@Ian Plätschisch I hope this is OK to bring your previous amendment back here for potential discussions. I was inspired by your recently reelected party president's speech. I do agree with her and hopefully you that the time is right now after observing the activity levels of the King during my own term and that of Therxh's term. There is a similar proposal that I brought forward for discussion internally in the TNC.
QuoteWHEREAS There is no point in being longwinded here because everything that can be said about an elective Monarchy has already been said,
THEREFORE Org II.3 is replaced in its entirety with:
A Conclave shall be called within three months of every seventh anniversary of a monarch's accession to the throne, the abdication or death of the Monarch, or as otherwise provided in Section 4. The first of such Conclaves shall take place within three months of the date this section comes into force and shall have full authority to remove and replace the current Monarch. This Conclave shall be chaired by the Senior Judge of the Uppermost Cort, or in their absence the next available Judge in order of seniority.
The Senior Judge shall call a Conclave by publicly submitting to the Secretary of State a message to all eligible electors announcing the Conclave and providing instructions on how and when to register to participate. Whenever the Conclave is called by the Ziu, the Túischac'h (or another Cosa official if the Túischac'h is unavailable) shall submit this message instead. Upon receiving the message, the Secretary of State shall be responsible for communicating the message to all eligible electors. The Conclave shall commence fourteen days from the moment the Secretary of State sends the message to the electors.
Any Talossan who has been a citizen for at least seven years as of when the Judge (or Cosa official) submits the message to the Secretary of State and fully completes their registration with the Senior Judge before the Conclave commences, shall be eligible to be an elector in the Conclave,
All discussions of the Conclave 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 Conclave shall be decided by the Conclave or prescribed by statute.
Should more than 60% of the Conclave express that they desire the Monarch not remain on the throne, then the Conclave shall be called and meet again in six months according to the procedures above. At this meeting of the Conclave, a new Monarch of Talossa (who may be the current Monarch) shall be chosen. The candidate who receives the expressed support of 2/3 of the Conclave shall immediately have their nomination submitted to all eligible voters for approval. The Secretary of State shall send to all eligible voters a simple ballot asking "Do you wish for [Name of Nominee] to become Monarch of Talossa?". Voters may only respond Yes or No to this question. If after 30 days from the date the ballots are first sent, the nominee receives more 'Yes' votes than 'No', s/he shall assume the title of "Heir Presumptive". The Conclave shall reconvene and repeat this process should there be more 'No' votes than 'Yes' for the nominee. The Conclave may be called to choose a new Monarch whenever there is no Monarch.
The Heir Presumptive shall swear an oath promising to protect and uphold the Organic Law of Talossa and the rights of all its citizens, and thereupon become Monarch of Talossa, replacing the previous Monarch (unless both are the same person).
FURTHERMORE Org II.4 is amended to read:
In dire circumstances, when the Monarch 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, or when the Ziu deems it necessary due to neglect of duties or gross inactivity, the nation may remove the Monarch from the Throne. The Cosa shall pronounce by a two-thirds vote, with the approval of the Senäts, that the Monarch is to be removed, and this pronouncement shall immediately be transmitted to the people for their verdict in a referendum. If a majority of the people concur, the Monarch is removed, the Council of Regency shall assume all duties of the Monarch and a Conclave is to be called within three months to nominate a successor.
FURTHERMORE Org II.5 is amended to read:
The Monarch 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 Monarch, and exercise all powers Organically or legally vested in the Monarch, 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 Monarch, the Monarch may not reappoint the same person Regent without the prior consent of the Ziu. Whenever there is no Monarch, the Uppermost Cort shall serve as the Council of Regency.
FURTHERMORE The name of Title L of el Lexhatx is amended to "Laws Supplementing Article II of the Organic Law"
FURTHERMORE Lex.L.10 is replaced with the following:
10. The following provisions apply to Conclaves called in accordance with Article II, Section 3 of the Organic Law.
10.1 The Conclave may, as it deems necessary, adopt a rule, procedure, or protocol to conduct operation provided a majority of Electors supports any such rule, procedure, or protocol, or change thereto. Any rule, procedure, or protocol adopted by a Conclave will not a subsequent Conclave.
