The Will of the Senate - Senate Deliberations III

[econ21]

This thread is devoted to in-character communications about the Rome Total Realism Platinum PBM explained here:

https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php?t=65972

For all out of character business - including volunteering to join the campaign - please post in the out of character thread:

https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php?t=67616

This thread should be for Senate business only.

On a personal note, I will post in two strictly separate capacities: as Senate Speaker (which I will preface by SENATE SPEAKER and write in normal type) and as an ordinary participant (which I will preface by the name of my avatar, currently Quintus, and write in italics).

During formal sessions of the Senate (every 10 turns of the game), motions can be proposed. Each motion requires TWO seconders before it can be voted on.

Motions that invalidate existing motions or motions proposed earlier should explicitly state that, otherwise they will be invalidated.

**********************************

MOTIONS PROPOSED THIS SESSION OF SENATE

Motion 12.01: This senate authorises the solidification of a permanent boundary in Asia Minor that is, by no means whatsoever, to extend any further north or east beyond the territorial integrity of lands held under the influence of the cities of Heracleia, Ancyra, Adana, and Side.
Proposed: Marcellus Aemilius
Seconded: Servius Aemilius, Quintus Libo, Manius Coruncanius, Lucius Aemilius

Motion 12.02: If the revised Motion 12.01 is broken by the consul's actions, the consul hereby agrees to immediately step down from his position and relinquish the consulship to a new, elected consul.
Proposed: Servius Aemilius
Seconded: Marcellus Aemilius, Quintus Libo, Manius Coruncanius, Lucius Aemilius

Motion 12.03: When the current temple construction finishes in Rome next season, the Consul must immediately begin construction on a Hippodrome. When the Hippodrome is completed after five season, the Consul must immediately begin construction on an Amphitheatre.
Proposed: Augustus Verginius
Seconded: Lucius Aemilius, Tiberius Coruncanius

Motion 12.04: This house instructs the Consul to re-occupy Viberi with no delay, and to never again abandon it.
Proposed: Tiberius Coruncanius
Seconded: Lucius Aemilius

Motion 12.05: This house instructs the Consul to prevent the incursion of any Iberian army into Roman territory by any means at his disposal.
Proposed: Tiberius Coruncanius
Seconded: Lucius Aemilius

Motion 12.06: The next time there is an Iberian incursion into Roman territory lasting more than one season, the Consul is instructed to send Augustus Verginius into Iberian territory for a counter-incursion. However, no military action is to be initiated by Romans unless the Iberians attack. Senator Verginius' force is to be recalled immediately after the Iberians return to their territory. This motion is rendered null if Senator Verginius dies.
Proposed: Marcellus Aemilius
Seconded: Servius Aemilius, Lucius Aemilius, Tiberius Coruncanius

Motion 12.07 The Senate instructs the Consul to ensure that three Legions full are stationed along the Republic/Iberian borders.
Proposed: Manius Coruncanius
Seconded: Servius Aemilius, Tiberius Coruncanius

Motion 12.08 Upon approval and completion of Motion 12.07; the Senate instructs the Consul to not permit any more Iberian incursions into Republican territory to go unchallenged. So, any more incursions are to be met with Force and expelled by any means nessasary.
Proposed: Manius Coruncanius
Seconded: Tiberius Coruncanius

Motion 12.09:Before any hostile action be taken against Iberia by ourselves, our situation in the East must be stable, in that there will be no more expansion and there will be at least two legions (three if possible) stationed there for purely defensive purposes.
Proposed: Cornelius Saturnius

Motion 12.10.: We recruit an additional two praetorian sized legions which will be stationed at the coastal cities of Massilia and Palma.
Proposed: Servius Aemilius
Seconded: Manius Coruncanius

Constitutional Ammendment 12.A: At every midterm session of this house, we Senators will elect a Tribune of the Plebs who will have the power to veto 1 (one) motion per session. He will hold office for the session he is elected during and also the following Consular election. He may not veto Ammendments. Note: this ammendment requires 2/3 majority to pass.
Proposed: Quintus Libo
Seconded: Appius Barbatus

[Death the destroyer of worlds]

This continues the matter of the attack on the Greek Cities

Lucius Aemilius and Augustus Verginius, you didn't raise any issue with the first motion takes precedence convention when it was originally concieved, why are you raising an issue now when it would invalidate the motion you support? Surely you're not wishing to change the rules each time so that your pet motion passes?

