Wittenberg

Xheneral/General => Wittenberg => Topic started by: Ian Plätschisch on September 05, 2020, 08:45:09 AM

Title: La S'chinteia Volume XIV
Post by: Ian Plätschisch on September 05, 2020, 08:45:09 AM
(https://i.imgur.com/kpgkFha.png)
Volume XIV is out!


Do you want to have the next volume of La S'chinteia sent straight to your inbox a day early? Click here (https://docs.google.com/forms/d/e/1FAIpQLSe_Gg84Gbyc5JI59qGc85_hUOl4ha-PerI5h9Z8zPvHG_uVYA/viewform) to subscribe!
Title: Re: La S'chinteia Volume XIV
Post by: Ian Plätschisch on September 06, 2020, 11:12:02 AM
Posted.
Title: Re: La S'chinteia Volume XIV
Post by: Miestră Schivă, UrN on September 06, 2020, 03:32:56 PM
QuoteIt is often claimed that a figurehead Monarchy is more than capable of providing the desired pomposity, but there is just something hollow about being awarded a coat of arms from someone whose only job is to award coats of arms. It works better if the Monarch is also responsible, in some small capacity, for the governance of the Kingdom.

How well does it work if the Monarch only has two jobs:
1) vetoing legislation which he doesn't like;
2) awarding coats of arms?

The King's veto on legislation - his last effective power - is not only offensive to our legislature because it is usually "parachuted in" at the last moment, but it certainly hasn't worked as a check on the quality of laws, since the King only uses it against legislation he doesn't like the principle of, rather than serious bugs/typos. And the very nature of monarchy is we can't stop him doing whatever he likes unless we get a 75% Cosa majority, which will probably not happen again for a decade.

Honestly, remove the King's ability to name Senators to vacancies and his legislative veto - or replace it with a system as in Ireland, where the King can submit a law to the CpI to check for Organicity - and my effective problems (rather than my principled problems) with the current system would be gone.
Title: Re: La S'chinteia Volume XIV
Post by: Eðo Grischun on September 06, 2020, 06:05:29 PM
On the point about Senatorial appointments:

Am I right in assuming that interim Senators are appointed by the King only because at one stage it was seen as desirable not to hold by-elections outside of the regular election schedule? Possibly so not to overburden or annoy the Chancery even?

If so, does that reason still hold true today now that we have provinces doing their own elections?  Wouldn't it be perfectly fine to just allow provinces to hold their own by-elections outside of the election schedule and just do away with interim senators altogether?
Title: Re: La S'chinteia Volume XIV
Post by: Glüc da Dhi S.H. on September 06, 2020, 06:16:25 PM
Well, strictly speaking the provincial executive appoints a replacement senators. The King only comes in when the provincial executive fails to do so (but in that case its often questionable whether the province would be able to hold an election). 

Also, many provinces still leave their senatorial elections up to the chancery (which considering the current state of provincial senate elections is probably a good thing).
Title: Re: La S'chinteia Volume XIV
Post by: Miestră Schivă, UrN on September 07, 2020, 03:57:54 PM
Both Eðo and Glüc are right. The King only "fills in the gaps" in the constitution re: Senatorial appointments (and Constables, as well). But his unaccountability in doing so not only enables - but entitles - him to do so as and when it suits him, politically and personally.

Power + unaccountability is the problem. The only thing we can threaten the King with is deposition, and that only when it reaches the level of what the Big Neighbour calls "high crimes", as opposed to ordinary everyday obstructionism and sabotage.
Title: Re: La S'chinteia Volume XIV
Post by: Ian Plätschisch on September 08, 2020, 11:27:39 AM
Quote from: Miestră Schivă, UrN on September 06, 2020, 03:32:56 PM
How well does it work if the Monarch only has two jobs:
1) vetoing legislation which he doesn't like;
2) awarding coats of arms?

The King's veto on legislation - his last effective power - is not only offensive to our legislature because it is usually "parachuted in" at the last moment, but it certainly hasn't worked as a check on the quality of laws, since the King only uses it against legislation he doesn't like the principle of, rather than serious bugs/typos.
I've written extensively to complain about the King waiting until the last minute to issue vetoes, but in so far as the King is allowed to veto legislation he doesn't like the principle of, that is the point. Otherwise he would just be, to use your words, a legislative janitor.

QuoteAnd the very nature of monarchy is we can't stop him doing whatever he likes unless we get a 75% Cosa majority, which will probably not happen again for a decade.
A veto can be overridden the very next Cosa with only the normal 2/3 threshold. The King's veto over amendments, and regular bills, are both (thanks to me) suspensive only.