10.2 Before any vote for Monarch is cast, the Conclave shall choose an Elector to serve as Herald in a manner it deems appropriate. Within 96 hours of a vote for Monarch ending, the Herald, the Secretary of State, and the Council of Regency shall, separately and independently of the other, count such votes, and the Herald, the Secretary of State, and the Council of Regency shall, separately and independently of the other, report one result to the Conclave. After 96 hours, the vote for Monarch is verified based on the vote count of the majority of timely reported results.
Uréu q'estadra så
Breneir Tzaracomprada (MC-TNC)
Note: Renamed thread for the actual amendment proposal now.
Awaiting conclusion of internal TNC discussions before starting the Hopper clock, I think.
Preliminary discussion among the Free Democrats gives a THUMBS UP to this proposal.
If the TNC internal discussions turn out negative, I'm interested to hear what the next idea down the pipeline might be.
Quote from: Miestră Schivă, UrN on March 24, 2024, 09:10:04 PMPreliminary discussion among the Free Democrats gives a THUMBS UP to this proposal.
If the TNC internal discussions turn out negative, I'm interested to hear what the next idea down the pipeline might be.
Thanks Miestra. This is getting really exciting.
It seems apposite to repost here the newly amended plank from the Free Democrats platform:
QuoteFree Democrats include both monarchists and republicans, but we all put liberty and democracy first in Talossa. We will offer our support to a Talossan Head of State who is continually active, puts the interests of the Nation above defending their own interests and prestige, and acts as the servant rather than the owner of the State. We support Organic structures which ensure that our Head of State operates in this way. We oppose any attempts to change the current provisions to replace or establish a successor to the Monarchy - that is, the standard provisions of Organic Law amendment - without a full reform and/or replacement of provisions for Talossa's Head of State.
The bill before you here was hammered together over literally
years of debate to offer the maximum amounts of concession to Monarchist opinion while still dealing with the essential issue -
a life-term monarchy in Talossa encourages the King to do nothing, because no-one can make him active. If someone has a better idea than this to impose consequences for a head of state who
does nothing, we crave to hear it. If not, the Monarchy is increasingly looking unsalvageable, and Republican sentiment will rise once more.
Folks, there have been some edits to the bill being considered internally by the TNC. The edits are in bold and were suggested by Dama Litz. I think these are procedural improvements that do not alter the character of the effort but please review and let me know if you disagree. The vote is not yet finalized internally but I wanted to allow plenty of time for everyone to review here in the Hopper.
I would also, if possible, like to start the clock on official review here in the Hopper as well.
I don't have any serious objection to these amendments. I've asked other Free Democrats to weigh in.
I like it.
I would reword the first sentence to make it clear that this happens every seven years, not just once seven years after the initial ascension:
QuoteA Conclave shall be called within three months of every seventh anniversary of the Monarch's accession to the throne
Quote from: Ian Plätschisch on April 03, 2024, 07:35:32 PMI like it.
I would reword the first sentence to make it clear that this happens every seven years, not just once seven years after the initial ascension:
QuoteA Conclave shall be called within three months of every seventh anniversary of the Monarch's accession to the throne
Thanks Ian, that is definitely the intent here so that change has been made.
Also, it should be "ascension" instead of "accession"
Quote from: Ian Plätschisch on April 04, 2024, 08:58:56 AMAlso, it should be "ascension" instead of "accession"
Word corrected.
Quote from: Ian Plätschisch on April 04, 2024, 08:58:56 AMAlso, it should be "ascension" instead of "accession"
Nope, "Accession" is correct.
Not sure if we common rabble are permitted to speak in the Hopper section but on a point of grammar, "to accede to the throne" and "to ascend the throne" are equivalent terms.
Quote from: Mic'haglh Autófil, SMC EiP on April 05, 2024, 11:19:18 AMNot sure if we common rabble are permitted to speak in the Hopper section but on a point of grammar, "to accede to the throne" and "to ascend the throne" are equivalent terms.
