on subnational monarchies. But it's not a simple case of "let the people choose their government."

No one has suggested anything of the sort. Everyone is quite clear that provinces won't be able to retract rights granted by the federal constitution to all Aurentine citizens.

I guess I'm still unclear on what type of monarchy you want to be established sub nationally. Would it be a ceremonial monarch or absolute?

[Distruzio]

No one has suggested anything of the sort. Everyone is quite clear that provinces won't be able to retract rights granted by the federal constitution to all Aurentine citizens.

I guess I'm still unclear on what type of monarchy you want to be established sub nationally. Would it be a ceremonial monarch or absolute?

I suppose that, in the end, it wouldn't matter as the monarch would be constrained by the federal constitution.

[Welsh Cowboy]

I guess I'm still unclear on what type of monarchy you want to be established sub nationally. Would it be a ceremonial monarch or absolute?

I suppose that, in the end, it wouldn't matter as the monarch would be constrained by the federal constitution.

But would the monarch have full authority to enact policies granted to the provinces under the constitution, or would there still be a Parliament/legislature, with the monarch purely a figurehead?

[Distruzio]

I suppose that, in the end, it wouldn't matter as the monarch would be constrained by the federal constitution.

But would the monarch have full authority to enact policies granted to the provinces under the constitution, or would there still be a Parliament/legislature, with the monarch purely a figurehead?

That would depend, entirely, upon the constituency, I think. However, that said, this concern is, indeed, something that could be negotiated here in the Convention with significant deference to the UK structure of government, given Anglo-Aurentine cultural ties.

[Old Tyrannia]

I suppose that, in the end, it wouldn't matter as the monarch would be constrained by the federal constitution.

But would the monarch have full authority to enact policies granted to the provinces under the constitution, or would there still be a Parliament/legislature, with the monarch purely a figurehead?

Preferably an executive constitutional monarchy, with at least a provincial legislature and possibly a head of government.

[Welsh Cowboy]

But would the monarch have full authority to enact policies granted to the provinces under the constitution, or would there still be a Parliament/legislature, with the monarch purely a figurehead?

That would depend, entirely, upon the constituency, I think. However, that said, this concern is, indeed, something that could be negotiated here in the Convention with significant deference to the UK structure of government, given Anglo-Aurentine cultural ties.

Yes, in my mind, the people should be guaranteed a right to choose their provincial leaders, and then remove them in additional elections. So, in my mind, at the most, a province should be allowed to have a monarch as a figurehead/de jure head of state.

[Distruzio]

That would depend, entirely, upon the constituency, I think. However, that said, this concern is, indeed, something that could be negotiated here in the Convention with significant deference to the UK structure of government, given Anglo-Aurentine cultural ties.

Yes, in my mind, the people should be guaranteed a right to choose their provincial leaders, and then remove them in additional elections. So, in my mind, at the most, a province should be allowed to have a monarch as a figurehead/de jure head of state.

Perhaps, then, we allow the provinces to concern themselves with the mechanism for reconsideration of the monarchical authority while this convention deal with the way those constituencies are represented nationally by said monarch with, of course, a guarantee that the federal constitution applies nationally.

Perhaps an unofficial federation of royals or nobles within the monarchist constituencies that rebuke the monarch following a parliamentary inquiry? This is all up in the air, of course.

[Of the Quendi]

Yes, in my mind, the people should be guaranteed a right to choose their provincial leaders, and then remove them in additional elections. So, in my mind, at the most, a province should be allowed to have a monarch as a figurehead/de jure head of state.

I don't think anyone is demanding more. It certainly isn't what we have been arguing about; we have been arguing purely about the principle of subnational monarchy. Good that now we can discuss content instead. I obviously does not support giving an unelected monarch more than constitutional powers.

[Welsh Cowboy]

Yes, in my mind, the people should be guaranteed a right to choose their provincial leaders, and then remove them in additional elections. So, in my mind, at the most, a province should be allowed to have a monarch as a figurehead/de jure head of state.

Perhaps, then, we allow the provinces to concern themselves with the mechanism for reconsideration of the monarchical authority while this convention deal with the way those constituencies are represented nationally by said monarch with, of course, a guarantee that the federal constitution applies nationally.

Perhaps an unofficial federation of royals or nobles within the monarchist constituencies that rebuke the monarch following a parliamentary inquiry? This is all up in the air, of course.

If I were to accept subnational monarchies, I would have to see a plan where the monarch can at anytime be removed by a legislature/the voters, and perhaps, perhaps, with a supermajority, the position can be eliminated.

