Main | About | Tutorial | FAQ | Links | Wiki | Forum | World News | World Map | World Ranking | Nations | Electoral Calendar | Party Organizations | Treaties |
Login | Register |
Game Time: June 5461
Next month in: 03:38:08
Server time: 12:21:51, March 29, 2024 CET
Currently online (1): Vegaverde | Record: 63 on 23:13:00, July 26, 2019 CET

We are working on a brand new version of the game! If you want to stay informed, read our blog and register for our mailing list.

Bill: The Monarchy Bill

Details

Submitted by[?]: Royal Conservative Party

Status[?]: defeated

Votes: This bill asks for an amendement to the Constitution. It will require two-thirds of the legislature to vote in favor. This bill will not pass any sooner than the deadline.

Voting deadline: July 2105

Description[?]:

1) Lodamun shall grant the title of "King of Lodamun" to one of its noble houses (to be chosen by a public referndum)

2) The King shall open Parliament at the request of the Prime Minister and absolve it at the request of the Prime Minister.

3) The King and his family must be apolitical at all times: if political preference is shown by the King in any of his duties, he must abdicate in favour of his heir.

4) Lodamun shall be renamed as the "Federal Kingdom of Lodamun"

5) The state shall only provide transport to the monarchy when the monarch is on state business

6) The monarch of the time shall receive a salary from the government for the duties he undertakes.

7) The monarch shall be granted a government building in Port Andalay for his family to live in and for him to conduct official state business. This building will become the property of the Royal Family of Lodamun and may be used in any manner which they see fit. However it may not be sold by the Royal Family.

Proposals

Debate

These messages have been posted to debate on this bill:

Date21:58:33, August 30, 2005 CET
FromRoyal Conservative Party
ToDebating the The Monarchy Bill
Message((btw, before the ranting begins, I am aware that this stands no chance of being passed whatsoever. However I believed it was time to make my stance on such positions known))

Date22:22:00, August 30, 2005 CET
FromCNT/AFL
ToDebating the The Monarchy Bill
MessageAbsolutely not, there are no good reasons to have superiors and inferiors, but if there were, birth would definately not be one of them.

Date00:00:46, August 31, 2005 CET
FromCovenanters (IA)
ToDebating the The Monarchy Bill
MessageBut ability to climb the greasy pole with the aid of your corrupt financial backers would be, would it?

Date02:52:15, August 31, 2005 CET
FromRoyal Conservative Party
ToDebating the The Monarchy Bill
Message"Absolutely not, there are no good reasons to have superiors and inferiors, but if there were, birth would definately not be one of them"

Birth is the best reason. Some people are born with superior brains to others. Some are born with inferior looks to others. Birth is the one place where you will never be able to instill equality because nature itself does not promote equality.

Marxism debunked in a tiny paragraph.

Date04:10:54, August 31, 2005 CET
FromAdam Smith Party
ToDebating the The Monarchy Bill
MessageWe could actually support this move. Not for the reasons given by CUP though.

What is the role of the HoS in Lodamun? It is effectively ceremonial and diplomatic only. This means that the HoS should be a person who has been trained in the appropriate diplomatic arts and has a good knowledge of the ceremonies and rituals of our nation. It also means that the HoS has no political power and has no requirement to be a political figure.
We, as a nation, spend a fortune in campaigning every four years to obtain a position that has no political relevance. We obtain very little return from the HoS position in terms of tourism or respect due to its political nature. If we remove the elections, the politicisation of the position and install a hereditary monarch, perhaps we should make it a matriarchal line of inheritance, then we save on the campaigning for nothing, we gain in tourism, and we establish a long lasting face that represents the country without representing a political position.

We see no need however to change the name of Port Andalay. If we are going to be traditional, then adopt the traditions we have, including the traditional names of our cities.

Date04:56:29, August 31, 2005 CET
From Tuesday Is Coming
ToDebating the The Monarchy Bill
MessageCould we just get rid of the HoS? If he has no power, which he doesnt, there really isnt much reason to have him. However TiC cannot support paying tax money to someone just because of her/his heredity.

Even if this option doesnt exist, we can use the current options to create it. The hereditary HoS could be unknown and gone, or never existed.

Date05:24:33, August 31, 2005 CET
FromCNT/AFL
ToDebating the The Monarchy Bill
MessagePerhaps the head of state title can be 'There is no head of state' and the 'hereditary' head of state can just be blank.