The Hopper is open to all citizens to participate and add their two bence worth.
Yes, you're correct, but in my humble opinion, accession is more apt when speaking about Monarchs and Thrones, for example in the UK we have the "Accession Council", a "Proclamation of Accession" etc.., so in this this instance it is more an apt word than "ascend", which to me has a more religious/spiritual meaning, e.g. He ascended into Heaven...
It's accession again.
Also, if there are any members of other parties wishing to co-sponsor please let me know.
After an internal vote, The TNC has decided to endorse the Bill.
Quote from: þerxh Sant-Enogat on April 08, 2024, 05:21:35 AMAfter an internal vote, The TNC has decided to endorse the Bill.
To be clear on this, the TNC endorsed the bill but several TNC MCs will likely vote against it when it comes before the Ziu as this will be a free vote not a whipped vote. I mention this because I don't want people to be surprised when this is potentially voted down by TNC MCs (Therxh, Dama Litz, and Carlus) even though it was officially endorsed by the party and was modified to address concerns that arose during debate.
I'm not sure an endorsement where most of the Cosă delegation are going to vote against it (thus dooming it to defeat) is much of an endorsement...
If I still had a seat, I'd vote against it, too. An incredibly important election process for a really important office where a single person exclusively is empowered to start it at any time within a six-month period, and then who also decides on the process for voter registration -- and who partially holds the power of that office for however long it takes to fill the office? It's very strange, and has a lot of bad incentives that would tempt anyone.
And that's completely aside from the Txec stuff. The text here is really unclear, but it seems as though maybe the Chancery is supposed to conduct the election and count the ballots? I guess Txec would have to resign his office?
(Unless the chief justice is also supposed to count the votes, although that'd be way worse.)
I think the proposed process has significant flaws, even aside from the fact that it would probably end the monarchy in any real sense.
Think about other aspects of the logistics. The candidate would be chosen during a meeting, implying an actual time-sensitive event. How many of the eligible 88 voters (as of this moment) would show up to such an event? It'd be hugely dependent on chance and the decisions of the chair. And since the new office of president would be confirmed by a simple majority vote -- there would be little reason to suppose that the president would be a consensus candidate, despite the supermajoritarian nomination process. There are like ten total people who have ever shown up to a live event of any kind, ever, and who would be eligible to vote in this process.
This is quite aside from the fact that we'd be discarding our oldest tradition, possibly irrevocably.
Look, if people agree that the King is
simply not doing his job, but have problems with the "Compromise" approach of a periodic no confidence vote, I will suggest this oldie but a goodie, by Senator Plätschisch, (https://talossa.proboards.com/thread/13577/mean-business-amendment) almost 5 years ago (which is an eternity in Talossan years).
In brief:
- this is not "discarding our oldest tradition", but completely in terms with Talossan tradition - the "legislative decapitation" of King Robert II (https://wiki.talossa.com/Robert_II) in 1987.
- to be adopted this will need a 3/4 majority of the Cosa (to override the Royal Veto) + 5 Senators + approval in a referendum. That's slightly more than a partisan majority.
- there are two equally good flavours of this: either
QuoteThere is currently no King of Talossa.
or
QuoteThe King of Talossa is Txec, First of his name, of the House of Nordselvă.
I'm not fussed. Honestly I think Baron Alexandreu would make a great SoS.
But note the date above.
John's absolute neglect of his duties (except for vetoing attempts to call him to account)
has been going on for more than 5 years now. That's longer than most of you have been citizens. The Free Democrats and other parties - and more recently the Distáin - have been
trying to do something about this. Our political opponents have
blocked every attempt. And the King continues to do nothing. I'm not sure who is satisfied with this state of affairs.
As I have mentioned recently, I am no longer opposed to the need to do something. I have done everything I can for many years, but there comes a time when we have to accept the world as it is, not as we wish it would be. So these days, even I agree that we need to make a change.
But I am not sure if we need wholesale institutional reform on this scale, and I am very sure we don't need the presidency proposed in this bill -- even if we still call it a king -- but we do need to make a change. This bill is just not very good, riven deep with conflicts of interest that don't make any sense.
