Quote from: Miestră Schivă, UrN on Yesterday at 04:53:53 PM

Quote from: Baron Alexandreu Davinescu on Yesterday at 01:23:43 PMThe other thing is a really good start, but I do think it would be really preferable to include the convocation thing as well. I'm ready to write up a version of it to hash out the details, presuming you're okay with the basic concept. I don't think it should take that long.

Just posted my own version with the Convocation provisions cut-and-pasted from Brenéir's/Ian P.'s proposal. Can you tell me - because I think you're in a position to know - will this get at least 3 TNC MCs in favour of it?

I should also note the Abdication bill is "post-dated", to allow both the Succession Amendment to pass and His Maj to actually nominate his successor, should he choose to do so. Does that sound good?

At a basic level, maybe? We do still need to fix some of the fine details to make it work. I notice that you seem to be trying to steer me away from writing any of the actual text of the bill. Would you prefer to do it yourself, and I can just tell you the problems with the text as it stands? Or would you prefer I write a modified draft of what you have proposed?

Quote from: Miestră Schivă, UrN on Yesterday at 01:10:52 AM

Quote from: Baron Alexandreu Davinescu on April 16, 2024, 09:55:08 PMI have to admit that I don't really understand the point of this legislation? The legislature can amend the Orglaw and submit the amendment for ratification by the people, or can depose the king by a similarly high standard of passage for certain specified causes, but this appears to just be an ephemeral bill to depose the king?

If the king wishes to abdicate, he doesn't need this legislation. If he does not wish to abdicate, this probably would need to be phrased differently.

It's copy-pasted from the bill that ratified the abdication of Edward VIII of the UK. There is no law or Organic provision governing the manner and form of abdications. So I figured this manner/form would be as good as any other, and in the precedent of a respected constitutional monarchy, and wouldn't require "Organically decapitating" the incumbent.

Any comment on whether the other thing, the Succession Amendment, is good enough?

I would assume we would stick with our own tradition, where the sovereign affirms their intentions under a declaration like any other they would make above their signature. But really it's up to the king, so I guess it doesn't matter.

The other thing is a really good start, but I do think it would be really preferable to include the convocation thing as well. I'm ready to write up a version of it to hash out the details, presuming you're okay with the basic concept. I don't think it should take that long.

I assign this applicant to you then, TLF, with the request that you seek to stay within the customary tinctures if reasonably possible. In my personal opinion, exceptions should be made only when it cannot be avoided because of established history, precedent, important connection, or extremely clever idea.

-Dean

I have to admit that I don't really understand the point of this legislation? The legislature can amend the Orglaw and submit the amendment for ratification by the people, or can depose the king by a similarly high standard of passage for certain specified causes, but this appears to just be an ephemeral bill to depose the king?

If the king wishes to abdicate, he doesn't need this legislation. If he does not wish to abdicate, this probably would need to be phrased differently.

Quote from: Miestră Schivă, UrN on April 15, 2024, 10:08:59 PM

Quote from: Baron Alexandreu Davinescu on April 15, 2024, 07:36:42 PMWe should establish an expectation and a norm in the law that His Majesty nominates someone, the Ziu approves it, and the people affirm it.

I have to reiterate the expressed position of the Free Democrats that Ziu approval must be OrgLaw-amendment threshold, i.e. 2/3 of the Cosa.

I also don't want to be in the position I have been over and over again in Talossa - where I express myself loosely and AD decides that I just agreed with him and bulldozes forward on that position. This is not a "compromise". This is an alternative.

Just to confirm: I want to write a bill where an Organic procedure is established for nominating a successor.  In this procedure, the monarch will nominate their successor, and that person will then receive supermajority Ziu confirmation (or not).  After and only after that approval is received, the nominee would be transmitted to the people for their confirmation through a majority referendum.  The same bill will also contain procedures for filling a vacant throne, and they will be similar to the basic idea of the convocation proposed by Breneir.  And finally -- painfully -- the bill will contain a sunset clause which automatically vacates the throne unless His Majesty has already had a nominee confirmed by the Ziu.

Obviously the Ziu could just do all of this at any time, but the procedure will be there as an expectation to be followed.  And presumably it would then be followed.

This is literally exactly what I just said a moment ago and what you agreed to.  Does that all sound okay?

I realize that this would be ceding some of the things you'd like to get.  The throne would never be empty, so the opportunity to keep it empty would be gone.  And that makes it harder to end the monarchy permanently.  This would also mean that your closest ally wouldn't directly become the king, as Breneir has been advocating.

Instead, this would be a consensus move that represents compromise for everyone in the name of helping our ailing country.  It would be a compromise on your part, since for right now you'd be setting aside your larger goal of ending the monarchy in the name of fixing the present situation.

