Wittenberg

WHEREAS the King is not living up to the expectations of his citizens in a variety of ways; and

WHEREAS people have complained before but to no effect; and

WHEREAS the above two lines were copy-pasted from a bill first Hoppered five years ago (https://talossa.proboards.com/thread/13577/mean-business-amendment) and nothing significant has changed; and

WHEREAS we need a broad social consensus for any changes to the institution of the Monarchy, which we may not have after years of trying to get one; and

WHEREAS perhaps we do have a consensus on a more narrow issue:

THEREFORE BE IT ENACTED by the Ziu and people of Talossa that Article II.3 of the Organic Law be changed from the current text:

QuoteThe King of Talossa is King John I, until his demise, abdication, or removal from the throne. Should the King at any time renounce or lose his citizenship, that renunciation or loss shall be deemed to imply his abdication of the Throne. Upon the demise, abdication, or removal from the Throne of the King, the Uppermost Cort shall be a Council of Regency.

to

Quotea) The position of King of Talossa is currently vacant, until filled by an amendment to this section.

b) Until a King of Talossa is named in the manner described above, the Uppermost Cort shall act as a Council of Regency, and shall administer the government in the name of the King, and exercise all powers Organically or legally vested in the King, or else may appoint a Regent to fulfill these functions. No person not a citizen of Talossa shall be competent to serve as Regent. The Ziu may by law remove or replace any appointed Regent, and if the Ziu removes a Regent appointed by the Uppermost Cort, the Uppermost Cort may not reappoint the same person Regent without the prior consent of the Ziu.

Happy to consider other suggestions for the Regency btw, but this is the existing procedure (with a tweak or two) as stipulated in OrgLaw II.5. We could even have a "sunset clause" to make sure we do actually choose a King in a decent time frame.

I have no issue with either this or the Active Monarchy Assurance Amendment going through, but if they both got Clarked and both passed, we'd be in trouble :D I just have a feeling that this has a better chance.

I am in favour of this Bill if the King does not want to resign. We keep our political institutions (do not shift to a tepid presidential royalty), and fix the current blocking issue. In France we say *Don't throw the baby out with the bath water*.

Thanks Miestra. Can I co-sponsor this?

Since it is relatively easy to block amendments with a Ziu minority, this would almost certainly be the end of the monarchy.  Supporters of the proposed presidency could simply block all attempts to amend the OrgLaw with a new sovereign.

I have no objections to removing King John (although considering the many things he has done for our nation,  the bill probably should make some sort of mention of that),

but I would never vote for a bill that removes the King without either naming a successor or establishing some sort of meaningful succession procedure.

Otherwise I'm not convinced we will ever have a King or Queen again. If that is the point of the bill then it should be stated as such. If not, then this is a bad idea.

I agree that this less dramatic solution is much better.

With the concerns around this being a step towards losing the Monarchy altogether, I do think it needs some kind of "sunset clause" as Miestra suggested, to ensure the throne is filled in a timely manner and without the need for another amendment to the OrgLaw.

Quote from: Carlüs Éovart Vilaçafat on April 12, 2024, 08:38:09 AMI agree that this less dramatic solution is much better.

With the concerns around this being a step towards losing the Monarchy altogether, I do think it needs some kind of "sunset clause" as Miestra suggested, to ensure the throne is filled in a timely manner and without the need for another amendment to the OrgLaw.

Thanks Carlus.
@Miestră Schivă, UrN with the input from Carlus and Gluc I'm wondering if we should just add a successor to the referendum, if that is possible. Is there any Organic issue with adding Sir Txec as the successor pending confirmation by a referendum?

Of course, if that is not possible then there seems to be support for the sunset clause.

I would add that if we are able, in the amendment, to depose and replace John, then this does hopefully allow for much more time to address the succession issue AND install someone who will be an appropriately active king.

Well, okay, the alternative suggestion is:

QuoteTHEREFORE BE IT ENACTED by the Ziu and people of Talossa that Article II.3 of the Organic Law be changed from the current text:

QuoteThe King of Talossa is King John I, until his demise, abdication, or removal from the throne. Should the King at any time renounce or lose his citizenship, that renunciation or loss shall be deemed to imply his abdication of the Throne. Upon the demise, abdication, or removal from the Throne of the King, the Uppermost Cort shall be a Council of Regency.

to

QuoteThe King of Talossa is Txec, First of his Name, of the House of Nordselvă, and his heirs and successors as established by law. Should the King at any time renounce or lose his citizenship, that renunciation or loss shall be deemed to imply his abdication of the Throne. Upon the demise, abdication, or removal from the Throne of the King:

a)  the Heir Presumptive to the throne as established by law shall assume the Throne or;
b)  if there is no Heir Presumptive and one is not named by law, the Uppermost Cort shall be a Council of Regency and shall within 3 months name an Heir Presumptive, who will take the Throne upon approval in referendum, or;
c)  if an Heir Presumptive as named in b) is not approved by a majority of those voting in referendum, and has not been named by law, the Uppermost Cort shall repeat the process in b) above as many times as is necessary.

Some might worry that establishing the succession by ordinary law will be too simple; but it will also prevent the kind of "stalemate" that the good Baron foresees whereby any successor can be blocked indefinitely by a minority.

An alternative is specifying after the tribe is vacant for a year (or however long), a random citizen is selected to become King and can be ratified by a simple majority in a referendum

An intentionally undesirable outcome designed to ensure we get something better done.

This is crazy -- if we know this is a problem we have to solve and we all want to solve it, why are we engineering deliberately terrible alternate outcomes?  Let's just do it now!

To draw a parallel: in the United States, there has been concern about the budget deficit.  It was arguably just used as a partisan club (austerity was a very stupid policy during a recession), but some people held the debt limit hostage as a result, regardless of their motivation.  If the deficit wasn't reduced, they said, they wouldn't authorize the issuance of more public debt.  Eventually, a bargain was struck for an automatic sequester: if the deficit weren't reduced over the next two years, then huge cuts would be automatically imposed.

See, making the actual decision about budget cuts was too hard.  Instead, they planned to make the alternative so horrible that they'd feel like they had to do it.  Not now... later.  Always later.

It didn't work, of course.  The hard choices remained hard, and people tried to just use the threat of sequestration on their opponents to get their way.  Automatic cuts were triggered, and they were stupid and wasteful.  The deficit remains huge.

I see this with students, too, sometimes.  They want to make themselves do something, but it's still too hard to actually address the problem.  So they try to just make the looming threat even worse so that their future selves will feel like they have to do something.

Let's just fix the problem, instead.

Quote from: Miestră Schivă, UrN on April 12, 2024, 05:49:53 PMWell, okay, the alternative suggestion is:

QuoteTHEREFORE BE IT ENACTED by the Ziu and people of Talossa that Article II.3 of the Organic Law be changed from the current text:

QuoteThe King of Talossa is King John I, until his demise, abdication, or removal from the throne. Should the King at any time renounce or lose his citizenship, that renunciation or loss shall be deemed to imply his abdication of the Throne. Upon the demise, abdication, or removal from the Throne of the King, the Uppermost Cort shall be a Council of Regency.

to

QuoteThe King of Talossa is Txec, First of his Name, of the House of Nordselvă, and his heirs and successors as established by law. Should the King at any time renounce or lose his citizenship, that renunciation or loss shall be deemed to imply his abdication of the Throne. Upon the demise, abdication, or removal from the Throne of the King:

a)  the Heir Presumptive to the throne as established by law shall assume the Throne or;
b)  if there is no Heir Presumptive and one is not named by law, the Uppermost Cort shall be a Council of Regency and shall within 3 months name an Heir Presumptive, who will take the Throne upon approval in referendum, or;
c)  if an Heir Presumptive as named in b) is not approved by a majority of those voting in referendum, and has not been named by law, the Uppermost Cort shall repeat the process in b) above as many times as is necessary.

Some might worry that establishing the succession by ordinary law will be too simple; but it will also prevent the kind of "stalemate" that the good Baron foresees whereby any successor can be blocked indefinitely by a minority.

We have at least three TNC MCs and possibly a fourth in support of a simple vacancy declaration. The subsequent issue raised concerned a successor and earlier in this term there was no TNC opposition to Txec's elevation. I have yet to hear one voice in opposition even now.

Quote from: Breneir Tzaracomprada on April 12, 2024, 07:35:50 PMWe have at least three TNC MCs and possibly a fourth in support of a simple vacancy declaration. The subsequent issue raised concerned a successor and earlier in this term there was no TNC opposition to Txec's elevation. I have yet to hear one voice in opposition even now.

The 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. This is both unkind and unnecessary, because the throne is already effectively vacant, if that's what we wanted we would just leave Zombie John there.

I was trying to dispel these suspicions, but I'm sure if your numbers are correct we *could* push a simple vacancy through over their objections - is that what you think best? I should note that Carlüs was asking for some kind of "sunset clause" to avoid eternal delays in naming a successor.

Quote from: Miestră Schivă, UrN on April 12, 2024, 10:03:36 PM

Quote from: Breneir Tzaracomprada on April 12, 2024, 07:35:50 PMWe have at least three TNC MCs and possibly a fourth in support of a simple vacancy declaration. The subsequent issue raised concerned a successor and earlier in this term there was no TNC opposition to Txec's elevation. I have yet to hear one voice in opposition even now.

The 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. This is both unkind and unnecessary, because the throne is already effectively vacant, if that's what we wanted we would just leave Zombie John there.

I was trying to dispel these suspicions, but I'm sure if your numbers are correct we *could* push a simple vacancy through over their objections - is that what you think best? I should note that Carlüs was asking for some kind of "sunset clause" to avoid eternal delays in naming a successor.

Miestra, I think two-thirds is a significant level of approval. 51-49 and yeah maybe you can be accused of pushing but 67-33 after repeated negotiated changes to address emergent concerns is not forcing at gunpoint here. Especially if an immediate replacement with a sunset clause for resolution of other issues seem to reduce the risk.

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. This is both unkind and unnecessary, because the throne is already effectively vacant, if that's what we wanted we would just leave Zombie John there.

Just as a clarification. Im not saying this is your plan. If you say you intend to work towards finding a replacement I believe you. And I always believe you are acting in good faith.

However even then it's still perfectly possible for someone who didn't sponsor this bill and doesn't feel committed to any sort of compromise, to vote in favour of this plan, which would be in good faith, because they dont think King John should be King, and then also vote against any successor, which would also be in good faith, because they don't think anyone else should be King either.

It seems like a big risk. A sunset clause would solve that but I'm curious to see what that would look like. Ian's idea seems sensible enough.

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.

Quote from: Baron Alexandreu Davinescu on April 13, 2024, 09:30:38 AMWe 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.

We could (possibly) "fix the succession" merely by changing the stated order of choice.  For example, we could replace "eldest offspring of current monarch (etc. etc.)" with "list of citizens arranged in such-and-such an order".  In other words, create a different rule of precedence.

Such a rule would have to be explicit and unambiguous; it would have to allow for the choice of monarch to be denied by super-majority of the citizens; and (I would suggest - though perhaps this is not the place to discuss this) would be re-applied every seven years or when the monarch resigned (abdicated) or died or ceased to be a citizen.

It is up to this current tranche of citizens to make, and largely agree upon, the succession rule.  Future "generations of citizens" could also do what we are now (in our freedom) talking about doing.

"Talossa is free" is not the same as "Talossa is unchangeable" - Freedom is stability: Fettered Stasis is not.

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.

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

Quote from: Miestră Schivă, UrN on April 12, 2024, 10:03:36 PM

Quote from: Breneir Tzaracomprada on April 12, 2024, 07:35:50 PMWe have at least three TNC MCs and possibly a fourth in support of a simple vacancy declaration. The subsequent issue raised concerned a successor and earlier in this term there was no TNC opposition to Txec's elevation. I have yet to hear one voice in opposition even now.

The 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. This is both unkind and unnecessary, because the throne is already effectively vacant, if that's what we wanted we would just leave Zombie John there.

I was trying to dispel these suspicions, but I'm sure if your numbers are correct we *could* push a simple vacancy through over their objections - is that what you think best? I should note that Carlüs was asking for some kind of "sunset clause" to avoid eternal delays in naming a successor.

Miestra, what are your current thoughts on moving forward with a revised vacant throne amendment (simple removal, immediate successor, and sunset clause)? The revisions do address most stated concerns and allow time to address the succession issue permanently.

@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 (https://wittenberg.talossa.com/index.php?topic=3180.msg26337#msg26337) about some obvious problems I saw with the bill, and you replied after me (https://wittenberg.talossa.com/index.php?topic=3180.msg26338#msg26338) 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: Baron Alexandreu Davinescu on April 13, 2024, 03:12:34 PM@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 (https://wittenberg.talossa.com/index.php?topic=3180.msg26337#msg26337) about some obvious problems I saw with the bill, and you replied after me (https://wittenberg.talossa.com/index.php?topic=3180.msg26338#msg26338) 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.

I do see your words and they have been answered. There is no need for me to directly answer them too. I am interested in Miestra's thoughts as yours are well known now.

@Miestră Schivă, UrN I am most interested in seeing through a path for action, if possible. I apologize for my own contribution to the delay in addressing the King's inactivity but a review of yours and Ian's words and actions (especially in comparison to the King's words and actions) have led me to the belief I can trust your genuine desire simply to ensure an active head of state. If, through this slimmed down amendment, we can address the concerns of Gluc, Therxh, and Carlus then I think that is a basis for bipartisan action as the TNC would have four of its five MCs likely to support the bill along with its senator. And I assume much of the FreeDems would support the bill.

Quote from: Breneir Tzaracomprada on April 13, 2024, 03:28:20 PM@Miestră Schivă, UrN I am most interested in seeing through a path for action, if possible.

Thing is that I'm not 100% sure as to where we stand. I've put up two proposals in this thread:

1) the original proposal, which I call "clean decapitation". (https://wittenberg.talossa.com/index.php?msg=26257) I still prefer this, though I take into account the people who worry about an indefinite empty throne.

2) a revised proposal (https://wittenberg.talossa.com/index.php?msg=26333), which appoints a new King right away and leaves it up to the Ziu to create further succession laws; the default option being "CpI names a successor to be confirmed in referendum". I haven't seen any substantial discussion on that one.

(Of course the good Baron is calling for his previously expressed preference that the King be allowed to name his own successor. But, given the incumbent's record, I don't feel happy about affording him that privilege.)

So which should we run with?
- Option 1?
- Option 1 amended slightly (eg with a "sunset clause")?
- Option 2?
- Option 2 amended slightly?

