SENATE BILL: Sanity in Foreign Policy Amendment (Veto Override Failed)

[DC Al Fine]

Aye

[DemPGH]

I'd just like to remind everyone that the Actual End to Imperialism Act passed 9-0 with Fed support and with one Senator (Xahar) not voting. There are parts of it that are necessary and very sensible, and again I'd like to say that my strong preference is for a rewrite or an amended version of that bill that keeps the sensible precautions we need. Not a blanket repeal.

[Lumine]

I'd just like to remind everyone that the Actual End to Imperialism Act passed 9-0 with Fed support and with one Senator (Xahar) not voting. There are parts of it that are necessary and very sensible, and again I'd like to say that my strong preference is for a rewrite or an amended version of that bill that keeps the sensible precautions we need. Not a blanket repeal.

Well, while the original vote conflicted me since it was unanimous, I believe the Senate failed to take enough time to consider the consecuences of this beyond eliminating some of the most dangerous and nonsensical parts, which is why I don't consider a good idea to keep such a bill. Perhaps the intention could be somewhat sensible, but not the finer points, specially not if we want to keep our options open without strangling our defense sector to death.

[Goldwater]

AYE

[TNF]

Nay (anti-fascist/anti-imperialist)

[windjammer]

I'd just like to remind everyone that the Actual End to Imperialism Act passed 9-0 with Fed support and with one Senator (Xahar) not voting. There are parts of it that are necessary and very sensible, and again I'd like to say that my strong preference is for a rewrite or an amended version of that bill that keeps the sensible precautions we need. Not a blanket repeal.

Why I have a feeling you might redraft that if this passes?

---------------
Yankeeeeeeeeeeeeee?

[DemPGH]

I'd just like to remind everyone that the Actual End to Imperialism Act passed 9-0 with Fed support and with one Senator (Xahar) not voting. There are parts of it that are necessary and very sensible, and again I'd like to say that my strong preference is for a rewrite or an amended version of that bill that keeps the sensible precautions we need. Not a blanket repeal.

Why I have a feeling you might redraft that if this passes?

Probably a best case scenario at this point, but we'll see!

There are some ways to redraft it that would make it work and should appease the majority on both sides.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

AYE since a redraft is on the table.

You can call 24 hours on vote changes, Windjammer.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

I'd just like to remind everyone that the Actual End to Imperialism Act passed 9-0 with Fed support and with one Senator (Xahar) not voting. There are parts of it that are necessary and very sensible, and again I'd like to say that my strong preference is for a rewrite or an amended version of that bill that keeps the sensible precautions we need. Not a blanket repeal.

Why I have a feeling you might redraft that if this passes?

---------------
Yankeeeeeeeeeeeeee?

Yes I just voted. Is there something else. 



I was hopinjg DemPGH would call for a redraft, as there were some portions I liked as well.

[windjammer]

This has enough votes to pass.
Senators, you have 24 hours to change their vote.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

You can end this man.

[windjammer]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

The results of the vote:
Aye (6): Senator Shua, Senator Lumine, Senator Alfred, Senator DC, Senator Goldwater, Senator North Carolina Yankee
Nay (3): Senator Griffin, Senator Tyrion, Senator TNF
Abstain (1): Senator Bore

This bill passes.

I, Windjammer, President of the senate, certify these results are accurate.

[windjammer]

This bill is now sent to the President.

[TNF]

The Senate has really turned into a fascist sh**thole as of late.

[Lumine]

The Senate has really turned into a fascist sh**thole as of late.

Once again, stay classy, Senator!

I thank my fellow Federalists, Alfred and Shua for their invaluable support, and I'd like to thank Bore for abstaining instead of voting Nay as well. I feel this could be the start of more realistic efforts, and I hope a potential Presidential redraft does not undermine the purpose of this bill.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

I eagerly await the promised redraft from the President.

[DemPGH]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

VETO

I would like to be clear at the outset that my veto of this particular statute neither informs nor impacts future decisions with regard to the issue of foreign policy.

