|
Post by Lord-Archon Trajan Evander on Jun 4, 2023 21:25:35 GMT
This is the proposal in question. This power has been somewhat an informality for the Diet when I was Lord-Speaker. I believe it fair and second this motion.
|
|
|
Post by Consul Allectus de Gallia on Jun 4, 2023 21:47:11 GMT
We thank Lord Archon Evander for his contribution.
The tally of campaign forces is currently at:
Heavy Cavalry: 350 Light Cavalry :760 Heavy Infantry :890 Light Infantry :1360 Levies: 3,479 Archers: 645
|
|
|
Post by Consul Allectus de Gallia on Jun 4, 2023 21:47:47 GMT
This is the proposal in question. This power has been somewhat an informality for the Diet when I was Lord-Speaker. I believe it fair and second this motion. Your second is acknowledged by me and noted by the scribe.
|
|
|
Post by Landvogt Werner von Schwyz on Jun 4, 2023 23:37:38 GMT
As the motion on the Diet's powers and authority to resolve conflicts and wars between realms has received two seconds (including our own) and no objections voiced thus far, I would like to, with the permission of the Speaker, make an amendment on the current proposal for the realms to furnish men or coin to combat the Mongol threat.
The Tagsatzung does not necessarily object to such a joint effort by the various countries of Christendom being coordinated in the halls of this assembly, nor does it necessarily wish this endeavour to fail. Instead, our ire is drawn specifically at the prospect that the Diet would pass a theoretically-enforceable resolution on this matter through the rule of majority approval alone, one that would yet make participation in this expedition compulsory amongst every single land represented in the Diet, with fixed amounts of soldiers or coin required of each country, even if a minority of countries were to object to the use of its own coin or men in this way.
We do not deny the reality of the Mongol threat, but at the same time we are willing to lend neither legitimacy nor precedent to the Diet legislating on matters of a country's spending of its own coin, or the raising and deployment of its own military forces. Such matters are the sovereign prerogatives of said country alone.
We therefore wish to put forth the following proposal for consideration, if the Speaker will allow it:
|
|
|
Post by Consul Allectus de Gallia on Jun 5, 2023 2:06:30 GMT
My Lord von Schwyz,
I don’t believe a motion for the aforementioned items is necessary given that we are already in the process of enacting said actions.
There is already a motion presented by the Lord Archon Evander that calls for every polity in the realm to contribute coin and men, whichever they are most able to do, and for the nomination of the Lord Archon as commander in chief of the assembled forces.
As for the first part, at the current moment any member of this Diet reserves the right to ignore the mandates or resolutions of this assembly without any enforceable penalty stemming from the Diet itself, so it feels somewhat unnecessary to include.
|
|
|
Post by Consul Allectus de Gallia on Jun 5, 2023 2:14:34 GMT
The Lord-Archon rose after being addressed by Lord Gewisse. Despite all best attempts, the man could not hide the wounds to his body. A portion as straight as an arrow cut through his beard on the left cheek of his face. Noticeable padding had been added to his shoulder, perhaps to hide a bandage, and he walked with a limp. Though, curiously, his boots were the right size.I will lead any army assembled by this Imperial Diet against the Mongol demons. While you are bicker and stew about borders on a map, I saw men slaughtered by the thousands at the Red Fields. I lost one of my sons to arrows so numerous I could only identify him by the shreds of his cloak! So few of you saw the ruins of Percyandria. ASHES carried on the winds all the way to the mountain passes. Refugees with little but the clothes on their backs and terror in their eyes. We had Legions. LEGIONS! Yet it wasn't enough. If we are to save Christendom and our very homes, we MUST unite as a total force from every possible realm and route these half-men, half-monsters from our lands. NOTHING else matters. NOTHING!I motion this Imperial Diet passes a law that every realm must send coin or men for the next expedition against the Mongols and their godless, pagan Khan. And I volunteer to lead it. A clarification from the Lord Archon. Is this proposal meant to be the law in question to have every realm send coin or men to the upcoming expedition against the Sartaq Khan or was it simply a motion to have the Imperial Diet pass a law which is to be discussed and voted upon separately?
