One-on-One with Jusduckria no. 1

Good evening, and welcome to the first installment of One-on-One with Jusduckria, where I take a notable Europeian citizen and place them on the hot seat.

My first guest is a very good friend of mine and colleague in the Senate, as well as Minister of Interior. Let's welcome PhDre to the show!

*500 miles plays as PhDre walks out*
 
Click to expand...
*PhDre walks 500 more*

Thank you, Jus for giving me the honor of being hopefully the first of many Europeians to participate in One-on-One with Jusduckria. As you may already know, I'm a huge fan of media in Europeia - it can bring a smile to one's face, or cause a mini-crisis and a response by the President. I hope to do a little of both with you here today, though I'd like very much not to be dishonorably discharged from the Navy, if at all possible.

*PhDre falls down at your door*
 
:lol:

I'll try to ensure that you're not kicked out of the Navy. Thank you for coming on.

My first question, one that I'm sure would probably interest many of the people watching this, is: What is it like in the Cabinet? Are there actual Cabinet meetings?

(And if any answer you give will violate the Cabinet Information Act, then please, feel free to abstain. )
 
My pleasure - I've enjoyed being a panelist on EQT and this is yet another great experience so far.

Thank you for the question. In order to insure that I don't overstep my bounds and get into information that could be considered 'classified' (and therefore could land me out of a job), I'd like to focus on the general Cabinet rather than on particular discussions or programs that have yet to be revealed.

Yes, the Cabinet does meet regularly, and additionally coordinates in order to work on a variety of programs. Something that I've enjoyed in my short time in the Rougiers Cabinet is the openness with which issues are discussed - Ministers are free to offer suggestions or ideas for general programs down to the specifics for cultural events such as Commie day. I've only been in the Cabinet for a short time, but so far I enjoy the responsibility of being a Minister, and learning more about how other Ministries are led than I originally thought I would.
 
Now, as Minister of Interior, you are responsible for enforcing the recruiting quotas and approving citizen and ambassador applications, correct? What is involved in this job? How do you feel about it?
 
Well, on its face - it's a job. I've tried to focus my attention primarily on the recruiting aspect of the Ministry of Interior, as we've seen population in Europeia drop consideribly over the past few months. In my first week, we actually saw the largest jump in population since the Census was first instituted. However, a rash of CTE's in the past few updates have dropped our population well below what is acceptable.

I've discovered the typical issues when it comes to recruiting - problems with attitude, complacency, and a lack of desire to go above and beyond. I do not mean this observation as an attack - rather these problems are a collective and regional issue, one that cannot be solved by one person recruiting their ass off. A change in attitude in the region is necessary as far as recruitment is concerned. I try to do my part through encouraging participation in events such as the Double Down Recruiting Contest (which was indeed inspired by a delicious KFC Double Down). Look for more from the Ministry of Interior to push citizens to recruit, but also realize that we can only overcome these problems collectively.

To summarize; I see myself as a sort of regional cheerleader, in a sense. I do my best to communicate the best way that citizens can get involved in our government - through recruiting. Recruiters are worth their weight in gold. I love being the Minister of Interior, as it gives me a unique perspective on Europeia. No longer can I sit by the wayside... I've been placed in a position of responsibility, and everday I hope to meet and exceed my own expectations.

Anyways, I'm the Minister of Interior, and that's about as passionate as I'll get about recruiting and being MoI. :p
 
Off the top of my head, two Senators have recieved strikes so far. Generally speaking, I don't hold a strike against anyone - we all have weeks where we are unable to devote as much time to Europeia as possible. At the same time, I do believe that everyone should be pulling their weight, so to speak. In times like these, I'd love to see Senators and citizens alike stepping up and recruiting large numbers of nations, both in larger quantities and more frequently. This is something that I will be doing as I gain free time this summer, which starts officially in the next few weeks.
 
Now, you and I were talking before the show, and we were discussing the Amendment to the Constitution recently proposed in the City Council. I said that I didn't like it, among other things. I believe you said you agreed.

Now, let's go back to the amendment. Can you offer further thoughts on it? The Senate-City Council "rift" is currently being discussed on Europeian Question Time. ;)
 
Of course - looking at the recent Amendment to the Constitution offered by the CC, which can be found HERE, I have quite a few qualms with both the wording and the concept of the proposed Amendment.

Firstly, I didn't like how the proposed Constitutional Amendment placed practically the entire CC Charter in the Constitution. If we look at the language regarding the Senate in the Constitution, it's short and sweet - and to the point. This is the the language regarding the passage of legislation in the Senate:

Any Senator may propose an act, which to obtain passage requires a majority vote of the assembled Senate.  The act becomes law upon receiving the signature of the President. The President may choose to veto such an act, in which case it is returned to the Senate for discussion, following procedure as set out by additional legislation.  Additionally, the Senate may simply overturn the veto with a 3/4 vote.
Click to expand...

