|
The Capital Vessels Act II
| |
| Bernard_Oriel | Date: Thursday, 22 Sep 2011, 3:18 PM | Message # 31 |
 Colonel general
Group: Users
Messages: 803
Status: Offline
| This act will stimulate ship production as it is an act of deregulation and does not increase regulation in any manner as regards the major markets of these ships. This Act will increase the ease with which ships might equip their vessels, so increasing production and so stimulating your economy.
The major markets for large vessels are:
Sales to the Empire - Uneffected by this act at all.
Sales to Planets - Sales to planets will be stimulated.
Sales to Corporations of the vast majority of ships - Not effected.
The words Senator Zarcaine has expressed to the contrary are simply not true in any way shape or form.
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, 3:18 PM |
| |
| |
| Toben-Domon | Date: Saturday, 24 Sep 2011, 8:25 AM | Message # 32 |
 Major general
Group: Users
Messages: 347
Status: Offline
| I support this act, Senator Oriel. It seems to be well thought out and at this time, I have no objections. Sluis Van is in favor.
Toben Domon
Senator, Sluis Van
|
| |
| |
| Tremaine_Fowlkes | Date: Saturday, 24 Sep 2011, 11:57 AM | Message # 33 |
 Colonel general
Group: Users
Messages: 881
Status: Offline
| Senator Oriel,
I am certainly your intentions behind this bill are well, I have pretty much the same concerns as Senator Youngblood. The bill may impacts on planetary economy. It would impact not only a type of world, but also a particular region of the galaxy. For example, Imperial Center may be able to make up the losses that's going to be suffered from this bill, but a world like mine, Telos IV, it is a world in the Outer Rim. Most of the worlds in the Outer Rim are suffering simply from Imperial taxes, and you would want to impose further economic suffering to several worlds? I have read this bill and I am not certain a lot of regulations are necessary.
Tremaine Fowlkes
Senator of Telos IV
|
| |
| |
| Bernard_Oriel | Date: Saturday, 24 Sep 2011, 12:18 PM | Message # 34 |
|
Colonel general
Group: Users
Messages: 803
Status: Offline
| May I direct you to the reply I made to Senator Youngblood..
Senator Fowlkes, I must urge you to read the bill. This bill has 0 economic impact on worlds. If anything this will stimulate growth. It is an act of deregulation not constraint on the economy. Your world, and other outer rim worlds will profit from this act as likely as not.
Bernard Oriel
Senator for the Planet of Vjun
1st Earl Malreaux (Second Creation)
Vjun Delegation to the Imperial Senate
Message edited by Bernard_Oriel - Saturday, 24 Sep 2011, 12:19 PM |
| |
| |
| Senator_Cambrist | Date: Saturday, 24 Sep 2011, 1:29 PM | Message # 35 |
 Lieutenant general
Group: Users
Messages: 761
Status: Offline
| I'm hesitant to predict anything more than a marginal stimulative effect to the starship industry, if any, as a consequence of this measure, but Senator Oriel's point is well-taken that there's unlikely to be any significant harm to this industry beyond the sort of short term harm resulting from regulatory uncertainty that's to be expected upon the passage of a major regulations bill (the Commerce Committee will of course do its part in explaining to businesses the regulatory changes, assuming passage of the bill). But I'm not sure it's correct to refer to the bill in its entirety as "deregulatory" considering the preponderance of regulations on commercial ships (and "commercial protection ships") being introduced in this bill. While these regulations aren't particularly onerous, I do question the necessity of them considering that the bill also requires registration and regular inspection of vessels and presumably it's at this local level that the loadout of such vessels can be more practically regulated.
But at this point, aside from perhaps a philosophical difference of approach on this issue, I only object semantically to "commerce protection ships" being specified as intended only to protect convoys—when, for example, foundries in secluded areas can require full time protection from pirates and raiders. On this particular point I think the bill could do to be rather more broad.
|
| |
| |
| Bernard_Oriel | Date: Saturday, 24 Sep 2011, 1:39 PM | Message # 36 |
|
Colonel general
Group: Users
Messages: 803
Status: Offline
| Senator Cambrist - the last time we allowed companies complete latitude with regards to arming their vessels we had first an invasion of Naboo, then we had a galaxywide conflict where it was these corporate fleets which strengthened the Separatists to the point of being able to field large armadas. This act prevents that while not making onerous regulations or risking lives and ships.
I would be happy to support an alternative system for the enforcement of Corporate fleets in the future, however I believe that in the meantime this Act provides a good and strong regulatory framework which is fair to all parts of the Empire and protects all parts of the Empire. As for the point regarding convoys, please refer to Article 14 of the Capital Ships Act.