Quote from: þerxh Sant-Enogat on April 16, 2024, 12:19:19 AM

Quote from: Baron Alexandreu Davinescu on April 15, 2024, 07:59:42 PMIf I write it, someone will have to sponsor it. Hopefully someone will agree to do so on my behalf?

Why not.. Can you show us what this would be like ?

Since Miestra guides the bulk of her party's votes, I'm not going to write it until there's a deal on the table with her.  But my reply to her, above, has the basic plan.  We need to get this situation fixed.

Tonight I am processing the ID cards, but I think the language for a compromise bipartisan bill will be pretty easy to write up, and I bet I can get it done tomorrow. Fixing the convocation proposal will be the trickiest part. The SoS will probably need to be in charge, with a standard electoral commission for backup.

If I write it, someone will have to sponsor it. Hopefully someone will agree to do so on my behalf?

There's a difference between what is technically allowable and what is normatively expected.  We should establish an expectation and a norm in the law that His Majesty nominates someone, the Ziu approves it, and the people affirm it.  Technically, the Ziu can always just do whatever the hell it wants and send it to the people -- a Living Cosa could be held that just involved nude hula-hooping, if the Ziu wanted it.  (I would win such a contest, for the record, although all observers would be struck blind with horror/ecstasy.)

Okay, then, sounds like we really do have a path forward.

Florence did fine until she got sick of it, and Louis was hereditary.

I don't think there is any magical taint involved in the king having some say in the process that would not be abrogated by both the approval of the duly elected legislature followed by the approval of the people as a whole.

I personally will never support any solution to the current temporary situation when it would lead to permanent disability or destruction of one of our most important institutions. If we agree that we're in a bad spot, surely we can just fix the problem -- are we really saying that we won't help the country unless we can also advance our personal goals at the same time?

Quote from: Carlüs Éovart Vilaçafat on April 15, 2024, 10:38:28 AM

Quote from: Ian Plätschisch on April 15, 2024, 09:16:52 AMHave we considered just asking the King who he would want his successor to be?

A concern of a lot of FreeDems is that, if the King picks, his selection would be unpalatable. If we ask in advance, we could see if that person would have broad support and then we can just amend the Organic Law accordingly, without all the red tape.

If only we knew someone who had the King's ear...

After I explained the situation to him, I offered my resignation from the Sabor. So I don't know if that person is still myself. I can ask him, but I don't know if he has anyone in mind. I very much doubt that he does!

Honestly, my expectation is that he would not participate in whatever process we establish. We should be thinking about this whole thing in terms of a longer future, not the immediate circumstance. We are trying to fix the country permanently.

How about this threading of the needle: generally speaking, the process will be for the future that the sovereign nominates a successor who is confirmed by the legislature and then by plebiscite. This change could be written to become effective 30 days after confirmation of the amendment, with a contingent clause stating that the throne will also become empty at that time if there is no successor yet confirmed by the legislature. And then a fixed and saner version of the convocation process detailed in the other thread could be put in place for any time the throne is empty, including immediately.

This is not an ideal scenario at all. In my opinion, giving the legislature a voice is a mistake generally, because it politicizes the process more than we should really want. I would prefer just a royal nomination that passes to a plebiscite. But in for a penny, in for a pound. I am already compromising a ton, and I can go a little bit further to make this happen.

I believe this would satisfy everyone's needs, even if no one would be perfectly happy with it. And I could help right the language and fix some of the weirdness of the convocation procedure.

Let the monarch nominate someone, confirmed by the Ziu and then by the people. It is the really obvious and sensible solution, even if it affords His Majesty little say in the matter. It takes advantage of our political system to provide a check, without turning the issue into a direct election that would destroy what value a monarchy can offer.

His Majesty did not endorse this view and might well oppose it, and for my part in this discussion I will be offering him my resignation as his counselor. I am not here showing loyalty to him, and that is hard for me. This is a conversation predicated on a future where he will leave the throne. But I am being loyal to the higher things that he too has venerated: country and honour.

My actual expectation is that he will decline to participate in the process once the larger change is made. But the man has saved the country more than once, helped shape it into much of what it is today, and has served with decency. He deserves this voice in the process. And more to the point, the institution is larger than him and this is the way it should happen for the larger future.

@Breneir Tzaracomprada , just wanted to check and make sure you could see my posts and there's no sort of glitch or anything.

Earlier in this thread, I wrote at length about some obvious problems I saw with the bill, and you replied after me and said that you didn't see any objections being made.  And now again, you seem to be unaware of arguments I made with a significant investment of my time and thought -- not even acknowledging them but just addressing Miestra.  Is it just that you're ignoring me?  That's certainly your prerogative, but I thought I'd check.

