Capto Iugulum

Constitution of Italy
Constitutional Monarchy
I. The King of the royal family will be the Head of State.
II. The Prime Minister will be the Head of Government.
III. The Prime Minister is elected by their party and the party is elected by the people of Italy.
IV. The Prime Minister has no term limit, but each term lasts five years. There is no limit on terms for political parties.
V. The Prime Minister is subject to a Vote of Confidence which can be issued by elected party or the King. The King and the party will be allowed to vote.
VI. There can be as many political parties as the people of Italy will allow.
VII. The national religion of Italy is Catholicism, however the King is allowed the power to change the religion or make Italy have freedom of religion.
VIII. The Prime Minister must get the permission of the King to go to war.
IX. All Italian people have freedom of speech and press.
X. Any Italian citizen eighteen years of age and older are allowed the right to vote.
XI. The King has the power to pull Italy out of any conflict or war that is going on as well as choose not to enter in the first place, unless Italy is bound by an alliance or treaty to act.
XII. The King, Prime Minister and Parliament must all work in a joint effort if an amendment to the constitution is to be made.
XIII. The Prime Minister and Parliament are allowed to propose laws for the people to vote on.
XIV. The King is allowed to, in war time, take complete control of actions made by the Italian military.
XV. The King is allowed veto power on any and all laws or proposed laws.
XVI. The King has the power to make any political party illegal that he deems harmful to the interest of Italy and the Italian people.
XVII. The treasury will be a royal treasury under control of the King
 
To: Harald II, Emperor of Scandinavia
From: Vinland


Our friend and ally, will you accept our proposal to host an election to determine the future of Scandinavia? We will do our utmost to ensure that the elections are as fair as the nations in our fine democratic traditions have come to expect them, and that all voters may express their will.
 
To: Russia
From: The United Kingdom


So Russia will perpetrate murder on a people because their autocrat demands it? Par the course for Slavs, I suppose.
 
To: Russia, The World
From: United States of America


Russia seems to think itself impervious to the world. It may discover, however, that Russia is indeed mortal.

The United States is no friend of proletarists, and isn't necessarily opposed to the restoration of the former Scandinavian government. However, we are concerned that Russia may take the opportunity to destroy the territorial integrity of Scandinavia. We would ask Russia to guarantee the territorial integrity of Scandinavia, but we do recall how you kept your promise with Brandenburg, and your massacre of the Germans in Prussia, and we feel, and hope the rest of the world agrees, that Russia is not to be trusted in the slightest to proceed with an intervention.

We would recommend that a non-Russian coalition be assembled to remove the proletarist regime that would guarantee that the territorial integrity of Scandinavia remain intact. Russia cannot be trusted to undergo this task.
 
From: Workers Commonwealth of Scandinavia
To: World

We are not shocked to see that the international community remains skeptical, even aggressive, towards our attempts to live freely by our own laws, in our own country, under proletarist leadership. It has been shown time and time again that the nations of the world can and will support the hypocritical oppression of citizens of nations that they are in equal fraternity with, as Europeans, as Americans, and so on. We believe that the nations of the world must respect a plebiscite as has been discussed, whereby the free people of the Workers Commonwealth state unequivocally that they have chosen to live under proletarism. The freedom of the Scandinavian people shall never perish from this earth!

From: Workers Commonwealth of Scandinavia
To: Vinland
CC: Concerned Parties

We can accept a plebiscite whereby the people of Scandinavia affirm their determination and willingness to live by the proletarist system. We cannot accept a plebiscite whereby the internal workings of the Revolution of the Proletariat be subjugated to the international community; it is enough that we have chosen to live by our own laws, we do not see why we should be made to justify our choice of leaders and heads of state to the world. We further demand that when the plebiscite evinces our determination to run Scandinavia as a proletarist nation, by and for all Scandinavian workers, our rightful territories be turned over to us, or some other compromise where the sovereign territory of Scandinavia is not controlled by invalid, undemocratic pretenders spiting the authority of the Scandinavian people.
 
To: Pope Paul VI
From: Italy


To: Italy
From: Pope Paul VI

We are deeply saddened by the passing of Pope Leo, but would like to wish you the best luck during your time as head of the Church. Also we would like to offer you a defensive pact to help secure your position in the world and not allow you to be threatened as easily.

