Wittenberg

El Ziu/The Ziu => El Funal/The Hopper => El Müstair del Funal/The Hopper Archive => Topic started by: Miestră Schivă, UrN on October 18, 2020, 06:49:24 PM

Title: The We Really Mean It This Time Bill
Post by: Miestră Schivă, UrN on October 18, 2020, 06:49:24 PM
IN ACCORDANCE WITH the recent Government statement on the Regency, summarised as follows:


BE IT ENACTED THAT the Ziu of Talossa hereby "legislatively decapitates" King John I, by amending Organic Law II.3 to read as follows:

QuoteThe role of King of Talossa is currently vacant, and until further amendment of this Organic Law, all the powers of the King of Talossa shall be held by the Uppermost Cort, including the right to appoint a Regent or a Council of Regency as described in II.5 below.
Title: Re: The We Really Mean It This Time Bill
Post by: Eðo Grischun on October 18, 2020, 07:06:46 PM
Co-sponsor please.
Title: Re: The We Really Mean It This Time Bill
Post by: Miestră Schivă, UrN on October 18, 2020, 07:27:51 PM
Might I just say that, if the performance so far of the current Regent were to continue, I would have no problem - if this bill were to pass - for the UC to immediately restore Sir Alexandreu to the Regency until a permanent Head of State/means of selecting a Head of State could be established.
Title: Re: The We Really Mean It This Time Bill
Post by: Þon Txoteu É. Davinescu, O.SPM on October 19, 2020, 12:19:26 AM
I would love to Co-Sponsor this Bill!

Davinescu
Title: Re: The We Really Mean It This Time Bill
Post by: Baron Alexandreu Davinescu on October 19, 2020, 01:15:53 PM
Will the Government entertain questions about this bill?
Title: Re: The We Really Mean It This Time Bill
Post by: Miestră Schivă, UrN on October 19, 2020, 03:39:02 PM
We're always willing to be entertained.

In other words, I would be disappointed if the Regent didn't have his say.
Title: Re: The We Really Mean It This Time Bill
Post by: Baron Alexandreu Davinescu on October 20, 2020, 08:38:05 PM
Thank you, D:na Seneschal.

The proposed bill would assign the powers of state held by His Majesty to the Cort Pü Inalt.  Should the Cort Pü Inalt act with these powers in a fashion that comes under dispute, which entity decides the dispute?
Title: Re: The We Really Mean It This Time Bill
Post by: Miestră Schivă, UrN on October 21, 2020, 04:40:20 PM
Quote from: Sir Alexandreu Davinescu on October 20, 2020, 08:38:05 PM
The proposed bill would assign the powers of state held by His Majesty to the Cort Pü Inalt.  Should the Cort Pü Inalt act with these powers in a fashion that comes under dispute, which entity decides the dispute?

Well, that's an issue with the existing OrgLaw II.3 as well:

QuoteThe King of Talossa is King John I, until his demise, abdication, or removal from the throne. Should the King at any time renounce or lose his citizenship, that renunciation or loss shall be deemed to imply his abdication of the Throne. Upon the demise, abdication, or removal from the Throne of the King, the Uppermost Cort shall be a Council of Regency.

The Cort coped reasonably well with the problem when KR1 abdicated, by appointing a Regent ASAP. I am sure they would do the same thing if this measure were to be taken.
Title: Re: The We Really Mean It This Time Bill
Post by: Baron Alexandreu Davinescu on October 22, 2020, 12:13:15 PM
Thank you for the response, D:na Seneschal.  I apologize to press you, but I notice that you didn't actually quite get to the central problem in your answer.  It seems an important issue.  It might make sense to also address the same situation if the cort appointed a regent, and then suit was brought against them and their appointee, of course.  Maybe we could consider the two cases separately?

1.  The proposed bill would assign the powers of state held by His Majesty to the Cort Pü Inalt.  Should the Cort Pü Inalt act with these powers in a fashion that comes under dispute, which entity decides the dispute?

