The Talossan National Congress has stated in multiple places that it is interested in monarchical reform. However, they have repeatedly ignored requests to elaborate on what specific reforms they want. They have not submitted their own amendment but are almost certain to vote down the currently proposed one (the Compromise on the Compromise Act and Amendment).
Monarchy reform is a top priority for the current Government, and in order for anything to pass we will need to work with the TNC. The TNC announcing before the election that they would flatly reject any reform would be understandable. However, campaigning on reform and then stymying any attempt at it by refusing to clarify their position can only be called dishonest.
Therefore, the Government believes the best way to encourage the TNC to stay true to their promise is for all FreeDem and PdR MZs to vote down all TNC bills unless and until they indicate what monarchy reforms they want.
I thought an important point was made clear when the TNC pulled out of the coalition with the FreeDems last session after the former Seneschal wrongly assumed that threats would cow any TNC member. Point being ultimatums, threats, gauntlets or whatever branding you want to use are not the right methods to achieve whatever you are seeking. Now you threaten a hostile and unparliamentary blockade of legislation, and we decline to reward you for it.
For clarity's sake let me spell it out for you: There will be no cooperation with the FreeDems or the PdR on this issue under duress.
We will continue to offer legislation to improve the daily life of Talossans and answers their concerns, and the Government is free to vote it down and explain to voters why they rejected real solutions in favor of thuggish political maneuvers designed to compel that which you did not achieve at the ballot box.
If this means that the TNC will not accept any reform, then we have our answer. Is that it?
That seems like a willful misinterpretation of a fairly clear statement from Breneir: There will be no cooperation with the FreeDems or the PdR on this issue under duress. You can save yourself the time and trouble of writing any threatening speeches, since the answer will always be a clear "no." I support Breneir on this 100%: if we reward a tantrum like this now -- before the first Clark! -- then you'll be back with a different threat next week: "Support our next bill or we'll vote down all of yours, regardless of merit."
Well, if polite entreaties don't work (https://wittenberg.talossa.com/index.php?topic=1298.0); and if the tone of the TNC to the Government parties between the election and now has been one of sustained angry contempt (https://wittenberg.talossa.com/index.php?topic=1389.msg11533#msg11533); one must assume that the time for politeness is over.
Quote from: Breneir Tzaracomprada on May 31, 2022, 07:31:50 AM
the TNC pulled out of the coalition with the FreeDems last session after the former Seneschal wrongly assumed that threats would cow any TNC member
For those who weren't around last year, the Senator's characterisation of events is wildly tendentious and inaccurate.
Quote from: Miestră Schivă, UrN on May 31, 2022, 03:58:55 PM
Quote from: Breneir Tzaracomprada on May 31, 2022, 07:31:50 AM
the TNC pulled out of the coalition with the FreeDems last session after the former Seneschal wrongly assumed that threats would cow any TNC member
For those who weren't around last year, the Senator's characterisation of events is wildly tendentious and inaccurate.
Quote from: Þon Txoteu É. Davinescu, O.SPM on July 05, 2021, 06:32:05 PM
Azul,
I wanted to take moment and publicly acknowledge a stumble I took in trying to resolve a Coalition issue. Specifically, I came across a bit more forcefully to the leader of former Coalition partner TNC. In my attempt to come across seriously, to our partner... I came across as threatening.
This was not my intention but in my attempt at being as transparent as as possible, I wanted to acknowledge this stumble on my behalf and apologize publicly. As I said in my personal apology to their leader, I want us all to work together as a team for a better Talossa. That includes leaders at all levels admitting a screw up and working to correct it.
Further, I want to ensure all Talossans understand that, under my leadership... I encourage open communications at all times. If there is any issue, before it becomes totally out of hand... come talk to me. I welcome the opportunity to address problems as they arise as that is the core of effective leadership.
Thanks,
Txoteu Davinescu, O.SPM
I'm amazed that the TNC thinks that reposting Senator Davinescu's humble admission of error and apology makes them look good. The correct response would have been for Senator Tzaracomprada to accept the apology and discuss a return to the coalition agreement. Instead he gave no response at all (or to my own queries on Facebook, which I can reprint if there's interest).
