Wittenberg

This serves as the 14 days notice required under Party Constitution s.8. (https://wiki.talossa.com/Free_Democrats_of_Talossa#Constitution)

Very vague agenda:
- election of Party President, Party Secretary, and Provincial Branch Chairs
- any amendments to the Party Constitution or Programme
- speeches

If you're not a member of the Free Democrats yet - you have 14 days to change that! PM me or Party Secretary @Antaglha Xhenerös Somelieir

CONVENTION SCHEDULE:

• Speeches from Party Leaders and guests
• Amendments to the Constitution (https://wiki.talossa.com/Free_Democrats_of_Talossa#Constitution)
• Amendments to the Party Programme (https://wiki.talossa.com/Free_Democrats_of_Talossa#Party_Policy)
• Election of Party President, Party Secretary and Provincial Branch Chairs

FREE DEMOCRATS CONVENTION IS NOW OPEN

I'll make an opening speech sometime in the next couple of days. If anyone wants to

a) make a speech
b) make a suggested amendment to the Party Constitution or Program;
c) nominate a Party President, Party Secretary or Provincial Branch Chair;

now is the time to do so.

I propose to the convention that article 4 of the party constitution is amended from

"IV. Membership shall be open to all Talossan citizens. The Secretary of the Party shall be entitled, no more than once a year, to conduct a Census of all party members to make sure they still see themselves as Party members and that their contact details are up to date. Any member who does not respond to this Census within 30 days shall be deemed to have resigned from the Party"

To

"IV. Membership shall be open to all Talossan citizens, upon registration, contact information must be provided to party leadership (sharing this information outside of the leadership, will be an offence punishable by expulsion, for a period of no less than 2 years, and may be liable to further legal action). The Secretary of the Party shall be entitled, no more than once a year, to conduct a Census of all party members to make sure they still see themselves as Party members and that their contact details are up to date. Any member who does not respond to this Census within 30 days shall be deemed to have resigned from the Party on Two consecutive Censuses.
MC's and Senators are required to submit responses to the census but whilst they serve in their capacity shall be exempt from being expelled from the party from failing to submit to a census, so long as they serve in their capacity as representatives of the party in the Ziu.

Further, if a party member shall publicly vote for another party, said member  shall be deemed to have left the party"

Quote from: Antaglha Xhenerös Somelieir on February 15, 2024, 11:39:52 AMFurther, if a party member shall vote for another party, said member  shall be deemed to have left the party"

This part may be problematic as we can only know how someone votes if they vote publicly or allow their to vote to be publicly revealed in the database. You might change it to "if a party member shall publicly vote for another party."

Quote from: Sir Txec dal Nordselvă, UrB on February 15, 2024, 11:48:01 AM

Quote from: Antaglha Xhenerös Somelieir on February 15, 2024, 11:39:52 AMFurther, if a party member shall vote for another party, said member  shall be deemed to have left the party"

This part may be problematic as we can only know how someone votes if they vote publicly or allow their to vote to be publicly revealed in the database. You might change it to "if a party member shall publicly vote for another party."

Thanks for that, I had overlooked that, and have adjusted the proposal accordingly

I propose that a clause be added to our Party Policy Section A:

"We stand against attempts by the King, Privy Council, or government, to expand the powers of the royal authority, or to fortify the position of the monarchy."

This is not a call for any immediate abolition of the monarchy. It is just demanding that the monarchy not become any more powerful or entrenched than the status quo. Unless, perhaps, such a change has undeniably overwhelming support among the governing parties, the opposition parties, and independents.

I would support the revised proposal to ammend Article 4.

Quote from: Bentxamì Puntmasleu on February 16, 2024, 03:38:51 PMI propose that a clause be added to our Party Policy Section A:

"We stand against attempts by the King, Privy Council, or government, to expand the powers of the royal authority, or to fortify the position of the monarchy."

This is not a call for any immediate abolition of the monarchy. It is just demanding that the monarchy not become any more powerful or entrenched than the status quo. Unless, perhaps, such a change has undeniably overwhelming support among the governing parties, the opposition parties, and independents.

I've got my own ideas about amendments to the program which flesh out a specific FreeDems constitutional position: for the rule of law, for separation of powers, against bureaucracy. This proposal might fit nicely as part of that.

