|
The Capital Vessels Act II
| |
| Raynar_Tavira | Date: Wednesday, 21 Sep 2011, 10:55 AM | Message # 16 |
 Sergeant
Group: Users
Messages: 22
Status: Offline
| The pending delegation from Onderon request the recognition from the chair of the Senate, so that we may speak our views on this bill.
Galactic Senate
Onderon Representative
Member of the Council of Lords
|
| |
| |
| Bernard_Oriel | Date: Wednesday, 21 Sep 2011, 11:05 AM | Message # 17 |
 Colonel general
Group: Users
Messages: 803
Status: Offline
| Senator Zarcaine, please listen to me and listen well for I will not repeat myself again. A world does not (under this act of the first Capital Vessels Act) require permission or clearance to have a planetary fleet of capital-class vessels. Permission is not required for a world to aquire most capital-class vessels.. Please quote to me where it does and I will remove it, if I am wrong.
As for the Vjun Armada, it has existed for over 1000 years and is composed of several small vessels. This fleet is largely ceremonial (our practical defences being vested in static platforms), no ship in the fleet requires permission or is illegal in any way.
Senator Ray is not petitioning for permission, he is petitioning to purchase these ships from the Imperial surplus. He explicitly does not need the approval of the senate to buy ships from private companies...
Please clarify your statement regarding static defences.. You believe a world's right to own those should be restricted? Of course you could remove the hyperdrive during inspection (although this is no mean feat on capital ships and requires major modification), however, as soon as they jumped away it would be apparent they had breached the act and the authorities could proceed against them appropriately. Ergo if any capital ship who's license stated it had no hyperdrive was seen making a hyperdrive jump it could be instantly marked as criminal.
Bernard Oriel
Senator for the Planet of Vjun
1st Earl Malreaux (Second Creation)
Vjun Delegation to the Imperial Senate
|
| |
| |
| Slai-Fon | Date: Wednesday, 21 Sep 2011, 11:57 AM | Message # 18 |
 Colonel
Group: Users
Messages: 160
Status: Offline
| I would like to see this, if at all possible, Senator Oriel.
A planetary native, and government official should always be apart of every capital vessel, so that not only does our grand empire get intelligence on what's happening in the space above our planets, so does the planetary government.
You don't have to add it, I just feel it would strengthen the bond between the Empire and every planet with a Capital-Class Vessel.
Still, I vote in favor.
Slai-Fon Youngblood, Senator of Anobis, and the Bright Jewel sector
Chairman of ISEC (Imperial Senate Ethic's Committee.)
Chairman & CEO of K/Y deep.
|
| |
| |
| Bernard_Oriel | Date: Wednesday, 21 Sep 2011, 12:02 PM | Message # 19 |
|
Colonel general
Group: Users
Messages: 803
Status: Offline
| Senator Slai Fon.
While I like the idea very much I fear the cost of putting government officials on corporate capital vessels etc.. I believe it to be so high as to cause serious damage to the shipping industry.
I am afraid the logistics of it may be impossible. The Political Officers Act does however mandate their placement on Planetary Vessels. There is no reason you could not introduce this regulation for your own system only, I will surely recommend to my parliament the imposition of this regulation regarding officials on private vessels while in our space.
Bernard Oriel
Senator for the Planet of Vjun
1st Earl Malreaux (Second Creation)
Vjun Delegation to the Imperial Senate
|
| |
| |
| Sate_Pestage | Date: Wednesday, 21 Sep 2011, 11:03 PM | Message # 20 |
 Lieutenant general
Group: Moderators
Messages: 639
Status: Offline
| The chair recognizes Senator-elect Tavira of Onderon to express his views on this matter. But as he is soon to be a freshman and is perhaps unfamiliar with Senate procedures, I remind him that under section 4.1 he is not entitled to vote on this particular measure. But he is certainly free to advocate for a particular vote, and with that, Mr. Tavira, the floor is yours.
Sate Pestage
Grand Vizier of the Empire
Assistant to Emperor Palpatine
Chair of the Imperial Senate
|
| |
| |
| Raynar_Tavira | Date: Wednesday, 21 Sep 2011, 11:12 PM | Message # 21 |
|
Sergeant
Group: Users
Messages: 22
Status: Offline
| Thank you Grand Vizier.
