This is slightly rushed, so does need to be looked at for errors, and i did this based on the most upto date record of the law in question, so im sorry if the part of this which is proposed to be amended is out of date, but here is a draft idea of an amended council of governors.

THEREFORE Lex.D.9, which currently reads
"9. The Ziu authorises the formation of a Council of Governors (el Cußéglh del Governadéirs in Talossan, abbreviated CG) to be comprised of each provincial executive, whether he or she is called "Governor" or not.

9.1. The Minister of the Interior shall call the Council into order no later than the first day of the first Clark of each Cosa term. Each provincial executive shall accept his or her seat in the Council no later than the last day of that Clark.

9.1.1. If the executive of a province does not accept his or her seat by the specified time, the Minister of the Interior may appoint a resident of that province to the Council, who shall serve until the executive of that province accepts his or her seat. The Minister of the Interior shall not appoint him or herself to the Council in this manner.

9.2. The Council shall meet and operate under rules of its own design.

9.3. The Governor-General of Talossa shall be the leader of the Council, chosen by a majority of the Council members (who are the collective governors and provincial leaders of Talossa). In matters provincial, the Governor-General shall serve as a liaison to the Government of Talossa, to serve at the behest of the Council of Governors. (32RZ10)

9.4. If a member of the Council ceases to be a provincial executive, he or she shall immediately lose his or her seat in the Council. The new executive of the province shall have one month to accept his or her seat in the Council, after which the Minister of the Interior may appoint a resident of that province to the Council, who shall serve until the new provincial executive accepts his or her seat.

9.5. If a province is without an executive, the Minister of the Interior may appoint a resident of that province to the Council, who shall serve until the province elects an executive and that executive accepts his or her seat."

Shall be amended to read as:-

9. The Ziu authorises the formation of a Council of Governors (el Cußéglh del Governadéirs in Talossan, abbreviated CG) to be comprised of each provincial executive, whether he or she is called "Governor" or not. This shall be on an issue by issue basis, as set out in this passage.

9.1. The Minister of the Interior shall call the Council into order if a majority of Provincial Executives come forward to the minister, with a proposed agenda, for a specific purpose decided by the Executives

9.1.1. The Council, once called by the Minister, as in the previous clause, shall then have 14 days to formally accept their place on the council, before a Governor-General (see 9.3) is elected for the council to form,

9.1.2 if a province is without a Provincial Executive, the Minister of the interior, along with a 2/3 majority vote of the council, shall appoint a representative from said province to serve for the duration of the Council session.

9.2. The Council shall meet and operate under rules of its own design. These rules must pertain to the agenda proposed, with a suitable timeframe, and a condition where the Governor-General shall dissolve the session, and leave the position vacant (at the end of the council session)

9.3. The Governor-General of Talossa shall be the leader of the Council, chosen by a majority of the Council members (who are the collective governors and provincial leaders of Talossa). In matters provincial, the Governor-General shall serve as a liaison to the Government of Talossa, to serve at the behest of the Council of Governors. (32RZ10), This shall be for the duration the said council, Is in session, and shall need to be done at every council session called.

9.4. If a member of the Council ceases to be a provincial executive, he or she shall immediately lose his or her seat in the Council. The new executive of the province shall have 2 weeks of taking office, (which at such time, the council will pause their business), to accept his or her seat in the Council, after which the Minister of the Interior may appoint a resident of that province to the Council, who shall serve until the new provincial executive accepts his or her seat, In accordance with 9.1.1- 9.1.2 of this passage

9.5 Upon completion of the council business, unless anything new has arisen, the Governor-General has three days to dissolve the council, and resign their post, before  the council automatically dissolves and the Governor-General position automatically vacant, until such a time where the provisions to set up this council, is invoked again by a majority of Provincial Executive, as set out in this passage.


this could use work, but i think its at a point that input from others would be useful.

Whilst i completely agree with sentiments of this bill, and honestly mostly support it, it might be best to amend it to, instead of being in session at all times, a chair is only elected when a majority of Provincial Government representatives have come together and called for a meeting of the Council for a specific topic of import, and the chair will serve for the meeting to keep order and run proceedings, and if needed as a representative, and once the issue bought before the council has been dealt with, that session is over, and the chair becomes vacant, and council dormant, until such a time where the Provincial Government heads once again feel the need of the council? So it meets on an as needed basis?