That "tough-guy" attitude, the stance that "apologies are useless, make one mistake and you're on my mieida-list forever", has repercussions, if you seek to be a political leader. The TNC leader might think, in this regard, as to why the Reform Party had no interest in making him Seneschal.
Quote from: Miestră Schivă, UrN on May 31, 2022, 06:09:06 PM
I'm amazed that the TNC thinks that reposting Senator Davinescu's humble admission of error and apology makes them look good. The correct response would have been for Senator Tzaracomprada to accept the apology and discuss a return to the coalition agreement. Instead he gave no response at all (or to my own queries on Facebook, which I can reprint if there's interest).
I do not admire the flexibility of your memory, but I do admire your chops. It takes some real chutzpah to publicly accuse someone of lying about a past incident, and then try to strike up a victory parade after someone posts proof you're wrong.
I don't really blame Breneir for declining to return to the ranks of people who act like this. It's clear that there's a larger pattern.
I described Senator T's description of events as "tendentious and wildly inaccurate", and I stand by that. No-one ever intended to "threaten" Senator T, but Senator D's inexperience led him to a bad choice of words which looked like a threat. No-one is ever going to apologise for errors if an apology will be not only not be accepted, but used as proof of wrongdoing on the part of the apologiser and a justification for eternal hostility.
Quote from: Baron Alexandreu Davinescu on May 31, 2022, 01:05:23 PM
That seems like a willful misinterpretation of a fairly clear statement from Breneir: There will be no cooperation with the FreeDems or the PdR on this issue under duress. You can save yourself the time and trouble of writing any threatening speeches, since the answer will always be a clear "no." I support Breneir on this 100%: if we reward a tantrum like this now -- before the first Clark! -- then you'll be back with a different threat next week: "Support our next bill or we'll vote down all of yours, regardless of merit."
All we are doing here is pressing you to fulfill your own campaign promise. You can end this immediately without giving anything up; this is what you said you wanted!
This will only continue for as long as you persist in your dishonesty. It's becoming increasingly clear that the TNC's desire for monarchy reform was a lark. If that's true, just admit it and we can get on with our lives.
Quote from: Ian Plätschisch on May 31, 2022, 09:18:51 PM
Quote from: Baron Alexandreu Davinescu on May 31, 2022, 01:05:23 PM
That seems like a willful misinterpretation of a fairly clear statement from Breneir: There will be no cooperation with the FreeDems or the PdR on this issue under duress. You can save yourself the time and trouble of writing any threatening speeches, since the answer will always be a clear "no." I support Breneir on this 100%: if we reward a tantrum like this now -- before the first Clark! -- then you'll be back with a different threat next week: "Support our next bill or we'll vote down all of yours, regardless of merit."
All we are doing here is pressing you to fulfill your own campaign promise. You can end this immediately without giving anything up; this is what you said you wanted!
This will only continue for as long as you persist in your dishonesty. It's becoming increasingly clear that the TNC's desire for monarchy reform was a lark. If that's true, just admit it and we can get on with our lives.
The words below still express the resolve of TNC members:
There will be no cooperation with the FreeDems or the PdR on this issue under duress.
Quote from: Breneir Tzaracomprada on June 01, 2022, 07:27:33 PM
Quote from: Ian Plätschisch on May 31, 2022, 09:18:51 PM
Quote from: Baron Alexandreu Davinescu on May 31, 2022, 01:05:23 PM
That seems like a willful misinterpretation of a fairly clear statement from Breneir: There will be no cooperation with the FreeDems or the PdR on this issue under duress. You can save yourself the time and trouble of writing any threatening speeches, since the answer will always be a clear "no." I support Breneir on this 100%: if we reward a tantrum like this now -- before the first Clark! -- then you'll be back with a different threat next week: "Support our next bill or we'll vote down all of yours, regardless of merit."
All we are doing here is pressing you to fulfill your own campaign promise. You can end this immediately without giving anything up; this is what you said you wanted!
This will only continue for as long as you persist in your dishonesty. It's becoming increasingly clear that the TNC's desire for monarchy reform was a lark. If that's true, just admit it and we can get on with our lives.