I reject the idea that the entire institution of monarchy is flawed. This is a tiny country, and the first monarch was incredibly active and the central engine of invention for 90% of our culture. Our current monarch has personally saved the country and was also a huge force for good for a decade, helping in large part to define the country as we know it today. The institution has worked, and can work again.
Most probably, we just need a change of personnel. But before that, we need to settle on a future shape for the office, including succession. The whole thing needs to be kept away from politics as much as possible -- one of the abiding principles of Talossan honour has long been that it must never be sought, only accepted. And some power must be restored to the office -- it needs the heft of something meaningful to do. And then I suspect that once everything is set, it will have become apparent what the future shall be... cometh the hour, cometh the sovereign.
Quote from: Miestră Schivă, UrN on April 10, 2024, 06:09:45 PMLook, if people agree that the King is simply not doing his job, but have problems with the "Compromise" approach of a periodic no confidence vote, I will suggest this oldie but a goodie, by Senator Plätschisch, (https://talossa.proboards.com/thread/13577/mean-business-amendment) almost 5 years ago (which is an eternity in Talossan years).
In brief:
- this is not "discarding our oldest tradition", but completely in terms with Talossan tradition - the "legislative decapitation" of King Robert II (https://wiki.talossa.com/Robert_II) in 1987.
- to be adopted this will need a 3/4 majority of the Cosa (to override the Royal Veto) + 5 Senators + approval in a referendum. That's slightly more than a partisan majority.
- there are two equally good flavours of this: either
QuoteThere is currently no King of Talossa.
or
QuoteThe King of Talossa is Txec, First of his name, of the House of Nordselvă.
I'm not fussed. Honestly I think Baron Alexandreu would make a great SoS.
But note the date above. John's absolute neglect of his duties (except for vetoing attempts to call him to account) has been going on for more than 5 years now. That's longer than most of you have been citizens. The Free Democrats and other parties - and more recently the Distáin - have been trying to do something about this. Our political opponents have blocked every attempt. And the King continues to do nothing. I'm not sure who is satisfied with this state of affairs.
Wonders never cease as I agree now with all of this including the Baron as a great SoS. I will request moving of this current amendment to the CRL tomorrow as it has the TNC endorsement/non-endorsement.
@Sir Lüc I am requesting this amendment be moved to the CRL for review.
Quote from: Baron Alexandreu Davinescu on April 10, 2024, 08:09:41 PMAs I have mentioned recently, I am no longer opposed to the need to do something. I have done everything I can for many years, but there comes a time when we have to accept the world as it is, not as we wish it would be. So these days, even I agree that we need to make a change.
But I am not sure if we need wholesale institutional reform on this scale, and I am very sure we don't need the presidency proposed in this bill -- even if we still call it a king -- but we do need to make a change. This bill is just not very good, riven deep with conflicts of interest that don't make any sense.
I reject the idea that the entire institution of monarchy is flawed. This is a tiny country, and the first monarch was incredibly active and the central engine of invention for 90% of our culture. Our current monarch has personally saved the country and was also a huge force for good for a decade, helping in large part to define the country as we know it today. The institution has worked, and can work again.
Most probably, we just need a change of personnel. But before that, we need to settle on a future shape for the office, including succession. The whole thing needs to be kept away from politics as much as possible -- one of the abiding principles of Talossan honour has long been that it must never be sought, only accepted. And some power must be restored to the office -- it needs the heft of something meaningful to do. And then I suspect that once everything is set, it will have become apparent what the future shall be... cometh the hour, cometh the sovereign.
You would have seen that I have proposed a "clean decapitation" bill elsewhere. I have sympathy with your wish to have a full settlement for the future in advance, but all the evidence of the past five or more years suggests that that just will not happen. The only reason we got the abolition of the hereditary monarchy through was by saying "we'll sort out the succession later". If we want, as you put it, "a change in personnel" any time soon,
let's do that, have a Regency as described in OrgLaw II.5, and then get down to the nitty-gritty. I've suggested a "sunset clause" which would concentrate minds to get such a settlement within a relatively brief time-frame.