Quote from: Txosuè Éiric Rôibeardescù on April 09, 2021, 03:35:45 PM
So you want the republic back again? As noted... How well did that do? You where down to 20 members and no activity? And you want to return to that? You returned to the fold to mold the kingdom back to your own image, doing away with king and regent, doing away with active citzans (perticulely those who disagree with you) and to hell with everything else. The republic didn't work or you would have let go, moved on and left the monarchy in the dust, but you didn't and apprently you couldn't let go because of what King Ben did to you. You Brought that attitude back with you, how dare king John succeed where you failed, how dare he re-envigarate the kingdom with out you, how dare he not call you back to the fold knowing that you would most likely hate him because you hate what he stands for, he has succeeded where Ben failed and you hate him for it. Plain and simple.


I already want withdraw my candidature, because I already can't stand for what I believe him without getting attacked form all angles. Even our Regent had to take a step back when you and he agruged to the point that there was no going back, he returned.

Id even go so far and renounce my citzanship too, but what would that change? Another monarchist run out of town who dared to raise his head. Oh no I'm staying. I brought myself a popcorn machine.

I am sorry, but i feel like you have taken this whole thing out of proportion, both yourself and the other monarchists, From my own recollections of being a citizen of Talossa, the monarchist only started to leave once they were voted out of power, and a different ideology was starting to win elections, whislt i would not have begrudged some unhappiness there, what i do think is an issue is that there were alot of platitudes given by the other side, with no constructive debate around the issues, and no offering suggestions, or even forming a coherent opposition. Yes in politics, it is hard to loose, but that doesnt mean that you stop fighting for what you believe, and besides a strong stance on keeping the monarchy, there have been no suggestions, outside the compromise bill of late (which came from the referendum result) from your side on how best move Talossa forward, whilst tearing down what the Government has been doing in what our side belives to be the best for talossa.

All, i think our side is wanting, is for your side to stop playing the victim, grow up, and act reasonable, and be a true opposition, with plans, and ideas of your own, which will help move talossa forward, and create a good political debate again. Not the disillusioned self pity your side has had the past, how many years. Also dont blame us for your members dropping from Talossa, they were not bullied, or driven out, they left because they lost and couldn't deal with how things were changing, and couldnt come up with their own ideas of a platform to win over the voting public of Talossa. Which is THE JOB of an OPPOSITION, and isnt to put their head in the sand and pretend that nothing has changed. As things have, especially with the recent actions of the King, and the divisive choice of regent.

Please do not take this as a personal attack for yourself or your side of the political spectrum, as it isnt meant to be, i am only intending this to be constructive criticism, and i hope that you take the lessons in this as intended, and not on attack on what you believe, as i do not want politics to revert to the mud slinging it has been for so long, but to actually be a constructive debate, but that means that you have to accept your ideas might loose, and then adapt with the times, and not get stuck in the past, and giving up on the political discourse of Talossa. as that is the true cancer of Talossan politics, giving up on it just because what you want doesn't come to pass, instead of sticking around to fight your corner, in a principles and respectful manor. i cant say that we have been completely clean in our conduct of politics, but we come up with ideas all the time, and do our best, sometimes they work, sometimes they dont, that is politics, we dont Give up, we continue the fight to make talossa a great place to be, and that drive, is what the opposition has lost from my persepctive.

Disagreements and losses are bound to happen, but that does not translate to personal attacks, it just means we disagree, and try to persuade other of why we believe our actions are right, and to take the loss personally, ill becomes us as a country.

We are all part of a unified Talossa right now, and it is upto us to step upto the place and work out how to keep both sides in an arrangement they can live with, which means communication and working together, even if that is through the discourse of debates. But that also means that both sides have to come to find common ground, and i believe the compromise is that. And if your side is unwilling to accept that something needs to change for talossa to move forward and thrive, and digging you head in the sand, then what is any of us even doing here?

Anyway sorry for the long, not massively coherent rant, these are jsut my current thoughts about the discussion in this thread right now.

I do overall think something like thing might be a good idea, however, what im thinking might work better, is that once the bill is ready to move from the hopper, that it then moves to the Ziu, in the respective chambers, for members of the Ziu for a set period, to further debate and scrutinise the bill, then vote to see if it moves to committee stage, and then if the bill comes back on committee with amendments, the Ziu further debates those amendments, and votes to either adopt or remove them (might be easier to have these two votes as a vote of the whole Ziu) with then the Clark then being the vote on a "third" reading and passage of the bill, and perhaps with extra steps to provide ways to break a deadlock if needed. Im not sure how workable this is, but i think it might work better, for both scrutiny purposes, and a way to ensure that Ziu members have a chance to debate these things in their chambers before it votes, and therefore would hopefully help produce more informed members of the Ziu.

