As a footnote, a cute cartoon of the Immigration Minister I found.

A certain political party led by a sex pest unanimously condemned by the Ziu is critical of political opponents for being the parties of "joint statements, boycotts, and charts".

The Union of Free Reformists, admittedly, shares a bit of skepticism as to the political relevance of charts which are based on statistics of equally dubious relevance. The "data-driven approach" of the incumbent Government to immigration has always seemed like "wrong target" to us; we have always seen immigration as a question of quality, and taking a quantitative approach to it seems to be not so much wrong, as irrelevant, and not actually solving anything.

However, we are proud to be the party of joint statements. After a rocky start, our relationship with the Progressive Alliance government has been of "amicable but firm criticism" - and we work together on areas of common interest, eg. calling out sex pests.

And we are equally proud to be the Party of Boycotts. Or to put it another way - the part of "high standards for Talossan political life". The party of "sticking to our guns", in the face of scofflaws and ne'er-do-wells who think that shamelessness is a cheat code. The contemporary United States is what happens when you surrender to the shameless because the boycott is dragging on too long and is getting boring.

If you think that how we treat each other in Talossa matters; if you don't think that Talossa is make-believe or an RPG where our actions aren't real and don't have real consequences; and where you make sure social sanctions for bad behaviour stick, no matter how annoying it becomes; the URL is your party.

Standing O!

STANDING O!

It strikes me that - of all the votes before this Convention - this motion got the highest turnout. Certainly shows the depth of feeling of ordinary Talossans.

PER

PER

PER

PER on all

PER

Quote from: Mic'haglh Autófil, O.Be on March 30, 2026, 01:11:50 AMPersonally I think a quick "straw poll" or primary of the members in the province in question should be sufficient, whether held on Witt or elsewhere, but we also may need to devise a method of breaking ties if necessary (via a party-wide vote, Comita selection, whatever).

How about:

QuoteH. Party-affiliated candidates in Senäts elections shall be selected by the members of the province in question by majority vote or petition, or in the absence of such, selected by the Comità.

You're not welcome on our forum, Brenéir :)

WHEREAS the Union of Free Reformists and the Progressive Alliance have worked together closely on sanctions to exclude acknowledged sexual harasser Brenéir Tzaracomprada from Talossan life - until such time as he shows convincing amendment of his ways - including a Sense of the Ziu and two joint statements;

and WHEREAS the first Joint Statement of April 2025 committed the two parties to "pledge non-cooperation with and informal boycotts of serial harassers", whereas the second statement of October 2025 made the weaker commitment to "rule out forming any government which includes, or relies on the support of, the Green Party."

and WHEREAS the current Progressive Alliance-led government has kept the narrower pledge to keep the Green Party out of government, but has on the other hand entirely relaxed the weaker "informal boycott", by accepting Tzaracomprada as an "Information Liaison" with other micronations, and engaged with  Tzaracomprada-led media outlets for joint activity, interviews etc.;

and WHEREAS all this indicates that the Progressive Alliance doesn't really have the heart for the informal boycott any more, or that they doubt its usefulness;

and WHEREAS this makes it likely that the narrower boycott, on government formation, will likely collapse at the next election, especially if the PA has no other coalition partners;

THEREFORE this Convention resolves, and makes it binding on the incoming Comità, that the Union of Free Reformists will continue a complete political and social boycott of Brenéir Tzaracomprada until he shows remorse and convincing amendments to his behaviour. This means:

- no governments including, or relying on the votes of, the Green Party or whatever other political vehicle Tzacomprada picks up.
- a URL government will fully boycott Tzaracomprada. He will not be eligible for any Government-related jobs, including "Information Liaison", and there will be no engagement with his media outlets;

AND THAT we can remain staunch on this as long as he remains staunch on being a vesnéir.

The convention also expresses its regret that the Progressive Alliance have seemingly decided that sexual harassers can get away with it if they just act shameless for long enough; and also expresses its sincere sympathy to Crement Itravilatx for, you know, everything.

Everyone knows that the URL leads a cultural boycott of the sex-pest leader of the Green Party, but the following is a political question which I am quite curious about. So, this is addressed to the Green Party as a whole.

Why are you* voting against 62RZ17, the Party List Priority Act?

* With the honorable exception of cxhn @Crement Itravilatx

I don't really expect a thought out answer; but it's good to get the Green Party on record about their attitude to the Democracy Agenda and representative democracy in general. Especially given the Progressive Alliance's commendable willingness to negotiate.

¡Estimadas es estimats Uniunistaes!

As mandated by Constitution II.E, this Convention is entitled to nominate a candidate for Seneschal in the upcoming elections, who will be placed first on our party list.