The Holy See cannot allow itself to be embroiled again in temporal conflicts as it has in the past, and we fear a mutual defensive pact runs the risk of us being dragged unnecessarily into wars. As such we would be willing to accept a one-way defensive pact (ooc: because lets be honest, its not like I can do much to help you militarily anyway in a hypothetical war) as part of a broader concordat with the Holy See, guaranteeing the independence of the Church and its rights in Italy, but not a mutual defensive pact. We believe that such a thing would greatly put at ease the minds of many in regards to the previously hostile stances of the current government of the newly unified Italian State.

To: Pope Paul VI
CC: the League of Continental Nations
From: King Leopold IV of Flanders


We applaud your election to the Papacy, and believe that the Curia has chosen most wisely. We also would like to extend to you an invitation to give the Second Annual Continental Address. After the success of King Ingvar of Vinland's address to the League of Continental Nations General Assembly, we are starting a tradition in the League of giving leaders whose ideas we believe are leading the world in the right direction the honor of giving a full formal address to the League. We hope that you accept our invitation.

To: King Leopold IV
From: Pope Paul VI


We accept your invitation to speak at the Second Annual Continental Address. (ooc: I presume I just concoct together a speech to put on the main thread yes?)
 
From: Workers Commonwealth of Scandinavia
To: Vinland
CC: Concerned Parties

We can accept a plebiscite whereby the people of Scandinavia affirm their determination and willingness to live by the proletarist system. We cannot accept a plebiscite whereby the internal workings of the Revolution of the Proletariat be subjugated to the international community; it is enough that we have chosen to live by our own laws, we do not see why we should be made to justify our choice of leaders and heads of state to the world. We further demand that when the plebiscite evinces our determination to run Scandinavia as a proletarist nation, by and for all Scandinavian workers, our rightful territories be turned over to us, or some other compromise where the sovereign territory of Scandinavia is not controlled by invalid, undemocratic pretenders spiting the authority of the Scandinavian people.

To: Workers Commonwealth of Scandinavia
From: Vinland

I am afraid that what you are saying is not entirely clear. All we ask is this: will you take part in a free, open and contested election, where the people of Vinland are able to choose between a proletarist government and one of the non-proletarist parties?

We will recognize whichever party emerges from this election as the legitimate leader of Scandinavia, chosen by its own people. Should you be elected through these legal means, we will of course recognize that the colonies of Scandinavia belong to your government as well. However, we cannot, in good conscience, recognize a government which has established itself in an undemocratic manner, through force of arms.
 
To: King Leopold IV
From: Pope Paul VI


We accept your invitation to speak at the Second Annual Continental Address. (ooc: I presume I just concoct together a speech to put on the main thread yes?)

To: Pope Paul VI
From: King Leopold IV of Flanders


We are overjoyed at your acceptance, and look forward to your address.

(OOC: Yep, you've already shown that you have a knack for it so it should be no problem ;) And it should relate to the current events in Europe, from the Pope's angle, though otherwise I don't want to really set any constraints for you)
 
From: Austria on behalf of the German Economic League
To: Russia


There is no phrase in the German language, or any other for that matter, to describe how completely disgusted we are at your actions against the Prussians in your conquered Polish lands. Your reasons for the massacre were at best non-existent. The ruthless and methodical way in which you slaughtered thousands of innocents is too awful to be anything less than appalling. That is not the work of a civilized nation, but that of an Asiatic horde, invading and slaughtering entire populaces in a way that is reminiscent of the armies of Genghis or Timur.

We have also noted your silence over the issue, as calls from the international community have condemned and ostracized your wanton Slave Empire, and that in itself says a lot about Russian character. You can try to hide behind the convenient Scandinavian and Roman issues as you see fit, but know that the facade of being Eastern Europe's arbiter can only last so long. Eventually the sham act will fall, and the world will see and treat you for what you are; a nation of murderers and liars. We must join the chorus of condemnations, and hopefully, as the national representatives of the German race, ours voice will be the loudest. Know that you have no friends in Austria or Brandenburg, and the German race will forever remember the atrocities that occurred in Prussia.

To: The Kingdom of Italy
From: Austria, on behalf of the German Economic League


We are happy to see peace finally come to the Italian peninsula. We congratulate you on the successful plebiscite, and on your new constitution, and know that you have a friend in the German states to your north. To fill out a truly Italian state, we wish to cede Venetia to you, over the next 3 years, so as ethnic Germans have a decent time table to leave and return to Austria. We hope you find this both reasonable, and generous. With that, we would request that you allow for German businesses to remain in the region, preferably tariff free.

