Quote from: Tric'hard Lenxheir on August 04, 2022, 08:53:05 PM
Now as a member (sort of) of the TNC I will say that I do think that some sort of monarchy reform needs to be done. His Majesty does seem to be somewhat uninterested in performing any duties other than the occasional ceremonial duties such as granting CoA's and such (which I thank him for). I would personally be in favor of some sort of vote of confidence held at set times, it should be a fairly long time (7-10 years in my opinion)

Yeah. This is precisely the monarchy reform that the TNC voted down on the First Clark; a vote of confidence at 7 year intervals. But the TNC said that a King who had to face a VoC at regular intervals wasn't a King at all, but a "President".

You're absolutely right about the heated partisanship, which goes along with people simply misrepresenting what "the other side" are proposing. But maybe the TNC will surprise me and come up with something better.

Quotewith the possibility of some sort of impeachment in between requiring a very large majority to pass.

We actually already have that, Organic Law II.4: "In dire circumstances, when the King is judged by competent medical authority to be incapable of executing his duties, or if he is convicted by the Talossan Uppermost Cort of violation of this Organic Law, treason, bribery, nonfeasance endangering the safety, order or good government of the Kingdom, or other high crimes, the nation may remove the King from the Throne. The Cosa shall pronounce by a two-thirds vote, with the approval of the Senäts, that the King is to be removed, and this pronouncement shall immediately be transmitted to the people for their verdict in a referendum. If a two-thirds majority of the people concur, the King is removed."

The problem with this is IMHO it's a waste of time because it's a higher bar than simply amending the OrgLaw to name a new king or even to abolish the monarchy.

Quote from: Baron Alexandreu Davinescu on August 04, 2022, 07:59:20 PM
pretty recently my own office of Túischac'h, an office elected or removed by simple majority of the Cosa (ie, the Government) was granted the power to manage and/or fire the Secretary of State.  It's not like some giant thing or huge disaster, and obviously I'm personally never going to abuse it, but I do think that probably it's a mistake that could be abused.

Well, I see you're backpedalling from your claim that the Goverment (defined as the Seneschal and Cabinet) "control" the Chancery, to pointing out that the elected leaders of the Houses of the Ziu have power to recall the SoS. That's a bit embarrassing for you, but forget that for a moment - I agree you might have a point that it's somewhat "unbalanced", on reflection. If I remember right, the original suggestion was that the Seneschál having sole right to hire and fire the SoS really would "put the Chancery under Govt control", and we added the chairs of the Houses to indicate that the SoS would have to account to the Legislative as well as Executive Branches. But I have, independently, wondered whether that's going too far.

If you want to change that - to perhaps a system where you'd need two or maybe even three of the Seneschál and the two Chairs of the Ziu to dismiss the SoS - then I'll write up the draft bill this very day. Or you can do so and I'll get the FreeDems in behind it.

Quote from: Baron Alexandreu Davinescu on August 04, 2022, 05:37:01 PM
Take the example of the Senats: imagine that the TNC were to get majority control next term.  Would it be a good thing for us to be able to eliminate the Senats with that bare majority

Look, I was quite hoping you guys *would* support us abolishing the Senäts this term. (That's just my opinion, not FreeDems policy, though I note the Seneschal is not as bicameral-positive as he used to be.) We're not like you guys; we're democrats, not counter-majoritarians. If you win a majority, you should get to enact your programme; if you win a 2/3 majority, you should get to change the OrgLaw.

Quotethe entire OrgLaw was revised in its entirety, the hereditary monarchy was eliminated, the royal veto was made merely suspensive,

During that one term that the ultra-conservatives boycotted, and sensible forces had the mythical 3/4 majority  :D I'm glad we agree.

Quotewe eliminated literally every single statute and replaced them with a sweeping legal code,

With 100% support. Because we let you write it.  ;D I repeat my contention: substantive change is impossible if the King + a tiny, angry minority don't like it. That's great, if you're the King or part of a tiny, angry minority.

Quotethe Royal Household was almost entirely transferred in control to different Government offices... the Government has assigned itself the management of the Chancery, whereas elections used to have more of a buffer of independence.

*sigh* Look, we know you love playing that game where you tell a stream of outrageous lies and hope your opponents get tired of refuting them. But this is quite serious, now. Firstly, anyone can just read the OrgLaw and El Lex and realise you're fibbing again. El Lex C.2. does not say what you're going to claim it says. Secondly, we know that your party is hostile towards the SoS and has been making all kinds of accusations against him, which is a bit embarrassing on your part. I think for your own sake you have to "put up" with your accusations that the Government controls or manages the Chancery, or withdraw and apologise. Real people who work incredibly hard for Talossa are getting hurt here.