It seems that it falls to me to do so; as I did at the inaugural Convention. And reading my speech from that Convention, I'm struck with a feeling of detxa vischtă.

We still have a party run by an unrepentant sexual harasser. I give that leader credit, though, to have figured out a way around being shunned by everyone else in Talossa: procuring the immigration of a new member who is not going to complain about being sexually harassed by their party leader. I wonder if this person is actually aware of their party leader and beloved companion's recent behaviour in Talossa, though.

Happily, the cordon sanitaire is mostly holding; although not entirely. The Foreign Minister seems to see fit to allow sex pests to act as "information liaisons" to other countries. When I questioned the Seneschal about this at the Informal Session, he seemed somewhat less than full-throated in defending this; I wonder whether it was a "solo run" by the Foreign Minister which the Seneschal backed for the sake of Cabinet unity. Nonetheless, this kind of thing will not survive the election of a URL-led government. For us, no sex pests means no sex pests in any role in the gift of the Government; short of sincere repentance.

And we still have a major political party - one now leading the Government! - which dislikes the basic principle of representative democracy. The Seneschal holds firm to his belief that a Cosa vote is a vote for a "brand", a party leader; that the Cosa is simply a mathematical construct demonstrating how popular each brand/leader was on Election Day, that "seats" should be in the free gift of such a leader to hand out post facto.

In contrast, the URL believes that a Cosa election should be just that - an election of members of the Cosa. Voters should be, as far as practicable, choosing their preferred representative or team of representatives. If a party benefits big from getting the approval of less-active voters, but does not have the will or capacity to find people who wish to actively represent voters, that should count as a penalty against such a party. This is our Democracy Agenda. We think Talossa should be a representative democracy (under a constitutional monarchy, if you insist), as that would be understood in any other country. We bluntly think that anyone who disagrees - even using the figleaf of "Talossan peculiarity" - is someone who benefits from a lack of democracy.

To this extent, our victory in pushing through the Pseudo-Real Cosa - and our agreement with the Government to let the Broosking Swing amendment through - is a huge, positive step. If this survives through to the 64th Cosa, then at least there will no longer be a situation where one MC's vote will count more than 20 times than another. Although - if the Seneschal's argument were to prevail - of course a party leader who wins a majority could say "I assign 11 seats to me!", and therefore be the Cosa, in the same way that King Robert I could in the late 80s. So let's not let that happen.

In any case, that brings up the biggest victory for Talossa of this governmental term; the belated conclusion of a "non-aggression pact" between the Government and the URL. This should have happened before the First Clark. The URL were out there offering not only an abstention, but even a YES on the VoC, in return for policy/legislative concessions. The Progressive Alliance were not interested - as the Seneschal-to-be said openly, because they were personally angry at the URL's campaign. I'm not sure why I would have expected any thing else. Part of the PA leader's political approach is to collect a "broad tent", held together less by positive policy planks but by resentment of the outgoing government. The more we critiqued this negative politics, the more resentful they got.

But we saw where this "government by spite" ended up. It ended up with the Government cutting a deal with an absolute monarchist party led by a relatively new citizen - one for whom I have quite a lot of personal affection! - who ended up both politically and personally unreliable. Which led the Government back to us, to make a deal that could have been done better and earlier if we weren't voting out of hurt feelings. The Democracy Agenda is, in part, a hope for a Talossan politics which is based on political principle rather than personal beef. It requires a Cosa consisting of teams of representatives, not by Big Bosses trading "seats" as if they were poker chips.

Nonetheless, I have actually enjoyed relations with the Seneschal over the last month or so. When you take the partisan heat out of the equation, patriotic Talossans of goodwill can come to agreements. And the Seneschal is patriotic, in the sense that KR1 defined: "Talossan patriotism is the determination that Talossa should continue to exist". The URL are, in our own way, also patriots.

***

Leaving all that aside, though; the Democracy Agenda/constitutional issue, and recriminations about how PA/URL relations have gone during this Cosa, is all well and good. But it doesn't make an argument for a change of Government.

How, for example, should the URL respond to the Government's recent Immigration statement? The statement makes a lot of assertions about immigration statistics and immigration policy. I confess that my personal attitude to all this is that it's somewhat irrelevant. I'm not a "natalist". I think the raw number of Talossan citizens is of far less interest than the number of active participants in Talossan culture and institutions. Although, to go back to points mentioned above, it shouldn't surprise me that the party leader who's insistent that his party shouldn't have to find active legislators is more interested in raw numbers. ("If you can't quantify it, it doesn't exist" is one of the regular traps of economic theory, parenthetically.)

I mention this as an example, because a lot of people out there don't vote on the constitutional issue, more or less democracy. They don't vote based on personal beef, alhamdulillah. They vote based on perceptions of general "competence" and "activity". This is the role of any party who wants to make a positive case that we should replace the incumbent government.