"14. Notes on Hyperdrives
Planetary Governments or Corporate concerns may possess a vessel of unlimited tonnage and armourments so long as they are not hyperspace mobile.
These vessels must still be licensed by the Government of the System which they operate from (or equivalent in the case of deep space) if they are Corporate vessels)."
Static positions such as those you mention can be protected with vessels with no Hyperdrive. However I have modified Commerce Protection Vessels to allow for them to be used to protect other positions.
Bernard Oriel
Senator for the Planet of Vjun
1st Earl Malreaux (Second Creation)
Vjun Delegation to the Imperial Senate
|
| |
| |
| Senator_Cambrist | Date: Saturday, 24 Sep 2011, 1:47 PM | Message # 37 |
|
Lieutenant general
Group: Users
Messages: 761
Status: Offline
| You'll find that the argument you attribute to me ("companies should be allowed complete latitude with regard to arming their vessels") is not an argument I made, nor would I. As for Article 14, surely the Senator doesn't suggest that a vessel with no hyperdrive is best to defend a secluded trading outpost or multiple such outposts spread over a broad astrographic area. Pirates who may wish to raid these outposts do not consider themselves subject to any such regulations on their hyperdrives, and it seems eminently unfair to impose this disadvantage upon commercial protection ships (or else require companies to assume the financial burden of additional ships to defend a larger area—additional ships being something the bill, as I understand it, seeks to avoid).
|
| |
| |
| Bernard_Oriel | Date: Saturday, 24 Sep 2011, 1:50 PM | Message # 38 |
|
Colonel general
Group: Users
Messages: 803
Status: Offline
| Senator Cambrist
As I say, I have amended the act to allow commerce protection ships more latitude for their approval (including for defense of things other than convoys in their mandate). There is no reason however that companies might not maintain a selection of non-hyperspace capable monitors to defend distant outposts which can be effectively paired with hyperspace capable vessels.
Also, these companies might possess as many smaller patrol boats and fighters as they wish to help combat pirates..
Bernard Oriel
Senator for the Planet of Vjun
1st Earl Malreaux (Second Creation)
Vjun Delegation to the Imperial Senate
Message edited by Bernard_Oriel - Saturday, 24 Sep 2011, 1:52 PM |
| |
| |
| Senator_Cambrist | Date: Saturday, 24 Sep 2011, 9:12 PM | Message # 39 |
|
Lieutenant general
Group: Users
Messages: 761
Status: Offline
| Your amendment is satisfactory to me, Senator. I vote in in favor. It must be clarified however that there is a vocal constituency on the Commerce Committee that feels that Clause 9 and Clause 10 represent an excessive regulatory burden on commercial enterprise and as a result of this, the Commerce Committee withholds its endorsement of the bill. It does not oppose the bill, however. And nor do I.
|
| |
| |
| Tremaine_Fowlkes | Date: Sunday, 25 Sep 2011, 3:27 AM | Message # 40 |
|
Colonel general
Group: Users
Messages: 881
Status: Offline
| After all the points by Senator Oriel has been made, I feel it's safe for Telos IV to vote in favor.
Tremaine Fowlkes
Senator of Telos IV
|
| |
| |
| LomenRyuun | Date: Sunday, 25 Sep 2011, 6:21 AM | Message # 41 |
 Lieutenant general
Group: Users
Messages: 696
Status: Offline
| Senator Oriel, a round of applause is due to you. For the time being at least, Druckenwell votes in favor.
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: Tuesday, 27 Sep 2011, 10:43 AM | Message # 42 |
|
Colonel general
Group: Users
Messages: 803
Status: Offline
| Thank you very much to the Senators who have voted in support of this Act. I would like to petition the Chair to close the vote as there have been two days with no debate on the Act.
It is critical that the Empire has a strong and operative code to regulate the Capital Vessels of our Galaxy. In the past the Republic failed to do this, and the end result was the Clone Wars, now we are able to move forward with legislation which protects the rights of worlds and companies without threatening the people of the Empire.
This is not legislation I would like to see being set in stone or inflexible, I would like to move forward with further legislation to protect the people of the Empire to help regulate all areas sufficiently (without pressuring Private industry) so that we might have a safe and secure Galaxy for everyone. This bill has had its detractors, but I hope when this bill passes (if it passes) its successful enforcement and efficiency of power being delegated down to smaller institutions might help with you around.
There is much work to do in the service of the Empire, and I am glad to say I have worked with great input from a broad spectrum of the Senate - coming together to do something right which our children will remember as a good step in securing the Empire and its worlds and people for the years to come.
