Join the new world

Comment.

"I have been a big fan of our Constitutional system, but sadly its integrity is, it appears, being called into question by people who seem to be trying to use it to remove the Government for nothing more than their own amusement and to create a bit of excitement."

You know that's not true, whether you agree with the impeachment or not, there is more to it than just making amusement and excitement.

"We have not to my knowledge had an Impeachment for a long time and you would expect an Impeachment to be based on some serious failing(s), such as attempting to steal the treasury, acting to undermine the nation or even disappearing for two weeks, etc."

An impeachment can be levied for any reason, it is up to congress to decide whether it is serious enough to merit the proposal to be accepted or rejected.

"Contrary to some claims that a CP should not be judged against the standards of his/her predecessors, I believe they absolutely should. It would be extraordinary to invent or start using standards now that were not adhered to or applied in previous months when one of your mates was CP."

So if we do not scrutinise effectively in the past we should keep up that standard? I'd prefer to rectify how we scrutinise a CP rather than continue the problem.

To imply people didn't want to impeach in the past due to "one of your mates was CP" is baseless, we're not a cabal.

"I think we can all remember (or those of us that were around then can) the attempted Impeachment of Huey near the end of his first term by Wayne and his gang (including I would suspect some of the same people involved here) - http://www.erepublik.com/en/article/-huey-george-update-7-from-10-downing-street-october-2014-2461220/1/20

What was it that Wayne said?

"The impeachment would have come regardless of your and the eUK's performance..."

I think it is likely the same forces/reasoning is at work now."

You really think I'm going to justify what Wayne did? Of course I'm not. But you're comparing the two, in one case where no reason is given other than "I always intended to do this" and in the case of Rathena, people came forward and concerns were raised. The circumstances were completely different.

"To attempt to Impeach a CP for alleged minor misdemeanours when previous CP's have failed miserably, specifically Rathena's predecessor, smacks of pettiness, as some have already stated and the attitude of the people who are now calling so vehemently for impeachment gives the impression of a group in Congress that think - "oh well not much is happening, we've got nothing better to do over Easter - so let's impeach the CP for the sh*ts and giggles""

I've responded to both of these things seperately, problems in communication to the dictator, the cabinet and congress are not minor misdemeanors, and this isn't a lulz impeachment. You're misrepresenting the argument.

"The actions of such people to my mind cast doubt on the integrity of the very processes they claim to be upholding and supporting.

The Constitutional system we have is now, to my mind, is in danger of being undermined."

Its not about the actions of the people proposing and supporting an impeachment, its about the actions of the CP. This is a tactic used to distract from it.

[removed]

It's not baseless, it's true. I've seen nothing but mudslinging from some people over the past 2 months. No matter what the government did, we'd be crucified. No, not from you. I can think of several other names that, were they CP, wouldn't have went through the things my government had to.

There is no organised effort against you, not in Nifty. I don't see it on the feed at all. These people are individuals acting on their own thoughts.

e.g

I'm against you - but I only came out and did so after I resigned as Speaker.

Others were in your cabinet and resigned, and aren't really weighing in majorly.

While Appleby supports your side.

I was not talking about Nifty. Some members of them, sure. But I hold Nifty in high regard - half of my government has been from Nifty. But to say that there hasn't been constant bashing of the government (no, not constructive criticism or criticism at all) is closing one's eyes to the truth. And to think that some other people, were they CP, would have to go through this too is laughable.

I don't think it comes down to going against you or favouring a past CP because they are mates.

It comes with the position to an extent, and I can only really speak to my own motivations. I wasn't gunning to come out and rally against you, I haven't really been in the position to call impeachments or severely attack the government for a long time now.

I would totally go through that stuff if I were in that position.

I'd wish it doesn't, but it does and it's just a fact. Garth received none of the bashing I got. And there was literally no talk of an impeachment even though he didn't provide Congress with ANY information at all during his term.

