Quote from: Miestră Schivă, UrN on April 13, 2024, 06:42:38 PMI'd like to apologise somewhat for my post above - it came out more ill-tempered and accusatory than it sounded in my head. I don't think Glüc is consciously trying to troll and derail.

But I have to reiterate that - if it really doesn't matter who's King because the job is low-powered - then I am suddenly in favour of the continued rule of John I rather than this option. Talossa has already tried the "King who no-one really wants" option, it didn't end well.

It's a good thing I wasn't drinking hot coffee when I read this. You have a remarkable ability to shock me.

Quote from: Miestră Schivă, UrN on April 13, 2024, 06:34:04 PM

Quote from: Breneir Tzaracomprada on April 13, 2024, 03:28:20 PM@Miestră Schivă, UrN I am most interested in seeing through a path for action, if possible.

Thing is that I'm not 100% sure as to where we stand. I've put up two proposals in this thread:

1) the original proposal, which I call "clean decapitation". I still prefer this, though I take into account the people who worry about an indefinite empty throne.

2) a revised proposal, which appoints a new King right away and leaves it up to the Ziu to create further succession laws; the default option being "CpI names a successor to be confirmed in referendum". I haven't seen any substantial discussion on that one.

(Of course the good Baron is calling for his previously expressed preference that the King be allowed to name his own successor. But, given the incumbent's record, I don't feel happy about affording him that privilege.)

So which should we run with?
- Option 1?
- Option 1 amended slightly (eg with a "sunset clause")?
- Option 2?
- Option 2 amended slightly?

I am in favour of getting as broad a social consensus as we can, because you know what? A 2/3 majority in the Ziu isn't going to cut it. Three reasons:

- if the King vetoes, we will another 2/3 majority in the next Cosa, and thus have to win the argument in an election.
- either way, we will need to win a majority in a referendum.

I have bucketloads of respect for the good Baron as a political operator and I'm not confident of being able to beat him in a referendum (or get 2/3 in an election) if he's going to fight this all the way.

Miestra, this is all reasonable. Option 2 is my preference as it is immediate removal and replacement pending a national referendum plus a sunset clause moving into a regency if necessary. I do think this seems to address the two major issues raised and allows time for the outstanding major issue to be resolved.

If you are not yet ready to move until there is more discussion on Option 2 then I would encourage others to let Miestra and the FreeDems generally know your thoughts specifically on the options or amended options she lists.

Quote from: Baron Alexandreu Davinescu on April 13, 2024, 03:12:34 PM@Breneir Tzaracomprada , just wanted to check and make sure you could see my posts and there's no sort of glitch or anything.

Earlier in this thread, I wrote at length about some obvious problems I saw with the bill, and you replied after me and said that you didn't see any objections being made.  And now again, you seem to be unaware of arguments I made with a significant investment of my time and thought -- not even acknowledging them but just addressing Miestra.  Is it just that you're ignoring me?  That's certainly your prerogative, but I thought I'd check.

I do see your words and they have been answered. There is no need for me to directly answer them too. I am interested in Miestra's thoughts as yours are well known now.

@Miestră Schivă, UrN I am most interested in seeing through a path for action, if possible. I apologize for my own contribution to the delay in addressing the King's inactivity but a review of yours and Ian's words and actions (especially in comparison to the King's words and actions) have led me to the belief I can trust your genuine desire simply to ensure an active head of state. If, through this slimmed down amendment, we can address the concerns of Gluc, Therxh, and Carlus then I think that is a basis for bipartisan action as the TNC would have four of its five MCs likely to support the bill along with its senator. And I assume much of the FreeDems would support the bill.

Quote from: Miestră Schivă, UrN on April 12, 2024, 10:03:36 PM

Quote from: Breneir Tzaracomprada on April 12, 2024, 07:35:50 PMWe have at least three TNC MCs and possibly a fourth in support of a simple vacancy declaration. The subsequent issue raised concerned a successor and earlier in this term there was no TNC opposition to Txec's elevation. I have yet to hear one voice in opposition even now.

The good Baron has been saying that he thinks the "simple vacancy declaration" is a trap, because the cunning Free Dems will then make sure the throne stays vacant forever, and the Senator from Cézembre agrees with him. This is both unkind and unnecessary, because the throne is already effectively vacant, if that's what we wanted we would just leave Zombie John there.

I was trying to dispel these suspicions, but I'm sure if your numbers are correct we *could* push a simple vacancy through over their objections - is that what you think best? I should note that Carlüs was asking for some kind of "sunset clause" to avoid eternal delays in naming a successor.

Miestra, what are your current thoughts on moving forward with a revised vacant throne amendment (simple removal, immediate successor, and sunset clause)? The revisions do address most stated concerns and allow time to address the succession issue permanently.

Quote from: Miestră Schivă, UrN on April 12, 2024, 10:03:36 PM

Quote from: Breneir Tzaracomprada on April 12, 2024, 07:35:50 PMWe have at least three TNC MCs and possibly a fourth in support of a simple vacancy declaration. The subsequent issue raised concerned a successor and earlier in this term there was no TNC opposition to Txec's elevation. I have yet to hear one voice in opposition even now.

The good Baron has been saying that he thinks the "simple vacancy declaration" is a trap, because the cunning Free Dems will then make sure the throne stays vacant forever, and the Senator from Cézembre agrees with him. This is both unkind and unnecessary, because the throne is already effectively vacant, if that's what we wanted we would just leave Zombie John there.

I was trying to dispel these suspicions, but I'm sure if your numbers are correct we *could* push a simple vacancy through over their objections - is that what you think best? I should note that Carlüs was asking for some kind of "sunset clause" to avoid eternal delays in naming a successor.

