Quote from: Béneditsch Ardpresteir on April 23, 2021, 09:13:35 AM
Just give me a few days to recover from the dreaded +ve status.

Yipes, did I hear you've got the COVID? I heard things were bad where you live.  :( Can Talossans do anything to help?

It would be a real gesture of good faith going forward if the King were to let us know right now where he stands on the bills passed by this Clark.

A monarch who was determined to thwart the will of the Ziu might decide to wait for the absolute last minute to drop a veto, so as to prevent campaigning for the upcoming election from properly starting. You wouldn't want to think that we had a King who was so nakedly partisan and determined to tip the electoral scales.

What do you think would happen if Her Maj were to give one of those awards to Jeremy Corbyn, without telling Boris in advance? How would Boris and the lads react?

You see my point here. A lot of people only like the King acting "independently" when it cocks a snook at politicians they don't like. Which makes a mockery of the calls for a "non-political" Monarchy. Talossa cannot become the United States or northern Ireland, where the two major political factions spend their time on symbolic actions which are guaranteed to infuriate Those Guys Over There, esp. if it turns into Monarchy vs Parliament. That's how you get Greece 1916 or England 1689. (And if you don't understand why the investiture of the Baron von Tollbooth might be a problem for many people, I'm perfectly happy to explain by PM.)

There are two questions: what the King should be allowed to do, and what the King should do. A King who "does, just because he can" is not helping defend the Monarchy. Quite the opposite.

I'm not sure that "ask the Govt before handing out a peerage" is a drastic change. As Txoteu says, that's standard issue in other countries.

90% of the objections that the Government has had to the King's exercise of his power is when he operates without warning or consultation, and without due care to the sensibilities of the democratic majority. Speaking of "without warning", of course, opens the door to the far more serious question - disappearing for 6 months, then returning without explanation or apology.

I repeat that a wider array of Royal prerogatives will be acceptable to a wider array of opinions if we establish a "no surprises" convention, which is additional to Organic limitations on such powers, and frankly depends on the personality of the Monarch himself.

The goal of all politics in Talossa must be to find a compromise vision of Talossa upon which the vast supermajority of Talossans can live with. Since consensus is impossible, the way to do this is through the majoritarian system of democracy, with strong protections for the minority and safeguards for the future of our ImagiNation as a whole.

King Robert I practiced the politics of driving political minorities out or forcing them to "surrender" totally. This is not only a base and unworthy goal, it's an unrealistic one - unless you want to live in a North Korea or Stalin's Russia situation, where hunting out "traitors" is what public life is all about.

In Talossan politics, we fight, and we fight with honour, until we find the limits of that precise compromise vision, which will of course shift over time. Anyone who wants to fight a war of annihilation or "unconditional surrender", or delegitimize politics in favour of a permanent status quo ante, is cordially invited to get lost.

Quote from: Sir Alexandreu Davinescu on April 21, 2021, 08:06:31 PM
I'm not upset... Far from it!

I am not minded to call a month of recess, because it's been too long since our last election anyway.

I foreshadow my intention of giving a Valedictory Address to the Cosa, but I will wait to do so until I hear His Majesty's intentions re: the promulgation, vetoing or benign neglect of the measures passed on this Clark. I need to know whether to be magnanimous or furious.

Thirdly, what I do remember discussing with Senator Plätschisch is that, just as there will always exist the most reactionary conservatives, there will always exist not only Republicans but reform-monarchists, inc. those who want a completely depowered, ceremonial monarchy. The Historic Compromise does not mean "no more debate can happen ever again on the Monarchy and its role". It is not a gagging order. It is meant to set a broad consensus on the biggest issue, i.e. Monarchy vs. elected head of state.

The question of whether the Monarch's role will continue to be a hot-topic button, outside that basic fundamental question, is based on how the King himself behaves. Queen Elizabeth II has quite swooping powers in theory, but those aren't seriously challenged because she is circumspect about using them and knows she rules with the consent of Parliament and the Nation. Also, she doesn't use her royal prerogative purposely for the purposes of trolling, annoying, and giving a middle-finger to the elected politicians.

Fourthly, cxhn. T. Davinescu has signalled, as FreeDems leader, that he takes a special interest in the system of national/royal honours and how it works, considering he wrote most of the current Lexhatx on the issue. This is his wheelhouse. Don't get upset when he spitballs.

