The Removal of Separatist Vessels Act

Alyn_Stark

Date: Thursday, 16 Aug 2012, 11:24 AM | Message # 16

Generalissimo

Group: Users

Messages: 1359

Awards: 2

Reputation: 1

Status: Offline

I find it hardly to be privileged information, Mr. Verilia, and after your statement, I called up the official records of the Corporate Sector Authority and I see that they field two operable Separatist vessels. I hardly think that to be any major information and if there are any criminal elements in the Corporate Sector, I'm sure they have their own means of finding out. Whether or not you or the Direx Board finds it disturbing is not my issue; it is relevant facts that are at hand.

Now, according to the purposes of this act, a Separatist vessel is to be defined as a vessel that was produced during the Clone Wars by Separatist elements for the use during the Clone Wars against the Republic. Part of that is covered in what you just stated, 'former Confederacy vessels.' If such vessels were of design and make and utilized against the Republic during the Clone Wars, then there is no reason any planetary or sector defense force need use them, especially with the act covering replacement of those vessels. I find that Acclamator and Venator-class vessels are quite cost-effective replacements for outdated Separatist vessels.

Alyn Stark
Lord of Kinyov
Senior Captain, Retired, Republic Navy
Head of House Malos (former)
Licensed bounty hunter
Majority shareholder, Lorrd Engineering
Owner, Stark Defense Conglomerate
Civilian Medal of Honor recipient
Representative, Lorrd (10 BBY-9 BBY)

LomenRyuun

Date: Thursday, 16 Aug 2012, 11:38 AM | Message # 17

Lieutenant general

Group: Users

Messages: 696

Awards: 1

Reputation: 1

Status: Offline

Speaking as the voice of moderation here, Representative Stark, I can see where certain worlds or factions would be decidedly wary about handing over defensive elements of their fleets without guaranteed replacement. However, the stipulations you've set forth in the act make sense and I see no issue in the swapping of vessels, especially with discounts available. I see no true issues here to disapprove of and I do believe in the modernization of fleets. As such, Druckenwell is 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

Message edited by LomenRyuun - Thursday, 16 Aug 2012, 11:39 AM

Darres_Verilia

Date: Thursday, 16 Aug 2012, 1:39 PM | Message # 18

Lieutenant colonel

Group: Users

Messages: 144

Awards: 0

Reputation: -1

Status: Offline

Mr. Stark, I do not know where you got this "Official Record" as no "Official Record" CSA vessels are made to the public. Now you may find that Acclamator and Venator vessels are cost effective, the Corporate Sector has already proven that these former Confederacy vessels are two to three times more cost effective to maintain due to their modular construction and little need for massive crews. These vessels are more cost effective to the Corporate Sector than those that you believe.

Quote (Alyn_Stark)

a Separatist vessel is to be defined as a vessel that was produced during the Clone Wars by Separatist elements for the use during the Clone Wars against the Republic. Part of that is covered in what you just stated, 'former Confederacy vessels.' If such vessels were of design and make and utilized against the Republic during the Clone Wars,

The definition Mr. Stark is a blanket definition, it leaves it open for abuse, as the list of your "approved" vessels dose nothing to help. According to this definition, any vessel that was constructed by the Confederacy, or worlds under the influence of the Confederacy during the Clone Wars should be banned according to this Act. For the moment the Direx Board has nothing more to add, however, they will seek legal action should this Act compromise the safety and security of the Corporate Sector.

Darres Verilia
Baron of the Empire
Moff of the Cadavine Sector (Retired)

Senator_Ordan

Date: Thursday, 16 Aug 2012, 1:47 PM | Message # 19

Lieutenant general

Group: Users

Messages: 633

Awards: 0

Reputation: 1

Status: Offline

Senators,

Compelling worlds to dismantle ships (many that they may have won in hard fought battles against the Confederacy) is not the way forward. I will not support this act unless the provisions forcing worlds to do so are removed; I will though support legislation that "strongly urges" worlds to dismantle such vessels as soon as it is practicable.