Quote
Honestly, remove the King's ability to name Senators to vacancies and his legislative veto - or replace it with a system as in Ireland, where the King can submit a law to the CpI to check for Organicity - and my effective problems (rather than my principled problems) with the current system would be gone.
This statement essentially boils down to "if I succeed in stripping the King of his remaining powers, I will have succeeded in my goal of stripping the King of his remaining powers." I don't see what you are actually conceding or compromising by this, except perhaps throwing out the Monarchy entirely.
Title: Re: La S'chinteia Volume XIV
Post by: Miestră Schivă, UrN on September 08, 2020, 05:21:05 PM
It is my principle that power must be balanced with accountability. If the Head of State is to exercise political power outside of an emergency situation, the Head of State must have a limited term, because that is the only way to provide accountability (short of impeachment and overthrow, which you will agree should be reserved for the most heinous cases). The idea that someone should own Talossa and be able to thwart the will of elected officials by virtue of that, because... why? It sounds cool to you? ... is repugnant to me. It could have been justified in the case of Robert I, who created the Nation and founded the State. Not in any of his successors.

Conversely, I have no problem with a life term for the Head of State if they don't have such powers.
Title: Re: La S'chinteia Volume XIV
Post by: Miestră Schivă, UrN on September 08, 2020, 05:32:34 PM
I just have to say, that even when I did recognize Robert I's rights as head of State over Talossa, I always found it kind of... creepy that people actually liked monarchy as a feature. I.e. they were part of a community where one person had political power of veto and people had to perform obeisance to him, and they saw that as a feature, not a bug. Kinky, and not in the good way.
Title: Re: La S'chinteia Volume XIV
Post by: Baron Alexandreu Davinescu on September 08, 2020, 08:06:12 PM
Ian, really good article and very good reasons why the monarchy makes sense for Talossa.  Well done!
Title: Re: La S'chinteia Volume XIV
Post by: Ián S.G. Txaglh on September 09, 2020, 04:48:38 AM
regarding monarchism, i am not impressed by the arguments presented in la s'chinteia XIV. i do not much care if the person is called president or king or shah or big-violet-bambaloo, until she/he has such a position in our political system, that it is substantiated, she/he cannot play a partisan or possess absolute power over anything.

if talossa needs a royal backbone for a long term stability, i do not really like it, cos it would be an artificial glue; talossa needs a strong civil society to survive, not an empty shell refillable at need. one (wo)man cannot be talossa, we all have to be.

i would understand a ceremonial, entertaining and representative role of the head of state, but never anything beyond constitutional monarchy with strict division of powers. we need no figurehead, but also no robert-the-first-like l'état, c'est moi tyrantosaurus.

what kingdom of talossa definitely needs is a good jester. jesters of bohemian kings are legendary (brother paleček or žito the mage).
Title: Re: La S'chinteia Volume XIV
Post by: Ian Plätschisch on September 09, 2020, 12:56:09 PM
Quote from: Miestră Schivă, UrN on September 08, 2020, 05:21:05 PM
(short of impeachment and overthrow, which you will agree should be reserved for the most heinous cases)
I wouldn't agree, actually.
QuoteThe idea that someone should own Talossa and be able to thwart the will of elected officials by virtue of that, because... why? It sounds cool to you? ... is repugnant to me.
The King doesn't own Talossa and his limited power (which doesn't rise near to the level of being able to really "thwart" anything) doesn't make it so. Point 3 of the articles explains why I think it's good that the King have this small amount of power, and it's not that I think it's "cool."
Title: Re: La S'chinteia Volume XIV
Post by: Ian Plätschisch on September 09, 2020, 12:58:47 PM
Quote from: Ián S.G. Txaglh on September 09, 2020, 04:48:38 AM
regarding monarchism, i am not impressed by the arguments presented in la s'chinteia XIV. i do not much care if the person is called president or king or shah or big-violet-bambaloo, until she/he has such a position in our political system, that it is substantiated, she/he cannot play a partisan or possess absolute power over anything.
The King already does not have absolute power over anything political.
Quote
if talossa needs a royal backbone for a long term stability, i do not really like it, cos it would be an artificial glue; talossa needs a strong civil society to survive, not an empty shell refillable at need. one (wo)man cannot be talossa, we all have to be.
The King should of course not "be Talossa," so on that part you are right. However, the Monarchy is an institution that can help the rest of civil society along.
Quote
what kingdom of talossa definitely needs is a good jester. jesters of bohemian kings are legendary (brother paleček or žito the mage).
I tried that once before, but not enough people would go for it.
Title: Re: La S'chinteia Volume XIV
Post by: Baron Alexandreu Davinescu on September 09, 2020, 02:50:51 PM
I do think it's cool. It's one of the features of our country as a political simulation that I have always been most interested in. It isn't for everyone, but since in the modern age we have always been a constitutional monarchy, most of the people who come here like it.
Title: Re: La S'chinteia Volume XIV
Post by: Miestră Schivă, UrN on September 09, 2020, 04:07:54 PM
Quote from: Ian Plätschisch on September 09, 2020, 12:56:09 PM
Quote from: Miestră Schivă, UrN on September 08, 2020, 05:21:05 PM
(short of impeachment and overthrow, which you will agree should be reserved for the most heinous cases)
I wouldn't agree, actually.

