The following contains questions written by the parties towards the other and the answers and responses given by the party being questioned.
Debate Questions from the I.S.W.P.P. to the P.L.P.
SUBJECT ONE: CLARIFYING MANIFESTO
1. Could your intention to let the Prime Minister give citizenship to whomever he pleases lead to corruption through the P.M. giving citizenship and the advantages thereof to his allies?
No. British Citizens are already entitled to citizenship of the British Empire. As for citizenship requests by non-British citizens, we do not ask about their political views beforehand.
2. Is the manner in which you have stated that, as Imperial Governor, you will veto all attempts by a democratically elected government to reform laws around Communism totally undemocratic, and, if anything, reminiscent of the practices of communist dictatorships?
Communism goes against the very values of the British Empire, and therefore we need to make sure it does’t happen, even if this involves undermining democracy. Democracy is ultimately a system to make the country fairer and better, which communism certainly wouldn’t do. As for the practises of communist dictatorships, although we ban communists from the government, they retain freedom of speech and communism is perfectly legal, giving them the right and ability to express their views. People calling for alternative systems of government in communist dictatorships wouldn’t have this privilege.
3. Is not your manifesto’s emphasis on military affairs, for instance army marches and military reforms, reminiscent of a emerging culture of militarism in your party?
Our military reforms simply make the military more organised and make it so that our soldiers actually receive pay. These are not the same as huge increases in military size or investment in offensive weapons. The British Imperial Military has little structure, and needs to be more structured. As for a militaristic culture, I see nothing wrong with a military culture similar to that of the United Kingdom with military parades. This does not equate to violence however. We do not even support conscription.
SUBJECT TWO: QUESTIONING INTEGRITY OF CANDIDATE
1. For approximately eighteen months, you ruled this nation as a dictator. You continue to be the absolute monarch of Anglestonia and the extreme nationalist military dictator of Great Pecuniam. Your manifesto focuses on military affairs, and during the period of your dictatorial one-party rule, you repeatedly invaded nations such as the Duchy of Pecuniam with no prior aggression and with no intention aside from territorial expansion. You have also been accused of ordering the use of nuclear weapons against largely unarmed protester during the South Anglestonian independence wars. You responded to these accusations by saying that you were “proud” of all your actions, and seemingly admitting to ordering nuclear strikes. You have also already announced that you will use your remaining power as Imperial Governor to veto legislation democratically passed by a democratically elected government. Are you or are you not a warmongering, power-drunk, militaristic dictator-manque?
As for my dictatorial control over the empire, it is true that I controlled it as an absolute dictator, something which I did not deny then nor now. I had full control over the nation and could not be overthrown. That is in fact, evidence to why I am not a power hungry dictator. If I was, I’d still have full control over my nation. As for Great Pecuniam, the dictatorship improved the nation, by uniting it and establishing a more respectable coat of arms and currency. The deposed ruler of the Republic of Pecuniam even praised my rule on the Pecunian website, a website I have no control over. The dictatorship honoured freedom of speech and so he was clearly not being forced to write so. I do in fact intend to democratise the Dominion of Great Pecuniam fairly soon. You can quote me on that. As for Anglestonia, it will eventually become its own sovereign Kingdom, with quasi-democratic elements. I will still remain an absolute monarch in Anglestonia though, as it will be my personal creation. I should also point out that Duke O’Connell Nash was also a dictator of Pecuniam, and in fact, his title of Duke was formerly his dictatorial title. He is still a dictator today, and his dictatorship is much more authoritarian than mine ever were. I have already stated why I will veto attempts to allow communist parties into the government
As for me “repeatedly” invading nations, the invasion of Pecuniam is as far as I know the only example of me invading a sovereign nation. If you care so much about this, we can hold a referendum on whether or nor they wish to remain in the empire. I accept condemnation for invading a sovereign nation, although I let the Duke of Pecuniam retain his title and control over Pecuniam within the empire, and the Duke is and was loyal to the British Empire.
Now, onto the use of Nuclear Weapons. Firstly, these were only used in one of the ‘three’ wars (I put ‘three’ in inverted commas as I don’t believe there was any conflict in the third war). And our ‘Nuclear Weapons’ were actually more of a novelty than actual weapons, leaving the ‘protester’ unharmed. This was not a peaceful protest though, as unlike the third war, the SARA did fight.
