New Scandanavia Posted November 29, 2015 Share Posted November 29, 2015 (edited) In the national assembly today there is a bill being descussed call The Safe War Act, this will make it so wars that are not declared on inative nations and alliance requested nations will have to go though the national assembly befor it gets past, oppents say it is against the 3rd article of the constitution which states that the Horrellian is in charge of war time activity, but saporters say no it is not against the constitution because war time activity they say dose not include war decares. the voting will be in 2 days (2 turns irl). Edited November 29, 2015 by Harrison Quote The Great Emperor of New Scandinavia Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
New Scandanavia Posted November 29, 2015 Author Share Posted November 29, 2015 The results are in, 35 yes 33 no. The law is barilly passed. Quote The Great Emperor of New Scandinavia Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ikhan Posted November 29, 2015 Share Posted November 29, 2015 Congrats on the new law, another step onwards! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
New Scandanavia Posted November 29, 2015 Author Share Posted November 29, 2015 thx Quote The Great Emperor of New Scandinavia Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Redael Posted November 30, 2015 Share Posted November 30, 2015 thx stop preteding your a democracy, all nations in orbis have one leader Quote Gary Johnson 2016 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ikhan Posted November 30, 2015 Share Posted November 30, 2015 stop preteding your a democracy, all nations in orbis have one leader Who, might I ask, is this leader you speak of? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ekejen Luish Posted November 30, 2015 Share Posted November 30, 2015 Who, might I ask, is this leader you speak of? I think he means all nations in Orbis are technically autocratic, however he doesn't know that I use complex classification and tables as well as random number generators, so technically Rekishstein is not autocratic. Quote This is very small Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
New Scandanavia Posted November 30, 2015 Author Share Posted November 30, 2015 stop preteding your a democracy, all nations in orbis have one leader Hey I can rap as a democracy and just say I get relected and everything passes Quote The Great Emperor of New Scandinavia Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ikhan Posted November 30, 2015 Share Posted November 30, 2015 Hey I can rap as a democracy and just say I get relected and everything passes Uhm, you are an Autocracy though. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
New Scandanavia Posted November 30, 2015 Author Share Posted November 30, 2015 Uhm, you are an Autocracy though. only becuse it is the best in the case of benifets, also it is a constational monarchy . The horrellian is likea prez or prime minester Quote The Great Emperor of New Scandinavia Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ikhan Posted November 30, 2015 Share Posted November 30, 2015 only becuse it is the best in the case of benifets, also it is a constational monarchy . The horrellian is likea prez or prime minester Constitutional Monarchy does not equal Republic, Republic equals Republic. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
New Scandanavia Posted November 30, 2015 Author Share Posted November 30, 2015 (edited) Constitutional Monarchy does not equal Republic, Republic equals Republic. Constitutional monarchy is a form of government in which a king or queen acts as Head of State. The ability to make and pass legislation resides with an elected Parliament, not with the Monarch. basiclly a republic. Edited November 30, 2015 by Harrison Quote The Great Emperor of New Scandinavia Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ikhan Posted November 30, 2015 Share Posted November 30, 2015 (edited) Constitutional monarchy is a form of government in which a king or queen acts as Head of State. The ability to make and pass legislation resides with an elected Parliament, not with the Monarch. Still does not mean it is a republic. A republic does not have a monarch, nor a royal family. Edited November 30, 2015 by Jaiteaes 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
New Scandanavia Posted November 30, 2015 Author Share Posted November 30, 2015 Still does not mean it is a republic. Brittin is a republic. Brittin is also a democry. Brittin is a Constitutional monarchy Quote The Great Emperor of New Scandinavia Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ikhan Posted November 30, 2015 Share Posted November 30, 2015 Brittin is a republic. Brittin is also a democry. Brittin is a Constitutional monarchy Just saying, also *Britain. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
