That works for me.

Quote from: Baron Alexandreu Davinescu on February 07, 2026, 09:57:57 PMSure -- the role of information liaison was very carefully designed so that it was not "a position representing their fellow citizens or wielding government authority."  Such a liaison is gathering information, but is specifically not empowered to represent the Kingdom of Talossa and has no power to make any decisions.  There is no current prospect of the Information Liaison for Asgardia being placed in a position of power or serving as a representative of the Kingdom of Talossa.

So it's not actually "all postings" as the original policy states then, got it.

Quote from: Baron Alexandreu Davinescu on February 02, 2026, 09:57:35 AMI am going to print the beads, as well, so we will have a free hand with the design.  They will be different shapes and colors, depending on where the recipient is in the sequence.  For example, His Majesty is going to be first in line since he has recruited both Her Highness Queen Chelli and his brother to immigrate, and so he'll get two beads of different designs.

Quote from: TalossaWikiMembers of the nobility and knights are ineligible for the award, although any awards earned by such persons before receiving a peerage or knighthood are retained by them.

As Mieusegnhor dal Nordselva immigrated after his brother's accession to the throne, is the King eligible to receive a second instance of the award for recruiting him?

If I may offer a solution to the issue, I would be happy to serve my southern neighbors as either their Governor, the chair of their constitutional reform committee, or both.

I meet at least criteria 1 and 2 above. #3 is of course yet to be determined. I have experience serving as a province's chief executive, and would abstain from using my ex officio Nimlet seat in order to keep decisions that affect the Florencian people in their own hands.

As to the constitutional reform aspect, I can point to my recent role as the author of the new Belacostan constitution as a qualification. From an outside perspective, it would seem the people of Florencia have multiple viable paths for reform, so long as any of these have the legitimacy of popular democratic support.

Assuming we're sticking with national flags of current states, in no particular order:

Switzerland, Finland, The Bahamas, San Marino, Czech Republic, The Gambia

There are others I like due to specific shades used, but the design itself is not particularly notable (Luxembourg and Sierra Leone come to mind)

Quote from: Miestră Schivă, UrN-GC on February 02, 2026, 02:10:35 PM

Quote from: Mic'haglh Autófil, O.Be on February 01, 2026, 10:01:32 PMa more moderate position could be found where votes using the thread are only publicized after polling closes

Hey, I never thought of that, sounds like a great compromise. Actually, isn't that how it already works when you vote publicly on the database?

I do believe so, yes. This would essentially be doing it the same way, but on Witt.

May I first assure His Majesty I wasn't referring to him. He's by far and away the most impartial and constitutional monarch we've yet had. I was happy to vote in favor of his becoming Heir Presumptive during the referendum on the issue, and would say the nation's trust in him has been rewarded so far.

"...loyalty, allegiance, and fidelity to the Kingdom of Talossa and to His Majesty's government" calls into question whether those swearing the oath of citizenship are being required to waive their right to disagree with the government of the day. Are they to be compelled to agree with the government instead? Compelled speech is generally held as conflicting with the right to free expression -- a right Talossans are supposed to be able to enjoy under the protections of the First Covenant.

It would be very difficult to argue that compelling allegiance to the government would be covered under the "public order or morals" exception.

Even if we look at this clause as generously as possible, in the sense of "some people have lawful authority to decide things for the country, respect it", it would also be difficult to argue that under such an interpretation, compelling allegiance to the government is not better served by having the oath-taker swear to follow the nation's laws. Since the oath already does this, it renders allegiance to the government superfluous (assuming that the government is itself respecting the law).

WHEREAS, party lists exist to give voters an understanding of who a party intends to assign seats to; and

WHEREAS, parties may assign seats to anyone they wish, within certain criteria; and

WHEREAS, it is reasonable to expect that voters who support a given party list be represented by citizens on that list; and

WHEREAS, honesty and openness of intent should be encouraged in communicating with the electorate; then

BE IT RESOLVED BY THE ZIU that Title B, Section 2.3.1.1.2 of El Lexhatx, which currently reads:

Quote2.3.1.1.2. No one who was not named on the list is assigned more seats than any eligible citizen who was named on the list.

is amended to read:

Quote2.3.1.1.2. No person who was not named on the list may be assigned any seats if a person named on the list is eligible for assignment of additional seats, excepting any person who has already lost or resigned seats during the same Cosa session.

