The change appears to force the SoS to resign upon nomination as king which I do not support. I support recusal (and note to myself this is another option to address conflicts caused by an SoS taking on partisan political positions...)

I also can't support the Baron's succession proposal without some connection with King John designating a successor and giving a timeline for abdication.

Quote from: Miestră Schivă, UrN on April 15, 2024, 10:08:59 PM

Quote from: Baron Alexandreu Davinescu on April 15, 2024, 07:36:42 PMWe should establish an expectation and a norm in the law that His Majesty nominates someone, the Ziu approves it, and the people affirm it.

I have to reiterate the expressed position of the Free Democrats that Ziu approval must be OrgLaw-amendment threshold, i.e. 2/3 of the Cosa.

I also don't want to be in the position I have been over and over again in Talossa - where I express myself loosely and AD decides that I just agreed with him and bulldozes forward on that position. This is not a "compromise". This is an alternative.

Let me be very clear. If the King, or someone working for him, puts up a OrgLaw amendment establishing a timeline for his abdication and a process for succession in time for the 6th Clark, then I will hold off on my own bills for it to be voted on, on its merits (assuming that it is a bill solely dealing with these matters, with no tinkering to the role/powers of the Monarchy). If no such OrgLaw amendment is ready in time, then we proceed to a Vacant Throne or to a Ziu nomination.

Miestra, if the Baron is not able to produce his proposal soon then I recommend moving your proposals to the CRL. I would also be more than happy to be a co-sponsor on both.

Just read it.
This was a quite good issue with fair reporting, Mic'haglh, and I am glad LTN is back.

If this is how we finally get Txec on the throne then so be it...

Quote from: Breneir Tzaracomprada on April 15, 2024, 02:13:57 PM

Quote from: þerxh Sant-Enogat on April 15, 2024, 01:27:46 PMI just read Baron Alexandreu's words, and I agree that letting the King propose a successor would be the most coherent scenario to ensure the historical continuity on which our Nation is build upon.

What about the options Miestra listed? You did not mention those in your answer.

To be helpful, here are Miestra's words, Therxh which she directly invited comment on:

Quote1) 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?

Therxh, I'm really interested in your thoughts on the options as was requested. We already have options on the table which appear to have the support now of two TNC MCs.

Quote from: þerxh Sant-Enogat on April 15, 2024, 01:27:46 PMI just read Baron Alexandreu's words, and I agree that letting the King propose a successor would be the most coherent scenario to ensure the historical continuity on which our Nation is build upon.

What about the options Miestra listed? You did not mention those in your answer.

To be helpful, here are Miestra's words, Therxh which she directly invited comment on:

Quote1) 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?

@þerxh Sant-Enogat What are your thoughts?

Quote 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.

The 30 day deadline for resignation and a successor is a vital component of this proposal.

Quote from: Ián Tamorán S.H. on April 13, 2024, 10:33:14 AM((sound of tumbleweed blowing past))

I have heard the sound of tumbleweed. And while it is indeed a nice sound I plan to decide on a winner by day's end. :-)

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.

@þerxh Sant-Enogat and @Carlüs Éovart Vilaçafat Your invitation is on the table. What say you as to your preferences on this matter?

With thanks to @Barclamïu da Miéletz, Fora Talossa is delighted to share his performance on piano of Chirluscha àl Glheþ or Stand Tall, Talossans:

---

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.

It's a good thing I wasn't drinking hot coffee when I read this. You have a remarkable ability to shock me.

Quote from: Miestră Schivă, UrN on April 13, 2024, 06:34:04 PM

Quote 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.

Miestra, this is all reasonable. Option 2 is my preference as it is immediate removal and replacement pending a national referendum plus a sunset clause moving into a regency if necessary. I do think this seems to address the two major issues raised and allows time for the outstanding major issue to be resolved.

If you are not yet ready to move until there is more discussion on Option 2 then I would encourage others to let Miestra and the FreeDems generally know your thoughts specifically on the options or amended options she lists.

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.

I do see your words and they have been answered. There is no need for me to directly answer them too. I am interested in Miestra's thoughts as yours are well known now.

@Miestră Schivă, UrN I am most interested in seeing through a path for action, if possible. I apologize for my own contribution to the delay in addressing the King's inactivity but a review of yours and Ian's words and actions (especially in comparison to the King's words and actions) have led me to the belief I can trust your genuine desire simply to ensure an active head of state. If, through this slimmed down amendment, we can address the concerns of Gluc, Therxh, and Carlus then I think that is a basis for bipartisan action as the TNC would have four of its five MCs likely to support the bill along with its senator. And I assume much of the FreeDems would support the bill.

Quote from: Miestră Schivă, UrN on April 12, 2024, 10:03:36 PM

Quote 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.

Miestra, what are your current thoughts on moving forward with a revised vacant throne amendment (simple removal, immediate successor, and sunset clause)? The revisions do address most stated concerns and allow time to address the succession issue permanently.