Aurentine Constitutional Convention [NSG Senate]

[Jetan]

I think you're the one disregarding self determination, you suggest that one family be allowed monarchy would you suggest that someone born 50 years after this family is instilled has been given their right to self-determination? I doubt that..

Provisional executive doesn't have that much power (atleast not under text I purposed) anyway and if its already been 50 years, how long is that executive going to live anyway? As soon as he drops dead, there will be a new elections for replacement.

That isn't what Distruzio is suggesting though.

[Distruzio]

That is not for you to decide. I thought we'd been over this? Are you still clinging to your disregard for self-determinism?



Considering this initiative would affect neither those parties nor their constituencies as well as go quite far in securing monarchist fealty to the national government, I fail to see the threat it poses to them or why their input is relevant.

I think you're the one disregarding self determination, you suggest that one family be allowed monarchy would you suggest that someone born 50 years after this family is instilled has been given their right to self-determination? I doubt that..

Nonsense. Once more, you argue from ignorance. Welsh Cowboy and I have already addressed the concern you inch towards. I would favor the availability of a parliamentary review of the monarchy when desired by the population of the constituency in question resulting in, upon a 2/3 or greater majority, reconsider the mandate of leadership for the monarch under review. Should they be disenfranchised by the entity reviewing them, a Regent will be appointed by the reviewing entity until such time as the next most appropriate leader is determined by popular vote. This could lead to the fall of monarchy within the region or, more likely, the succession of a competing royal house.

Additionally, you're suggesting that one province doesn't affect anyone else.

Tell me... in what way do the politics of one province affect another?

[Britanno]

If a player wants to become a monarch in a province, they have to resign as a senator thus making the RP very boring for them.

[Kouralia]

If a player wants to become a monarch in a province, they have to resign as a senator thus making the RP very boring for them.

*Makes second character to be monarch*

You were saying?

[Great Nepal]

Provisional executive doesn't have that much power (atleast not under text I purposed) anyway and if its already been 50 years, how long is that executive going to live anyway? As soon as he drops dead, there will be a new elections for replacement.

That isn't what Distruzio is suggesting though.

It isn't?
So what is he suggesting... ?

[Jetan]

I think you're the one disregarding self determination, you suggest that one family be allowed monarchy would you suggest that someone born 50 years after this family is instilled has been given their right to self-determination? I doubt that..

Nonsense. Once more, you argue from ignorance. Welsh Cowboy and I have already addressed the concern you inch towards. I would favor the availability of a parliamentary review of the monarchy when desired by the population of the constituency in question resulting in, upon a 2/3 or greater majority, reconsider the mandate of leadership for the monarch under review. Should they be disenfranchised by the entity reviewing them, a Regent will be appointed by the reviewing entity until such time as the next most appropriate leader is determined by popular vote. This could lead to the fall of monarchy within the region or, more likely, the succession of a competing royal house.

Additionally, you're suggesting that one province doesn't affect anyone else.

Tell me... in what way do the politics of one province affect another?

Okay, you've lost me. Do you support new elections for monarch when the old one passes or automatic ascension to monarch by the old monarch's heir?

[Distruzio]

Indeed. There is no sense in societal conflagration being risked.

Hell, truth be told, the constituencies may, themselves, unite under a single monarch. My own constituency leans heavily towards Lord Tyrannia.

In the interest of securing ties between the monarchist constituencies and the national government, I would suggest that the constitution explicitly forbid the recognition of foreign heads of State as subnational monarchs. The monarchs within Aurentina should be Aurentine. As favorably as I look towards the Queen and the United Kingdom, it would not do for the monarchists to be divided between loyalties.

OOC: No matter what the decisision, I'll state again what I stated when that absurd attempt at making Hath a king surfaced: I will oppose every attempt at making one of the players a king, queen, or whatever permanently at every possible time in every possible way.

On what grounds? Is there a way that the player to garner greater authority within a senate roleplay? Honestly, I see this as a way to expand the roleplay into avenues not previously considered. I mean, in no way does this limit the opportunities of the non-monarchists either.

As to the subnational monarchy, I might be persuaded to accept a election for life under extreme circumstances, but election for life and hereditary position is a definite no-no.

Why?

[Jetan]

That isn't what Distruzio is suggesting though.

It isn't?
So what is he suggesting... ?

From what I understood, a one-off election for a monarch, and then hereditary monarchy from that point onwards. I might be mistaken though, I asked him for clarification.

[Distruzio]

That isn't what Distruzio is suggesting though.

It isn't?
So what is he suggesting... ?

The election of a royal family including their heirs in certain provinces. Others might prefer an elective monarchy of the sort you envision.

[Great Nepal]

It isn't?
So what is he suggesting... ?

The election of a royal family including their heirs.

So, a heir would automatically be assumed to have consent from the people by virtue of birth? That is a no, every one who wants to be provisional executive must be elected themselves. Essentially a elective monarchy.

[Welsh Cowboy]

It isn't?
So what is he suggesting... ?

The election of a royal family including their heirs in certain provinces. Others might prefer an elective monarchy of the sort you envision.

A hereditary monarchy would be a no-go for me...