The Lucrehulk-class vessel has been used by my own world on a temporary-lease basis as a movable storage facility, it's probably classed as a Separatist vessel (it was the spaceframe for their most potent ship of the line, but it was produced before, during and since the Clone Wars, would it qualify?

The enforcement timetable is completely unworkable, I've had dinner with Senator Oriel and I'm sure he will echo this point: the enforcement of changes to Planetary fleets that require them to purchase replacements must have an extended "grace period" during which they are able to tender for and order vessels, then give them time to be produced etc. I would propose then that Article I be amended to one year instead of one month, with Sector Governors able to grant extensions in exceptional circumstances.

Quote (Alyn_Stark)

forty-percent will be returned to the planetary government

What is the logic of this article? Why a blanket 40%? Surely a world which fought and bled to capture Separatist vessels are more deserving of retaining them in their inventory than a world that may have inherited them as a supporter of the CIS. What about the worlds that purchased these vessels when purchased when the Empire captured them as prizes; why should they then be slapped in the face for purchasing vessels from the Empire and thus supporting it?

Quote (Alyn_Stark)

Article IV-

Exceptions to the above law will be as follows:

CR90 Corvette
Trandoshan dropships
Sheathipede-class transport shuttle
Z-95 Headhunter
NovaSword Space Superiority Fighter
Porax-38 Starfighter

This section is objectionable in that it arbitrarily permits a completely random selection of vessels. Did the producers pay you off? I ask not as an insult but merely because I cannot see why if you seek to ban all designs used by the Separatists that you would exempt such a random selection of ships they used. Perhaps they're just vessels you happen to own?

I would require it to render to the Defense Committee the task of producing a list of vessels which are suitable for an exemption.

Quote (Alyn_Stark)

'Separatist vessels' shall be defined as ships manufactured by Separatist elements for use against the Republic during the Clone Wars.

Why? I can see the point in confiscating them from former Separatists but I think those who were good patriots should not be stripped of the rewards providence has granted them... Also, simply stating that those produced within the Clone Wars is not at all adequate to assure a thorough prohibition. The Trade Federation, Banking Clan, Techno Union etc had produced a massive fleet before the Clone Wars, these vessels are by the logic of your act exempted: this is illogical if you wish to take these ships off the market. Equally, there's nothing preventing the production of vessels in these classes today.

Finally.

"planets which have remanded their Separatist vessels to the Empire will receive a twenty-percent discount on the next two vessels they decide to purchase to boost their defense fleets"

Who pays for your 20% discount? The Empire? Why should the Empire pay money to produce vessels for worlds which may well be former Confederates..

Alternatively you would have the shipyards be forced to bail out worlds? This Act has the potential to bankrupt almost every small to medium shipyard in the Empire if that is the case, there are a million systems in the Empire, if even a fraction of this sold vessels and sought to re-purchase via this (frankly amazing) deal then you'd have the majority of small shipwrights going bust. Producing ships is a competitive industry, profit margins are often low (especially in Governmental contracts - and rightly so), to force shipyards to produce ships for a loss would bankrupt many.

Senator Hubert Ordan
__________________________

Senator of the Azure Sector
Foreign Minister of Anaxes
Captain-General of the Azure Interest Protection Squadron
Deputy Chairman of the Ethics Committee
Worshipful Master of the Most Loyal and Honourable Company of Blockadeers
Archtreasurer of the Vault of Pols Anaxes
Autocrat of Selgon
Owner of Azure Durasteel
Systems Admiral (Ret)
Order of the Canted Circle

Alyn_Stark

Date: Thursday, 16 Aug 2012, 6:34 PM | Message # 20

Generalissimo

Group: Users

Messages: 1359

Awards: 2

Reputation: 1

Status: Offline

You brought up some very valid points, Senator Ordan, and I moved to correct them.

