#3 are there any comments on prototype identify documents, such as the Cézembre Paßaphort/Passport/Passeport?

Hearing no applications we move on to item #2 Immigration.
There is one candidate in the queue Shvidenko Коnstantin https://wittenberg.talossa.com/index.php?topic=623.0
This is informational only as that process has not been completed at the level of the Kingdom, but if there is any discussion or questions those can be addressed either here or in that thread, and all are encouraged to communicate with the candidate.

l'Etats is in session - there were no additional items added to the agenda, but they still may be.

If no other items are added, let us begin discussion of #1 CLO are there any new homestead requests?

Quote from: Adam Grigoriu on February 05, 2021, 03:17:28 PM
In that case, I believe @Antaglha Xhenerös Somelieir is the new Chair of the Council of Governors.

So will a session be called for said council?   Should such an entity rate a forum?

Quote from: xpb on February 02, 2021, 11:09:26 PM
In support of this proposed legislation, I went to Children's Hospital in Denver today and donated a pint of whole blood.

Now that the Hopper is for the People has passed, I solicit a member of the Ziu to sponsor this bill.

@Txosuè Éiric Rôibeardescù
@Ián Tamorán
@X. Pol Briga
@Ián S.G. Txaglh

The third instance of this legislative session is called for 8-15 March 2021.  Hear Ye Hear Ye Hear Ye let all with business before l'Etats bring their business in detail to this thread. 

Some possible topics shall be:

1. Ongoing business of the CLO Cézembre Land Office

2. Welcoming of immigrants under Statute E.7.10

3. Potential identification documents (possibly last issued 2012)

4. Formation of a CBS Cézembre Bureau of Standards

5. General discussion of actions of the Ziu

It may also be appropriate to introduce the concept of Vote of Confidence into the affairs of l'Etats should there be a desire for change in direction or leadership independent of any different election timeframe of the Ziu.

Quote from: Miestră Schivă, UrN on February 14, 2021, 04:31:31 PM
Considering that the Kingdom's Ziu has exclusive jurisdiction over "immigration and emigration, naturalization and aliens" under OrgLaw VII.3.11, is this another sign that Cézembre is going to secede?

I suppose if it is a Kingdom then that is true.

While I was working in the middle east, i picked up a camoflage passport from a company advertised in the Economist as a safety precaution. Discussion at https://laughingsquid.com/camouflage-passports/

If it was not clear, the address references https://wittenberg.talossa.com/index.php?topic=668.0

Quote from: Béneditsch Ardpresteir on February 10, 2021, 08:53:17 PM
Wow!

One used to get ID Cards earlier?

Perhaps we can make new ones of a different format such as https://wittenberg.talossa.com/index.php?topic=704.msg5634#msg5634

I am sure my Talossan &/or French could stand improvement

Quote from: Ian Plätschisch on February 05, 2021, 10:48:12 AM
Reprinting my La S'chinteia article here:

Saving the Monarchy and Losing my Credibility:
Is an Elected King the Way Forward for Monarchists?

Ian Plätschisch

Between January 10th and January 25th, Talossa held a non-binding referendum to poll citizens on their preference for the future of the monarchy. The options were:
1.   Abolishing the Monarchy in favor of an elected head of state
2.   Introducing an elected "co-prince" who would share power with the King
3.   Keeping the Monarchy as is
4.   Removing all the King's political power
The referendum used Instant Runoff Voting, and the results are available at http://www.talossa.ca/files/ranked_vote.php. 72 citizens voted. Option 4 was eliminated in the first round, and option 2 in the second. In the final count, Option 1 defeated Option 3 by the very narrow margin of 34-32. In keeping with their campaign pledge, the Free Democrats have introduced an Organic Law amendment that would implement Option 1 if passed. Specifically, however, as the Free Democrats know the amendment cannot pass without some opposition support, the proposed amendment keeps the Monarchy exactly as it is now, except that the King would be subject to some sort of election every seven years (the details have yet to be worked out).

Of course, the leader of the opposition is yours truly. I take my responsibility to represent conservative Monarchists very seriously, and I know that many of them are committed to preserving the life term of the King. However, I believe that assenting to the current proposal is the best way to protect the Monarchy from future proposals that would be vastly worse. Please hear me out.

Recall that during the referendum, the main arguments I put forward for keeping a King with some power were that the King is able to act (to some extent) on the long-term perspective that accompanies the throne, and that this form of government is unique and fun. Neither of these benefits of the Monarchy would be significantly reduced by electing the King every seven years. Seven years is such a long time that even I, an accomplished Talossan citizen and politician if I do flatter myself, have not been a citizen for that long. For almost all the term, the King would be practically as insulated from political pressure as he is now and would still enjoy all the powers he enjoys now. Yes, near the election such pressure could creep in, but this would likely be counterbalanced by sentiment among Talossans that campaigning to become King would be in very poor taste, so the King would only likely to be voted out if there is a serious problem.

On the question of the enjoyability of the Monarchy, perhaps this would be increased if the King were provided incentive to exercise royal prerogatives, such as patronage of Talossan culture and granting of awards, more often. Long before his appointment of a Regent (and I wish the King the best with whatever he is dealing with right now), I had not been quiet about my disappointment in King John's low level of involvement. Having a small bit of accountability couldn't hurt.

Of course, even if electing the King every seven years would not be so bad for Monarchists, I probably would not be advocating it if I were not very concerned that the Monarchy is on its way to getting messed with somehow whether conservatives like it or not. Option 3, compared the three options for changing the Monarchy in some manner, lost 23-49 in first preferences, and the FreeDem-NPW coalition is only 11 seats shy of a supermajority in the Cosa. If those parties can pick up the needed seats (which is a distinct possibility given that conservative voters are not known for their great turnout or great recruitment), they will surely act on their criticism of the Monarchy if it has not already been addressed.

The chief complaint against the Monarchy is that the King has no accountability because he never faces election. In response, many people are calling for the complete abolition of the Monarchy or the complete removal of his powers. Given the other options in the referendum, this is most likely what the governing parties will do if they achieve a supermajority while the Monarchy exists as it does now. However, if we accede to the current proposal, Monarchists will not have to sacrifice much (as I demonstrated above), but the animating issue of the anti-Monarchy movement will be addressed. Therefore, the latter will be much less likely to take more extreme action against the Monarchy if they ever get the power to do so.

Hopefully this position does not undermine my credibility as a Monarchist. I am just trying to protect the most important aspects of this prized institution in the best way I can.

I suppose it depends on semantics.

If one wishes to have an elected executive (similar to a President or Prime Minister) then go ahead and have  elections with forced term limits.

If one wishes to have a hereditary Monarchy then one must wait for abdication or severe disability, or death with no stated heir to hold an election.

The term King or Queen, without regard to powers that they have, seems to apply to the latter case.   If you want to have periodic elections then don't refer to the position in terms of royalty.

My ID card appears to be seriously out of date!  Who do I need to contact in  the Civil Service?

In support of this proposed legislation, I went to Children's Hospital in Denver today and donated a pint of whole blood.

I withdraw my candidacy for the position,
thus
I believe that would infer that Antaglha Xhenerös Somelieir should be elected.