Yeah, I would agree that civil servants would make better proofreaders than elected officials. And it's been Free Democrat policy for ages to massively expand the civil service - because people keep saying they want ways to contribute to Talossa which are non-political. But for some reason, people don't volunteer, or give up quickly, and it falls back on the electeds.

But the other good function of the CRL has been to stop people Hoppering bills, the debate (if any) dies down, and when everyone's forgotten about it, it gets Clarked without warning and it doesn't get proper scrutiny. And it's doing fine in that regard.

Given the discussion, I am perhaps minded to put up a clarifying amendment that the CRL can recommend that a bill be reconsidered before Clarking if it has changed so much that in their opinion, it hasn't got a proper Hopper debate.

I've put it in the Database myself, Mr SoS. Alea jacta est.

Last minute question, sorry to be a jerk. I would like to Clark this with the words "(or, if female, Queen)" removed from Section 1. Two reasons:

- I'm kind of nostalgic for the ancient Talossan precedent whereby "King" is a gender-neutral term. (I'd honestly kind of like to start a new one whereby the King's consort is called the Queen regardless of gender :D )
- It's a friendly gesture to any Talossans now or in the future who might not identify as either male nor female.

I've let other Free Democrats have their say, and what follows is my personal take.

I don't have any fear at all that "his Majesty will renege", that Ián I has any real interest in staying on as King. I thought I was clear - but apparently not - that it was another part of his message that struck me badly. Here it is again:

QuoteWe declare that it is our intention to abdicate our throne.  When we are satisfied that there will yet remain to our Kingdom a monarch to safeguard her honours and her majesties, we will lay down our Royal honours, and remain *very* happy to continue to enjoy the high honours we share with all of you -- the honours of a citizen of the Kingdom of Talossa.

Now correct me if I'm wrong, but His Maj's declaration seems to be predicated on the Ziu and people endorsing a successor who is specifically of the same political mind as Ián I re: the role of the monarchy in Talossan life. 

My signature line, which expresses Free Democrat party policy, is "NO POLITICISED KING!" To condition the succession on the incoming Monarch being of the same political line as his/her predecessor is, ipso facto, politicising the monarchy.

Some may have a wrong idea, that the Free Democrats are chafing at the idea of a certain individual being the successor. But, not really. The consensus we have hammered out in this amendment that a 1/3 Cosă minority gets a veto over successors is an adequate safeguard against "anyone in particular". The scenario we are worried about is as follows:

JOHN I: I hereby decree X as my successor.
THE ZIU: Sorry, try again.
JOHN I: I hereby decree Y as my successor.
THE ZIU: Sorry, try again.
JOHN I: I hereby decree Z as my successor.
THE ZIU: Look, this isn´t working. Haven't you got someone who's not *ideologically* offensive to the minority? Like, for example, person A over here?
JOHN I: No. They're not going "to safeguard her honours and her majesties". Endorse a politically acceptable candidate or I'm going nowhere.

So: we worry that the succession will become a political struggle that will go on forever.

HOWEVER.

An informal poll of Free Democrat opinion shows no appetite so far for "blowing up the deal" at this point. So I see no reason why I should not Clark the Succession Amendment in time. Let it be known, though, that the outgoing King seems to have signalled an appetite for one last political fight on his way out. We hope and pray this is not what we face.

Well, we can go back to first principles: the point of the CRL has been to do a "final proofread" to stop obvious typos and blunders from being passed into law because no-one reads our legislation. If there's a better way to do that than the CRL I crave to hear it.

I have no reason to believe that His Majesty has the intent to go back on his pledge to abdicate once he is "satisfied that there will yet remain to our Kingdom a monarch to safeguard her honours and her majesties". Emphasis added; the King is signalling the kind of person (with the kind of agenda) he hopes to nominate. It could be a long time before such a person can be found who would be acceptable to a Ziu supermajority.

I will consult my party ASAP but I hope we can still Clark this in time.

