Posts made by Angleter
RE: Membership Applications
Nation Name in RP (full, with short name bolded): The Federal Republic of Louranie (Répullen Lüre)
Nation Name on NS (short): Louranie
Puppet (if so, of whom?): N/A
Map plot requested: 45
Capital city: Braighton
Currency: Lourane Dill
National language(s): English, Louran (Véllàpot)
Head of State (Title + Mr/Ms/Mx* + name in bold): President Mr. Salvador L. Brangen
Head of Government (Title + Mr/Ms/Mx* + name in bold): President Mr. Salvador L. Brangen
Governing party: Conservative Party
European Councillor (Mr/Ms/Mx* + name in bold): Mr. Lapoid P. Höffel
Political group (if any): N.A.
Player history on NationStates: https://www.nationstates.net/n...
My country accepts the Constitution of the European Union (Y/N): Y
Added and welcome! Sorry for the delay.
RE: Membership Applications
@Amrasia Hi there! Sorry about the delay. I'm afraid plot 10 is already taken at the moment. Check the spreadsheet to find an empty plot that you can take.Very well, I’ll take plot 42 instead.
Added, and welcome!
RE: The National Observer
Tuesday, 3rd April, 2018
Article by Marissa Varvaris
Montenbourg FM Comments Spark Fury
Montenbourg Foreign Minister Elizabeth McCord
The Foreign Minister, Mary d’Ivry, has led rebuttals to what politicians across Angleter have considered strong criticism from Montenbourg’s newly-appointed Foreign Minister, Elizabeth McCord.
Dr McCord called an impromptu press conference, billed as ‘following the declarations of Angleter’, last night, within hours of the Apostolic Crown’s announcement that the Refugee Protection Act would not impinge upon Angleter’s existing policy of deporting Kaasian migrants to Coalition-controlled parts of Dromund Kaas.
During a lengthy Q&A session, Dr McCord tore into “some European countries” for their immigration policies, which she denounced as “anti-Muslim”, “anti-LGBT”, and (repeatedly) “racist”. She alleged that these policies were “doing us enormous harm all over the world,” argued that the Refugee Protection Act requires nations to accept Kaasian refugees who are children or ‘minorities’, and demanded that other EU nations should offer healthcare and education to illegal immigrants.
Angleteric politicians have widely taken these remarks as being targeted at Angleter, and have responded with near-unanimous outrage. Mary d’Ivry issued a statement outlining the Apostolic Crown’s reaction:
“I am deeply disappointed by the words of the Montenbourg Foreign Minister, which were quite clearly aimed at, and responding to, the Apostolic Crown and its immigration policy.”
“For a country’s top diplomat, in one of their first public statements in the job, to launch such an extraordinary barrage of unfounded public accusations against Angleter strongly suggests that they are just not interested in having good relations with Angleter. I had hoped to work constructively with Dr McCord, as with all European diplomats, but it appears that Dr McCord has decided that that is not possible.”
“I would not wish to comment on Dr McCord’s motivations, but Angleter has no interest in bowing and scraping to gain the approval of her or anybody else. Though it should hardly need saying, Angleter is not a ‘racist’, ‘anti-Muslim’, or ‘anti-LGBT’ country, and we are proud to be home to people of a wide range of ethnic origins, religions, and sexual orientations.”
The Citizen Alliance issued its own strongly-worded statement, blasting both Dr McCord and the SDP for allegedly reducing Angleter’s global status. The party’s leader, Emryc Isla, said: “Montenbourg’s Foreign Minister has slammed the SDP’s weak immigration policy as ‘racist’. This accusation is as outrageous as it is ludicrous, and it really shows the extremism of the European open-borders left.”
Isla continued by calling for stronger action against Montenbourg: “The SDP have repeatedly failed to stand up for this country, to the extent that we are not only losing crucial votes in Europolis, but also getting slandered by smaller countries. This wouldn’t have happened even in 2015. A Citizen Alliance Government will make clear to Dr McCord that you have to respect Angleter to get all that Angleter contributes – our trade, our budget contributions, our military and intelligence activity, our refugee camps in Dromund Kaas, and so on.”
The Democrats, despite being the Official Opposition, have failed to provide an official reaction thus far, as the party descends into yet another bout of internal turmoil. Party insiders have told The National Observer that leader Sue Fareham’s office has thus far been unable to agree on a statement with wording that will satisfy both the party’s conservative and liberal wings. Mrs Fareham has also been embroiled in a Twitter spat over her comparison of Judith Gibbon to a Conference pear, which some social media users have denounced as ‘sexist’ and ‘disrespectful’.
