This version of Wittenberg is now the legal national forum for Talossa! Feel free to explore it, and to check out the threads for feedback, requests and criticisms to make sure Wittenberg is tailored to you.

Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.


Messages - Antaglha Xhenerös Somelieir

Pages: [1] 2
1
The Hopper / Re: The Make The Ziu Actually Read This Stuff Bill
« on: October 15, 2020, 12:34:48 PM »
Here's my amendment of your amendment. I think the CRL should examine all bills, to the extent capable, and have their say on their own initiative when they see fit to.

Quote
WHEREAS the quality of legislation in Talossa is admittedly low, with many errors and infelicities of language;

AND WHEREAS there is an even worse problem, whereby provisions enter into our Organic and statute law "by accident"', in that the Cosa and Senäts majority vote for the principle of a bill, trust its author, and don't actually read it properly, or assume that someone else will read it properly and point out any problems;

AND WHEREAS every legislator simply promising to be more conscientious is not a feasible response to this;

AND WHEREAS the following provision would probably work better than the previously mooted role of "legislative janitor";

BE IT ENACTED yadda yadda yadda:


A new section shall be inserted after H.6 of El Lexhatx, as follows, and the subsequent sections renumbered accordingly:

Quote
7.1 A Legislative Advisory Committee of Talossa (in Talossan, el Comità da Redacziun Legislatïu; and hereinafter, "the CRL") shall review or revise all legislative items from the Hopper as described in H.6 above upon the request of their sponsor or sponsors; and, when so requested, they shall may recommend acceptance or rejection, or shall make suggest amendments in their best judgement.

7.2 The CRL shall conduct all its deliberations openly in the Hopper.

7.3 The CRL shall consist of the incumbent Mençéi, Túischac'h, and Avocat-Xheneral.

I personally think requiring all bills that are put into hopper would be impractical in the long run, whilst activity is low, then yeah, itll be fine but one day that might now be sufficent. I think a better option might be that once a bill has been in the hopper for a long enough period to be reviewed by others, then the bill is submitted to the committee to be clarked before the next clark starts, for review, then at a time near to the clark starting, the committee submitts these bills to SoS to be clarked (so long as support for it still exists, but that can be determined by the SoS). Also i think that their needs to be strict peramiters set in law, on what can or cant be changed, based on what is need to change, but doesnt fundimentally change the bills intent, otherwise the committee could potentially be missued as a political tool rather than a legislative clean up tool.
Anyways these are just my preliminary thoughts on this.

2
Wittenberg / Re: [STUFF] Ministerial Decision re: domain names
« on: October 14, 2020, 07:56:21 PM »
Whilst i do not object to the disagrements in this thread, though i do sire with the Minister on this, that is beside the point, As @Sir Alexandreu Davinescu is now acting as regent,I do feel that if the Regent has such concerns that they be voiced to the ministers and Government privatley and not openly discuss in Public, as this draws the Crown to one side of an issue which reflects badly on the Monarchy, so i would counsel the new Regent, to limit thei public disagreements and statements to minimum  to none. And that i implore that the Regent acts with impartiality and dignity in the role, and try to not deliberatley or not, antagonise or put a view out their, as they are not only representing themselves at this point, but the Crown. Which i think the regent needs to keep this in mind a things continue.

This is only my personal feeling on this, but i do think it is importaint to be stated.

Thank you, and I appreciate the sentiment and receive it in the spirit with which it is intended. Let me be clear and say that I am not acting as of yet in any official capacity on behalf of the regency. I am very carefully and explicitly also saying that I'm not taking a position on the merits of the case. But I think it is actually quite important as a matter of principle to establish that the government may not seize property without a warrant. I think this principle should be openly acknowledged and proudly defended.

I would, in fact, be making an identical argument and taking identical steps even if I was not the regent. I trust that my reputation in our country is sufficient to back me up on this: If I think an important principle is under threat, I will loudly defend it.

I am absolutely certain that the Government means well. I can't talk about the merits of the case without prejudicing any future proceedings, but I think I can at least say that I am not hostile to the idea! This is simply a matter of principle about which reasonable people might disagree, without acrimony or anger, and I hope it will continue in that way.

Whilst i appreciate that this might not have been intended to be stated in capacity of regent, you are still regent, and since the King has appointed you to te position, it is hard to distingish what you say as a citizen, to that as regent, as until the regency ends, they are one in the same, so whilst i dont disagree that you have the right to voice these concerns with the Government, i would recommend more ususal backchannels which im sure exist, so even the apperance of taking a side is avoided.

Whilst you are regent, speculating and disagreeing publicly with the Govenment whether intended or not, or even playing devils advocate, might threaten the constituional boundries between the Governnment and the Crown, which it is now your responcibilty to try to uphold and keep intact to the best of your ability as regent. It is not an easy role and im sure much of it will go against your nature, but in order to serve faithfully as regent, you must always remember that no matter your intent, all of your posts will carry the assumption whether you state it or not, will be as regent, it just comes with the job, hence my voicing of my concerns in this matter to help you i your new role
Thank you for your perspective. In this particular instance I think you are not quite on target, since discussions of public principle should happen in public. Back channels certainly exist, and I could have just sent a private message. But doing things in public can also be pretty important at times.