New Scandanavia Posted November 30, 2015 Author Share Posted November 30, 2015 ok Quote The Great Emperor of New Scandinavia Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Edsel Posted November 30, 2015 Share Posted November 30, 2015 stop preteding your a democracy, all nations in orbis have one leader How dare you accuse The Solcialist Republic of Flanders of being an autocracy. I and all of the citizens of this fine republic are deeply offended by your accusation, which is 100% false. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ekejen Luish Posted November 30, 2015 Share Posted November 30, 2015 Ehh, well I wouldn't say it's 100% false... IT"S OBVIOUSLY 150% FLASE! Quote This is very small Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rozalia Posted November 30, 2015 Share Posted November 30, 2015 Brittin is a republic. Brittin is also a democry. Brittin is a Constitutional monarchy Incorrect. Britain is not a republic and if it was we wouldn't have people referred to as Republicans wanting to make it one. Also contrary to popular belief Britain has never been a republic either as Cromwell's protectorate was a Commonwealth which is obviously similar as otherwise they wouldn't get confused, but not quite. A republic requires certain aspects to be true, a Commonwealth while it can be similar doesn't have to be as they can for example have an absolute leader == to an absolute monarch like ironically Cromwell's protectorate was (though technically he didn't have to have his son as heir, and the government may have lasted if he had instead had one of his generals as heir, though naturally whoever was next leader could then blunder into making an unqualified son the next leader). A republic with a dynasties a la the Bushs/Clintons is seen as a failure. A Commonwealth having a dynasty (royal or not) rule the country is fine. Which is why I'd honestly like for the term to get more popular as all those dictators calling their states republics are just lying pointlessly. If they called their states Commonwealths than whatever people think they wouldn't be lying on that. Helps sell their position too as for the common good at times an absolute leader is necessary. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
New Scandanavia Posted November 30, 2015 Author Share Posted November 30, 2015 Ok fine it still a democracy Quote The Great Emperor of New Scandinavia Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rozalia Posted November 30, 2015 Share Posted November 30, 2015 Ok fine it still a democracy It has many aspects of democracy but is not one in reality. Not to say the "Britain is a democracy" angle much like in America isn't pushed so everyone believes it to be case of course as seemingly every government wants to be a "democracy" officially as it's supposed to be this ultimate good form of governing (It isn't but thats a different matter). It's a democracy in so much as Iran is one basically. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
New Scandanavia Posted December 1, 2015 Author Share Posted December 1, 2015 It has many aspects of democracy but is not one in reality. Not to say the "Britain is a democracy" angle much like in America isn't pushed so everyone believes it to be case of course as seemingly every government wants to be a "democracy" officially as it's supposed to be this ultimate good form of governing (It isn't but thats a different matter). It's a democracy in so much as Iran is one basically. I am talking about my nation Quote The Great Emperor of New Scandinavia Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nadir Aminu Posted December 1, 2015 Share Posted December 1, 2015 Everything about this thread reeks of poor schooling.Shush... The Americans like listening in... They might hear us.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eric Posted December 1, 2015 Share Posted December 1, 2015 Canada is decently democratic already. That's why retarded bills get passed in the Parliament and Eric can't repeal them or appeal to the Parliament, i.e. the "Emergency Relocation Law" passed in 1998 54-1 (that 1 was me), or the "Second Class Citizen Law" passed under Michael Ventrous 48-12, or the "Legal Refugee Torture Act" passed under Ventrous 43-17. People will say no, but the remainder of the Parliament votes yes. Appeal or repeal, it does nothing and it ends up passing anyways. 1 Quote Proud Canadian, Proud Ontarian Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Comic Sans Posted December 1, 2015 Share Posted December 1, 2015 in the essence of a republic as taken from its etymology, the res publica was the "people's thing". literally, it was the set of institutions available to aid in governing and that were accessible to the public. for example, rome was still technically a republic well into the 190s, because it maintained the public institutions and allowed the election of consuls (in principle). later, it became flagrant that it was in fact nothing but an empire, despite the fact that it had had caesars up until hadrian. in that sense, the republic could be given by the institutions it has, without it necessarily being a democracy, although it could not very feasibly be a democracy without being first a type of republic unless it was simply anarchy. in a way, our way of classifying the different manners in which people let themselves be governed is fallacious if we assume the different classifications are not miscible and when we are assumptive of them being conceptual truths. tl;dr the guv'ment 'n' shit. dunnit matter. gimme food. Quote o n t i s m you're gonna have a bad time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.