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.

Welcome @DJ_POLE Pablo!

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.

Note: Renamed thread for the actual amendment proposal now.
Awaiting conclusion of internal TNC discussions before starting the Hopper clock, I think.

@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)

Quote from: Miestră Schivă, UrN on March 23, 2024, 04:14:41 AMSpeech of Miestra Schiva MC to the Free Democrats of Talossa Convention

¡Estimadas es estimats Democrätsen livereschti, oðreux amici Talossáes, es oðreux presints... es ausints!

I would like to dedicate this speech to an absent friend. Former citizen, former Seneschal, Bråneu Excelsio.

I would like to thank and congratulate my Free Democrat colleagues for a successful convention. We've had good discussion about both our programme and our constitution, and made significant changes to both. The constitutional changes make improvements to how we deal with our membership; while the programme changes update our platform for a new era.

Funny thing about our platform, though. And at this stage I would also like to thank the Distáin, cxhn. Brenéir Tzaracompradă, for his thought-provoking and friendly guest speech.

I wonder whether my colleagues remember a couple of elections ago. We ran on a very radical platform: THE KING MUST GO. The constitutional argument about amendments to the role and powers of the Monarchy had run aground. We decided to "cut the Gordian knot". No matter what "The King of Talossa" does in theory, Ián, first of his name of the house of Lupúl, was not doing it. So, change the incumbent.

This went down, as the Australians say, like a cup of cold sick. We got owned in that election. Beaten down by an absolute majority win – the first in a long time – by monarchist opinion, rallied behind the Talossan National Congress.

The very same Talossan National Congress whose founder – and let's face it, de facto leader – has just come to our convention and said: "I support the immediate end of the reign of King John."

Then: what was the 58th Cosă election all about? What are we to make of this about-turn from someone who not only led a thumping monarchist electoral victory, but just a few months ago, set up something called the Royalist People's Party?

Hold that thought in your head for a little while. Let's move on to another topic briefly.

Why was the "Royalist People's Party" set up? In protest at our former Seneschal and friend, Bråneu Excelsio. Who made a deal with the Free Democrats to enable the formation of a government; a deal that stuck in the craw of a lot of TNC opinion. The founder of the TNC quit his own party over this.

Let us quote from the long account of Bråneu Excelsio which he posted on Twitter (if Elon Musk can deadname his own trans daughter, I can deadname his ridiculous website).

QuoteThe guy who supported me left the party, founded another one and dedicated himself to wasting my energy and sending me messages on WhatsApp telling me that I was an idiot. He left my cabinet half-finished and with infiltrators.

When Bråneu renounced his citizenship in despair, the Royalist People's Party founder was warmly reaccepted back into the TNC, and into its leadership. The TNC then proceeded to... uphold the deal that they made with the Free Democrats, to the letter, with good grace.

Success for all concerned, you might say? Well... not for poor Bråneu, of course. But we might repeat the question from above: if this is where we ended up, what was splitting the party and (allegedly) sending Bråneu annoying and insulting messages all about?

We've got two situations here. Two situations where the same, very prominent, very active Talossan individual has won a long and bitter political fight. And then adopted the political positions of the people he defeated.

The obvious question is: even if someone like with this kind of track record is saying exactly what you want to hear... what reason could you have to trust them?

***

I'll have to pause here. Don't get me wrong. This is not a personal denunciation. I sincerely appreciate Brenéir's good faith in coming before this Convention. But what I am aiming for here is a declaration of where our party stands going into the 60th (!!!) Cosă election, and how we will interact with other Talossans. And that is as a party of principle.

The Free Democrats are not a party based on a particular social group. We are not a party whose main selling point is that we turn up in the Immigration queue and – what was it Bråneu said? - "be nice to you". Tell you just what you want to hear.

We are not a party who builds a team based on being fun and friendly guys. We'd be bigger and more popular if we were. But we're also not a party where "the friendly guys" stop being friendly, if you cross them politically. Where they're suddenly sending you WhatsApp messages calling you an idiot.

