@Eiric S. Bornatfiglheu @Marcel Eðo Pairescu Tafial

Edit: Ok, since apparently there is a month of recess coming up, the urgency is not as great as I thought it was.

As for the progressivism/conservatism debate, Talossa needs both.

Without change, Talossa becomes stale and politics doesnt matter because nothing ever changes so why bother. Too much change, and everything becomes meaningless because everything we build can be chucked away just as easily. What purpose is there to anything we do if next year we're going to do everything differently again?

In the RUMP days, we clearly had too little change. The rules for orglaw amendments were actually stricter than they are now. Every idea was immediately shot down by fortress senate and ther words "if it ain't broken, don't fix it" were uttered almost daily.

The past few years however, weve changed forum, pretty much every institution has seen some major reform, we've adopted an entire new constitution, and the hereditary monarchy has been abolished. This hasn't led to any major surge in activity. We've also come dangerously close to passing a deadly bill that would remove people from the rolls for not filling in the census. For citizens who are still around but not that active anymore its difficult to keep up, which I fear means many who fall behind are probably lost forever.

Not saying we should stop reforming stuff altogether and I certainly don't blame anyone for arguing for any further changes, including abolishing the monarchy, if that is what they feel is right, but fears about Talossa being hyperconservative and nothing ever changing are wildly overblown, as the amount of constitutional changes we've had in the last few years clearly shows.

I used to be clearly on the progressive side of things around here, now I'm somewhat on the conservative side. Maybe that's because I have changed, but there's no denying Talossa has too.

I suppose that was more a general remark than directed at the TNC/NPW votes per se. To clarify: I don't thinking breaking election promises is a good thing, even though in this particular case, I'm glad about the result.

But MC's voting for bad laws on a partisan basis without bothering with the details has gone beyond just fulfilling manifesto planks. And even when there is a consensus about the general direction in which things should move, it could still be valuable for MCs to think about whether they are happy with the details, and often this doesnt seem to happen.

Also, collective action can happen as a result of discussion in the Ziu. It doesnt need to be done as a deal beforehand, especially when its not that strongly related to the functioning of the government.

The TNC and NPW voting against their pledge was quite surprising. I can imagine quite frustrating for someone on the other side of the debate, though I suppose many monarchist LCC voters were equally upset last term when the LCC decided to support the bill (which was decidedly not-conservative and not-monarchist) in the first place.

Not sure what to think of the abstain vote now. Although its true it was said each MC would get a free vote, the list of MCs during the election used to include Danihel Txechescu and the campaign, the promise to come up with an alternative and the word "Conservative" in the party name will surely have led many voters to believe that the party wouldnt be voting for a bill that basically left no part of the Talossan monarchy remaining, other than the name. Then again, I wasn't an LCC voter this time around, so maybe I'm wrong. Instead next election I'll have to explain to KLüP voters why we failed in convincing Lüc to become King. Our highly ideological and devoted base might not take that all too well.

Not opposed to reducing the size of the Cosa, but I will say that if having more parties is preventing coalitions from deciding on major constitutional reform in a backroom deal rather than through debate in the Ziu I can only see that as a good thing.

At the very least more parties also means more MCs who are thinking for themselves rather than just go along blindly with whatever the party leader says.

Some suggestions:

* remove MC's, Senators and the Seneschal from the convocation (or even better: explicitly exclude them). The King should ideally be some counterbalance to the short term politics that govern us and represent its long-term culture and history. I'd be nice if the system that produces the monarch was completely separated from the partisan politics which already dominates everything else.
(We shouldn't really want parties with silly names like the King Lüc Party explicitly campaigning on their position in the convocation whenever a convocation is coming up)

* The convocation should probably also be convened whenever we are without a King for other reasons than the convocation removing him.

* Maybe establish some explicit procedure for convening the convocation. I.e. have someone (the SoS?) call all eligible members (maybe an email requirement) and then set some deadline at which point the convocation is fixed (and anyone who hasn't responded to the call at that point is not part of that particular convocation.

* Some formal system for the various voting round when choosing a new King. For example:
Each vote takes two days and is preceded by three days of discussion.
New votes are called until a candidate reaches 2/3rd of the vote
In the first two rounds all votes are free
In the third round members are only allowed to vote for candidates who received votes in the second round (or abstain)
In the fourth round members are only allowed to vote for candidates who received at least 10% of the vote in the third round (or abstain).
In the fifth round members are only allowed to vote for the top 4 candidates from the fourth round (or abstain).
In the sixth round members are only allowed to vote for the top 3 candidates from the fifth round (or abstain).
In the seventh and eight round members are only allowed to vote for the top 2 candidates from the sixth round (or abstain).
In the ninth and tenth round members are only allowed to vote for or against the candidate with the most votes in the eight round.
If after ten rounds the remaining candidate does not get 2/3rd of the vote, the convocation is dissolved and a referendum is held on the remaining candidate during the next election. If the candidate fails a new convocation is called the month following the election.

The above is just an example, but this is supposed to be a major event that solidifies the Monarchy and its legitimacy for another seven years. Some overly formal and pompous rules would be nice (plus there should definitely be some rules to establish what happens if no candidate gets 2/3rd of the vote anyway).