I am in favour of getting as broad a social consensus as we can, because you know what? A 2/3 majority in the Ziu isn't going to cut it. Three reasons:

- if the King vetoes, we will another 2/3 majority in the next Cosa, and thus have to win the argument in an election.
- either way, we will need to win a majority in a referendum.

I have bucketloads of respect for the good Baron as a political operator and I'm not confident of being able to beat him in a referendum (or get 2/3 in an election) if he's going to fight this all the way.

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.

Quote from: Miestră Schivă, UrN on April 13, 2024, 06:34:04 PM

Quote from: Breneir Tzaracomprada on April 13, 2024, 03:28:20 PM@Miestră Schivă, UrN I am most interested in seeing through a path for action, if possible.

Thing is that I'm not 100% sure as to where we stand. I've put up two proposals in this thread:

1) the original proposal, which I call "clean decapitation". (https://wittenberg.talossa.com/index.php?msg=26257) I still prefer this, though I take into account the people who worry about an indefinite empty throne.

2) a revised proposal (https://wittenberg.talossa.com/index.php?msg=26333), which appoints a new King right away and leaves it up to the Ziu to create further succession laws; the default option being "CpI names a successor to be confirmed in referendum". I haven't seen any substantial discussion on that one.

(Of course the good Baron is calling for his previously expressed preference that the King be allowed to name his own successor. But, given the incumbent's record, I don't feel happy about affording him that privilege.)

So which should we run with?
- Option 1?
- Option 1 amended slightly (eg with a "sunset clause")?
- Option 2?
- Option 2 amended slightly?

I am in favour of getting as broad a social consensus as we can, because you know what? A 2/3 majority in the Ziu isn't going to cut it. Three reasons:

- if the King vetoes, we will another 2/3 majority in the next Cosa, and thus have to win the argument in an election.
- either way, we will need to win a majority in a referendum.

I have bucketloads of respect for the good Baron as a political operator and I'm not confident of being able to beat him in a referendum (or get 2/3 in an election) if he's going to fight this all the way.

Miestra, this is all reasonable. Option 2 is my preference as it is immediate removal and replacement pending a national referendum plus a sunset clause moving into a regency if necessary. I do think this seems to address the two major issues raised and allows time for the outstanding major issue to be resolved.

If you are not yet ready to move until there is more discussion on Option 2 then I would encourage others to let Miestra and the FreeDems generally know your thoughts specifically on the options or amended options she lists.

I'd like to hear other TNC MCs, in particular @þerxh Sant-Enogat and @Carlüs Éovart Vilaçafat, as to which option they'd prefer (a "clean vacancy" or a named successor + succession to be determined by law with a default option). Once we have 140+ votes declared for a preferred option we can proceed.

Quote from: Miestră Schivă, UrN on April 13, 2024, 09:16:35 PMI'd like to hear other TNC MCs, in particular @þerxh Sant-Enogat and @Carlüs Éovart Vilaçafat, as to which option they'd prefer (a "clean vacancy" or a named successor + succession to be determined by law with a default option). Once we have 140+ votes declared for a preferred option we can proceed.

@þerxh Sant-Enogat and @Carlüs Éovart Vilaçafat Your invitation is on the table. What say you as to your preferences on this matter?

If we don't get a consensus, I suppose I'll submit *both* versions to the CRL and then make the call over which to Clark at the last minute :D

After getting caught up on the discussion, I think I agree with the Baron that King John should at least have the option to choose his successor, confirmed by the Ziu.

So my personal preference would be Option 2, amended to give King John 30 days to appoint a successor and step down. If one is not chosen within the appointed time, then the law will go into effect.

Have 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.

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...

Quote from: Carlüs Éovart Vilaçafat on April 15, 2024, 08:31:14 AMSo my personal preference would be Option 2, amended to give King John 30 days to appoint a successor and step down. If one is not chosen within the appointed time, then the law will go into effect.

The 30 day deadline for resignation and a successor is a vital component of this proposal.

@þerxh Sant-Enogat What are your thoughts?

I just read Baron Alexandreu's words, and I agree that letting the King propose a successor would be the most coherent scenario to ensure the historical continuity on which our Nation is build upon.

Quote from: þerxh Sant-Enogat on April 15, 2024, 01:27:46 PMI just read Baron Alexandreu's words, and I agree that letting the King propose a successor would be the most coherent scenario to ensure the historical continuity on which our Nation is build upon.

What about the options Miestra listed? You did not mention those in your answer.

To be helpful, here are Miestra's words, Therxh which she directly invited comment on:

Quote1) the original proposal, which I call "clean decapitation". (https://wittenberg.talossa.com/index.php?msg=26257) I still prefer this, though I take into account the people who worry about an indefinite empty throne.

2) a revised proposal (https://wittenberg.talossa.com/index.php?msg=26333), which appoints a new King right away and leaves it up to the Ziu to create further succession laws; the default option being "CpI names a successor to be confirmed in referendum". I haven't seen any substantial discussion on that one.

(Of course the good Baron is calling for his previously expressed preference that the King be allowed to name his own successor. But, given the incumbent's record, I don't feel happy about affording him that privilege.)

So which should we run with?
- Option 1?
- Option 1 amended slightly (eg with a "sunset clause")?
- Option 2?
- Option 2 amended slightly?

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.

Quote from: Breneir Tzaracomprada on April 15, 2024, 02:13:57 PM

Quote from: þerxh Sant-Enogat on April 15, 2024, 01:27:46 PMI just read Baron Alexandreu's words, and I agree that letting the King propose a successor would be the most coherent scenario to ensure the historical continuity on which our Nation is build upon.

What about the options Miestra listed? You did not mention those in your answer.

To be helpful, here are Miestra's words, Therxh which she directly invited comment on:

Quote1) the original proposal, which I call "clean decapitation". (https://wittenberg.talossa.com/index.php?msg=26257) I still prefer this, though I take into account the people who worry about an indefinite empty throne.

2) a revised proposal (https://wittenberg.talossa.com/index.php?msg=26333), which appoints a new King right away and leaves it up to the Ziu to create further succession laws; the default option being "CpI names a successor to be confirmed in referendum". I haven't seen any substantial discussion on that one.

(Of course the good Baron is calling for his previously expressed preference that the King be allowed to name his own successor. But, given the incumbent's record, I don't feel happy about affording him that privilege.)

So which should we run with?
- Option 1?
- Option 1 amended slightly (eg with a "sunset clause")?
- Option 2?
- Option 2 amended slightly?

Therxh, I'm really interested in your thoughts on the options as was requested. We already have options on the table which appear to have the support now of two TNC MCs.

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.

The King, should he be available, is free to publicly announce his preferred successor; in fact I encourage him to do so. And the Ziu and people should be free to utterly ignore that suggestion.

We need 134+ votes in the Ziu to even put the replacement of the King on the agenda. 85 of those votes - the Free Democrats -  fought the last election precisely on the issue that the King should not be allowed to choose his own successor without the threshold required for any other OrgLaw reform. There are currently two options on the table:

- 1) leaving the succession open until after we know the Throne is empty;
- 2) naming a successor which would have broad support from both major parties.

If neither of these options will get 134+ votes anymore, then this debate is inoperative and Zombie King John stays. It seems the two "swing votes" in the TNC have gone back to precisely the option that the FreeDems fought the last election against, and I'm very discouraged.

Quote from: þerxh Sant-Enogat on April 15, 2024, 01:27:46 PMI just read Baron Alexandreu's words, and I agree that letting the King propose a successor would be the most coherent scenario to ensure the historical continuity on which our Nation is build upon.

There have been two "successful" Kings of Talossa: Robert I and John I.
 
Robert I founded the nation; John I was chosen by the Ziu by a supermajority and endorsed by the people in referendum.

"Hand-picked successors" were: Robert II, Florence, and Louis.

I'll leave it to you to decide what the appropriate Talossan "historical continuity" is.

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?

If the King makes a nomination, but that nomination has to achieve an "OrgLaw" threshold (2/3 of the Cosa), and the Ziu is free to make an alternative nomination if the King's is unacceptable, then that's fine by me. I note that the King has always had the right to introduce legislation, of which this is a special case.

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.

If this is how we finally get Txec on the throne then so be it...

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?

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.

Let me be very clear. If the King, or someone working for him, puts up a OrgLaw amendment establishing a timeline for his abdication and a process for succession in time for the 6th Clark, then I will hold off on my own bills for it to be voted on, on its merits (assuming that it is a bill solely dealing with these matters, with no tinkering to the role/powers of the Monarchy). If no such OrgLaw amendment is ready in time, then we proceed to a Vacant Throne or to a Ziu nomination.

Quote from: Baron Alexandreu Davinescu on April 15, 2024, 07:59:42 PMTonight 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?

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

Quote from: Baron Alexandreu Davinescu on April 15, 2024, 07:59:42 PMTonight I am processing the ID cards [...]

I'm waiting patiently!

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.

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.

Let me be very clear. If the King, or someone working for him, puts up a OrgLaw amendment establishing a timeline for his abdication and a process for succession in time for the 6th Clark, then I will hold off on my own bills for it to be voted on, on its merits (assuming that it is a bill solely dealing with these matters, with no tinkering to the role/powers of the Monarchy). If no such OrgLaw amendment is ready in time, then we proceed to a Vacant Throne or to a Ziu nomination.

Miestra, if the Baron is not able to produce his proposal soon then I recommend moving your proposals to the CRL. I would also be more than happy to be a co-sponsor on both.

I think we have a path forward.

1) something I never thought about until today (reading up on the abdication of Edward VIII of the UK) that given the wording of OrgLaw II.3:

QuoteThe King of Talossa is King John I, until his demise, abdication, or removal from the throne. Should the King at any time renounce or lose his citizenship, that renunciation or loss shall be deemed to imply his abdication of the Throne. Upon the demise, abdication, or removal from the Throne of the King, the Uppermost Cort shall be a Council of Regency.

the King can be deemed to have abdicated upon the passage of a bill saying that he has (https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/Edw8and1Geo6/1/3/section/1) and getting the Royal Assent (or, not being vetoed at least). It's killing me that I didn't think of this long ago.

2) given that, the question of vacating the Throne can be left out of an OrgLaw amendment, and the succession procedure just being added to the existing II.3. The Abdication Bill wouldn't *have* to go on the same Clark as a Succession Amendment, but we'd have to have an indication that it would not be vetoed, whenever it passes.

Let me think about this.

His Majesty's Declaration of Abdication Act

BE IT ENACTED by the King, Cosă and Senäts of Talossa in Ziu assembled that:

1. His Majesty John by the Grace of God, King of Talossa and of all its Realms and Regions, King of Cézembre, Sovereign Lord and Protector of Péngöpäts and the New Falklands, Defender of the Faith, Leader of the Armed Forces, Viceroy of Hoxha and Vicar of Atatürk, hereby declares his irrevocable intention to renounce the Throne.

2. Effect shall be given to this Declaration of Abdication three calendar months after the date of successful amendment of the Organic Law to provide for the appointment of an Heir to the throne.

The Succession Amendment

BE IT ENACTED by the King, Cosă and Senäts of Talossa in Ziu assembled that Article II.3 of the Organic Law, which currently reads:

QuoteThe King of Talossa is King John I, until his demise, abdication, or removal from the throne. Should the King at any time renounce or lose his citizenship, that renunciation or loss shall be deemed to imply his abdication of the Throne. Upon the demise, abdication, or removal from the Throne of the King, the Uppermost Cort shall be a Council of Regency.

shall be amended to read as follows:

Quote1.  The King of Talossa is King John I, until his demise, abdication, or removal from the throne.

2. The King may nominate an Heir Presumptive, to be approved by the Ziu and people by the same procedure as for an ordinary amendment of this Organic Law.

3. Should the King at any time renounce or lose his citizenship, that renunciation or loss shall be deemed to imply his abdication of the Throne.

4. Upon the demise, abdication, or removal from the Throne of the King, the Heir Presumptive shall become King; but there is no Heir Presumptive, the Ziu may nominate a new King following the same procedure as for an ordinary amendment of this Organic Law.

5. During any time that the throne is vacant and there is no Heir Presumptive, the Uppermost Cort shall be a Council of Regency in accordance with law.

(NOTE that this does not provide for a Convocation. The details of such a procedure are far too complicated to discuss properly before we need to Clark and vote on this. But suffice it to say that the next Ziu may decide, by majority vote, to establish such a Convocation for filling further vacancies - perhaps a party could run in the next election on that.)

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: 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 (https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/Edw8and1Geo6/1/3/section/1). 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?

Quote from: Miestră Schivă, UrN on April 16, 2024, 09:35:50 PMThe Succession Amendment

BE IT ENACTED by the King, Cosă and Senäts of Talossa in Ziu assembled that Article II.3 of the Organic Law, which currently reads:

QuoteThe King of Talossa is King John I, until his demise, abdication, or removal from the throne. Should the King at any time renounce or lose his citizenship, that renunciation or loss shall be deemed to imply his abdication of the Throne. Upon the demise, abdication, or removal from the Throne of the King, the Uppermost Cort shall be a Council of Regency.

shall be amended to read as follows:

Quote1.  The King of Talossa is King John I, until his demise, abdication, or removal from the throne.

2. The King may nominate an Heir Presumptive, to be approved by the Ziu and people by the same procedure as for an ordinary amendment of this Organic Law.

3. Should the King at any time renounce or lose his citizenship, that renunciation or loss shall be deemed to imply his abdication of the Throne.

4. Upon the demise, abdication, or removal from the Throne of the King, the Heir Presumptive shall become King; but there is no Heir Presumptive, the Ziu may nominate a new King following the same procedure as for an ordinary amendment of this Organic Law.

5. During any time that the throne is vacant and there is no Heir Presumptive, the Uppermost Cort shall be a Council of Regency in accordance with law.

Alternative Section 4:

Quote4. Upon the demise, abdication, or removal from the Throne of the King, the Heir Presumptive shall become King.

Upon any vacancy on the Throne with no Heir Presumptive, a Convocation of Succession shall be called and chaired by the Senior Judge of the Uppermost Cort, or in their absence the next available Judge in order of seniority, by publicly submitting to the Secretary of State a message to all eligible electors announcing the Convocation and providing instructions on how and when to register to participate. Upon receiving the message, the Secretary of State shall be responsible for communicating the message to all eligible electors. The Convocation shall commence fourteen days from the moment the Secretary of State sends the message to the electors.

Any Talossan shall who became a citizen no less than seven years before the date when the Judge submits the message to the Secretary of State shall be eligible to be an elector in the Convocation, but only those who register with the Judge before the Convocation commences shall be electors.

All discussions of the Convocation shall be open, but its votes shall be by secret ballot. The votes of every elector shall have equal weight. All other operations of the Convocation shall be decided by the Convocation or prescribed by statute.