This bill came across my desk on Onderon, just as it came before Queen Kira, as well as General Arranda and they both shared the same concern that I did when speaking about this bill. With the recent activity on Dxun, and the Mandalorians being pushed off the moon world, we felt that had this bill been approved before this time, it would have greatly hindered out ability to rapidly field, and deploy the needed forces to stand against a Mandalorian assault had they attacked Iziz. Currently we have only be able to field a fleet and a stronger military force, due to the lack of this bill. It was also the belief and general understanding among members of the Council of Lords, that this bill would have prevented our ability to field the fleet that we currently have now. One that under this bill would have had us seeking the permission of the sector government for the right to field such a force. I understand that I am unable to vote due to this bill having been introduce and voted upon while the membership and approval of Onderon is still ongoing. I do know that the people of Onderon would wish that I vote against this bill, if I were able to do so.
I thank you Grand Vizier for letting me speak on this matter about how the people of Onderon felt about this bill.
Galactic Senate
Onderon Representative
Member of the Council of Lords
|
| |
| |
| Artemis_Vanden | Date: Wednesday, 21 Sep 2011, 11:51 PM | Message # 22 |
 Major general
Group: Users
Messages: 302
Status: Offline
| I supported the original Capital Vessels Act because I'd hoped that strict limitations on the possession of warships would limit the demand for warships and, thus, the production of them. In the months since the Capital Vessels Act passed, it has become apparent that this has not been the case. I have increasingly come to believe that the real problem is not the possession of warships but is indeed the production of them; moreover, the production of warships is far easier to limit than the possession of them. Not to be brusque, but when will the Senate address this problem? Why should the consumer bear all the regulatory burden and not the manufacturer? The galaxy has an addiction to warships and who ultimately is to blame—the addict or the dealer?
The fact is that without regular maintenance, most warships have an operational life of 10 to 15 years. With maintenance, as many as 30 years. But sooner or later, warships must be replaced if the operator is intent on doing so, as most are. This is where strict limitations on the production of warships can end the proliferation of them that has been so alarming since the end of the Clone Wars—without a limitless number of them being produced, many warships will be retired in a decade, and in three decades many, many more. And they won't be replaced. Bear in mind that, by this time, Separatist vessels will be 30 years old and too decrepit to pose any danger to an Imperial world. Even crumbling Old Republic ships would be no threat to whatever the latest line of Star Destroyer happens to be in 20 or 30 years time.
But to accomplish this we simply must shift the regulatory burden from the consumer to the manufacturer, and I'm no longer convinced that the template of the Capital Vessels Act will do so, as well intentioned as it is. Many will say that the Empire is intent on the manufacture of warships and there's no political "will" (I prefer the word "fortitude") to push for limits on this. It's possible this is indeed the case, but I'm not sure I feel comfortable supporting a measure that is at best a step to the side and at worst a step in the wrong direction entirely.
Artemis Vanden
Representative of the Naboo
|
| |
| |
| Titus_Veritas | Date: Thursday, 22 Sep 2011, 0:21 AM | Message # 23 |
 Colonel
Group: Users
Messages: 166
Status: Offline
| The problem here, is an assumption of overworking of the Defense Committee. Admittedly, the Committee is overworked, but only recently; and it is due to the Capital Vessels Act. The originally has caused any meaningful work, hence an utter lack of defense legislation in the past few months, to be shoved aside, and instead has led the Defense Committee to be devoted to hunting down and correcting non-compliant entities as well as hear, consider, and address the countless exemption requests that must funneled through the Committee. It is an issue I feared from introduction, among my remarks that are on the public record in the debate on the original bill.
A problem here, Senator Oriel, that I've noticed, is within your own rhetoric. You slam the corporations of the galaxy in regards to their security forces, and cling to the claim that you wish to avert another Clone Wars. It is not the corporations who are suffering under the standing legislation nor the expansion being considered. It is the planets of the Empire. The local governments. The common man, our citizens, are those who are struggling to fund the countless changes and refits still needing to occur, with countless worlds, even with Imperial assistance, being unable to handle the bill of refitting their entire naval force. Now, Senator Oriel, you wish to make it worse, and expand the pain and pressure of the Capital Vessels Act.
I understand what you seek, it is a worthy goal. Some regulation is necessary, but it seems that the Capital Vessels Act, after such a disastrous implementation, is not the correct regulation. I wish to make something work of this, however, and have this legislation sent into the Defense Committee for consideration and allow a formal study to be conducted by the Committee that Senator Oriel would be involved with.
Viceroy Titus Veritas, House Veritas
Consul of the House of Lords
Former Senator of Deralia and the Tammuz Sector (50 BBY - 30 BBY, 18 BBY - 10 BBY)
Former Chairman of the Imperial Senate Defense Committee (18 BBY - 10 BBY)
|
| |
| |
| Bernard_Oriel | Date: Thursday, 22 Sep 2011, 1:31 AM | Message # 24 |
|
Colonel general
Group: Users
Messages: 803
Status: Offline
| Senator Veritas,
You just admitted your committee was overworked, so logically you would support my bill to help devolve power down to local authorities to enforce this act.