So you're impeaching just to let your steam off? And just because you can? Come on. Let's not be children. Let's work together to solve problems and let's finally unite as a country. We have bigger problems to deal with.

No, I'm doing so because I believe that the government should face some scrutiny over the actions.

Sure, I'm pushing hard for an impeachment, but I can take it not going through if it sends a clear message that congress is here to scrutinise.

I mentioned my lack of opportunity to state how I couldn't really scrutinise them as much as I can now with you. I'm in a different situation.

I think that comes down to congress being asleep, he was quiet and bad - so congress just kept quiet. You, to your merit, was communicating - you kept congress awake to some extent, and when mistakes are made they are there to jump on that. Also, different people, different geopolitical situation etc.

I couldn't agree with you more. Congress is there to scrutinise. Then why didn't it?! I've always communicated with Congress. And all of my messages and reports would usually end with the words: 'Thoughts, suggestions?' Yet, barely 2-3 people would comment or make any reasonable contribution. I am not blaming you for it, you were the Speaker, so I can obviously understand your situation. But Congress was asleep and didn't participate or contribute anything to make the government work better even though I encouraged them to do so on a daily basis. That's why I am so frustrated. Because I actually tried doing something, tried new projects, tried activating Congress yet no one could even be arsed to write a sentence or two. But when it comes to impeachment, everyone's mouths are full of things the government should have done.

I understand completely. Congress has big problems with activity and participation, it doesn't help that we had 20 people instead of 40 but turnout is disappointing anyway.

The amount of people who contribute to discussions is far less. I think the impeachment proposal brings up much more than just your record. It highlights many issues, while I believe there is a case behind impeachment. Whether any impeachment goes through or not, questions have to be asked about committee's and congress.

I remember when a deliberately stupid bill was proposed just to get discussion going, congress has bursts of activity, it is very inconsistent. When I was Speaker, you'd see spikes right after Congress elections and CP elections, and maybe one or two in between these elections.

"Whether any impeachment goes through or not, questions have to be asked about committee's and congress."

So why didn't you work with the new Speaker to get on with sorting Congress out?

"I remember when a deliberately stupid bill was proposed just to get discussion going, congress has bursts of activity, it is very inconsistent. "

Indeed and that is the REAL reason behind the impeachment - the bored and silly had nothing better to do so they decided to liven things up a bit.

I wasn't going to leave my role in the meta and then come back and do stuff with it again immediately.

Also, you keep saying its about lulz, I keep on refuting that, saying that I have concerns over government communication. Then you decide to ignore that.

By making this assumption, you are not only saying that I'm being dishonest with my intentions, but that CheetahCurtis is as he proposed it, and that the people who support the impeachment are dishonest as well.

I think the debate needs to me moved away from impeachment and towards how to establish a new government for the next month

congress

The debate should be about abolishing all the meta rubbish so people can get on with the game

Thank you, my friend.

As the person who sits inbetween the two branches that make up our constitutional system, my stance towards both Gov and Congress can be summed it by Voltaire: 'I (may) disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.' My brackets. We are approaching a situation where branch A and branch B are both charging each other with being illegitimate. The Constitution has no provisions for what to do if we don't have a Congress. That was an oversight. It does not function without a Congress, and at this point in time we may not agree with what Congress are saying/doing but in the interests of preserving a democratic system we need to create a solution to the fact we have no Congress, either by extending the previous Congress' mandate (which has been done before) or reaching some form of compromise. At the moment a wave of infighting seems to be prevailing and my worry is the solutions that come out of that sort of environment may be too personal or one sided to provide long-term fixes.

I know there are some people saying the Dictator should take over, or should act as Congress would, but I don't think that is at all in keeping with the democratic ethos the Constitution was created around. There are only a few specific extenuating circumstances under which I can actually exercise power because it gives me a lot of power and arbitration which in reality I don't think people would actually want me to exercise.