This is the challenge for the Union of Free Reformists. The argument for the Democracy Agenda is our raziun d'estar. But that won't win us an election. An alternative Seneschal who can promise to administer and to promote an active and healthy Talossa, and to build a team of not only legislators but shadow Ministers to do so, is what is required.

And there is none more qualified to do that in this party than @Mic'haglh Autófil, O.Be , whom I nominate to be the URL candidate for Seneschal of Talossa at the 63rd Cosa election.

¡Så vivadra Talossa! ¡Så vivadra Talossa democrätic!

¡Estimadas es estimats Uniunistaes!

Under Constitution II.A.1, I rise to nominate as the three members of the Comità to be elected by this Convention, the outgoing Comità: namely, myself, @Mic'haglh Autófil, O.Be , and @Antaglha Xhenerös Somelieir .

Quote from: Mic'haglh Autófil, O.Be on March 10, 2026, 05:20:36 PM

Quote from: Miestră Schivă, UrN-GC on March 09, 2026, 04:14:44 PM

Quote from: Mic'haglh Autófil, O.Be on March 08, 2026, 07:34:53 PMParty List Reform #1: The URL supports legislation to prioritize party lists, ensuring that "off-list" candidates can only receive seats if no "on-list" candidates are eligible, in order to improve transparency and allow voters to better judge the intentions of the parties on the ballot.

I'd add "... or willing" here. If someone doesn't want to take seats you can't make them. I'm aware that this might mean packing a list with people who agree in advance not to take seats, but if people want to game the system to such an extent there's not much you can do about it.

Wouldn't that be addressed by Party List Reform #2? People who are unwilling to take seats can simply say "no thanks, please don't put me on the list".

No. Consent to go on the list <> consent to take up seats

Quote from: Mic'haglh Autófil, O.Be on March 08, 2026, 07:34:53 PMParty List Reform #1: The URL supports legislation to prioritize party lists, ensuring that "off-list" candidates can only receive seats if no "on-list" candidates are eligible, in order to improve transparency and allow voters to better judge the intentions of the parties on the ballot.

I'd add "... or willing" here. If someone doesn't want to take seats you can't make them. I'm aware that this might mean packing a list with people who agree in advance not to take seats, but if people want to game the system to such an extent there's not much you can do about it.

Quote from: Mic'haglh Autófil, O.Be on March 08, 2026, 07:34:53 PMParliamentary Reform: The URL supports codifying and strengthening the powers of the Tuischac'h and Mençei to allow them to better maintain order and enforce parliamentary procedure within their respective chambers.

Agree; but we need more detail on what this might mean before we put it in a platform. Does the incumbent Túischac'h @Marcel Eðo Pairescu Tafial, UrGP have any ideas?

With these caveats, this is an excellent program, and what's even better, a program that could, realistically, be enacted in one Cosa with a 2/3 majority and an agreeable Senäts. It is realistic.

A representative democracy requires a base of citizens who are keen to take on that responsibility. Contrast this to a populist/presidentialist system, where you just need "one guy" with fire in his belly and a bunch of mostly passive voters.

This is why the URL supports both (a) a smaller Ziu which can be filled competitively by those who are keen, rather than stuffed full of the barely active; (b) an immigration process which promotes civic responsibility rather than raw numbers.

Quote from: Mic'haglh Autófil, O.Be on March 04, 2026, 10:29:08 PMGiven that there has been some internal discussion over the past few months regarding possible amendments to the Party Constituziun, I hereby open the floor to any such proposals.

For example, I believe @Miestră Schivă, UrN-GC has stated a desire to reform the endorsement process for Senäts candidates found in Article III, Section H?

Yes, hello. The current text reads as follows:

QuoteH. Party-affiliated candidates in Senäts elections shall be endorsed by the Party on the condition that they agree to endorse all other party-affiliated candidates in that same election. Any candidates who agree to this condition and fulfill it shall receive endorsement from the Party en masse, with the recommendation that they be ranked above any other candidates in an internal order of the voter's choosing.

This was written in the assumption that, in a Ranked Choice Voting system, URL candidates and supporters would be able to grasp the concept of a preference exchange - i.e. you vote [1] for your own guy and [2] for the other guy from your party, so no votes were spoiled.

This led to a complete catastrophe in the last Maricopa Senäts election, where voters for @Pol dal Nordselva and @Txotéu Davinescu completely failed to do this. So it may be that we need to return to one endorsement per vacancy, if our own members don't get how Ranked Choice voting works.

No. I don't get the point. If you're not voting NON on the VoC, how can you be "the opposition"?