|
|
|
Post by Consul Allectus de Gallia on Jun 5, 2023 2:19:20 GMT
Might I recommend another point of discussion? On the Imperial Diet and Peace: I. In the event Imperial realms are at war with one another, and there is not a unanimous desire from the aforementioned parties to seek a peace deal from the Diet, then the Diet has no standing to intervene. II. In the event there is a unanimous desire from all parties involved for the creation of a Diet administered peace, then an arbitration will be undertaken whereby the Diet's members will create and vote on a peace deal through a simple majority of 50% + 1. Once such a proposal is successfully passed, it will be legally enforced by the Diet. a) Should any party violate the terms of the deal, the Diet will henceforth declare the offending party an "unprotected state" where any Kingdom can declare war on the truce-breaker and enact punitive measures alongside enforcing the pre-designed treaty, until such a time as the offending party submits or surrenders. III. In the event His Holiness, the Pope, declares that an Imperial war must cease, then it will follow the steps of Article II of ensuring such terms are found. My Lord Gewisse, I wish to clarify Article III of this proposal so we are not bogged down by semantics and lawyers arguing the interpretation of it. If His Holiness the Pope calls upon the Diet to end a conflict, we would no longer be bound by the usual constraint of needing a “unanimous desire” by both warring factions for a Diet administered peace. We would simply begin the arbitration process for deciding a peaceful resolution, even if that is against the wishes of those involved in the conflict only if the Pope calls for the end of violence, is that correct?
|
|
|
Post by Landvogt Werner von Schwyz on Jun 5, 2023 2:46:10 GMT
My Lord von Schwyz, I don’t believe a motion for the aforementioned items is necessary given that we are already in the process of enacting said actions. There is already a motion presented by the Lord Archon Evander that calls for every polity in the realm to contribute coin and men, whichever they are most able to do, and for the nomination of the Lord Archon as commander in chief of the assembled forces. As for the first part, at the current moment any member of this Diet reserves the right to ignore the mandates or resolutions of this assembly without any enforceable penalty stemming from the Diet itself, so it feels somewhat unnecessary to include. There is the question of whether the motion by the Lord Archon is in itself meant to be a law to be voted upon, or a call for the Diet to draft a law. If the former, I believe the Lord Archon's proposal to be one that could use further elaboration, and if the latter, I would offer our proposal as the law to be enacted and voted upon.
It is true that any member of the Diet reserves the right to ignore the resolutions of this assembly, but we wish to be clear on this matter: are we to understand then that all resolutions of the Diet are to be considered inherently and explicitly non-binding? The language used here in our discussions does not consistently suggest that this is the understanding shared amongst all of us.
|
|
|
Post by Serene Doge Marino Medici on Jun 5, 2023 2:58:01 GMT
The delegate from Elyria stood to speak once more
With Landvogt Schwyz's proposal regarding matters of inter-Imperial war resting with the sovereign of each realm, we once again wish to reiterate the peculiar behaviour of seeking to end a war via vote without joint approval of both parties, as had occurred between the Phallic-Caelin conflict some years back. As the matter of deciding what powers the Diet has in resolving conflicts in this manner hasn't been passed yet, it is foolish to vote on ending to war when no prerogative has been granted for that.
Elyria was, as you all remember, a proponent of the bill providing and detailing the powers the Diet may have, even more stringent than what Lord Gewisse has proposed, but neither that nor Gewisse's proposals passed in that Diet vote. As such, in our eyes this Diet holds no power over ending conflicts when both warring parties unilaterally do not seek a Diet peace. Furthermore, should Landvogt Schwyz's proposal pass this Diet, whether in its current form, or in a potentially amended version I will touch on in a minute, Elyria will enact the Veto on the vote to end the war immediately.
Elyria will, as a courtesy to His Holiness' request of seeking an end to the Elyria-Amihanan conflict, ensure that it will be resolved one way or another by the end of this year. On behalf of my Lord the Doge Marino "The Arch-Minter" Medici, I shall, at Consul Gallia's request earlier today, swear upon the Bible to His Holiness and before all present here today that this war shall cease by the end of this year, whatever the outcome may be.
He turns to Landvogt Werner von Schwyz before speaking
Landvogt Schwyz, we are in agreement with your observations regarding the forced contribution of funds and/or troops to a conflict strips the autonomy that all our realms have gained since the collapse of the Empire. We are also in agreement that inter-Imperial warfare, particularly when one party has no desire to seek a mediated/arbitrated peace talk in the Diet, should be resolved between the warring parties alone.