We also wish to discuss using some fine Italian ports in the Adriatic or Tyrrhenian for our navy. Should you find it appropriate, we can take those discussions to a more private channel.

To: The Papal States
From: Austria, on behalf of the German Economic League


We are glad to put that whole ugly business behind us, and will be starting our reparations for your losses in the war this year. We also must send our condolences to the loss of Pope Leo XIV. He will be missed, and it is truly a shame that he had less-than-agreeable international events forced upon him. We are confident, however, that the annals of history will remember him for what he was; a great leader.
 
To: Pope Paul VI
From: Italy


This would be acceptable. We would like to see the Pope and the Church be well protected and we would be more then willing to help do so.

To: Austria
From: Italy


Thank you for your help in granting us the opportunity to unite Italy and we would greatly appreaciate your offer of Venetia. Also we would be willing to allow German businesses to opperate tax free in the region you are willing to cede to us.

We are willing to discuss possible ports where your navy could go in a more private channel.
 
The Second Annual Continental Address


-​


It is an honour and a joy for us to speak before this league, before the assembled peoples and nations Europe, that meets here as a peaceful assembly of christian Europe in order to work for the good of all humanity. We would like to thank King Leopold IV for his invitation to deliver this address and for the kind words of greeting and appreciation with which he has delvered to us upon our election to our office . At this moment we turn to you, distinguished gentlemen of Europe, not least out of our solidarity with the people of Europe in the aftermath of the great war, but out of our own love and concern for all Europes people. However the invitation to give this address was extended to us as Pope, as the Bishop of Rome, who bears the highest responsibility for Catholic Christianity. In issuing this invitation you are acknowledging the role that the Holy See plays as a partner within the community of peoples and states. Setting out from this international responsibility that we hold, We should like to propose to you some thoughts on the current trends of the modern world, and on the foundational principles of a free state of law..

Allow us to begin our reflections on the foundations of law with a brief story from sacred Scripture. In the First Book of the Kings, it is recounted that God invited the young King Solomon, on his accession to the throne, to make a request. What will the young ruler ask for at this important moment? Success – wealth – long life – destruction of his enemies? He chooses none of these things. Instead, he asks for a listening heart so that he may govern God’s people, and discern between good and evil (cf. 1 Kg 3:9). Through this story, the Bible wants to tell us what should ultimately matter for a politician. His fundamental criterion and the motivation for his work as a politician must not be success, and certainly not material gain. Politics must be a striving for justice, and hence it has to establish the fundamental preconditions for peace. Naturally a politician will seek success, without which he would have no opportunity for effective political action at all. Yet success is subordinated to the criterion of justice, to the will to do what is right, and to the understanding of what is right. Success can also be seductive and thus can open up the path towards the falsification of what is right, towards the destruction of justice. “Without justice – what else is the State but a great band of robbers?”, as Saint Augustine once said. We know from our own experience that these words are no empty spectre for throughout history, and into this modern age the words of Augustine have rung true, as attests events in Prussia where countless thousands on no basis other than their ethnicity have been brutally murdered. This atrocity must be absolutely condemned by all nations, and is an abomination before men and before God!

As such, and in light of these things, to serve right and to fight against the dominion of wrong is and remains the fundamental task of all politicians. At a moment in history when man has become more powerful than ever before, this task takes on a particular urgency. Man can destroy the world. He can manipulate himself. He can, so to speak, make human beings and as has been seen in recent events he can deny them their very humanity. How do we recognize what is right? How can we discern between good and evil, between what is truly right and what may appear right? Even now, Solomon’s request remains the decisive issue facing politicians and politics today.

Some propose that in regards to matters that need to be regulated by law, the support of the majority can serve as a sufficient criterion. Yet it is evident that for the fundamental issues of law, in which the dignity of man and of humanity is at stake, and in which the fundamental liberties of men are concerned, the majority principle is not enough: everyone in a position of responsibility must personally seek out the criteria to be followed when framing laws. In the third century, the great theologian Origen provided the following explanation for the resistance of Christians to certain legal systems: “Suppose that a man were living among the Scythians, whose laws are contrary to the divine law, and was compelled to live among them ... such a man for the sake of the true law, though illegal among the Scythians, would rightly form associations with like-minded people contrary to the laws of the Scythians.”