Although I do think their are some issues with the proposal as is, such as having elections every 7 years, i feel that that is too long of an interval, and feel that 5 years would be more of a reasonable timescale (and even that id have trouble with)
I also feel that theyre should be conditons upon those who might be chosen for the role, such as being out of political life at least 1 year before the election, and that none of the people on the conclave should be eligable, and that theyre should perhaps be some limits placed on the monarchs power, i accept that major reform is not called for, but some limitations on power in realtion to the monarchy would be appropiate. But yeah, besides the things i have put into this post, i do think this is probably the most reasonable compromise that reflects the referendum results the best we can, but i would say that some of the points i have raised, should be thought about, especially on the term limit, and elegibility, the powers i feel should be a seperate discussion but should also be something to keep in mind.
But yeah on the whole although not perfect, is a move in the right direction (personally id like to see the monarchy just gone, but i do acknowlage that it is still a contentious issues tha needs a broad comrpomise of all position to find something a large majority of Talossans can live with)

Atatürk casts its vote for Antaglha Xhenerös Somelieir.

I also support the re-nomination of Sir X. Pol Briga as Chair of the Council of Governors

Quote from: Txosuè Éiric Rôibeardescù on October 26, 2020, 01:41:06 PM

Quote from: Eðo Grischun on October 25, 2020, 09:34:32 PM

Quote from: Txosuè Éiric Rôibeardescù on October 25, 2020, 07:48:31 PM
Order order,

Although the honarable members are discussed this as a possibility to be enacted if required, I fear that conversation on this bill has moved a little too towards the realm of fantasy and I would like to remind members to continue to discuss the bill as currently writen. This is not to impede or to stamp out discussion on this line of thinking, but more to return the focus to the bill and not purely personal opinion and speculation.
A spear without a point is just a stick.

Does the Túischac'h have authority over the Hopper? It's a public discussion sub-board after all, not strictly a Cosa/Ziu board.  I'm not sure the Túischac'h can call for order on either Senators or members of the public outside of the Cosa chamber.

The order maybe was a bit dramatic, I withdraw that part. It was more trying to as a advisory to bring the focus back to the bill, opinions on what should replace the monarchy is surely for elsewhere.

I'd also like to add that I was not envoking any role directly and was mearly advising the honarable members within the hopper, not citizens not senators.

Honourable Túischac'h, I do disagree with your view on this, whilst I don't agree with some of the points made in regards to this bill, I would argue that with the size and scope of removing a monarch, and all possible implications of that, and the views in favour and opposed to the measure, and all possble consequences of the decision, and having a vigrous debate about that in such a bill, i do feel is not just importaint, but crucial to not just improving the legislation, but also will help give memebers of the Ziu, and the wider public, and more rounded view on the topic, and might bring about issues that needs to be addressed, just because something might not obviously fit with the view in being relevant, something that comes out of discussions in the Hopper, could potential make or break a piece of legislation, and i feel it is better sorted out here, in the hopper, so things might be changed before hadn if needed, before anything here is submitted to the Clark. So some degree of lieniency in regards to the hopper is reasonable, and in my view, this discussion has not come close to the point where it isnt potentially relevant to the passage of this bill, as im sure that many members of the Cosa have had some questions answered already by the conversation had here, one way or the other, based on discussions not strictly related to the text, but possible effects of the legislation, which i belive is just as importaint as the text of the Bill itself.

Quote from: Miestră Schivă, UrN on October 14, 2020, 11:36:50 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.

Quote from: Sir Alexandreu Davinescu on October 14, 2020, 07:40:43 PM

Quote from: Antaglha Xhenerös Somelieir on October 14, 2020, 07:27:35 PM

Quote from: Sir Alexandreu Davinescu on October 14, 2020, 07:16:13 PM

Quote from: Antaglha Xhenerös Somelieir 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.

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.

Quote from: Sir Alexandreu Davinescu on October 14, 2020, 07:16:13 PM

Quote from: Antaglha Xhenerös Somelieir 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.

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

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.

With the election over in Atatürk, i have once again been elected, under our laws, as Başbakan of Atatürk

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.