This version of Wittenberg is now the legal national forum for Talossa! Feel free to explore it, and to check out the threads for feedback, requests and criticisms to make sure Wittenberg is tailored to you.

Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.

Messages - Eðo Grischun

Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 ... 28
Wittenberg / Re: "Compromise"
« on: May 25, 2021, 10:49:37 PM »
Could we also remember that this is NOT just about the events of the past several months where the King abandoned his role and then assigned the most divisive personality in the country to serve as his regent, and that those events are merely the most recent in a long chain of events leading to this point? (It's not even the most recent.  The most recent was his blatant disrespect to the government by not awarding a National Honour that we instructed him to award).

King John has repeatedly stonewalled his own government multiple times on multiple issues for quite some time.  He dragged his heels for months over releasing his personal control over the kingdom's website infrastructure by repeatedly ignoring his own Ministers.  He flat out ignored his Minister of the Interior when his input was requested during the drafting of the Investitures Act and the State Opening of the Cosa Act.  The list goes on...

It is no wonder that the we have reached the point of wanting to 'slam the door shut in Blackrod's face'.

Wittenberg / Re: "Compromise"
« on: May 19, 2021, 08:34:04 PM »
To claim that a piece of legislation is the end of the road is very un-Talossan and outright harmful to our political life.

I agree.  It would be extremely harmful to our country for someone to claim that any piece of legislation closes all future discussion on a topic, forever.

But of course, no one is claiming that.  No one is asking for that.

Instead, monarchists are asking -- quite reasonably! -- what exactly republicans are conceding with their proposed presidency.  As far as I can tell, the only concession is that republicans are not getting all that they want right now.  But that's not a compromise, and it's really hard to see why a monarchist should support it.

If republicans were saying that they would commit to preserving the role of the monarchy in the future if this deal passes, then that might be a compromise.  It would be a bad deal, but at least it would be a deal.  But they are not making that commitment.

No one is saying, "You must promise to make no changes to the monarchy under any circumstances forever," because that would be an absurd request.  But it is equally absurd to pretend that it's simply impossible to make any commitments about your future intentions!  We do that all the time -- this Government has done so repeatedly in recent years.  For example, the coalition agreement states that the Government "will investigate further avenues to sell our coins and stamps."  Was that some crazed pronouncement demanding impossible fealty?  No!  It was a reasonable expression of future intentions.  If all the coins were lost in some tragic accident, then no one would be upset that they stopped selling them.

I am glad that some individuals have expressed reservations about further action.  But there is no official statement about this because there is no larger deal, and no republican considers themselves bound by any compromise.  And that's because there is no compromise.

To me, anything that retains a King as the head of state but introduces a working democratic way of electing/sacking them, is a compromise.

I will note that you are again highlighting a key problem with this "compromise," which is that the people proposing it have not made any commitment to retain the label of "king."  You don't seem to think you are bound to keep it, even if you do think it's a good idea in order to fool Americans into immigrating.

Yes.  Election pledges and manifesto promises are made all the time.  What is not done though, is asking for firm commitments on absurd hypotheticals that may never happen.  Yes, the coins might all be lost in some tragic accident one day, but it would be entirely unreasonable to demand that, today, we had the answer to solving such a hypothetical problem.  Would you like us to commit to a future crowdfunding venture that we might need to do but might equally might not need to do?

It seems like you are asking us to make commitments on future actions based on fantasy and prophecy.

I've said already.  From my own personal place in this, my future voting intentions and legislative approach will only seek to go beyond the scope of the currently proposed compromise if a fundamental shift forces it; that if the monarch in some way misbehaves to force action; that if a material change in circumstances develops.

And, again, this is not a proposed presidency.  Every time you say those words you are speaking a completely disingenuous untruth.

Vuode / Re: Estats Xhenerais - States General - Grand Session XII
« on: May 19, 2021, 01:14:19 AM »
I, Éovart Grischun , hereby claim my right to be seated in the next Grand Session of the Estats Xhenerais.

@Dr. Txec Róibeard dal Nordselvă, Esq., O.SPM, SMM

I see you are removing PSCs from Witt ballots. The following rule needs updated in the election thread:

"4 ) Voters will be able to vote on Wittenberg publicly A single vote thread will be created for casting votes on Wittenberg. If you have received your vote code (PSC), you are requested to cast your vote in that thread WITH your PSC."

Wittenberg / Re: Domestic Migration
« on: May 17, 2021, 02:04:18 AM »
To be fair, it's probably something that would need to be tested in Court for a declaratory judgement.

The clause I cited, I think, would only apply to Cosa elections and not for Senates or Provincial Assemblies.  But, I'm still of the view that, for Cosa elections at least, a citizen is a citizen and they can't be denied a vote.  The clause on "according to election law" is followed by "in such a manner which affords to every citizen the opportunity to cast a vote". To me, that means the election law mentioned can't force a situation where a citizen is ever unable to vote for a party to the Cosa.

Wittenberg / Re: May 2021 General Election Polling Station
« on: May 16, 2021, 10:22:17 PM »
Pärts 1: Identificaziun
Éovart Grischun
PSC: SoS removed PSC

Pärts 3: Eleziun per la Cosa

Pärts 4: Intimatità
I want my vote to be public.