But how do we recognize what is right? In history, systems of law have almost always been based on religion: decisions regarding what was to be lawful among men were taken with reference to the divinity. But unlike other great religions, Christianity has never proposed a revealed law to the State and to society, that is to say a juridical order derived from revelation. Instead, it has pointed to nature and reason as the true sources of law – and to the harmony of objective and subjective reason, which naturally presupposes that both spheres are rooted in the creative reason of God. Christian theologians thereby aligned themselves with a philosophical and juridical movement that began to take shape in the second century B.C. In the first half of that century, the social natural law developed by the Stoic philosophers came into contact with leading teachers of Roman Law. Through this encounter, the juridical culture of the West was born, which was and is of key significance for the juridical culture of mankind.

For the development of law and for the development of humanity, it was highly significant that Christian theologians aligned themselves against the religious law associated with polytheism and on the side of philosophy, and that they acknowledged reason and nature in their interrelation as the universally valid source of law. This step had already been taken by Saint Paul in the Letter to the Romans, when he said: “When Gentiles who have not the Law do by nature what the law requires, they are a law to themselves ... they show that what the law requires is written on their hearts, while their conscience also bears witness ...” . Here we see the two fundamental concepts of nature and conscience, where conscience is nothing other than Solomon’s listening heart, reason that is open to the language of being.

This seemed to offer a clear explanation of the foundations of legislation up to the time of the Enlightenment, however since that time there has been a dramatic shift in the situation, particularly in the last half-century, one that we fear is contrary to the very principles of true liberty grounded in God. Indeed the idea of natural law is today viewed as a specifically Catholic doctrine, not worth bringing into the discussion in a non-Catholic environment, so that one feels almost ashamed even to mention the term. Let us outline briefly how this situation arose. Fundamentally it is because of the idea that an unbridgeable gulf exists between “is” and “ought”. An “ought” can never follow from an “is”, because the two are situated on completely different planes. The reason for this is that in the meantime, the positivist understanding of nature has come to be almost universally accepted. If nature is viewed as “an aggregate of objective data linked together in terms of cause and effect”, then indeed no ethical indication of any kind can be derived from it. A positivist conception of nature as purely functional, as the natural sciences consider it to be, is incapable of producing any bridge to ethics and law, but once again yields only functional answers. The same also applies to reason, according to the positivist understanding that is widely held to be the only genuinely scientific one. Anything that is not verifiable or falsifiable, according to this understanding, does not belong to the realm of reason strictly understood. Hence ethics and religion must be assigned to the subjective field, and they remain extraneous to the realm of reason in the strict sense of the word. Where positivist reason dominates the field to the exclusion of all else – and that is broadly the case in our public mindset – then the classical sources of knowledge for ethics and law are excluded. This is a dramatic situation which affects everyone, and on which a public debate is necessary. Indeed, an essential goal of this address is to issue an urgent invitation to launch one!

The positivist approach to nature and reason, the positivist world view in general, is a most important dimension of human knowledge and capacity that we may in no way dispense with. But in and of itself it is not a sufficient culture corresponding to the full breadth of the human condition. Where positivist reason considers itself the only sufficient culture and banishes all other cultural realities to the status of subcultures, it diminishes man, indeed it threatens his humanity. I say this with Europe specifically in mind, where there are concerted efforts to recognize only positivism as a common culture and a common basis for law-making, reducing all the other insights and values of our culture to the level of subculture, with the result that Europe vis-à-vis other world cultures is left in a state of culturelessness while at the same time extremist and radical movements all across Europe in Spain, in Finland and in many other places emerge to fill the vacuum that has been created by the rejection of natural law to the detriment of all.

We can see the rise in Europe of dangerous revisionist ideologies, which seek to make man, divorced from the principles of natural law, the center of of his own fabricated legal construct. Yet in making man the centre of law and of morality, these ideologies, Liberalism, Socialism and Proletarianism amongst them, would reduce the liberty ordained by God for all men, and supress it under the tyranny of the majority, under a conception that the will of the many negates the liberty of the minority. For the individual christian liberty that has underpinned all law in Europe until recent times, that is that every man in the State may follow the will of God and, from a consciousness of duty and free from every obstacle, obey His commands is dismissed and threatened by these groups. For by the patrons of liberalism, and of certain new and radical ideologies who in rejecting the foundations of law in nature and in God, make the State legal authority absolute and omnipotent, and proclaim that man should live altogether independently of God, the liberty of which we speak, which goes hand in hand with virtue and religion, is not admitted; and whatever is done for its preservation is accounted an injury and an offense against the State. Indeed, if what they say were really true, there would be no tyranny, no matter how monstrous, which the citizen would not be bound to endure and submit to irrespective of his own values and beliefs. This we saw manifest in Prussia, where attempts by prussians to defend their liberty were accounted as treason against the state!