It works. It creates an easy to follow method for the passage of legislation. However, the Constitutional Amendment offered in the CC does not - the language is thick with percents and the detailed workings of the CC that, even if one was in favor of enveloping the CC in the Constitution, are unnecessary in our most important document.

Secondly, the Amendment simply gives too much power to unelected citizens. The dynamic between the CC and the Senate has not always been the best, however as it has been pointed out, authors of Acts in the CC are automatically invited to participate in the Senate discussion. It is foolish to ignore this right and simply brood over changes the Senate makes to Pre-Acts that are unclear or contain language that is not as strong as it could be.

I understand many of the frustrations felt by the CC - I was a Councilor until little more than a month ago. I think the best way forward is for increased communication between the two entities. I will personally make an effort to contact authors of Pre-Acts and remind of them of their right to post in the Senate on that discussion, and will furthermore contact a few members of the CC with each passed Act in order to gauge their view of the Pre-Act.
 
I think that your comments about communication have resonance with other Senators as well.

Switching gears for a second, and moving to electoral reform, how do you feel about the votes of Senators HEM and Anumia, and of comments here, here, here, here, here, here, and here?
 
Sorry for the delay - I was at my Prom for the past few... days? hours? years?

Anyways, Senators HEM and Anumia both bring up excellent counter-points to the Act currently up for a vote. I see valuable criticism in their responses to this Act, and if it does indeed pass the Senate, I look forward to working with them both refining the language and procedure of the process if necessary. Beyond that, I have no particular feelings regarding their votes or opinions - it's obviously a divisive subject, and hopefully we'll see this reform succeed in the next Presidential Elections.
 
Well, the bill passed 7-3, and President Rougiers vetoed it.

Now that it has to go back to the Senate, what are your thoughts on the task ahead? I mean, we had one Senator who seemed to only be able to say how retarded the bill is, one Senator who was passionately for it before being thunderously against it, and quite a few who, though they voted in favor, weren't firmly in that category.
 
If we assume that the motion to override the veto fails, I don't see any more support for this Act manifesting itself. In all, I'm puzzled as to the reason for this veto - the Senate, after debate and discussion, voted in favor seven to three. I'm just puzzled - I'd understand a veto that included criticism of a particular issue or section, but the desire for more unity is impracticable considering how far we've come to this point. Many Senators have expressed trepidation, that is true - all the same they expressed a willingness to support a reformed Electoral System. The opposition to this Act has been generally disappointing, though at the very end of the third reading we saw some intelligent response. You've caught me in my immediate response to the veto of the Presidential Election Procedures Act, as you might be able to tell. :p
 
How do you think this will affect both the President, as well as the Senate? Will it be something remembered come election time?
 
The latest activity in the Senate and Grand Hall centers around President Rougiers's veto of the Presidential Election Procedures Act. While I continue to believe that the reason given for the veto was perhaps not enough for the Senate to work with, the President is entitled to sign or not sign whatever legislation he like. I'd like to see a President who is actively involved in the legislature, at least behind the scenes - this could involve a simple PM to the Speaker which includes qualms regarding proposed legislation, or perhaps a statement in the Senate. That being said, we've got nowhere to go but forward, and the Senate has taken up discussing the Act once again. Specific issues with the legislation would allow us to fine tune the Act, but once again I stress that I feel a President is within his right to veto an Act just because he doesn't think it will work, or is unnecessary.

Of course this Vetogate (Ha! I coined Drunkengate, and now Vetogate! FEAR ME!!) will be brought up in the Presidential campaign; probably with the platform that the President should be more intimately involved in the Senate... if so, you heard it here first :p. In all seriousness, there was a lack of professionalism on the Senate side, and what could be seen as a failure to communicate on the President's side. Europeians have a long memory, but we also have a tolerance for forgiveness. I expect that Vetogate will not be the factor that makes or breaks the President or any Senator.
 
The next step will be to re-look at the Act, and see what we can improve. As I've stated, it's difficult when the reason the Act was vetoed was because the President does not feel that the legislation is necessary, however it is the responsibility of the Senate to weigh the benefits and negatives of each proposed piece of legislation. I believed that this was achieved in a relatively amicable manner prior to the veto, but now we're back at square one as far as support for the Act is concerned. It's all part of the process as far as I'm concerned, and I'm glad to be a part of it.

Regarding Senate reform - I'm less sold on the concept, frankly. Additionally, if the Senate is unable to pass legislation, that the President will sign, that forces a candidate to receive a majority of cast votes in order to become President, I see no hope for Senate reform in the near future.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top