That said, I think that's you are very right that I will need to be very cognizant of my new role going forward. I will strive my best to keep my head on a swivel when it comes to the dignity of the crown, no matter how dimly it is reflected in my own person for the short time I expect to occupy this role. It definitely is not in my nature to be a shrinking violet about points of principle, and I I know the king is aware of that, but that doesn't change the fact that I should accommodate myself to the task at hand. Let me say again how much I appreciate your kind and thoughtful words on the matter, which were lodged with so much courtesy and thoughtfulness.

I am grateful that you appreciate what i have said, and the intent i have put behind it, and that you have taken what i have said onboard.

I would disagree with your first statment, as yes for Citizens voicing such concerns is perfectly within out rights, As Regent, acting on behalf of the monarch at all times, to join in public discourse, even on public principle, (which the points you have made in general make sence i just dont feel that they apply in the circumstances, but thats beside the point) is putting the monarchy on "paper" as record of a position, no matter how subtle, which a monarchy invading on matters of public principle, is in itself casting a spotlight on the monarchy, whether intended or not, whether the powers exist or not, the Monarchy must remain above the frays of public discourse to remail truly impartial and to dutifully be able to fulfilll the roles and duties, without bringing the monarchy into any possible contreversy. As these are a danger to the insitutions which are central to the function of talossa. but if you continue to hold the position that you feel that this is fine discourse in your new role, then i think it would be best to agree to disagree on the subject and draw a line under the discusion as this discusion has somewhat derailed this thread, which i apologise for, i just felt this was the most appropiate way to bring this up, without it seeming like an attack on youself, which would not have been my intent.

3
Wittenberg / Re: [STUFF] Ministerial Decision re: domain names
« on: October 14, 2020, 07:27:35 PM »
Whilst i do not object to the disagrements in this thread, though i do sire with the Minister on this, that is beside the point, As @Sir Alexandreu Davinescu is now acting as regent,I do feel that if the Regent has such concerns that they be voiced to the ministers and Government privatley and not openly discuss in Public, as this draws the Crown to one side of an issue which reflects badly on the Monarchy, so i would counsel the new Regent, to limit thei public disagreements and statements to minimum  to none. And that i implore that the Regent acts with impartiality and dignity in the role, and try to not deliberatley or not, antagonise or put a view out their, as they are not only representing themselves at this point, but the Crown. Which i think the regent needs to keep this in mind a things continue.

This is only my personal feeling on this, but i do think it is importaint to be stated.

Thank you, and I appreciate the sentiment and receive it in the spirit with which it is intended. Let me be clear and say that I am not acting as of yet in any official capacity on behalf of the regency. I am very carefully and explicitly also saying that I'm not taking a position on the merits of the case. But I think it is actually quite important as a matter of principle to establish that the government may not seize property without a warrant. I think this principle should be openly acknowledged and proudly defended.

I would, in fact, be making an identical argument and taking identical steps even if I was not the regent. I trust that my reputation in our country is sufficient to back me up on this: If I think an important principle is under threat, I will loudly defend it.

I am absolutely certain that the Government means well. I can't talk about the merits of the case without prejudicing any future proceedings, but I think I can at least say that I am not hostile to the idea! This is simply a matter of principle about which reasonable people might disagree, without acrimony or anger, and I hope it will continue in that way.

Whilst i appreciate that this might not have been intended to be stated in capacity of regent, you are still regent, and since the King has appointed you to te position, it is hard to distingish what you say as a citizen, to that as regent, as until the regency ends, they are one in the same, so whilst i dont disagree that you have the right to voice these concerns with the Government, i would recommend more ususal backchannels which im sure exist, so even the apperance of taking a side is avoided.

Whilst you are regent, speculating and disagreeing publicly with the Govenment whether intended or not, or even playing devils advocate, might threaten the constituional boundries between the Governnment and the Crown, which it is now your responcibilty to try to uphold and keep intact to the best of your ability as regent. It is not an easy role and im sure much of it will go against your nature, but in order to serve faithfully as regent, you must always remember that no matter your intent, all of your posts will carry the assumption whether you state it or not, will be as regent, it just comes with the job, hence my voicing of my concerns in this matter to help you i your new role

4
Wittenberg / Re: [STUFF] Ministerial Decision re: domain names
« on: October 14, 2020, 07:09:06 PM »
Whilst i do not object to the disagrements in this thread, though i do sire with the Minister on this, that is beside the point, As @Sir Alexandreu Davinescu is now acting as regent,I do feel that if the Regent has such concerns that they be voiced to the ministers and Government privatley and not openly discuss in Public, as this draws the Crown to one side of an issue which reflects badly on the Monarchy, so i would counsel the new Regent, to limit thei public disagreements and statements to minimum  to none. And that i implore that the Regent acts with impartiality and dignity in the role, and try to not deliberatley or not, antagonise or put a view out their, as they are not only representing themselves at this point, but the Crown. Which i think the regent needs to keep this in mind a things continue.

This is only my personal feeling on this, but i do think it is importaint to be stated.