2.  If the cort appoints a regent and the regent acts in a fashion that comes under dispute, which entity decides the dispute?  In this scenario, the regent is an appointed part of the judicial branch -- would the cort be hearing cases about the scope of power held by its appointee (and by extension, itself)?
Title: Re: The We Really Mean It This Time Bill
Post by: Miestră Schivă, UrN on October 22, 2020, 06:55:35 PM
No, honestly, it's not an important issue. If it were an important issue, someone would have fixed the existing OrgLaw long before now. When people were making long lists of problems with the current Organic Law, no-one thought "the UC takes over if the King abdicates/dies" was a problem. It wasn't much of a problem in 2005.

My preference is always for minimalist constitutional change, in that if you try to change too much at one time, you'll get bogged down in the details, and nothing will be done.
Title: Re: The We Really Mean It This Time Bill
Post by: Baron Alexandreu Davinescu on October 22, 2020, 07:43:45 PM
Thank you, S:da Seneschal.  I do not agree that it's unimportant, though.  You are proposing a major change to our entire governmental system by permanently assigning the powers of the king to the Cort Pü Inalt or its at-will appointee.  A moment's thought shows the problems here.  Is the Cort Pü Inalt approving or vetoing new members to the Cort Pü Inalt?  Is the Cort Pü Inalt hearing lawsuits deciding whether the Cort Pü Inalt made the right decision?

I understand that your proposal is identical to the current backstop, but that doesn't make it a good choice.  If my car needs a tune-up, I might take my bicycle to work.  But that doesn't mean it's a good idea to sell my car.

But since you refuse to consider this a problem because otherwise "someone would have fixed it," we can move on.

If you'll entertain a different question, S:da Seneschal?

This proposal would establish a second Talossan Republic, if I'm not mistaken.  All powers of state would be held by the judiciary or legislative branches.  The change would be permanent, unless another bill amended the OrgLaw, avoided a judicial veto, and passed into law.  It would be trivial for you to muster the necessary votes to block any replacement monarch.

The obvious way to solve this would be for your proposal to actually replace the monarch or provide for a method of selecting one, rather than simply eliminating the position and leaving the rest of the country to trust that it will eventually happen.  Will you do that?  If not, why not?
Title: Re: The We Really Mean It This Time Bill
Post by: Miestră Schivă, UrN on October 24, 2020, 06:09:00 PM
The question of what would replace Ián I Lupúl is actually a very good one, and this is precisely why the Government seeks to hold a Ranked-Choice Referendum on the issue of what kind of head of state we want, going forward.

It may be that "status quo" (a life-term Monarchy with legislative veto rights) may win that referendum. In which case, we would bend our minds as to how and whom such a person could be chosen who would be acceptable to a broad range of opinion. And that might be a very different person from whom we would recommend for a purely ceremonial monarch, an elected and term-limited Head of State, or a "dual monarchy" as proposed by our Peculiarist friends.

Of course, the Referendum might never happen, if the Regent vetoes the bill and the Opposition stands fast in opposing it. In which case, the Government would have no choice but to press on with our own preferred option: an elected head of state with a multi-year term (precise length of term, manner of election or possibility of re-election yet to be established). That said, we much prefer the Referendum to go ahead, for broad legitimacy.

On the use of the term "Republic". For reasons of historical continuity, I'm shying away from that, as too much of a hutsch-tú to our monarchist citizens. My preferred solution would be for Talossa to remain a Kingdom with a Permanently Empty Throne, powers to be held by an elected Regent or perhaps Steward. I did consider whether changing to "the Realm of Talossa" might be nice, but I found out that the Talossan word for realm is reic'h, so no thanks.

I should also point out that I do not intend to introduce this bill on the First Clark, which will be massively overloaded as it stands. The Government is determined that "Ián I Lupúl will never reassume the powers of the Throne". As long as the current Regency is in place (and working in co-operation with the elected government, lol), it's not a priority - it's more a statement of intent.
Title: Re: The We Really Mean It This Time Bill
Post by: Marcel Eðo Pairescu Tafial, UrGP on October 24, 2020, 06:20:41 PM
Quote from: Miestră Schivă, UrN on October 24, 2020, 06:09:00 PM
On the use of the term "Republic". For reasons of historical continuity, I'm shying away from that, as too much of a hutsch-tú to our monarchist citizens. My preferred solution would be for Talossa to remain a Kingdom with a Permanently Empty Throne, powers to be held by an elected Regent or perhaps Steward. I did consider whether changing to "the Realm of Talossa" might be nice, but I found out that the Talossan word for realm is reic'h, so no thanks.