But more seriously, let's keep on topic, that topic being Monarchy Reform. The parts of this thread which are still relevant are the argument of the TNC "Chief of Staff" in favour of the monarchy as something which is necessary to stop a majority in the Cosa doing what it wants, which would be a Very Bad Thing; of course in combination with the Senäts, and with a Royal Civil Service which would be under no obligation to consult with or report to the elected Government. But let's focus like a laser on what we want the monarchy to do. There's the "ceremonial" aspect, and the "anti-majoritarian" aspect as explained above. I see an argument for the former, but the latter is IMHO noxious; it's embarrassing to me that the latter is what the TNC seems to be riding and dying for.

The Free Democrats are, as the name implies, a democratic party; we see the need for checks and balances against a majority, but those checks and balances should not privilege one particular person, chosen for life, or one particular "clique" which has formed around that person.

Quoteit's being administered by the Government after being created by the Government and graded by the Government with a list of success or failure held by the Government.

Replace "the Government" with "Miestra, personally" and you'd be right. And I just wanted to know whether the TNC leadership had an objection to the Civics Test that they actually wanted to make public, or whether it was "for internal consumption only".

Quote from: Baron Alexandreu Davinescu on August 04, 2022, 02:39:19 AM
The king can slow consideration of a bill at most.

Even by your standards that's a bit of a naughty fib. If that were true, either version of the Compromise would have passed and we'd be gearing up for the National Convocation now. The King can, at his whim, inflate the numbers need to pass a bill from a majority to a supermajority, or from a supermajority to an insane supermajority, or to require a fresh election before a revote. Which is great if you're part of the minority who agrees with him, I suppose.

Because that's what all this about, you'd agree? The principle of whether the majority of Talossans should set the form and the policy of the state, or whether a minority should get "special rights" to stop changes. I'm pretty unapologetic about the fact that I believe in majority rule with safeguards for minority rights, and that a stuffy, Byzantine system of government which makes big things almost impossible to do (if One Guy In Colorado doesn't like them) is only fun for a particular kind of warped psychology.

QuoteI think the government has too much power

So a TNC majority government would legislate to... do what? Make legislation even harder to pass than it already is? Require the Ziu minority and/or the Senäts to endorse Government initiatives? Meanwhile the FreeDems-led government brought in the CRL, where non-government officials get input into the quality of legislation - a system in which you've participated quite well, even though you were performatively dismissive earlier in the term. I also don't remember anything being different during the 9 terms you held power in a majority government.

QuoteI don't think officials with access to Government records should use that privilege as a political weapon.

The Civics Test is not a Government record; but nevertheless, I'm sorry. I didn't realise you were keeping it secret.

You're right! Sorry I missed that, because it contains this particular gem:

Quote from: Baron Alexandreu Davinescu on August 02, 2022, 11:03:22 PM
But we use the Senats, and there are regular competitive elections.  It's also a pretty big feature of a system that is getting terrifyingly streamlined already, with power overwhelmingly concentrated in the hands of the two or three people that lead the Government coalitions.  A lot of people like politics and legislating, and already most of that process is just "convince these two people you're right."

As opposed to the current system, where serious change is impossible (in usual circumstances) unless you convince one guy in Colorado that you're right. Did you mean to make government by a majority of Cosa seats democratically elected sound like an oligarchic conspiracy against the people? There is an argument to be made against a strong party system, but not one by the leaders of the largest single party.

(If you're offended by questions about why the TNC are boycotting - blockading?!? - the ID card process, fair enough, but I thought maybe it was an actual political position - i.e. you intend to abolish the Civics Test and just give ID cards to all citizens if you take power, so why bother making an effort to study now, right?)

Quote from: Baron Alexandreu Davinescu on August 03, 2022, 06:52:58 PM
So I guess when people in the TNC are having fun doing stuff, or offering possible compromises, that just looks like a trap to you?  Like, Breneir is putting together cookbooks and working with Tafi on translating them because he wants to score points,

The TNC leader turned against the Compromise on the Compromise, which he ran in the election supporting, and never gave any explanation of his actions. He has also repeatedly accused the Free Democrat President who is also the Secretary of State of dishonesty, or even of using his role to promote partisan political interests. This is not an environment conducive to bipartisan trust on the constitutional issue.

It's your party's right to play hard politics. It wins votes, at the expense of causing lasting resentments among your opponents, and publishing cookbooks and working on heraldry doesn't "pay" for that. The Seneschál is running a competition where in return for wiki edits you get a Day of Observance - but I don't remember a "Do This Many Cultural Events And You Get To Behave Badly In Politics And No-One Is Allowed To Get Upset" competition. (Speaking of cultural events, the fact that neither you nor the TNC leader have done the Civics Quiz and applied for your ID card has provoked comment.)