At this meeting of the Convocation, an Heir Presumptive to the Throne of Talossa shall be chosen by the expressed support of 2/3 of the Convocation, and submitted to the Ziu and people for ratification by the same procedure as for an ordinary amendment of this Organic Law.

Quote from: Miestră Schivă, UrN on April 17, 2024, 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 (https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/Edw8and1Geo6/1/3/section/1). 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.

Quote from: Baron Alexandreu Davinescu on April 17, 2024, 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 (https://wittenberg.talossa.com/index.php?msg=26431) 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?

 

Quote from: Miestră Schivă, UrN on April 17, 2024, 04:53:53 PM

Quote from: Baron Alexandreu Davinescu on April 17, 2024, 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 (https://wittenberg.talossa.com/index.php?msg=26431) 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: Baron Alexandreu Davinescu on April 18, 2024, 01:20:29 PMWe 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?

With respect, while I've been trying to take all your ideas into consideration, the goal has always been to get at least 3 TNC MCs to support *anything* that would do the job. I think I've made a significant error in the last few days, and that's that I've been rapidly rewriting my proposal to cover your objections/suggestions, but not making reference to what the people with an actual vote want!

Despite our ongoing differences, Brenéir has been happy with whatever I've put up, and M. Yasir has apparently been nodding in the background as well. Dama Litz isn't talking, so I've been trying to find something that could get @þerxh Sant-Enogat or @Carlüs Éovart Vilaçafat (preferably both) on board. Originally they both supported the "clean decapitation" with some caveats; since then they've flipped to insisting the King name his successor, apparently swung by your arguments. That's the last I heard from them.

I've been asking them in PMs but no response for days, so I think we need to make this public. Þerxh and Carlüs, do you support my draft legislation as it stands, including all the suggestions that AD has made? Or do you prefer an earlier phase of suggestions? Or - possibly - is it just that you require AD to write the final draft?

(ETA: Carlüs has responded in PM, thanks very much!)

In any case, there remains 3 days before this can go to the CRL so anyone can suggest further amendments, but if at least 3 TNC MCs won't back it we're wasting our time.

BTW, I note that @King John made a rare personal appearance on Wittenberg today. He could save us a lavish of time by either confirming his intention to abdicate or confirming his intention not to do so, which would allow us more certainty in what to do next.

Quote from: Miestră Schivă, UrN on April 18, 2024, 05:20:41 PM

Quote from: Baron Alexandreu Davinescu on April 18, 2024, 01:20:29 PMWe 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?

With respect, while I've been trying to take all your ideas into consideration, the goal has always been to get at least 3 TNC MCs to support *anything* that would do the job. I think I've made a significant error in the last few days, and that's that I've been rapidly rewriting my proposal to cover your objections/suggestions, but not making reference to what the people with an actual vote want!

Despite our ongoing differences, Brenéir has been happy with whatever I've put up, and M. Yasir has apparently been nodding in the background as well. Dama Litz isn't talking, so I've been trying to find something that could get @þerxh Sant-Enogat or @Carlüs Éovart Vilaçafat (preferably both) on board. Originally they both supported the "clean decapitation" with some caveats; since then they've flipped to insisting the King name his successor, apparently swung by your arguments. That's the last I heard from them.

I've been asking them in PMs but no response for days, so I think we need to make this public. Þerxh and Carlüs, do you support my draft legislation as it stands, including all the suggestions that AD has made? Or do you prefer an earlier phase of suggestions? Or - possibly - is it just that you require AD to write the final draft?

(ETA: Carlüs has responded in PM, thanks very much!)

In any case, there remains 3 days before this can go to the CRL so anyone can suggest further amendments, but if at least 3 TNC MCs won't back it we're wasting our time.

Your proposal seems ok for me (better with alternative 4), sorry for late answer

Then I think we have consensus!

Happy to hear suggestions for minor tweaks etc before it goes to the CRL in 3 days.

Well obvious problems with the convocation process still exist! Can I write up a new version of it or tell you what the problems are again? Most fundamentally, it's a terrible idea to have the people holding the power schedule out when an election will happen and run the process for the most part.

Quote from: Baron Alexandreu Davinescu on April 19, 2024, 01:50:28 PMWell obvious problems with the convocation process still exist! Can I write up a new version of it or tell you what the problems are again? Most fundamentally, it's a terrible idea to have the people holding the power schedule out when an election will happen and run the process for the most part.

Huh, I didn't think there would be a problem with the CpI initiating the process; but on the other hand I just realised the CpI act as Regents in case of a vacancy, so you could be right. Interested to hear of alternatives either in full draft format or just suggestions, but I still want this done in 2 days if possible. And of course that applies to the whole act.

Okay then, here we go.  I solved the convocation thing by having the SoS run it as chair, but their decision appealable to the Uppermost Cort and with voting overseen by the heads of the Ziu.  I also fixed a lot of language and simplified a bit.  I think it solves all the problems I saw; hypothetically someone could try to game the system by appealing to the CpI over and over, but I don't think that's much of a path to corruption.  I removed all the timeline stuff and statute stuff that would let governments or officials try to meddle and game the system.  I kept more of the original language (why borrow trouble?)


Whereas, the monarchy is a central pillar of the country and its survival depends on its planned future as well as its activity, and

Whereas, this allows for democratic confirmations without becoming wholesale elections,

THEREFORE, the Ziu directs that Article II of the Organic Law, which currently read:

QuoteSection 1
The Kingdom of Talossa is a constitutional Monarchy with a King (or, if female, Queen) as its head of State.

Section 2
The King is the symbolic head of the nation. The nation democratically grants the King certain Royal Powers and duties as described in this Organic Law and in statute law. The Ziu may establish procedures for when the King fails to perform a duty.

Section 3
The King of Talossa is King John I, until his demise, abdication, or removal from the throne. Should the King at any time renounce or lose his citizenship, that renunciation or loss shall be deemed to imply his abdication of the Throne. Upon the demise, abdication, or removal from the Throne of the King, the Uppermost Cort shall be a Council of Regency.

Section 4
In dire circumstances, when the King is judged by competent medical authority to be incapable of executing his duties, or if he is convicted by the Talossan Uppermost Cort of violation of this Organic Law, treason, bribery, nonfeasance endangering the safety, order or good government of the Kingdom, or other high crimes, the nation may remove the King from the Throne. The Cosa shall pronounce by a two-thirds vote, with the approval of the Senäts, that the King is to be removed, and this pronouncement shall immediately be transmitted to the people for their verdict in a referendum. If a two-thirds majority of the people concur, the King is removed.

Section 5
The King may, at whim, appoint, replace, or remove a Regent (or a Council of Regency, which is considered equivalent to a Regent), who shall administer the government in the name of the King, and exercise all powers Organically or legally vested in the King, except the power to appoint or replace a Regent. No person not a citizen of Talossa shall be competent to serve as Regent or member of a Council of Regency. The Ziu may by law remove or replace any appointed Regent, and if the Ziu removes a Regent appointed by the King, the King may not reappoint the same person Regent without the prior consent of the Ziu.

Section 6
The King may grant titles of nobility and confer awards and decorations.

shall be amended to read as follows:

QuoteSection 1
The Kingdom of Talossa is a constitutional Monarchy with a King (or, if female, Queen) as its head of State.

Section 2
The King is the symbolic head of the nation. The nation democratically grants the King certain Royal Powers and duties as described in this Organic Law and in statute law. In addition, the King may grant titles of nobility and confer awards and decorations.

Section 3
The King of Talossa is King John I, until his demise, abdication, or removal from the throne.  Upon his demise, abdication, or removal from the throne, the new King shall be the Heir Presumptive, who shall be the duly-designated successor to the throne.  The new King shall likewise be succeeded in the same manner, and thus forever in perpetuity.

Section 4
Should the King at any time renounce or lose his citizenship, that renunciation or loss shall be deemed to imply his abdication of the Throne.  However, the King may abdicate without renouncing his citizenship.

Section 5
In dire circumstances, when the King is judged by competent medical authority to be incapable of executing his duties, or if he is convicted by the Talossan Uppermost Cort of violation of this Organic Law, treason, bribery, nonfeasance endangering the safety, order or good government of the Kingdom, or other high crimes, the nation may remove the King from the Throne. The Cosa shall pronounce by a two-thirds vote, with the approval of the Senäts, that the King is to be removed, and this pronouncement shall immediately be transmitted to the people for their verdict in a referendum. If a two-thirds majority of the people concur, the King is removed.

Section 6
The King may, at whim, appoint, replace, or remove a Regent (or a Council of Regency, which is considered equivalent to a Regent), who shall administer the government in the name of the King, and exercise all powers Organically or legally vested in the King, except the power to appoint or replace a Regent. No person not a citizen of Talossa shall be competent to serve as Regent or member of a Council of Regency. The Ziu may by law remove or replace any appointed Regent, and if the Ziu removes a Regent appointed by the King, the King may not reappoint the same person Regent without the prior consent of the Ziu.

Section 7
The King may nominate an Heir Presumptive by special decree to the Ziu.  This decree shall take effect upon approval of a two-thirds supermajority of the Ziu and by a majority of the people.

Section 8
Upon any vacancy on the Throne with no Heir Presumptive, the Secretary of State shall announce a convocation of succession.  This announcement will include details of the convocation of succession, as described by the Secretary of State.  The Secretary of State shall also include in this announcement a set of proposed rules and procedures for the convocation of succession, for public debate and consideration.  This announcement shall further include a list of all those who have been citizens no fewer than seven full years prior to that date, and who are therefore eligible electors of the convocation.  The Secretary of State shall shall immediately thereafter notify all of these electors of the convocation and their responsibilities.

Fourteen days after this announcement, the convocation shall be deemed to have commenced.  It shall be chaired by the Secretary of State in a fair manner designed to foster open discussion and faithful service.  The convocation of succession's first order of business shall be to approve, with or without modifications, the rules under which it will operate.   A decision of the chair may be appealed to the Uppermost Cort.  The convocation shall vote by secret ballot on a King.  The Túischac'h dal Cosa and the Mençei dal Senäts shall observe voting and ensure its fidelity.  All electors' votes shall have equal weight, and whichever candidate first receives the support of two-thirds of the convocation shall be deemed the nominee of the convocation of succession.  No votes for ineligible candidates shall be considered.  This choice shall be submitted to the people by referendum for their approval.  Should a majority of the people approve of the nominee, they shall be King of the Kingdom of Talossa.

Section 9
For the duration of any time during which the throne is empty, the Uppermost Cort shall be a Council of Regency.

Thanks for this detailed and clear text.
For my understanding : In the current set-up we are at least sure to have the CpI acting as a council of regency if no conclusive vote happens (section 3). The proposed new system may lead to a state without even this council of regency (if no regent nominated by the King and no conclusive vote on heir presumptive and king replacement) ?

The new Section 9 would cover that, stating, "For the duration of any time during which the throne is empty, the Uppermost Cort shall be a Council of Regency."  An error... I wonder if it should be placed somewhere else?

No, it's fine in a section on it's own, like in the old '97 OrgLaw. 


No major objections on my part, but a few points on the proposed text:

1) Section 3, needs some capital K's for the King. 
2) I think there needs to be some provision in there that, in the announcement of the Convocation of Succession, the SoS proposes how the Convocation of Succession will be run/the rules (e.g. nominations periods, voting method, how long voting will be open for etc..) and that the first act of the Electors is to approve by majority vote (or 2/3rds) said rules. Like the way the SoS announces how a GE is run and the EC approves said. No point appealing to the CpI when there is no established set of rules. 
3) Another idea is that if the SoS becomes a candidate/get nominated for King, then the SoS should recuse him/herself as Chair and nominate another to take his/her place.   

Quote from: Dame Litz Cjantscheir, UrN on April 20, 2024, 11:56:57 AM1) Section 3, needs some capital K's for the King.

Fixed.

Quote from: Dame Litz Cjantscheir, UrN on April 20, 2024, 11:56:57 AM2) I think there needs to be some provision in there that, in the announcement of the Convocation of Succession, the SoS proposes how the Convocation of Succession will be run/the rules (e.g. nominations periods, voting method, how long voting will be open for etc..) and that the first act of the Electors is to approve by majority vote (or 2/3rds) said rules. Like the way the SoS announces how a GE is run and the EC approves said. No point appealing to the CpI when there is no established set of rules.

I added, "The Secretary of State shall also include in this announcement a set of proposed rules and procedures for the convocation of succession, for public debate and consideration" and later "The convocation of succession's first order of business shall be to approve, with or without modifications, the rules under which it will operate."

Quote from: Dame Litz Cjantscheir, UrN on April 20, 2024, 11:56:57 AM3) Another idea is that if the SoS becomes a candidate/get nominated for King, then the SoS should recuse him/herself as Chair and nominate another to take his/her place.

I added, "No votes for ineligible candidates shall be considered."  That way the SoS can't be forced to recuse by nominating him, but also can't receive any votes.

The change appears to force the SoS to resign upon nomination as king which I do not support. I support recusal (and note to myself this is another option to address conflicts caused by an SoS taking on partisan political positions...)

I also can't support the Baron's succession proposal without some connection with King John designating a successor and giving a timeline for abdication.

Quote from: Baron Alexandreu Davinescu on April 20, 2024, 12:28:28 PMI added, "No votes for ineligible candidates shall be considered."  That way the SoS can't be forced to recuse by nominating him, but also can't receive any votes.

Are you suggesting then that whomever the SoS is at the time of a convocation, he/she cannot be selected?

I'm not sure yet what I think about the substantive issue (who calls/runs the Conclave), but I'm glad other people have pointed up problems. I have two problems at first sight, one of which is probably a drafting error, the other of which is an issue of principle:

1) s.7, "This decree shall take effect upon approval of a two-thirds supermajority of the Ziu". This neglects that we have a bicameral system - is this supposed to require a 2/3 majority in the Senäts? I much prefer my simple proposal to mirror OrgLaw amendments.

2) The second issue is that this amendment is supposed to be an overall amendment of the whole Section II of the current OrgLaw, including II.4 (the piece on a legal overthrow of the monarchy), which is reproduced as paragraph 5 of the Amendment. I have long contended that this section is useless as it's a higher bar to clear than simply amending the OrgLaw to overthrow the King. So I wouldn't support it being "reaffirmed".

There is now a third issue, which I didn't think about until Brenéir mentioned it. My proposal was to split up the Abdication and the Succession. But Brenéir has pointed out that it is possible that the King will approve of the Succession law but refuse to abdicate. Which would be a tricky, sneaky way of putting us in exactly the situation which the TNC proposed before the last election - and the FreeDems would rather die in a ditch than accept. This is made weirder by the fact that the King is clearly here now and refuses us to give any clear view of his intentions.

