Quote from: Baron Alexandreu Davinescu on April 15, 2024, 07:36:42 PMWe should establish an expectation and a norm in the law that His Majesty nominates someone, the Ziu approves it, and the people affirm it.

I have to reiterate the expressed position of the Free Democrats that Ziu approval must be OrgLaw-amendment threshold, i.e. 2/3 of the Cosa.

I also don't want to be in the position I have been over and over again in Talossa - where I express myself loosely and AD decides that I just agreed with him and bulldozes forward on that position. This is not a "compromise". This is an alternative.

Let me be very clear. If the King, or someone working for him, puts up a OrgLaw amendment establishing a timeline for his abdication and a process for succession in time for the 6th Clark, then I will hold off on my own bills for it to be voted on, on its merits (assuming that it is a bill solely dealing with these matters, with no tinkering to the role/powers of the Monarchy). If no such OrgLaw amendment is ready in time, then we proceed to a Vacant Throne or to a Ziu nomination.

If the King makes a nomination, but that nomination has to achieve an "OrgLaw" threshold (2/3 of the Cosa), and the Ziu is free to make an alternative nomination if the King's is unacceptable, then that's fine by me. I note that the King has always had the right to introduce legislation, of which this is a special case.

Quote from: þerxh Sant-Enogat on April 15, 2024, 01:27:46 PMI just read Baron Alexandreu's words, and I agree that letting the King propose a successor would be the most coherent scenario to ensure the historical continuity on which our Nation is build upon.

There have been two "successful" Kings of Talossa: Robert I and John I.
 
Robert I founded the nation; John I was chosen by the Ziu by a supermajority and endorsed by the people in referendum.

"Hand-picked successors" were: Robert II, Florence, and Louis.

I'll leave it to you to decide what the appropriate Talossan "historical continuity" is.

Quote from: Ian Plätschisch on April 15, 2024, 09:16:52 AMHave we considered just asking the King who he would want his successor to be?

A concern of a lot of FreeDems is that, if the King picks, his selection would be unpalatable. If we ask in advance, we could see if that person would have broad support and then we can just amend the Organic Law accordingly, without all the red tape.

The King, should he be available, is free to publicly announce his preferred successor; in fact I encourage him to do so. And the Ziu and people should be free to utterly ignore that suggestion.

We need 134+ votes in the Ziu to even put the replacement of the King on the agenda. 85 of those votes - the Free Democrats -  fought the last election precisely on the issue that the King should not be allowed to choose his own successor without the threshold required for any other OrgLaw reform. There are currently two options on the table:

- 1) leaving the succession open until after we know the Throne is empty;
- 2) naming a successor which would have broad support from both major parties.

If neither of these options will get 134+ votes anymore, then this debate is inoperative and Zombie King John stays. It seems the two "swing votes" in the TNC have gone back to precisely the option that the FreeDems fought the last election against, and I'm very discouraged.

Quote from: mximo on April 14, 2024, 09:55:35 PMSometimes it seems like your comments about me aren't changing.

Parce que les comportements ne changent non plus

If we don't get a consensus, I suppose I'll submit *both* versions to the CRL and then make the call over which to Clark at the last minute :D

I'd like to hear other TNC MCs, in particular @þerxh Sant-Enogat and @Carlüs Éovart Vilaçafat, as to which option they'd prefer (a "clean vacancy" or a named successor + succession to be determined by law with a default option). Once we have 140+ votes declared for a preferred option we can proceed.

I'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.

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.

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.