This is interesting. So, you support a monarchy (i.e. a life term as head of state), but one which might be impeached and removed for less than high crimes? Bear in mind that we have precedent in Talossa (with the impeachment of BenArd) that you just have to be bad at your job. Would you set a similar standard for impeachment/removal of the King as we did for UC justices?
Title: Re: La S'chinteia Volume XIV
Post by: DNVercaria on September 09, 2020, 05:37:27 PM
Quote from: Ián S.G. Txaglh on September 09, 2020, 04:48:38 AM
regarding monarchism, i am not impressed by the arguments presented in la s'chinteia XIV. i do not much care if the person is called president or king or shah or big-violet-bambaloo, until she/he has such a position in our political system, that it is substantiated, she/he cannot play a partisan or possess absolute power over anything.

if talossa needs a royal backbone for a long term stability, i do not really like it, cos it would be an artificial glue; talossa needs a strong civil society to survive, not an empty shell refillable at need. one (wo)man cannot be talossa, we all have to be.

i would understand a ceremonial, entertaining and representative role of the head of state, but never anything beyond constitutional monarchy with strict division of powers. we need no figurehead, but also no robert-the-first-like l'état, c'est moi tyrantosaurus.

what kingdom of talossa definitely needs is a good jester. jesters of bohemian kings are legendary (brother paleček or žito the mage).

If we're looking at the surviving, stable European monarchies of today, the sitting Queens and Kings are well trained professionals on their thrones. From their birth to their inthronisation they have been trained for their job. Even a hobby horse monarch with best intentions will never be able to impersonate a pocket scale edition of someone like the unique Queen Elizabeth.

Yes, may be our small nationette could need a good jester, someone with a sane sense of humour and a lot of some sort of an innate kind of wisdom. Anyway it might be a cruelty to sentence one of us laymen and -women to serve for a life term a the helm of this quirky little society.

Maybe King Robert I as the once juvenile Founding Father of Talossa deserved the right to wear the Talossan crown for a lifetime, but by his unworthy misconduct he gambled it away. After his "abdication" the monarchy was only respirated because otherwise it would have been enevitably logical to join the 2004 Rebels who had founded the then prospering Republic of Talossa.

Anyway, a simulated narrow gauge monarchy will never work well in our tiny part time country, that's my message today.
Title: Re: La S'chinteia Volume XIV
Post by: Baron Alexandreu Davinescu on September 11, 2020, 06:34:05 AM
Why not?
Title: Re: La S'chinteia Volume XIV
Post by: Ian Plätschisch on September 11, 2020, 01:35:42 PM
Quote from: Miestră Schivă, UrN on September 09, 2020, 04:07:54 PM
Quote from: Ian Plätschisch on September 09, 2020, 12:56:09 PM
Quote from: Miestră Schivă, UrN on September 08, 2020, 05:21:05 PM
(short of impeachment and overthrow, which you will agree should be reserved for the most heinous cases)
I wouldn't agree, actually.

This is interesting. So, you support a monarchy (i.e. a life term as head of state), but one which might be impeached and removed for less than high crimes? Bear in mind that we have precedent in Talossa (with the impeachment of BenArd) that you just have to be bad at your job. Would you set a similar standard for impeachment/removal of the King as we did for UC justices?
Yes; remember how close I got during the summer of 2020 2019 to calling for the King to be removed the throne?
Title: Re: La S'chinteia Volume XIV
Post by: Miestră Schivă, UrN on September 12, 2020, 03:02:59 PM
Quote from: Ian Plätschisch on September 11, 2020, 01:35:42 PM
Yes; remember how close I got during the summer of 2020 to calling for the King to be removed the throne?