If he's going to be like that, maybe it's better not to Clark anything yet and wait for a clear direction on abdication? Or alternative to write a term limit to the reign of King John into the Succession amendment?

All of these things are pretty easy to fix. I was just going to let someone else draft the sunset language, but I'm happy to do it too.

I just got back from seder, so give me a little bit and I think all of the stuff is pretty easily remedied.

Too complicated. Puts too much power into the SoS's hands and then has to introduce a bunch of checks and balances to take it back out again. But, on the other hand, taking the CpI out of the equation is good (though it should be done consistently). I like this procedure - phrased as an amendment to my own proposal because I wouldn't want to unpick AD's carefully-chosen language.

Quote1. The King of Talossa is King John I, until his demise, abdication, or removal from the throne.

2. The King may nominate an Heir Presumptive, to be approved by the Ziu and people by the same procedure as for an ordinary amendment of this Organic Law.

3. Should the King at any time renounce or lose his citizenship, that renunciation or loss shall be deemed to imply his abdication of the Throne.

4. Upon the demise, abdication, or removal from the Throne of the King, the Heir Presumptive shall become King.

Upon any vacancy on the Throne with no Heir Presumptive, a Convocation of Succession shall be called by the Secretary of State, who shall send a message to all eligible electors announcing the Convocation and providing instructions on how and when to register to participate. The Convocation shall commence fourteen days from the moment the Secretary of State sends the message to the electors.

Any Talossan shall who became a citizen no less than seven years before the date when the Secretary of State sends the message shall be eligible to be an elector in the Convocation, but only those who register with the Secretary of State before the Convocation commences shall be electors.

The Secretary of State shall establish or choose a forum for the Convocation to begin its business. The first business of the Convocation shall be to elect a Chair, by either open support of an absolute majority of Convocation members, or open support of a plurality of Convocation members at the end of 7 days.

An Heir Presumptive to the Throne of Talossa shall be chosen by the expressed support of 2/3 of the Convocation in a secret ballot, and submitted to the Ziu and people for ratification by the same procedure as for an ordinary amendment of this Organic Law

All discussions of the Convocation shall be open, and the votes of every elector shall have equal weight. The rules shall have a provision for vacating the Chair and electing a new one. All other rules of the Convocation not mentioned above shall be decided by the Convocation itself.

5. During any time that the throne is vacant and there is no Heir Presumptive, the Uppermost Cort shall be a Council of Regency in accordance with law.

Oh, and I just noticed after agonizing over this wording for a while that AD's proposal removes the Ziu's role in ratifying the Conclave's choice. Was this deliberate?

Okay, Passover was a lot this year - sorry about the wait.  Taking concerns as they came:

* I have added in a sunset clause as per previous discussion.  It is at the end of the bill.  I have tried to render it in a dignified way that is also legally effective, but it's tricky to write contingencies... please take a look at it!
* The text of the bill would not disqualify the Secretary of State, unless someone wanted to remain in office as Secretary of State and run their own election.  If someone were told before a convocation that they would likely be nominated, then they would be well-advised to take the two-week grace period to resign so someone else could be appointed to run the election.  This overall feature is not something that can be avoided, since obviously the person counting a secret ballot shouldn't be eligible to win the ballot if it's feasible.  I have added a sentence to make this possibility clearer: "If the Secretary of State is entirely unavailable or no longer serving in office, the chair shall be elected by the convocation of succession."
* I have changed the two-thirds language to be more clear -- thank you, that was sloppily phrased.
* I have not made broad changes beyond the scope of what we're discussing, especially when (as Dama Miestra notes) the removal bar is actually higher than what is literally necessary with the process of an amendment.  This is a big and complicated thing we're trying to do, achieving broad consensus among many factions, and we shouldn't borrow trouble by making other significant changes.  It's hard enough to solve the main issue without adding on other stuff.  I beg of you guys: if you have any other pet projects, let's take care of them some other time when we're not restructuring fundamental parts of our nation.
* If there's something I missed, it's not a trick.  It's instead that I tried to write a compact, legally sound, unambiguous, and nicely-composed big new chunk of law.  Please just help me if I dropped a stitch.


Whereas, the monarchy is a central pillar of the country and its survival depends on its planned future as well as its activity, and

Whereas, this allows for democratic confirmations without becoming wholesale elections,

THEREFORE, the Ziu directs that Article II of the Organic Law, which currently read:

QuoteSection 1
The Kingdom of Talossa is a constitutional Monarchy with a King (or, if female, Queen) as its head of State.

Section 2
The King is the symbolic head of the nation. The nation democratically grants the King certain Royal Powers and duties as described in this Organic Law and in statute law. The Ziu may establish procedures for when the King fails to perform a duty.

Section 3
The King of Talossa is King John I, until his demise, abdication, or removal from the throne. Should the King at any time renounce or lose his citizenship, that renunciation or loss shall be deemed to imply his abdication of the Throne. Upon the demise, abdication, or removal from the Throne of the King, the Uppermost Cort shall be a Council of Regency.

Section 4
In dire circumstances, when the King is judged by competent medical authority to be incapable of executing his duties, or if he is convicted by the Talossan Uppermost Cort of violation of this Organic Law, treason, bribery, nonfeasance endangering the safety, order or good government of the Kingdom, or other high crimes, the nation may remove the King from the Throne. The Cosa shall pronounce by a two-thirds vote, with the approval of the Senäts, that the King is to be removed, and this pronouncement shall immediately be transmitted to the people for their verdict in a referendum. If a two-thirds majority of the people concur, the King is removed.

Section 5
The King may, at whim, appoint, replace, or remove a Regent (or a Council of Regency, which is considered equivalent to a Regent), who shall administer the government in the name of the King, and exercise all powers Organically or legally vested in the King, except the power to appoint or replace a Regent. No person not a citizen of Talossa shall be competent to serve as Regent or member of a Council of Regency. The Ziu may by law remove or replace any appointed Regent, and if the Ziu removes a Regent appointed by the King, the King may not reappoint the same person Regent without the prior consent of the Ziu.

Section 6
The King may grant titles of nobility and confer awards and decorations.

shall be amended to read as follows:

QuoteSection 1
The Kingdom of Talossa is a constitutional Monarchy with a King (or, if female, Queen) as its head of State.

Section 2
The King is the symbolic head of the nation. The nation democratically grants the King certain Royal Powers and duties as described in this Organic Law and in statute law. In addition, the King may grant titles of nobility and confer awards and decorations.

Section 3
The King of Talossa is King John I, until his demise, abdication, or removal from the throne.  Upon his demise, abdication, or removal from the throne, the new King shall be the Heir Presumptive, who shall be the duly-designated successor to the throne.  The new King shall likewise be succeeded in the same manner, and thus forever in perpetuity.

Section 4
Should the King at any time renounce or lose his citizenship, that renunciation or loss shall be deemed to imply his abdication of the Throne.  However, the King may abdicate without renouncing his citizenship.

Section 5
In dire circumstances, when the King is judged by competent medical authority to be incapable of executing his duties, or if he is convicted by the Talossan Uppermost Cort of violation of this Organic Law, treason, bribery, nonfeasance endangering the safety, order or good government of the Kingdom, or other high crimes, the nation may remove the King from the Throne. The Cosa shall pronounce by a two-thirds vote, with the approval of the Senäts, that the King is to be removed, and this pronouncement shall immediately be transmitted to the people for their verdict in a referendum. If a two-thirds majority of the people concur, the King is removed.

Section 6
The King may, at whim, appoint, replace, or remove a Regent (or a Council of Regency, which is considered equivalent to a Regent), who shall administer the government in the name of the King, and exercise all powers Organically or legally vested in the King, except the power to appoint or replace a Regent. No person not a citizen of Talossa shall be competent to serve as Regent or member of a Council of Regency. The Ziu may by law remove or replace any appointed Regent, and if the Ziu removes a Regent appointed by the King, the King may not reappoint the same person Regent without the prior consent of the Ziu.

Section 7
The King may nominate an Heir Presumptive by special decree to the Ziu.  This decree shall take effect upon approval of a two-thirds supermajority of the Cosa and majority approval of the Senäts, and by a majority of the people.

Section 8
Upon any vacancy on the Throne with no Heir Presumptive, the Secretary of State shall announce a convocation of succession.  This announcement will include details of the convocation of succession, as described by the Secretary of State.  The Secretary of State shall also include in this announcement a set of proposed rules and procedures for the convocation of succession, for public debate and consideration.  This announcement shall further include a list of all those who have been citizens no fewer than seven full years prior to that date, and who are therefore eligible electors of the convocation.  The Secretary of State shall shall immediately thereafter notify all of these electors of the convocation and their responsibilities.

Fourteen days after this announcement, the convocation shall be deemed to have commenced.  It shall be chaired by the Secretary of State in a fair manner designed to foster open discussion and faithful service.  If the Secretary of State is entirely unavailable or no longer serving in office, the chair shall be elected by the convocation of succession.  The convocation of succession's first order of business shall be to approve, with or without modifications, the rules under which it will operate.   A decision of the chair may be appealed to the Uppermost Cort.  The convocation shall vote by secret ballot on a King.  The Túischac'h dal Cosa and the Mençei dal Senäts shall observe voting and ensure its fidelity.  All electors' votes shall have equal weight, and whichever candidate first receives the support of two-thirds of the convocation shall be deemed the nominee of the convocation of succession.  No votes for ineligible candidates shall be considered.  This choice shall be submitted to the people by referendum for their approval.  Should a majority of the people approve of the nominee, they shall be King of the Kingdom of Talossa.

Section 9
For the duration of any time during which the throne is empty, the Uppermost Cort shall be a Council of Regency.

FURTHERMORE, the Ziu decrees, effective thirty days from the ratification of this amendment by the people and effective only if there is no nominee for Heir Presumptive before the Ziu, that the throne is vacant as though King John I had abdicated, and King John I is once more an ordinary citizen, with all of the rights and privileges of the same, released from his office and his duties with the nation's gratitude for his long service.  The Secretary of State is directed to begin immediate preparations for a convocation of succession.

In my opinion, my language for the convocation is better because it's a much much better safeguard against corruption.  A purely majoritarian process almost always turns into a hyperpartisan atmosphere.  And while that would benefit someone like me who's a loudmouth about stuff, I think it's much better to have set checks and safeguards on the process -- such as a designated apolitical chair and a designed check on that chair's power.  Remember that we should be thinking when we're making a new process: how could someone break this?

Quote from: Miestră Schivă, UrN on April 20, 2024, 08:02:50 PMToo complicated. Puts too much power into the SoS's hands and then has to introduce a bunch of checks and balances to take it back out again. But, on the other hand, taking the CpI out of the equation is good (though it should be done consistently). I like this procedure - phrased as an amendment to my own proposal because I wouldn't want to unpick AD's carefully-chosen language.

Quote1. The King of Talossa is King John I, until his demise, abdication, or removal from the throne.

2. The King may nominate an Heir Presumptive, to be approved by the Ziu and people by the same procedure as for an ordinary amendment of this Organic Law.

3. Should the King at any time renounce or lose his citizenship, that renunciation or loss shall be deemed to imply his abdication of the Throne.

4. Upon the demise, abdication, or removal from the Throne of the King, the Heir Presumptive shall become King.

Upon any vacancy on the Throne with no Heir Presumptive, a Convocation of Succession shall be called by the Secretary of State, who shall send a message to all eligible electors announcing the Convocation and providing instructions on how and when to register to participate. The Convocation shall commence fourteen days from the moment the Secretary of State sends the message to the electors.

Any Talossan shall who became a citizen no less than seven years before the date when the Secretary of State sends the message shall be eligible to be an elector in the Convocation, but only those who register with the Secretary of State before the Convocation commences shall be electors.

The Secretary of State shall establish or choose a forum for the Convocation to begin its business. The first business of the Convocation shall be to elect a Chair, by either open support of an absolute majority of Convocation members, or open support of a plurality of Convocation members at the end of 7 days.

An Heir Presumptive to the Throne of Talossa shall be chosen by the expressed support of 2/3 of the Convocation in a secret ballot, and submitted to the Ziu and people for ratification by the same procedure as for an ordinary amendment of this Organic Law

All discussions of the Convocation shall be open, and the votes of every elector shall have equal weight. The rules shall have a provision for vacating the Chair and electing a new one. All other rules of the Convocation not mentioned above shall be decided by the Convocation itself.

5. During any time that the throne is vacant and there is no Heir Presumptive, the Uppermost Cort shall be a Council of Regency in accordance with law.

I like this approach from Miestra. Just reduce the involvement of the SoS to the logistics of assembling the convocation. And then let the convocation elect its own chair.

But I do not think this is enough of an obstacle for me not to support the larger bill in the absence of opposition by others. It also looks like the planned abdication is now included in the proposal via a decree from the Ziu.

Quote from: Breneir Tzaracomprada on April 20, 2024, 10:40:56 PMBut I do not think this is enough of an obstacle for me not to support the larger bill in the absence of opposition by others. It also looks like the planned abdication is now included in the proposal via a decree from the Ziu.

It was a very hard thing to write.  This whole thing is just so brutal, after all of these years of service.

I won't have a careful read/critique of AD's latest proposal until the morning my time to allow others to comment, but doesn't the text of the FURTHERMORE down the bottom say that if an Heir Apparent is selected John still gets to be King?

Yes.  I believe I can say without violating any confidences that this would resolve the matter, in toto.  You have my word of honour on it.

Do you require instant abdication at that time for your support?

Minor question: the current text of Org.II.2 contains the clause "The Ziu may establish procedures for when the King fails to perform a duty." I do not see any such equivalent text in the proposed re-write. Is there a reason for this?

Quote from: Mic'haglh Autófil, SMC EiP on April 21, 2024, 02:21:11 AMMinor question: the current text of Org.II.2 contains the clause "The Ziu may establish procedures for when the King fails to perform a duty." I do not see any such equivalent text in the proposed re-write. Is there a reason for this?

No, just an oversight. Thank you! I'll fix it.

Whereas, the monarchy is a central pillar of the country and its survival depends on its planned future as well as its activity, and

Whereas, this allows for democratic confirmations without becoming wholesale elections,

THEREFORE, the Ziu directs that Article II of the Organic Law, which currently read:

QuoteSection 1
The Kingdom of Talossa is a constitutional Monarchy with a King (or, if female, Queen) as its head of State.

Section 2
The King is the symbolic head of the nation. The nation democratically grants the King certain Royal Powers and duties as described in this Organic Law and in statute law. The Ziu may establish procedures for when the King fails to perform a duty.