I renominate @Antaglha Xhenerös Somelieir as Party Secretary, btw

Quote from: Miestră Schivă, UrN on February 16, 2024, 03:58:57 PMI renominate @Antaglha Xhenerös Somelieir as Party Secretary, btw

I accept the nomination and nominate @Miestră Schivă as Party leader

I would also propose the following addition to article IV
Under the heading Subsection A) Membership requirements 
A list of requirements of membership shall be made by party leadership, and this list is to be  approved  by members, by a majority vote (these rules shall form bylaws of the party), these rules can be amended at any time, subject to a majority vote, if any such member is deemed to break the rules, the party is empowered to investigate and present findings  to the membership for a trial (where the accused has the right to put up a defence if they wish), and vote on if the member breaking the rules is guilty. Punishment for breaking the rules is to be decided by the party leadership, with a confirmation vote from membership, upto and including expulsion from the party, and a ban of rejoining for set periods of time, to be set under the bylaws mentioned above"

Am open to ideas to amend this, but just wanted to start the conversation in the convention (and I'm not sure I'll be upto too much of a debate due to mh issues so happy to let others run with this)

Quote from: Miestră Schivă, UrN on February 16, 2024, 03:53:21 PM

Quote from: Bentxamì Puntmasleu on February 16, 2024, 03:38:51 PMI propose that a clause be added to our Party Policy Section A:

"We stand against attempts by the King, Privy Council, or government, to expand the powers of the royal authority, or to fortify the position of the monarchy."

This is not a call for any immediate abolition of the monarchy. It is just demanding that the monarchy not become any more powerful or entrenched than the status quo. Unless, perhaps, such a change has undeniably overwhelming support among the governing parties, the opposition parties, and independents.

I've got my own ideas about amendments to the program which flesh out a specific FreeDems constitutional position: for the rule of law, for separation of powers, against bureaucracy. This proposal might fit nicely as part of that.

Okay, how about this: replace existing Plank B of our program:

QuoteB. CUTTING THE RED-AND-GREEN TAPE
Talossa's government and legal structure is top-heavy, unwieldy, hard to navigate and no fun. We support the repeal of all laws and abolition of all Government posts and procedures which are more trouble than they are worth to keep going. We want a smaller, consistently active Cabinet, a Ziu which offers active oversight of the Cabinet and intelligent scrutiny of laws, and a functioning Judiciary.

With this:

QuoteB. A POLITICAL SYSTEM FOR EVERYONE
Free Democrats want a political system where *democracy and expertise* balance each other. We want an end to "green-and-red tape"; our politics and laws have to be simple and straightforward enough that any citizen can become a political leader or seek justice in the Corts with minimal training. In turn, the Royal Civil Service should recruit those with specialist skills to work for the Kingdom independently but under political supervision.

The idea is to prevent the kind of debacle which recently happened where the TNC government couldn't find anyone to write their budget. I want to express the idea that that should never happen; either the budget legislation should be simple enough that anyone who gets elected can do it; or we should have some Civil Service person whose job it is to write budgets along the lines given by the elected Government.

The alternative to this is a system where you can only elect a Government who knows how to "work the system". On one hand this means that those in power have an incentive to keep things complicated so only they know how to work it and can't be voted out! On the other, it means that elections become non-political; you're voting for administrators not for political visions. I always thought (and respect to him if I got it wrong) that was AD's vision for how Talossan politics should work, and I've always opposed it.

The question I want you to answer is: does my suggested amendment get this idea across, in as few words as possible?

I also support Bentxamí's phrase being added to the end of Plank A of our platform, as a separate measure.

@Miestră Schivă, UrN It may be too late but I would be interested in making a speech to the convention as a guest. I was reviewing the party's proboards site but was unable to see any activity so I assume most of it is happening here.

Quote from: Miestră Schivă, UrN on February 15, 2024, 01:46:44 AMFREE DEMOCRATS CONVENTION IS NOW OPEN

I'll make an opening speech sometime in the next couple of days. If anyone wants to

a) make a speech
b) make a suggested amendment to the Party Constitution or Program;
c) nominate a Party President, Party Secretary or Provincial Branch Chair;

now is the time to do so.

Quote from: Breneir Tzaracomprada on February 17, 2024, 05:00:13 PM@Miestră Schivă, UrN It may be too late but I would be interested in making a speech to the convention as a guest. I was reviewing the party's proboards site but was unable to see any activity so I assume most of it is happening here.

Thank you. This request will be considered by the party leadership. As you say, it may be too late and if it is accepted it will have to come after the guest speech we already have scheduled.

All right, here are my suggested rewrites for @Antaglha Xhenerös Somelieir's constitutional amendments. I have rephrased her second suggestion as a rewrite to Section XIII of the Constitution, to which it properly pertains.

So, my suggestion is that Section IV be changed to read:

Quote"IV.
a, Membership shall be open to all Talossan citizens who agree to abide by this Constitution, endorse the Party Policy, and are not currently members of another nationally registered party. However, the rights of any party member in good standing to seek changes to the Constitution or Policy in accordance with this Constitution shall never be infringed.

b. A prospective member must provide such contact information to the Party Secretary as the Party Secretary may ask for. The Party Secretary shall keep this information confidential, to be shared only with the Party Leadership, and used only for party business.

c. The Secretary of the Party shall be entitled, no more than once a year, to conduct a Census of all party members to make sure they still see themselves as Party members and that their contact details are up to date. A Party member who does not reply to this census within 30 days shall be deemed to have offered their resignation, which shall be accepted at the discretion of the Party Leadership.