I do have a question regarding the first point of your recent proposal, specifically about the veto component. Does this veto have a limitation to its power should the vote achieve a far greater result than a simple majority? As an example, would this hold sway in the event the Diet votes overwhelmingly in a manner that realm seeking to Veto it, say over 67% or even 75% of the vote? If so, it's inclusion into the bill would be necessary for clarification purposes. We fully support points 2 and 3 as written and have no questions regarding those.
|
|
|
Post by Alfred Von Gewisse on Jun 5, 2023 12:27:49 GMT
Might I recommend another point of discussion? On the Imperial Diet and Peace: I. In the event Imperial realms are at war with one another, and there is not a unanimous desire from the aforementioned parties to seek a peace deal from the Diet, then the Diet has no standing to intervene. II. In the event there is a unanimous desire from all parties involved for the creation of a Diet administered peace, then an arbitration will be undertaken whereby the Diet's members will create and vote on a peace deal through a simple majority of 50% + 1. Once such a proposal is successfully passed, it will be legally enforced by the Diet. a) Should any party violate the terms of the deal, the Diet will henceforth declare the offending party an "unprotected state" where any Kingdom can declare war on the truce-breaker and enact punitive measures alongside enforcing the pre-designed treaty, until such a time as the offending party submits or surrenders. III. In the event His Holiness, the Pope, declares that an Imperial war must cease, then it will follow the steps of Article II of ensuring such terms are found. My Lord Gewisse, I wish to clarify Article III of this proposal so we are not bogged down by semantics and lawyers arguing the interpretation of it. If His Holiness the Pope calls upon the Diet to end a conflict, we would no longer be bound by the usual constraint of needing a “unanimous desire” by both warring factions for a Diet administered peace. We would simply begin the arbitration process for deciding a peaceful resolution, even if that is against the wishes of those involved in the conflict only if the Pope calls for the end of violence, is that correct? The Shephard rose to his feet: "My Lords, I had never even imagined a Christian King would defy the will of the Holy Pepe. If His Holiness called for peace, I would expect every good Christian to heed his call for peace - and I would expect this Diet to do everything in its power to provide for a just and holy peace and not take advantage of the situation. The intention of clause III is to supersede clause I with the expectation that his most Holiness would only invoke such a clause in rare circumstances where there is a threat to Christianity as a whole, or one party is seen to be performing wicked and devilish acts. I also wish to note that I support the intention of Landvogt Werner - it is not the Diet's place to dictate military contributions or conscript a Lord's people/armies. These are done strictly on a voluntary basis. To that effect, I don't think we need the latest bill proposed by him. Lord Doge - you claim you will end the war by the end of the year. But what is to stop Duke Macroix from refusing whatever terms you attempt to impose upon his realm? Thus you are faced with a choice of ending the war on terms other than what you desire or breaking your promise to his Holiness, the Pepe, and this gathered assembly. While I fully understand and support the prerogative of Lords to act within their own self interest and conduct diplomacy (or war) as needed - I am saddened to see self gain take precedence over the good of all Christians. There is a time and place for everything."
|
|
|
Post by Consul Allectus de Gallia on Jun 5, 2023 15:10:37 GMT
We appreciate King Gewisse’s clarification on the intent of Clause 3. The scribe as take note of it and we hope it can be accepted as a precedent for any issues that may or may not come up in the future.
|
|
|
Post by Landvogt Werner von Schwyz on Jun 5, 2023 16:07:49 GMT
I do have a question regarding the first point of your recent proposal, specifically about the veto component. Does this veto have a limitation to its power should the vote achieve a far greater result than a simple majority? As an example, would this hold sway in the event the Diet votes overwhelmingly in a manner that realm seeking to Veto it, say over 67% or even 75% of the vote? If so, it's inclusion into the bill would be necessary for clarification purposes. We fully support points 2 and 3 as written and have no questions regarding those. No matter if the majority is just barely above half or if the majority is every single other country in Christendom, no external grouping of countries, no matter how large, has the right to dictate to a sovereign country against its will how it is to conduct its military and financial affairs. For this reason, the veto would be unlimited. I also wish to note that I support the intention of Landvogt Werner - it is not the Diet's place to dictate military contributions or conscript a Lord's people/armies. These are done strictly on a voluntary basis. To that effect, I don't think we need the latest bill proposed by him. The Tagsatzung would be satisfied if this principle, that the resolutions of the Diet are non-binding and are to be followed strictly on a voluntary basis, was confirmed by every member of this assembly without need for a formal law being passed. But we believe the limits of the Diet's powers should be formally defined because we have seen in discussions of other resolutions brought before this Diet over the past several years, including the proposal from the Tyramo delegate and seconded by Amihanan to end the war between the League, Elyria, and Kressia, that there appears to be an implicit expectation among the members of the Diet that a majority vote will be sufficient to force the resolution into effect, even over the objection of at least one of the parties directly affected.
In the case of the resolution on peace in the north, the resolution explicitly calls for those who break its terms to be subject to penalties even if they had never agreed to it in the first place.