Perhaps what we need is for the Chancery every couple of years to check out the flow of new citizens, seeing where it's imbalanced towards or away from various provinces, and make a formal recommendation to the Ziu for re-catchment-ing?

Guidance from @Sir Txec dal Nordselvă, UrB please - do we have to Clark this as one amendment or two?

El Lexhatx H.2.1 repeats, over and over again, that the necessary requirement for any bill to be Clarked (or to be submitted to the CRL) is that it has "spent 10 days in the Hopper".

The problem is - as we found in the Succession Amendment thread - at least one member of the CRL thinks that if a bill's language changes fundamentally (like, from a new draft), it's no longer the same bill and has to start again.

El Lexh H.2.1.7.4 gives the SoS authority not to Clark a bill which is totally different from what went to the CRL. If we want the CRL to have the authority to do the same to a bill whose language has changed either totally or significantly over its 10 days, we should do so explicitly.

But I disagree. My preferred amendment would be to change the language

QuoteA bill has passed the Hopper if it has spent at least 10 days in the Hopper

wherever it appears to be something like:

QuoteA legislative proposal has passed the Hopper if the substantive text of the bill has been debated in the Hopper for at least 10 days and its proposer is satisfied with its form.

Which way do we want to shift it? The current ambiguity is not ideal.

@Sir Lüc it's been 10 days since AD dropped his first draft, can this get the nod now?

Estimat Túischac'h, I rise to deliver a question to the Minister of Immigration @þerxh Sant-Enogat.

1) Considering the recent attempt at re-immigration under a pseudonym of a previously blocked candidate, can the Immigration Minister please explain the steps under which, "using information provided in the application and after investigating to the best of its ability", the Ministry of Immigration became "satisfied that this application is Bona Fide"?

2) Given the intent of 54RZ4, enacted specifically in response to a successful applicant for citizenship giving a false name, can the Minister give any indication of how many applications for citizenship he has processed during his term in office, and what he did in each case to fulfil the requirement of El Lexhatx E.2 to "collect the legal name or name used in daily life" of each prospective citizen?

My biggest argument for an unicameral Cosă is that a bicameral system requires too many people to sit in it; too many people who would rather not be politicians are pressed into service by their parties.

Quote from: Mic'haglh Autófil, SMC EiP on April 24, 2024, 05:49:33 PMI think S:reu Puntmasleu mentioned implementing -- or I guess re-implementing! -- a system that allowed people to change their provincial assignments once every so often.

No, no, NO. That just opens the door to gerrymandering Senäts seats with such a low population. The only stable form of provincial assignment is geographic, given that we need periodic shake-ups of the map to balance immigration flows.

I understand the worries about oversight; but if we want the Convocation to be independent (to the point where the Ziu aren't allowed to set rules for it), then we have to believe that it can decide for itself what kind of scrutiny its votes may have. In any case, there is a larger "check" on screwery, that being the Ziu and referendum confirmation.

But I hope the last bit assuages the CRL's worries?

Quote from: Baron Alexandreu Davinescu on April 23, 2024, 05:49:26 PM

Quote from: Miestră Schivă, UrN on April 23, 2024, 04:23:46 PM

Quote from: Baron Alexandreu Davinescu on April 23, 2024, 10:48:00 AMMaybe the solution is just to do a separate bill?  That would be easiest, and I think trust would extend that far at this point.  If they were viewed as a joint package, I'd support that (not that I have a vote, but I am pretty noisy).

Can we do a separate bill as a joint package, i.e. the two go up or go down together? I would be worried that one would get vetoed but the other passed.

I really really really doubt you need to worry about a veto. And yes the provisions can be easily written so that they are contingent on each other. That is a good solution. That wouldn't go in the text, but in the therefore clauses. I can do it tonight if you'd like.

Yeah good, I liked the wording in my Abdication Bill. If there really is no chance of a veto, this is the dignified way out.