The words below still express the resolve of TNC members:
There will be no cooperation with the FreeDems or the PdR on this issue under duress.
There was no cooperation with the FreeDems on this issue not under duress either.
Also, the TNC isn't exactly covering itself in glory by acting like it is under "duress." We are asking that you take five minutes to do something
that you are already under an obligation to your voters to do. The TNC is facing not a whiff of adversity.
Let us know when the blockade is over. In the meantime we will be voting on the Clark where you have resubmitted the once-failed Amendment to fail again.
Quote from: Ian Plätschisch on June 01, 2022, 08:11:41 PM
Quote from: Breneir Tzaracomprada on June 01, 2022, 07:27:33 PM
Quote from: Ian Plätschisch on May 31, 2022, 09:18:51 PM
Quote from: Baron Alexandreu Davinescu on May 31, 2022, 01:05:23 PM
That seems like a willful misinterpretation of a fairly clear statement from Breneir: There will be no cooperation with the FreeDems or the PdR on this issue under duress. You can save yourself the time and trouble of writing any threatening speeches, since the answer will always be a clear "no." I support Breneir on this 100%: if we reward a tantrum like this now -- before the first Clark! -- then you'll be back with a different threat next week: "Support our next bill or we'll vote down all of yours, regardless of merit."
All we are doing here is pressing you to fulfill your own campaign promise. You can end this immediately without giving anything up; this is what you said you wanted!
This will only continue for as long as you persist in your dishonesty. It's becoming increasingly clear that the TNC's desire for monarchy reform was a lark. If that's true, just admit it and we can get on with our lives.
The words below still express the resolve of TNC members:
There will be no cooperation with the FreeDems or the PdR on this issue under duress.
There was no cooperation with the FreeDems on this issue not under duress either.
Also, the TNC isn't exactly covering itself in glory by acting like it is under "duress." We are asking that you take five minutes to do something that you are already under an obligation to your voters to do. The TNC is facing not a whiff of adversity.
I would firmly agree that the threat of voting against all legislation, no matter the merit, indefinitely, is also indeed an overreaction completely incommensurate with the situation. Doing something like "possibly posting more than once about it" before escalating to this absurdity would definitely have made more sense. But you have made your bed and now you have to lie in it.
Quote from: Breneir Tzaracomprada on June 01, 2022, 07:27:33 PM
Quote from: Ian Plätschisch on May 31, 2022, 09:18:51 PM
Quote from: Baron Alexandreu Davinescu on May 31, 2022, 01:05:23 PM
That seems like a willful misinterpretation of a fairly clear statement from Breneir: There will be no cooperation with the FreeDems or the PdR on this issue under duress. You can save yourself the time and trouble of writing any threatening speeches, since the answer will always be a clear "no." I support Breneir on this 100%: if we reward a tantrum like this now -- before the first Clark! -- then you'll be back with a different threat next week: "Support our next bill or we'll vote down all of yours, regardless of merit."
All we are doing here is pressing you to fulfill your own campaign promise. You can end this immediately without giving anything up; this is what you said you wanted!
This will only continue for as long as you persist in your dishonesty. It's becoming increasingly clear that the TNC's desire for monarchy reform was a lark. If that's true, just admit it and we can get on with our lives.
The words below still express the resolve of TNC members:
There will be no cooperation with the FreeDems or the PdR on this issue under duress.
I mean no disrespect to you Breneir, however I am not exactly sure where you got the idea that we were asking for cooperation from yourselves, all we have asked, is that you state a position on something you had promised to do, so we know if you were serious about that or not, seeking clarification from yourselves is far far away from seeking cooperation, and as i have asked in https://wittenberg.talossa.com/index.php?topic=1480.0 to your party, if when we tried to be civil, and got radio silence, then what choices were we left with to know what your position is?
To know more of my views, i recommend reading the thread, but yeah, on the point of cooperation on this issue, i do believe you have miscalculated what was being asked of you.
But yeah, all that we have asked is your position to be put forward, in the ONLY way we could get your attention, and a response of any kind, it is sad it has come to this, however, this was the last option we had to seek clarity from yourselves. If you had engaged with us, named your position before this, and not stonewalled our attempts in the election for discourse, then this would never have happened. We are not innocent in this, however the hands of the TNC aren't clean in this either.