[Distruzio]

Nonsense. Once more, you argue from ignorance. Welsh Cowboy and I have already addressed the concern you inch towards. I would favor the availability of a parliamentary review of the monarchy when desired by the population of the constituency in question resulting in, upon a 2/3 or greater majority, reconsider the mandate of leadership for the monarch under review. Should they be disenfranchised by the entity reviewing them, a Regent will be appointed by the reviewing entity until such time as the next most appropriate leader is determined by popular vote. This could lead to the fall of monarchy within the region or, more likely, the succession of a competing royal house.



Tell me... in what way do the politics of one province affect another?

Okay, you've lost me. Do you support new elections for monarch when the old one passes or automatic ascension to monarch by the old monarch's heir?

I'd rather that, from an OOC standpoint, be the individual senators prerogative. There's no reason that a national constitutional convention should be free to dictate the terms of service of individual representatives, monarch or not, when those representatives pledge loyalty to the national government first and foremost. Personally, I'd prefer my constituency be a more libertarian constitutional monarchy while others might prefer otherwise. I've no idea how they'd prefer theirs. Hell, we might be willing to each unite under a single royal family represented inside our party itself.

At this point, we're simply negotiating with the convention in order to settle the monarchist/republican dispute once and for all. Frankly, this subnational addition is the only way OT and I can see that satisfies both parties. Especially since we'd be willing to neuter the monarchy so much so that it poses no threat to the republican national government.

[Jetan]

On what grounds? Is there a way that the player to garner greater authority within a senate roleplay? Honestly, I see this as a way to expand the roleplay into avenues not previously considered. I mean, in no way does this limit the opportunities of the non-monarchists either.

Because it is not a good idea for the RP to grant one person such an position without the possibility of change. Note that I'm not opposing just monarchy under such circumstances, but all other kinds of permanent positions as well.

Why?

Because while I'm willing to compromise (election for life) I'm not willing to go that far. Elections are necessary for fair representation of the people.

[Threlizdun]

I firmly oppose the establishment of any sort of monarchy within Aurentina and will reject the Constitution in its entirety if such a disgusting institution is allowed to exist in our nation.

[Distruzio]

The election of a royal family including their heirs.

So, a heir would automatically be assumed to have consent from the people by virtue of birth? That is a no, every one who wants to be provisional executive must be elected themselves. Essentially a elective monarchy.

Yes, I'm aware of the elective monarchies. Welsh and I have already discussed the issues surrounding the possibility of a popular repudiation of the monarch at any time during their reign via 2/3 or more majority in provincial parliament.

Although, I will admit that I would be willing to settle for an elective monarchy. I can't speak for the other monarchists though.

[Distruzio]

On what grounds? Is there a way that the player to garner greater authority within a senate roleplay? Honestly, I see this as a way to expand the roleplay into avenues not previously considered. I mean, in no way does this limit the opportunities of the non-monarchists either.

Because it is not a good idea for the RP to grant one person such an position without the possibility of change. Note that I'm not opposing just monarchy under such circumstances, but all other kinds of permanent positions as well.

That makes quite a bit of sense.

Why?

Because while I'm willing to compromise (election for life) I'm not willing to go that far. Elections are necessary for fair representation of the people.

As I say, that's an issue that I'd be willing to accept. I don't know about the others. I'll be happy to argue in favor of it though.

[Great Nepal]

.
Although, I will admit that I would be willing to settle for an elective monarchy. I can't speak for the other monarchists though.

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

[Distruzio]

If a player wants to become a monarch in a province, they have to resign as a senator thus making the RP very boring for them.

Why would they have to resign? Has there been a law passed to enforce this?

[Distruzio]

.
Although, I will admit that I would be willing to settle for an elective monarchy. I can't speak for the other monarchists though.

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

I don't imagine he will, either.

[Jetan]

Because it is not a good idea for the RP to grant one person such an position without the possibility of change. Note that I'm not opposing just monarchy under such circumstances, but all other kinds of permanent positions as well.

That makes quite a bit of sense.

Because while I'm willing to compromise (election for life) I'm not willing to go that far. Elections are necessary for fair representation of the people.

As I say, that's an issue that I'd be willing to accept. I don't know about the others. I'll be happy to argue in favor of it though.

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

I don't imagine he will, either.

Then I presume elective subnational monarchy is the default compromise position now?

[Distruzio]

That makes quite a bit of sense.



As I say, that's an issue that I'd be willing to accept. I don't know about the others. I'll be happy to argue in favor of it though.

I don't imagine he will, either.

Then I presume elective subnational monarchy is the default compromise position now?

Consider it so from my perspective. Shall I presume that a majority of the issues surrounding this concern have been addressed and resolved?

[Jetan]

Then I presume elective subnational monarchy is the default compromise position now?

Consider it so from my perspective. Shall I presume that a majority of the issues surrounding this concern have been addressed and resolved?

Well, since you even included the possibility of mid term changes, from my point of view, yes.

[Great Nepal]

Great... so thoughts on this text outlining rights and responsibilities of provinces?

[Distruzio]

Consider it so from my perspective. Shall I presume that a majority of the issues surrounding this concern have been addressed and resolved?

Well, since you even included the possibility of mid term changes, from my point of view, yes.

Then... we can drink now? I mean... I've been drinking this entire time, sir... but I'm perfectly willing to pour another.

[Distruzio]

Great... so thoughts on this text outlawing rights and responsibilities of provinces?

"Outlawing?" Do you mean, outlining?