NSG Senate Chamber [NSG Senate] - Version 4

[New Bierstaat]

I'm sorry if I'm getting bent out of shape about this, but this kind of behaviour really gets my goat. I need a break for a bit, I'll be back on tomorrow. Please TG me if you have anything urgent I ought to know about.

Senator, I don't see what any of us have done other than disagree with you.

[Unicario]

Senator Martin Aubrey Deering, of District #93, Bouda rose, and declared "I will vote against the Constitution, for my own personal, moral reasons. Also, I wish to remind Senator Friedrich Wilhelm von Hohenzollern of Mulenhaim and Senator Branko Aleksic that all Senators are entitled to their own beliefs. No member of this body, is any less "freedom loving" because of their views, and as colleagues their views deserve equal respect. Please, gentlemen, I beg that we stay polite and professional to each other. I ask the gentlemen to retract their statements."

"I have made no violation of the PPUBA or any sort of Senatorial Ethics guideline because I have made no personal attacks against you nor anyone else. I will not be retracting my statements on the subject."

[Lamaredia]

Not at all.

OOC talking they will. Every single constituency may try to secede and what not.
And seeing you support self determination what is your opinion on the Crimean referendum?

What's happening in Crimea is secession by gunpoint. It's also against their constitution. I will not support it as long as Russia is puppeteering as it is.

[Macedonian Grand Empire]

OOC talking they will. Every single constituency may try to secede and what not.
And seeing you support self determination what is your opinion on the Crimean referendum?

What's happening in Crimea is secession by gunpoint. It's also against their constitution. I will not support it as long as Russia is puppeteering as it is.

I would have drawn parallels with another secession but I do not want to get into such arguments by nationalists present in the senate. It happened 7 years ago. And was used in the declaration of independence of the Crimea. And also the constitution of the previous country did not allow for secessions

[New Zepuha]

When does the voting on the Constitution start? I'm voting for, but with the reservation that I would like to see it amended so that life is defined as starting at conception.

Hahahahaha, no.

If any such thing is put in the Constitution, I will fervently campaign for every freedom-loving member of the Senate to reject it.

You can be a bit less provocative, which is a PPUBA violation, but I won't say much more than that.

And everyone can stand to not go that route either.

[Pesda]

Can we vote now?

[Geilinor]

Any anti-abortion ammendment will tank the whole thing.

This^. Abortion should not have been brought up right now. If restricting it is important to anyone, they can propose an amendment after the constitution is passed. We've gone too long without a constitution.

[The State of Czecho-Slovakia]

I'm sorry if I'm getting bent out of shape about this, but this kind of behaviour really gets my goat. I need a break for a bit, I'll be back on tomorrow. Please TG me if you have anything urgent I ought to know about.

Senator, I don't see what any of us have done other than disagree with you.

My complaints were generally against Unicario, and Macedonian Empire, not the whole of my critics. I don't mind senators such as yourself who can present dissent in a professional manner, but those who are rude about it irk me. I just want people to keep it civil here, and respect others opinions.

[Corenea]

Any anti-abortion ammendment will tank the whole thing.

This^. Abortion should not have been brought up right now. If restricting it is important to anyone, they can propose an amendment after the constitution is passed. We've gone too long without a constitution.

I'm agreeing with Geil (probably for the first time) I'm perfectly fine with the proposed Constitution as it is and we need the Constitution now

[Macedonian Grand Empire]

Senator, I don't see what any of us have done other than disagree with you.

My complaints were generally against Unicario, and Macedonian Empire, not the whole of my critics. I don't mind senators such as yourself who can present dissent in a professional manner, but those who are rude about it irk me. I just want people to keep it civil here, and respect others opinions.

I said before. No just No is a mocking of believes?

[The State of Czecho-Slovakia]

Any anti-abortion ammendment will tank the whole thing.

This^. Abortion should not have been brought up right now. If restricting it is important to anyone, they can propose an amendment after the constitution is passed. We've gone too long without a constitution.

This was the point I was trying to present in my initial post: I was considering voting for the Conn., but making it clear in my post that I wished that it be amended later. Honestly, it'll take some time before I decide where I stand on this issue. It's not easy deciding whether I should vote on the basis of what I feel is moral right, or for what I feel is politically right and realistic. I'm going to take another look at the Conn., and consult some historical texts and my confandants before coming to a firm decision.

[The State of Czecho-Slovakia]

My complaints were generally against Unicario, and Macedonian Empire, not the whole of my critics. I don't mind senators such as yourself who can present dissent in a professional manner, but those who are rude about it irk me. I just want people to keep it civil here, and respect others opinions.

I said before. No just No is a mocking of believes?

My complaints were, I admit, most relevant to Unicarnio. I apologize, I should not have put you in the same class as him. While, I'll be frank, your remarks upset me, they were not as serious as those Unicarno made. I withdraw my complaints against you, but would ask that in the future your criticisms be a touch more erudite. Let us for the time being to agree to disagree.