We are the party of LIBERTY AND DEMOCRACY FIRST. We are not motivated by being popular. We are motivated by what Senator Plätschisch once called "the ideological long game". We are never going to do a political 180 degree term because we think it'll get us more power or popularity. Membership in our party is based on agreement with our Policy. And this is the "political compass" which has guided us well for so long.

***

It seems strange that the Distáin should resurrect the question of whether King John is up to the task, right at this point in history. Of course, we still think that John is not and he should shuffle off the stage of Talossan history before he gets shoved off.

But ironically, right now he's doing exactly what many in the Free Democrats think a Monarch should do – absolutely nothing. We were most outraged at him when he was doing nothing except popping up to randomly veto legislation, sometimes to defend his positions and grandeur, sometimes just to be annoying. The status quo is better.

It may also not be a coincidence that currently the Government includes his old buddies from the former RUMP, so why would he want to be disruptive. But I can't for the life of me imagine what those very people are saying, to hear their party founder/Distáin talking like this. What is Litz Cjantschéir saying? What is X. Pôl Briga – the most flamboyant monarchist in Talossa, the guy who wrote that notorious essay about squirrels and wolves – thinking about "I support the immediate end of the reign of King John"?

The most famous ex-RUMPer, Baron Alexandreu Davinescu, the master operator of Talossan politics who came out of retirement to lead the TNC to an epoch-making election victory, has now left that party. I don't think it was related to this abrupt shift away from Lupulian monarchism – perhaps, more to do with... well, that splitting/sabotaging Cabinet/rejoining thing I mentioned above. But I wonder what he's thinking, too.

You can't have a stable political movement which turns on a political dime when the Big Guy decides that another ideological pathway is more to his liking or will get more political rewards. (Who can forget when the TNC both adopted cryptocurrency because it was the "thing" of a new member, and then dumped it within a week or two because they realised the broad masses weren't interested?)

The Distáin keeps saying that Sir Txec dal Nordselvă is his preferred candidate for successor to the throne. Certainly, Txec could do the job – and extremely well! Several huzzahs! Of course, to do so, he would have to withdraw from the Free Democrats and leave his current job as Secretary of State. If you've been following controversies in Talossan politics over the last couple of Cosă terms, you can see why an uncharitable person might see something "Machiavellian" in this proposal.

But if the Distáin thinks it better to have a New Talossan Republic with an active head of state, let me speak for a moment as an individual, not as FreeDems President, and not on behalf of my party. So do I! That would rule! Again, I think Txec dal Nordselvă could do a job in that regard!

If so, we may still be a minority, the two of us, in Talossa. I think we could even both be minorities within our own parties. Building a new coalition for such radical constitutional change might require a wholesale dissolution/reformation of Talossa's party system, in the same way that the Free Democrats united the forces behind the "Historic Compromise" – and the TNC united the forces against it.

Sorry, does everyone remember the "Historic Compromise"? It was a proposal to split the difference between monarchy and republicanism; to preserve the Monarchy but to allow periodic "votes of confidence", or even a term limit. It was defeated. It was defeated after a prolonged struggle over several Cosăs. It was defeated after the TNC – which originally supported it – switched sides, after a personal falling out with the then-FreeDems President, and ended up becoming the party of the monarchist reaction. The now-Distáin actively crowed about its defeat. I may be miscomprehending, but now I think that's what he means by "potential revisiting of the previous legislation".

***

Given all this history, I have to say it plainly. Brenéir Tzaracompradă is, right now, not a partner for constitutional change that the Free Democrats have any reason to trust. This is not a reflection on his character. This does not mean we cannot work with him, or that we could never trust him again in future. This is simply and solely a reflection on his political track record to date.

Some of you are aware that I have had a very stormy relationship with Baron Alexandreu Davinescu over the years. He is my antithesis politically. We don't get on personally. He has pulled several political moves I would consider "hardball" – even "Machiavellian".

And yet, he has always done so for political reasons, to advance his agenda for Talossa, which does not change. He has never made a political U-turn on something as vital as The Monarchy because of a personal falling out with someone. He has never made someone's political life in Talossa intolerable and then gone on to adopt what they wanted to do anyway.