In its self-proclaimed exclusivity, the positivist reason which underpins this dangerous tendency recognizes nothing beyond mere functionality. It resembles a concrete bunker with no windows, in which humans ourselves provide lighting and atmospheric conditions, being no longer willing to obtain either from God’s wide world. They propose an artificial construct, and discern nothing from nature! Yet they cannot hide from themselves the fact that even in this artificial world, they are still covertly drawing upon God’s raw materials, which they refashion into our own products. Thus it is clear to us that the windows of Europe that have been closed and darkened through recent history by these developments must be flung open again, we all must see the wide world, the sky and the earth once more and learn to make proper use of all this in pursuit of liberty and peace.

But how are we to do this? How do we find our way out into the wide world, into the big picture? How can reason rediscover its true greatness, without being sidetracked into irrationality? How can nature reassert itself in its true depth, with all its demands, with all its directives? In this regard we would like to underline a point that seems to us to be neglected, that is that today as in the past: there is also an ecology of man. Man too has a nature that he must respect and that he cannot manipulate at will. Man is not merely self-creating freedom. Man does not create himself. He is intellect and will, but he is also nature, and his will is rightly ordered if he respects his nature, listens to it and accepts himself for who he is, as one who did not create himself. In this way, and in no other, is true human freedom fulfilled. Ergo we must not fall into the error of assuming the perfectibility of man, as the liberals do, but comprehend and acknowledge our own fallen nature, our own intrinsic irrationality and capacity for evil. This is something clearly evident in the aftermath of the great war, which showed to all the world humanities capacity for needless violence and evil! Simply we need to understand the need to rely upon the higher principles of nature and the eternal law of God. For in losing sight of our nature, the human freedom, divinely given to all men, which we seek to see advanced and protected ultimately crumbles, giving way to the banalities of our being, to the caprice of the powerful, to tyranny and oppression.

Let us now come back to the fundamental concepts of nature and reason, from which we set out. Firstly the great proponents of legal positivism abandoned the dualism of “is” and “ought”. Indeed previously they have said that norms can only come from the will. Nature therefore could only contain norms, they add, if a will had put them there. But this, they say, would presuppose a Creator God, whose will had entered into nature. “Any attempt to discuss the truth of this belief is utterly futile”, they propose. Is it really? – I find myself asking. Is it really pointless to wonder whether the objective reason that manifests itself in nature does not presuppose a creative reason, a Creator Spiritus?

At this point Europe’s cultural heritage ought to come to our assistance. The conviction that there is a Creator God is what gave rise to the idea of human rights, the idea of the equality of all people before the law, the recognition of the inviolability of human dignity in every single person and the awareness of people’s responsibility for their actions. Our cultural memory is shaped by these rational insights. To ignore it or dismiss it as a thing of the past would be to dismember our culture totally and to rob it of its completeness. The culture of Europe as it stands arose from the encounter between Jerusalem, Athens and Rome – from the encounter between Israel’s monotheism, the philosophical reason of the Greeks and Roman law with these three pillars being united under the aegis and protection of the Catholic Church, which was and is the foundation of European civilisation as it was built after the fall of the Roman Empire. This three-way encounter under Catholic Chrstianity has shaped the inner identity of Europe. In the awareness of man’s responsibility before God and in the acknowledgment of the inviolable dignity of every single human person, it has established criteria of law: it is these criteria that we are called to defend at this moment in our history as there arise those who would reject them.

As to our final remarks we would recall that as he assumed the mantle of office, the young King Solomon was invited to make a request. How would it be if we, the law-makers of today, were invited to make a request? What would we ask for? I think that, even today, there is ultimately nothing else we could wish for but a listening heart – the capacity to discern between good and evil, and thus to establish true law, to serve justice and peace so that through this listening heart we may ensure the liberty of all peoples, founded upon nature and upon God, is re-emphasised amongst this modern world.

-

Pope Paul VI
 
To: Pope Paul VI
From: Italy


This would be acceptable. We would like to see the Pope and the Church be well protected and we would be more then willing to help do so.

