@þerxh Sant-Enogat What are your thoughts?
Welcome to Wittenberg!
This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.
Show posts MenuQuote from: Carlüs Éovart Vilaçafat on April 15, 2024, 08:31:14 AMSo my personal preference would be Option 2, amended to give King John 30 days to appoint a successor and step down. If one is not chosen within the appointed time, then the law will go into effect.
Quote from: Ián Tamorán S.H. on April 13, 2024, 10:33:14 AM((sound of tumbleweed blowing past))
Quote from: Miestră Schivă, UrN on April 13, 2024, 09:16:35 PMI'd like to hear other TNC MCs, in particular @þerxh Sant-Enogat and @Carlüs Éovart Vilaçafat, as to which option they'd prefer (a "clean vacancy" or a named successor + succession to be determined by law with a default option). Once we have 140+ votes declared for a preferred option we can proceed.
Quote from: Miestră Schivă, UrN on April 13, 2024, 06:42:38 PMI'd like to apologise somewhat for my post above - it came out more ill-tempered and accusatory than it sounded in my head. I don't think Glüc is consciously trying to troll and derail.
But I have to reiterate that - if it really doesn't matter who's King because the job is low-powered - then I am suddenly in favour of the continued rule of John I rather than this option. Talossa has already tried the "King who no-one really wants" option, it didn't end well.
Quote from: Miestră Schivă, UrN on April 13, 2024, 06:34:04 PMQuote from: Breneir Tzaracomprada on April 13, 2024, 03:28:20 PM@Miestră Schivă, UrN I am most interested in seeing through a path for action, if possible.
Thing is that I'm not 100% sure as to where we stand. I've put up two proposals in this thread:
1) the original proposal, which I call "clean decapitation". I still prefer this, though I take into account the people who worry about an indefinite empty throne.
2) a revised proposal, which appoints a new King right away and leaves it up to the Ziu to create further succession laws; the default option being "CpI names a successor to be confirmed in referendum". I haven't seen any substantial discussion on that one.
(Of course the good Baron is calling for his previously expressed preference that the King be allowed to name his own successor. But, given the incumbent's record, I don't feel happy about affording him that privilege.)
So which should we run with?
- Option 1?
- Option 1 amended slightly (eg with a "sunset clause")?
- Option 2?
- Option 2 amended slightly?
I am in favour of getting as broad a social consensus as we can, because you know what? A 2/3 majority in the Ziu isn't going to cut it. Three reasons:
- if the King vetoes, we will another 2/3 majority in the next Cosa, and thus have to win the argument in an election.
- either way, we will need to win a majority in a referendum.
I have bucketloads of respect for the good Baron as a political operator and I'm not confident of being able to beat him in a referendum (or get 2/3 in an election) if he's going to fight this all the way.
Quote from: Baron Alexandreu Davinescu on April 13, 2024, 03:12:34 PM@Breneir Tzaracomprada , just wanted to check and make sure you could see my posts and there's no sort of glitch or anything.
Earlier in this thread, I wrote at length about some obvious problems I saw with the bill, and you replied after me and said that you didn't see any objections being made. And now again, you seem to be unaware of arguments I made with a significant investment of my time and thought -- not even acknowledging them but just addressing Miestra. Is it just that you're ignoring me? That's certainly your prerogative, but I thought I'd check.
Quote from: Miestră Schivă, UrN on April 12, 2024, 10:03:36 PMQuote from: Breneir Tzaracomprada on April 12, 2024, 07:35:50 PMWe have at least three TNC MCs and possibly a fourth in support of a simple vacancy declaration. The subsequent issue raised concerned a successor and earlier in this term there was no TNC opposition to Txec's elevation. I have yet to hear one voice in opposition even now.
The good Baron has been saying that he thinks the "simple vacancy declaration" is a trap, because the cunning Free Dems will then make sure the throne stays vacant forever, and the Senator from Cézembre agrees with him. This is both unkind and unnecessary, because the throne is already effectively vacant, if that's what we wanted we would just leave Zombie John there.
I was trying to dispel these suspicions, but I'm sure if your numbers are correct we *could* push a simple vacancy through over their objections - is that what you think best? I should note that Carlüs was asking for some kind of "sunset clause" to avoid eternal delays in naming a successor.
Quote from: Miestră Schivă, UrN on April 12, 2024, 10:03:36 PMQuote from: Breneir Tzaracomprada on April 12, 2024, 07:35:50 PMWe have at least three TNC MCs and possibly a fourth in support of a simple vacancy declaration. The subsequent issue raised concerned a successor and earlier in this term there was no TNC opposition to Txec's elevation. I have yet to hear one voice in opposition even now.
The good Baron has been saying that he thinks the "simple vacancy declaration" is a trap, because the cunning Free Dems will then make sure the throne stays vacant forever, and the Senator from Cézembre agrees with him. This is both unkind and unnecessary, because the throne is already effectively vacant, if that's what we wanted we would just leave Zombie John there.
I was trying to dispel these suspicions, but I'm sure if your numbers are correct we *could* push a simple vacancy through over their objections - is that what you think best? I should note that Carlüs was asking for some kind of "sunset clause" to avoid eternal delays in naming a successor.
Quote from: Miestră Schivă, UrN on April 12, 2024, 05:49:53 PMWell, okay, the alternative suggestion is:QuoteTHEREFORE BE IT ENACTED by the Ziu and people of Talossa that Article II.3 of the Organic Law be changed from the current text:QuoteThe King of Talossa is King John I, until his demise, abdication, or removal from the throne. Should the King at any time renounce or lose his citizenship, that renunciation or loss shall be deemed to imply his abdication of the Throne. Upon the demise, abdication, or removal from the Throne of the King, the Uppermost Cort shall be a Council of Regency.
toQuoteThe King of Talossa is Txec, First of his Name, of the House of Nordselvă, and his heirs and successors as established by law. Should the King at any time renounce or lose his citizenship, that renunciation or loss shall be deemed to imply his abdication of the Throne. Upon the demise, abdication, or removal from the Throne of the King:
a) the Heir Presumptive to the throne as established by law shall assume the Throne or;
b) if there is no Heir Presumptive and one is not named by law, the Uppermost Cort shall be a Council of Regency and shall within 3 months name an Heir Presumptive, who will take the Throne upon approval in referendum, or;
c) if an Heir Presumptive as named in b) is not approved by a majority of those voting in referendum, and has not been named by law, the Uppermost Cort shall repeat the process in b) above as many times as is necessary.
Some might worry that establishing the succession by ordinary law will be too simple; but it will also prevent the kind of "stalemate" that the good Baron foresees whereby any successor can be blocked indefinitely by a minority.
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
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.