Antillian Constitutional Convention

[Bacon King]

Welcome, everyone. You have all been elected to the first session of the new Antillian parliament. The first order of business is to provide a new national constitution to our beleagured nation, so this special constitutional convention has been established.

For starters, please select among yourselves a presiding officer.

[Platypus]

whoa. Lets maked this far more basic. Basic, in the way that we talk about the system OOC-it makes for a far better system and a far, far shorter debate, from past experience.


Three proposals: 1. Unicameral parliament with head of state as Speaker. HoS either governor-general or president elected by the parliament.

2. 50 MPs, regardless of number of players (if more come, they can fulfill many other roles, such as Ambassadors, journalists, GM aides, political aides, etc. The GM will fill 'extra' spots when under-numbered. Ergo, elections are decided by the independent GM based on party activity, event effects and political persuasions of the electiorate.

3. 6 month grace period before no 1 member parties.

just a few ideas to spark some discussion.

[HappyWarrior]

Those sound like very good ideas.  Speaking of which, I think ilikeverin or Bacon King should be president of the Convention.

[afleitch]

I would call for a 6 month transitionary period, lessed to 3 months should be be ahead of schedule

[True Federalist]

1. Definitely a Governor General as representative of the Queen as HoS, as we should rejoin the Commonwealth.

2. Unicameral Parliament for now, with a second purely consultative house once we get large enough.  How many MAP's I'm not worried about.

3. Parties are only guaranteed MAP's if they have at least 5% of the electorate.  Let the GM decide if anyone from a decidedly regional party gets elected, if such party numbers less than 5% of the total electorate.  Obviously this means everyone who wants to be is an MAP until we get 21 participants.

4. Shall we have an established church or churches?  I think given our Francophone population a single established church would not be acceptable, but having the Church of Antillia and the Catholic Church as established churches would be acceptable to me.

[The Man From G.O.P.]

Ernest's ideas stick with me, either Bacon or Afleitch for governorwhatever

[afleitch]

1. Definitely a Governor General as representative of the Queen as HoS, as we should rejoin the Commonwealth.

2. Unicameral Parliament for now, with a second purely consultative house once we get large enough.  How many MAP's I'm not worried about.

3. Parties are only guaranteed MAP's if they have at least 5% of the electorate.  Let the GM decide if anyone from a decidedly regional party gets elected, if such party numbers less than 5% of the total electorate.  Obviously this means everyone who wants to be is an MAP until we get 21 participants.

4. Shall we have an established church or churches?  I think given our Francophone population a single established church would not be acceptable, but having the Church of Antillia and the Catholic Church as established churches would be acceptable to me.

I back this (though I'd call MAP's simply MP's) The Catholic Church would never be allowed to be an established church however; it would be a threat to the (British) monarchy. An Anglican Church however would fit the bill. There may have been, and may still be moves to disestablish it. Not that an established Church has any more 'resounance' than another church.

[True Federalist]

Assuming my proposed history of the Church of Antillia gets accepted by our GM as canon for this game, then the Church of Antillia is part of the Anglican Communion, but was never an established church.  Still, it would be in character for my character, Douglas Hordern, to make such a proposal.  Given the Francophone Catholics, I agree that it would be unlikely that we would have one, but the attempt must be made so as to establish that at the very least that this is a Christian nation!

[Sibboleth]

Random comments about the, erm, technical (I suspect that that isn't the right word to use), side of the game, rather than constitutional issues (comments on those will come soon though)...

1. I think that it is essential that it is understood that those that play the game are not the only citizens of the island; we are but mere characters.

2. Following on from this, I think it should be possible for character to retire, die or to disgrace themselves through scandals and the like. It should also be possible for players to become new characters once their earlier character has been removed from the game.

3. I strongly agree with Hugh's second point; one of Atlasia's biggest flaws is the fact that the characters are also the electorate. Repeating that mistake here would be unfortunate.

4. Though I would also like it to be possible for characters to lose their seats (though how likely that be depends on the electoral system we choose; which is a constitutional matter).

[ilikeverin]

(OOC) Okay, first off, we need a bit of paradigm shift, here.

You are not Bacon King, or Ernest, or Al, or afleitch, or whoever.  Unless otherwise stated, you are your character.

Now, I can kinda see why this thread would be at least partially OOC; we're discussing OOC matters, to an extent.  But we need to shake off this as our primary mode of thought/discussion.

Re: representation; see how Eutopia did it.  I rather like their idea, if we can adapt it.

(IC) Well, I'll be a plucked chicken!  I heartily accept the nomination for President of this here convention.

[HappyWarrior]

OOC:  We should have characters be able to fulfill certain roles, like military men and such.

[True Federalist]

IC: Douglas Hordern (SCP - Hesperia)

President Jones, so that we may have the blessings of a higher power on our deliberations on our convention, I move that we appoint a chaplain for this body.

[HappyWarrior]

IC:Al Hill(SCP-Reginia)

I second Mr. Hordern's motion.