Assuming things ever get this far, what would stop us from calling that future elected head of state "King"? The Talossan monarchy has always been de facto elective, how far off would it be to impose a fixed term on the office as well?
Title: Re: The We Really Mean It This Time Bill
Post by: Miestră Schivă, UrN on October 24, 2020, 06:31:40 PM
Eh, I suppose so. The name isn't the important thing; if the people will support an elected, term-limited King but not a President or a Regent or a Steward, then that's fine. As I say, these details will be ironed out either after a R.C. Referendum vote for an elected head of state; or if the R.C. Referendum is prevented by Regent and Opposition.
Title: Re: The We Really Mean It This Time Bill
Post by: Miestră Schivă, UrN on October 24, 2020, 06:33:21 PM
Also: a new Republic would be the Third Talossan Republic, after the "Provisional Peculiar Republic" of 1987-8 (between Kings Robert II and Florence I) and the secessionist Republic of 2004-2012. Not counting all those times that KR1 overthrew himself for laffs while he was the only citizen, of course.
Title: Re: The We Really Mean It This Time Bill
Post by: Þon Txoteu É. Davinescu, O.SPM on October 24, 2020, 06:36:55 PM
Good Evening,
I'd like to chime in on this... speaking for myself in my capacity as both Citizen of the Kingdom and MC. The elephant in the room is the fact that many have lost faith in the King as being both active (which in my four years, he has not been) and the general vibe that he really just isn't interested in the trappings or activities that come with being a Head of State. Since I joined, I have rarely seen the King active or responding quickly to... frankly... anything. Elizabeth II is 90 years old and honestly seems to be more engaged with her government than John and the UK is an enormous machine reaching every corner of the world. The fact is, John doesn't... and in my time here, never has... strike me as someone wanting the headache of running a country anymore.

Because of that, we as a nation need a change and I would agree that ideally, it be a term-limited change. Let someone with the time and energy lead... you, me, Miestra... anyone that has the drive would, in my opinion, would be better than someone either consistently absent or dumping off their powers on a Regent. The time for change is now and for the betterment of the Kingdom as a whole, I hope its sooner than later!

Gen. Davinescu, O.SPM
Title: Re: The We Really Mean It This Time Bill
Post by: Miestră Schivă, UrN on October 24, 2020, 06:42:48 PM
Quote from: Þon Txoteu É. Davinescu, O.SPM on October 24, 2020, 06:36:55 PM
Let someone with the time and energy lead... you, me, Miestra...

Ha ha, yipes. Let me be clear: I might consider being elected Head of State, but not if it comes with the title of "King". I'm allergic to that. "Regent" I could just about handle.

(Talossan conservatives suddenly switch to insisting we keep the title "King" to keep me out of it :D )
Title: Re: The We Really Mean It This Time Bill
Post by: Marcel Eðo Pairescu Tafial, UrGP on October 24, 2020, 06:49:21 PM
Quote from: Miestră Schivă, UrN on October 24, 2020, 06:42:48 PM
Let me be clear: I might consider being elected Head of State, but not if it comes with the title of "King". I'm allergic to that. "Regent" I could just about handle.

(Talossan conservatives suddenly switch to insisting we keep the title "King" to keep me out of it :D )

You'd seriously pass up the opportunity to become the second female King in Talossan history? Who knows, maybe you'd also get a province named after yourself eight years later! It'd also be a fitting end to the Republic arc, imho.
Title: Re: The We Really Mean It This Time Bill
Post by: Miestră Schivă, UrN on October 24, 2020, 06:51:59 PM
Quote from: Marcel Eðo Pairescu Tafial on October 24, 2020, 06:49:21 PM
You'd seriously pass up the opportunity to become the second female King in Talossan history? Who knows, maybe you'd also get a province named after yourself eight years later! It'd also be a fitting end to the Republic arc, imho.

I would. I have my principles ("Oh god, no surrender, no King" - D. Lorentz, 1987), and I don't have that much ego.
Title: Re: The We Really Mean It This Time Bill
Post by: Istefan Perþonest on October 24, 2020, 08:43:16 PM
Quote from: Marcel Eðo Pairescu Tafial on October 24, 2020, 06:49:21 PMYou'd seriously pass up the opportunity to become the second female King in Talossan history?
Note, under the current Organic Law, at least as posted to the wiki, "The Kingdom of Talossa is a constitutional Monarchy with a King (or, if female, Queen) as its head of State."

