Hearing no objections to the early closing of voting, with all votes case, Resolution 2026-05 passes with eight votes in favor, none opposed, and one abstention. I hereby present the legislation to Cunstaval @Antaglha Xhenerös Somelieir for consideration.

Quote from: Breneir Tzaracomprada on February 15, 2026, 06:42:25 AMFolks, there is a method to end debate early. It was established by a constitutional amendment I wrote several years ago with Resolution 2020-08.

While I am glad to see that such a mechanism does exist (and will formally open the Committee tomorrow if there are no objections to considering the vote on Res. 2026-05 closed early), this brings to light a different issue, namely that the Constitutional text that everyone is likely adhering to is evidently no longer the legally binding text, since amendments have not been properly recorded save for on Witt after the passage of Res. 2020-01. It would be wise for us to quickly comb through the other Nimlet threads here this week just to make sure we've got everything updated before we figure out what it is we'd like to change. We must know where we are in order to figure out how to get where we want to go.

Of course. I'll work on uploading everything this weekend.

- SPC Autófil

For my part, at least when I was assembling the Belacostan Unified Statute, I combed through the old Benitian section of Witt XI to see what laws were still ostensibly on the books.

Its Florencian counterpart may be the closest thing that currently exists to any official archive. Speaking personally, that sounds like a good reason to create a Florencian version of el Lexh or the BUS, but perhaps this is a change best saved for after questions of constitutional reform.

Good morning to my now-fellow Pastours -- I apologize for the delay, I wanted to make sure my appointment was official in line with provincial constitutional procedure.

In line with my previous pledge to do so, I abstain on Resolution 5. I believe this means the measure will pass with eight votes in favor, none opposed, and one abstention. However, do I correctly see no provision for the early closure of votes when their outcome is assured? If that is the case, per the bill's sponsor under Article IV, Section 3, voting is still open for ten more days, though I am happy to be corrected in the event I've missed something hiding in the Constitution somewhere. I apologize if this creates a bit of a needless delay, but given the highly unusual nature of Florencia's current executive arrangement, I'd prefer we really do things by the letter of the law to avoid any issues.

(If I am correct, that may be a good example of a reform for the Committee to keep in mind...)

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.