And Section XIII:

QuoteXIII.
a) The Party Leadership, upon petition of at least 1/2 of party members or at its own initiative by majority vote, shall suspend members for:
i) stated violations of this Constitution;
ii) publicly voting for or joining another nationally registered party;
iii) bringing the party into disrepute in a stated way.

b) A suspension decision, the justification for it, and the provisions for lifting this suspension (as contained in the rest of this section) shall be communicated to the suspended member as soon as possible and through all possible means of communication. A suspended member's rights under this Constitution shall cease to apply during their suspension, including the right to participate in Party discussion forums.

c) On the first day of the next Party Convention, the Party Leadership shall publicly announce a recommendation for every suspended member whether to lift their suspension, continue their suspension until the next Convention, or to expel the member. A recommendation to lift suspension shall be effected immediately. A recommendation to continue suspension or to expel shall take effect after 5 days, unless the suspended member addresses the Convention requesting a hearing.

d) A hearing shall be held in closed session and shall be chaired by a Talossan citizen agreed to by both the suspended member and the Party leadership. The Party Leadership shall make the case for continued suspension or expulsion, and the suspended member may make a case against this decision. Debate shall then ensue, in which other party members may make their own arguments or statements, moderated by the chair of the hearing. After no fewer than five days, the chair of the hearing shall call for a vote as to whether to accept or reject the Party Leadership's recommendation. A quorum of no less than 1/2 of current membership shall be required to endorse a motion to continue suspension or to expel. If the vote fails, the member's suspension shall be immediately lifted. The outcome of the hearing shall be immediately publicly announced.

e) An expelled member shall be eligible to rejoin the Free Democrats after two General Elections following the expulsion.

Quote from: Bentxamì Puntmasleu on February 16, 2024, 03:38:51 PM"We stand against attempts by the King, Privy Council, or government, to expand the powers of the royal authority, or to fortify the position of the monarchy."

Not the biggest fan of this since I can't guarantee there would never be a time I could support more royal power on some issue. Also, what exactly does "fortifying the position of the Monarchy" mean? I certainly don't want it to get weaker.

Coming from the most monarchist party member so feel free to ignore.

Quote from: Miestră Schivă, UrN on February 18, 2024, 12:17:45 AM

Quote from: Breneir Tzaracomprada on February 17, 2024, 05:00:13 PM@Miestră Schivă, UrN It may be too late but I would be interested in making a speech to the convention as a guest. I was reviewing the party's proboards site but was unable to see any activity so I assume most of it is happening here.

Thank you. This request will be considered by the party leadership. As you say, it may be too late and if it is accepted it will have to come after the guest speech we already have scheduled.

Thank you for considering it. That's all I can ask for.

Quote from: Ian Plätschisch on February 18, 2024, 08:45:14 AM

Quote from: Bentxamì Puntmasleu on February 16, 2024, 03:38:51 PM"We stand against attempts by the King, Privy Council, or government, to expand the powers of the royal authority, or to fortify the position of the monarchy."

Not the biggest fan of this since I can't guarantee there would never be a time I could support more royal power on some issue. Also, what exactly does "fortifying the position of the Monarchy" mean? I certainly don't want it to get weaker.

Coming from the most monarchist party member so feel free to ignore.

As possibly the *least* monarchist party member, lol, the issue with this is that it's hypothetical. Neither the King, the Sabor nor the Government are currently trying to expand the powers of the monarchy. So this is kind of empty and voters might be excused for wondering what we're worried about. In contrast, I really strongly want us to adopt this for obvious reasons:

QuoteWe 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.

I kind of want to go through this to explain the process as I envisage:

Quote from: Miestră Schivă, UrN on February 18, 2024, 12:20:47 AMXIII.
a) The Party Leadership, upon petition of at least 1/2 of party members or at its own initiative by majority vote, shall suspend members for:
i) stated violations of this Constitution;
ii) publicly voting for or joining another nationally registered party;
iii) bringing the party into disrepute in a stated way.

b) A suspension decision, the justification for it, and the provisions for lifting this suspension (as contained in the rest of this section) shall be communicated to the suspended member as soon as possible and through all possible means of communication. A suspended member's rights under this Constitution shall cease to apply during their suspension, including the right to participate in Party discussion forums.

c) On the first day of the next Party Convention, the Party Leadership shall publicly announce a recommendation for every suspended member whether to lift their suspension, continue their suspension until the next Convention, or to expel the member. A recommendation to lift suspension shall be effected immediately. A recommendation to continue suspension or to expel shall take effect after 5 days, unless the suspended member addresses the Convention requesting a hearing.

d) A hearing shall be held in closed session and shall be chaired by a Talossan citizen agreed to by both the suspended member and the Party leadership. The Party Leadership shall make the case for continued suspension or expulsion, and the suspended member may make a case against this decision. Debate shall then ensue, in which other party members may make their own arguments or statements, moderated by the chair of the hearing. After no fewer than five days, the chair of the hearing shall call for a vote as to whether to accept or reject the Party Leadership's recommendation. A quorum of no less than 1/2 of current membership shall be required to endorse a motion to continue suspension or to expel. If the vote fails, the member's suspension shall be immediately lifted. The outcome of the hearing shall be immediately publicly announced.

e) An expelled member shall be eligible to rejoin the Free Democrats after two General Elections following the expulsion.