I do not attack Corporations generally, I simply do not think allowing them complete latitude when it comes to "defensive ships" is okay. We allowed the Trade Federation considerable latitude on its defensive fleet, and how did that end up?
I must also encourage you to read the Capital Vessels Act II (as I have urged Senator Zarcaine) in more detail. This act substantially de-regulates the process as regards building, owning and operating a great number of ships for planets, frankly I do not understand why the planets would be "punished" at all, bear in mind clause 3. "Sales of capital-class ships may only be made to member worlds if they are considered defensive ships. ". The regulations imply the that requirement for enforcement is with the vendor, except in the case of super heavy turbolaser weapons.
It should be noted that Senator Veritas has always (and originally voted Against) Capital Vessels legislation, and now seems to be deliberately repeating his prejudice from before. He admits the previous act was "disasterously implemented", surely this has to be regarded as (at least partially) the fault of the Defense Committee rather than the legislation itself. This act aims to correct that and streamline enforcement.
Bernard Oriel
Senator for the Planet of Vjun
1st Earl Malreaux (Second Creation)
Vjun Delegation to the Imperial Senate
|
| |
| |
| Senator_Cambrist | Date: Thursday, 22 Sep 2011, 1:51 AM | Message # 25 |
 Lieutenant general
Group: Users
Messages: 761
Status: Offline
| Mr. Tavira it appears you have been misled on this measure, seemingly because of the factually inaccurate statements about it that the Senator of the Cronese Mandate has propagated; in fact, there is nothing in this bill, were it in effect today, that would prevent Onderon from marshaling a fleet ample for its own defense requiring no one's permission at all. I'm pleased to have clarified this for you (to his credit, it seems Senator Oriel has strenuously attempted to clarify this also, without success in the case of Senator Zarcaine who persists in error about what the bill does and doesn't do. I trust that you won't persist in error however, and that you'll educate your Queen and her constituents and put their peculiar concerns to rest).
However, I also have concerns about the measure that have evolved over time, although not in so foolish a direction as Representative Vanden's have. The measure's great benefit is its clarity, as it specifies more precisely than its predecessor what is subject to regulation and what isn't (I assume responsibility for a significant ambiguity in the original version with regard to "armed commerce vessels," and appreciate that Senator Oriel has clarified this). However, insofar as Clause 3 of the proposal limits the sale of capital ships, and Clause 3(b) requires planets (and presumably businesses and individuals also, as they too are subject to regulations under Clauses 9, 10 and 11) to assume the cost of compliance with this proposal, it variously disincentivizes both parties to the sale of a capital ship and threatens them with potentially draconian penalties for an offense as minor as one laser too many on a personal freighter, if I understand it correctly.
The economic impact of this could be significant, particularly to worlds like Sluis Van whose economy is dependent on its ship building industry. Considered in addition to other minor irritants to commerce such as, for example, the requirement in Clause 11 for gunners on armed commerce vessels to be licensed rather than having perhaps a more simple certification and an ability to demonstrate proficiency in the use of their weapons if/when called upon to do so, the Commerce Committee does have concerns.
The Committee doesn't oppose the measure by any means—indeed, the original version enjoyed the endorsement of the Commerce Committee and even bore my name. But since that time, measures have been passed that helped to mitigate many of the reasons that the Capital Vessels Act was so necessary. Political officers are now stationed aboard local ships to observe and, if necessary, to inhibit their conduct, and the Intra-Imperial Relations Act has been passed requiring the consent of the Empire for an Imperial world to wage war against another. Witnessing the apparent success of these measures has made me sympathetic to an approach to this issue that is less about limiting the possession of capital ships than limiting how those capital ships can be used, and when, and why, etc. It's inarguably a simpler approach, though I'm interested in Senator Oriel's thoughts on this before I come to a conclusion.
|
| |
| |
| Bernard_Oriel | Date: Thursday, 22 Sep 2011, 9:03 AM | Message # 26 |
|
Colonel general
Group: Users
Messages: 803
Status: Offline
| Senator,
Clause 3B was unfortunately not very clear and did not adequately explain the matter at large correctly. Clause 3B is intended to apply only to Claus 3A. Thus meaning "ships with excessive fighter compliments may be modified to be defensive ships". My intention with this is to clarify that the Lucrehulk-class and other vessels with massive fighter compliments. I have also clarified "excessive" to be redefined as 100 Fighters, this would seem a reasonable change I hope?