Quote from: Baron Alexandreu Davinescu on June 01, 2022, 08:36:20 PM
Quote from: Ian Plätschisch on June 01, 2022, 08:11:41 PM
Quote from: Breneir Tzaracomprada on June 01, 2022, 07:27:33 PM
Quote from: Ian Plätschisch on May 31, 2022, 09:18:51 PM
Quote from: Baron Alexandreu Davinescu on May 31, 2022, 01:05:23 PM
That seems like a willful misinterpretation of a fairly clear statement from Breneir: There will be no cooperation with the FreeDems or the PdR on this issue under duress. You can save yourself the time and trouble of writing any threatening speeches, since the answer will always be a clear "no." I support Breneir on this 100%: if we reward a tantrum like this now -- before the first Clark! -- then you'll be back with a different threat next week: "Support our next bill or we'll vote down all of yours, regardless of merit."
All we are doing here is pressing you to fulfill your own campaign promise. You can end this immediately without giving anything up; this is what you said you wanted!
This will only continue for as long as you persist in your dishonesty. It's becoming increasingly clear that the TNC's desire for monarchy reform was a lark. If that's true, just admit it and we can get on with our lives.
The words below still express the resolve of TNC members:
There will be no cooperation with the FreeDems or the PdR on this issue under duress.
There was no cooperation with the FreeDems on this issue not under duress either.
Also, the TNC isn't exactly covering itself in glory by acting like it is under "duress." We are asking that you take five minutes to do something that you are already under an obligation to your voters to do. The TNC is facing not a whiff of adversity.
I would firmly agree that the threat of voting against all legislation, no matter the merit, indefinitely, is also indeed an overreaction completely incommensurate with the situation. Doing something like "possibly posting more than once about it" before escalating to this absurdity would definitely have made more sense. But you have made your bed and now you have to lie in it.
I know that we in fact posed the Monarchy question to the TNC several times.
The TNC's behavior reminds me of this XKCD comic:
(https://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/instagram.png)
The reasonable response to someone telling you do something
which you are already under an obligation to do is to do the thing, not moan and groan.
You keep saying that if you reveal your plans for Monarchy reform now, we will just come back with more demands later. However, this is clearly ridiculous. The TNC does not have to compromise one inch of their platform (as I keep saying, the TNC has already promised their voters they would do what we are demanding), nor spend more than five minutes on this. The logical connection between the current situation and the sorts of future demands you are expecting is non-existant.
Quote from: Antaglha Xhenerös Somelieir on June 01, 2022, 08:39:27 PM
however, this was the last option we had to seek clarity from yourselves.
Really? Because I think "doing literally anything beyond asking once where no one saw it" might have also been an option.
It seems kind of silly to me to claim that the Government was left with no choice. I admire the simplicity of the two-step process, though:
- Ask about something once.
- Escalate immediately to demanding an answer on your own terms by way of threatening to block all legislation, no matter the topic or need, indefinitely, unless your demands are met.
Quote from: Ian Plätschisch on June 01, 2022, 08:54:08 PM
You keep saying that if you reveal your plans for Monarchy reform now, we will just come back with more demands later. However, this is clearly ridiculous.
A few days ago, I would have said it was ridiculous that the entire Government would threaten to block all bills from the Opposition, no matter how necessary they might be, until their demands were met... on the basis of a question that they didn't even both to repeat when no one saw it. Yet here we are.
Our policy is very simple and our leader stated it very clearly: we will not engage on this topic under duress. If in the future you find yourself inclined to make threats about this or any other topic, save yourself the time and mark us down for defiance right now.
Quote from: Baron Alexandreu Davinescu on June 01, 2022, 10:32:22 PM
Quote from: Antaglha Xhenerös Somelieir on June 01, 2022, 08:39:27 PM
however, this was the last option we had to seek clarity from yourselves.
Really? Because I think "doing literally anything beyond asking once where no one saw it" might have also been an option.
It seems kind of silly to me to claim that the Government was left with no choice. I admire the simplicity of the two-step process, though:
- Ask about something once.
