Quote from: Ian Plätschisch on May 09, 2021, 04:21:49 PM

Quote from: Eðo Grischun on May 09, 2021, 09:18:29 AM
What is the reason behind the six month delay between a failed "VoC" and the second convening?

Essentially to stop the process from going to quickly: if the King happened to become briefly unpopular around the time of the vote, the waiting period would prevent him from being immediately replaced, and makes sure the decision is well-considered

Six months is an entire Cosa term. Remember that Talossan politics happens in "dog years". Three months is surely more reasonable.

You may not have considered that the existing Government has done all those things, and come up empty.

For your plans to be credible, you have to either:
a) recruit a team in advance, as the Free Democrats have done;
b) make an argument about how your programme will lead to people coming out of the woodwork to help it happen, when other programmes don't.

You massively underestimate how hard it is to motivate people to do things in Talossa (apart from creating minor political parties, I suppose)

Ha ha, that poster's too big for my screen, got one which is 800px wide or fewer?

Big challenge for your programme, btw, is you haven't got a team. You and Senator Plätschisch are energetic types, but you're promising a schedule of activities which dwarf what the current government was able to do with seven Ministers. You need to show who would be doing this (as well as who would be paying for it)

Got a 50 word statement for the people?

Quote from: Txosuè Éiric Rôibeardescù on May 07, 2021, 08:53:04 AM
The LCC has one further options that hasn't been considered.

The LCC's suggestion of a "compromise on the compromise" is well thought out and definitely worth considering if 55RZ21 can't get a 2/3 majority this time. I should warn, however, that it would need a 3/4 majority to have any effect. And the Baron Debate-Me-Bro would still be whimpering about how "this isn't a compromise", so be prepared for that.

Quote from: Txosuè Éiric Rôibeardescù on May 05, 2021, 01:46:57 PM
We, the League of Centre Conservatives, see that support for the Talossa Shall Choose Its King Amendment stems not from any magical properties of a term length of seven years, but rather out of general discontent with the current Monarch. Consequently, we also see that the current Monarch is in the process of doing grave damage to the noble institution of the Monarchy, which we believe should, for the most part, continue to exist exactly as it does today. We will endeavor to modify the Talossa Shall Choose Its King Amendment to change its focus from the periodic election of a new King to providing a periodic opportunity to have a vote of no confidence in the current King. This will reaffirm the lifetime nature of the Office while making it easier to remove a King who is not performing well in the role.

Speaking as an individual, not for the Free Democrats - I welcome this proposal, and I welcome the bravery in the "Beaver Party" for facing a fact that the other monarchist parties seem to consider blasphemy - that the incumbent Monarch has not done a very good job recently and shows no signs of changing his ways. I am very interested in seeing the text of the LCC's proposed reforms, and in particular if #3 on their Party List supports them.

If Historic Compromise Mark 1 fails to get 2/3 support, maybe a Compromise On The Compromise which gets 3/4 support will be a consolation prize. But the LCC must convince the pro-reform parties that they could deliver on this promise. That is, that all their caucus would sign onto such a significant reform. Remember that 51 Cosa seats + 2 royal vetos would defeat it.

Let's say: Marcel and Françál, when is best for you guys? I'll try to fit in around you

Esteemed members of the General Assembly of the Free Province of Fiova:

This is going to be long, so bear with me.

According to the Constitution of our Province as just adopted, elections for a three-person Praisidïeu (standing committee of the General Assembly) will be held at the same time as every Cosa election. That is, if I understand the national electoral calendar correctly, this election will run from May 15 to June 1 this year, i.e. starting in 10 days.

Under our new Elections and Referendums Law, Title I Section 3, as Secretary of State I am required to submit to the General Assembly the rules by which I will carry out this election.

Therefore, I hereby declare that the rules for the upcoming election of the Praisidïeu will be as follows:

1. Nominations for the Praisidïeu (Title III Sections 1-2) open immediately and will close 1 week from now.

Under Title III Section 2.1, such a nomination includes the candidate's full name; their party affiliation (if any); and a statement, no longer than fifty words, of the candidate's aims and objectives (optional).

Please make these nominations in this thread, or by personal communication with myself, no latter than seven days from the date of posting of this message!

2. The period between close of nominations and start of voting (Title III Section 4) will therefore be only 3 days, as determined by the Chancery's timetable for the national elections.

3. the actual process of voting and the production of the "ballot paper" (Title II Section 2) will be delegated to the National Chancery, whom I have asked to use the same voting mechanism as used for Senäts elections. This will allow "write-in" candidates (Title III, Section 5.3.1): the voters may give any citizen, not just the officially nominated candidates, a preference.

4. Once the Chancery reports all the votes, I will count them using the OpaVote website using "Northern Ireland STV" rules. I certify that this will provide a result as close as makes no difference to that set out in our law. (Title V, Section 12).

Questions? Comments?

By a vote of 5-0, this amendment passes.

By a vote of 5-0, this motion passes.

For me, the 7 year renewable monarchy is a uniquely Talossan solution to a Talossan problem, and therefore Peculiarist. The problem is that a human-lifetime monarchy is FAR TOO LONG for a constitutional democracy where there's an election every 8-9 months. Talossa functions in "dog years", as it were.

QE2 of the UK has reigned 69 years and has had 14 Prime Ministers. Ian I Lupul has reigned 16 years and I was his 15th Seneschál. Talossa moves too quickly for a lifetime monarchy to be appropriate. Imagine if Victoria were still Queen, and imagine someone born in 1820-something had a veto over 21st century legislation. That's Talossa.

Of course, the other issue is that the proportion of Talossans who think that the King's behaviour (especially going AWOL) is worthy of a King is getting smaller all the time. Honestly, though, I would have been just as happy with a compromise over a purely ceremonial monarch (who would give out peerages etc. only with the advice and consent of the Government). But that option came last place in the Referendum, so we went this way.

As to why any Monarchist would put up with the Compromise? Simply put: because if they don't compromise now, something much worse is coming in a year or two years, given current demographic trends. A slightly fudgy deal now, or unconditional surrender later.

A fascinating glimpse into the mind of the Balançéu tendency of monarchists

Seriously: he's on your party list. That means you guys are now responsible for him. This whole thread started because the Free Dems are being held collectively accountable for something Txoteu said! Likewise, if the Baron is a LCC candidate, what he says and how he says it becomes the responsibility of the LCC leadership.

Quote from: Ian Plätschisch on May 03, 2021, 08:58:15 PM
I didn't make any statement about whether his tone is a problem or not

Yes, I consider that a problem in itself. If only we could also reach a Historic Compromise on the question of how we treat each other in Talossa.

But if the "substantive issue" is whether the Historic Compromise is wide enough, I challenge the LCC (and the other monarchist parties, though I doubt they'll answer) to set what additional terms they would require to add to 55RZ21 so that it would be an acceptable compromise in their terms.

Quote from: Ian Plätschisch on May 03, 2021, 08:48:23 PM
It seems like the Seneschal is responding to the tone of AD's argument rather than its substance,

In Talossa, it is precisely the tone of discussion that causes feelings to get hurt, tempers to rise and feuds to escalate. The Baron von Rucksack knows this perfectly well, which he why he does this. If you don't think his "tone" is a problem, then please never, ever complain about the "tone" of anything I say again.