The penalties are not at all draconian, and the "Up to and including" should be noted in each section regarding penalties, this is intended to give the enforcers of the act latitude to punish according to the severity of the breach. An example of this would be in Ord Kingdom United's legal system, possession of "Class A Spice" may be punished with Up to and including 7 years incarceration and/or an unlimited fine, however the vast majority of cases result in only the imposition of a small fine or community sentence.
I have rewritten the part regarding Gunners on Armed Commerce vessels to simply require them to be trained to use the weapons onboard - unless Turbolasers are present in which case they must be licensed to operate them (as Turbolasers are extremely powerful and notoriously unpredictable weapons (especially if not well maintained)).
Sluis Van would likely benefit in a from this act as it will likely cause a boon in the production of newly legal "Armed Commerce Vessels" - I know many corporations have hesitated to arm merchantmen due to the current ambiguity in the previous Act, this act rectifies this. The Act also will allow for personal possession of much larger vessels (the CR70 for example) and I know that worlds such as Sluis Van, Druckenwell, Kuat and all shipyards will profit from the production of vessels suitable for personal ownership.
Frankly, I am very happy with the effects of the Political Officers Act, Intra-Imperial Relations Act etc. They have gone a very long way and help to reduce the threat from predatory worlds on one another. However, this Act is essentially not just to prevent responsible Imperial Worlds going to war with eachother. Remember the Battleship at Volus? There was a large rumour circulating that that illegal battleship might be stolen by rogue Starist elements.
Consider the threat to the commerce lanes such an immensely powerful battleship poses. While I have full confidence that the Imperial Fleet would quickly and efficiently hunt down such a vessel and make short work of it, there would likely still be huge tonnages of shipping lost, lives lost and businesses ruined. Equally, if such a rogue ship were to attack a lesser armed Imperial world it might be able to commit genocide before forces were able to respond to it's threat.
While we can restrict vessels to a very great extent, rogues may always slip through the net, and as such we need legislation which can A. Prevent them from having a dangerous weapon system at their disposal and B. Allow us to punish any such rogues efficiently and quickly.
Bernard Oriel
Senator for the Planet of Vjun
1st Earl Malreaux (Second Creation)
Vjun Delegation to the Imperial Senate
|
| |
| |
| LomenRyuun | Date: Thursday, 22 Sep 2011, 9:58 AM | Message # 27 |
 Lieutenant general
Group: Users
Messages: 696
Status: Offline
| My good and noble gentlebeings, calm yourselves, please! There is no need to get into a heated debate over this! Let me offer an alternative viewpoint of sorts, coming from one of the mentioned worlds that does indeed produce vessels.
Nobody here wants a repeat of the Clone Wars and indeed, perhaps there are those who would like to see warships scaled down, placed solely in Imperial hands or better regulated. My friends with that viewpoint, I applaud you. I sincerely do. For the rest of you though, let's not loose sight of the truth. The Empire is a mighty machine, working tirelessly night and day to safeguard our lives, to protect our freedoms and ensure that every one of us and our constituents is taken care of. In every machine though, there are tiny cracks, from the great Star Destroyer interiors to the smallest skyhopper. It is through these cracks that undesirables; pirates and Separatist Remnants or, as Senator Fitzgerald is likely to lump them in, slavers, who can and have and do possess weapons and relics from the Clone Wars; weapons with massive destructive power that still, after so many years, can burn a planet to ash.
My good and gracious friends, no sentient among us wants to see that happen. In a time like this, why, I would want my planetary fleet to be equipped with such terrible weapons as quad turbolaser cannons! I want a ship bristling with missiles and torpedoes and cannons to be able to rain down the righteous fire upon enemies of the Empire who would dare, I say, my friends, dare to have the gall to assault an Imperial world and, by the Emperor's grace, we can defend ourselves.
Gentlebeings, I want to see commerce vessels armed as heavily as possible. Every freighter we place a weapon on means one more weapon that can fire at pirates and eliminate a scourge. The bill states that armed commerce vessels and private yachts must have a limit on turbolasers and laser cannons, but I ask you, where is the sense in this? If I can mount one hundred quad laser cannons on my ship, would I not be more of a danger than someone with ten medium turbolasers?
No matter which side of the argument we take, there is far too fine a line. Instead, I would judge on a case-by-case basis; put the power in the hands of the corporations themselves. We trust names such as Kuat Drive Yards, Sluis Van Shipyards, CEC and even my own modest Druckenwell Shipyards to build vessels to help maintain the peace of the Empire. Set up an Imperial liaison or officer to oversee and check designs and craft if you must, but let us do what we do best: help the citizens of the Empire.