To: Italy
From: Pope Paul VI


Excellent, it is our hope that such a broader concordat may be finalised in a reasonable amount of time. Regardless I think it would be reasonable for us to sign a one-way defensive pact as of the present time as part of this, and as a sign of a return to peace in the Italian Peninsula.

To: The Papal States
From: Austria, on behalf of the German Economic League


We are glad to put that whole ugly business behind us, and will be starting our reparations for your losses in the war this year. We also must send our condolences to the loss of Pope Leo XIV. He will be missed, and it is truly a shame that he had less-than-agreeable international events forced upon him. We are confident, however, that the annals of history will remember him for what he was; a great leader.

To: Austria
From: The Papal States


Indeed, peace is the way forward in the aftermath of the deadliest series of conflicts in human history. We are greatful for your condolences for the late Pope Leo XIV.
 
To: Russia
From: The Pontic Republic


You may try to act civilized, but your barbaric slaughter of the Prussians and others in their rightful land shows your true colors. We spit on your words and once again ask that you get out of the affairs of the nations of the former Roman Empire.
 
A Decade of Special Forces

By Date and Country:
Spoiler :
1900: Legion Hispania (Spain), New Spanish Militia (New Spain), Praetorian Guard (Roman Empire), United States Rangers (United States of America), Varangian Guard (Scandinavia)
1901: Kagemusha (Japan), Republican Guard (Netherlands)
1902:
1903: Wojownicy Zimowe (Poland), Kommandos (Brandenburg)
1904:
1905: Királyi Gárda (Hungary)
1906:
1907: Persian Raiders (Persia)
1908: Forze Speciali (Italy), The Emperor's Hand (Russia),
1909: Cobras (Brazil), Section Two (Occitania)


By Point Total/x3 cost:
Spoiler :
15: The Emperor's Hand
14: Section Two
13:
12: Wojownicy Zimowe
11: Legion Hispania, United States Rangers, Varangian Guard, Kagemusha, Persian Raiders
10: Republican Guard
9: Praetorian Guard, Forze Speciali, Cobras
8: New Spanish Militia, Kommandos
7: Királyi Gárda
6-1:


By Amphibious Warfare
Spoiler :
6: Cobras
5-4:
3: Legion Hispania, Praetorian Guard, Varangian Guard, Republican Guard
2: United States Rangers
1: Forze Speciali


By Jungle Warfare:
Spoiler :
6: New Spanish Militia, United States Rangers
5:
4: Republican Guard
3: Legion Hispania, Varangian Guard, Kagemusha, Cobras
2:
1:


By Mountain Warfare:
Spoiler :
6: Wojownicy Zimowe, Forze Speciali
5:
4: Praetorian Guard, Kagemusha
3: Varangian Guard
2: Legion Hispania, United States Rangers, Republican Guard, Persian Raiders
1:


By Covert Operations:
Spoiler :
15: The Emperor's Hand (Russia)
14: Section Two (Occitania)
13-10:
9: Persian Raiders (Persia)
8: Kommandos (Brandenburg)
7: Királyi Gárda (Hungary)
6: Wojownicy Zimowe (Poland)
5:
4: Kagemusha (Japan)
3: Legion Hispania (Spain)
2: New Spanish Militia (New Spain), Praetorian Guard (Rome), Varangian Guard (Scandinavia), Forze Speciali (Italy)
1: United States Rangers (USA), Republican Guard (Netherlands)


By Number of Brigades:
Spoiler :
2: Kommando, Legion Hispania, United States Rangers, New Spanish Militia
1: Forze Speciali, Praetorian Guard, Emperor's Hand, Persian Raiders, Kagemusha
0: Királyi Gárda, Republican Guard, Varangian Guard, Section Two, Cobras
Extinct: Wojownicy Zimowe
 
From: Workers Commonwealth of Scandinavia
To: Vinland

It was our understanding that Vinland's proposed plebiscite was with the intention of proving, essentially for the edification of the international community, that the people of Scandinavia have democratically and in majority chosen the Workers Commonwealth. The leaders of the Workers Commonwealth, who will in time make themselves known, do not believe it is currently in the interests of the Revolution to allow a foreign plebiscite to take such a vital role in determining the Revolution's guiding lights. That decision is one that must be made by those with the best and most intimate knowledge of what the Revolution requires for its safety and prosperity, in Scandinavia, and someday abroad. The leaders of the Revolution believe that such a plebiscite will undoubtedly affirm the Scandinavian proletariat's determination, and are therefore willing to consider it as a viable option for assuring the international community of our sincerity. In the unfathomable event that your plebiscite somehow proves the Revolution "insincere" we would consider some form of compromise with the Emperor, the royal family's dedication in past times to the cause of the workers being in our memory. We will not, however, permit the plebiscite to determine the leadership of the Workers Commonwealth.
 