Basically, if the Party Leadership suspends someone (or is required to by petition of the membership) that suspension will last at least until the next Convention, i.e. the leadership won't be able to end it early. I think this is necessary to stop "wheeling and dealing", i.e a Leadership telling a suspended member "your suspension will be lifted if you toe the line". If a suspension happens it can't be a casual thing, it must have consequences, and its outcome should only be decided by a membership vote. Conversely, a suspension can't last beyond the next Convention (or turned into an expulsion) without that membership vote. So I'm trying to make sure the Leadership can hand out suspensions when necessary but to minimise the control they have over the process in favour of the membership as a whole deciding.

Oh, while I'm at it, change e) to read as follows:

Quotee) An expelled member shall be eligible to rejoin the Free Democrats after two General Elections following the expulsion. A member whose suspension is lifted at a Convention may not be suspended again for the same cause.

(This to stop a suspension expiring at a Convention and the party leadership just yelling HUTSCH-TÚ and reimposing it immediately.)

Sound good?

Quote from: Miestră Schivă, UrN on February 17, 2024, 04:55:34 PMOkay, how about this: replace existing Plank B of our program:

QuoteB. CUTTING THE RED-AND-GREEN TAPE
Talossa's government and legal structure is top-heavy, unwieldy, hard to navigate and no fun. We support the repeal of all laws and abolition of all Government posts and procedures which are more trouble than they are worth to keep going. We want a smaller, consistently active Cabinet, a Ziu which offers active oversight of the Cabinet and intelligent scrutiny of laws, and a functioning Judiciary.

With this:

QuoteB. A POLITICAL SYSTEM FOR EVERYONE
Free Democrats want a political system where *democracy and expertise* balance each other. We want an end to "green-and-red tape"; our politics and laws have to be simple and straightforward enough that any citizen can become a political leader or seek justice in the Corts with minimal training. In turn, the Royal Civil Service should recruit those with specialist skills to work for the Kingdom independently but under political supervision.

I'd like some feedback on this

Quote from: Miestră Schivă, UrN on February 19, 2024, 07:15:23 PM

Quote from: Ian Plätschisch on February 18, 2024, 08:45:14 AM

Quote from: Bentxamì Puntmasleu on February 16, 2024, 03:38:51 PM"We stand against attempts by the King, Privy Council, or government, to expand the powers of the royal authority, or to fortify the position of the monarchy."

Not the biggest fan of this since I can't guarantee there would never be a time I could support more royal power on some issue. Also, what exactly does "fortifying the position of the Monarchy" mean? I certainly don't want it to get weaker.

Coming from the most monarchist party member so feel free to ignore.

As possibly the *least* monarchist party member, lol, the issue with this is that it's hypothetical. Neither the King, the Sabor nor the Government are currently trying to expand the powers of the monarchy. So this is kind of empty and voters might be excused for wondering what we're worried about. In contrast, I really strongly want us to adopt this for obvious reasons:

QuoteWe 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.

I would support that in lieu of my proposal.

Sent from my SM-S901U using Tapatalk

Quote from: Miestră Schivă, UrN on February 21, 2024, 06:25:20 PM

Quote from: Miestră Schivă, UrN on February 17, 2024, 04:55:34 PMOkay, how about this: replace existing Plank B of our program:

QuoteB. CUTTING THE RED-AND-GREEN TAPE
Talossa's government and legal structure is top-heavy, unwieldy, hard to navigate and no fun. We support the repeal of all laws and abolition of all Government posts and procedures which are more trouble than they are worth to keep going. We want a smaller, consistently active Cabinet, a Ziu which offers active oversight of the Cabinet and intelligent scrutiny of laws, and a functioning Judiciary.

With this:

QuoteB. A POLITICAL SYSTEM FOR EVERYONE
Free Democrats want a political system where *democracy and expertise* balance each other. We want an end to "green-and-red tape"; our politics and laws have to be simple and straightforward enough that any citizen can become a political leader or seek justice in the Corts with minimal training. In turn, the Royal Civil Service should recruit those with specialist skills to work for the Kingdom independently but under political supervision.

I'd like some feedback on this

It has my support.

Sent from my SM-S901U using Tapatalk

Okay, we seem to have good consensus on some Constitution and Platform amendments. We have nominations for both President and Secretary. I would like to get to voting after the guest speech section, which will be this weekend. Anyone else want to speak / propose something / nominate someone?

