If this is a non-binding Sense of the Ziu, it doesn't even need CRL approval.

The Private Session of the FreeDems Convention has concluded, and the Public Session has just begun. A report on the conclusions of the Private Session has been written and will be made public if the Party agrees.

The first two. "Updated topics" never seems to have anything in it for me and I'm not sure what its algorithm is.

Now if we wanted to do something actually funny, we would recognize the Czech annexation of Kaliningrad

I might consider war if it means we actually did something. Like, economic sanctions, or spending Royal Treasury funds to buy Ukraine some more drones or some such. Does anyone actually want to do that?

I am in no way in favour of just declaring war as a "virtue signal" with no positive outcome. King Robert I declared war on Serbia in 1999 and everyone just laughed at him - worse still, he used it as a way to bash people who voted against it as being traitorous.

Let me also remind everyone that some Talossans are actually Russian citizens. Will doing this get them in bad with State enforcement agencies, of the kind who push you out windows or put polonium in your tea?

The Free Democrats Convention 2022 is now in session.

A motion has been presented in Private Session. Please also make sure you're familiar with the Conference discussion documents (also linked there).

There will be a formal discussion period, and then in accordance with Party Constitution s. 5, there will be a three-day voting period from October 5-8 Talossan time.

Almost all the bills that were boycotted, we would have voted against anyway because we thought they were ill-conceived. Which is one reason why we didn't expect the outrage, I suppose. My attitude on this particular bill was the same as the Seneschal's.

25 years ago today, the Uppermost Cort of Talossa rejected my application for citizenship, on the instigation of King Robert I, who correctly intuited that I would be a political thorn in his side.

That led to sympathy renunciations; the creation of the Free Commonwealth of Penguinea; the descent of KR1 into paranoid quasi-fascist isolationism, whereby he tried to make it illegal for Talossans to even talk to Penguineans; and the febrile atmosphere whereby he ended up turning on former allies like Tamorán dal Navâ or Tomás Garicéir for being insufficiently hateful; leading to the National Schism, the foundation of the Republic, and the process that led towards the more-or-less-democratic more-or-less-constitutional monarchy we have today.

What can I say except, you're welcome  8)

Very good to see the newest Cabinet minister supporting the Government's agenda of cutting Red-and-green Tape!

I repeat: Maybe the recall petition would be enough, but I'd have to see the details. And I can't imagine I'd vote for any process (either for removal or for nominating a successor) which is too complicated/has too many steps.

Quote from: Breneir Tzaracomprada on September 23, 2022, 07:18:37 AMChanges to the removal criteria were not a part of internal discussions so I can't speak for the party. But, personally, as an alternative to the confidence votes, I am open to it. I am also, personally open to the Ziu's involvement with the King making the final call.

Miestra, are these measures which would garner significant FreeDem support?

Mmmmmmmmaybe? As I said above, this has to be better for Free Democrats than the status quo to get our support. For me, a way to democratically remove a non-performing King might be enough of a sweetener to swallow a less-democratic way of choosing a successor. That way there would be something in it for Monarchists as well as Republicans, if you see what I mean. We will get nowhere if either side has an incentive to simply block any reforms because the status quo is preferable.

Quote from: Dr. Txec dal Nordselvă, GST on September 22, 2022, 07:29:13 AMI will state for the record that I agreed to co-sponsor before I knew you wanted the job, which frankly puts me in a tough spot.

But anyway, my objection is this is not necessary. The SoS can hire and fire a Deputy already on the same principle as any other member of the Royal Civil Service.

Well, as for me, all my objections as stated last week - which had nothing to do with the unfounded accusations of political bias which were stirred up by the Opposition against Dr Nordselva - still stand.

Quote from: Miestră Schivă, UrN on September 21, 2022, 05:24:26 PMI'm increasingly wary of this bill because it's more "red-and-green tape". To make myself clear: I think it would be a great thing for the SoS to recruit a Deputy to the Chancery. But I'm not sure about the point of forcing him to under penalty of law - in a situation where there might not be a qualified candidate.

I've also noticed that the appointment of the Deputy by the same means as the Principal Office - rather than the Principal Office appointing their own Deputy - may well set up a scenario where the SoS and their Deputy don't get on. It's like in those US states where the Lieutenant Governor is elected separately from the Governor, rather than on a joint ticket. They might be political opponents or even from opposite parties, thus making the situation less efficient. The more I look at this, the less I like it.

PER

I can only say that you should watch the outcome of the upcoming FreeDems convention. I will only say at this point that, if this bill was conceived on the assumption that the current SoS was intending to co-hold that position indefinitely with the Presidency of the Free Dems, it was misconceived.