So, unless that was also revised, there'd be no chance of a "King Miestră".
Title: Re: The We Really Mean It This Time Bill
Post by: Miestră Schivă, UrN on October 24, 2020, 10:35:25 PM
And that's a dumb amendment, whenever it was made. "King Florence" was one of our quirkier and cooler historical features.
Title: Re: The We Really Mean It This Time Bill
Post by: Eðo Grischun on October 25, 2020, 12:24:20 AM
In all honesty, I truly think John Woolley should be Talossa's last "King". 

I just cannot think of a single Talossan that I would (or even could) swear fealty to after KJI, and when I think about it, I'm not even sure why I swear allegiance to the House of Woolley in the first place.  I think I only do so because I want to be Talossan, but really my allegiance is to the nation and it's people.  It always has been.  All my years of service and all the work I have done has never really been for the King nor do I see it as having been for the benefit of the King.  No, rather, all my service given and work carried out has always been for my fellow citizens.  I view the 'tree of importance' as nation and people first, law second and the Monarchy third.  So, yeah, I don't think I could ever swear allegiance to another King after the current one and actually mean it.  I'd rather we pledged allegiance to symbols of the nation and for what they stand.

Although, I still recognise the worth of all the trappings and pomp of monarchy.  We can still have all that without having a "King" though.  We can be a kingless Kingdom with a Head of State whose functions and purpose can be similar to a 'your highness', but who acts as a kind of a national steward and who also swears a similar oath to the rest of us; an oath to the symbols of Talossa and for what the stand and to protect and defend the nation, its peoples and its laws. 

A Head of State who is head OF STATE, but not head of others.  A common citizen, like the rest of us, elevated (and ideally elected) to shepherd the nation with a temporary authority granted to them by their fellow citizens.  It can be that way while keeping thrones and crowns and fancy titles.

I can also understand Miestra balking at the idea of becoming King.  I think each and every Talossan should recoil at the thought of themselves ever becoming King or Queen.  You know, way back when it first happened, John Woolley probably hated the thought of it happening to him too.

I don't know what my point is.  Just some thoughts I felt like sharing, I guess.
Title: Re: The We Really Mean It This Time Bill
Post by: Tierçéu Rôibeardescù on October 25, 2020, 07:48:31 PM
Order order,

Although the honarable members are discussed this as a possibility to be enacted if required, I fear that conversation on this bill has moved a little too towards the realm of fantasy and I would like to remind members to continue to discuss the bill as currently writen. This is not to impede or to stamp out discussion on this line of thinking, but more to return the focus to the bill and not purely personal opinion and speculation.
A spear without a point is just a stick.
Title: Re: The We Really Mean It This Time Bill
Post by: Eðo Grischun on October 25, 2020, 09:34:32 PM
Quote from: Txosuè Éiric Rôibeardescù on October 25, 2020, 07:48:31 PM
Order order,

Although the honarable members are discussed this as a possibility to be enacted if required, I fear that conversation on this bill has moved a little too towards the realm of fantasy and I would like to remind members to continue to discuss the bill as currently writen. This is not to impede or to stamp out discussion on this line of thinking, but more to return the focus to the bill and not purely personal opinion and speculation.
A spear without a point is just a stick.

Does the Túischac'h have authority over the Hopper? It's a public discussion sub-board after all, not strictly a Cosa/Ziu board.  I'm not sure the Túischac'h can call for order on either Senators or members of the public outside of the Cosa chamber.
Title: Re: The We Really Mean It This Time Bill
Post by: Baron Alexandreu Davinescu on October 26, 2020, 11:25:02 AM
Quote from: Miestră Schivă, UrN on October 24, 2020, 06:09:00 PM
The question of what would replace Ián I Lupúl is actually a very good one, and this is precisely why the Government seeks to hold a Ranked-Choice Referendum on the issue of what kind of head of state we want, going forward.

It may be that "status quo" (a life-term Monarchy with legislative veto rights) may win that referendum. In which case, we would bend our minds as to how and whom such a person could be chosen who would be acceptable to a broad range of opinion. And that might be a very different person from whom we would recommend for a purely ceremonial monarch, an elected and term-limited Head of State, or a "dual monarchy" as proposed by our Peculiarist friends.