Lomen Ryuun
Senator, Doldur Sector
Senator, Druckenwell
Representative, Monor II (10 BBY - 9 BBY)
Representative, Geridard
Representative, Boranall
Representative, Therenor Prime
Vice-chairman, Defense Committee (Temporarily suspended)
Controlling Shareholder - Druckenwell Arms Corporation
|
| |
| |
| Bernard_Oriel | Date: Thursday, 22 Sep 2011, 11:01 AM | Message # 28 |
|
Colonel general
Group: Users
Messages: 803
Status: Offline
| Senator Ryuun,
To address you points.
- Commerce Vessels (under this act) have no limits on the number of weapons they may place on their vessel (so long as they are legitimate Commerce vessels). Commerce protection vessels do have their weapons limited as these are effectively "Corporate Warships" which pose a threat to society.
I would like to remind you that you did support the Capital Vessels Act I which was considerably more stringent on the regulation of vessels for planets and this act liberalizes that process meaning it is easier to arm your ships to a reasonable extent.
As for Quadlasers, yes I suppose if you did put a hundred quadlasers on a ship it would be a dangerous ship, the restriction on Turbolasers is to prevent Commerce Protection Vessels or Private Vessels from being a threat (as they are more likely to encounter piracy than Planetary Vessels) to planets themselves. Quadlasers, while they are efficient weapons lack the power output to cause anything like the same amount of damage to planets - You can't "glass" a planet efficiently with Quadlasers or Laser cannons.
My point is that should a corporation defect to a rebellious group (as has happened before in the Clone Wars and since), then it should not be an effective fighting machine to cause damage to the Empire. It should have the right to self-defense but not to attack. As for exceptions etc, this act invests Sector Government with the right to grant exceptions within a certain Sector. If a company is trusted, I am sure the Sector Governor in question would have no hesitation in granting such an exception for such a vessel.
However, we need to prevent huge corporate warships - The Lucrehulk-class Battleship, the Munificent-class Frigate etc from being equipped to wage war in such a matter. I do not wish to question any particular corporation, but we all know some are more loyal than others, and the less loyal corporations are the ones which concern me.Added (22 Sep 2011, 12:01 PM)
---------------------------------------------
Also, I would like it to be noted that there are no restrictions on Ion Cannons. Turbolasers, Lasers Etc may be restricted on certain grades of vessel because they are fundamentally aggressive weapons with the intent to destroy.
Ion cannons are weapons intended to immobilize vessels and are not aggressive in the same way, as such there is no restriction.
Bernard Oriel
Senator for the Planet of Vjun
1st Earl Malreaux (Second Creation)
Vjun Delegation to the Imperial Senate
Message edited by Bernard_Oriel - Thursday, 22 Sep 2011, 10:58 AM |
| |
| |
| Verence_Terrawin | Date: Thursday, 22 Sep 2011, 1:31 PM | Message # 29 |
 Major general
Group: Users
Messages: 285
Status: Offline
| I am convinced by the strenuous attempts Senator Oriel has made to accomodate those of all political persuasions. I am also convinced that Senator Zarcaine's agenda of rolling back legislation which protects member worlds is one which needs to be stopped. I draw that line in the sand now and Vote in Favour.
I am curious Senator Zarcaine, what regulation of Capital ships would you approve of?
Verence Terrawin
Senator of Alsakan
First Lord of the Foreign Office, Alsakan
|
| |
| |
| Slai-Fon | Date: Thursday, 22 Sep 2011, 3:06 PM | Message # 30 |
|
Colonel
Group: Users
Messages: 160
Status: Offline
| After re-reading this bill, A few things have come to my concern, Senator Oriel.. Mainly the economy of planets, such as mining planets. Like my home planet, Anobis. Would we see an increase, or decrease in revenue in such planets? I have received a list of planet's Anobis ships to, and on the list is. Sluis Van, Drunkenwell, and many others. I also fear for their economy, mainly due to the fact that they are ship producers, and other things that require ore, metal and what not. Of course with the new Legal ships, a few other planet's might order them, but if the demand for ore only found on our planet is in high demand, we'd have to rise the prices on that Ore, Metal, or whatever it is that is in high demand, ultimately causing other planet's to spend more of their funds. Just something that came to my mind.
Slai-Fon Youngblood, Senator of Anobis, and the Bright Jewel sector
Chairman of ISEC (Imperial Senate Ethic's Committee.)
Chairman & CEO of K/Y deep.
|
| |
| |
|