5
Wittenberg / Re: Calling Council of Governors
« on: September 23, 2020, 03:09:31 PM »
With the election over in Atatürk, i have once again been elected, under our laws, as Başbakan of Atatürk

6
Atatürk / Re: House Of Commons, 55th Ziu
« on: September 23, 2020, 03:07:28 PM »
As 2 weeks have passed since the voting has begun, and no further votes have been cast, the Election of myself to be Başbakan of Atatürk has been passed.

7
The Cosa / Re: Nomination of a Túischac'h for the 55th Cosâ
« on: September 22, 2020, 03:56:00 PM »
I cast my as vote PËR for T. Roibeardescù for Túischac'h

8
Wittenberg / Re: Calling Council of Governors
« on: September 14, 2020, 05:27:41 PM »
Ataturk is currently holding our elections for Başbakan, and will conclude on the 23rd of September, however their is only one canditate in the race (but even so, according to the consitution of Ataturk, the elections must be held (by my reading)) Myself, i am a bit disappointed in the turnout of the election so far (Espeically as though it is by the consitution, i fear its legitimacy based on the involvment in the provincial Gorvernment we have), but still, this is not the place for that. Anyway it looks likely that I'll remain in the post of  Başbakan of Ataturk if things stay as they are, but will keep this place updated.

9
Atatürk / Re: House Of Commons, 55th Ziu
« on: September 11, 2020, 03:01:05 PM »
I hereby cast my vote for myself as Başbakan of Atatürk

10
Atatürk / Re: House Of Commons, 55th Ziu
« on: September 09, 2020, 02:05:04 PM »
I apologise for the delay, has been a stressful few days, however the nomination period has now ended, and as per Law, a 2 week voting period on the nominations shall now begin (or until all members have voted), with one nomination of
Antaglha (myself) for Başbakan of Atatürk.

All members are hereby summoned to vote on this nomination.

11
Atatürk / Re: House Of Commons, 55th Ziu
« on: August 28, 2020, 03:46:41 PM »
I hope that @Eiric S. Bornatfiglheu is able to assigns the NPW seats soon,

In the mean time, I will open the Nomination period, of One Week, for Başbakan of Atatürk,
If you wish to nominate anyone, then please post in this thread.
Voting on nominations will start on Friday 4th September at 7pm GMT if no one objects (so any nominations must be made before this date).

Also. I nominate myself to remain as Başbakan of Atatürk.

12
Atatürk / Re: House Of Commons, 55th Ziu
« on: August 23, 2020, 03:14:17 PM »
The LCC assigns 3 seats each to Nicholas Hayes, Brad Holmes, and Xheneta Britxind

Thank you for assigning your parties seats, and now we just need the NPW seats to be allocated by @Eiric S. Bornatfiglheu ASAP, as i want to start Başbakan elections as soon as possible. Hopefully before the end of the week nominations should have begun.

13
Wittenberg / Re: Broosking Discussion.
« on: August 23, 2020, 03:06:13 PM »
Honestly, as that particular line of law that the SoS has quoted is a bit unclear in the middle, where
Quote
when such action is requested whensoever their own judgment directs that it is necessary
is stated, honestly with how it reads and how the start of the relevant section states
Quote
The Secretary of State or their designated representative(s) shall act to maintain a minimum level of acceptable behavior

It is not unreasonable to assume that the SoS does have the power to act without the individual in charge of that boards say so. The unclear part is whether the action is only able to be taken by someones requesting it first, or if the SoS can also act when they, in their judgement, is able to act without such request. And due to the unclear, and awkward phrasing here, i find it difficult to tell, as it does feel that the part referecing a request needs to be re written to become clearer. But due to the way the law is structured, i would argue that the SoS does have the power to act in this matter. And acknowlege this section should probably be amended to be clearer in its intentions.

Also i would point out something that i feel should be pointed out, whilst i do agree this power is a much needed power, i do think it might be prudent that all such actions, for sake of record keeping, incase of any possible action over any possble actions from the SoS, in order to safeguard the SoS, and those involved, be recorded and kept in records for a set time (tbd) (not public, and only accessed by request if it is needed) of the state of a thread both before and after any actions taken and the SoS's justification for the change. Unless such a requirement is already in place? (which im not sure there is) It would involve a bit more work for the SoS, however it does seem like a prudent requirement in such situations.

14
Atatürk / Re: House Of Commons, 55th Ziu
« on: August 15, 2020, 07:45:22 AM »
So the Election results have now been verified by chancery, so party leaders please could you assign seats?

@Ian Plätschisch  @Eiric S. Bornatfiglheu

I unless another FreeDem in the province wishes to hold seats in the house (if so let me know and seats can, and will be divided) and assuming @Miestră Schivă, UrN doesnt object, i assign the 9 FreeDem seats to myself.

15
Atatürk / Re: House Of Commons, 55th Ziu
« on: August 02, 2020, 11:55:30 AM »
Largest remainder method gives:

FreeDems: 9
LCC: 9
NPW: 2

Thank you for your help.

So to Party leaders, should the current results stand,
How would you like to split the seats you control in the House?

Pages: [1] 2