Even the Coalition for Socialism and Liberation has lashed out at Dr McCord, despite its staunchly pro-refugee stance. The party’s International Liberation Spokesperson, Malia Monroe, commented that: “though we agree with Dr McCord’s analysis of the racist, queerphobic, and Catholic supremacist nature of Angleter’s immigration policy – it is important to add that this policy is also misogynistic and reflects the oppressive power structure underpinning all of Angleteric society – in the spirit of true internationalism, let us remind her of the privilege in her own world and her own country.”
“Dr McCord represents a country which she claims is not defined by ‘ethnicity’, ‘names’, or ‘lineage’, but which has a hereditary monarchy and nobility – the most transparent case of privilege based on ethnicity, name, and lineage. She represents a conservative government, and has expressly spoken about defending a ‘global era’ of neoliberalism. She worked for several years for the MCIA.”
“Real liberation is not about white feminism. It is not about colluding with liberals who allow you into their spaces. It is not about being a ‘moderate’ member of the police or intelligence forces who prop up the state. It is about shutting up and listening; letting communities take the lead in their liberation from the racist cisheteropatriarchal social structures that dominate Europe; and accepting that liberation is incompatible with neoliberal capitalism.”
“That’s what we’re doing in Angleter and we don’t need Dr McCord from the MCIA to help us. Her interventions will only fuel the bigoted forces who rule this country.”
When Nigel Martin, the Citizen Alliance MP for Hotspring who is organising protests later this week against Dr McCord and in favour of keeping Kaasian refugees out, was asked if his party was among those 'bigoted forces', he rejected the CSL's accusations. "We're not bigoted, and we certainly don't rule this country! The Citizen Alliance has always been all about citizens coming together to defend the Angleter they love. We're meeting this week, in Hotspring, New Birmingham, and across the country in cross-party protests to remind our leaders and EU leaders that we're a sovereign nation. We just want an immigration policy that is sensible, rational, and centred around protecting Angleter's security, economy, and character. We don't want an open-door policy that's gullible and led by emotion."
RE: Angleter - Office of the Apostolic Crown
The Home Affairs Office of the Apostolic Crown would like to reiterate its position that the liberated parts of Dromund Kaas, controlled by Angleteric, Duxburian, or other Coalition of the Willing forces, are safe areas. Anyone who travels from Dromund Kaas to Angleter to claim asylum or refugee status here will, in normal circumstances, be deported to those liberated areas in accordance with Angleter's existing immigration policy. To further reiterate: the passage of the 'Refugee Protection Act' by the European Council, or the Apostolic Crown's compliance with that Act, does not increase the chances of Kaasian nationals successfully claiming asylum in Angleter, and rumours to the contrary are wholly unfounded. Be aware that the Apostolic Crown will protect the integrity of its borders.
The Rt Hon Lynn Montague
Minister for Immigration
RE: The National Observer
Monday, 2nd April, 2018
Article by Marissa Varvaris
Embattled Courtenay Fires Gibbon Over Refugee Act
Former European Councillor Judith Gibbon
Angleter’s European Councillor, Judith Gibbon, has been fired this weekend in the wake of the passage of the Refugee Protection Act, which passed on Maundy Thursday by a 3-2 margin.
Though then-Cllr Gibbon voted against the Act, giving a short explanation of her vote before casting it, she came under sustained criticism from all the main parties for allegedly failing to do enough to prevent its passage. Both main opposition parties called for her resignation or dismissal, arguing that she should have rallied allies against the Act and made a greater contribution to the debate.
The Apostolic Crown’s response to the Act’s passage has been slow, due to the virtual shutdown of the public sector on Good Friday and over the Easter weekend, but Ms Gibbon is reported to have been dismissed by Prime Minister Sam Courtenay on Saturday afternoon, with her replacement due to be announced tomorrow.
The Apostolic Crown also issued a brief statement stressing that the Act’s passage would not influence Angleter’s long-standing policy of rejecting any and all people who claim refugee status in Angleter after crossing from liberated areas of Dromund Kaas. Any such people will, according to the Apostolic Crown, continue to be deported back to refugee camps in liberated parts of Dromund Kaas.
Emryc Isla and the Citizen Alliance have capitalised on the passage of the Act, arguing that it will ‘inevitably’ lead to large numbers of Kaasians attempting to force their way into Angleter to claim refugee status, and arguing that deportation back to the war-torn country is illegal under the Act’s ‘expansive’ definition of what counts as an inappropriate destination for deportees.