Section 3
The King of Talossa is King John I, until his demise, abdication, or removal from the throne. Should the King at any time renounce or lose his citizenship, that renunciation or loss shall be deemed to imply his abdication of the Throne. Upon the demise, abdication, or removal from the Throne of the King, the Uppermost Cort shall be a Council of Regency.

Section 4
In dire circumstances, when the King is judged by competent medical authority to be incapable of executing his duties, or if he is convicted by the Talossan Uppermost Cort of violation of this Organic Law, treason, bribery, nonfeasance endangering the safety, order or good government of the Kingdom, or other high crimes, the nation may remove the King from the Throne. The Cosa shall pronounce by a two-thirds vote, with the approval of the Senäts, that the King is to be removed, and this pronouncement shall immediately be transmitted to the people for their verdict in a referendum. If a two-thirds majority of the people concur, the King is removed.

Section 5
The King may, at whim, appoint, replace, or remove a Regent (or a Council of Regency, which is considered equivalent to a Regent), who shall administer the government in the name of the King, and exercise all powers Organically or legally vested in the King, except the power to appoint or replace a Regent. No person not a citizen of Talossa shall be competent to serve as Regent or member of a Council of Regency. The Ziu may by law remove or replace any appointed Regent, and if the Ziu removes a Regent appointed by the King, the King may not reappoint the same person Regent without the prior consent of the Ziu.

Section 6
The King may grant titles of nobility and confer awards and decorations.

shall be amended to read as follows:

QuoteSection 1
The Kingdom of Talossa is a constitutional Monarchy with a King (or, if female, Queen) as its head of State.

Section 2
The King is the symbolic head of the nation. The nation democratically grants the King certain Royal Powers and duties as described in this Organic Law and in statute law. In addition, the King may grant titles of nobility and confer awards and decorations. The Ziu may establish procedures for when the King fails to perform a duty.

Section 3
The King of Talossa is King John I, until his demise, abdication, or removal from the throne.  Upon his demise, abdication, or removal from the throne, the new King shall be the Heir Presumptive, who shall be the duly-designated successor to the throne.  The new King shall likewise be succeeded in the same manner, and thus forever in perpetuity.

Section 4
Should the King at any time renounce or lose his citizenship, that renunciation or loss shall be deemed to imply his abdication of the Throne.  However, the King may abdicate without renouncing his citizenship.

Section 5
In dire circumstances, when the King is judged by competent medical authority to be incapable of executing his duties, or if he is convicted by the Talossan Uppermost Cort of violation of this Organic Law, treason, bribery, nonfeasance endangering the safety, order or good government of the Kingdom, or other high crimes, the nation may remove the King from the Throne. The Cosa shall pronounce by a two-thirds vote, with the approval of the Senäts, that the King is to be removed, and this pronouncement shall immediately be transmitted to the people for their verdict in a referendum. If a two-thirds majority of the people concur, the King is removed.

Section 6
The King may, at whim, appoint, replace, or remove a Regent (or a Council of Regency, which is considered equivalent to a Regent), who shall administer the government in the name of the King, and exercise all powers Organically or legally vested in the King, except the power to appoint or replace a Regent. No person not a citizen of Talossa shall be competent to serve as Regent or member of a Council of Regency. The Ziu may by law remove or replace any appointed Regent, and if the Ziu removes a Regent appointed by the King, the King may not reappoint the same person Regent without the prior consent of the Ziu.

Section 7
The King may nominate an Heir Presumptive by special decree to the Ziu.  This decree shall take effect upon approval of a two-thirds supermajority of the Cosa and majority approval of the Senäts, and by a majority of the people.

Section 8
Upon any vacancy on the Throne with no Heir Presumptive, the Secretary of State shall announce a convocation of succession.  This announcement will include details of the convocation of succession, as described by the Secretary of State.  The Secretary of State shall also include in this announcement a set of proposed rules and procedures for the convocation of succession, for public debate and consideration.  This announcement shall further include a list of all those who have been citizens no fewer than seven full years prior to that date, and who are therefore eligible electors of the convocation.  The Secretary of State shall shall immediately thereafter notify all of these electors of the convocation and their responsibilities.

Fourteen days after this announcement, the convocation shall be deemed to have commenced.  It shall be chaired by the Secretary of State in a fair manner designed to foster open discussion and faithful service.  If the Secretary of State is entirely unavailable or no longer serving in office, the chair shall be elected by the convocation of succession.  The convocation of succession's first order of business shall be to approve, with or without modifications, the rules under which it will operate.   A decision of the chair may be appealed to the Uppermost Cort.  The convocation shall vote by secret ballot on a King.  The Túischac'h dal Cosa and the Mençei dal Senäts shall observe voting and ensure its fidelity.  All electors' votes shall have equal weight, and whichever candidate first receives the support of two-thirds of the convocation shall be deemed the nominee of the convocation of succession.  No votes for ineligible candidates shall be considered.  This choice shall be submitted to the people by referendum for their approval.  Should a majority of the people approve of the nominee, they shall be King of the Kingdom of Talossa.

Section 9
For the duration of any time during which the throne is empty, the Uppermost Cort shall be a Council of Regency.

FURTHERMORE, the Ziu decrees, effective thirty days from the ratification of this amendment by the people, that the throne is vacant as though King John I had abdicated, and King John I is once more an ordinary citizen, with all of the rights and privileges of the same, released from his office and his duties with the nation's gratitude for his long service.  The Secretary of State is directed to begin immediate preparations for a convocation of succession.

After discussion with the Free Democrats, I am moved to accept AD's text as a whole, but I'm still not 100% happy with section 8. The best critique I've heard is the large burden of work this puts on the SoS to organise the Convocation, both writing the rules and chairing. So I would like to introduce the following, as well as splitting the text up for easier reading. Note that I also do not see the point of appeal to the CpI (if we allow the Convocation to appoint its own chair) nor involving the chairs of the Houses of the Ziu in the process.

I would be happy to present the text as amended below to the CRL with my blessings. Bolded text is additions by me; underlined text is AD's work shifted around.

QuoteSection 8

8.1 Upon any vacancy on the Throne with no Heir Presumptive, the Secretary of State shall announce a convocation of succession.  This announcement will include details of the convocation of succession, as described by the Secretary of State. The Secretary of State shall also include in this announcement a set of proposed rules and procedures for the convocation of succession, for public debate and consideration. This announcement shall further include a list of all those who have been citizens no fewer than seven full years prior to that date, and who are therefore eligible electors of the convocation.  The Secretary of State shall shall immediately thereafter notify all of these electors of the convocation and their responsibilities.

8.2. The Secretary of State shall also include in this announcement a set of proposed rules and procedures for the convocation of succession, for public debate and consideration. These proposed rules and procedures may be set by law or drawn up at the Secretary of State's discretion. The convocation of succession's first order of business shall be to approve, with or without modifications, the rules under which it will operate, which may differ from the Secretary of State's proposals or from those suggested by law, but may not contradict this Organic Law.

8.3. Fourteen days after this announcement, the convocation shall be deemed to have commenced.  It shall be chaired by the Secretary of State in a fair manner designed to foster open discussion and faithful service, If the Secretary of State is entirely unavailable or no longer serving in office, the chair shall be unless a different chair is elected by the convocation of succession by the expressed preference of an absolute majority of members, or by the expressed preference of a plurality of members within a period of 7 days.  The convocation of succession's first order of business shall be to approve, with or without modifications, the rules under which it will operate. A decision of the chair may be appealed to the Uppermost Cort. 

8.4 The convocation shall vote by secret ballot on a King. The Túischac'h dal Cosa and the Mençei dal Senäts shall observe voting and ensure its fidelity.  All electors' votes shall have equal weight, and whichever candidate first receives the support of two-thirds of the convocation shall be deemed the nominee of the convocation of succession.  No votes for ineligible candidates shall be considered. 

8.5 This choice shall be submitted to the people by referendum for their approval.  Should a majority of the people approve of the nominee, they shall be King of the Kingdom of Talossa.

This thread is now 10 days old and therefore the bill (as below) is now ready to be moved to the CRL as far as its proponent/main sponsor is concerned - that being me, because I started the thread, although someone else wrote a complete draft during the process. I understand that there might still be room for debate about the substantive provisions of the bill, and if anyone really wants that to happen, it can happen now. Alternatively, we can move this to the CRL now to check for non sequiturs, typos, and other drafting errors - but keep debating the substantives after it comes back. The big problem is I don't want us to still be butting heads on the substantives in 7 days or so or and in danger of missing the Clark.

BTW, there is a problem that, as far as I read El Lexhatx H.2.2., named sponsors of the bill must be MZs, which would exclude the actual author of most of this text. Am I reading that right or can Baron Davinescù's name go on it (if he would be happy to do so given that I've made crucial edits)?

===


Whereas, the monarchy is a central pillar of the country and its survival depends on its planned future as well as its activity, and

Whereas, this allows for democratic confirmations without leading to possibly politicised elections,

THEREFORE, the Ziu directs that Article II of the Organic Law, which currently reads:

QuoteSection 1
    The Kingdom of Talossa is a constitutional Monarchy with a King (or, if female, Queen) as its head of State.

    Section 2
    The King is the symbolic head of the nation. The nation democratically grants the King certain Royal Powers and duties as described in this Organic Law and in statute law. The Ziu may establish procedures for when the King fails to perform a duty.

    Section 3
    The King of Talossa is King John I, until his demise, abdication, or removal from the throne. Should the King at any time renounce or lose his citizenship, that renunciation or loss shall be deemed to imply his abdication of the Throne. Upon the demise, abdication, or removal from the Throne of the King, the Uppermost Cort shall be a Council of Regency.

    Section 4
    In dire circumstances, when the King is judged by competent medical authority to be incapable of executing his duties, or if he is convicted by the Talossan Uppermost Cort of violation of this Organic Law, treason, bribery, nonfeasance endangering the safety, order or good government of the Kingdom, or other high crimes, the nation may remove the King from the Throne. The Cosa shall pronounce by a two-thirds vote, with the approval of the Senäts, that the King is to be removed, and this pronouncement shall immediately be transmitted to the people for their verdict in a referendum. If a two-thirds majority of the people concur, the King is removed.

    Section 5
    The King may, at whim, appoint, replace, or remove a Regent (or a Council of Regency, which is considered equivalent to a Regent), who shall administer the government in the name of the King, and exercise all powers Organically or legally vested in the King, except the power to appoint or replace a Regent. No person not a citizen of Talossa shall be competent to serve as Regent or member of a Council of Regency. The Ziu may by law remove or replace any appointed Regent, and if the Ziu removes a Regent appointed by the King, the King may not reappoint the same person Regent without the prior consent of the Ziu.

    Section 6
    The King may grant titles of nobility and confer awards and decorations.

shall be amended to read as follows:

QuoteSection 1
    The Kingdom of Talossa is a constitutional Monarchy with a King (or, if female, Queen) as its head of State.

    Section 2
    The King is the symbolic head of the nation. The nation democratically grants the King certain Royal Powers and duties as described in this Organic Law and in statute law. In addition, the King may grant titles of nobility and confer awards and decorations. The Ziu may establish procedures for when the King fails to perform a duty.

    Section 3
    The King of Talossa is King John I, until his demise, abdication, or removal from the throne.  Upon his demise, abdication, or removal from the throne, the new King shall be the Heir Presumptive, who shall be the duly-designated successor to the throne.  The new King shall likewise be succeeded in the same manner, and thus forever in perpetuity.

    Section 4
    Should the King at any time renounce or lose his citizenship, that renunciation or loss shall be deemed to imply his abdication of the Throne.  However, the King may abdicate without renouncing his citizenship.

    Section 5
    In dire circumstances, when the King is judged by competent medical authority to be incapable of executing his duties, or if he is convicted by the Talossan Uppermost Cort of violation of this Organic Law, treason, bribery, nonfeasance endangering the safety, order or good government of the Kingdom, or other high crimes, the nation may remove the King from the Throne. The Cosa shall pronounce by a two-thirds vote, with the approval of the Senäts, that the King is to be removed, and this pronouncement shall immediately be transmitted to the people for their verdict in a referendum. If a two-thirds majority of the people concur, the King is removed.

    Section 6
    The King may, at whim, appoint, replace, or remove a Regent (or a Council of Regency, which is considered equivalent to a Regent), who shall administer the government in the name of the King, and exercise all powers Organically or legally vested in the King, except the power to appoint or replace a Regent. No person not a citizen of Talossa shall be competent to serve as Regent or member of a Council of Regency. The Ziu may by law remove or replace any appointed Regent, and if the Ziu removes a Regent appointed by the King, the King may not reappoint the same person Regent without the prior consent of the Ziu.

    Section 7
    The King may nominate an Heir Presumptive by special decree to the Ziu.  This decree shall take effect upon approval of a two-thirds supermajority of the Cosa and majority approval of the Senäts, and by a majority of the people.

    Section 8

8.1 Upon any vacancy on the Throne with no Heir Presumptive, the Secretary of State shall announce a convocation of succession.  This announcement will include details of the convocation of succession, as described by the Secretary of State. This announcement shall further include a list of all those who have been citizens no fewer than seven full years prior to that date, and who are therefore eligible electors of the convocation.  The Secretary of State shall shall immediately thereafter notify all of these electors of the convocation and their responsibilities.

8.2. The Secretary of State shall also include in this announcement a set of proposed rules and procedures for the convocation of succession, for public debate and consideration. These proposed rules and procedures may be set by law or drawn up at the Secretary of State's discretion. The convocation of succession's first order of business shall be to approve, with or without modifications, the rules under which it will operate, which may differ from the Secretary of State's proposals or from those suggested by law, but may not contradict this Organic Law.

8.3. Fourteen days after this announcement, the convocation shall be deemed to have commenced.  It shall be chaired by the Secretary of State in a fair manner designed to foster open discussion and faithful service, unless a different chair is elected by the convocation of succession by the expressed preference of an absolute majority of members, or by the expressed preference of a plurality of members within a period of 7 days. 

8.4 The convocation shall vote by secret ballot on a King. All electors' votes shall have equal weight, and whichever candidate first receives the support of two-thirds of the convocation shall be deemed the nominee of the convocation of succession.  No votes for ineligible candidates shall be considered. 

8.5 This choice shall be submitted to the people by referendum for their approval.  Should a majority of the people approve of the nominee, they shall be King of the Kingdom of Talossa.

    Section 9
    For the duration of any time during which the throne is empty, the Uppermost Cort shall be a Council of Regency.