- Escalate immediately to demanding an answer on your own terms by way of threatening to block all legislation, no matter the topic or need, indefinitely, unless your demands are met.
We asked about it several times.
Quote from: Ian Plätschisch on June 01, 2022, 10:34:54 PM
Quote from: Baron Alexandreu Davinescu on June 01, 2022, 10:32:22 PM
Quote from: Antaglha Xhenerös Somelieir on June 01, 2022, 08:39:27 PM
however, this was the last option we had to seek clarity from yourselves.
Really? Because I think "doing literally anything beyond asking once where no one saw it" might have also been an option.
It seems kind of silly to me to claim that the Government was left with no choice. I admire the simplicity of the two-step process, though:
- Ask about something once.
- Escalate immediately to demanding an answer on your own terms by way of threatening to block all legislation, no matter the topic or need, indefinitely, unless your demands are met.
We asked about it several times.
I am aware of one time the question was asked, and I remember at some point after the election Dama Miestra said she was challenging the TNC to produce a bill on the topic. I've had discussions with a couple people of what that might look like. But let me be clear: your absurd threats will not produce one iota of results, now. We will
not engage in anything under duress.
In game theory terms, you defected first from the Prisoner's Dilemma. You'll do it again if you get away with it, just as often as you think threats will work. So we will not agree to anything under duress, now or in the future.
Quote from: Baron Alexandreu Davinescu on June 01, 2022, 10:42:16 PM
I am aware of one time the question was asked, and I remember at some point after the election Dama Miestra said she was challenging the TNC to produce a bill on the topic. I've had discussions with a couple people of what that might look like. But let me be clear: your absurd threats will not produce one iota of results, now. We will not engage in anything under duress.
In game theory terms, you defected first from the Prisoner's Dilemma. You'll do it again if you get away with it, just as often as you think threats will work. So we will not agree to anything under duress, now or in the future.
At least speaking personally -- as someone whose confidence the Government must maintain, might I add -- I would think attempting this tactic more than once to be overplaying one's hand. Of course, as far as I'm concerned, if the discussions you mentioned bear any fruit, bringing that fruit to the public (or declaring the fruit to be nonexistent :P ) would likely satisfy my desire to know where you stand on which reforms -- what options I have as an MC to float ideas that actually have a chance at compromise, and which ones are DOA.
It is all well and good for anyone to propose changes that a supermajority can agree to in the way the Kingdom functions. It is another matter to propose changes that would in the opinion of some to be an improvement, while that in the opinion of others is a radical change from one form of government to another entirely.
And yet, in the face of a stable opposition where one party polled at a level greater than any other single party (at 39% of the whole), a coalition of other parties seeks to achieve changes that the current law of the land does not support based upon that opposition. Ad hominem attacks seek to deflect away from this core concept.
Quote from: xpb on June 02, 2022, 10:54:17 PM
It is all well and good for anyone to propose changes that a supermajority can agree to in the way the Kingdom functions. It is another matter to propose changes that would in the opinion of some to be an improvement, while that in the opinion of others is a radical change from one form of government to another entirely.
And yet, in the face of a stable opposition where one party polled at a level greater than any other single party (at 39% of the whole), a coalition of other parties seeks to achieve changes that the current law of the land does not support based upon that opposition. Ad hominem attacks seek to deflect away from this core concept.
... I've read this post over and over again and I can't actually work out what it means.
Can the author - a TNC MC - say what
he thinks would be a good monarchy reform? "None" is an acceptable answer, and indeed the one I'm expecting.
Quote from: Miestră Schivă, UrN on June 02, 2022, 11:19:22 PM
Quote from: xpb on June 02, 2022, 10:54:17 PM
It is all well and good for anyone to propose changes that a supermajority can agree to in the way the Kingdom functions. It is another matter to propose changes that would in the opinion of some to be an improvement, while that in the opinion of others is a radical change from one form of government to another entirely.
And yet, in the face of a stable opposition where one party polled at a level greater than any other single party (at 39% of the whole), a coalition of other parties seeks to achieve changes that the current law of the land does not support based upon that opposition. Ad hominem attacks seek to deflect away from this core concept.