Date10:56:46, August 31, 2005 CET
FromLodamun Centre-Left Coalition
ToDebating the The Monarchy Bill
MessageOpposed.

Date12:29:08, August 31, 2005 CET
FromCIVIL UNION
ToDebating the The Monarchy Bill
MessageThis is an honourable bill, which deserves support from al patriotic parties.

Date14:34:40, August 31, 2005 CET
From NATIONAL UNION
ToDebating the The Monarchy Bill
MessageYes, we agree with the Civil Union.
As president of the International Monarchist League, I would be delighted to see Lodanum finally join the grand league of dignant Nations which have restored their national pride and Monarchy.

Date15:01:22, August 31, 2005 CET
FromRoyal Conservative Party
ToDebating the The Monarchy Bill
Message"However TiC cannot support paying tax money to someone just because of her/his heredity."

But surely we pay the Head of State anyway, be they elected or hereditary? What difference would it actually make? As the King is in the service of the state (he has several duties to perform and would be of considerable use diplomatically), he must deserve some sort of payment in order to maintain his household?

I am willing to compromise in order to gain this monarchy so , if necessary, sections of the Bill can be removed or replaced.



Date17:38:52, August 31, 2005 CET
FromCooperative Commonwealth Federation
ToDebating the The Monarchy Bill
MessageThere are conditions under which we could support a constitutional monarchy.

Since Lodamun has never had "noble houses," the monarchy should be assigned to rotate among the traditional leadership of the indigenous peoples of Lodamun, with particular attention to rotation among indigenous nations from different states. This would honour our nation's history and traditions. (This is how the King of Malaysia is chosen.) The monarch, who might go by a more interesting name than King, would certainly have to be apolitical at all times. We would prefer a people's monarchy (on Scandinavian lines) to one based on pomp and ceremony. The monarch, as stated in the bill, must be strictly apolitical and limited to symbolic duties. We would also suggest the monarch be given patronage responsibilities for treasured national institutions: Warden of National Parks, for instance, or Honourary Chancellor of the national public university system.

We will not support a change of the country's name to Constitutional Monarchy of Lodamun. Federal Kingdom, or a similar name, might be acceptable. So might People's Kingdom: Lodamun could establish a truly grassroots monarchy in which the monarch is the embodiment of the people, their friend and symbolic protector. Royal soverignty and popular sovereignty might be combined, with Lodamun pioneering a new path for a new style of government both democratic and constitutional.

We will not support a change of name of Port Andalay: there is no need for this. It might be interesting to see the monarch, in order to stay as closely in touch with the people as possible, travel about the country for much fo the year, maintaining temporary residence in each of the state capitals in turn: a sort of replica of the Holy Roman Emperors of old. If the Conservatives insist on the need for a name change, then somethign along the lines of "the Royal City of Port Andalay" would better honour the city's traditions and its newfound dignity.

These thoughts are offered for suggestion only. No doubt the question of a monarchy will be much discussed on the campaign trail. We as Greens will listen to our constituents on this matter. If there is substantial popular support for a monarchy, then we will suggest a popular constitutional assembly be summoned from the population at large to recommend a new system of government, that can then be put to the country at a national referendum at the time of the next elections.

Date17:39:14, August 31, 2005 CET
FromCNT/AFL
ToDebating the The Monarchy Bill
Message"This is an honourable bill, which deserves support from al patriotic parties."
Perhaps that explains our opposition.

Date18:19:05, August 31, 2005 CET
From Tuesday Is Coming
ToDebating the The Monarchy Bill
Message"Perhaps the head of state title can be 'There is no head of state' and the 'hereditary' head of state can just be blank."
Very good. That's exactly what I meant.

Date19:32:35, August 31, 2005 CET
FromAdam Smith Party
ToDebating the The Monarchy Bill
Message@ GA

Several contradictions are apparent in your presentation of what you would accept.

Firstly you state that: 'Lodamun has never had "noble houses"' and then go on to refer to: 'the traditional leadership of the indigenous peoples'. Now we understand that noble houses means the traditional leadership of the indigenous people. We are, after all the indigenous people here. We are not an ex colony with an invading people that have excluded the natives from power, we are the natives, and our traditional leadership simply is our noble houses. (OOC, we are not the USA, we are much more a European or maybe Chinese style nation, but we are not a new world country)

Secondly you state: 'The monarch, who might go by a more interesting name than King, would certainly have to be apolitical at all times.' which we whole heartedly agree with, but then you try to politicise tyhe position by suggesting that the monarch should be patron of: 'the national public university system'. If the monarch is to be apolitical they can not be associated with a political institution or have any association with arrangements that are politcally motivated. It would be fine to have them be the patron of various charity groups, or to raise awareness concerning social issues, but they can not be associated with one particular view as to the way to deal with those issues. Publically funded universities and parks are a political issue here and as such can not be patronised by any apolitical figure.