I trust Baron Alexandreu in a paradoxically fundamental way in which I don't even trust some of my political allies. That is the kind of trust – a trust between political mortal enemies, a trust in our basic good faith and mutual Talossan patriotism while we knock lumps out of each other on the battlefield – that Talossa needs to survive and thrive.

To sum this all up. We refer the TNC, and the Distáin in particular, to the revised Part B of our party policy:

QuoteWe 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.

Let us talk brass tacks. There is no changing the Talossan monarchy without a 3/4 majority in the Cosă, to override the Royal veto. Or a 2/3 majority in two successive Cosăs. Or a 2/3 majority, and the King just "gives up" or abdicates.

It's not entirely clear what the Distáin means by "consideration of my own proposal". If it means the "minimalist solution" - a regular process of changing OrgLaw II.4 to simply "legislatively decapitate" Ián Lupúl and just put Txec dal Nordselvă in his place - that would technically abide by our Party Policy. But it would brush a lot of issues under the carpet.

The Talossan monarchy does not attract bad people, but there is something in it which breeds a few deadly sins - pride and wrath in the case of Robert I, sloth in the case of John I. So, since we are still going to have a devil of a job changing the Monarchy (absent an abdication), surely it is just as easy to have a good look at the Monarchy itself at the same time?

• If there is a possibility that the Historic Compromise might be revived and get the requisite majority – then let's do it, right now.
• If there is a possibility that a "broad-based convention" might come up with a different proposal for monarchy reform which could get that majority – then let's call it, right now. With the proviso that everything has to be on the table, including the position of the incumbent.
• If, God help us, there might be a possibility to get the requisite majority to declare a New Talossan Republic and elect Sir Txec dal Nordselvă its head of state, then I will join that political party!

But all these options are pipe dreams without that 3/4 majority - or, with a 2/3 majority and King John "surrendering" in some way. Either way, it requires a political partner for change who the Free Democrats can trust.

J. Michael Stracynzki's short-lived television story Crusade posed the question: "who do you serve? And who do you trust?"

Who do the Free Democrats of Talossa serve? We serve liberty and democracy first.

Who do we trust? That is a question that will be explored in the coming weeks and months.

¡Så vivadra Talossa¡ Sa vivadra Talossa democrätic! ¡Qareinçe es simca års pü! ¡El Regeu fost xhencular, es láßar sieu Regipäts alçar!

This is a great speech full of the usual miestraisms. Oh, and I've responded to your private message concerning discussions around monarchy reform. I've even re-proposed Ian's old Compromise on the Compromise for internal discussion. I do think we have the potential for action right now but my party mates need to weigh in.

Over the next few weeks we will see whether you are interested in making progress on this issue. In my speech I made clear that you have a partner on the issue moving forward. The consequences of your inability or unwillingness to engage that partner are yours and your party's to face.

To repeat a piece of your speech: "If there is a possibility that the Historic Compromise might be revived and get the requisite majority – then let's do it, right now."

Yeah...let's do that. :) If you can get over the trust issues.

Quote from: Sir Txec dal Nordselvă, UrB on March 23, 2024, 05:18:37 AMI suppose a party could register at any time, but they wouldn't have the same standing as a party that ran during the election.

Thank you, this is helpful. Do you know if there is a section of the law to amend to change this?

Quote from: Sir Txec dal Nordselvă, UrB on March 22, 2024, 11:49:04 PMSorry but I'm not entirely sure what you are asking here.

Are there any restrictions on party registration before the run up to an election?

I've seen new parties be registered around that time. But if a party wanted to register just AFTER an election is it possible as our laws are currently written and implemented?

@Sir Txec dal Nordselvă, UrB Mr. Secretary, Hi. I wanted to be sure I checked with you before writing legislation as the election administrator. Do you know if there is currently a process (or any restrictions, if not) for an individual or party to register outside of the run-up to an election? I can't find any mention of a kind of register or official record of current parties so wanted to check.