FURTHERMORE, nothing in this act shall be construed to affect any seats already assigned at the time of its passage.

Ureu q'estadra så,
Mic'haglh Autófil (MC-URL)

WHEREAS, Talossa ought to be a nation of laws and principles, as opposed to strongmen and personalities; and

WHEREAS, swearing allegiance to a government appears to conflict with a citizen's Organic right to free expression; and

WHEREAS, swearing allegiance to the nation's constitution is more in line with the ideals of liberal democracy; then

BE IT RESOLVED BY THE ZIU that Title E, Section 9 of El Lexhatx, which currently reads:

Quote9. The following text shall be known as The Oath of Talossan Citizenship:
   From this day forward, I pledge my loyalty, allegiance, and fidelity to the Kingdom of Talossa and to His Majesty's government. I solemnly affirm that I will support and uphold the Organic Law of the Kingdom of Talossa, defend the realm against all enemies, both foreign and domestic, faithfully observe its laws, respect the rights and freedoms of all my fellow citizens, fulfill all my duties and obligations as a citizen of the Kingdom of Talossa, and humbly appreciate the benefits granted unto me by my King, most especially when those benefits take the form of Talossan currency.

shall be replaced in full with:

Quote9. The following text shall be known as The Oath of Talossan Citizenship:
   From this day forward, I pledge my loyalty, allegiance, and fidelity to the Kingdom of Talossa and to its Organic Law. I solemnly affirm that I will respect the rights and freedoms of all my fellow citizens, faithfully observe the nation's laws, defend the realm against all enemies both foreign and domestic, fulfill all my duties and obligations as a citizen of the Kingdom of Talossa, and humbly appreciate the benefits granted unto me by my King, most especially when those benefits take the form of Talossan currency.

Ureu q'estadra så,
Mic'haglh Autófil (MC-URL)

Azul à vaes cünpartizaes!

As per the party Consituziun (Article III, Section A), the Union of Free Reformists will be holding its regularly-scheduled Party Convention for the 63rd Cosă during the third Clark, which is scheduled for March. The Comità Esecutorxheu hereby notifies all URL members of our desire that they attend.

TENTATIVE AGENDA:

• Opening Remarks
• Debate on the URL Constitution and Platform -- current text of each can be found on the URL wiki article
• Finalization of the Democracy Agenda
• Election of the URL candidate for Seneschal for the 64th Cosă elections
• Election of the next Comità Esecutorxheu (Executive Committee). (Atatürk, Belacostă, Fiovă, and Vuode each have at least three members and are eligible to elect Provincial Chairs to the Comità.)
• Closing remarks

We hope to see you there!

To summarize the different suggestions of legislation we've had for the Democracy Agenda, I've put together the following list. Going forward, the Party will work toward final decisions where a given issue may have multiple viable paths forward, or decide if we believe something should be included in the final Agenda at all:

• Making the Cosa Smaller: 20 seats as per Sir Marcel's bill. Current Status: Clark Vote - Forecast Uncertain
  
  
• Upper House Reform: The "Upper House of Review Amendment", which despite some disinformation to the contrary, does not establish unicameralism, actually removes the ability of the Senate to perpetually block standard legislation. Current Status: Clark Vote - Forecasted Government Blockade
  
  
• Voting Method Reform: Sir Marcel has suggested Proportional Approval Voting before. For my part, I prefer panachage, but I'm interested in further discussion at any rate.
  
  
• Public Ballot Reform: Do we want to address the possibility of removing the public ballot? I think a more moderate position could be found where votes using the thread are only publicized after polling closes, but that's just my two bence, and depends on Witt's technical abilities.
  
  
• Party List Reform: I have an act drafted (coming soon to a Hopper near you) that would make it so off-list citizens can only receive seats if no listed candidates are eligible to receive them. Are we in favor of something like that?
  
  
• Party List Reform 2: Should we propose legislation requiring citizens to consent to appearing on a party list?
  
  
• Royal Veto Reform: Miestra has proposed some changes to the royal veto, including possibly eliminating it for Organic amendments in favor of the referendum as the "people's veto". It would also include an analogous procedure to the "Irish advisory opinion" she has described elsewhere. Thoughts?
  