Wait, wait a minute here guys. Firstly, there is no Historic Compromise until His Maj promulgates, or neglects to veto, 55RZ21. No-one can accuse the other side of breaking the deal until the deal is actually ratified by the Big Cheese himself.

Secondly, the question of peerages/royal honours was never part of any discussions I've had with Senator Plätschisch or anyone else on his side of the aisle, though I can see why Baron von Munchhausen is pretty defensive of it.

Just going to repost this, with the necessary amendments.

Quote from: Miestră Schivă, UrN on April 11, 2021, 03:47:12 PM
In a historic decision, the Ziu has voted by the requisite majorities in both Houses to support The Talossa Shall Choose Its King Amendment (55RZ21), also known as the Historic Compromise. This Compromise enshrines the Talossan monarchy, with the provision that the King shall be required to renew his right to the Throne before a National Convocation every 7 years.

In the opinion of the Government, and the outgoing Leader of the Opposition, this compromise is the only way forward from the results of the Ranked Choice Referendum, which show an near-deadlock between pro-Republic and pro-Status Quo forces in this country, which have been trapped in a sterile permanent argument (occasionally erupting into nasty flamewars) since Reunision.

We hope the RegentKing will allow this Organic Law change to go to the people for their approval in referendum. However, it would be within the RegentKing's rights to impose his veto, which would require it to seek a new mandate from the 56th Cosă and Senäts. The RegentKing may gamble that the upcoming election will produce 67 Coså seats (or 4 Senators) opposed to the Compromise, leaving us with the status quo.

This gamble would I think, be a losing one. In such anevent, the Free Democrats and the New Peculiar Way would squarely centre support for the Compromise in their election propaganda; and it seems that the incoming leadership of the LCC, to their credit, also agree that this is the best way forward.

It is possible, of course, that a "NO SURRENDER" ultra-Monarchist party might arise to oppose the compromise, with support of the RegentKing and certain other prominent and voluble Talossan figures. (As might an ultra-Republican anti-compromise party, though I think the latter would appeal to a tiny minority.)

But if I were a betting woman, I would guess that in that situation - and given the results of the recent Ranked Choice referendum - the 56th Cosă would return a big reformist/Republican majority, with conservative and monarchist forces dispersed, demoralised, and electorally decimated. In such a situation, Republican/reformist forces might be in the position of Darth Vader in Cloud City, to "alter the deal". Conservatives might consider that not worth the risk.

The question the RegentKing has to answer, then is: what is better for Talossa? To "die on the hill" of defending a life-term for the monarch? Or to bring about a historic social peace, over which the broad majority of Talossans can bond and begin to build trust and patriotic camaraderie? Can Sir Alexandreu DavinescùHis Majesty Ián I Lupúl step up and fulfil the historic task that Senator Sir G. Valcádac'h has been harping on for years - can he complete Reunision?

He can do so by simply not vetoing 55RZ21, allowing it to go to a referendum. The constitutional issue - or at least *that* constitutional issue - can thus be put to bed for a Talossan generation. I urge him to be a hero and do so; but I also note that the Free Democrats are prepared for the alternative.

We welcomed all Talossans of good will. You had to be a real jerk to be denied a Landing Pier account.

Oh, John's coming back, is he? I'm honestly surprised, but I suppose he knew he couldn't defeat the Historic Compromise "by proxy". I hope you've done a proper handover with the honours ceremony etc.

Well done on a competent term doing the necessary job. I admit to being pleasantly surprised by the lack of pointless conflict.

All citizens of Fiova have the right to suggest any amendments to the above text for a vote for one week from today. I should point out, though, that if we have to stop to vote on amendments, this text won't be ready to elect a Praisideu at the same time as the upcoming Cosa election.

All citizens of Fiova have the right to suggest any amendments to the above text for a vote for one week from today. I should point out, though, that if we have to stop to vote on amendments, this text won't be ready to elect a Praisideu at the same time as the upcoming Cosa election.

BE IT ENACTED BY THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY OF FIOVA, pursuant to Standing Order 2, that the Fiovan Elections and Referendum Law shall read in its entirety as follows:

Part One

Part Two