Also I am aware Volty didn't actually say it

then y did u said he said it?

everyone thinks he said it 😞

" The Constitution has no provisions for what to do if we don't have a Congress. That was an oversight. It does not function without a Congress"

And often it doesn't function even when we have a congress... 😛

Oh and Voltaire may have said that famous quote (in French and then translated), but then again numerous people have said the same thing (subject to translation) all independantly of each other. Voltaire, knowing his opinions and style, probably did say something on those lines even if other people said the same thing in some capacity.

o/

Neither side in this has exactly covered themselves in glory, but I agree that the reasons given for the impeachment attempt could have been applied equally to any number of CPs over the past year. It's also highly hypocritical of Congress to offer "lack of communication" as an excuse when their own MoFA/MoD Committee have singularly failed to ask for any information whatsoever.

If we didn't scrutinise properly before, we better start now then. You may disagree with me, but we're talking. So many things are coming up which in the end means that we can make changes.

I agree entirely on the fact that things coming up may necessitate changes, but the thing that really rankles is that a small group of people suddenly and mysteriously and it was not a disparate group - i might add, decided out of the blue that there was a major crisis that entailed overthrowing the government.

so instead of concentrating on issues within Congress that needed improvement and there are lots of them which needed major work - Addaway himself said there are parts of the constitution that need writing and agreeing, you lot decided to impeach the CP for a laugh.

I didn't decide to impeach the CP as a laugh, how do you know my intentions?

It came about because CheetahCurtis didn't feel he got the information he wanted. I supported it, I couldn't support anything like that in the messages previously as I was Speaker, that's why things happened.

Honestly this all stems from a bit of butthurt over the impeachment. I'm concerned this seems more of a power grab by the gov rather than engaging on how to share power with a congress type of thing.

Not really - considering there is only just over a week to go before we get a new CP, there's not much power to grab. Besides which Assuming Rathena doesn't stand and I'm certainly not - it's possible that if you were a candidate you could well be the next CP anyway.

Still enough time to enact policies though

The power grab is by the outgoing congress trying to arrange things so they're permanently in power while eUK is permanently wiped

And yes I do think that certain sections of congress are actively working AGAINST the interests of the majority in eUK

how do you figure that one out when congress looked to form a committee to watch over the CP while the CP looked to ignore elected representatives at the end of their term so they she wasn't impeached

A committee is an animal with six or more legs and no brain.

The CP isn't answerable to Congress, the CP is answerable to the people, we have elections every month it's called democracy.

The last congress seems to have taken it upon themselves to create a situation to extend their power indefinitely which is certain proof that, at heart, they want nothing to do with democracy

Congress exists as a check on the CPs power, so she is very much answerable to them.

Congress does not exist as a check to the CPs powers.

Congress is chosen by party PPs and in the eUK seems only to exist to further their own personal ends and those of their "mates". This is probably because in real life very few have ever mated.

Oh so because you don't like the people therefore it was all be shit?

Like has nothing to do with it, I call it as I see it.

Congress is an exclusive group solely working on furthering their ow ends whether those ends are in the interests of the rest of eUK or not.

to extend their power indefinitely

At least someone is not blind

I don't think the impeachment threatens the constitution. As I understand it, 66% of Congress would have to vote for impeachment for it to go through, so there's more than enough protection in there. Personally I'll be surprised if more than two thirds of Congress vote yes on this.

Cut the crap, let Woldy rule. Down with the 'Roundhead' scum, restore the Monarchy to full power.
Who needs a waffle shop but on the other hand I suppose the political module is the only part of the game which currently has anything to offer interest.

Let woldy rule no Thanks his already stolen about 600 gold in a year from us

I've commented now.

Mmmmmm waffles!!!

For me, this just looks like a product of inactivity from everyone, except Congress has decided to point Rathena's ostensible inactivity. I say ostensible because Rathena has been p active for a 2016 CP my dudes

Bringback Free Gigi or Scarf and end of story I would say 🙂