We don't have a social consensus for a Republic, and we don't seem to have one for a "term-limited King" either, but we certainly don't have one for "more monarchy, less democracy" either. (Although I would consider compromises like - for example - restore the King's right to name a Seneschal while removing their legislative veto.) So let's do what we seem to
all agree on, and the rest later. Otherwise we'll do nothing.
Notice that we did not sort out the succession later, and instead that very omission has become a significant obstacle to solving the current dilemma (to put it delicately). It is glaringly apparent that if we tear down the current building -- and it needs serious repairs at this point! -- without laying the foundation for the next, the monarchy will just become a vacant blight. Repair can't become an opportunity for permanent destruction.
We need to restore the succession so that we're no longer in this no-win situation. I would prefer we also restore some royal power to rehabilitate the office into something a sane person might want to do, but in the interests of finding a consensus path forward, we should just set that aside for now. And after we fix the succession and resolve the current situation, the question of the future of the monarchy can be rejoined. Does that sound reasonable?
Well, I am not going to support letting the current, admittedly otiose incumbent choose his own successor, let's put it that way. But I'm open to other suggestions.
I'd support a simple measure vacating the throne and moving toward a regency until someone can be found who wants to actually be Talossa's monarch. I would still like to believe we will have a King Txec (or some other regnal name).
@þerxh Sant-Enogat you actually spoke in support of this as an alternative to the currently hoppered amendment during our debates. Would you still support a simple removal of John as the alternative to the current proposal?
Quote from: Miestră Schivă, UrN on April 11, 2024, 11:27:48 PMWell, I am not going to support letting the current, admittedly otiose incumbent choose his own successor, let's put it that way. But I'm open to other suggestions.
I should specify that I and the Free Democrats are
perfectly fine with the status quo of succession, i.e. by regular process of Organic Law amendment - in essence an "elective monarchy" as was ancient Germanic tradition, the way of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth, and today the Papacy lol.
If people are perfectly fine with the status quo you need to offer them something better to shift, which is a sword which has cut both ways over the years with the monarchy. For several years we have been in a position without enough people to "legislatively decapitate" or to impose a new consensus on succession. But if we're now in a position where the need for LegDecap is clear to almost all, then to tie that to a need to find a concession for change on the latter issue will mean, again, years of inaction.
Quote from: Miestră Schivă, UrN on April 12, 2024, 12:16:12 AMQuote from: Miestră Schivă, UrN on April 11, 2024, 11:27:48 PMWell, I am not going to support letting the current, admittedly otiose incumbent choose his own successor, let's put it that way. But I'm open to other suggestions.
the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth
You have summoned me because you have mentioned a form of Poland.
Quote from: Breneir Tzaracomprada on April 11, 2024, 11:46:42 PMI'd support a simple measure vacating the throne and moving toward a regency until someone can be found who wants to actually be Talossa's monarch. I would still like to believe we will have a King Txec (or some other regnal name). @þerxh Sant-Enogat you actually spoke in support of this as an alternative to the currently hoppered amendment during our debates. Would you still support a simple removal of John as the alternative to the current proposal?
Yes I will. Let's fix the root cause first if this is the will of the People.
Poland cannot into space (https://old.reddit.com/r/polandball/)
(https://yt3.googleusercontent.com/40EBATqGDdNvhWc0vUnHmE4vrjU8zDBUUoVhHsnrryUkCtEGPO5-ZPlPOGewY8sKgxoIS8wtyA=s900-c-k-c0x00ffffff-no-rj)
Quote from: þerxh Sant-Enogat on April 12, 2024, 01:24:13 AMQuote from: Breneir Tzaracomprada on April 11, 2024, 11:46:42 PMI'd support a simple measure vacating the throne and moving toward a regency until someone can be found who wants to actually be Talossa's monarch. I would still like to believe we will have a King Txec (or some other regnal name). @þerxh Sant-Enogat you actually spoke in support of this as an alternative to the currently hoppered amendment during our debates. Would you still support a simple removal of John as the alternative to the current proposal?
