Quote from: Miestră Schivă, UrN on February 19, 2024, 01:40:07 PMScuse me, but is this an actual legislative proposal? I'm confused by the "we support" stuff

No no, not ready for consideration to send to CRL.
Just to get the conversation started. I want to know if this is something people might support.

Quote from: Breneir Tzaracomprada on February 15, 2024, 10:16:22 AMPrivy Council changes can be achieved by amending statute Title L, I think. According to my review of internal discussions this proposal had significant support on both sides. Everyone knows who I personally recommend as the Designated Successor.

---

We support a new method of royal succession wherein the Monarch is asked to ensure there are always no less than five appointees to the Sabor (Privy Council). Upon a vacancy on the throne without a Designated Successor, the Ziu selects a new Monarch from the membership of the Sabor. Selection by the Ziu is successful with a two-thirds majority in both the Cosa and the Senats. Approval, by simple majority, is then required by nationwide referendum. A sitting Monarch may choose a Designated Successor from amongst the Sabor who will also need approval under the same process. The Designated Successor may be removed by the same process as the Monarch.
Connected to this, we support King John giving the nation a timeline for a transition for his Designated Successor. Or the instituting of a mandatory retirement age of 75 years for the Monarch of Talossa.

@mximo thank you for suggesting that change.
I am hoping others will chime in too.
When I proposed the idea in the Florencian Nimlet my review of communications leads me to believe there were some cross-party discussions.
As was suggested, I have removed the reference to Txec as the DS but I do still support his elevation. To answer a specific concern, relayed in review of those communications, no I am not seeking to replace Txec.

@Ian Plätschisch what do you think?

Quote from: Sir Lüc on February 19, 2024, 08:15:26 AMThere's a small thing that needs fixing, D.2.1 doesn't read as it currently stands on the bill, that's only the final sentence. Otherwise I'd say this version works, sign me up.

Thanks Lüc, edited and add you as a co-sponsor.

Quote from: Sir Lüc on February 19, 2024, 08:29:44 AMPersonally, the A-X should not only have the right to request an advisory opinion from the CpI -- if anything they should probably be the one Government official that's primarily in charge of those, just as the MinFin (and not the Seneschal) has been in charge of the Budget for a few years now. Besides, the Seneschal has the implicit right to also request an advisory opinion by D.2.1.

(Also, there's a typo in that section of the OrgLaw -- Seneschal)

Thank you very much @Sir Lüc
I didn't want to argue with people about it but really believed that it should be the A-X. So I will add it back.

Quote from: mximo on February 18, 2024, 09:00:56 PMI will sponsor this if it's still ok for me to do it ;)

Mximo Carbonèl
Senator from Florencia

@Miestră Schivă, UrN OK with you?

Quote from: mximo on February 18, 2024, 09:03:19 PMI will cosponsor this.

Mximo Carbonèl

Awesome Mximo! Thanks, I will add you now.

Quote from: Ian Plätschisch on February 18, 2024, 02:51:22 PMMaybe this doesn't matter, but the way this is currently written, the Mencei could appoint an MC or vice versa. Is that the intent?

Yes, it was intentional to allow a larger pool of parliament members as replacements but if we would like to keep to the Tui and the Mencei appointing a member of their respective bodies that is fine too.

Thanks @Ian Plätschisch I have also removed the A-X from the new parties allowed to request an opinion. I disagree that it would be unnecessary for the A-X to have the ability to do so but it is not a fight I am interested in having. And expanding it so that a collection of the Ziu can too is sufficient.

Approved for my part.
@Miestră Schivă, UrN feel free to refine the clauses, if you like.

---

Whereas, there are currently just two members of the Privy Council (Sabôr), and

Whereas, it is conceivable that a slightly larger Sabôr might lead to more broad-based advice to the Monarch, and

Whereas, adding additional ex-officio members of the Privy Council is one way to expand the Sabôr.

Therefore BE IT ENACTED that El Lexhatx L.7, which currently reads:

Quote7. Among the first acts of his reign the King shall name a Privy Council (Sabôr, in Talossan) consisting of several Privy Councillors (called Guaïrs in Talossan) with whom he shall consult whenever possible on all matters of grave importance to the Kingdom, and whose duty shall be to offer the King the benefit of their individual and collective wisdom and advice. The King shall take care to include in this council those citizens with the longest and deepest connections to the ongoing historical life of the Kingdom, in particular those who are personally familiar with the homeland itself. Should at any time they deem it wise or necessary to do so, Privy Councillors, acting alone or in concert with fellow councillors, may publicly issue a "Letter to the King" about any matter of grave importance to the Kingdom. The Privy Councillors shall serve at the pleasure of the King. Privy Councillors shall be entitled to add the honorific initials "GST" to their signatures, for "Guaïr del Sabôr Talossán."

shall be amended with the addition of the following paragraph:

QuoteThe Seneschál and the Senior Justice of the Cort pü Inalt shall be Guaïrs ex officio.

[/quote]

Uréu q'estadra så
Miestră Schivă, UrN (MC-FreeDems)
Breneir Tzaracomprada (MC-TNC)
Mximo Carbonèl (Senator-Florencia)

Quote from: Baron Alexandreu Davinescu on February 17, 2024, 02:11:42 PM

Quote6.5.3.1. The Mençéi, Túischac'h, and Avocat-Xheneral may at any time appoint and dismiss one Senator and one Membreu dal Cosă, respectively, to serve as a member of the CRL in their place.

Ah I see the confusion now, I re-read it again. I have edited it now.

@Miestră Schivă, UrN Has this bill been moved to CRL yet? As the main sponsor would you mind me moving it now?

Quote from: Miestră Schivă, UrN on February 17, 2024, 03:42:25 PM... and he's just told me by PM that he wants to join the FreeDems *shrug*

Well, as I told him by PM and informed my party colleagues, there is no negative here. If you join the TNC or the FreeDems based on whichever matches your political beliefs then it means you are becoming more involved in Talossa. That is an objective plus, I think.

Quote from: Baron Alexandreu Davinescu on February 17, 2024, 02:40:47 PMThere's nothing in the text that specifically conveys that intention, however much you might feel it in your heart.

Thank you for sharing your interpretation, Baron.
If you still retain TNC seats then you are, of course, entitled to vote your conscience.

Quote from: Baron Alexandreu Davinescu on February 17, 2024, 02:37:27 PMIf you name a list of two people and say they can each appoint two people, respectively, then you're saying they can replace themselves with people from that list in that order.  If you name a list of three people and say that can appoint two people, respectively, then you're probably saying that they can each appoint two.  It can also be interpreted as intended, but it's ambiguous, and it's usually not a good idea to be ambiguous in the law.

There is no ambiguity. "In their place" is not ambiguous as a reference point to the prior THREE named officers.

I just re-read it and I don't see a context change. The inclusion of "in their place" in the initial phrasing reads as an alternative. If it said "additional" somewhere then I could see some confusion.