FURTHERMORE, the Ziu decrees, effective thirty days from the ratification of this amendment by the people, that the throne is vacant as though King John I had abdicated, and King John I is once more an ordinary citizen, with all of the rights and privileges of the same, released from his office and his duties with the nation's gratitude for his long service.  The Secretary of State is directed to begin immediate preparations for a convocation of succession.

Quote from: Miestră Schivă, UrN on April 21, 2024, 10:39:24 PMBTW, there is a problem that, as far as I read El Lexhatx H.2.2., named sponsors of the bill must be MZs, which would exclude the actual author of most of this text. Am I reading that right or can Baron Davinescù's name go on it (if he would be happy to do so given that I've made crucial edits)?

Unfortunately under OrgLaw VII.5, only a member of the Cosa, a Senator, the King or the Secretary of State can submit legislative proposals. El Lex H.2.2 does allow all citizens to draft legislation, but it must be sponsored by one of this mentioned in OrgLaw.

Here is a version with your changes, Miestra, but incorporated in the traditional style.  The only thing I removed was this: "These proposed rules and procedures may be set by law or drawn up at the Secretary of State's discretion."

It is important that we not let the legislature meddle in this, inasmuch as we are able.  It should be a process set aside, as much as possible.  I do think it'd be a good idea to immediately draw up some suggested rules and procedures, though.  I already had in mind that basically the traditional rules of order could be followed -- familiar to anyone who's ever run a meeting or participated in a legislature that used them.  I'd be happy to take a crack at it next month, if that'd be amenable to Txec.

Beyond that, I would politely request that we really do need someone else to keep an eye on the voting.  If not the heads of the legislature, maybe the CpI?  We simply can't have a secret ballot for something so important that relies entirely on the absolute honesty of one person.  This is no reflection on anyone personally, but it's just good governance not to trust anyone so much.


Whereas, the monarchy is a central pillar of the country and its survival depends on its planned future as well as its activity, and

Whereas, this allows for democratic confirmations without becoming wholesale elections,

THEREFORE, the Ziu directs that Article II of the Organic Law, which currently read:

QuoteSection 1
The Kingdom of Talossa is a constitutional Monarchy with a King (or, if female, Queen) as its head of State.

Section 2
The King is the symbolic head of the nation. The nation democratically grants the King certain Royal Powers and duties as described in this Organic Law and in statute law. The Ziu may establish procedures for when the King fails to perform a duty.

Section 3
The King of Talossa is King John I, until his demise, abdication, or removal from the throne. Should the King at any time renounce or lose his citizenship, that renunciation or loss shall be deemed to imply his abdication of the Throne. Upon the demise, abdication, or removal from the Throne of the King, the Uppermost Cort shall be a Council of Regency.

Section 4
In dire circumstances, when the King is judged by competent medical authority to be incapable of executing his duties, or if he is convicted by the Talossan Uppermost Cort of violation of this Organic Law, treason, bribery, nonfeasance endangering the safety, order or good government of the Kingdom, or other high crimes, the nation may remove the King from the Throne. The Cosa shall pronounce by a two-thirds vote, with the approval of the Senäts, that the King is to be removed, and this pronouncement shall immediately be transmitted to the people for their verdict in a referendum. If a two-thirds majority of the people concur, the King is removed.

Section 5
The King may, at whim, appoint, replace, or remove a Regent (or a Council of Regency, which is considered equivalent to a Regent), who shall administer the government in the name of the King, and exercise all powers Organically or legally vested in the King, except the power to appoint or replace a Regent. No person not a citizen of Talossa shall be competent to serve as Regent or member of a Council of Regency. The Ziu may by law remove or replace any appointed Regent, and if the Ziu removes a Regent appointed by the King, the King may not reappoint the same person Regent without the prior consent of the Ziu.

Section 6
The King may grant titles of nobility and confer awards and decorations.

shall be amended to read as follows:

QuoteSection 1
The Kingdom of Talossa is a constitutional Monarchy with a King (or, if female, Queen) as its head of State.

Section 2
The King is the symbolic head of the nation. The nation democratically grants the King certain Royal Powers and duties as described in this Organic Law and in statute law. In addition, the King may grant titles of nobility and confer awards and decorations. The Ziu may establish procedures for when the King fails to perform a duty.

Section 3
The King of Talossa is King John I, until his demise, abdication, or removal from the throne.  Upon his demise, abdication, or removal from the throne, the new King shall be the Heir Presumptive, who shall be the duly-designated successor to the throne.  The new King shall likewise be succeeded in the same manner, and thus forever in perpetuity.

Section 4
Should the King at any time renounce or lose his citizenship, that renunciation or loss shall be deemed to imply his abdication of the Throne.  However, the King may abdicate without renouncing his citizenship.

Section 5
In dire circumstances, when the King is judged by competent medical authority to be incapable of executing his duties, or if he is convicted by the Talossan Uppermost Cort of violation of this Organic Law, treason, bribery, nonfeasance endangering the safety, order or good government of the Kingdom, or other high crimes, the nation may remove the King from the Throne. The Cosa shall pronounce by a two-thirds vote, with the approval of the Senäts, that the King is to be removed, and this pronouncement shall immediately be transmitted to the people for their verdict in a referendum. If a two-thirds majority of the people concur, the King is removed.

Section 6
The King may, at whim, appoint, replace, or remove a Regent (or a Council of Regency, which is considered equivalent to a Regent), who shall administer the government in the name of the King, and exercise all powers Organically or legally vested in the King, except the power to appoint or replace a Regent. No person not a citizen of Talossa shall be competent to serve as Regent or member of a Council of Regency. The Ziu may by law remove or replace any appointed Regent, and if the Ziu removes a Regent appointed by the King, the King may not reappoint the same person Regent without the prior consent of the Ziu.

Section 7
The King may nominate an Heir Presumptive by special decree to the Ziu.  This decree shall take effect upon approval of a two-thirds supermajority of the Cosa and majority approval of the Senäts, and by a majority of the people.

Section 8
Upon any vacancy on the Throne with no Heir Presumptive, the Secretary of State shall announce a convocation of succession.  This announcement will include details of the convocation of succession, as described by the Secretary of State. This announcement shall further include a list of all those who have been citizens no fewer than seven full years prior to that date, and who are therefore eligible electors of the convocation.  The Secretary of State shall shall immediately thereafter notify all of these electors of the convocation and their responsibilities. The Secretary of State shall also include in this announcement a set of proposed rules and procedures for the convocation of succession, for public debate and consideration. The convocation of succession's first order of business shall be to approve, with or without modifications, the rules under which it will operate, which may differ from the Secretary of State's proposals, but may not contradict this Organic Law.

Fourteen days after this announcement, the convocation shall be deemed to have commenced.  It shall be chaired by the Secretary of State in a fair manner designed to foster open discussion and faithful service, unless a different chair is elected by the convocation of succession by the expressed preference of an absolute majority of members, or by the expressed preference of a plurality of members within a period of seven days. The convocation shall vote by secret ballot on a King. All electors' votes shall have equal weight, and whichever candidate first receives the support of two-thirds of the convocation shall be deemed the nominee of the convocation of succession.  No votes for ineligible candidates shall be considered. This choice shall be submitted to the people by referendum for their approval.  Should a majority of the people approve of the nominee, they shall be King of the Kingdom of Talossa.

Section 9
For the duration of any time during which the throne is empty, the Uppermost Cort shall be a Council of Regency.

FURTHERMORE, the Ziu decrees, effective thirty days from the ratification of this amendment by the people, that the throne is vacant as though King John I had abdicated, and King John I is once more an ordinary citizen, with all of the rights and privileges of the same, released from his office and his duties with the nation's gratitude for his long service.  The Secretary of State is directed to begin immediate preparations for a convocation of succession.

Oh and also I don't care that I can't sponsor it.  It is fine with me if you want to do so, or another MC has also offered to do so.

Quote from: Baron Alexandreu Davinescu on April 22, 2024, 08:36:13 AMI'd be happy to take a crack at it next month, if that'd be amenable to Txec.

Beyond that, I would politely request that we really do need someone else to keep an eye on the voting.  If not the heads of the legislature, maybe the CpI?  We simply can't have a secret ballot for something so important that relies entirely on the absolute honesty of one person.  This is no reflection on anyone personally, but it's just good governance not to trust anyone so much.

Sure, the process should be collaborative. I have some thoughts on the rules, but they aren't fully formed yet.

As for who monitors the votes, why not use the Electoral Commission? We could simply stipulate in the bill that the most recently seated EC are the proctors or some other term overseeing the ballots.

Quote from: Baron Alexandreu Davinescu on April 22, 2024, 08:37:30 AMOh and also I don't care that I can't sponsor it.  It is fine with me if you want to do so, or another MC has also offered to do so.

Miestra, to confirm, yes I would be delighted to co-sponsor the legislation now that it has the abdication decree. It also looks like there is now language to provide flexibility around the SoS chairing the convocation as the body is empowered to choose different leadership in the event the SoS is a potential selectee of the convocation.

(https://i.imgflip.com/8nog4l.jpg)

Attention CRL: @Baron Alexandreu Davinescu , @Ian Plätschisch , @Sir Lüc . This bill is now ready for your perusal, as sponsored by myself and @Breneir Tzaracomprada .

Quote from: Baron Alexandreu Davinescu on April 22, 2024, 08:36:13 AMHere is a version with your changes, Miestra, but incorporated in the traditional style.  The only thing I removed was this: "These proposed rules and procedures may be set by law or drawn up at the Secretary of State's discretion."

It is important that we not let the legislature meddle in this, inasmuch as we are able.  It should be a process set aside, as much as possible.  I do think it'd be a good idea to immediately draw up some suggested rules and procedures, though.  I already had in mind that basically the traditional rules of order could be followed -- familiar to anyone who's ever run a meeting or participated in a legislature that used them.  I'd be happy to take a crack at it next month, if that'd be amenable to Txec.

Beyond that, I would politely request that we really do need someone else to keep an eye on the voting.  If not the heads of the legislature, maybe the CpI?  We simply can't have a secret ballot for something so important that relies entirely on the absolute honesty of one person.  This is no reflection on anyone personally, but it's just good governance not to trust anyone so much.

The Succession Amendment and Decree

Whereas, the monarchy is a central pillar of the country and its survival depends on its planned future as well as its activity, and

Whereas, this allows for democratic confirmations without becoming wholesale elections,

THEREFORE, the Ziu directs that Article II of the Organic Law, which currently read:

QuoteSection 1
The Kingdom of Talossa is a constitutional Monarchy with a King (or, if female, Queen) as its head of State.

Section 2
The King is the symbolic head of the nation. The nation democratically grants the King certain Royal Powers and duties as described in this Organic Law and in statute law. The Ziu may establish procedures for when the King fails to perform a duty.

Section 3
The King of Talossa is King John I, until his demise, abdication, or removal from the throne. Should the King at any time renounce or lose his citizenship, that renunciation or loss shall be deemed to imply his abdication of the Throne. Upon the demise, abdication, or removal from the Throne of the King, the Uppermost Cort shall be a Council of Regency.

Section 4
In dire circumstances, when the King is judged by competent medical authority to be incapable of executing his duties, or if he is convicted by the Talossan Uppermost Cort of violation of this Organic Law, treason, bribery, nonfeasance endangering the safety, order or good government of the Kingdom, or other high crimes, the nation may remove the King from the Throne. The Cosa shall pronounce by a two-thirds vote, with the approval of the Senäts, that the King is to be removed, and this pronouncement shall immediately be transmitted to the people for their verdict in a referendum. If a two-thirds majority of the people concur, the King is removed.

Section 5
The King may, at whim, appoint, replace, or remove a Regent (or a Council of Regency, which is considered equivalent to a Regent), who shall administer the government in the name of the King, and exercise all powers Organically or legally vested in the King, except the power to appoint or replace a Regent. No person not a citizen of Talossa shall be competent to serve as Regent or member of a Council of Regency. The Ziu may by law remove or replace any appointed Regent, and if the Ziu removes a Regent appointed by the King, the King may not reappoint the same person Regent without the prior consent of the Ziu.

Section 6
The King may grant titles of nobility and confer awards and decorations.

shall be amended to read as follows:

QuoteSection 1
The Kingdom of Talossa is a constitutional Monarchy with a King (or, if female, Queen) as its head of State.

Section 2
The King is the symbolic head of the nation. The nation democratically grants the King certain Royal Powers and duties as described in this Organic Law and in statute law. In addition, the King may grant titles of nobility and confer awards and decorations. The Ziu may establish procedures for when the King fails to perform a duty.

Section 3
The King of Talossa is King John I, until his demise, abdication, or removal from the throne.  Upon his demise, abdication, or removal from the throne, the new King shall be the Heir Presumptive, who shall be the duly-designated successor to the throne.  The new King shall likewise be succeeded in the same manner, and thus forever in perpetuity.

Section 4
Should the King at any time renounce or lose his citizenship, that renunciation or loss shall be deemed to imply his abdication of the Throne.  However, the King may abdicate without renouncing his citizenship.

Section 5
In dire circumstances, when the King is judged by competent medical authority to be incapable of executing his duties, or if he is convicted by the Talossan Uppermost Cort of violation of this Organic Law, treason, bribery, nonfeasance endangering the safety, order or good government of the Kingdom, or other high crimes, the nation may remove the King from the Throne. The Cosa shall pronounce by a two-thirds vote, with the approval of the Senäts, that the King is to be removed, and this pronouncement shall immediately be transmitted to the people for their verdict in a referendum. If a two-thirds majority of the people concur, the King is removed.

Section 6
The King may, at whim, appoint, replace, or remove a Regent (or a Council of Regency, which is considered equivalent to a Regent), who shall administer the government in the name of the King, and exercise all powers Organically or legally vested in the King, except the power to appoint or replace a Regent. No person not a citizen of Talossa shall be competent to serve as Regent or member of a Council of Regency. The Ziu may by law remove or replace any appointed Regent, and if the Ziu removes a Regent appointed by the King, the King may not reappoint the same person Regent without the prior consent of the Ziu.

Section 7
The King may nominate an Heir Presumptive by special decree to the Ziu.  This decree shall take effect upon approval of a two-thirds supermajority of the Cosa and majority approval of the Senäts, and by a majority of the people.

Section 8
Upon any vacancy on the Throne with no Heir Presumptive, the Secretary of State shall announce a convocation of succession.  This announcement will include details of the convocation of succession, as described by the Secretary of State. This announcement shall further include a list of all those who have been citizens no fewer than seven full years prior to that date, and who are therefore eligible electors of the convocation.  The Secretary of State shall shall immediately thereafter notify all of these electors of the convocation and their responsibilities. The Secretary of State shall also include in this announcement a set of proposed rules and procedures for the convocation of succession, for public debate and consideration. The convocation of succession's first order of business shall be to approve, with or without modifications, the rules under which it will operate, which may differ from the Secretary of State's proposals, but may not contradict this Organic Law.