To: the Traditional Proletarists of Scandinavia
From: King Louis III

If you are not willing to elect a government, then there is little point in a plebiscite other than as a tool for any size of majority to tyrannize the remainder.
 
As the Pope stepped down from his podium, the Grand Assembly Room in Antwerp's Europa Palace erupted in applause. Emmanuel van Bernissart, Count of Ath, quickly glanced around the room as he stood himself to clap. To his right Ambassador Reznov had a particularly petulant look on his face, a face which van Bernissart noted shifted from contentment during the Pope's condemnation of Proletarism and Liberalism to annoyance as His Holiness extolled the value of human rights. His claps were slow, and his tacit disapproval was audible in the almost painful sound made as his hands came together.

In front of Reznov the Comte de Crolles and Ambassador van Walsum stood beside each other applauding vigorously, as the normally did when anything happened in the League. Of all the representatives in Antwerp, the Frenchman and the Dutchman were by far the most upbeat, though in such a dry place as the Europa Palace this meant very little.

To van Bernissart’s left there was an empty seat, as Johan Ramstedt had not been seen in weeks. He had been recalled to the Kongo within weeks of the Accidental Revolution, though in those weeks between the Revolution and his departure he lacked his usual presence, as he scrambled to discover the whereabouts and the condition of his family in Stockholm. Two days before he left he learned that though his wife and daughter were safe, his son had gone missing after holding off some particularly persistent looters who had pursued the Ramstedts to the docks. No one heard a word out of Johan’s mouth after he received this news, and he left without fanfare. One of his assistants had stormed into the Grand Assembly Room after Johan’s departure claiming to be the representative of the Worker’s Commonwealth. He was promptly escorted out.

Past Ramstedt’s old seat van Bernissart saw a relatively new face. He still could not remember the name of the Kingdom of Italy’s representative, and never got a chance to learn the name of the Republic’s representative before that man had left. This Italian did not stand out, as his applause was no more intense and his face no less passive than those of the Brandenburger Heinrich Baum and the Austrian ambassador to his left. The fact that the representative of a united Italy was here listening to the Pope’s address at all though was a wonder of diplomacy in van Bernissart’s eyes.

The Flemish special envoy then turned his eyes back to the front, where his king and chairman, Leopold IV, stepped up to the podium. The Flemish Leopold spoke:

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Announcement by King Leopold IV of Flanders to the League and the World

“We Europeans must at this time acknowledge the poignancy of the Pope’s words, as we are now faced with challenges both to human rights as assured by natural law, and to natural law itself. If this League is to survive even a decade, our nations must set aside our desires for wealth, for power, for glory, and seek to listen, as Solomon did. Listen to the people, as they, as individuals blessed with God by Reason, decide on the best path through free and fair elections and referendums, having had a chance to debate and consider the issues in an atmosphere absent of hate, vitriol, and extremism. Listen to our consciences, as leaders, which tell us that all peoples are blessed with human rights, and indeed basic humanity, among which the right to life is paramount. When, with no crime having been committed, a people’s collective right to life is violated and ignored, some justice must be found.

It is with this in mind and with great solemnity that I announce the creation of the International Court of Justice, one of the three new organizations mandated by Article 4 of the League’s Charter which curiously up to now have failed to come to fruition. Along with the Slavery Commission and the Commission on Refugees, this Court will see that justice is done for the people of Continental Europe. All nations of this League have agreed, by virtue of their membership in said League, that these three organizations, along with the Calais Convention and the International Organization of Health, are necessary for the peace and prosperity of Europe, and have agreed to abide by these organizations. I once again give my most gracious thanks to His Holiness Pope Paul VI for his presence here, as he has brought true illumination to the Europa Palace.”
 
Listen to the people, as they, as individuals blessed with God by Reason, decide on the best path through free and fair elections and referendums, having had a chance to debate and consider the issues in an atmosphere absent of hate, vitriol, and extremism.

