|
Post by Lord-Archon Trajan Evander on Mar 28, 2023 19:47:05 GMT
Would the Speaker not make a natural leader in times of Diet conflict?
|
|
|
Post by Duke Gary da Carlsen on Mar 28, 2023 20:08:53 GMT
"I'd be inclined to agree unless the speaker or one of their allies got declared war on by the diet for violating a peace agreement, however unlikely that may be. Perhaps the solution would be to have the war leader be the speaker by default unless the diet explicitly decides otherwise."
|
|
|
Post by Consul Allectus de Gallia on Mar 28, 2023 21:18:08 GMT
“The Republic has no concerns with the Speaker being automatically appointed as the War Leader unless the Diet recognizes a conflict of interest and appoints someone else.”
|
|
|
Post by Alfred Von Gewisse on Mar 28, 2023 21:42:37 GMT
Alfred von Gewisse nearly choked on his chicken leg he was eating when he heard talk of a war and war parties. He spat out his food and with a look of disgust:
You said WHAT?!?
How could you twist my words into such an albatross. Enforcement of peace by a Diet army led by the speaker? Dear lord, grant me the patience and lend me the serenity needed to negotiate this pending calamity.
I propose this:
|
|
|
Post by Duke Gary da Carlsen on Mar 28, 2023 21:46:26 GMT
"Looking over Alfred Von Gewisse's motion, I think the unprotected state idea would be a better solution."
|
|
|
Post by Serene Doge Marino Medici on Mar 28, 2023 22:58:01 GMT
After reviewing the proposal, and making one change, the Serene Prince rises to speak
I am in agreement that the "unprotected state" is a better wording of Article II. However I do wish to reiterate that Article I should, at the bare minimum, include a means to mediate a peace talk in the event it might be desirable to try and help. Again, this isn't legally binding, but merely to allow the option for the Diet to intervene if it's politically necessary, rather than outright banning it. We don't need to exercise that right should it be requested of us from one party.
|
|
|
Post by Alfred Von Gewisse on Mar 29, 2023 1:18:20 GMT
If one party is against a peace made from the Diet - it's a waste of time. Diets are long enough as is.
|
|
|
Post by Consul Allectus de Gallia on Mar 29, 2023 18:31:59 GMT
“To my understanding, the two parties do not have to seek Diet arbitration, which would be legally binding, but can hear suggestions and compromises from those uninvolved in the conflict. I believe that is the original intention of the Doge’s proposal. Whether included or not, the Diet is free to discuss any issue and can’t exactly be prevented from doing so even if both sides don’t want arbitration. As we have already witnessed, it is very easy for one side to be so blinded by bloodlust and refuse to find a middle ground with the opposing side. Moderate and neutral voices can help that process along. Though it doesn’t haven’t to be binding if they don’t desire that from the Diet. If the discussions come to nothing, we simply move on.”
|
|
|
Post by Alfred Von Gewisse on Mar 29, 2023 18:40:36 GMT
The Diet can certainly discuss whatever it wishes - but we don't need to codify useless meetings where we can sit in self importance and think we can solve the problems with words where they are not welcome.
Diet's should be short, quick, to the point and then over within a weekend. We survived for hundreds of years without this thing, and now some parties seem to want to create some sort of all encompassing Senate.
First it's butting in to conclude on a war it's not invited to. Then we'll be taxed by the Diet to spend on lord knows what. Where will it end? Once we go sliding down this wet, slippery, hill, we follow that slope all the way down until the rights and freedoms we have as Kings are gone.
|
|
|
Post by King Percy LXII of Percia on Mar 30, 2023 2:01:18 GMT
The Diet is not a state nor an entity. It cannot raise armies, levy taxes, or wage war. It has no leader other than the Lord. The Speaker presides to keep order. There should be no discussion of the Diet interfering with the affairs of state.
|
|
|
Post by Lord-Archon Trajan Evander on Mar 30, 2023 19:05:14 GMT
Ahem, as matters stand, do we have a second for the Serene Doge's proposal or wish to make any changes?
|
|
|
Post by Marq Luq d'Jean on Mar 30, 2023 19:48:23 GMT
The Crown Prince rises, after listening quietly to the petty back-and-forth of the other leaders
"I would like to ask a simple question that is wholly unaddressed by the proposal set forth. We have yet to see an instance where a party has requested a peace and the other has rejected it. May I ask why this has such a huge focus from so many members of this group who were formerly against the idea of the Diet even enforcing a peace?"
|
|
|
Post by Alfred Von Gewisse on Mar 31, 2023 11:32:46 GMT
To prevent over reach from the Diet. Of course
|
|
|
Post by Guildmaster Anatolius on Mar 31, 2023 18:31:17 GMT
The Guildmaster, after quietly conversing with his Bishop for most of the session with a look of disagreement on his face, finally rises.
Lords and Leaders of the Diet, this body has been restored for less then a decade, met twice and already we seek to not only lessen its power, but remove one of its abilities to intervene in the lands of Christendom. His Holiness invited us all here originally "to reach for a better future, where Christians do not fight, but trade and talk".
While I believe we have certainly met the third request based on all of the talk here, I certainly do not believe we have met the first. The proposal, as it stands, requires all parties involved to agree to a peace before it becomes binding. Does a wolf ask for the sheep's agreement before it tries to devour it? No! The successful party in these conflicts has no reason to agree to a peace while there is the potential to seek better terms, by causing the death of further Christians and further damaging the prosperity of others.
Let us not delude ourselves of the goal of this proposal. The goal of this proposal is to resolve an issue that has not arisen, so those who violate the peace of Christendom can further their own ambitions without the Diet exhibiting its, in the words of the representative of Gweisse "Over reach".
Caelin is still whole because of that supposed over-reach and we will speak at every opportunity to defend it.
If the actual goal is to make sure that each of your armies and peoples does not have to enforce a peace unsupported by a larger part of this Diet, we would make the following proposal instead.
|
|
|
Post by Alfred Von Gewisse on Mar 31, 2023 18:59:59 GMT
You hit the nail on the head. This body has not existed for hundreds of years and is not even 10 years old and many here seemingly wish for this massive intrusion into the rights of Kings and severely hampers the freedom of our respective nations that has existed for those hundreds of years during which the Diet did not meet.
I do not support your motion. I will never support your motion.
|
|