Quote from: Glüc da Dhi S.H. on April 13, 2024, 04:19:02 AM- Mximo I know is somewhat controversial, but he is on average about equally controversial on both sides of the political spectrum, depending on what year we live in, which might make him a good compromise candidate. And he's managed to stick around for a long time and become part of our history despite receiving quite a lot of pushback. Id be down for King Mximo.

I'm somewhat "on the spectrum" so forgive me if I can't tell which of the three reactions is appropriate:

a) Ha ha, well, that excuses me from taking this proposal seriously in any way.

b) I suppose if you're intermittently active in Talossa, deliberately causing uproar and chaos at the heart of the political system might be funny from a distance, but less funny for the people who keep this Kingdom going day to day to put up with this - let's re-emphasise because the good Baron insists on it - lifetime appointment.

c) Someone always seems to come up with a "wacky suggestion" just when we seem to be close to consensus on political reform. I am reminded of someone saying that nothing should really be allowed to change in Talossan politics because that would make it confusing for citizens to come back from extended break. Like, Talossa should be a daytime soap opera where nothing really changes and nothing really happens.

QuoteAlso, we can give people a chance. If they turn out to be tyrants (which is hardly possible considering the limited power the monarch has) or, more likely, are completely inactive, we can remove them, knowing a replacement procedure is in place and we wouldnt need to go through all this mess again.

We are here because we have spent six years trying to remove a monarch.

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.

Well, 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.

Let's look at the actual figures. The succession to the throne would be:

1) Gjermund Higraff.
2) Mximo Carbonel.
3) Ieremiac'h Ventrutx.

I like Gjermund but he's less active than John. As for the others........

Not happening.

Poland cannot into space

Quote from: Miestră Schivă, UrN on April 11, 2024, 11:27:48 PMWell, I am not going to support letting the current, admittedly otiose incumbent choose his own successor, let's put it that way. But I'm open to other suggestions.

I should specify that I and the Free Democrats are perfectly fine with the status quo of succession, i.e. by regular process of Organic Law amendment - in essence an "elective monarchy" as was ancient Germanic tradition, the way of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth, and today the Papacy lol.

If people are perfectly fine with the status quo you need to offer them something better to shift, which is a sword which has cut both ways over the years with the monarchy. For several years we have been in a position without enough people to "legislatively decapitate" or to impose a new consensus on succession. But if we're now in a position where the need for LegDecap is clear to almost all, then to tie that to a need to find a concession for change on the latter issue will mean, again, years of inaction.

Well, I am not going to support letting the current, admittedly otiose incumbent choose his own successor, let's put it that way. But I'm open to other suggestions.

Quote from: Baron Alexandreu Davinescu on April 10, 2024, 08:09:41 PMAs I have mentioned recently, I am no longer opposed to the need to do something.  I have done everything I can for many years, but there comes a time when we have to accept the world as it is, not as we wish it would be.  So these days, even I agree that we need to make a change.

But I am not sure if we need wholesale institutional reform on this scale, and I am very sure we don't need the presidency proposed in this bill -- even if we still call it a king -- but we do need to make a change.  This bill is just not very good, riven deep with conflicts of interest that don't make any sense.

I reject the idea that the entire institution of monarchy is flawed.  This is a tiny country, and the first monarch was incredibly active and the central engine of invention for 90% of our culture.  Our current monarch has personally saved the country and was also a huge force for good for a decade, helping in large part to define the country as we know it today.  The institution has worked, and can work again.

Most probably, we just need a change of personnel.  But before that, we need to settle on a future shape for the office, including succession.  The whole thing needs to be kept away from politics as much as possible -- one of the abiding principles of Talossan honour has long been that it must never be sought, only accepted.  And some power must be restored to the office -- it needs the heft of something meaningful to do.  And then I suspect that once everything is set, it will have become apparent what the future shall be... cometh the hour, cometh the sovereign.

You would have seen that I have proposed a "clean decapitation" bill elsewhere. I have sympathy with your wish to have a full settlement for the future in advance, but all the evidence of the past five or more years suggests that that just will not happen. The only reason we got the abolition of the hereditary monarchy through was by saying "we'll sort out the succession later". If we want, as you put it, "a change in personnel" any time soon, let's do that, have a Regency as described in OrgLaw II.5, and then get down to the nitty-gritty. I've suggested a "sunset clause" which would concentrate minds to get such a settlement within a relatively brief time-frame.

