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.

A query and a comment from an outsider:

1) query: is it too late to convene the E-X now?
2) comment: my reading of the Organic Law (IX.1) on this issue suggests that the Province needs to consent to any merger, but it says nothing about needing the Provincial Government to agree or even exist. The Florencian government agreed to the F-F merger but a referendum said otherwise. If the E-X cannot convene this term, all that would be needed would be for a referendum in Vuode to approve the merger and the merger constitution. As is my understanding.

If you want to start a fight, dear Baron, let's do it elsewhere. I only came in here to give some historical context that the Benitians might be unaware of, and to find out whether they'd actually asked any Florencians.

Hello, yes. Please to be clarking the Tear Down This Wall, Finally bill.

I think this is good to go

Question. Florencia died in a ditch to make sure they wouldn't merge with Fiova a few years ago. The King himself took a case to the CpI to try to stop the process, and finally Florencians defeated it in a referendum. It turned out by the King's own admission that they were primarily motivated by the thought of losing the "safely monarchist" Florencian Senäts seat - and also, of course, disgust and distaste for Fiova's Republican heritage. What has made you think that Florencia - now the only monarchist seat in the Senäts, held by the Leader of the Opposition - has changed its mind?

I mean, great if it happens IMHO, but I'm sure once the King or other Florencians see this there will be rage-gasms.

Okay, I direct your attention to El Lexhatx K.1:

QuoteThe Canton is the smallest possible territorial subdivision which can be transferred from one Provincial jurisdiction to another.

However, since provincial borders can only be changed by the Ziu anyway (OrgLaw IX.1), then we can change that at the same time. So I don't see any real or legal reason why we can't do this for the sake of "prettier maps", should we get M-M and the Ziu to agree.

If this is the sense of the General Assembly, I'm happy to ask the Praisidieu to send a formal delegation to M-M to ask what they think. Or, we can just ask anyone from M-M who happens to be watching to comment.

So I remembered this good idea which was raised at the time we were struggling to get the domain names paid:

Quote from: Baron Alexandreu Davinescu on June 30, 2022, 06:37:40 PM
We get a good deal on hosting from DoRoyal, compensating for how much were overpaying for domain names, but we might want to think about lodging an official complaint about how this was handled.

Well, I did raise this idea in Cabinet, and Cabinet agreed that it would probably be a good idea. But when I went to the DeRoyal site to find out whether there were formal "complaint raising" procedures, I found that the Burgermeister had had a further issue with the billing at DeRoyal - namely, that they'd charged him double for the talossa.com domain name that was supposed to be included in the hosting.

The owner of the company apologised for the error and thanked Istefan for pointing it out, and gave us credit on future domain renewals by way of an apology. So given that I'm not sure that adding an additional complaint about the previous billing drama would add any value. I would like other's opinions on whether to just leave it there, including the Burgermeister's.

Quote from: Baron Alexandreu Davinescu on July 21, 2022, 09:25:24 PM
Fair point.  Simply direct the further deletion of Lexh.C.2.6.5, then.  That's the only reference to A.9.

Done (it's D.2.6.5 btw)

Quote from: Baron Alexandreu Davinescu on July 21, 2022, 08:52:30 PM

Quote from: Miestră Schivă, UrN on July 21, 2022, 08:34:03 PM
Can my colleagues give a look-see to the Tear Down This Wall, Finally bill?

Add directions to renumber the title, please.

I will if the Mençéi agrees that's what we should do, but renumbering El Lex every time we delete a passage has led us into trouble in the past, because of broken cross-referencing from other laws. (I assume you note that A.17 is already blank.)