Q'en-pensetz-voi?

Elefen – "lingua franca nova" o "lfn" – es un lingua simple, desiniada per comunica internasional. Sua vocabulo es fundida en catalan, espaniol, franses, italian e portuges. La gramatica es multe reduida, simil a la creoles romanica. La lingua es speleda como lo sona, usante 22 leteras de la alfabeta latina. Aprende lo e deveni un elefeniste!

As I've said before, we should measure Talossa in "dog years"; if a legislative term is 6 months rather than the 3-5 years of other countries we should inflate what a reasonable term in office is by a factor of 6 to 10. Or to put it another way: the incumbent King has overseen as many governments as the late Queen Elizabeth II did in her 60+ year reign. That's enough.

I would just add that the "incentive to become an inactive drag on the office" applies to, not only the monarchy, but the Uppermost Cort.

I can't believe anyone is suggesting discussing the Republic without talking to former Republic citizens. And no, before you ask, not me.

Quote from: Bråneu Excelsio on January 19, 2023, 03:21:26 PM

Quote from: Ián S.G. Txaglh on January 19, 2023, 02:48:24 PMjgyths  goms wbrt  l p=xmwno úskjwqnx  jszmd

loijftfrdewsa
(Så bel!)

Looks like goddamn Lojban to me :D

Quote from: Tric'hard Lenxheir on January 18, 2023, 02:51:26 PMwhat level of activity would you consider acceptable?

Emphasising that this is my personal view only, not a FreeDem platform: my feeling is that the monarchy's main role - if it exists at all - should be cultural. When people say they like the monarchy, I honestly don't think they mean "an unelected person telling me what to do" (unless they're kinky that way, lol); they mean the pomp, the ceremony, the quirkiness, the fanciness. You get me?

Therefore, I think at a minimum, the King has to be one of the most active people in the country, culturally speaking. I would say, at minimum: actively involved in the language; in the College of Arms; in the "Royal Society" (our university); in literature, artwork etc etc. Also, they should act as a promoter of Talossan culture outside Talossa (as the President of Molossia does for his country). King Robert I was a bully and a dictator, but he lived and breathed Talossan culture and quirkiness. I believe he "deserved to be King" in the way that no-one else ever has, but his nasty behaviour and attacks on democracy made that impossible.

I think there has to be a social contract - in return for the deference, the bowing and scraping, the "Your majesty" stuff, the King has to actively build and promote Talossan culture. I should point out that that's also what I would want an elected Head of State to do.  What really gets me is that John is capable of doing all of that. He was once one of the main users and promoters of the Talossan language. It is my honest belief that he's been sulking since his political powers started to be challenged, and that that's unbecoming of his role.

QuoteIf the king does or says something within the law and within his power that you disagree with would you automatically start calling for his removal?

If you're talking to me? I'm a Republican, I want no King at all, I'm the wrong person to ask. But the Free Democrats as a party have only this election moved to saying THE KING MUST GO, after 7 years of inactivity, sulking, and clear partisan bias. You must understand why many FreeDem leaders used to be staunch monarchists. They changed their minds when the King started behaving badly and refused to change.

In European monarchies, the King or Queen has many powers on paper which they simply do not use, because they do not want to start a fight with the democratically elected governments. King Charles III, or as I affectionately call him "Big Ears", has a legislative veto, and if he ever uses it there'll be bloody revolution. So I would say that it's not unreasonable to expect the King never do certain things that he is legally/constitutionally able to do - for the sake of social peace. In Talossa, while I would prefer the King to have no legislative veto, I would accept that he not use it without warning the elected Government / Ziu majority first and trying to reach a compromise.

Quote from: Tric'hard Lenxheir on January 18, 2023, 01:50:59 PMsome of the FreeDems are blatantly and openly opposed to the monarchy, many it seems are opposed to it in any manner while some seem as if they would support it but ONLY if it was a King (or Queen) who supported their personal views.

I don't think that's right at all. Some FreeDems are republicans like me - I am a consistent anti-monarchist, I would not support myself as Queen. Other FreeDems want a British-style monarchy, where the King never uses his legislative veto. Still others are happy with the current monarchy, but not the current monarch - mainly because of his inactivity, but also because he's inappropriately close to the TNC leadership.

QuoteI think removal should only happen based upon a multi-tier vote that requires AT LEAST 75% of the people, 75% of the Cosa and 75% of the Senate. This would be difficult to achieve and it should be difficult.

But do you see the logical flaw here? That is a higher bar than amending the OrgLaw, even against the King's veto. So you could simply amend the OrgLaw (with 75% of the Cosa, an absolute majority of the Senäts and a majority in referendum) to say "the Throne is vacant" or "someone else is now King" and not have to do all that. BTW, there is a current "impeachment" procedure for the King - OrgLaw II.4 - and the reason I have given is why it is useless.

Quoteif the roles were reversed, and the TNC took control of the elected government they could (and probably would) install a king that supports them. While I agree that the King should be apolitical that is not realistic.

The King should at least be as non-political as the Secretary of State. The Secretary of State, although he is a member (and a former leader) of a party, goes out of his way to be politically neutral in his duties. The King should at least do the same. As well as, well, actually doing his duties.

As Senator Plätschisch previously said: if the TNC are really going to argue that the current (barely existent) level of the King's activity is fine, then they really don't think the King is important. The office might as well be empty (yes, you can have a Kingdom without a king and IMHO that would be a much preferable situation to what we have now).

Quote from: Tric'hard Lenxheir on January 17, 2023, 09:54:40 PMI do know that it is called the "Kingdom" of Talossa which leaves me wondering why people who are completely opposed to the monarchy would choose to join in the first place.

QuoteThese kinds of actions generally will not lead to any sort of agreement.

No offence, you seem like a straight-up guy. But you know what else will not lead to any sort of agreement? Suggesting that people with certain political beliefs do not belong in Talossa. Sadly, I've been hearing that said since Reunision, which brought Republican and Monarchist Talossa together. I was the Republican leader who made that happen on our side, I spent 3 terms as Kingdom Seneschal working with King John (which is what qualifies me to say that he's not qualified for the job any more). I have been involved in Talossa for more than 25 years.  To still hear a political opinion that people like me don't belong here makes me feel ill.

Again, no offence, but I thought you would appreciate honesty about hurt feelings.

Quote from: Tric'hard Lenxheir on January 17, 2023, 09:54:40 PMthe FreeDems would like to see the monarchy completely removed

That's not true at all. The Free Democrats want this King removed, but replaced. Did someone tell you that we want to abolish the monarchy? Some of us do; it's not party policy. We have always been a party of compromise between Monarchists and Republicans - although of course every compromise we offer gets rejected as "unacceptable republicanism" by our opponents.

Quote from: Tric'hard Lenxheir on January 17, 2023, 02:32:55 PMI have discussed the issue within the party even suggesting that some sort of regularly scheduled vote be taken, sort of a "vote of confidence" I think the biggest issue comes down to how often such a vote should happen.

The Free Democrat proposal was 7 years, which the current TNC leadership did everything they could to defeat. I wonder what your personal position is.

Yes, hello. Not a Vuode citizen, but curious: have you got any ideas for "keeping the King more active"? Because we've been trying for at least 7 years, and nothing works, up to and including threats of revolution.

Mr SoS, were these nominations passed on to the Chancery?

CROWDSOURCING: broad masses of the Kingdom, what questions would YOU like to see TNC and FreeDem representatives answer in the debate? Answer quickly!

You realise that Lüc had to wait THREE MONTHS for his membership :D

It was my job to wake up Iac and XPB to vote last time - can someone else do it?

per