Antillian Constitutional Convention

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

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.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

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!

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

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.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

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.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

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.)

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Aye

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Mr Hordern rises...

Mr. Khan, our Francophone population has a long history on this fair isle.  They form the majority in three of our eleven provinces and over a quarter of the population in two more.  French is an official language of this land. Those are more than sufficient reasons for our country to join La Francophonie.

In contrast, Portuguese is but a recent arrival on these shores, and in no province is it the mother tongue of even a sixth of the population, so widely did the refugees from Portugal's failed colonies settle here.  Also, while La Francophonie includes many countries where the French flag was never planted, but there exists an appreciation of French culture and language, the same cannot be said of the CPLC.  Portuguese is not an official language and if we should make the mistake of adding a third official language to complicate our governmental affairs, I would rather see it be Hindi than Portuguese given the Indian history and majority in LeGran.  In short, I shall oppose any effort to have this country seek entry into the CPLC.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

The advantage of having a monarch as head of state is that such a person is by definition outside politics.  I could reluctantly support an elected or appointed monarch if this body is determined to have a republican government instead of a constitutional hereditary monarchy.  By I ask my fellow members of this convention, do you truly expect a member elected to Parliament on a partisan basis, under our current conditions which ensure that we will have minority or coalition governments for some time to come, to abandon the chance to argue for their views, and become a non-partisan functionary?  You are asking us to find a saint amongst the elected sinners!

I oppose this motion.  If we must have a republic, choosing the head of State from amongst the MP's is not the way to proceed.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Egbert Dudley (ALP-New Ulster)

Also, I would like to inquire as to why Mr. Hordern believes us all sinners and that there isn't a man among us who would act in a nonpartisan manner?

I do not believe that there are none who could act impartially as a presiding officer, but to expect any of us here to eschew all partisanship and political activity at this time and under the circumstances we now face goes against all history and human experience.

Mr. Khan rises...

In response to Mr. Hordern's question, indeed I do. I am looking for a Speaker much like the British Speaker of the House of Commons. Investing the Speaker with ceremonial Head of State duties would not be a great stretch. If Britain has been able to convince one of its MPs to set aside party politics for centuries, then I hope that Antillia can at least do the same.

The British Speakership has been non-partisan only since the mid-19th century, and thus not even for two centuries has that pertained.  Furthermore, the United Kingdom had by that time established a strong two-party tradition.  We currently have seven parties, none of which has even a quarter of the membership of this convention, and it would be reasonable to assume that the first legislative body convened under this will be of a similar character.

As to the measure at hand, nay.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Douglas Hordern (SCP-Hesperia)

I support the concept of using an MMP system, but if we are keeping to our original intent of 50 MP's then 2 per province and 28 at-large gives somewhat too much weight to the less populated provinces.

If we adopt an MMP system, we need to do one of the following:
1. Reduce the number of provincial MP's to 1.
2. Apportion the provincial MP's by population instead of a flat rate.
3. Increase the size of Parliment to more than 50 MP's.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Douglas Hordern (SCP-Hesperia)

I'm perfectly willing to allow Mr. Dudley the opportunity to show that he is a saint and not a sinner.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Aye

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Aye

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Nay; the way he argues, this convention might as well become a French-speaking anarchy!

Douglas Hordern, speaking sotto voce to himself:
Why the redundant mention of both French-speaking and anarchy?

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Douglas Hordern (SCP-Hesperia)

Of the three methods I listed for making an MMP system viable, #1 and #2 are mutually exclusive, and #3 is needed only if neither of the other two are adopted.  I request that the vote therefore held only on proposal #1 at this time, with the other two to be considered only if the first fails to gain approval.

As to question time, given the pace at which we are holding our current deliberations, I am not sanguine at the prospect of weekly questions.  I favor biweekly questions and would not oppose triweekly or monthly.

I also do not favor granting the Leader of the Loyal Opposition such a large number of questions as it would likely deny backbenchers of both the Government and the Loyal Opposition the chance to speak.  The proposal also seems to implicitly presume that we would have no members who might seek to sit crossbench and consider each Government proposal on the merits rather than being whipped into opposing or supporting the bills presented to the Parliment, but that fault can be dealt with at another time.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Of the three methods I listed for making an MMP system viable, #1 and #2 are mutually exclusive, and #3 is needed only if neither of the other two are adopted.  I request that the vote therefore held only on proposal #1 at this time, with the other two to be considered only if the first fails to gain approval.

Was there some secret word I was supposed to say since apparently request was insufficient?

Besides in my original speech I said and as you quoted:

If we adopt an MMP system, we need to do one of the following:
1. Reduce the number of provincial MP's to 1.
2. Apportion the provincial MP's by population instead of a flat rate.
3. Increase the size of Parliment to more than 50 MP's.

Are we to take it that only proposal 1 is being voted on, or are we voting on all three at once with a second vote to be held after the first is concluded if it should pass in the affirmative to determine which of the three options is used?

In any case I will vote aye on both my motion and Mr. Tudor's for now as once you've bothered to explain what hoops you wish us to go through there will be ample opportunity to amend the proposals further.