As I have stated before, all of you who have voted in favour have voted in favour of economic benefits, in favour of freedom, in favour of justice and equality, in favour of planetary rights, in favour of corporate rights, in favour of every being in this Empire. Gentlemen and women, I am honoured to be in the presence of those who have worked hard to contribute to and support this act - and to the wider Senate generally for helping scrutinize this important piece of legislation.
Bernard Oriel
Senator for the Planet of Vjun
1st Earl Malreaux (Second Creation)
Vjun Delegation to the Imperial Senate
|
| |
| |
| Eli_Fitzgerald | Date: Tuesday, 27 Sep 2011, 1:31 PM | Message # 43 |
 Major general
Group: Users
Messages: 355
Status: Offline
| There's an old saying on Corellia—"the road to hell is paved with good intentions." That's what we're seeing here, or not seeing for those of you who are voting to surrender to the Empire the right of the people to self-defense and self-determination. That's what this is a vote for; not for "planetary rights" but rather for planetary rights abridged, and not for "economic prosperity" but rather for prosperity curtailed.
Senators, consider that any Imperial regulation is a rule about what the people can and can't do, and what rights they have or don't have. Shame on those who oppose any and all regulations, or do so out of self interest. But it is required of the person who proposes a regulation to demonstrate that it is truly necessary that the people do "A" or not do "B" before we, the people's representatives, deny them the right to do so. This is serious business, and Senators, despite the good intentions of Senator Oriel I don't feel that he's demonstrated the necessity of this bill or acknowledged its severity, to himself or to you.
I don't accept that this bill is "deregulatory" when it imposes new regulations on new categories of ships, namely commercial ships. A truly "deregulatory" bill would repeal the Capital Vessels Act, not expand upon it as this bill does. Nor do I accept that regulating what ships a planet or a business can and can't have will in any way help it to defend itself. Yes, the fact that criminals will ignore a law is no reason not to pass laws, but it is a reason to not pass laws that will leave planets vulnerable to criminals, pirates, Separatists, and so on.
With no disrespect to Senator Oriel, who I've spoken to on this measure and who has been accommodating to me and to other Senators, I'm not sure he understands the imperatives of planetary defense as the Senator of a world with a permanent Imperial presence who has admitted in the past that Vjun's fleet is merely "ceremonial," or symbolic. But there's nothing symbolic about planetary defense to planets like Dantooine or Anobis, or to hard working people who labor for trading companies in the farthest reaches of the galaxy, facing down the threat of pirates in order to provide for their families. The Empire will always be there to protect Vjun, but sometimes the Empire is a long way from the Outer Rim, Senator.
And there's nothing "ceremonial" about the defense fleets of, say, Sluis Van or Druckenwell, both of which would be considered illegal under these regulations. The fact that the Senators of both Sluis Van and Druckenwell have supported this bill against their own interests demonstrates, I think, that there is a poor understanding of what it does and doesn't do and I urge them and other Senators to reconsider.
Senator Oriel has admitted that his original bill, which once commanded his vigorous support, is inadequate and needs to be changed. But more of the same thing will not solve the problem, or won't solve it for long—what's needed is a repeal of the Capital Vessels Act and an actually new approach to the issue. For this and the above reasons I vote against this bill. Let's slow down here, and not be blinded by good intentions, Senators.
Eli Fitzgerald
Senator of Ralltiir (10 BBY—Present)
"I was elected to do some flamethrowing in the Senate. To a light a fire under those Senators and make it hot for them."
Message edited by Eli_Fitzgerald - Tuesday, 27 Sep 2011, 1:48 PM |
| |
| |
| Nasir | Date: Tuesday, 27 Sep 2011, 1:58 PM | Message # 44 |
 Sergeant
Group: Users
Messages: 25
Status: Offline
| Do you have something better in mind, Senator Fitzgerald? I see your point about labor planet's.
I will vote against this for now, until we can figure out something satisfactory for all of us.
Emir(Governor) Nasir Baqri of Abregado San
|
| |
| |
| Ilanah_Thanatos | Date: Tuesday, 27 Sep 2011, 2:58 PM | Message # 45 |
 Colonel general
Group: Users
Messages: 891
Status: Offline
| Senator Fitzgerald makes several good points that I had not previously thought of. The bill itself was, in fact, dazzling and he removed the glamor to show the raw, unadulterated facts.
That being said, Chandrila changes her vote to against. I would be curious, however, as to what suggestions Senator Fitzgerald has in place of this bill.
Ilanah R. Thanatos
Senator of Chandrila
|
| |
| |
|