We don't have a social consensus for a Republic, and we don't seem to have one for a "term-limited King" either, but we certainly don't have one for "more monarchy, less democracy" either. (Although I would consider compromises like - for example - restore the King's right to name a Seneschal while removing their legislative veto.) So let's do what we seem to all agree on, and the rest later. Otherwise we'll do nothing.

Happy to consider other suggestions for the Regency btw, but this is the existing procedure (with a tweak or two) as stipulated in OrgLaw II.5. We could even have a "sunset clause" to make sure we do actually choose a King in a decent time frame.

I have no issue with either this or the Active Monarchy Assurance Amendment going through, but if they both got Clarked and both passed, we'd be in trouble :D I just have a feeling that this has a better chance.

WHEREAS the King is not living up to the expectations of his citizens in a variety of ways; and

WHEREAS people have complained before but to no effect; and

WHEREAS the above two lines were copy-pasted from a bill first Hoppered five years ago (https://talossa.proboards.com/thread/13577/mean-business-amendment) and nothing significant has changed; and

WHEREAS we need a broad social consensus for any changes to the institution of the Monarchy, which we may not have after years of trying to get one; and

WHEREAS perhaps we do have a consensus on a more narrow issue:

THEREFORE 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

Quotea) The position of King of Talossa is currently vacant, until filled by an amendment to this section.

b) Until a King of Talossa is named in the manner described above, the Uppermost Cort shall act as a Council of Regency, and shall administer the government in the name of the King, and exercise all powers Organically or legally vested in the King, or else may appoint a Regent to fulfill these functions. No person not a citizen of Talossa shall be competent to serve as Regent. The Ziu may by law remove or replace any appointed Regent, and if the Ziu removes a Regent appointed by the Uppermost Cort, the Uppermost Cort may not reappoint the same person Regent without the prior consent of the Ziu.

Look, if people agree that the King is simply not doing his job, but have problems with the "Compromise" approach of a periodic no confidence vote, I will suggest this oldie but a goodie, by Senator Plätschisch, almost 5 years ago (which is an eternity in Talossan years).

In brief:
- this is not "discarding our oldest tradition", but completely in terms with Talossan tradition - the "legislative decapitation" of King Robert II in 1987.

- to be adopted this will need a 3/4 majority of the Cosa (to override the Royal Veto) + 5 Senators + approval in a referendum. That's slightly more than a partisan majority.

- there are two equally good flavours of this: either

QuoteThere is currently no King of Talossa.

or

QuoteThe King of Talossa is Txec, First of his name, of the House of Nordselvă.

I'm not fussed. Honestly I think Baron Alexandreu would make a great SoS.

But note the date above. John's absolute neglect of his duties (except for vetoing attempts to call him to account) has been going on for more than 5 years now. That's longer than most of you have been citizens. The Free Democrats and other parties - and more recently the Distáin - have been trying to do something about this. Our political opponents have blocked every attempt. And the King continues to do nothing. I'm not sure who is satisfied with this state of affairs.

Quote from: Miestră Schivă, UrN on April 02, 2024, 03:02:09 PMEstimat Túischac'h, I rise with a question for the Seneschal. Does he agree that the Minister of Defense has responded to this Terpelaziun from Senator Plätschisch appropriately, given that previous Ministers of Defense have answered similar questions courteously and informatively?

This question has gone unanswered for a week and I would like the Túischac'h to give the Seneschál the hurry-up on this.

Estimat Túischac'h, I rise to ask a question of the Minister of STUFF, who I believe was @Carlüs Éovart Vilaçafat last time I looked.

When will the National Website be updated to include the last *checks notes* EIGHT months of La C'hronică?

I'm not sure an endorsement where most of the Cosă delegation are going to vote against it (thus dooming it to defeat) is much of an endorsement...

Estimat Túischac'h, I rise with a question for the Seneschal. Does he agree that the Minister of Defense has responded to this Terpelaziun from Senator Plätschisch appropriately, given that previous Ministers of Defense have answered similar questions courteously and informatively?