The conflicting motions at that time either worked out to my satisfaction or did not concern me. I agree with you and the senate speaker, that I should have seen this legislative problem looming in the future and taken steps to avoid it in advance. Nevertheless, I am arguing the case now. The conquest of Byzantium is such a strategic mistake that I can not sit by idly. I would be remiss in my duties as co-sconsul if I did. If we were discussing a trivial matter I would wait untill the next session before proposing a constitutional amendment, but as the matter is so grave, I feel we must resolve it immediately.
Are you afraid of the senate, that you dare not allow an emergency vote ?

[econ21]

[SENATE SPEAKER]: First Consul, please, allow me to open the proceedings! Your enthusiasm does you credit, but some decorum please.

As I was about to say at the outset, welcome, Senators, to another chapter in the deliberations of this august house. I know that some important procedural issues were discussed quite recently and understand that Senators may wish, contrary to my personal preference, to keep debating them. In this regard, I would only observe the last line in the notice posted above:

Motions that invalidate existing motions or motions proposed earlier should explicitly state that, otherwise they will be invalidated.

Note that this was simply copied from the start of the previous chapter of our deliberations. In accordance with this convention, I hereby strike down motions 10.6 and 10.8 as being invalid in so far as they contradict motion 10.2

[TinCow]

We witness here the birth of tyranny. Those men who have the most to gain from this action also, it seems, have the power to enforce their will against the Republic. They do so through acts of dubious validity backed by an authority that cannot be reprimanded by this body. Worst of all, they refuse to consult with the citizens of Rome. This would be bad enough if it were just some normal legislation, but alas it is worse than that.

These acts which are being pushed through threaten to throw the Republic into war with the two greatest empires in the world. Countless citizens will lose their lives in these struggles. Unimaginable amounts of money will be diverted from projects to better the lives of Romans to these wars. No one will benefit from this, save those generals who command the armies which are given looting rights in the devestated regions. The same men who now push through this abomination to the ideals of the Republic.

Do not fool yourselves, Senators, we witness here today the corruption of justice and the beginning of a long descent into an 'Imperial' Rome.

[flyd]

That's a rather lovely oration, Verginius. It would be even nicer if it was graced by the presence of any facts.

The fact is that we have a convention to deal with contradictory motions. This convention has been in place for over 10 years. It has been used more than once to deconflict contradictory motions. It was clearly stated as a convention that will be used. You did not complain at all.

But now, that your motion is the one to be invalidated by that convention (something you could have easily prevented), all of a sudden, it's tyranny!

Maybe it is, but it is you who we should keep an eye on. The Speaker has applied the same standard to these motions as in the past. But no, this is Augustus Verginius' motion! No, no, rules that apply just fine for other motions do not apply to it! We must revote on it until it passes!

In short, I would be much more willing to consider your complaints about the Senate conventions if those were based on a true concern about how the Senate operates. It is, however, quite clear that these complaints come from the fact that your motion was defeated. You haven't even suggested a better way to deconflict contradictory motions! All you have done is complained about which motion is to be followed. It is obvious that your motives are to push your agenda, rather than to reexamine the workings of the Senate, and I don't much care for it.

[TinCow]

How can I possibly benefit from from the legislation I proposed? What is in it that will have even the remotest effect on my person? I have publicly stated that I will not ever leave the Gallic front and I mean that. I will neither gain nor lose regardless of any action that is taken on this matter. No, I do not speak out for myself, I speak out for the Republic.