If it isn't already too late, I propose that, somewhere in our program, we state that we are in favor of some kind of reform of the federal system. I don't think it needs to be too specific at the moment (although I, and I assume others, have specific ideas of how Talossan federalism might be reformed), just convey to the public that it is something we're interested in. Tentatively, a clause like this or something:

"With the aim of preserving and further developing distinctive provincial cultures and traditions, we commit ourselves to cooperating with the citizens of all provinces toward reforming Talossa's federal structure."

Of course, I would not object to proposals to reword that or make it more specific.

Sent from my SM-S901U using Tapatalk

Quote from: Bentxamì Puntmasleu on February 22, 2024, 10:48:47 PMIf it isn't already too late, I propose that, somewhere in our program, we state that we are in favor of some kind of reform of the federal system. I don't think it needs to be too specific at the moment (although I, and I assume others, have specific ideas of how Talossan federalism might be reformed), just convey to the public that it is something we're interested in. Tentatively, a clause like this or something:

"With the aim of preserving and further developing distinctive provincial cultures and traditions, we commit ourselves to cooperating with the citizens of all provinces toward reforming Talossa's federal structure."

Of course, I would not object to proposals to reword that or make it more specific.

I honestly think we need some specific ideas. The biggest problem with Talossan federalism is that while - on one hand - provincial governments only exist intermittently and rarely do anything, on the other hand, the Senäts has a veto over any changes; and that previous attempts to merge provinces have failed because it means someone loses a Senäts seat. So in summary, provinces are not functioning as units of government; but operate as "electorates for Senators" and Senators are very jealous of that. So, the question is: is it possible to reform federalism in any meaningful way (reducing the number of Provinces, increasing or decreasing their independent powers, depowering or changing the franchise for the Senäts) that persuades at least 6 Senators (see OrgLaw XII:1)

Can I just ask: do your preferred reforms go in the direction of a more centralised (the Kingdom has more power) constitution, or a more decentralised (provinces have more power) system?

If it were up to me, I would downgrade provinces to "local governments" without their own sovereignty, which only have the powers delegated to them by the Ziu. Which makes sense because Talossa is not really a federation at all, the Kingdom was created as a unitary state. I would personally want a unicameral Mixed Member Proportional Cosa as well, but that'd be too high a mountain to climb just now.

Obviously the guest speeches haven't happened yet, lol. We've got two people who've put their hands up and we're waiting on them. After that I suppose we'll get to voting.

Quote from: Bentxamì Puntmasleu on February 22, 2024, 10:48:47 PM"With the aim of preserving and further developing distinctive provincial cultures and traditions, we commit ourselves to cooperating with the citizens of all provinces toward reforming Talossa's federal structure."

The more I think about it, the more I think it's obvious that provincial mergers will never happen as long as every province gets a Senäts seat - in fact the incentive is towards *more* provinces if they can be made. But at the same time there is *no* incentive towards active provincial governments! What can be done?

Sorry it took so long for me to respond. The specific idea I have in mind for federalism reform isn't necessarily to make the system any more or less centralized, to transition to a unitary state with some devolved powers for subnational entities, or to merge or create more provinces. Perhaps my idea doesn't quite fall under the umbrella of federalism reform after all, though I think it is related. Before I describe my idea, I will give my opinion about centralization.
   I think that the core (not necessarily the only) problem with Talossa's provinces is the lack of a unique shared identity among citizens of any given province. By that, I mean the set of characteristics that are generally shared by, say, Vuodeans, but not all Talossans. (There are exceptions to this: For example, the Cjovani of Benito and Reviênsadéirs of Fiovă.) In other countries (both federal and unitary) that have meaningful subnational entities, these shared characteristics are associated with the geography.
My relationship to the geography of Talossa obviously differs from all other current Talossans. I always try to keep this in mind. I could be wrong but I think it is reasonable to assume that most Talossan don't have much consideration for the geography of Talossa. I don't mean this is a bad thing. It is perfectly reasonable for cybercitizens to focus on the non-physical aspect of Talossa. What this means is that the provinces of Talossa have little meaning to most Talossans as geographical entities. With the exception of the Cjovani of Benito and Reviênsadéirs of Fiovă (the latter of whom aren't geographically defined), there is little base for shared identity in any of the provinces.
One solution would be to do away with the provinces other than in name only. They would still exist but only 1.) as artifacts of Talossa's history (like the provinces of Ireland) and 2.) for actual denizens of Metropolitan Talossa (of which there are currently none). In this arrangement, no one other that these actual denizens would be provincial citizens and the Ziu would become unicameral.
My idea is this: We keep the provinces (in this case I don't have a strong position on Talossa being a federation or a unitary state with devolved powers) but change the procedure by which citizens are assigned to provinces. With the expectation of Ohio being within Benito's catchment area, the catchment areas are not conducive to the emergence of provincial identities. What if, upon being granted citizenship, new Talossans were assigned to provinces based on the existing catchment areas (same as how it is now) but after a period of time, say two years, they were allowed to relocate to another province of their choosing. After an initial relocation, citizens would have the right to relocate a minimum of every, say, five years. Instead of an arbitrary grouping of Talossans based on catchment areas, Talossans would gravitate toward provinces with citizens who share characteristics (interests, values, etc.) Over time, this might lead to the emergence of distinct provincial identities. (I do think that those citizens who actually do reside in Metropolitan Talossa should be assigned a province based on geography.) I don't know if this solution would work but I think it is worth considering, maybe experimenting.