Of course, the Referendum might never happen, if the Regent vetoes the bill and the Opposition stands fast in opposing it. In which case, the Government would have no choice but to press on with our own preferred option: an elected head of state with a multi-year term (precise length of term, manner of election or possibility of re-election yet to be established). That said, we much prefer the Referendum to go ahead, for broad legitimacy.
Thank you, D:na Seneschal.  So if I understand correctly, the Government intends to hold a referendum on the future of the monarchy.  Talossan voters have affirmed over and over that they wish a monarchy, but perhaps if the question is asked enough times in enough different ways, the outcome might be different.  But regardless of the outcome of the referendum, the Government still intends to try to institute this third Talossan Republic in the meantime.  That will be the new status quo, no matter what Talossans actually say in the referendum, as far as I can tell from your plans.

Then during this status quo, folks may propose a new king/queen, or a purely ceremonial one, etc.  That future plan will be subject to judicial veto by the High Cort and will need the 2/3 majority necessary for all amendments.  It will be quite easy to block, even for a minority.

This current proposal, then, seems like it is quite likely to remain in place for a long time.  Why, then, is it being proposed as though it were a temporary measure?  The explanatory clause is almost entirely a series of attacks on His Majesty, with the new system being proposed seems almost like an afterthought.  May I suggest a revision to the bill to include another "whereas" clause, announcing the new Third Talossan Republic which will exist for a minimum of nine months?  You may obviously want to phrase it differently, but it seems as though it would represent the actual outcome better if the proposal paused to mention the new constitutional system it was inaugurating.
Title: Re: The We Really Mean It This Time Bill
Post by: Tierçéu Rôibeardescù on October 26, 2020, 01:41:06 PM
Quote from: Eðo Grischun on October 25, 2020, 09:34:32 PM
Quote from: Txosuè Éiric Rôibeardescù on October 25, 2020, 07:48:31 PM
Order order,

Although the honarable members are discussed this as a possibility to be enacted if required, I fear that conversation on this bill has moved a little too towards the realm of fantasy and I would like to remind members to continue to discuss the bill as currently writen. This is not to impede or to stamp out discussion on this line of thinking, but more to return the focus to the bill and not purely personal opinion and speculation.
A spear without a point is just a stick.

Does the Túischac'h have authority over the Hopper? It's a public discussion sub-board after all, not strictly a Cosa/Ziu board.  I'm not sure the Túischac'h can call for order on either Senators or members of the public outside of the Cosa chamber.

The order maybe was a bit dramatic, I withdraw that part. It was more trying to as a advisory to bring the focus back to the bill, opinions on what should replace the monarchy is surely for elsewhere.

I'd also like to add that I was not envoking any role directly and was mearly advising the honarable members within the hopper, not citizens not senators.
Title: Re: The We Really Mean It This Time Bill
Post by: Miestră Schivă, UrN on October 26, 2020, 04:26:23 PM
Quote from: Eðo Grischun on October 25, 2020, 09:34:32 PM
Does the Túischac'h have authority over the Hopper?

Yes.

Quote from: El Lexhatx H.20The Cosa shall elect one of its members to serve as Speaker of the Cosa (Talossan: el Túischac'h) for the upcoming term. The Speaker shall preside, direct and maintain order during Living Cosas and in the Hopper, in an unbiased fashion. Otherwise, his function will be to advise Members of the Cosa of appropriate decorum. He is considered the honourable President of the Cosâ and shall be awarded all due veneration when serving as such. In the absence of the Túischac'h from the Hopper, the Mençéi shall perform these duties.
Title: Re: The We Really Mean It This Time Bill
Post by: Antaglha Xhenerös Somelieir on October 26, 2020, 05:49:08 PM
Quote from: Txosuè Éiric Rôibeardescù on October 26, 2020, 01:41:06 PM
Quote from: Eðo Grischun on October 25, 2020, 09:34:32 PM
Quote from: Txosuè Éiric Rôibeardescù on October 25, 2020, 07:48:31 PM
Order order,

Although the honarable members are discussed this as a possibility to be enacted if required, I fear that conversation on this bill has moved a little too towards the realm of fantasy and I would like to remind members to continue to discuss the bill as currently writen. This is not to impede or to stamp out discussion on this line of thinking, but more to return the focus to the bill and not purely personal opinion and speculation.
A spear without a point is just a stick.