[Of the Quendi]

If I were to accept subnational monarchies, I would have to see a plan where the monarch can at anytime be removed by a legislature/the voters, and perhaps, perhaps, with a supermajority, the position can be eliminated.

Would such a removal require a 2/3 majority?

[Wolfmanne]

I say that we should get this set for the record:

- All provinces should have an unicameral legislature with all of it's members fairly elected under a proportional system.
- Each province may establish it's own judicial system, but appointments and the conducting of procedures are to be done by the Ministry of Justice (please do this, otherwise some provinces will elect biased judges; the Judicial Act ensures that proper professionals conduct the proceedings, not a politically biased guy). All provinces are required to follow the principle of civil law and codify them However, courtrooms may be established by the province.
- Each province shall have a chief executive (titled Prefect/Governor/King/whatever), who may be appointed via a hereditary or through proportional form of election, and a Council of Ministers (headed by a Premier/Prime Minister/Chief Minister/First Minister/whatever) which relies on the confidence of the provincial legislature.
- Provinces shall have responsibility for Education, Housing, Strategic planning, Transport, Roads, Fire, Health Care (we have universal health care, get over it), Social services, Libraries, Leisure and recreation, Waste collection, Waste disposal, Local constabularies, and Environmental health, to name a few things. It is required to follow oversight, laws and regulations as set out by institutes of the national government.
- The supremacy of the national government is to be recognised by all provinces.
- In regards to taxation, how much freedom should provinces have?

[Distruzio]

Yes, in my mind, the people should be guaranteed a right to choose their provincial leaders, and then remove them in additional elections. So, in my mind, at the most, a province should be allowed to have a monarch as a figurehead/de jure head of state.

I don't think anyone is demanding more. It certainly isn't what we have been arguing about; we have been arguing purely about the principle of subnational monarchy. Good that now we can discuss content instead. I obviously does not support giving an unelected monarch more than constitutional powers.

I would not either but I wouldn't be happy telling the less libertarian or progressive monarchist constituencies that they can only exercise self-determination in a specific way. There is much variation in monarchical structure, truth be told - much to choose from. Perhaps one constituency will prefer a diarchy? Others a caesaropapacy? No clue. Perhaps all constituencies would prefer to unite under a more federal regional base with a single royal recognized to represent the region nationally? That is something that should not be decided at this level. I merely think that this convention should make a clear and express limitation on the scope of the autocrats authority. Let us leave the scale along.

[Great Nepal]

I say that we should get this set for the record:

- All provinces should have an unicameral legislature with all of it's members fairly elected under a proportional system.
- Each province may establish it's own judicial system, but appointments and the conducting of procedures are to be done by the Ministry of Justice (please do this, otherwise some provinces will elect biased judges; the Judicial Act ensures that proper professionals conduct the proceedings, not a politically biased guy). All provinces are required to follow the principle of civil law and codify them However, courtrooms may be established by the province.
- Each province shall have a chief executive (titled Prefect/Governor/King/whatever), who may be appointed via a hereditary or through proportional form of election, and a Council of Ministers (headed by a Premier/Prime Minister/Chief Minister/First Minister/whatever) which relies on the confidence of the provincial legislature.
- Provinces shall have responsibility for Education, Housing, Strategic planning, Transport, Roads, Fire, Health Care (we have universal health care, get over it), Social services, Libraries, Leisure and recreation, Waste collection, Waste disposal, Local constabularies, and Environmental health, energy production to name a few things. It is required to follow oversight, laws and regulations as set out by institutes of the national government.
- The supremacy of the national government is to be recognised by all provinces. Any laws that applies to the federal government shall apply to provinces as well
- In regards to taxation, how much freedom should provinces have? Provinces shall be able to levy total of five forms of taxation, each one not exceeding 10%.

[Distruzio]

Perhaps, then, we allow the provinces to concern themselves with the mechanism for reconsideration of the monarchical authority while this convention deal with the way those constituencies are represented nationally by said monarch with, of course, a guarantee that the federal constitution applies nationally.

Perhaps an unofficial federation of royals or nobles within the monarchist constituencies that rebuke the monarch following a parliamentary inquiry? This is all up in the air, of course.

If I were to accept subnational monarchies, I would have to see a plan where the monarch can at anytime be removed by a legislature/the voters, and perhaps, perhaps, with a supermajority, the position can be eliminated.

I'd rather something more along the lines of a nationally appointed regent who, with a 2/3 majority approval of the provincial parliament or a 2/3 approval of provincial noble houses (or similar) can request national intervention and nullification of the monarchs authority for a specified time period authored by the national judiciary. Would that be satisfactory?

