Given the complete silence of the King, the Túischac'h and the Leader of the Opposition for over a week... is there room to suggest that the TNC and their pet King are carrying out a "ceremonial blockade"?

Quote from: Ian Plätschisch on May 22, 2022, 09:50:40 PM
Tagging @King John @Baron Alexandreu Davinescu (Túischac'h) and @Breneir Tzaracomprada (Leader of the Opposition) to see if you would be available for a state opening of the Cosa

BTW, perhaps a note on the terms of the legislative boycott. I'm personally happy to work on drafts of TNC legislation in the Hopper (although I suppose the TNC are entitled to tell me to ir mhe façar hútschar , given the circumstances), because I don't anticipate the boycott will last forever, and I hope to be able to vote for good TNC-sponsored legislation sometime this term.

The Senator from Florencia has been uncompromisingly nasty to me, personally, since he flounced from the previous coalition. He didn't even dignify the former Seneschal's apology with a response. The TNC election campaign was unremittingly negative and personalised, again against me personally. The working environment has been toxic for a long time - but y'all didn't mind as long as the toxicity was only going one way.

Quote from: Baron Alexandreu Davinescu on June 01, 2022, 11:18:46 AM
it's understandable that the FDT would want to change the subject at this point from their legislative blockade. 

a) Your continual insistence on misnaming our party is what they call a "microaggression", please stop it.

b) Why would we want to draw attention away from the boycott? If we weren't happy with it; if we thought it were damaging to us; we wouldn't be doing it. Obviously your party are under the impression that it's going to make us look bad, rather than your party's reaction looking hysterical and foolish; we shall all see.

c) None of you will actually defend the King's level of activity - just like none of you will actually explain what kind of  "monarchy reform" you have in mind. Just the same response to both - "whataboutism"* and venomous contempt. And for the same reason - you can't defend the King. You don't want any reform.

d) If the King were your political opponent - rather than the guy who gives you personally noble titles, Regencies, and shoots down constitutional amendments you disapprove of - you wouldn't tolerate this for a second.

* A: "The King's not active enough."
B: "What about the former Seneschál?"
A: "There's a reason he's the former Seneschál. Let's make him a former King."

I don't believe there is a list of things in the US Constitution that the Congress is only allowed to legislate on - only a list of things it can't legislate on. This list in the Talossan constitution was copied from the Australian (or perhaps Canadian) constitution, which are federal systems and was meant to reserve certain issues to the provinces/state. It makes no sense in Talossa.

I described Senator T's description of events as "tendentious and wildly inaccurate", and I stand by that. No-one ever intended to "threaten" Senator T, but Senator D's inexperience led him to a bad choice of words which looked like a threat. No-one is ever going to apologise for errors if an apology will be not only not be accepted, but used as proof of wrongdoing on the part of the apologiser and a justification for eternal hostility.

Name one time a Talossan government has actually been restricted by the enumerated list. The only time I believe we've butted up against that list is precisely on the subject of criminal law, which you are now moving to explicitly include!

I would also appreciate a response to the question of throwing off the "bogus federalism" verbiage and moving to an explicit "devolved government" model.

So the argument is that there is a benefit to putting limits on the precise subjects about which the Ziu can make law? This is not the case in most countries I'm familiar with, outwith civil rights (which are contained for us in the Covenants).

I'm amazed that the TNC thinks that reposting Senator Davinescu's humble admission of error and apology makes them look good. The correct response would have been for Senator Tzaracomprada to accept the apology and discuss a return to the coalition agreement. Instead he gave no response at all (or to my own queries on Facebook, which I can reprint if there's interest).

That "tough-guy" attitude, the stance that "apologies are useless, make one mistake and you're on my mieida-list forever", has repercussions, if you seek to be a political leader. The TNC leader might think, in this regard, as to why the Reform Party had no interest in making him Seneschal.

Quote from: WikipediaChurch sanctuaries were regulated by common law. An asylum seeker had to confess his sins, surrender his weapons, and permit supervision by a church or abbey organization with jurisdiction. Seekers then had forty days to decide whether to surrender to secular authorities and stand trial for their alleged crimes, or to confess their guilt, abjure the realm, and go into exile by the shortest route and never return without the king's permission. Those who did return faced execution under the law or excommunication from the Church.

Given those traditions, it seems harmless; but IMHO it has to be seen in the wider question of what status is granted to any religious organizations under Talossan law.

This is one way to fix the problem, and would do the immediate job. But I prefer a more fundamental reform, which is paradoxically more simple.

Opening paragraph of OrgLaw VII.3:

QuoteSection 3 The Ziu shall, subject to this Organic Law, have power to make laws for the peace, welfare, and good government of the Kingdom, and shall have exclusive power with respect to:

So the long list that follows is issues that only the Ziu, not the provinces, can legislate on; but other than that, the Ziu's legislative power (exercised concurrently with the provinces) is unrestricted. And change OrgLaw IX.6 from:

QuoteSection 6 All powers not vested in the Kingdom by this Organic Law shall be vested exclusively in the Provinces.

to:

QuoteThe Provinces may exercise all powers under this Organic Law which are not vested exclusively in the Kingdom.

This removes the bad writing going back to 1997 which set up a "bogus federal system" in Talossa, which has never existed - provincial governments have always been subordinated to, and much less active than, the Kingdom government. The proper model for Talossa is not bogus federation, but "devolved government" as and where necessary, as in the United Kingdom or in Spain,

Quote from: Breneir Tzaracomprada on May 31, 2022, 07:31:50 AM
the TNC pulled out of the coalition with the FreeDems last session after the former Seneschal wrongly assumed that threats would cow any TNC member

For those who weren't around last year, the Senator's characterisation of events is wildly tendentious and inaccurate.

Thanks for bringing that forward, will give it a look-see soon

Well, if polite entreaties don't work; and if the tone of the TNC to the Government parties between the election and now has been one of sustained angry contempt; one must assume that the time for politeness is over.

Quote from: Baron Alexandreu Davinescu on May 24, 2022, 07:10:10 PM
Much of the problem with bad legislation is caused by (among other things) groupthink and the deferral of decisionmaking away from the actual legislative chamber

That sounds intriguing, please expand on your thoughts