You didn't exactly noise that around in the election campaign when you were corralling the votes of ex-RUMPers; but it's good to get you on the record now! We would of course need 2/3 in both houses to enact the provisions of OrgLaw II:4, and the thing is that given the makeup of your party, I'm not sure that the LCC caucuses in the Ziu would be happy about removing the King even if he were revealed to be selling our children's organs for food. What do you think about this?
Title: Re: La S'chinteia Volume XIV
Post by: Ian Plätschisch on September 12, 2020, 05:04:01 PM
Quote from: Miestră Schivă, UrN on September 12, 2020, 03:02:59 PM
Quote from: Ian Plätschisch on September 11, 2020, 01:35:42 PM
Yes; remember how close I got during the summer of 2020 to calling for the King to be removed the throne?

You didn't exactly noise that around in the election campaign when you were corralling the votes of ex-RUMPers; but it's good to get you on the record now! We would of course need 2/3 in both houses to enact the provisions of OrgLaw II:4, and the thing is that given the makeup of your party, I'm not sure that the LCC caucuses in the Ziu would be happy about removing the King even if he were revealed to be selling our children's organs for food. What do you think about this?
Oops, I meant to say "summer of 2019." Sorry for the confusion.

What do I think about what?
Title: Re: La S'chinteia Volume XIV
Post by: Miestră Schivă, UrN on September 12, 2020, 08:43:18 PM
The question, rephrased: imagine if the King were just flouting his organic duties, not replying to emails, etc. Do you think - given the setup of the Ziu right now - that, if you agreed with the Government parties that the King needed to be fired, you could get together a 2/3 majority for that? Or - are too many people now filling LCC seats who would be "GOD SAVE THE KING, it's his God-given right to do nothing, he's doing nothing to teach you horrible traitors a lesson, we support him"?

If 1/3 of both houses of the Ziu will not remove the King for anything but being dead or in jail (and they'd probably make excuses if he were in jail), then surely OrgLaw II.4 is a dead letter.
Title: Re: La S'chinteia Volume XIV
Post by: Sir Txec dal Nordselvă, UrB on September 12, 2020, 10:34:36 PM
Quote from: Miestră Schivă, UrN on September 12, 2020, 08:43:18 PM
The question, rephrased: imagine if the King were just flouting his organic duties, not replying to emails, etc.

The king actually does not seem to reply to emails. I've sent several that have gone unanswered. It also has been 42 days since he even logged into Witt.
Title: Re: La S'chinteia Volume XIV
Post by: Eðo Grischun on September 12, 2020, 10:50:21 PM
Quote from: Dr. Txec Róibeard dal Nordselvă, Esq., O.SPM, SMM on September 12, 2020, 10:34:36 PM
Quote from: Miestră Schivă, UrN on September 12, 2020, 08:43:18 PM
The question, rephrased: imagine if the King were just flouting his organic duties, not replying to emails, etc.

The king actually does not seem to reply to emails. I've sent several that have gone unanswered. It also has been 42 days since he even logged into Witt.

I've been waiting 254 days for an email reply from the King on something.
Title: Re: La S'chinteia Volume XIV
Post by: Miestră Schivă, UrN on September 13, 2020, 04:27:32 PM
I have the King's phone number, he generally responds to texts with the day. I'll do so upon request.

... this is the kind of thing that I wish to draw the Opposition Leader's attention to, btw. I think he would agree with the Government that this is unacceptable negligence from the Head of State. But if we were to pull our own lever of accountability - impeachment/dethronal - most of the LCC voters would scream blue murder and might be able to block it in the Ziu, because they're so backed into the idea of monarchism that they reject any accountability.
Title: Re: La S'chinteia Volume XIV
Post by: Ian Plätschisch on September 18, 2020, 01:39:20 PM
Quote from: Miestră Schivă, UrN on September 13, 2020, 04:27:32 PM

... this is the kind of thing that I wish to draw the Opposition Leader's attention to, btw. I think he would agree with the Government that this is unacceptable negligence from the Head of State. But if we were to pull our own lever of accountability - impeachment/dethronal - most of the LCC voters would scream blue murder and might be able to block it in the Ziu, because they're so backed into the idea of monarchism that they reject any accountability.
Let's recap who the LCC MCs are:
-Sir Cresti, who even the FreeDems generally consider sensible
-My dad, who I know takes what I have to to say into consideration
-Txosue and Brenier, neither of whom are a part of the RUMP old guard and both of whom spent extensive time in other non-RUMP parties.

I'm happy to be backed by the traditional RUMP voters, but they aren't our only constituency. Holding true to the founding principle of the party (that we are an broad alliance rather than bound to a specific set of policies), I will never require any of our MCs to support removing the current King from office, but there may come a day when I feel I have no choice but to support that measure myself (I've been close before). At that time it may or may not be the case that enough of the LCC MCs agree with me.