  
• Repeal Org.XII.4: See above for Miestra's explanation.
  
  
• Parliamentary Reform: Should we look at adding any legal structure to the offices of Tuischac'h and Mencei? The esteemed Tuischac'h's opinion is useful here.

I would be delighted to help S:reu Furxheir with his request.

- Foxmouth

Estimat Secretar, please Clark the Upper House of Review Amendment.

@Sir Lüc, please move this to the CRL.

Quote from: King Txec on January 28, 2026, 02:21:15 PMI may not be grasping the entirety of the proposal here, but I fail to see how the Senate is less democratic than the Cosa, as senators are actually elected by the people, whereas MC's are on a party list but don't actually run for election in their own right. Perhaps if we want to fix an imbalance, MC's should run for their seats instead.

Funnily enough, I believe we've all actually had a discussion on that bolded bit recently, though that's more Sir @Marcel Eðo Pairescu Tafial, UrGP area of enthusiasm so I'll not steal his thunder.

One of the more straightforward reasons for the "less democratic" argument is that it weights the votes of citizens unequally. We had four Senate elections this last time (three regular, one special). In each of those, more votes were cast than the entire citizenry of Vuode. Even if every Vuodean vuoted (and last time they had a Senate election, only about half did), their vuotes would still mathematically be worth more than the votes of any of the Senatorial voters from these other provinces. You see this problem appear (and receive similar criticism) in other similarly-structured institutions, most notably for most of us of course being the US Senate. The Cosa, of course, weights every vote equally, as it is a pure proportional representation.

QuoteIs the intent of MC Autofil to eventually convert the Senate into more of a UK style House of Lords? Why is our current setup a problem?

The answer to your first question is a bit of a "yes and no" situation, depending on how exactly you mean it. "Upper house of review, much like the House of Lords?" Yes. "Unelected upper chamber, appointed by the Crown or the Government?" No.

As to your second question, I would say that, if we must have bicameralism (which it appears we do, for the foreseeable future anyway), the conflict between responsible government and mis-applied federalist governmental structure will require one to come out on top, and in Talossa's case, I choose responsible government.

Quote from: Baron Alexandreu Davinescu on January 27, 2026, 07:20:14 AMCould you give an example of legislation that's truly vital that we've been unable to pass thanks to the Senäts?

Admittedly, since the Government usually controls the Senäts, it usually does not come up.

I suppose then that as we live in unusual times, we will see if something does.

QuoteIf half the country's provincial representatives don't want to pass something, then it probably shouldn't pass until it's in a form they can tolerate, or until an election has shown the will of the electorate.

A point the Seneschal may come to regret making.

QuoteI don't find the aesthetic argument very persuasive.  We shouldn't change something that serves an important purpose just so we can mimic other countries, unless there's good practical reasoning to do so.

I know you don't, this was an argument addressed to the open-minded.

QuoteWhy would it do this?

Because it removes the Senate from the "political" side of the legislative process, much the same way as most other upper houses -- even elected ones -- are not seen as being as politically-charged as their lower partners.

QuoteThis is an important point... subordinating the Senäts to the Cosa does seem like a prelude to getting rid of the Senäts itself.

This amendment would make it no easier to abolish the Senäts than it is right now. Compared to unicameralism, this amendment is by far the moderate position.

Assuming Sir Judge Plätschisch (it is "Sir Judge", yes?) still needs assistance with this matter, I would be happy to provide it if he finds me agreeable.

- Foxmouth

Native English speaker, took several years of French in high school (still got it to an extent, even if I'm very rusty) and minored in Russian Language & Culture in undergrad.

Other than that, some dabbling in conlangs such as Talossan (of course), Esperanto, and Finnish. Recently begun trying to pick up basic Catalan as well.

• For this one I would have suggested something with a quill, but since it would use the quartered gules/vert background found in Civil Service positions, it would be too similar to the Scribery (which uses...a quill).
  
  
• I'm not opposed to retaining the bridge emblem for the Directorate of STUFF, though we may choose to again update the background to the quartered Civil Service version. Open to what others think here.
  
  
• My first thought here was some kind of megaphone as a charge, but actually -- and by happy accident aligning with the arms of the incumbent -- what about a trumpet or horn?
  