... I've read this post over and over again and I can't actually work out what it means.
Can the author - a TNC MC - say what he thinks would be a good monarchy reform? "None" is an acceptable answer, and indeed the one I'm expecting.
I believe there are some good technical elements to reform of how a convocation would be conducted, however, that would need to happen only at a time of the demise, abdication, or removal from the throne of the monarch, not as a scheduled event.
When the King has "reigned for at least seven years since the previous Convocation" remains a fundamental change from monarchy to a republican form of government, as the word King in that case is changed in meaning to be equivalent with President or Chief Executive or similar.
Ah, so what you want is the Convocation model but not the time-limiting model. That's an interesting start, and perhaps a bit surprising - I would have expected you to want the hereditary model back?
Quote from: xpb on June 12, 2022, 10:32:27 PM
Quote from: Miestră Schivă, UrN on June 02, 2022, 11:19:22 PM
Quote from: xpb on June 02, 2022, 10:54:17 PM
It is all well and good for anyone to propose changes that a supermajority can agree to in the way the Kingdom functions. It is another matter to propose changes that would in the opinion of some to be an improvement, while that in the opinion of others is a radical change from one form of government to another entirely.
And yet, in the face of a stable opposition where one party polled at a level greater than any other single party (at 39% of the whole), a coalition of other parties seeks to achieve changes that the current law of the land does not support based upon that opposition. Ad hominem attacks seek to deflect away from this core concept.
... I've read this post over and over again and I can't actually work out what it means.
Can the author - a TNC MC - say what he thinks would be a good monarchy reform? "None" is an acceptable answer, and indeed the one I'm expecting.
I believe there are some good technical elements to reform of how a convocation would be conducted, however, that would need to happen only at a time of the demise, abdication, or removal from the throne of the monarch, not as a scheduled event.
When the King has "reigned for at least seven years since the previous Convocation" remains a fundamental change from monarchy to a republican form of government, as the word King in that case is changed in meaning to be equivalent with President or Chief Executive or similar.
Can this be taken to be an official TNC position? If so, the boycott can end.
Quote from: Ian Plätschisch on June 18, 2022, 10:45:21 AM
Quote from: xpb on June 12, 2022, 10:32:27 PM
Quote from: Miestră Schivă, UrN on June 02, 2022, 11:19:22 PM
Quote from: xpb on June 02, 2022, 10:54:17 PM
It is all well and good for anyone to propose changes that a supermajority can agree to in the way the Kingdom functions. It is another matter to propose changes that would in the opinion of some to be an improvement, while that in the opinion of others is a radical change from one form of government to another entirely.
And yet, in the face of a stable opposition where one party polled at a level greater than any other single party (at 39% of the whole), a coalition of other parties seeks to achieve changes that the current law of the land does not support based upon that opposition. Ad hominem attacks seek to deflect away from this core concept.
... I've read this post over and over again and I can't actually work out what it means.
Can the author - a TNC MC - say what he thinks would be a good monarchy reform? "None" is an acceptable answer, and indeed the one I'm expecting.
I believe there are some good technical elements to reform of how a convocation would be conducted, however, that would need to happen only at a time of the demise, abdication, or removal from the throne of the monarch, not as a scheduled event.
When the King has "reigned for at least seven years since the previous Convocation" remains a fundamental change from monarchy to a republican form of government, as the word King in that case is changed in meaning to be equivalent with President or Chief Executive or similar.
Can this be taken to be an official TNC position? If so, the boycott can end.
I won't take anything they say as official unless it comes from their leadership.
Just a reminder to everyone why this unpleasantness has to continue:
-The TNC campaigned on Monarchy reform but is still yet to produce any actual proposal.
-The FreeDems asked the TNC several times what Monarchy reform it had in mind. It was clear that further questions would be met with silence.
-The FreeDems are making the TNC fulfill its commitment to their own voters. The TNC has responded to our very reasonable request with howling and bloviating.
Well, no. You're insisting that the unpleasantness continue because your demands have not been met. You could simply... you know, stop doing that? And please don't make any future demands under threat, since you will find the same reply.
I mean, it's kind of turning into a bit of a farce anyway, since now you're proposing TNC bills under your own name.