If you've really got a proposal and this isn't some bizarre fakeout, then really, I look forward to seeing the details, but you and your party have not behaved in a trust-building way, and I've given up trying to explain to you that people are actually hurt by your behaviour. Perhaps you could start by demonstrating some good faith and commenting on Mic'haglh's very well-written and substantive document?

The Provincial Túischac'h technically calls for Final Votes; let me alert him and if he's busy I'll do it

Quote from: Baron Alexandreu Davinescu on August 02, 2022, 07:38:19 PM
In recent years, a wholesale revision to the OrgLaw happened

Only because the monarchist opposition simply boycotted that Cosa that time, or to be precise, never assigned their seats, so a 3/4 majority was possible. If large numbers of hyper-conservative citizens flush their votes down the toilet, yes, things can happen over the King's objections.

QuoteI'm sorry, but it is flatly untrue to assert that big political changes are nearly impossible.

I'm sorry too. Let me re-specify: "big political changes are nearly impossible if the King feels threatened by them in any way."

QuoteI think there's a lot of potential for real and amicable forward motion, but if you're saying that the necessary "precondition" for a "lasting constitutional reform" just doesn't exist, it makes me wonder what the point might be.

I mean, don't get me wrong, the Free Democrats will support proposals on their merits (and I'm sure the same is true for our PdR colleagues). The point is you just can't wish away political mistrust and hostility. Let's put it this way. If the Government parties came up with a new Monarchy Reform proposal, I would simply assume you guys would vote it down, regardless of its contents, because giving us a political "win" would be intolerable for you. Is that not true?

Glad you asked me that. The operation of Talossa's social media accounts are currently delegated to the Chancery. The Chancery is currently occupied with what they consider more pressing affairs - the replacement of the National Database, and the temporary assumption of the Burgermeister's office. MinSTUFF is not happy with the relative quiescence of the national social media accounts, but it's 'down the list of priorities', as it were. Communication of important affairs is covered by La C'hronica, and outreach to the non-Talossan public seems to be going all right without the social media firing on all cylinders.

It's a sad fact that we have to prioritise work because we can't do everything all at once - unless, that is, we get more people putting their hands up. I should point out, by the way, that if any citizen observing is keen to step up and help STUFF with social media - if they have a plan, or if they are keen to do the work themselves - I encourage them to contact me.

Are we going to go ahead with this? If so, we'd better do it in plenty time for the next election

There are several issues being raised here.

I support the Unicameral MMP Cosa on general principle, if for no other reason than the difficulty of finding 8 active Senators and at least that many MCs. The Túischac'h of the 56th Cosa quit politics lamenting that the Cosa didn't function, and one of the reason why the Cosa doesn't function is that at least half its members (and this is on all sides of politics) are only there to vote, they don't participate in debates, and they need a cattle prod up them to remember to vote half the time. Actually, the same is increasingly true for the Senäts. (I should note here that I'm no longer necessarily in favour of a Real Cosa because the new system of single seats for new citizens is working well so far.)

But given that, I'm not sure how an MMP Cosa in a bicameral system would solve that problem. The easiest way to imagine an MMP Cosa is: every province gets 12 "winner take all" seats, with the remaining 104 seats being appointed from the national party list. But would people be able to take both provincial seats and national-party-list seats? If not you'd be increasing the number of people the Cosa would require, to probably 12 or 13 from the current 9-10.

A bigger problem with such a reform - as with another big question raised, provincial reform - is that - by OrgLaw XII.1, that would require a 2/3 majority of the Senäts, i.e. 6 out of 8 Senators. Now given the current dominance of the Senäts by Free Democrats and allies, that *could* happen this term - if 2/3 of the Cosa were to go along with it. But unless the bad blood and political tensions between the two major political blocs significantly reduce, that's not going to happen.

Although given that, I'm intrigued by this bit:

QuoteProvinces can and
should be merged – those whose governments are completely non-existent should frankly be
held as abolished, demoted to territorial status, and merged with provinces that are at least
attempting to provide for the good government of their jurisdictions.

Can we do that? I'm pretty sure there's no law specifically authorising it, but OrgLaw IX.1 states that a Province "is administered by constitutional governments elected democratically within the Province." So theoretically if a Province doesn't have a functioning government, you could argue that it's devolved to Territory status (OrgLaw IX.9), and thus could be force-merged or whatever. That would be quite a stretch, but amusing if the CpI would accept it. Short of that, however, Provinces will only merge if they want to merge. And provinces massively don't want to merge. Even the ones with no government.