I would also like to suggest that the provinces can have value as "laboratories of Talossanity" similar to how U.S. states have been conceived of as "laboratories of democracy."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laboratories_of_democracy

I submit two proposed planks that deal with federalism reform. The first is intended as a compromise between pro-federal and pro-unitary positions within our party. It calls for a centralized federation and a unicameral Ziu, coupled with a change of how the Organic Law is amended so that ratification requires the majority of voting citizens of Talossa at large AND a majority of voting citizens in a majority of provinces. The second calls for the right of Talossan citizens (other than denizens of Metropolitan Talossa) to relocate among provinces after a minimum period of time. I have detailed my rationale for this in post #29 of this convention.

1.) "We advocated for a centralized federation in which the provinces are constitutionally guaranteed their right to exist, the right to territorial integrity, and their right to sustain a population of citizens; but in which all powers of the provinces are granted by legislation of the national Ziu, rather than by the Organic Law. We also support the abolition of the Senäts, coupled with a change in how the Organic Law is amended so that ratification requires both a majority of voting citizens of Talossa at large and a majority of voting citizens in a majority of provinces."

2.) "We wish to promote the organic development of diverse and distinctive provincial identities within the Talossan national identity. To this end, we call for the right of Talossan citizens to relocate to another province of their choosing after a set period of time as citizens of the province they were assigned by catchment area."

I withdraw the second of my above proposals as it does not appear to have consensus.

Okay cünpartiaes, I'm going to set up a draft post here outlining everything we've got so far to vote on. WE ARE NOT VOTING ON IT YET - that'll wait until after the guest speeches.

Nominations for Party President:
Miestră Schivă

Nominations for Party Secretary:
@Antaglha Xhenerös Somelieir

Nominations for Provincial Branch Chairs:
(none yet))

Proposed Amendments to the Party Constitution (need 2/3 majority):

CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT 1: MEMBERSHIP
That Section IV of the Constitution be changed from:

QuoteIV. Membership shall be open to all Talossan citizens. The Secretary of the Party shall be entitled, no more than once a year, to conduct a Census of all party members to make sure they still see themselves as Party members and that their contact details are up to date. Any member who does not respond to this Census within 30 days shall be deemed to have resigned from the Party.

to:

QuoteIV.
a. Membership shall be open to all Talossan citizens who agree to abide by this Constitution, endorse the Party Policy, and are not currently members of another nationally registered party. However, the rights of any party member in good standing to seek changes to the Constitution or Policy in accordance with this Constitution shall never be infringed.

b. A prospective member must provide such contact information to the Party Secretary as the Party Secretary may ask for. The Party Secretary shall keep this information confidential, to be shared only with the Party Leadership, and used only for party business.

c. The Secretary of the Party shall be entitled, no more than once a year, to conduct a Census of all party members to make sure they still see themselves as Party members and that their contact details are up to date. A Party member who does not reply to this census within 30 days shall be deemed to have offered their resignation, which shall be accepted at the discretion of the Party Leadership.

CONSTIUTIONAL AMENDMENT 2: SUSPENSIONS AND EXPULSIONS
That section XIII of the Constitution be changed from:

QuoteXIII. In the event that a member is acting in a way that is damaging to the reputation of the Free Democrats, a petition representing at least half of the party membership may be presented to the party leader asking for the member's removal. The party leader shall schedule closed removal proceedings and notify the member in question, along with a copy of the petition, no less than ten days before such proceedings are to begin. During the proceedings, the member shall be afforded an opportunity to present his defense, and other members may also make their own arguments for or against the removal. On the fifth day of the proceedings, the party leader shall call a closed vote to be held on the removal. If two-thirds (2/3) of the membership vote in to remove, the member shall immediately be removed, and the party leader shall publicly announce the removal. A removed member shall be eligible to rejoin the Free Democrats after two General Elections following the removal.

to:

QuoteXIII.
a) The Party Leadership, upon petition of at least 1/2 of party members or at its own initiative by majority vote, shall suspend members for:
i) stated violations of this Constitution;
ii) publicly voting for or joining another nationally registered party;
iii) bringing the party into disrepute in a stated way.