Fourteen days after this announcement, the convocation shall be deemed to have commenced.  It shall be chaired by the Secretary of State in a fair manner designed to foster open discussion and faithful service, unless a different chair is elected by the convocation of succession by the expressed preference of an absolute majority of members, or by the expressed preference of a plurality of members within a period of seven days. The convocation shall vote by secret ballot on a King. All electors' votes shall have equal weight, and whichever candidate first receives the support of two-thirds of the convocation shall be deemed the nominee of the convocation of succession.  No votes for ineligible candidates shall be considered. This choice shall be submitted to the people by referendum for their approval.  Should a majority of the people approve of the nominee, they shall be King of the Kingdom of Talossa.

Section 9
For the duration of any time during which the throne is empty, the Uppermost Cort shall be a Council of Regency.

FURTHERMORE, the Ziu decrees, effective thirty days from the ratification of this amendment by the people, that the throne is vacant as though King John I had abdicated, and King John I is once more an ordinary citizen, with all of the rights and privileges of the same, released from his office and his duties with the nation's gratitude for his long service.  The Secretary of State is directed to begin immediate preparations for a convocation of succession.

Quote from: Miestră Schivă, UrN on April 22, 2024, 06:18:24 PM(https://i.imgflip.com/8nog4l.jpg)

This makes me very happy.
I don't want to jinx it but if this issue is settled in an enduring fashion AND it is through the cooperation of former political adversaries then this is a great moment for Talossa.

Quote from: Breneir Tzaracomprada on April 22, 2024, 07:15:21 PMI don't want to jinx it but if this issue is settled in an enduring fashion AND it is through the cooperation of former political adversaries then this is a great moment for Talossa.

Make no mistake, AD and I will probably be political adversaries to the end of time lol. :D But the co-operation of current political adversaries on a major project of constitutional reform is something to be treasured, and something I've wanted for a long time. It may well have the impact of causing a whole realignment in Talossan politics.

Putting my CRL hat on, I am a bit concerned about the supplementary decree that would bring about King John's abdication. It is on one hand an amendment to Section 3 of the Organic Law, which specifies that John I specifically is the King until "his demise, abdication, or removal". On the other hand it is ephemeral, simply describing an event that will occur at a specified time, and not something that becomes part of the legal code.

I think the decree would make more sense if Section 3 were amended as follows:

QuoteThe King of Talossa shall remain on the throne until his demise, abdication, or removal. Should the King at any time renounce or lose his citizenship, that renunciation or loss shall be deemed to imply his abdication of the Throne. Upon the demise, abdication, or removal from the Throne of the King, the Uppermost Cort shall be a Council of Regency.

This change, combined with the decree, essentially would amend Section 3 as follows, but do so much more cleanly:

QuoteThe King of Talossa shall remain on the throne until his demise, abdication, or removal, unless the King is King John I, in which case he is considered to have abdicated. Should the King at any time renounce or lose his citizenship, that renunciation or loss shall be deemed to imply his abdication of the Throne. Upon the demise, abdication, or removal from the Throne of the King, the Uppermost Cort shall be a Council of Regency.

I like this approach because a decree saying the throne is vacant "as though" the King had abdicated is not really the same as the King actually abdicating (in the case of Edward VIII, he signed the instrument of his abdication). Also, we will avoid the formality of needing to amend the Organic Law once a Heir Presumptive has already become the new King.

Wouldn't it be much easier to simply remove "as though King John I had abdicated" from the decree section?  I can see a hypothetical problem, but I frankly see no real practical problem and I'd like to avoid such a clumsy bit of phrasing if we can.  Also, it's possible that His Majesty might be asked to resume the throne one day -- stranger things have happened! -- and it'd be kind of weird to prohibit only him.  It's also kind of an affront to the man's dignity -- we're barring him but not his predecessors?

I'm not necessarily opposed to any changes, but I think we'd at least need to find a more elegant and less rude one if we're actually worried about this, if it's okay.

I do not think there is any reason to amend the OrgLaw upon the succession of a new monarch -- they would be the new king, as the text says, and "thus succeeded unto perpetuity."  We could make such a change if we so felt like it -- maybe on an anniversary of some time on the throne -- but there's no actual need to do so.  The conditional clause in that bit substitutes in the successor (or their successor, etc.) neatly and with absoluteness.

My take on the "decree" is that it's a regrettable kludge necessitated by the fact that the King will neither abdicate gracefully nor indicate otherwise so we could proceed to "legislative decapitation". I would agree with AD that there is no need to be rude but we've got to make sure it "sticks" (and no need to bar him from a possible comeback although it's hard to imagine a situation where that could happen).

My idea as previously was to just draw up a Decree of Abdication that would take effect automatically if not signed, like any other law, but I was worried whether an ordinary Act of the Ziu (as opposed to an OrgLaw amendment) would do the job.

Upon rereading my post, I can see why it didn't come off the way I wanted.

I never meant to propose amending Section 3 to specifically call out King John's abdication. I was only trying to illustrate (with a failed attempt at humor) what the effect of amending Section 3 to remove any reference to a specific person, plus a decree of King John's abdication, would essentially be.

The (perhaps hypothetical) issue I see is that the amendment and decree kind of contradict each other. Section 3 as-is says John I is King until his demise, abdication, or removal, but the decree says the throne is vacant even though none of those things happened.

Sorry for the confusion.

Quote from: Miestră Schivă, UrN on April 22, 2024, 06:19:53 PMAttention CRL: @Baron Alexandreu Davinescu (https://wittenberg.talossa.com/index.php?action=profile;u=20) , @Ian Plätschisch (https://wittenberg.talossa.com/index.php?action=profile;u=10) , @Sir Lüc (https://wittenberg.talossa.com/index.php?action=profile;u=2) . This bill is now ready for your perusal, as sponsored by myself and @Breneir Tzaracomprada (https://wittenberg.talossa.com/index.php?action=profile;u=12) .

I must note that this bill is substantially different from the one first presented when this Hopper thread was created; and its earliest similar version was posted on the 17th of April, meaning that if that's taken to be the time the current proposal was first Hoppered, the bill will only be ready for CRL consideration in three days's time.

It shouldn't be any issue clearing it in time for the next Clark, so I'm just trying to avoid setting a bad precedent.

This is good material for news. This topic is probably the most active on here.

Quote from: Miestră Schivă, UrN on April 23, 2024, 12:17:18 AMMy take on the "decree" is that it's a regrettable kludge necessitated by the fact that the King will neither abdicate gracefully nor indicate otherwise so we could proceed to "legislative decapitation". I would agree with AD that there is no need to be rude but we've got to make sure it "sticks" (and no need to bar him from a possible comeback although it's hard to imagine a situation where that could happen).

My idea as previously was to just draw up a Decree of Abdication that would take effect automatically if not signed, like any other law, but I was worried whether an ordinary Act of the Ziu (as opposed to an OrgLaw amendment) would do the job.

Maybe the solution is just to do a separate bill?  That would be easiest, and I think trust would extend that far at this point.  If they were viewed as a joint package, I'd support that (not that I have a vote, but I am pretty noisy).

Quote from: Sir Lüc on April 23, 2024, 06:10:00 AM

Quote from: Miestră Schivă, UrN on April 22, 2024, 06:19:53 PMAttention CRL: @Baron Alexandreu Davinescu (https://wittenberg.talossa.com/index.php?action=profile;u=20) , @Ian Plätschisch (https://wittenberg.talossa.com/index.php?action=profile;u=10) , @Sir Lüc (https://wittenberg.talossa.com/index.php?action=profile;u=2) . This bill is now ready for your perusal, as sponsored by myself and @Breneir Tzaracomprada (https://wittenberg.talossa.com/index.php?action=profile;u=12) .

I must note that this bill is substantially different from the one first presented when this Hopper thread was created; and its earliest similar version was posted on the 17th of April, meaning that if that's taken to be the time the current proposal was first Hoppered, the bill will only be ready for CRL consideration in three days's time.

It shouldn't be any issue clearing it in time for the next Clark, so I'm just trying to avoid setting a bad precedent.

Legally speaking, we could just affirm this right now out of committee and then any changes we want could still be made afterwards, but I agree that this would be a bad precedent and we should not do it.  As a general rule, (if we are going to have a CRL) then a bill should not go to a vote without CRL approval, and it should get re-approved if it is substantially revised after the CRL process.  It's not a legal necessity but it's good practice and something the Ziu can enforce on itself.

Quote from: Baron Alexandreu Davinescu on April 23, 2024, 10:51:07 AM

Quote from: Sir Lüc on April 23, 2024, 06:10:00 AMI must note that this bill is substantially different from the one first presented when this Hopper thread was created; and its earliest similar version was posted on the 17th of April, meaning that if that's taken to be the time the current proposal was first Hoppered, the bill will only be ready for CRL consideration in three days's time.

It shouldn't be any issue clearing it in time for the next Clark, so I'm just trying to avoid setting a bad precedent.

Legally speaking, we could just affirm this right now out of committee and then any changes we want could still be made afterwards, but I agree that this would be a bad precedent and we should not do it.  As a general rule, (if we are going to have a CRL) then a bill should not go to a vote without CRL approval, and it should get re-approved if it is substantially revised after the CRL process.  It's not a legal necessity but it's good practice and something the Ziu can enforce on itself.

Yeah, I understand where Lüc's coming from, but how are you going to measure "earliest similar version"? That's pretty subjective.  IMHO the ten days should be the period of discussion of the proposal as a concept. Actual textual continuity should not be required.

I also understand where AD's coming from whereby you could totally replace a bill's text after CRL but before Clarking. But to require the CRL's say to be final would be giving the CRL too much power. A more difficult question. The CRL should be an advisory body that needs to have its say but should be able to be ignored (by a staggering coincidence that's my idea of the monarchy as well).

Quote from: Baron Alexandreu Davinescu on April 23, 2024, 10:48:00 AMMaybe the solution is just to do a separate bill?  That would be easiest, and I think trust would extend that far at this point.  If they were viewed as a joint package, I'd support that (not that I have a vote, but I am pretty noisy).

Can we do a separate bill as a joint package, i.e. the two go up or go down together? I would be worried that one would get vetoed but the other passed.

Quote from: Miestră Schivă, UrN on April 23, 2024, 04:23:46 PM

Quote from: Baron Alexandreu Davinescu on April 23, 2024, 10:48:00 AMMaybe the solution is just to do a separate bill?  That would be easiest, and I think trust would extend that far at this point.  If they were viewed as a joint package, I'd support that (not that I have a vote, but I am pretty noisy).

Can we do a separate bill as a joint package, i.e. the two go up or go down together? I would be worried that one would get vetoed but the other passed.

I really really really doubt you need to worry about a veto. And yes the provisions can be easily written so that they are contingent on each other. That is a good solution. That wouldn't go in the text, but in the therefore clauses. I can do it tonight if you'd like.

Quote from: Baron Alexandreu Davinescu on April 23, 2024, 05:49:26 PM

Quote from: Miestră Schivă, UrN on April 23, 2024, 04:23:46 PM

Quote from: Baron Alexandreu Davinescu on April 23, 2024, 10:48:00 AMMaybe the solution is just to do a separate bill?  That would be easiest, and I think trust would extend that far at this point.  If they were viewed as a joint package, I'd support that (not that I have a vote, but I am pretty noisy).

Can we do a separate bill as a joint package, i.e. the two go up or go down together? I would be worried that one would get vetoed but the other passed.

I really really really doubt you need to worry about a veto. And yes the provisions can be easily written so that they are contingent on each other. That is a good solution. That wouldn't go in the text, but in the therefore clauses. I can do it tonight if you'd like.

Yeah good, I liked the wording in my Abdication Bill (https://wittenberg.talossa.com/index.php?topic=3180.msg26427#msg26427). If there really is no chance of a veto, this is the dignified way out.

Quote from: Miestră Schivă, UrN on April 11, 2024, 07:35:45 PMHappy to consider other suggestions for the Regency btw, but this is the existing procedure (with a tweak or two) as stipulated in OrgLaw II.5. We could even have a "sunset clause" to make sure we do actually choose a King in a decent time frame.

I have no issue with either this or the Active Monarchy Assurance Amendment going through, but if they both got Clarked and both passed, we'd be in trouble :D I just have a feeling that this has a better chance.

this is an excellent addition on the sunset clause BTW..

Here are two linked bills.  I would like to reiterate that I still think we need oversight on the balloting process -- if it's the most recent Electoral Commission, that'd be fine too.


Whereas, the monarchy is a central pillar of the country and its survival depends on its planned future as well as its activity, and

Whereas, this allows for democratic confirmations without becoming wholesale elections,

THEREFORE, the Ziu directs that Article II of the Organic Law, which currently read:

QuoteSection 1
The Kingdom of Talossa is a constitutional Monarchy with a King (or, if female, Queen) as its head of State.

Section 2
The King is the symbolic head of the nation. The nation democratically grants the King certain Royal Powers and duties as described in this Organic Law and in statute law. The Ziu may establish procedures for when the King fails to perform a duty.

Section 3
The King of Talossa is King John I, until his demise, abdication, or removal from the throne. Should the King at any time renounce or lose his citizenship, that renunciation or loss shall be deemed to imply his abdication of the Throne. Upon the demise, abdication, or removal from the Throne of the King, the Uppermost Cort shall be a Council of Regency.

Section 4
In dire circumstances, when the King is judged by competent medical authority to be incapable of executing his duties, or if he is convicted by the Talossan Uppermost Cort of violation of this Organic Law, treason, bribery, nonfeasance endangering the safety, order or good government of the Kingdom, or other high crimes, the nation may remove the King from the Throne. The Cosa shall pronounce by a two-thirds vote, with the approval of the Senäts, that the King is to be removed, and this pronouncement shall immediately be transmitted to the people for their verdict in a referendum. If a two-thirds majority of the people concur, the King is removed.

Section 5
The King may, at whim, appoint, replace, or remove a Regent (or a Council of Regency, which is considered equivalent to a Regent), who shall administer the government in the name of the King, and exercise all powers Organically or legally vested in the King, except the power to appoint or replace a Regent. No person not a citizen of Talossa shall be competent to serve as Regent or member of a Council of Regency. The Ziu may by law remove or replace any appointed Regent, and if the Ziu removes a Regent appointed by the King, the King may not reappoint the same person Regent without the prior consent of the Ziu.

Section 6
The King may grant titles of nobility and confer awards and decorations.

shall be amended to read as follows:

QuoteSection 1
The Kingdom of Talossa is a constitutional Monarchy with a King (or, if female, Queen) as its head of State.

