Exactly as I said. The FreeDems have no party position on any facet of the PdR proposal.

The goal of this approach, agreed by Cabinet, is to create a single proposal for thorough-going Organic Law reforms. That is, a consensus document, rather than an up-and-down vote on any particular issue eg. unicameralism. Once the consensus document is established, the FreeDems may adopt a party line, or allow a free vote. So there will be no "vote on unicameralism" as a single issue, in this process anyway. The FreeDems will certainly not, as a party, block any proposal just because it would remove our current ability to direct all of Brenéir's sillier bills to the circular file, which I believe was the implication.

Senator Plätschisch and I disagree on several constitutional issues, and this right now is one of them. But it's quite rude to imply that his stance on unicameralism is either venal "job protection" or for partisan advantage, rather than a principled position, and that deserves an apology I think.

Quote from: Brenéir, probablyThe Free Democrats are a deeply undemocratic organization which operates in lockstep with whatever Miestră tells them to do. Except in this one case, where they will (as a party) do the opposite of Miestră's preference.

Because that's what I need to justify my subjective hostility.

The FreeDems are not taking a position as a party on anything in this debate.

No, no, listen to yourself:

Quote from: Brenéir, probablyI support unicameralism.

Miestră, the FreeDems President, supports unicameralism.

A FreeDems Senator supports unicameralism.

No FreeDem has publicly opposed unicameralism.

CONCLUSION: the FreeDems are going to oppose unicameralism, because that's what I need to believe to make my subjective hostility make sense.

Quote from: Breneir Tzaracomprada on September 25, 2024, 06:23:45 PM

Quote from: Miestră Schivă, UrN on September 25, 2024, 04:51:14 PM

Quote from: Breneir Tzaracomprada on September 25, 2024, 03:36:29 PMI'll believe the FreeDems support Senats abolition when they propose it and make an effort to pass it. But please note I said "the FreeDems" not Miestra personally...

Looks like GV, a FreeDems senator, supports the abolition, which is surprising ...

Do you even listen to yourself speak?

Again, propose and pass it. Your personal beliefs I am hoping are not law even in the backrooms of the FreeDems debate lounge.

When the FreeDems take a position as a caucus on something, it's anti-democratic behind-closed-doors rigged partisanship. When they don't, in favour of an open debate with a hopefully non-partisan conclusion, it's just as bad, for... reasons.

That reason being Brenéir's subjective hostility.

I would *recommend* listening to yourself speak.

Quote from: Baron Alexandreu Davinescu on September 25, 2024, 10:59:02 AM-We already have barely any checks in our system to curtail a Government.  They have steadily vanished over the years.  This would eliminate yet another.  This is a serious problem.

The United States has a reasonably unique political culture on a global level, in the sense that the horizon of liberal thought is that democracy and the rule of law are meant to stop the government doing things, rather than to enable the popular will to be expressed through government doing things. I agree with the Baron that elections are where Talossa comes alive, but I've never been happy with the argument that the best elections are where nothing changes and nothing happens except a different group of people get to "wear the funny hat" while doing nothing.

That said: my desire for unicameralism is not to remove roadblocks to Government power (why would it when my party has had a lock for the last few terms?), it's the Warm Bodies problem. Having a bicameral legislature requires too many citizens to operate, leading to the "drafting" of quasi-unwilling citizens who act as "lobby fodder". Also, the provinces as they stand have unequal numbers of politically committed citizens, meaning that barely-active incumbents can pretty much carry on in office forever. I want a legislature which has *competitive* elections and is composed of citizens who are keen to be there.

Quote from: Marcel Eðo Pairescu Tafial, UrGP on September 25, 2024, 05:12:00 PM

Quote from: Mic'haglh Autófil, SMC EiP on September 25, 2024, 04:42:06 PMIf we were to move to an MMP Cosa, it may make it possible to hold "mid-term" elections, so to speak.

Electing provincial seats separately from list seats would make it not MMP, but its much less proportional cousin Parallel Voting. Speaking strictly for myself, I would oppose such a system.

True in general, but my country has "by-elections" when a Direktmandat becomes vacant. That sometimes messes up proportionality a bit, but *shrug*

Quote from: Breneir Tzaracomprada on September 25, 2024, 03:36:29 PMI'll believe the FreeDems support Senats abolition when they propose it and make an effort to pass it. But please note I said "the FreeDems" not Miestra personally...

Looks like GV, a FreeDems senator, supports the abolition, which is surprising ...

Do you even listen to yourself speak?

Quote from: Breneir Tzaracomprada on September 25, 2024, 09:52:15 AMA general question. Do we know when the FreeDems and COFFEE proposals are expected?

The FreeDems aren't making any formal proposal, and I don't think COFFEE are either.  That's not how this is going to work, because the Coalition parties wanted this to debate to achieve broad social consensus, not a partisan numbers game.  But PdR had a plan, and we encouraged them to present it to start the debate. I've given my personal opinion.

Quote from: Mic'haglh Autófil, SMC EiP on September 25, 2024, 09:29:22 AM

Quote from: Breneir Tzaracomprada on September 24, 2024, 11:41:52 PMWith the current FreeDems composition of the Senats you are NEVER going to get them to support this. Open Society gives it a thumbs up though.

This feels a little uncharitable, given Miestra herself has supported unicameralism but last month.

It's more than uncharitable. It's mean, and near to actual political disinformation.

Once again, I personally am pro-unicameral, because I am motivated by things other than partisan advantage.

Within a few years you were a republican :D

And look at you now :D

I'd be happy with an amendment saying that the Immigration Minister has to make a monthly report to the Ziu of all applications for citizenship which didn't get posted and why they didn't get posted, if that would make any difference (probably won't)

Quote from: Tric'hard Lenxheir on September 23, 2024, 09:20:27 PMI think you are wrong. I would not even know where to begin in writing an essay.

You did write an essay! The current law requires you to write an essay. This is the essay you wrote:

QuoteI find the concept intriguing. I chose Talossa after reading about several micronations and found the details most interesting. I like the inclusivity and the freedom. Let's face it I also find the concept a bit humorous 😂

I don't see any reason why that essay would be rejected under the new law either. Finding the concept humorous certainly indicates an understanding of what Talossa is.

I'm not personally in favour of a year-long Cosă term, since - as I've previously noted - Talossa only "comes alive" in election seasons. The specific amendments to the electoral system seem over-the-top and complicated to me. However, I think the "King/Ziu power swap" proposal has something to recommend it, and I'm in favour of unicameralism/an MMP Cosă if it can be done with minimal fuss.

I encourage other input.

I would just re-iterate that this is not the consensus plan of the Cabinet, nor a preferred one; but one from which we can start open discussion and perhaps submit a formal proposal this Cosa.

Quote from: Baron Alexandreu Davinescu on September 22, 2024, 10:28:18 PMI'm not sure it's equally hard to stay objective about proof of someone's physical reality

Yeah, the thing is, unless you've got the investigative resources of a macronational police force, it is impossible to be 100% sure that Joe Schmoe from Bupkis, Alaska in the immigrant queue is who they say they are. I mean, they can provide social media accounts, etc., but it would be trivially easy for a determined crook falsify these (as I say, Lord Whatsisface fooled my predecessor). The Immigration Minister must use their discretion to decide, on the balance of probabilities, that the credentials offered are bona fide.

Not every use of discretion - for example, one to say "I don't think you understand what Talossa really is, here's some info, please rewrite your application accordingly" - is corrupt. That line of thought ends up with, for public officials, "anything not compulsory is forbidden" and hand the whole thing over to AI. Or, it ends at an arbitrary space, chosen for political advantage.