b) A suspension decision, the justification for it, and the provisions for lifting this suspension (as contained in the rest of this section) shall be communicated to the suspended member as soon as possible and through all possible means of communication. A suspended member's rights under this Constitution shall cease to apply during their suspension, including the right to participate in Party discussion forums.

c) On the first day of the next Party Convention, the Party Leadership shall publicly announce a recommendation for every suspended member whether to lift their suspension, continue their suspension until the next Convention, or to expel the member. A recommendation to lift suspension shall be effected immediately. A recommendation to continue suspension or to expel shall take effect after 5 days, unless the suspended member addresses the Convention requesting a hearing.

d) A hearing shall be held in closed session and shall be chaired by a Talossan citizen agreed to by both the suspended member and the Party leadership. The Party Leadership shall make the case for continued suspension or expulsion, and the suspended member may make a case against this decision. Debate shall then ensue, in which other party members may make their own arguments or statements, moderated by the chair of the hearing. After no fewer than five days, the chair of the hearing shall call for a vote as to whether to accept or reject the Party Leadership's recommendation. A quorum of no less than 1/2 of current membership shall be required to endorse a motion to continue suspension or to expel. If the vote fails, the member's suspension shall be immediately lifted. The outcome of the hearing shall be immediately publicly announced.

e) An expelled member shall be eligible to rejoin the Free Democrats after two General Elections following the expulsion.

Proposed Amendments to the Party Platform (majority vote):

PROPOSAL 1:
That Section B of the Party Platform be changed from:

QuoteB. CUTTING THE RED-AND-GREEN TAPE
Talossa's government and legal structure is top-heavy, unwieldy, hard to navigate and no fun. We support the repeal of all laws and abolition of all Government posts and procedures which are more trouble than they are worth to keep going. We want a smaller, consistently active Cabinet, a Ziu which offers active oversight of the Cabinet and intelligent scrutiny of laws, and a functioning Judiciary.

to:

QuoteB. A POLITICAL SYSTEM FOR EVERYONE
Free Democrats want a political system where *democracy and expertise* balance each other. We want an end to "green-and-red tape"; our politics and laws have to be simple and straightforward enough that any citizen can become a political leader or seek justice in the Corts with minimal training. In turn, the Royal Civil Service should recruit those with specialist skills to work for the Kingdom independently but under political supervision.

PROPOSAL 2:
That Section A of the Party Platform be amended by adding the following:

QuoteWe 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.

PROPOSAL 3:
That a new Section  of the Party Platform be added:

QuoteSECTION E. FEDERALISM REFORM
We advocate for a centralized federation in which the provinces are constitutionally guaranteed their right to exist, the right to territorial integrity, and their right to sustain a population of citizens; but in which all powers of the provinces are granted by legislation of the national Ziu, rather than by the Organic Law. We also support the abolition of the Senäts, coupled with a change in how the Organic Law is amended so that ratification requires both a majority of voting citizens of Talossa at large and a majority of voting citizens in a majority of provinces.

I would like to see, if I can:

a) one or more provinces putting forward a Branch Chair;
b) someone suggested making our current policy on Ár Glheþ more substantial, but I didn't see any concrete suggestions

Okay, here is my counterposed Federalism policy plank:

QuoteProvincial governments in Talossa only function intermittently; by and large the provinces only act as electoral districts for Senators. We support reforms to the Senäts and other Organic provisions to provide incentives for provincial governments to be more active, or to create new provinces, either by splitting or merging.

Happy to say that Bentxhamí has accepted my proposed alternative Federalism plank.

Any other nominations for office, or amendments to Party Policy or Constitution? Since the proposed guest speeches don't seem to be happening, might roll onto voting phase soon, which will last 72 hours so if you snooze you lose.

Quote from: Miestră Schivă, UrN on March 10, 2024, 06:26:13 PMHappy to say that Bentxhamí has accepted my proposed alternative Federalism plank.

Any other nominations for office, or amendments to Party Policy or Constitution? Since the proposed guest speeches don't seem to be happening, might roll onto voting phase soon, which will last 72 hours so if you snooze you lose.

Saddened to see the guest speeches are canceled. I was looking forward to speaking to FreeDems.

Quote from: Breneir Tzaracomprada on March 10, 2024, 09:50:33 PMSaddened to see the guest speeches are canceled. I was looking forward to speaking to FreeDems.

... they're not cancelled. You just never sent me your draft speech so I assumed you were no longer interested. Please do so and we can continue.

Quote from: Miestră Schivă, UrN on March 10, 2024, 09:55:57 PM

Quote from: Breneir Tzaracomprada on March 10, 2024, 09:50:33 PMSaddened to see the guest speeches are canceled. I was looking forward to speaking to FreeDems.

... they're not cancelled. You just never sent me your draft speech so I assumed you were no longer interested. Please do so and we can continue.