After speaking with no fewer than five senators, to whom I have expressed my concerns, I have opted for a veto for four reasons:

1. I do not believe that I would be able to alter in any significant way, or in any way that would appease pro conflict elements in the Senate, the Actual End to Imperialism Act.

2. The Actual End to Imperialism Act passed 9-0 with strong bipartisan support. Certainly minds can change, but I do not see evidence that this is the case; in other words, I fail to see a reason for a change in this policy. Rather, I see chiefly one senator pushing pro war solutions, often simultaneously, as a way to confront nearly every international issue.

3. I feel strongly that I do not see how allowing the private funding of wars, or permitting the private intervention in the internal conflicts of foreign countries, would do anything other than increase sectarian and internecine violence. Our goal should be the opposite.

4. Finally, training paramilitary forces around the world is not what I consider to be a democratic objective; logically, neither would it decrease tribal and internal conflicts in which we have no stake. Again, our goal should be the opposite. The Actual end to Imperialism Act closes only bases whose “sole mission is training foreign military and paramilitary personnel.”

We have in place a wise policy, and to lift it would be overly reckless.

Yours,
DemPGH, President

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Wouldn't it have been prudent if at least some aspect of the discussion over whether or not to redraft had occured in public?

Granted I know not which five it was but certainly if it was the stark pro/anti members on either side, then of course it would be rather difficult to find consensus in a redraft. Surely the presence of six ayes, including a member of the Labor party as well as shua, who is hardly a pro-war inteventionist by any means, would indicate that desire for changes extends far beyond just one Senator, no?

Ironically I agree with three, but as for point four, isn't training "foreign military" in the absence of the private side, potentially in our interest? What about joint exercises with Britain, are they banned by this for instance? Or Canada even who would have an interest in defending common borders and body's of water from any number of threats? If it is efficent and cheaper to have a base solely devoted for such purposes, why should it be banned?

[windjammer]

Senators, you have until July 13, 2014, 09:57:22 am to request a veto override.

[DemPGH]

Wouldn't it have been prudent if at least some aspect of the discussion over whether or not to redraft had occured in public?

Granted I know not which five it was but certainly if it was the stark pro/anti members on either side, then of course it would be rather difficult to find consensus in a redraft. Surely the presence of six ayes, including a member of the Labor party as well as shua, who is hardly a pro-war inteventionist by any means, would indicate that desire for changes extends far beyond just one Senator, no?

Ironically I agree with three, but as for point four, isn't training "foreign military" in the absence of the private side, potentially in our interest? What about joint exercises with Britain, are they banned by this for instance? Or Canada even who would have an interest in defending common borders and body's of water from any number of threats? If it is efficent and cheaper to have a base solely devoted for such purposes, why should it be banned?

Actually, I found myself looking at An Actual End to Imperialism Act several times, and I really couldn't offer a rewrite that substantially changed it. That's what I mean.

Joint exercises with Great Britain would not be banned, and neither are coalitions. What's banned is to set up a base in a foreign country whose purpose is to train paramilitary forces (i.e., to overthrow strongmen, etc.).

[TNF]

I would like to thank the President for his bold and decisive action here.

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

Is it possible to amend this and then attempt an override?

[windjammer]

Is it possible to amend this and then attempt an override?

I'm sorry, but that's impossible. (I think)
If you want to amend it, you have to post a new bill in the legislative introduction thread.

[Lumine]

I request a veto override.

Without trying to be disrespecful in any way, if the President wishes to portray me a warmonger (regardless of how diplomatic the language is) for my recent efforts then he may very well do so, it's his right, but I would have hoped at the very least a redraft instead of speaking with isolated Senators and concluding that nothing could be done when this passed with the support of a Labor Senator and another one abstaining. Much as the original vote was 9-0, we can easily see that most of the consecuences of the original Act were not adecuately considered by the Senate, and most of the focus came on watering down what was already a dangerous bill. Tying one's hands is not what I would call a wise policy.

[windjammer]

Yankee, I have read the rules, and I find nothing for the debate time granted for a veto override.

Shall I start a vote right now?