Quote from: Sir Lüc on April 13, 2024, 01:31:38 PMThis is a bit of an issue as I'd love to encourage further debate, but I don't know if that's possible under the rules we currently operate under. I suppose we could stipulate that if any amendments are made, the bill must go through the CRL again. I'd love to hear what the A-X and Mençei think.

Legally, it is made explicit that the bill may be amended after CRL approval, and it doesn't have to go through the CRL again.  It would only need to go through again if it is "so substantially different from its form as a legislative proposal when "passed to committee" that it constitutes a significantly different proposal" (Lexh.H.2.1.7.4).

You are certainly welcome to send it through the CRL again if you want another set of eyes on it after you change it up.

Props to Gluc for the Rawlsian veil of ignorance approach, by the way. That's definitely a really important way to think about this!

Yes, that is definitely one way we could do it. Oldest citizen, or citizen with the longest citizenship, or any number of ways.

Practical problems with longest citizenship have already been pointed out, and of course if we went with the oldest citizen, it could be someone who had only been a citizen for a week. More importantly, there's just no reason to think either of these traits will result in a good choice.

In my personal opinion, I think that the king should nominate someone and then that should be democratically confirmed. I proposed confirmation by plebiscite, but maybe it should be a two-step process where the king proposes a nominee that must be confirmed by the Ziu before going to the people.

Quote from: Miestră Schivă, UrN on April 12, 2024, 10:03:36 PMThe good Baron has been saying that he thinks the "simple vacancy declaration" is a trap, because the cunning Free Dems will then make sure the throne stays vacant forever, and the Senator from Cézembre agrees with him.

Just to clarify: I don't think it's a trap in a malicious sense, but just that things would tend to naturally flow in that direction, and that your incentives are clear.  I just think it's helpful to be explicit about these things, since the subtext and future flow of events might not be obvious to some folks.  As far as I can tell, you have been 100% operating in good faith throughout this whole discussion.  I think you play political hardball and you're not inclined to show your hand -- if you'll forgive the mixed metaphor -- but that's different than any kind of skullduggery.

I agree that probably the numbers are there to shove through some kind of change over the objections of a lot of monarchists.  I've been inactive and I'm not in the Ziu at all, so that's one obstacle gone right there.  I just think it will be disastrous, badly hurt the country, and possibly lead to the death of Talossa as any kind of real living community.  I don't think we'll dissolve, but you can limp along for years in a kind of twilight, and that's a very possible future if we discard the legitimacy of the throne in the eyes of the public and future.

If you step back, we're a gaggle of weirdos on the internet pretending to run a country in a way that mostly involves fiddling with pretend procedures, clumsily aping real-life structures like political parties and peerages and courts, and clinging to beliefs that we mostly know are imaginary.

Of course, from our perspective, we're a group of people united around a shared vision that is equal parts silly and serious, having fun through enacting our own versions of nation-sized institutions and engaging with a whimsical culture that dates back nearly fifty years and that has just as much reality through lived experience as some other national cultures.

Making people see Talossa the way we see it involves several unique things, such as the antiquity of our country's institutions.  We are uniquely vulnerable in this regard.  A macronation that frequently changes regimes and rulers will still be taken seriously in some regard, since people live there and must care.  But no one thinks that the North Korean legislature really matters, and no one cares what they do or say.  Even North Koreans sometimes have a hard time caring about it.  But no one "lives" in Talossa in that sense.  We can be utterly ignored.  Worse: it requires proactive effort to participate in Talossa.  We're uniquely vulnerable to perceptions of illegitimacy.

We are a constitutional monarchy governed by a legitimate sovereign, with a hypothetical connection to the Berbers, a less hypothetical connection to the GTA, and our own language and minor traditions.  But very few of us have even visited the GTA, almost no one knows the language, and no one at all really cares about the Berber thing much.  We change our constitution every year, often quite dramatically.  Even our national identity has been flimsy at times... there was a long stretch with two competing groups claiming to be Talossa, and even a time with three Talossas.

What makes Talossa stand apart at all from any group I might create next week with a dozen friends?  To an outsider, not a lot.  We need desperately to conserve those resources that give our country some historical heft.  Even if it doesn't particularly matter a lot right now to you, or if other things seem important, they're not something we can easily restore.  We should be very careful with our few precious institutions that have stood the test of time.

I'm a progressive liberal in macronational politics, so it's funny that this is my role in Talossa.  But you guys are proposing changes that could permanently cripple or even destroy the country.

We should fix the succession so that it will continue working for the future in a permanent way that has consensus support.  Once the institution is assured to continue existing in a legitimate manner, we can address other problems.  Doing it backwards is risky and bizarre.