Yes I will. Let's fix the root cause first if this is the will of the People.
Great,
@Carlüs Éovart Vilaçafat ?
Quote from: Miestră Schivă, UrN on April 12, 2024, 03:23:10 AMPoland cannot into space (https://old.reddit.com/r/polandball/)
(https://yt3.googleusercontent.com/40EBATqGDdNvhWc0vUnHmE4vrjU8zDBUUoVhHsnrryUkCtEGPO5-ZPlPOGewY8sKgxoIS8wtyA=s900-c-k-c0x00ffffff-no-rj)
Poland actually can into space. They just have too many problems to worry about and there are plans to make a "Polish" car (platform from Geely, car design from Pininfarina). I've read the planned stats and they are quite impressing, mostly the range which is around 800 kilometres.
Quote from: Miestră Schivă, UrN on April 12, 2024, 12:16:12 AMQuote from: Miestră Schivă, UrN on April 11, 2024, 11:27:48 PMWell, I am not going to support letting the current, admittedly otiose incumbent choose his own successor, let's put it that way. But I'm open to other suggestions.
I should specify that I and the Free Democrats are perfectly fine with the status quo of succession, i.e. by regular process of Organic Law amendment - in essence an "elective monarchy" as was ancient Germanic tradition, the way of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth, and today the Papacy lol.
If people are perfectly fine with the status quo you need to offer them something better to shift, which is a sword which has cut both ways over the years with the monarchy. For several years we have been in a position without enough people to "legislatively decapitate" or to impose a new consensus on succession. But if we're now in a position where the need for LegDecap is clear to almost all, then to tie that to a need to find a concession for change on the latter issue will mean, again, years of inaction.
Well, the status quo means that the monarchy would end with King John's retirement. Your choices in order of preference, as far as I can see:
1. Presidency.
2. Depose His Majesty, then block further amendments that might fill the throne (unless they move further towards a presidency). This is a slower version of #1.
3. Fix the succession to some form of election, then depose His Majesty.
4. Fix the succession to direct nomination, reform the office to grant it more power and activity, then depose His Majesty.
Repeated efforts at 1 have failed, so now you're moved to #2. And that's fine, except that monarchists have the opposite incentive structure. I guess some might even add a desire to return to hereditary monarchy, although that wouldn't be my preference.
My point is that I'm asking you to accept #3, instead, since that would allow us to actually
fix the problem in a way that's not ruinously divisive. Asking monarchists to accept the likely permanent end of the monarchy in order to solve the temporary preoccupation of a sovereign isn't okay.
Quote from: Breneir Tzaracomprada on April 11, 2024, 08:02:25 AM@Sir Lüc I am requesting this amendment be moved to the CRL for review.
I would friendly suggest you held off on this as lively debate on merits seems to still be going on; remember there's plenty of time for CRL review before the next Call for Bills opens.
Quote from: Sir Lüc on April 12, 2024, 11:20:44 AMQuote from: Breneir Tzaracomprada on April 11, 2024, 08:02:25 AM@Sir Lüc I am requesting this amendment be moved to the CRL for review.
I would friendly suggest you held off on this as lively debate on merits seems to still be going on; remember there's plenty of time for CRL review before the next Call for Bills opens.
Agreed, sorry I forgot to post that I was withdrawing my request for movement to the CRL. It looks like we are now focusing on the amendment proposed by Miestra so this one is now on hold.
Quote from: Breneir Tzaracomprada on April 12, 2024, 12:06:39 PMQuote from: Sir Lüc on April 12, 2024, 11:20:44 AMQuote from: Breneir Tzaracomprada on April 11, 2024, 08:02:25 AM@Sir Lüc I am requesting this amendment be moved to the CRL for review.
I would friendly suggest you held off on this as lively debate on merits seems to still be going on; remember there's plenty of time for CRL review before the next Call for Bills opens.
Agreed, sorry I forgot to post that I was withdrawing my request for movement to the CRL. It looks like we are now focusing on the amendment proposed by Miestra so this one is now on hold.
No worries and noted!