You say I only speak up now because it is my legislation that has been voted down? Clearly you do not remember that the second of the two previous issues was just that; the approval of others' legislation over my own. I did not speak up then because they were trivial issues in the grand scope of affairs. If I was truly so interested in my own legislation, as you suggestion, I would have demanded another vote then, as now; but I did not because it is not self-interest that drives me. I speak for the citizens of Rome, Senator Coruncanius, whom do you speak for?

The previous matters which you cite as proof of my complacency were minor issues of little significant to the future of Rome. There are entire orders of magnitude between those incidents and this one. This is a very serious matter that may plunge us into the most devestating wars the world has ever seen. I would be as guilty of criminal neglicence as Publius Laevinus if I held my tongue under such circumstances. If the Republic is to risk war with the most powerful empires in the world, it must do so with the clear consent of the Senate! It makes me sick to think that such a monumentous decision can be made on the basis of a procedural policy that was never voted upon by anyone. I am not afraid of my legislation being defeated. There can be no defeat if the Republic as a whole desires this course of action. I will fully submit and say not a single word more on this, regardless of the outcome, if it is put to a vote.

What reason do you have for denying a vote? Why do you wish to prevent the citizens from making their voices heard? Do you consider war with Selucia and Ptolemy such a minor matter that a single day's delay in its commencement would annoy you?

[flyd]

Let us look at what the Senate voted for, shall we? The text of Motion 10.2 reads:

This house instructs the First Consul to conquer Byzantium.

This motion passed with a wide margin. This motion is perfectly clear, and there is no way you can deny that the Senate wishes anything other than the conquer Byzantium, based on how they voted on that motion. Motion 10.6 reads:

No attack will be made on a Greek city unless their borders once again become adjacent to ours.

For the most part, Senators who voted for this motion did not vote for the other one, and vice versa. Some Senators voted for both, however. Why do you suppose that is? This motion isn't as clear. Senators may not have been aware of the exact geographical situation. With the extreme clarity of Motion 10.2, how can we come to any conclusion other than that certain Senators thought Byzantium was exempt, for whatever reason, from the provisions of this motion. Titus Vatinius was one of the Senators who voted for both motions, and I quote her.. err, him:

[TITUS VATINIUS]

Errr... Perhaps I didn't study Lucius Aemilius' engravings well enough as I have voted for both motions 10.2 and 10.6 while it was my intention to only approve motion 10.2. My apologies, it is clear that it was not a good moment for me to judge on senate motions after a long night party... emmm... discussing with my priest of Mars.
I shall make sure to be more careful during the next voting rounds.

(On the other hand my vote doesn't seem to make the difference)

You also mentioned Motion 10.8, but I disagree with your reasoning. Motion 9.18 states how wars with Thrace, Illyria, and Macedon should be fought (i.e. with an objective of reaching the Danube). The non-mention of the Greeks by this motion simply means that motion does not at all address the war with the Greeks, not that it prohibits it.

In any case, Motions 10.6 and 10.8 are much less clear in their intent than Motion 10.2. While there is room for variable interpretations of those two motions, there is only one way to interpret Motion 10.2, and this motion has been approved by the Senate. I do not see how it is in any way conceivable that the will of the Senate is anything other than to capture Byzantium.

It is exactly for this reason that I oppose another vote on the issue. Even disregarding all precedent concerning contradictory motions, it is clear that the Senate wants Byzantium. I can only imagine that you would introduce even more complicated and unclear motions at the proposed emergency session. Yet, if we again had the motion with the text:

This house instructs the First Consul to conquer Byzantium.

Is there really any doubt about how the Senate would vote? I don't see any better way to have the Senate decide on the issue of Byzantium. I fear your intent may be to obfuscate the issue, which is why I am against a vote on the exact thing we already voted on.

We could have a vote on precedence rules, but I would be weary of applying them retroactively, so it is best left to the next session.