Quote from: Glüc da Dhi S.H. on April 12, 2024, 03:16:48 PMHere's a possible solution to the whole monarchy mess.

Have whoever became citizen (of Kingdom or Republic) first be the King/Queen.

First time we do this: offer the position to the most senior citizen (in this case Gjermund). If they say no or don't respond within a week or are no longer a citizen, move on to the next one, until someone accepts.

Next time the King/Queen retires or is removed, go with the next one on the list. Only if we get to the bottom of the list and nobody accepts we start at the top again.

If it takes many weeks before somebody accepts we can still have a regency in the meantime.



Advantages:

- The monarch isnt selected by the hype of the day.
- We don't need a big partisan war every time the King is absent because the procedure is just set
- There's no point in campaigning to be King and there's no point in becoming a citizen for that reason cause you won't last that long.
- We always get a King who's experienced, knows Talossan culture and has a track record of sticking around
- Monarchists might like that there is a set order of succession
- Republicans might like that it's non-hereditary, you need to have at least achieved something to become King and it might be easier to remove the monarch for inactivity if there is a replacement procedure

I like it.

Quote from: Sir Lüc on April 12, 2024, 11:20:44 AM

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.

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: 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.

Thanks Miestra. Can I co-sponsor this?

Quote from: þerxh Sant-Enogat on April 12, 2024, 01:24:13 AM

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.

Great, @Carlüs Éovart Vilaçafat ?

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?

@Sir Lüc I am requesting this amendment be moved to the CRL for review.

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, 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 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.

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.

@Iason Taiwos ! :) !

Quote from: Miestră Schivă, UrN on April 01, 2024, 02:23:16 PMIt would only have been funnier if the new Cabinet position had been called "The Shocker"

I second this.

It's accession again.
Also, if there are any members of other parties wishing to co-sponsor please let me know.

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 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.

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.