Section 2
The King is the symbolic head of the nation. The nation democratically grants the King certain Royal Powers and duties as described in this Organic Law and in statute law. In addition, the King may grant titles of nobility and confer awards and decorations. The Ziu may establish procedures for when the King fails to perform a duty.

Section 3
The King of Talossa is King John I, until his demise, abdication, or removal from the throne.  Upon his demise, abdication, or removal from the throne, the new King shall be the Heir Presumptive, who shall be the duly-designated successor to the throne.  The new King shall likewise be succeeded in the same manner, and thus forever in perpetuity.

Section 4
Should the King at any time renounce or lose his citizenship, that renunciation or loss shall be deemed to imply his abdication of the Throne.  However, the King may abdicate without renouncing his citizenship.

Section 5
In dire circumstances, when the King is judged by competent medical authority to be incapable of executing his duties, or if he is convicted by the Talossan Uppermost Cort of violation of this Organic Law, treason, bribery, nonfeasance endangering the safety, order or good government of the Kingdom, or other high crimes, the nation may remove the King from the Throne. The Cosa shall pronounce by a two-thirds vote, with the approval of the Senäts, that the King is to be removed, and this pronouncement shall immediately be transmitted to the people for their verdict in a referendum. If a two-thirds majority of the people concur, the King is removed.

Section 6
The King may, at whim, appoint, replace, or remove a Regent (or a Council of Regency, which is considered equivalent to a Regent), who shall administer the government in the name of the King, and exercise all powers Organically or legally vested in the King, except the power to appoint or replace a Regent. No person not a citizen of Talossa shall be competent to serve as Regent or member of a Council of Regency. The Ziu may by law remove or replace any appointed Regent, and if the Ziu removes a Regent appointed by the King, the King may not reappoint the same person Regent without the prior consent of the Ziu.

Section 7
The King may nominate an Heir Presumptive by special decree to the Ziu.  This decree shall take effect upon approval of a two-thirds supermajority of the Cosa and majority approval of the Senäts, and by a majority of the people.

Section 8
Upon any vacancy on the Throne with no Heir Presumptive, the Secretary of State shall announce a convocation of succession.  This announcement will include details of the convocation of succession, as described by the Secretary of State. This announcement shall further include a list of all those who have been citizens no fewer than seven full years prior to that date, and who are therefore eligible electors of the convocation.  The Secretary of State shall shall immediately thereafter notify all of these electors of the convocation and their responsibilities. The Secretary of State shall also include in this announcement a set of proposed rules and procedures for the convocation of succession, for public debate and consideration. The convocation of succession's first order of business shall be to approve, with or without modifications, the rules under which it will operate, which may differ from the Secretary of State's proposals, but may not contradict this Organic Law.

Fourteen days after this announcement, the convocation shall be deemed to have commenced.  It shall be chaired by the Secretary of State in a fair manner designed to foster open discussion and faithful service, unless a different chair is elected by the convocation of succession by the expressed preference of an absolute majority of members, or by the expressed preference of a plurality of members within a period of seven days. The convocation shall vote by secret ballot on a King.  All electors' votes shall have equal weight, and whichever candidate first receives the support of two-thirds of the convocation shall be deemed the nominee of the convocation of succession.  No votes for ineligible candidates shall be considered. This choice shall be submitted to the people by referendum for their approval.  Should a majority of the people approve of the nominee, they shall be King of the Kingdom of Talossa.

Section 9
For the duration of any time during which the throne is empty, the Uppermost Cort shall be a Council of Regency.

This bill shall only come into effect (a) upon the full passage and approval of the Decree Amendment of 2024/XLV or (b) upon the death, abdication, or removal of His Majesty King John I.




Whereas it is universally acknowledged that it is time for gratitude and progress forward,

THEREFORE the Ziu decrees, effective thirty days from the ratification of this amendment by the people, that the throne is vacant as though King John I had abdicated, and King John I is once more an ordinary citizen, with all of the rights and privileges of the same, released from his office and his duties with the nation's gratitude for his long service.  The Secretary of State is directed to begin immediate preparations for a convocation of succession.

This bill shall only come into effect upon the full passage and approval of the Succession Amendment of 2024/XLV; it shall be considered chronologically to have come into effect immediately after the Succession Amendment of 2024/XLV, rather than simultaneously.  This bill shall not come into effect if His Majesty King John I has died, abdicated, or been removed from the throne.

I understand the worries about oversight; but if we want the Convocation to be independent (to the point where the Ziu aren't allowed to set rules for it), then we have to believe that it can decide for itself what kind of scrutiny its votes may have. In any case, there is a larger "check" on screwery, that being the Ziu and referendum confirmation.

But I hope the last bit assuages the CRL's worries?

Looks good

@Sir Lüc it's been 10 days since AD dropped his first draft, can this get the nod now?

Sure, go forth and Clark.

Guidance from @Sir Txec dal Nordselvă, UrB please - do we have to Clark this as one amendment or two?

It's two.

Quote from: Miestră Schivă, UrN on April 27, 2024, 05:42:23 PMGuidance from @Sir Txec dal Nordselvă, UrB please - do we have to Clark this as one amendment or two?

It must be Clarked as two amendments based on how it is written.

I'd suggest that under the circumstances, we can dispense with the circumstantial clause in the Succession Amendment. His Majesty has pledged to abdicate once things are set. We can also dispense with the other bill entirely. His Majesty would never renege on a public pledge of this sort.

I have no reason to believe that His Majesty has the intent to go back on his pledge to abdicate once he is "satisfied that there will yet remain to our Kingdom a monarch to safeguard her honours and her majesties". Emphasis added; the King is signalling the kind of person (with the kind of agenda) he hopes to nominate. It could be a long time before such a person can be found who would be acceptable to a Ziu supermajority.

I will consult my party ASAP but I hope we can still Clark this in time.

Quote from: Miestră Schivă, UrN on April 28, 2024, 04:52:36 PMI have no reason to believe that His Majesty has the intent to go back on his pledge to abdicate once he is "satisfied that there will yet remain to our Kingdom a monarch to safeguard her honours and her majesties". Emphasis added; the King is signalling the kind of person (with the kind of agenda) he hopes to nominate. It could be a long time before such a person can be found who would be acceptable to a Ziu supermajority.

I will consult my party ASAP but I hope we can still Clark this in time.

I hope we can move forward with both bills too. This seems like a remarkable opportunity for progress.

Under these terms, when his Majesty is offering exactly what was demanded, it would seem particularly ungracious for the legislature to suddenly reverse itself and insist on forcible deposing. I would hope that this body would not be so shabby.

Quote from: Baron Alexandreu Davinescu on April 28, 2024, 05:38:29 PMUnder these terms, when his Majesty is offering exactly what was demanded, it would seem particularly ungracious for the legislature to suddenly reverse itself and insist on forcible deposing. I would hope that this body would not be so shabby.

Well, it's not exactly what was demanded. Specifically the King is asking to officially be part of the process of selecting the new King, beyond simply announcing his preferred successor. At this point we can't know who he has in mind, and whether that person would be acceptable to the various elements of our population. We do not want to end up in a situation in which the King will only nominate candidates who would not enjoy broad enough support, because then we will be exactly where we are now.

Again I point out that the King could potentially resolve this easily by announcing who he would select.

I admit that I don't quite understand your point, honestly.  His Majesty specifically endorsed the process being considered right now and said he would abdicate as soon as a successor was chosen.  It seems quite backwards to suggest that a candidate must be named before the process can be established, so I assume that wasn't what you meant?

Look, as I understand it, the major point of contention was that republicans were generally in favor of an entirely inactive monarchy rather than an invigorated one, since an inactive monarchy would continue to lead to a decline in support for monarchy in general.  Likewise, monarchists were generally in favor of supporting the king, since lending any support to change meant helping destroy one of Talossa's oldest and most valuable traditions.  But both sides have agreed to give way, with monarchists accepting a pretty dramatic and historic shift in norms, while republicans are accepting the continuation of the monarchy for at least the near future.  The king appears to be endorsing the resulting deal, offering his own abdication once it has been accomplished.  It would be a shame to scorn that healing gesture!

What is the fear?  That His Majesty will renege?  No one thinks that King John I is going to do that.  Ask Dama Miestra if she thinks that the man can stick to a deal, and she will confirm.  Hell, my own principles are known to be made of cold iron.  And if the question is delay -- well, I don't think that's realistic.  Alea iacta est, and that can't be undone.

A hard and painful bargain has been struck, so let it abide.

Quote from: Baron Alexandreu Davinescu on April 28, 2024, 09:04:00 PM...the major point of contention was that republicans were generally in favor of an entirely inactive monarchy rather than an invigorated one, since an inactive monarchy would continue to lead to a decline in support for monarchy in general.  Likewise, monarchists were generally in favor of supporting the king, since lending any support to change meant helping destroy one of Talossa's oldest and most valuable traditions..... 

I suspect this very much depends upon the meaning given to the word "inactive".

There are at least two different meanings:
A) taking no action whatsoever, neither symbolic nor political, or
B) taking no political power (including vetos upon legislation), but still retaining symbolic significance.

It is my (personal) opinion that symbolic power is exactly what a monarch should retain and exhibit.  A monarch should be an essential part of the Kingdom's symbolic unity, and the formal source of its internal symbolic levels of recognition.  But the Monarchy should not, in any way, be a source of or instrumental in the Kingdom's political actions.  As an example I cite some other kingdoms, such as The United Kingdom, and the Kingdoms of the Netherlands, and Norway and Sweden.

We, in Talossa, can remain a Monarchy, and still be fully - totally - democratic.  All persons with political power must retain that power for only a pre-stated finite period of time, and also be freely elected by the citizenry.  And the time in office should be limited to at most five years (or such other period as we prescribe beforehand).

I think you misunderstand.  In that quote, "inactive" refers to a lack of activity generally in Talossa, not the level of power assigned to the role.  His Majesty has not been able to devote much time to the country, regardless of what form that time takes.

Quote from: Baron Alexandreu Davinescu on April 29, 2024, 09:03:31 AMI think you misunderstand.  In that quote, "inactive" refers to a lack of activity generally in Talossa, not the level of power assigned to the role.  His Majesty has not been able to devote much time to the country, regardless of what form that time takes.

Thus, in this context, "inactive" refers, at base, to meaning A: " taking no action whatsoever".  The cause of that lack of action is a separate question.

Our function - as now presented to us - is to ensure that any future monarch's activity be judged against his/her then given powers:  i.e. to the powers given to any new monarch, be they be the same as or different from the powers now believed to be held by our current monarch, and to those previous to him.

So we must at this time, in resolution of potential ambiguity, also carefully consider what we mean by "inactive".

I've let other Free Democrats have their say, and what follows is my personal take.

I don't have any fear at all that "his Majesty will renege", that Ián I has any real interest in staying on as King. I thought I was clear - but apparently not - that it was another part of his message that struck me badly. Here it is again:

QuoteWe declare that it is our intention to abdicate our throne.  When we are satisfied that there will yet remain to our Kingdom a monarch to safeguard her honours and her majesties, we will lay down our Royal honours, and remain *very* happy to continue to enjoy the high honours we share with all of you -- the honours of a citizen of the Kingdom of Talossa.

Now correct me if I'm wrong, but His Maj's declaration seems to be predicated on the Ziu and people endorsing a successor who is specifically of the same political mind as Ián I re: the role of the monarchy in Talossan life. 

My signature line, which expresses Free Democrat party policy, is "NO POLITICISED KING!" To condition the succession on the incoming Monarch being of the same political line as his/her predecessor is, ipso facto, politicising the monarchy.

Some may have a wrong idea, that the Free Democrats are chafing at the idea of a certain individual being the successor. But, not really. The consensus we have hammered out in this amendment that a 1/3 Cosă minority gets a veto over successors is an adequate safeguard against "anyone in particular". The scenario we are worried about is as follows:

JOHN I: I hereby decree X as my successor.
THE ZIU: Sorry, try again.
JOHN I: I hereby decree Y as my successor.
THE ZIU: Sorry, try again.
JOHN I: I hereby decree Z as my successor.
THE ZIU: Look, this isn´t working. Haven't you got someone who's not *ideologically* offensive to the minority? Like, for example, person A over here?
JOHN I: No. They're not going "to safeguard her honours and her majesties". Endorse a politically acceptable candidate or I'm going nowhere.

So: we worry that the succession will become a political struggle that will go on forever.

HOWEVER.

An informal poll of Free Democrat opinion shows no appetite so far for "blowing up the deal" at this point. So I see no reason why I should not Clark the Succession Amendment in time. Let it be known, though, that the outgoing King seems to have signalled an appetite for one last political fight on his way out. We hope and pray this is not what we face.

Quote from: Miestră Schivă, UrN on April 29, 2024, 03:47:59 PMSo: we worry that the succession will become a political struggle that will go on forever.

Well, you guys are wrong.  This is not where he's at.  He isn't signaling a fight, he's just agreeing to the offer on the table.  I can't speak for him, but I'm pretty sure.

I'm glad that sense has prevailed.  As we move forward with the Succession Act, please remember to take out the conditional clause before Clarking.

Just an FYI: tomorrow is the last day for Clarking anything for this Cosa term, so whatever the parties agree to must be submitted ASAP.

Last minute question, sorry to be a jerk. I would like to Clark this with the words "(or, if female, Queen)" removed from Section 1. Two reasons:

- I'm kind of nostalgic for the ancient Talossan precedent whereby "King" is a gender-neutral term. (I'd honestly kind of like to start a new one whereby the King's consort is called the Queen regardless of gender :D )
- It's a friendly gesture to any Talossans now or in the future who might not identify as either male nor female.

Quote from: Miestră Schivă, UrN on April 29, 2024, 08:04:02 PMLast minute question, sorry to be a jerk. I would like to Clark this with the words "(or, if female, Queen)" removed from Section 1. Two reasons:

- I'm kind of nostalgic for the ancient Talossan precedent whereby "King" is a gender-neutral term. (I'd honestly kind of like to start a new one whereby the King's consort is called the Queen regardless of gender :D )
- It's a friendly gesture to any Talossans now or in the future who might not identify as either male nor female.

Honestly that was what I was hoping to do when I proposed Monarch but I like how using King as a gender-neutral term is in fitting with Talossan history.

Sounds fine to me.

I've put it in the Database myself, Mr SoS. Alea jacta est.

Quote from: Miestră Schivă, UrN on April 29, 2024, 10:42:50 PMI've put it in the Database myself, Mr SoS. Alea jacta est.

Thank you. Clarked as RZ22.