Miestra, I think two-thirds is a significant level of approval. 51-49 and yeah maybe you can be accused of pushing but 67-33 after repeated negotiated changes to address emergent concerns is not forcing at gunpoint here. Especially if an immediate replacement with a sunset clause for resolution of other issues seem to reduce the risk.

Quote from: Miestră Schivă, UrN on April 12, 2024, 05:49:53 PMWell, okay, the alternative suggestion is:

QuoteTHEREFORE BE IT ENACTED by the Ziu and people of Talossa that Article II.3 of the Organic Law be changed from the current text:

QuoteThe King of Talossa is King John I, until his demise, abdication, or removal from the throne. Should the King at any time renounce or lose his citizenship, that renunciation or loss shall be deemed to imply his abdication of the Throne. Upon the demise, abdication, or removal from the Throne of the King, the Uppermost Cort shall be a Council of Regency.

to

QuoteThe King of Talossa is Txec, First of his Name, of the House of Nordselvă, and his heirs and successors as established by law. Should the King at any time renounce or lose his citizenship, that renunciation or loss shall be deemed to imply his abdication of the Throne. Upon the demise, abdication, or removal from the Throne of the King:

a)  the Heir Presumptive to the throne as established by law shall assume the Throne or;
b)  if there is no Heir Presumptive and one is not named by law, the Uppermost Cort shall be a Council of Regency and shall within 3 months name an Heir Presumptive, who will take the Throne upon approval in referendum, or;
c)  if an Heir Presumptive as named in b) is not approved by a majority of those voting in referendum, and has not been named by law, the Uppermost Cort shall repeat the process in b) above as many times as is necessary.

Some might worry that establishing the succession by ordinary law will be too simple; but it will also prevent the kind of "stalemate" that the good Baron foresees whereby any successor can be blocked indefinitely by a minority.

We have at least three TNC MCs and possibly a fourth in support of a simple vacancy declaration. The subsequent issue raised concerned a successor and earlier in this term there was no TNC opposition to Txec's elevation. I have yet to hear one voice in opposition even now.

With the passage of the Florencia <3's Vuode Bill I wanted to thank my fellow Florencians for your charity.

Now that the Florencia <3's Vuode Bill has passed. I want to congratulate Vuodeans on the new addition to their catchment area. 😀

Quote from: Glüc da Dhi S.H. on April 12, 2024, 03:16:48 PMHere's a possible solution to the whole monarchy mess.

Have whoever became citizen (of Kingdom or Republic) first be the King/Queen.

First time we do this: offer the position to the most senior citizen (in this case Gjermund). If they say no or don't respond within a week or are no longer a citizen, move on to the next one, until someone accepts.

Next time the King/Queen retires or is removed, go with the next one on the list. Only if we get to the bottom of the list and nobody accepts we start at the top again.

If it takes many weeks before somebody accepts we can still have a regency in the meantime.



Advantages:

- The monarch isnt selected by the hype of the day.
- We don't need a big partisan war every time the King is absent because the procedure is just set
- There's no point in campaigning to be King and there's no point in becoming a citizen for that reason cause you won't last that long.
- We always get a King who's experienced, knows Talossan culture and has a track record of sticking around
- Monarchists might like that there is a set order of succession
- Republicans might like that it's non-hereditary, you need to have at least achieved something to become King and it might be easier to remove the monarch for inactivity if there is a replacement procedure

I like it.

Quote from: Sir Lüc on April 12, 2024, 11:20:44 AM

Quote from: Breneir Tzaracomprada on April 11, 2024, 08:02:25 AM@Sir Lüc I am requesting this amendment be moved to the CRL for review.

I would friendly suggest you held off on this as lively debate on merits seems to still be going on; remember there's plenty of time for CRL review before the next Call for Bills opens.

Agreed, sorry I forgot to post that I was withdrawing my request for movement to the CRL. It looks like we are now focusing on the amendment proposed by Miestra so this one is now on hold.

Quote from: Carlüs Éovart Vilaçafat on April 12, 2024, 08:38:09 AMI agree that this less dramatic solution is much better.

With the concerns around this being a step towards losing the Monarchy altogether, I do think it needs some kind of "sunset clause" as Miestra suggested, to ensure the throne is filled in a timely manner and without the need for another amendment to the OrgLaw.

Thanks Carlus.
@Miestră Schivă, UrN with the input from Carlus and Gluc I'm wondering if we should just add a successor to the referendum, if that is possible. Is there any Organic issue with adding Sir Txec as the successor pending confirmation by a referendum?

Of course, if that is not possible then there seems to be support for the sunset clause.

I would add that if we are able, in the amendment, to depose and replace John, then this does hopefully allow for much more time to address the succession issue AND install someone who will be an appropriately active king.

Thanks Miestra. Can I co-sponsor this?

Quote from: þerxh Sant-Enogat on April 12, 2024, 01:24:13 AM

Quote from: Breneir Tzaracomprada on April 11, 2024, 11:46:42 PMI'd support a simple measure vacating the throne and moving toward a regency until someone can be found who wants to actually be Talossa's monarch. I would still like to believe we will have a King Txec (or some other regnal name). @þerxh Sant-Enogat you actually spoke in support of this as an alternative to the currently hoppered amendment during our debates. Would you still support a simple removal of John as the alternative to the current proposal?

Yes I will. Let's fix the root cause first if this is the will of the People.

Great, @Carlüs Éovart Vilaçafat ?

I'd support a simple measure vacating the throne and moving toward a regency until someone can be found who wants to actually be Talossa's monarch. I would still like to believe we will have a King Txec (or some other regnal name). @þerxh Sant-Enogat you actually spoke in support of this as an alternative to the currently hoppered amendment during our debates. Would you still support a simple removal of John as the alternative to the current proposal?

@Sir Lüc I am requesting this amendment be moved to the CRL for review.