“This Act is a blank cheque to Kaasian migrants,” Isla told The National Observer on an impromptu campaign stop in the eastern province of Fronteria. “The right to come to Angleter en masse and a path to citizenship. Sam Courtenay and Judith Gibbon have signed our eastern border away. Why? Because they just don’t care about it. For three years me and my colleagues in the Citizen Alliance have tried our absolute hardest to stop the SDP opening up the borders, but there’s no accounting for the sheer negligence of a Courtenay appointee in far-off Europolis.”
Isla continued: “The choice is clear; it’s all or nothing. Either we have a Citizen Alliance government that will repeal the Act by any means necessary, or we no longer have a border. And if it’s the latter, can we say that Fronteria will still be Angleteric in ten years’ time? No, I don’t think we can.”
The Democrats have been similarly vociferous in their opposition, with leader Sue Fareham blasting the decision to appoint Ms Gibbon in a press release: “We called it. Judith Gibbon turned out to be all bark and no bite, and Angleter has lost out as a result.”
“Gisela Stuart wouldn’t have lost this vote,” the Democrat leader continued. “A Conference pear wouldn’t have lost this vote. Sam Courtenay and his appeasers in the Citizen Alliance cannot be trusted to defend this country’s interests in Europe, and it’s time they were held accountable for this entire fiasco. A Democrat Government will clean up this mess and fight our corner in Europolis.”
Mrs Fareham’s statement also raised the Democrats’ existing complaint about the decision not to hold a by-election when Ms Gibbon, previously SDP MP for Harran, was appointed to the European Council in February. “The pity is the people of Harran have been denied representation in Parliament for nothing. Judith Gibbon and the SDP failed Harran in Parliament long before they failed Angleter in Europolis. In her six weeks of snafu we could’ve held a by-election to get Harran the hardworking Democrat MP they deserve.”
Opposition to the Refugee Act itself has not been universal. While opinion polling found that only around 25% of Angleterics support the Act, with over 70% consistently against, the far-left Coalition for Socialism and Liberation has spoken up passionately in its defence. CSL leader David Wannock-Smythe lauded the Act upon its passage, commenting that “this is the first step towards dismantling Angleter’s racist, Sithophobic ‘immigration’ policy.”
Wannock-Smythe repeated his party’s long-standing call for an ‘intersectional alliance’ to take down the Establishment, arguing that “women, LGBTQ+ people, Muslims, and other oppressed communities know that Kaasian refugees are allies in their struggle. This is a matter of human rights: open the borders now!”
On the other side of the political spectrum, Robert Rice, the leader of the Democrats’ liberal wing, concurred with his party leadership’s criticism of Judith Gibbon’s abilities as a representative, but told The National Observer that “I don’t think we should have opposed this Act. Keeping our borders closed is bad for human rights and bad for the economy. I don’t think this Act will force the SDP to change its nationalist-inspired policies, but in any case, we should stop ramming refugees into camps and harness the best that they have to offer.”
A snap poll conducted by Palmyra Research showed that the fiasco has virtually wiped out the SDP’s lead overnight. Having led by ten points just over a month ago, the SDP are now neck-and-neck with the Citizen Alliance on 33% each. The Democrats are a distant third on 21%.
RE: Refugee Protection Act
I apologise for not commenting during the debate period, but I will note that I won't be the first Councillor to precede their vote with a short spiel, which given the circumstances I don't think is unreasonable.
The provision in Section 1 effectively bans deportation to any country in the region, on the grounds that the deportee 'may be put at risk' of 'unjustifiably discriminatory treatment' by 'non-state entities'. If you can show me a country where that's not a valid concern, then I've got an elite cycling tour to sell you. The provision in Section 2 puts absolutely no limit on the migrant's right to claim asylum elsewhere if refused in their current host country, which would essentially allow them to, if they are so inclined, use their host as a 'staging ground' where they could 'shop around' for a nation that will accept them on the best possible terms, dragging the process out for as long as possible. Section 3 essentially bans any distinction between refugees - who haven't left their home country entirely voluntarily, and whom we should hope are temporary residents who will be able to return home in the near future - and non-citizen permanent residents, which Angleter would not accept. Section 4 goes even further than that and tells us to create a path to citizenship not on the same basis as permanent residents, but as far as possible and so long as the refugee wishes to obtain citizenship.
For those reasons, I, Judith Gibbon, on behalf of the Apostolic Kingdom of Angleter, vote AGAINST this Bill.