Quote from: Sir Lüc on June 03, 2025, 08:34:55 AMI for one am glad we're increasing the number of portfolios rather than axing them. It may be counterintuitive, but it adds way more flexibility to deal with fluctuating activity levels and managing individual ministers's workload.

Assuming you can find an extra Cabinet minister, and you're not just chopping one hat into two

Quote from: Baron Alexandreu Davinescu on June 03, 2025, 03:54:52 PMso what other details can you share then, from that process?

Well, we created a list of questions from this company and got a list of answers in return - @Mic'haglh Autófil, O.Be was the point man on this, and I'll ask Cabinet for permission to republish those.

Quote from: Baron Alexandreu Davinescu on June 03, 2025, 09:53:31 AMI hope that the Government does the responsible thing and explores the idea, privately, even if it doesn't work out as a good idea.

The Government has already explored the idea privately. Why do you think it's taken a month to go public, lol :D

I, personally, am vehemently opposed to the idea, for reasons I'll explore in another post, but that was not a Cabinet consensus. So after a lot of discussion, and posting questions to these people, we decided to advise His Maj to make the proposal public.

I am leaning more towards Production being a Civil Service (i.e. totally non-political) branch of the State. "Making things" IMHO requires some level of specialisation (or at least being able to get in touch with manufacturers), and it would honestly be good to have all of that in one place.

Incidentally, as I envisage it, Production would make all kinds of things we need - Talossaware, ID cards - but ID cards should no longer be under STUFF. The purpose of STUFF is publicity and information for and about Talossa. The *design and issue* (as opposed to manufacture) of ID cards should, I feel, probably come under Immigration (to be renamed Immigration and Citizenship)?

All this of course assumes that there's someone who could be a Civil Servant who thinks they could have a go at Making Stuff, or at least Ensuring Stuff Gets Made.

Twenty-one years ago today, Tamoran dal Navă, Mic'haglh Popeu, @GV, @Gjermund Higraff and seven others Dared Something Worthy and struck the first major blow for a democratic Talossa, which led us to where we are today.

We honour their tenacity and their sacrifice, and the traditions of the Republic which they founded, still embodied in the Free Province of Fiovă today.

Quote from: mximo on June 01, 2025, 10:23:50 AMhave  concerned by what appears to be undue interference by the Prime Minister in the internal affairs of our Province

? All I did is cite a historical fact. I would like to call as my witness that defender of Talossa's traditions, @Baron Alexandreu Davinescu , to confirm that yes, Cunstavais have traditionally not been citizens of the provinces they oversees, and that was undoubtedly a deliberate choice by Good King John and his court at the time.

Quote from: Baron Alexandreu Davinescu on May 31, 2025, 10:37:38 PMthe Senats has served to allow for individual representation of the interests of each province

See, I don't believe that provinces in Talossa have distinct interests, with the possible exception of Cezembre.

Quote from: Baron Alexandreu Davinescu on May 31, 2025, 09:36:14 PMI present to you an active and engaged monarch, helping others and promoting our culture.  That would be impossible if the monarchy had been eliminated

Can we go to the alternate universe where President Nordselvă took office 10 years ago and is on his third term of doing an excellent job? In that alternate universe, I can also imagine that Talossa has 200 active citizens who are all fluent conversationalist in ár glheþ, because I'm not wedded to status-quo bias.

Deleted a post because it made my point inexpertly, let's see if this is better:

Quote from: Baron Alexandreu Davinescu on May 31, 2025, 08:12:12 PMthe existence of the Senats helps protect the sheer continued existence of the provinces... If we asked our senators whether or not it's part of their job to look out for the well-being of their provinces in particular, I hope they'd agree.

You're doing that thing again where you act like the purpose of democratic elections is to preserve the institutions, rather than the institutions serving a democratic function.

The provinces existed before the Senäts and were just as lively (or not).

Quote from: Marcel Eðo Pairescu Tafial, UrGP on May 31, 2025, 09:02:33 PMwhether we continue to pretend that Senators are above party politics or not.

Yeah, this is part of what I'm getting at. AD is pretending (or, as he says, "hoping") that current Senators are "loyal to their province" - i.e. he would prefer that they act if that was the case. Because if they're not, if - for example - the Senäts is just as partisan as the Cosa only not elected on a proportionally representative basis - then his argument about the incentives the Senäts provides are inoperative.

It's actually a wider issue of pretending that Talossa is a federation. It's not, even though the 1997 OrgLaw was copied from that of an actual federation (Australia, thank you Evan). Again: provinces were created top-down by the Kingdom. They're analogous to maybe English counties, which have pomp and tradition and value but not a guaranteed seat in Parliament.

Can I just say that Cunstavais have never been citizens of the provinces they oversee on behalf of the King.

Quote from: Munditenens Tresplet on May 30, 2025, 08:21:50 AMWould this amendment actually end the push to dissolve the Senate and/or force the merger of provinces over their will? It seems like it would, and that would be a strong reason to favor it, given the political push in the other direction. (This isn't to say I'm in support of the amendment at this time, just that I continue to keep an open mind.)

I can personally say that the at-large Senäts would end the interest in provincial mergers on my part, or at least, the interest in any mergers which weren't initiated by the provinces themselves.

Quote from: Baron Alexandreu Davinescu on May 30, 2025, 11:04:02 AMIf we switch to an at-large Senats, then we're divorcing provinces from their only meaningful connection with the national legislature.  That's what this bill would do.  That puts the provinces in danger,

No they're not. Before 1997, when there was no Senäts, the provinces were intermittently active when anyone took an interest in them (usually to annoy the Kingdom government). Since 1997, the provinces have been... intermittently active when anyone takes an interest in them. It has NO relation to the Senäts seat. I would love Fiova's delightful direct-democracy constitution to get more interest, but whether it does or not has no relation to whether we keep giving GV an uncontested legislative seat every 2 years or not.

And Mic'haglh keeps talking to you about his MMP Cosa idea, which IMHO makes the provincial connection stronger. Adopting it along with an at-large Senäts seems a fine tradeoff.

QuoteIf we're going to do this, we'll be abandoning some old traditions and history,

Or going back to even older ones? Talossan history didn't start in 1997.

Please to be Clarking the 61st Cosă Budget.

Quote from: King Txec on May 29, 2025, 04:44:04 PM

Quote from: Miestră Schivă, UrN-GC on May 29, 2025, 04:37:41 PMI'm not happy that this debate got derailed onto "schemes for increasing activity", btw. That's the problem with political conservatism - there can never be a problem with the institutions, the question has to be how do we recruit to structures that people objectively aren't interested in.

Yeah, sorry about that. I'm a bit salty today.

You're not the one who started it, and your points are excellent ones; make them in another thread, please :D

Quote from: þerxh Sant-Enogat on May 29, 2025, 03:30:33 PMI want to keep the principle of a provincial representation, as a better way to have a second line of defense against damaging changes.

Well, that's just a repetition of a theme we got from the monarchy debates. "A defense against changes happening" is political conservatism. Many of us aren't political conservatives, so that argument means nothing to us.

I'm not happy that this debate got derailed onto "schemes for increasing activity", btw. That's the problem with political conservatism - there can never be a problem with the institutions, the question has to be how do we recruit to structures that people objectively aren't interested in.