  
• I actually have two concepts for this one drawn up some time ago:
  
  
       
  
  The first is, depending on how you choose to look at it, a form, document, or a bookshelf. The latter is clearly documents.
  
  
• My question here is what would we replace it with? Not opposed to replacing something insensitive in the slightest, but if we're going to change something, let's make it a good one so people don't have second thoughts down the line. (First thought was some interlocking rings, a stylized chain of sorts? Shared culture is ultimately what binds any group like Talossa together, after all.
  
  
• Adding an item to the list (sorry not sorry) to merge in this discussion and point out that I do have a few other SVGs (Seneschal, Finance, Foreign) I've made to tie everything together with the ARD's recommended shades of green and red. Haven't done the entire Cabinet yet though.

- Foxmouth

Quote from: Baron Alexandreu Davinescu on January 17, 2026, 04:48:21 PMI note that this bill would make the first sentence of the modified clause a lie.  "The Senäts shall have equal powers with the Cosa in respect of all proposed laws" will no longer be true.  There will only be two categories of bills for which the Senäts will be equal to the Cosa.  That might be something you want to fix.

Under your interpretation, the first sentence of the modified clause is already a lie -- the clause goes on to describe a class of bills in which the Senäts is already unequal to the Cosă. I'm interested in hearing what others think about the wording, though.

Quote

Quote from: M:sr Pôl dal Nordselvă, D.Div, M.Ed on June 23, 2025, 05:47:21 AMCan you explain to me why having an upper house that has the authority to reject bills or send them back down is a bad thing? I can perhaps understand the ability of the Cosa to override but do we need to strip them of power in order to accomplish the same purpose?

I thought this was still a good question that didn't actually quite get answered.  The explanation went into the nature of the change in detail, but without saying why it was desirable.  Why would we want to do this?

There are a few reasons:
- One, it does not allow truly vital legislation to be hung up forever on the Senäts. Since, of course, bills addressing a given issue can only be considered once per term, this allows the Senäts to effectively kick the can down the road on any issue they wish to obstruct the government on.
- The more overarching, "philosophical" reason is that Talossa is not a federal nation. I know we've compared our constitutional structure to Australia before -- and in fact I believe @Miestră Schivă, UrN-GC has stated that similarities are intentional -- but the reality is that we are more like Spain than Australia: a unitary state, divided into provinces that may legislate on certain areas on their own. A "strong" upper house (or at least one as strong as the Senäts) is incompatible with the concept of responsible government in a unitary state. To return to the Australian comparison, they are federal in nature, and this juxtaposition between responsible government and federalism precipitated what is likely their most dire constitutional crisis:

QuoteAs in most Westminster system parliaments, Australia's government is ordinarily formed by the party enjoying the confidence of the lower house of parliament, the House of Representatives. Australia's Parliament also has a powerful upper house, the Senate, which must pass any bill initiated by the House of Representatives if it is to become law. The composition of the Senate, in which each state has an equal number of senators regardless of that state's population, was originally designed to attract the Australian colonies into one Federation. Some at the time of Federation saw the contradiction in the Constitution between responsible government, in which the executive owes its existence to the legislature or one dominant house of the legislature, and, federations with the houses of bicameral legislatures operating independently and possibly deadlocking. Certain delegates predicted that either responsible government would result in the federation becoming a unitary state or federalism would result in an executive closer to federal theory. For instance, delegate Winthrop Hackett stated at the 1891 Convention that as a result of the combination of a strong Senate with responsible government, "there will be one of two alternatives—either responsible government will kill federation, or federation in the form in which we shall, I hope, be prepared to accept it, will kill responsible government".

A few things I would ask sceptics to keep in mind:
- A "house of sober second thought" is the usual role for the upper house in parliamentary legislatures (House of Lords, Canadian Senate, the German and Austrian Bundesrats, the House of Councillors in Japan, etc.)
- This change will also likely lead to a "de-politicization" of Senäts elections, which is healthy if we're trying to make Talossa a more tolerable place for people to spend their time.
- I know you personally have expressed several points of opposition to unicameralism before, chief among those being a safeguard on excessive Organic amendments. Please note that the requirement of the Senäts' consent is not affected in cases of Organic amendment.