Does the Túischac'h have authority over the Hopper? It's a public discussion sub-board after all, not strictly a Cosa/Ziu board.  I'm not sure the Túischac'h can call for order on either Senators or members of the public outside of the Cosa chamber.

The order maybe was a bit dramatic, I withdraw that part. It was more trying to as a advisory to bring the focus back to the bill, opinions on what should replace the monarchy is surely for elsewhere.

I'd also like to add that I was not envoking any role directly and was mearly advising the honarable members within the hopper, not citizens not senators.

Honourable Túischac'h, I do disagree with your view on this, whilst I don't agree with some of the points made in regards to this bill, I would argue that with the size and scope of removing a monarch, and all possible implications of that, and the views in favour and opposed to the measure, and all possble consequences of the decision, and having a vigrous debate about that in such a bill, i do feel is not just importaint, but crucial to not just improving the legislation, but also will help give memebers of the Ziu, and the wider public, and more rounded view on the topic, and might bring about issues that needs to be addressed, just because something might not obviously fit with the view in being relevant, something that comes out of discussions in the Hopper, could potential make or break a piece of legislation, and i feel it is better sorted out here, in the hopper, so things might be changed before hadn if needed, before anything here is submitted to the Clark. So some degree of lieniency in regards to the hopper is reasonable, and in my view, this discussion has not come close to the point where it isnt potentially relevant to the passage of this bill, as im sure that many members of the Cosa have had some questions answered already by the conversation had here, one way or the other, based on discussions not strictly related to the text, but possible effects of the legislation, which i belive is just as importaint as the text of the Bill itself.
Title: Re: The We Really Mean It This Time Bill
Post by: Tierçéu Rôibeardescù on October 26, 2020, 07:26:12 PM
Quote from: Antaglha Xhenerös Somelieir on October 26, 2020, 05:49:08 PM
Quote from: Txosuè Éiric Rôibeardescù on October 26, 2020, 01:41:06 PM
Quote from: Eðo Grischun on October 25, 2020, 09:34:32 PM
Quote from: Txosuè Éiric Rôibeardescù on October 25, 2020, 07:48:31 PM
Order order,

Although the honarable members are discussed this as a possibility to be enacted if required, I fear that conversation on this bill has moved a little too towards the realm of fantasy and I would like to remind members to continue to discuss the bill as currently writen. This is not to impede or to stamp out discussion on this line of thinking, but more to return the focus to the bill and not purely personal opinion and speculation.
A spear without a point is just a stick.

Does the Túischac'h have authority over the Hopper? It's a public discussion sub-board after all, not strictly a Cosa/Ziu board.  I'm not sure the Túischac'h can call for order on either Senators or members of the public outside of the Cosa chamber.

The order maybe was a bit dramatic, I withdraw that part. It was more trying to as a advisory to bring the focus back to the bill, opinions on what should replace the monarchy is surely for elsewhere.

I'd also like to add that I was not envoking any role directly and was mearly advising the honarable members within the hopper, not citizens not senators.

Honourable Túischac'h, I do disagree with your view on this, whilst I don't agree with some of the points made in regards to this bill, I would argue that with the size and scope of removing a monarch, and all possible implications of that, and the views in favour and opposed to the measure, and all possble consequences of the decision, and having a vigrous debate about that in such a bill, i do feel is not just importaint, but crucial to not just improving the legislation, but also will help give memebers of the Ziu, and the wider public, and more rounded view on the topic, and might bring about issues that needs to be addressed, just because something might not obviously fit with the view in being relevant, something that comes out of discussions in the Hopper, could potential make or break a piece of legislation, and i feel it is better sorted out here, in the hopper, so things might be changed before hadn if needed, before anything here is submitted to the Clark. So some degree of lieniency in regards to the hopper is reasonable, and in my view, this discussion has not come close to the point where it isnt potentially relevant to the passage of this bill, as im sure that many members of the Cosa have had some questions answered already by the conversation had here, one way or the other, based on discussions not strictly related to the text, but possible effects of the legislation, which i belive is just as importaint as the text of the Bill itself.