First, the month's time has been amended to a year, with a maximum of eighteen months granted by a sector governor.

Secondly, of any returns made, ninety-percent will be given back to planetary governments. As well, the twenty-percent discount has been reduced to five percent. You will find that the ten percent retained by shipyards for the destruction of the Separatist vessels will make up for the loss of five percent profits from the discount granted to planetary governments. As such, there is no real loss. With more products being sold, the monetary gains actually increase as more worlds purchase products.

The vessels of these classes, whether gained by victorious armies or by past Separatists, need to be removed from galactic use. It doesn't matter how they were gained, but being old, outdated reminders of a terrible time, much less ships for which parts are not widely manufactured, largely by common agreement, it is impractical for any government to maintain or utilize them.

I am willing to allow the Defense Committee the option to compile a list of vessels, but by and large, that list covers the broad spectrum of small vessels; the largest being the widely-used CR90, that are mainstays for so many planetary defense forces. This act was intended largely to remove the capital vessels of Separatist make. If necessary, I will alter the list to cover those specific vessels.

Eli_Fitzgerald

Date: Saturday, 18 Aug 2012, 10:28 PM | Message # 21

Major general

Group: Users

Messages: 355

Awards: 1

Reputation: 6

Status: Offline

The extension of the time-table is more reasonable, but still I ask, what's the point? I'm not aware of any worlds that use these ships because of the Separatist symbolism. The fact is, these ships were mass-produced during the war and today, they're cheap. Many planets aren't as wealthy as Lorrd. It's wrong to deprive them of the only ships they can reasonably afford. Even if you reimburse them 90% of the proceeds from the re-sale of these ships or ship components—who could the ships be re-sold to if they're illegal?—the sale of used, decade-old parts isn't going to be enough to replace the ships you're proposing to take away. It isn't cheap to dismantle these ships, either—the Empire would be out a lot of money if it reimbursed worlds 90% of the already-thin proceeds.

Having Separatist ships out of sight and out of mind isn't worth this tangled web of bureaucracy. The wounds of the Clone Wars aren't just in the sky, they're in all of us. We should learn to live with them instead of pretending they aren't there. I vote against.

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."

Artemis_Vanden

Date: Sunday, 19 Aug 2012, 7:50 PM | Message # 22

Major general

Group: Users

Messages: 302

Awards: 0

Reputation: 2

Status: Offline

Rarely do I agree with Senator Ordan, but I do in this instance, and Senator Fitzgerald, too. This bill imposes too much hardship on poorer worlds or, alternatively, on the Empire if it assumes all the cost itself. I'm also loathe to support a bill that will result in more money for the merchants of death who want nothing more than to inundate the market with the latest-generation doomships. How convenient it would be for them to remove the last-generation ships from the market and create demand for the new product.

Artemis Vanden
Representative of the Naboo

Alyn_Stark

Date: Thursday, 23 Aug 2012, 11:55 AM | Message # 23

Generalissimo

Group: Users

Messages: 1359

Awards: 2

Reputation: 1

Status: Offline

If this bill is seen as too onerous, then at the very least can we expect planetary fleets that utilize such ships as the Munificent-class or Lucrehulk-class to abide by the rules and regulations set forth by The Capital Vessels Act II? After all, the Munificent, unless modified, still sports the prow heavy turbolaser cannons and the Lucrehulk possesses a multitude of quad turbolaser cannons.

Senator_Cambrist

Date: Thursday, 23 Aug 2012, 4:41 PM | Message # 24

Lieutenant general

Group: Users

Messages: 761

Awards: 6

Reputation: -5

Status: Offline

I concur with Senator Ordan's criticisms of the bill. I also concede that it was an error on my part to propose the complete repeal of the Capital Vessels Acts. As Senator Stark has pointed out, and as I myself remembered upon re-reading Senator Oriel's signature bills, there are useful provisions of these Acts and, if re-proposed, I'd vote for them. But this should be done outside the context of this current measure, which I vote against.