We supported the proposal of the Lord Gewisse due to its wording requiring unanimity from all parties involved to agree to place the matter before the Diet, and it is this principle that guides our words here in the Diet. If for example, this body were to now force by majority vote an undesirable peace on Elyria or Amihanan, and penalties were enacted by upon one of these parties as encouraged and allowed for by the currently-standing motion, I ask how exactly is this chain of events to foster Christian unity? It rather seems to us a mechanism that can only serve to breed further conflict and exacerbate resentment at a time when the Christendom can ill afford it.
If Elyria stands poised to defy a treaty imposed upon them, we call for further debate to achieve their consent rather than attempting to impose a decision on them and justifying it by majority decision, and then following up with penalties when the execution of the resolution's provisions fails. After all, should the Serene Republic defy a Diet resolution of peace that is passed by a majority but against Elyria's objections, do the leaders of the countries represented here truly intend to turn their energies and resources towards enacting punitive measures on Elyria while the Mongols are already past our doorstep? Such an approach, already anathema to us before the present crisis, makes no sense now when the need for international cooperation is greater than ever. Let us not forget that the Diet is not a legislature with supreme power over all of the countries we represent; in Helvetia, the Tagsatzung alone holds supreme power and answers to no higher temporal authority. We will not suffer the Diet to become a tool for a majority of countries, no matter how large that majority, to legitimise forcing their will on an unwilling sovereign country. For our attendance in this assembly is predicated on the notion that this assembly in its present incarnation was to be a forum for debate, a body organised on the principle of sovereign equality for -all- its members, not just a majority.
|
|
|
Post by Alfred Von Gewisse on Jun 5, 2023 20:11:28 GMT
King Alfred von Gewisse could be seen zoning out halfway through the Landvogt's longwinded speech - a servant had to inform him when it was over and the overall message.
Landvogt, to sum up your position - you do not feel the Diet has the power to dictate to the various states assembled here. I agreed with you, so I am not sure why we are having a back and forth. As one of my more simple servants is fond of saying: "Why use many word, when few do trick."
The motion I proposed specifically notes the consequences of not following a mutually agreed upon peace was simply that the offender becomes an unprotected state. No requirements for anyone to actually take actions.
With respect to gathering support to fight the Mongol threat, there isn't a seconded motion (at present) to conscript the various Lords to fight. It is all strictly voluntary for the Lords to do their Christian duty and defend all of Christianity. Lords are free to not assist...
Just remember: God forgives. But your neighbors may not.
|
|
|
Post by Consul Allectus de Gallia on Jun 5, 2023 20:45:39 GMT
To clarify the point brought up earlier by Lord von Schwyz with regards to the possible penalties for breaking the armistice imposed by the Diet, if it passes, was left vague and open to allow for both this Diet and His Holiness the Pope to decide on how to react if any of the aforementioned parties decides to not abide by it. This assembly does not have an enforcement mechanism to ensure its resolutions are observed. But that does not mean there will not be consequences for your actions either in the realm of man or in the Kingdom of Heaven.
|
|
|
Post by Serene Doge Marino Medici on Jun 5, 2023 21:13:51 GMT
Lord Doge - you claim you will end the war by the end of the year. But what is to stop Duke Macroix from refusing whatever terms you attempt to impose upon his realm? Thus you are faced with a choice of ending the war on terms other than what you desire or breaking your promise to his Holiness, the Pepe, and this gathered assembly. While I fully understand and support the prerogative of Lords to act within their own self interest and conduct diplomacy (or war) as needed - I am saddened to see self gain take precedence over the good of all Christians. There is a time and place for everything." Lord Gewisse, should Duke Croix decide on dishonourable acts to delay the war beyond the year limit, then an armistice will be formed, as we would swear before all here, to allow both realms to then focus southward. I do have a question regarding the first point of your recent proposal, specifically about the veto component. Does this veto have a limitation to its power should the vote achieve a far greater result than a simple majority? As an example, would this hold sway in the event the Diet votes overwhelmingly in a manner that realm seeking to Veto it, say over 67% or even 75% of the vote? If so, it's inclusion into the bill would be necessary for clarification purposes. We fully support points 2 and 3 as written and have no questions regarding those. No matter if the majority is just barely above half or if the majority is every single other country in Christendom, no external grouping of countries, no matter how large, has the right to dictate to a sovereign country against its will how it is to conduct its military and financial affairs. For this reason, the veto would be unlimited. Thank you for the clarification Landvogt Schwyz. Personally, we would prefer a means to override the veto with an overwhelming vote. A 67% vote would require 8/11 realms to vote on one matter, which feels fair to pass legislation that one, or a small cohort of realms, may not like.
|
|