Quote from: Breneir Tzaracomprada on February 24, 2024, 06:03:54 PM

Quote from: Miestră Schivă, UrN on February 22, 2024, 05:08:43 PM¡Azul!

I've put forward a proposal to the party as to allowing you to give a guest speech. You realise that, as the effective leader of our opponent party, this is a matter of great delicacy. The suggestion I have made is that you speak after Lüc da Schir has given his guest speech, and that you give us a draft of your speech in advance to ensure that you're not going to use our platform to trash us. If these conditions are acceptable, I can confirm or deny within 24 hours.

If the opportunity has not passed then those conditions are acceptable to me. I did want to reassure you that Therxh is both the de facto and de jure TNC leader. We have disagreements and he has the final say. And I think you will like my speech.

So this was the message I can find but there was another communication from you saying that you didn't have Luc's speech yet and that the opportunity is still available until Luc gives his speech. I can't actually see whether Luc gave his speech and have not heard from you in a couple weeks now. :)

As I mentioned I am more than happy to have you review my speech to be sure you are not being trashed.

I'm not sure what you're waiting for, Brenéir. I still haven't seen your draft speech and we're about to go to the close of the convention.

Quote from: Miestră Schivă, UrN on March 14, 2024, 03:13:29 PMI'm not sure what you're waiting for, Brenéir. I still haven't seen your draft speech and we're about to go to the close of the convention.

I think it was clear that I was waiting to hear from you concerning whether Lüc had given you his speech. That is why I mentioned you telling me you were waiting for his speech. Because you told me I would go after his speech, Miestra. I can't see whether he has given his speech and I never heard from you as to that fact either.

Please let me know, Miestra.

I assumed you want would give me your draft speech in plenty of time for feedback? Waiting until your speaking slot and only then providing the draft doesn't seem to leave much time for that, or perhaps I'm mistaken.

I don't think Lüc wants to speak any more, so please go ahead.

Quote from: Miestră Schivă, UrN on March 15, 2024, 12:09:01 AMI assumed you want would give me your draft speech in plenty of time for feedback? Waiting until your speaking slot and only then providing the draft doesn't seem to leave much time for that, or perhaps I'm mistaken.

I don't think Lüc wants to speak any more, so please go ahead.

That's all I needed to know. Thanks Miestra.
Speech has been sent to you just now.

Guest speech to the FreeDems convention:


Azul to you as proud co-citizens of our Kingdom. Let me be clear in saying I know you love our nation as much as I do. So, I first want to thank you for making space for someone with whom you have had rancorous disagreements and may still not trust to speak. And trust, the rebuilding of it, in a fashion that endures is the goal of this speech. I aim simply to tell you where I am coming from and hope that an increase in understanding will lead to a higher likelihood of trust even if there is no agreement. I must, however, preface my words by saying I speak as a private citizen not as Distain nor as a member of the Talossan National Congress.

I support the immediate end of the reign of King John. The legacy of his service to Talossa is already beyond doubt. But the status quo threatens the institutional maintenance of the monarchy. I am a fundamentally pragmatic person so if forced to choose between the continuance of a reticent and distant monarch and a republic with an active head of state then I will choose a republic. It is not only people who serve in institutions but it is also institutions existing in service to the people. The goal is an active head of state whose close relationship with the citizenry helps to nurture and strengthen the necessary bonds between Talossans.

In the recent past, I took a step back from this as I wanted to give our current monarch one final chance to increase activity and nurture the necessary bonds between a head of state and their people. I also lost trust in my partners engaged in that effort. But I have closely observed the King's activity levels since then and as a supporter of the institution it is necessary to ensure its continuance by placing someone on the throne with the interest and abilities to perform the duties. My close observation of the current Secretary of State, Sir Txec dal Nordselva, is what convinced me to propose his elevation to the throne. This is not a machiavellian maneuver. This is an attempt to place someone who is competent and capable of being a unifying and active symbolic representative for the nation.

During the next term of the Cosa, no matter who is in Government, I will personally support efforts to resolve this enduring issue. Either through a potential revisiting of the previous legislation, through the consideration of my own proposal, or in cooperation with a broad-based convention focusing on this issue. I acknowledge it will be difficult for some to trust these words based on what has happened in the recent past but I hope this public statement will allow cross-partisan progress. And that this basic exercise in multiparty problem-solving can be the foundation of good faith lowering of temperatures and trust-building.

I would like to thank the Distáin for his contribution.

We are now coming to the end of the Convention. I will soon put up the candidates and proposals to be voted on in a separate thread. Once they are posted all Free Democrats will have 72 hours to vote on them.

After the votes closed, the incoming Party President will give a closing speech.

Speech 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 (https://wittenberg.talossa.com/index.php?topic=826.msg6462#msg6462) – 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!

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 (https://wittenberg.talossa.com/index.php?topic=826.msg6462#msg6462) – 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.