[Welsh Cowboy]

If I were to accept subnational monarchies, I would have to see a plan where the monarch can at anytime be removed by a legislature/the voters, and perhaps, perhaps, with a supermajority, the position can be eliminated.

I'd rather something more along the lines of a nationally appointed regent who, with a 2/3 majority approval of the provincial parliament or a 2/3 approval of provincial noble houses (or similar) can request national intervention and nullification of the monarchs authority for a specified time period authored by the national judiciary. Would that be satisfactory?

See, this is ironic, because in the Coffee Shop I'm arguing for a supermajority on another issue, but personally, I'd be more inclined to support a system where a majority of the Parliament or legislature could remove the monarch, although perhaps require a large quorum of MPs voting. But to remove the monarchy permanently, there'd have to be a supermajority.

I think my key is that the monarch never be allowed for reign where the people don't want him/her.

[Wolfmanne]

I say that we should get this set for the record:

- All provinces should have an unicameral legislature with all of it's members fairly elected under a proportional system.
- Each province may establish it's own judicial system, but appointments and the conducting of procedures are to be done by the Ministry of Justice (please do this, otherwise some provinces will elect biased judges; the Judicial Act ensures that proper professionals conduct the proceedings, not a politically biased guy). All provinces are required to follow the principle of civil law and codify them However, courtrooms may be established by the province.
- Each province shall have a chief executive (titled Prefect/Governor/King/whatever), who may be appointed via a hereditary or through proportional form of election, and a Council of Ministers (headed by a Premier/Prime Minister/Chief Minister/First Minister/whatever) which relies on the confidence of the provincial legislature.
- Provinces shall have responsibility for Education, Housing, Strategic planning, Transport, Roads, Fire, Health Care (we have universal health care, get over it), Social services, Libraries, Leisure and recreation, Waste collection, Waste disposal, Local constabularies, and Environmental health, energy production to name a few things. It is required to follow oversight, laws and regulations as set out by institutes of the national government.
- The supremacy of the national government is to be recognised by all provinces. Any laws that applies to the federal government shall apply to provinces as well
- In regards to taxation, how much freedom should provinces have? Provinces shall be able to levy total of five forms of taxation, each one not exceeding 10%.

Sorry, but the Commonwealth Prosecution Service has to remain the main prosecution service in the whole of the nation and all Judges should be subject to review and qualifications as set by the Judicial Act, necessitating their approval by the Commonwealth Courts and Tribunals Service. The last thing we'd want to do complicate procedure.

[Great Nepal]

Sorry, but the Commonwealth Prosecution Service has to remain the main prosecution service in the whole of the nation and all Judges should be subject to review and qualifications as set by the Judicial Act, necessitating their approval by the Commonwealth Courts and Tribunals Service. The last thing we'd want to do complicate procedure.

Absolutely, which is why I am suggesting entirety of judicial body remain in hands of the federal government and provinces have nothing to do with it, alongside law enforcement.
Those two are sector that should be managed at national level because last thing we want is two bodies fighting against each other for jurisdiction and pride.

[Wolfmanne]

Sorry, but the Commonwealth Prosecution Service has to remain the main prosecution service in the whole of the nation and all Judges should be subject to review and qualifications as set by the Judicial Act, necessitating their approval by the Commonwealth Courts and Tribunals Service. The last thing we'd want to do complicate procedure.

Absolutely, which is why I am suggesting entirety of judicial body remain in hands of the federal government and provinces have nothing to do with it, alongside law enforcement.
Those two are sector that should be managed at national level because last thing we want is two bodies fighting against each other for jurisdiction and pride.

Hey, I don't like federalism, but the problem is that we're a federal nation, necessitating that provinces have control over all three branches.

There are also local constabularies, and it has been agreed that they should come under local government.

[Jetan]

Sorry, but the Commonwealth Prosecution Service has to remain the main prosecution service in the whole of the nation and all Judges should be subject to review and qualifications as set by the Judicial Act, necessitating their approval by the Commonwealth Courts and Tribunals Service. The last thing we'd want to do complicate procedure.

Absolutely, which is why I am suggesting entirety of judicial body remain in hands of the federal government and provinces have nothing to do with it, alongside law enforcement.
Those two are sector that should be managed at national level because last thing we want is two bodies fighting against each other for jurisdiction and pride.

I agree.

[Wolfmanne]

Absolutely, which is why I am suggesting entirety of judicial body remain in hands of the federal government and provinces have nothing to do with it, alongside law enforcement.
Those two are sector that should be managed at national level because last thing we want is two bodies fighting against each other for jurisdiction and pride.

I agree.

See above.