Edited to fix pronoun, went neutral because I was playing it safe.

[Geilinor]

I said before. No just No is a mocking of believes?

While, I'll be frank, your remarks upset me

"No, just no" upset you? Macedonian Empire highly disagreed, and said so.

[Unicario]

I said before. No just No is a mocking of believes?

My complaints were, I admit, most relevant to Unicarnio. I apologize, I should not have put you in the same class as zim. While, I'll be frank, your remarks upset me, they were not as serious as those Unicarno made. I withdraw my complaints against you, but would ask that in the future your criticisms be a touch more erudite. Let us for the time being to agree to disagree.

My remarks were serious in what way? It's not as if I called you something derogatory or offensive. And please use the proper gender pronoun with me -- masculine. my "haha, no." was more for dramatic effect than it was to insult your beliefs.

At this end, I see no reason why this needs to continue when there are more important matters at hand.

[New Zepuha]

May the records show, zim is not a word.

[New Bierstaat]

This^. Abortion should not have been brought up right now. If restricting it is important to anyone, they can propose an amendment after the constitution is passed. We've gone too long without a constitution.

I'm agreeing with Geil (probably for the first time) I'm perfectly fine with the proposed Constitution as it is and we need the Constitution now

Indeed. It should be clear that it has strong support across both coalitions and will likely pass by a wide margin. I could see it getting 70-75%.

[Oneracon]

I'm agreeing with Geil (probably for the first time) I'm perfectly fine with the proposed Constitution as it is and we need the Constitution now

Indeed. It should be clear that it has strong support across both coalitions and will likely pass by a wide margin. I could see it getting 70-75%.

And one superb way to tank it is for some Senators' to tack their anti-abortion agendas on to it.

This constitution is the work of Senators from across the political spectrum who toiled since our nation's independence to create a solid and neutral governing document. If someone wishes to see it amended for their own purposes then they can use the amending formula once it is passed.

[Britanno]

This constitution has been written under the administrations of three Presidents, through bloodshed and brutality, through hardship and hostility, through the very history that defines Aurentina's independence. We must now stand together to support the work of countless senators and presidents, some of whom are no longer amongst us.

[Old Tyrannia]

Fellow Senators,

I come before you as a member of the convention responsible for drafting this constitution, who ceased participation in the drafting of the constitution some time ago because I resolved to vote against it regardless of what happened next. I wish to explain in detail why I and my party will be voting against the new constitution in the chamber, despite insistences that it is fair and neutral and has bipartisan support.

The reason we oppose this constitution is not because it does not recognise Aurentina as a constitutional monarchy as we desire, despite false and disingenuous reports to the contrary. We recognise that there is no support for the traditional system of government in the Commonwealth at present, and though we regret this we have no wish to force our views on an unwilling populace. This is, however, exactly what this constitution's drafting committee, overwhelmingly republican in composition, is doing to the people of those Aurentine provinces where support for the hereditary principle and native aristocracy remains high. Myself and the sadly absent Senator de Medici proposed several months ago that the constitution, which adopts a federal system for Aurentina's provinces, should provide for the establishment of hereditary chief executives in those regions where majority support for them might occur, thus allowing traditionally-minded provinces to opt to allow local ducal or comital families to serve a role in their local government.

In no way would this agreement infringe upon the democratic will of the majority of the Commonwealth's population to remain a republic, nor would it violate the rights of the inhabitants of those provinces in question as subnational monarchies of this sort, which exist in many places around the world already, would require the support of the local population to be established and would remain answerable to local legislative assemblies and the national government. Yet this proposal was refused by the majority of the constitutional convention, who favoured upholding the republican ideal even where it did not correspond with the local democratic will. This is an example of tyranny by majority, and I fear that the national government running roughshod over the rights and will of provincial governments and populations in this way will only fuel support for secessionist movements such as the one which has recently resorted to terroristic actions in Arenden. It is for this reason that I and my fellow party members remain steadfastly opposed to the proposed constitution, which we feel is not so politically unbiased as our opponents claim.

If the Senate of Aurentina is unwilling to allow this small concession to a significant minority of the electoral caucus, for the sake of passing the first ever bill in Aurentine history with genuinely universal support and establishing a constitution that genuinely has the approval of every party in the Senate, I fear that this nation may not be so tolerant of dissenting voices as it prides itself on being.

Long live the Queen and the people of Aurentina.

[Central and Eastern Visayas]

And a tyranny by majority is the most ironic of tyrannies.

[New Bierstaat]

Fellow Senators,

I come before you as a member of the convention responsible for drafting this constitution, who ceased participation in the drafting of the constitution some time ago because I resolved to vote against it regardless of what happened next. I wish to explain in detail why I and my party will be voting against the new constitution in the chamber, despite insistences that it is fair and neutral and has bipartisan support.