Any thoughts on these suggestions:

https://wittenberg.talossa.com/index.php?topic=752.msg8078#msg8078 ?

Also, would the Committee agree that if the bill were to be amended in that way it would not be "so substantially different from its original form as a legislative proposal that it constitutes a significantly different proposal."

Wrote a version that allows for all kinds of exceptions. (Changes in bold)

I am considering writing an amendment that more explictly suggests committees should be delegated to MCs/Senators depending on the topic, rather than every bill being handled by the same trio. The proposal allows that as an option, but maybe it should be the default somehow. I guess that can also be added later though (if the bill passes and it turns out that option is not being used in practice).

Havent dealt with spending and emergencies. I suppose those are covered by the Seneschal superpowers for now, but if limits were placed on that (which I think should happen) then that is something to keep in mind.

I was also considering some very complicated workaround with regards to the support needed to move to committee, but I suppose scrapping that requirement altogether was the more sensible move.



BE IT ENACTED by the King, Cosă and Senäts of Talossa in Ziu assembled that

1.  El Lexhatx H.6 shall be replaced in its entirety as follows:

Quote6. No bill may be published in a Clark unless it has passed the Hopper, as provided in this section.

6.1.  All citizens of Talossa are entitled to participate fully in discussions and debates in the Hopper, within the bounds of law and of the decisions of the administering and presiding authorities of the Hopper. Any citizen may submit a draft of legislation to the Hopper, though these shall not be considered to be "legislative proposals" until sponsored by one or more individuals authorised to submit legislative proposals under Organic Law VII.5.

6.2 A bill has passed the hopper if it has spent at least 10 days in the Hopper, and is exclusively limited to the following:
6.2.1 Non-binding proclamations that have no effect other than express the wish of the Cosa, Senate, or Ziu as a whole, in which case the bill must contain the words "Sense of the Cosa", "Sense of the Senate" or "Sense of the Ziu" in its title.
6.2.2. Proclamations that establish the position of the Ziu on a foreign policy issue.
6.2.3. Establishment of a committee that has no powers other than advisory powers and whose recommendations must still be approved by the Ziu in order to be binding and making appointments to such a committee.
6.2.4. Appointments to functions that are already defined in law and for which the Ziu is explicitly allowed to make appointments according to law.
6.2.5. Any decision which the law explicitly allows the Ziu to make without the bill containing such a decision having to go through committee.
6.2.6 Removing a regent or consenting to the re-appointment of a regent in accordance with Org.II.5
6.2.7 Revoking a Prime Dictate
6.2.8 Notices of reprimand in accordance with Org.VIII.5
6.2.9. The granting or restoration of citizenship

6.3. A bill has passed the hopper if it has spent at least 10 days in the Hopper and at least half of the Senators and 2/3 of Cosă seats express their support in the Hopper for clarking the bill.

6.4. After a legislative proposal has spent at least 10 days in the Hopper, its proposer may request that it "move to committee". No bill may be Clarked without being "moved to committee", except as provided by Lex.H.6.2 or Lex.H.6.3

6.5. A Legislative Advisory Committee of Talossa (in Talossan, el Comità da Redacziun Legislatïu; and hereinafter, "the CRL") shall review or revise all legislative items from the Hopper once they have moved to committee; and may recommend acceptance or rejection, or suggest amendments in their best judgment.
6.5.1 The CRL shall conduct all its deliberations openly in the Hopper.
6.5.2 The CRL shall consist of the incumbent Mençéi, Túischac'h, and Avocat-Xheneral.
6.5.3. The CRL may create further committees to which their functions may be delegated, as concerns any bill or category of bills. Such a committee must have at least 3 members, including at least 1 MC and at least 1 Senator.

6.6. After the CRL has given its recommendation, or if it gives no recommendation within 30 days of the bill having passed to committee, the bill has passed the hopper and the sponsor of the bill may ask for it to be Clarked, with or without amendments.
6.6.1 The same bill can not be submitted to the Clark more than once in the same Cosa, unless the original bill was vetoed, the original bill had been retired or voted down by its main sponsor during the voting period, or the bill has been substantially amended, as judged by the Secretary of State.
6.6.2. Bills must be submitted to the Secretary of State more than 24 hours before the publication of the Clark. Bills received less than 24 hours before publication of the Clark shall be published in the next Clark or postponed for one Clark, at the Secretary of State's discretion.

6.7. The Secretary of State is empowered to refuse to put a certain bill on a Clark if said bill;
6.7.1. appears to him to be obviously on its face inorganic, or to have such grave errors as would make it ineffective and/or require further legislation or a Prime Dictate to make it effective.
6.7.2. does not specify exactly the Law(s) or Article(s) which it seeks to amend, change, or repeal, if the bill seeks to amend, change, or repeal any Article of the Organic Law or any Law
6.7.3. is not clearly typed or word-processed; and/or
6.7.4. is so substantially different from its form as a legislative proposal when "passed to committee" that it constitutes a significantly different proposal.
6.7.5. has not passed the hopper or is deemed by the sponsor to have passed the hopper in accordance with Lex.H.6.2. but is in the judgement of the Secretary of State not limited exclusively limited to the items listed in Lex.H.6.2.
6.7.6. Any such decision shall be subject to judicial review.