I thank you Ma'am for your views.
We may both have different interpretations on how we view this debate.
Again I say that my comments where advisery as to the matter  the minister previously was saying that he would not bend the knee to any further nor current citizens whom may be raised to be king if king John was removed. This is his opinion and he has rights to express it, however, in my view there are other spaces more suited for discussion of opinion than on this bill specifically. I advised this course of action to avoid a spiraling of difference of opinion which has been known to happen (perticulerly of late) and I wished to try and gently shepherd the conversation back onto its discussion points.
Title: Re: The We Really Mean It This Time Bill
Post by: Miestră Schivă, UrN on October 26, 2020, 07:30:04 PM
Quote from: Txosuè Éiric Rôibeardescù on October 26, 2020, 07:26:12 PM

I thank you sir for your views.

* ma'am
Title: Re: The We Really Mean It This Time Bill
Post by: Miestră Schivă, UrN on October 26, 2020, 08:03:35 PM
Quote from: Sir Alexandreu Davinescu on October 26, 2020, 11:25:02 AM
Thank you, D:na Seneschal.  So if I understand correctly,

Of course you don't "understand correctly", and you don't really think you do. You are so clearly misrepresenting the proposal that I can only think it's deliberate. This is of course the kind of trolling behaviour you're known for, and a major reason that we don't think you were qualified to be Regent.

If this is a warning that you're going to veto the R. C. Referendum bill, come out and say it.
Title: Re: The We Really Mean It This Time Bill
Post by: Baron Alexandreu Davinescu on October 26, 2020, 08:43:03 PM
Quote from: Miestră Schivă, UrN on October 26, 2020, 08:03:35 PM
Quote from: Sir Alexandreu Davinescu on October 26, 2020, 11:25:02 AM
Thank you, D:na Seneschal.  So if I understand correctly,

Of course you don't "understand correctly", and you don't really think you do. You are so clearly misrepresenting the proposal that I can only think it's deliberate. This is of course the kind of trolling behaviour you're known for, and a major reason that we don't think you were qualified to be Regent.

If this is a warning that you're going to veto the R. C. Referendum bill, come out and say it.

I would prefer to have a reasonable discussion rather than some sort of confrontation that could be simply dismissed out of hand.

You are proposing a dramatic change to the existing system that will be in place for a minimum of nine months, and most likely significantly longer.  I would propose that you note this in the bill's explanation of purpose.  If I am simply mistaken about the logistics, please just point it out.

As far as I can tell, the following things are all true.
Please explain to me my mistake, if only so that I can understand the plan, D:na Seneschal.  I am more than willing to admit I'm often mistaken about complicated things like this, so I'll happily admit that I might be wrong here, too.  But it all seems to be correct, and so I think this is at least one way the bill could be improved: with an honest accounting of its effects.
Title: Re: The We Really Mean It This Time Bill
Post by: Tierçéu Rôibeardescù on October 27, 2020, 01:37:57 PM
Quote from: Miestră Schivă, UrN on October 26, 2020, 08:03:35 PM
Quote from: Sir Alexandreu Davinescu on October 26, 2020, 11:25:02 AM
Thank you, D:na Seneschal.  So if I understand correctly,

Of course you don't "understand correctly", and you don't really think you do. You are so clearly misrepresenting the proposal that I can only think it's deliberate. This is of course the kind of trolling behaviour you're known for, and a major reason that we don't think you were qualified to be Regent.

If this is a warning that you're going to veto the R. C. Referendum bill, come out and say it.

ORDER! AND THIS TIME I DO MEAN IT!

The regency was merely asking the question and he appears to be merely seeking clarity.

We are all aware of Sir Davinescu past, however being that no legal qualifications required for regency exist, the attack towards Sir Davinescu is without merit.
If he wishes to make a warning as to weather or not he shall veto AN ENTIRELY SEPARATE piece of legislation, it would not be up for  discussion on this bill.   

I am also very aware that you both have a tendency to rub each other the wrong way, hence I will inform you both that, where at all possible, I will have a short leash on you both. Debating points and free speech is very impotent, but when you try to make politics personal, within the hopper and cosa chambers, I will come down hard on you both.

These are very trying times for our future together, this must be done carefully and without malice or we may end up repeating our own history. If we do not learn from that history we are going to be prone to repeat it