Then there is the proposal to rotate the position. This defeats the major advantage of a monarchy over a president. The continuity of relationships between the monarch and representatives of oyher nations is the big benefit of manarchies, thus generating goodwill and trust. (The Malaysian monarchy is ineffecive in generating goodwill or trust for Malaysia.)

Date21:24:06, August 31, 2005 CET
FromRoyal Conservative Party
ToDebating the The Monarchy Bill
MessageSome of the compromises suggested have been made.

Date14:43:47, September 02, 2005 CET
FromCIVIL UNION
ToDebating the The Monarchy Bill
MessageThis is an honourable Bill. If it is passed my Country, of which I am Minister of Foreign Affairs shall conclude a Treaty with yours.

Sincerely,

Fr-Wilhelm v Reuss
Minister of Foreign Affairs
Kingdom of Dolgaria

Date18:21:01, September 02, 2005 CET
FromCNT/AFL
ToDebating the The Monarchy Bill
MessageThe CNT/AFL feel that a country that allows its police officers to carry military grade weaponry is not the best country to negotiate a treaty with, especially when the treaty hinges upon the form of government we choose.

Date18:26:26, September 02, 2005 CET
FromCovenanters (IA)
ToDebating the The Monarchy Bill
MessageThat would explain why the CNTs are in the minority then.

Date18:51:12, September 02, 2005 CET
From Tuesday Is Coming
ToDebating the The Monarchy Bill
MessageTiC isnt in the minority, and we never agree with the CNT/AFL, but we do so here completely.

Date19:06:14, September 02, 2005 CET
FromCovenanters (IA)
ToDebating the The Monarchy Bill
MessageMaybe not this time, but one day your head of state will be restored as a position of dignity.

Date01:53:07, September 03, 2005 CET
FromCooperative Commonwealth Federation
ToDebating the The Monarchy Bill
MessageIt wouldn't be a restoration, it would be a new position. Which is fine.

If this is coming back to a vote in the future, we should probably get some consensus on our history. Lodamun's been described in new world terms (indigenous minorities etc) for quite a while now (even before ASP was here), but anything everyone agrees on is fine. Something Asian-ish might be ideal, actually.

Date05:46:30, September 03, 2005 CET
FromCNT/AFL
ToDebating the The Monarchy Bill
Message((Maybe more South America than North America. The majority of the population are mestizos, of mixed Artanian - Englar maybe? - and indigenous blood, the Artanian minorty are well off while the indigenous struggle.))

Date21:31:40, September 03, 2005 CET
FromAdam Smith Party
ToDebating the The Monarchy Bill
Message((As I actually live in South America I have to comment that CNT/AFL is wrong. The majority here are not mixed blood native peoples, the majority are ex European or african slaves. In the Andean nations (Peru, Bolivia, Paraguay) the majority are pure blood natives. These nations account for only a fraction of the South American population. ))

The point about Lodamun is that we were never a colony, and native vs colonising ethnic groups does not work very well in a non colonial setting. Asian does seem to be the best bet. Or maybe model the ethnicity on the Russian Federation with its wide range of distinct ethnic and cultural groups. But native is not a term that applies.

Date23:31:36, September 03, 2005 CET
FromCooperative Commonwealth Federation
ToDebating the The Monarchy Bill
MessageMade an ooc bill for this discussion, as this one's about to be voted off the active page.

subscribe to this discussion - unsubscribe

Voting

Vote Seats
yes
   

Total Seats: 142

no
     

Total Seats: 158

abstain

    Total Seats: 0


    Random fact: Cultural Protocols should generally be reflective of RP conducted within the nation and should not significantly alter or modify the ethnic, religious or linguistic composition without considerable and reasonable role-play or other justification.

    Random quote: "A lie told often enough becomes the truth." - Vladimir Lenin

    This page was generated with PHP
    Copyright 2004-2010 Wouter Lievens
    Queries performed: 108