-

We would like to ensure a clarification of the Holy Fathers remarks in light of comments by the king of Flanders, firstly pointing out the following quote.

"Some propose that in regards to matters that need to be regulated by law, the support of the majority can serve as a sufficient criterion. Yet it is evident that for the fundamental issues of law, in which the dignity of man and of humanity is at stake, and in which the fundamental liberties of men are concerned, the majority principle is not enough: everyone in a position of responsibility must personally seek out the criteria to be followed when framing laws."

Elections and referendums are not guarantors for the kind of respect for liberty and the natural law which His Holiness proposed. Indeed I point out that His Holiness expressed grave concern in regards to the possibility for a tyranny of the majority, something which a reduction of legal principles to a homocentric understanding of law, that is a position that 'right" is determined by popular vote, or by the popular opinion can and almost certainly does lead too tyranny. The Holy See and the Catholic Church emphatically proclaim instead that any secular law, must in truth only be an implementation of the divine law revealed through nature by God. Any secular law which is contrary to this true law, is like the law of the scythians, ergo in truth unlawful which all right thinking men are morally obliged to resist. All law must therefore be subject to higher principles and not to the voice of the loudest in order to provide that true christian liberty of which the Church speaks.

As such we wish to ensure that His Holiness' speech is not misconstrued as particular support for elections or for the principles of democracy as espoused by liberals as compared to any other method of governance, and urge also that leaders do not misconstruct the Holy Fathers words through the erroneous prisms of modern philosophies as compared to through the timeless and sacred teachings of the Catholic Faith. We also urge those who would observe this meeting to read the entirety of the Holy Fathers speech themselves rather than relying on the interpretations of others divorced from the thinking of the Church.

That said, we would commend the King of Flanders for his efforts to establish a paradigm of peace in Europe and the Holy See would give its support for such institutions as the King of Flanders is proposing, the need to put aside the pridefulness of nations to ensure the common good of all people and oppose the tyrannous ideological trends of our time is something the Holy See wholeheartedly approves of.

-

~ Card. Sodano, Secretary for Relations with States (Foreign Minister)

---

ooc: Its a long speech I know, so people may miss it or glance over things, so I just felt the need to respond to your statement lest it be wrongly interpreted. The speech does not in any way favour democracy over autocracy, and indeed it actually is implicitly wary of democracy in the context of liberalism with that whole "tyranny of the majority" thing.
 
From: Workers Commonwealth of Scandinavia
To: Vinland

It was our understanding that Vinland's proposed plebiscite was with the intention of proving, essentially for the edification of the international community, that the people of Scandinavia have democratically and in majority chosen the Workers Commonwealth. The leaders of the Workers Commonwealth, who will in time make themselves known, do not believe it is currently in the interests of the Revolution to allow a foreign plebiscite to take such a vital role in determining the Revolution's guiding lights. That decision is one that must be made by those with the best and most intimate knowledge of what the Revolution requires for its safety and prosperity, in Scandinavia, and someday abroad. The leaders of the Revolution believe that such a plebiscite will undoubtedly affirm the Scandinavian proletariat's determination, and are therefore willing to consider it as a viable option for assuring the international community of our sincerity. In the unfathomable event that your plebiscite somehow proves the Revolution "insincere" we would consider some form of compromise with the Emperor, the royal family's dedication in past times to the cause of the workers being in our memory. We will not, however, permit the plebiscite to determine the leadership of the Workers Commonwealth.

To: Workers Commonwealth of Scandinavia
From: Vinland


Are we now foreigners to you? And please stop making use of this obfuscating language. If you will not agree to take part in an open election, then we cannot recognize your government as anything but the military overthrow of a Constitutional Monarch and his democratically-elected Riksdag. A vote where your current organization is the only choice is a sham befitting an authoritarian state, not a nation of free men.

Please, consider our offer: an election, to be held this year, between representatives of the Proletarists in Scandinavia and representatives of all other parties. If you bear the support you claim, then I will assure you that a vote will reflect this support, and legitimate governance shall be yours.

I am doing this entirely out of Vinland's longstanding and close relationship with Scandinavia. Scandinavians are the only people we can truly name as allies, but if you proceed to conduct your government without the legitimacy granted by the voice of the people, predatory nations around you- and you know of the bear to whom I refer- will be more than happy to subjugate your nation.
 
Well done speech Jehoshua.
 
Back
Top Bottom