Now onto the monarchy (again, again). I'm distressed how the question keeps boiling back to a moral question, that if you oppose the monarchy or its current incumbent it means you hate the monarch or you hate monarchists. Accusing political opponents of being motivated by "hate" is an effective rhetorical stick to beat opponents with, at the cost of raising political tensions to near-civil war levels. No-one hates John Woolley. I'll always admire him for his role in leading to the downfall of the tyrannical King Robert I. But - and I'm not alone in feeling this - he is currently failing the Kingdom through inactivity, and needs to be replaced. I'm sure even the leaders of the monarchist opposition understand this in private.

My personal viewpoint is that monarchical political power + a life term is a recipe for corruption. King Robert I wasn't always an abusive cult leader. King John wasn't always inactive and apathetic. But I wonder whether the Directorate model is necessary proof against that. The evidence that a multi-person committee is not necessarily immune to just dissolving into apathy unless periodically renewed is, sadly, evident in the current Uppermost Cort.

But the real problem here is that all these questions are totally theoretical without a 2/3 majority in the Cosa - and even that isn't enough if it's something that will rouse the King from his torpor to veto it.  It's part of Talossa's essential character is that big political changes are nearly impossible to make. Some call that "stability". Basically I fear that the chance of any fundamental reforms in this Cosa are gone because there is so much bad blood between the major parties. We don't like each other and we don't trust each other. As the PdR leader rightly points out, the last, best chance we had for change was stymied by the current Opposition Leader for no reason he ever explained - it can only be ascribed to either personal spite, or naked political calculations. Even if - for example - some new monarchical reform proposition came out of the TNC (even one for replacing the King!) the experiences of the last few Cosas would make the Free Democrats, in particular, wonder "what's the catch? surely they're just going to renege on this at the last moment if they see some political advantage in it?" The precondition for a lasting constitutional reform is political trust.

RZ9, 10 and 12 - AUSTÁNEU. To be absolutely blunt, these kinds of resolutions are the kind of thing which makes me cringe about Talossa. While I agree in principle with at least 2 out of them (maybe with the 3rd, I haven't done the research), they're empty posturing, and not something I want to encourage Talossans to spend their time and energy on going forward. Something more concrete, like a law to authorise donations to the Ukrainian war effort, for example, would be something I could support. Or going the other way and actually declaring war, like KR1 in 1999 against Serbia, would least have humour value.

RZ11 - CONTRA. Making more work for the overloaded SoS is just vindictive at this point in time. I can see, however, that this would be a good thing for the Ministry of STUFF to do as a special edition of La C'hronica.

RZs 13 and 14 - PER

Wow. Intense. Will give it a good hard look and hopefully respond soon. I encourage all FreeDems to do likewise.

I should point out that anyone anytime can be given Talossan citizenship directly by act of the Ziu.

Quote from: Ian Plätschisch on July 27, 2022, 10:11:46 PM
I thank the member for his question.

Looking at recent immigration data, there is serious reason to believe that the crisis of low immigration is subsiding. In the first seven months of 2022 alone, there have already been seven naturalizations. On an annualized basis, this is the highest since 2017:
-2018: 11 (including 2 dandelions)
-2019: 5
-2020: 7
-2021: 1

Also of note is that these new citizens are almost prodigiously active compared to the new citizens of prior years.
-One of them is the current Distain and has just succeeded in getting ID cards produced
-One of them has just become one of Talossa's first vloggers
-Two others have last visited Wittenberg within the past week

One possible reason for this is that we're gotten more total applications. Since the beginning of 2022, we've had about two pages worth of threads on the immigration board, while in all of 2020 and 2021 combined we only had about three and a half pages of applications.

Another reason is that the crisis of overall activity is also subsiding. When there is more happening in general, there is more for immigrants to get involved in.

Using the number of threads on the Wittenberg board as a rough proxy for overall activity, we have had about eight and a half pages worth of threads on that board since the beginning of 2022. This shows an increase in the rate of new thread creation; in all of 2020 and 2021 combined, there were approximately 18 pages worth of threads. On an annualized basis, this is a rate of about 17 pages per year in 2022 while only about 9 pages per year in 2020-2021.

It is very natural for activity to spike right before, during, and right after an election, and we observed that during the election to the 57th Cosa. Thankfully, activity has remained high rather than drop off as usual. It would be incorrect for the Government to take all of the credit for this, but we will certainly take some of it:
-ID cards are coming!
-The wiki is being updated! Also, the wiki-associated Days of Observance are giving people lots of things to talk about
-The website is being updated!
-Ministers are active and engaging
-Culture is happening! Admittedly, official events of the Ministry of Culture have unfortunately ran into scheduling issues, but Ministers in their private capacities have facilitated the Aßociù da Futbol Talossan, the TMT20, and other things.