The reason we oppose this constitution is not because it does not recognise Aurentina as a constitutional monarchy as we desire, despite false and disingenuous reports to the contrary. We recognise that there is no support for the traditional system of government in the Commonwealth at present, and though we regret this we have no wish to force our views on an unwilling populace. This is, however, exactly what this constitution's drafting committee, overwhelmingly republican in composition, is doing to the people of those Aurentine provinces where support for the hereditary principle and native aristocracy remains high. Myself and the sadly absent Senator de Medici proposed several months ago that the constitution, which adopts a federal system for Aurentina's provinces, should provide for the establishment of hereditary chief executives in those regions where majority support for them might occur, thus allowing traditionally-minded provinces to opt to allow local ducal or comital families to serve a role in their local government.

In no way would this agreement infringe upon the democratic will of the majority of the Commonwealth's population to remain a republic, nor would it violate the rights of the inhabitants of those provinces in question as subnational monarchies of this sort, which exist in many places around the world already, would require the support of the local population to be established and would remain answerable to local legislative assemblies and the national government. Yet this proposal was refused by the majority of the constitutional convention, who favoured upholding the republican ideal even where it did not correspond with the local democratic will. This is an example of tyranny by majority, and I fear that the national government running roughshod over the rights and will of provincial governments and populations in this way will only fuel support for secessionist movements such as the one which has recently resorted to terroristic actions in Arenden. It is for this reason that I and my fellow party members remain steadfastly opposed to the proposed constitution, which we feel is not so politically unbiased as our opponents claim.

If the Senate of Aurentina is unwilling to allow this small concession to a significant minority of the electoral caucus, for the sake of passing the first ever bill in Aurentine history with genuinely universal support and establishing a constitution that genuinely has the approval of every party in the Senate, I fear that this nation may not be so tolerant of dissenting voices as it prides itself on being.

Long live the Queen and the people of Aurentina.

I don't see a problem with this, but I think it would make more sense to have it done as an amendment than to try to change the constitution now right before it's slated to be voted upon.

[Macedonian Grand Empire]

subnational monarchies of this sort, which exist in many places around the world already

OOC: So Uganda and OAE? And that is many places?

[New Zepuha]

I don't see a problem with this, but I think it would make more sense to have it done as an amendment than to try to change the constitution now right before it's slated to be voted upon.

I agree, I'd even be willing to Co-Author said amendment.

[Old Tyrannia]

subnational monarchies of this sort, which exist in many places around the world already

OOC: So Uganda and OAE? And that is many places?

Uganda, Malaysia, the United Arab Emirates, Ghana, Nigeria, India, the Phillipines, South Africa... And more.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_su ... l_monarchs

[Yanalia]

This has sufficient support for the queue.

Aircraft Carrier Restriction Act
Drafted by: Yanalia [RG]
Sponsors: Unicario [RG], Costa Fierro [RefP], Osea 767 [CP], Pesda [RG], Skeckoa [LP]
Category: International Relations

The Senate of the Aurentine Commonwealth,

RECOGNISING that the nation does not currently require an aircraft carrier,

DISAPPROVING of the plans of the current government to purchase one,

NOTING that the Senate should voice its opinion on such an expensive and significant project,

ALARMED that the government has ignored protest against the purchase of an aircraft carrier,

HEREBY enacts the following:

For the purposes of this act, an aircraft carrier shall be a warship with a full-length flight deck and facilities for carrying, arming, deploying, and recovering aircraft, that serves as a seagoing airbase.

1. Any current projects on the part of the Ministry of Defence involving the acquisition of aircraft carriers shall be halted immediately.

2. Acquisitions of aircraft carriers shall require the approval of the Senate.

Code: Select all

[spoiler=Aircraft Carrier Restriction Act][box][size=150]Aircraft Carrier Restriction Act[/size]
Drafted by: Yanalia [RG]
Sponsors: Unicario [RG], Costa Fierro [RefP], Osea 767 [CP], Pesda [RG], Skeckoa [LP]
Category: International Relations

The Senate of the Aurentine Commonwealth,

RECOGNISING that the nation does not currently require an aircraft carrier,

DISAPPROVING of the plans of the current government to purchase one,

NOTING that the Senate should voice its opinion on such an expensive and significant project,

ALARMED that the government has ignored protest against the purchase of an aircraft carrier,

HEREBY enacts the following:

For the purposes of this act, an aircraft carrier shall be a warship with a full-length flight deck and facilities for carrying, arming, deploying, and recovering aircraft, that serves as a seagoing airbase.

1. Any current projects on the part of the Ministry of Defence involving the acquisition of aircraft carriers shall be halted immediately.

2. Acquisitions of aircraft carriers shall require the approval of the Senate.[/box][/spoiler]