[The Man From G.O.P.]

W.H. Tudor (ACP-New Wales)


Thirded.

[afleitch]

Alexandre Denoix.

I object to the motion of designating a single chaplain. Due to our constitutional tradition that chaplain must directly represent that established church we should not create religious division at a time when we wish to mend ethnic and linguistic division. While Christian brothers of all faiths should not object to the representation of God in this convention, those of other faiths and none may also hold an objection. We do have a strong secular tradition across parts of this land and it is one that reformed Communists could exploit.

Should we chose to rejoin the Commonwelath and accept Her Majesty's gracious protection, it is through her and through her authority and presence through the form of the old parliamentary mace that God is represented.

I move for the Convention to decide upon the Commonwealth and monarchy question above all business and hopefully to see the return of the Royal Mace from The Antillan National Museum to sit at the Convention while in session and in any future parliament or assembly.

[True Federalist]

Douglas Hordern (SCP - Hesperia)

M. Denoix, I have no objection to having a rotating chaplainate. The existence of the post is more important than the person or persons who fill it.  As for the reformed Communists, I hope that they have seen the importance of faith and the necessity of it in a stable and just society.  Finally, as to a Mace, it would be presumptuous to use the Royal Mace until we have agreed that we will have a Governor General and not a President.  While I favor the former, it would be impudent for us to use the Royal Mace until that question is decided.

[ilikeverin]

Davey "Junior" Jones

Well, I reckon we ought to have a chaplain.  My nephew Robert Lee Jones might want to be the first chaplain; he's mighty smart, and can pray up a storm.  But I figgur you should make a motion if you want to do a rotating chaplaincy or whatnot, because as president of this Convention I'd like to see some sort of order followed. (he waves a copy of Robert's Rules of Order for Dummies)

So I think the first order of business is determining whether we should have a chaplain; this has been seconded.  So then... (he flips through the book) I believe Mr. Denoix was moving to propose an amendment to the "have a chaplain" idea, to rotate chaplains?  Mr. Hordern, can I count your comment to be a second of that?

[Hashemite]

Alexandre Denoix.

I object to the motion of designating a single chaplain. Due to our constitutional tradition that chaplain must directly represent that established church we should not create religious division at a time when we wish to mend ethnic and linguistic division. While Christian brothers of all faiths should not object to the representation of God in this convention, those of other faiths and none may also hold an objection. We do have a strong secular tradition across parts of this land and it is one that reformed Communists could exploit.

Should we chose to rejoin the Commonwelath and accept Her Majesty's gracious protection, it is through her and through her authority and presence through the form of the old parliamentary mace that God is represented.

I move for the Convention to decide upon the Commonwealth and monarchy question above all business and hopefully to see the return of the Royal Mace from The Antillan National Museum to sit at the Convention while in session and in any future parliament or assembly.

Jack Cooke (PC)

I second Mr. Denoix

[afleitch]

Denoix.

Of course. If I may I would like to nominate an outstanding citizen and freedom fighter Chief Rabbi Simon Menahem as a rotational chaplain.

[True Federalist]

Hordern

Yes you may count that as a second, Mr. President.

Denoix.

Of course. If I may I would like to nominate an outstanding citizen and freedom fighter Chief Rabbi Simon Menahem as a rotational chaplain.

(OOC: Hordern purses his lips, but whether in disapproval of a non-Christian nominee or relief that a pagan wasn't offered up will left up to others to ponder, since he remains silent for now.)

[Platypus]

Vijay Prabhusanjil

As an old nation at a new juncture of our history, it is time to move towards a new future with a reflection on our past.

The commonwealth is a body which aids our interntions of modernising and moving into the world; of reclaiming a presence on the world scene. Returning to the monarchy, however, takes us away from the strong, independent future that can be ours; subserviance to a foreign monarch is not acceptable for the future of this island.

Our multi-ethnic, multi-lingual, multi-cultural and multi-faith populace cannot and should not be united under one person, and no group should be favoured without compromise over others in our parliament. No religion, no monarch, and no discrimination in the new Antillia.

[ilikeverin]

Well, Mr. Prabhusanjil, that's all well and good, but right now the debate is on rotation of the chaplaincy.  Does anyone have any comment on this, or shall we move this to a vote?

[Dr. Cynic]

Egbert Dudley (ALP-New Ulster)

I believe I have something to say on this matter, Mr. Jones, before you move to vote. Being that I personally am agnostic with no demoninational faith, but wish to see fair to our other members who believe in a higher power. That being said, I feel it is somewhat presumptious and pompous to have a chaplain give us his blessing. I will however support a rotating chaplain, out of respect to my honorable collegues here today, if it be thier wishes.

I motion to close debate and move this to a vote.

[The Man From G.O.P.]

Second

[ilikeverin]

Okay, the vote is on rotation of the chaplaincy.

Cast your votes, please.  I vote "Yea" or whatnot.