6.8. All bills submitted for the Clark shall be in one of the national languages.

6.9. The Secretary of State shall remove legislative proposals from "The Hopper" at the request of the author.
6.9.1 If a legislative proposal has remained in the "The Hopper" for more than 59 days, it shall be considered to have been removed, though any person entitled to do so may subsequently re-publish it.

6.10. Notwithstanding the rules about a bill's eligibility to be Clarked, if no bill was submitted to the Clark at the moment of publication, the Secretary of State shall be allowed to add to the Clark a simple bill asking for Quorum where Cosa Members and Senators can vote to confirm their presence for the Clark.

6.11. The Secretary of State is under no obligation to create a permanent record of legislative proposals in "The Hopper."

2.Lex.G.11.4. is amended to read:

Quote11.4. Retired status can be revoked only in the event of a conviction by a Talossan Court for misconduct while serving in a judicial capacity. In the event of such conviction, revocation of retirement privileges shall be contained as part of the sentencing order. Retired status can also be revoked by the Ziu through majority vote, without needing to go through committee, and approval by the Monarch. Such legislative action can be taken only after the retiree has been convicted by a Talossan Court for misconduct while serving in a judicial capacity and only after all appeals have been exhausted.

3. Lex.H.25.1 is amended to read:

Quote25.1 Members who cannot attend will not be denied the right to vote on that month's Clark. They may send their votes to the Secretary of State by any means feasible, so that they can be announced at the Living Cosâ. A member may, in writing, delegate his authority to vote (temporarily transfer his seats) to another person who can attend the Living Cosâ, but no individual may hold more than thirty seats, counting both proxy and permanently assigned seats, for purposes of the Living Cosâ. The Ziu may provide by law, without needing to go through committee, for quorum requirements, and for attendance via telephone, videoconference, or other remote means.

4. Lex.C.1.2.2.2. is amended to read:

Quote1.2.2.2. Other questions on the Talossan Census shall be identical to the questions on the last census. These questions may be changed by the Chancery, either of its own volition or on request from the Seneschal, but any changes shall be approved by the Ziu, without needing to go through committee. These questions will be marked as optional, and at no time shall a citizen be forced or required to respond to an optional question.

5. El Lexhatx H.7, H.11, H.12 and H.13 are hereby deleted in their entirety, and Title H of El Lexhatx will subsequently be renumbered.

On a separate note, the KLüP will vote against 55RZ21. I don't think there would be much left of the monarchy if that passes. On the other hand, if it fails I would be open to supporting some kind of alternative, perhaps along the lines of what the LCC said they would propose, though it depends on the details and the discussion in the Ziu. (Or perhaps the KLüP will come up with its own bill, who knows ;))

On further thought, I don't think ultimately it should be possible for a bill to be defeated without enough members to defeat the bill in the clark actively opposing it.

Still like the compulsory committee idea, although there should be exceptions.

If it gets clarked in its current form I will vote against it, but either way I will come up with some suggested amendments in August.

I'm not too fond of the separate votes idea if there isn't any option for amendments in between. Already the Ziu seems unlikely to reject a bill after flaws have been discovered, because 'it's been clarked now anyway and doing it again takes too long'. If it takes two months to pass a bill, the pressure is only going to become greater. It also means that the effective deadline for getting something done in a cosa term is earlier, which might just lead to a bigger rush to finish a bill. That wouldn't be a problem if there is still room for amendments after, but without that it just seems pointless.

Quote from: Miestră Schivă, UrN on July 21, 2021, 06:55:11 PM
BUMP. I'm minded to Clark this unless I get any feedback on specific amendments. I've spoken to the Túischac'h and he likes it.

What bill are we talking about here exactly?

Congratulations to the new cabinet!

Quote from: Miestră Schivă, UrN on July 21, 2021, 05:38:06 PMa) the KLüP was not prepared to actually put their flagship policy into action at this time; (b) after a week or two of delays, we found out that no-one had actually asked Lüc da Schir, who actually does not want to be King of Talossa. So that went nowhere, and the KLüP's voters might wonder what they actually voted for.

Well the first part of this is an egregious lie. The KLüP (which is not Lüc) would be more than happy to make Lüc our King, preferably in a backroom deal without an election, as the coalition generously proposed.

Sadly, the part about Lüc not currently wanting to be King is true, at least at this moment. I guess he is the hero we need, but don't deserve. In the KLüP's defense though, we never claimed he did. (As our campaign mails noted: "Lüc da Schir is not responsible for the content of this advertising.") I still dream of the day Lüc returns to fulfill his destiny. Perhaps a bigger mandate for the KLüP next election would help convince him.

I'd have to abstain as well I'm afraid. I applaud the attempt at expanding the Cézembrean culture, but three languages is probably enough, especially since I'm not aware of any Cézembrean citizen who actually speaks Breton.