2.You have expressed a willingness to form a coalition with the cactus rights party. This party aims to make cacti legally recognised citizens. Making an inanimate object a citizen paves there way to voter fraud, as humans will vote by proxy on behalf of the cacti. Is this not proof of your insurmountable determination to hold on to power at all costs?
We do not support giving rights to Cacti, as we find it silly, hence why it is not our policy. We are opposed to a coalition in any case other than an ISWPP victory, and even then, it would only be considered. We consider silly to be better than dangerous. But even if Cacti did get the right to Citizenship and with it the right to vote, it would make no difference. It is physically impossible for a Cactus to apply for citizenship and to vote. We could therefore easily cast aside any citizenship application or vote from a Cactus as it was clearly not from the Cactus. If the Cactus Rights Party suggests a way to give Cacti a voice (IE: Humans casting votes on their behalf), we would be strictly opposed to that. There are no Cacti in our territory, only in our embassy and near our territory. If these became citizens without application, they still have no way to vote.
Debate Questions from the P.L.P. to the I.S.W.P.P.
Subject One: Clarifying manifesto
1) What is this ‘socialist finance charter’ and what does it say?
Our socialist finance charter would be an overhaul of the existing finance charter. It would nationalise all banking, retain the ban on usury, introduce heavy tariffs on foreign imports of goods that are also produced in the Empire, ban companies based in wealthier Imperial territories from exporting their goods to poorer territories and ban the sales f stocks and shares.
2) How do you define fascist?
The ban on fascism would outlaw blatant endorsement of fascism or Nazism. It would also ban the swastika and fasces unless they were in an educational or artistic context, or a context which predates fascism and Nazism, provided that none of these uses are employed to promote fascism or Nazism. It would also ban people from claiming their race or ethnicity to be superior.
3) What is in this trade deal?
The deal would involve the Empire exporting compote and flags to Jocistan without tariffs, and importing Jocistani slime and putty, without tariffs.
4) How will you spread international socialism?
We will further engage with socialist micro-nations like Jocistan, Jackistan and Sholand, potentially striking similar trade deals.
Subject Three: Questioning the manifesto
1) If you are anti-fascist, why does your government want to strengthen and increase relations with authoritarian Jocistan and ultra-nationalist Jackistan?
Neither of these nations are fascist. They are both fully committed to the struggle against fascism. We hold it to be in aid of our own anti-fascist intentions to ally with them.
2) What benefits are there for a trade deal with Jocistan when all they produce is “Slime and putty”? What is “Slime and putty” even used for?
Putty can be used to hold things together temporarily, and several people find that it helps-their concentration to squidge some slime or putty in their fingers. As any Jocistani will testify, slime and putty have any number of unexpected uses. Jocistan would be delighted to spread this convenience to the British Empire.
3) Is your manifesto an attempt to bring the empire into the Jocistani sphere of influence?
The I.S.WW.P.P. operates fully independently of Jocistan, and has never been controlled by Jocistan. Our pro-Jocistani policies exist in this context: the Empire and Jocistan, despite their alliance, are cursed by frequent diplomatic crises, which are disadvantageous to both. We aim to make the British Empire a co-operative equal of Jocistan, rather than a client state or sworn foe.
4) Jocistan is a despotic one party state which uses torture and has no regard for free speech. Why should the British Empire support and do business with such an evil country?
The I.S.W.P.P. proudly supports democracy, not only in the Empire, but in all nations, from Eritrea to Jackistan. It is my strong belief that we can better spread democracy among our international partners through reaching out to hem and engaging with them than by shunning them as our enemies, for why should any sovereign country accept the ideals of its enemy?
Subject Three: Anglestonia
How will your pro-Jocistani government respond to the anti-Jocistani government of Anglestonia?
The I.S.W.P.P. supports and upholds the rights of the various levels of autonomous territory within the Empire, and believes that the existing Federal system is truly fruitful. It is the right of Anglestonia to adopt the foreign policy favoured by its people and rulers, and it is worth bearing in mind that Anglestonia makes up less than two percent of the Empire. I would, however, urge His Majesty the Grand Duke to consider my previous argument relating to how best to spread democracy.