Pärts 5: Referendüms
Ref 1: PER
Ref 2: PER
Ref 3: PER

Wittenberg / Re: Domestic Migration
« on: May 16, 2021, 10:08:42 PM »
Asking questions and getting responses like this -- rather than the other reasoned ones in this thread -- can really bring out the meaner and nastier tendencies, don't you think?

Yeah, how much did you consider "nastier tendencies" when you posted that you thought that your previous support for Reunision was a mistake? Perhaps you don't understand how such exclusionary tendencies make other Talossans feel unwelcome, and under threat.

Anyway I was sure that there was positive statute law which said "anyone who immigrates during the election period gets a vote". But I can't find it, so I'm feeling confused. Was there such a law and it was repealed?

Might have been part of the previous OrgLaw?

edit... Whether it was ever explicitly stated like that or not though, it's always been implicit in the fact that all citizens have a right to vote. 

Wittenberg / Re: Domestic Migration
« on: May 16, 2021, 09:35:45 PM »

Why would we suspend immigration? The chances of someone completing the process from start to finish in the 15 days of an election are incredibly slim. If someone were to be granted citizenship while an election was ongoing, why would we not allow them to exercise their rights and vote?

I think the reason could be because of the perceptions of impropriety (not necessarily something nefarious, but just poor optics).
I think this is a fair enough concern, but this also happens incredibly infrequently.  Indeed, I can't think of it ever happening before!  If a province is worried enough about it, they could pass a law providing that only those who are citizens of the province at the start of Balloting Day get a vote.  I might just be blanking, but I don't think there's any Organic conflict there.  Not sure it would be a good idea to do that, though, until a problem actually happens.  No reason to risk disenfranchising people by accident!

I think that would definitely be an Organic conflict. 

"ORG.V.4: During the election period as defined in this article, the Secretary of State shall in every particular conduct the election according to the election laws in such a manner which affords to every citizen the opportunity to cast a vote for the party of his choice"

Every naturalised citizen gets a vote at some point during the election period, so if a prospective becomes fully naturalised before an election ends it would be InOrganic to deny them their vote.

We definitely shouldn't ever have a system where the Organic rights of one citizen is greater or lesser than those of another citizen across provinces either.  Say, Vuode adopted your proposal.  Then say a situation arose where a Vuodean and a Cezembrean naturalised part way through an election leading to the Cezebrean getting to vote and the Vuodean not getting to vote.  I can't see how this squares with OrgLaw.

Wittenberg / Re: "Compromise"
« on: May 16, 2021, 05:45:14 PM »


Vuode / Re: First time voter
« on: May 16, 2021, 05:31:11 PM »
Ok so how do i go about claiming my seat? I see in the provincial constitution it says i have to publicly claim my seat in the Estats Xhenerais but it doesn't say where i am supposed to make that claim LOL

It would be in this sub forum.  Usually someone starts a new thread when an election starts and people will post their claims in there. 

Looking forward to you taking part in our local gov!

Wittenberg / Re: "Compromise"
« on: May 16, 2021, 05:28:02 PM »
So yeah, when I said "party leader," I meant General Davinescu, who is nominally the FDT leader.

Just so we are clear here, you are outright saying that, in your mind, Txoteu is not the leader of the FreeDems, despite him being nominated and elected in accordance with the party constitution?  That he is in some way a sock puppet of Miestra?

Yep.  You sure are fighting from a principled position and it's nothing at all to do with your trolling obsession with Miestra.

What exactly do you get out of acting like such a lamp?

Wittenberg / Re: "Compromise"
« on: May 16, 2021, 04:16:19 AM »
You've already been told that the raising of issues surrounding Honours was in response to the King acting wide.  The government instructed the Monarch to issue a National Honour and he didn't do it, instead he choose to issue a Dynastic Honour.  I'm still of the opinion the King broke the law on this.

Also, don't forget: raising the stink of corruption by giving a Hereditary Peerage to his crony who did his job for him while he sulked.


And, while we are on the topic of peerages, let's just point out the extremely rare times that they have been handed out by King John.

The King's most loyal subject, AD. 
The King's drinking buddy, Hooligan.
And, The King's son, Patrick.
Also, Fritz Buchholtz, which is fair enough, he actually deserved it.

That's it. 

Anybody willing to defend this as anything other than cronyism is having a laugh.

Wittenberg / Re: "Compromise"
« on: May 15, 2021, 11:36:04 PM »
You've already been told that the raising of issues surrounding Honours was in response to the King acting wide.  The government instructed the Monarch to issue a National Honour and he didn't do it, instead he choose to issue a Dynastic Honour.  I'm still of the opinion the King broke the law on this.

Wittenberg / Re: "Compromise"
« on: May 15, 2021, 08:29:14 PM »
So, in the same gaslighting manner, Baron Heed-da-Baw is hinging this whole thing on the idea that the Historic Compromise must be permanent. Really permanent. Never to speak about anything to do with it again permanent. Which... is nonsense.

Obviously, it would be absurd to say that any political agreement would need to last forever or else it's illegitimate.  That's not what I'm saying.

No, that's exactly what you have been saying.  The whole premise of your opposition is based around the fact that it's impossible for supporters of the HC to guarantee they won't ever, ever, ever fiddle about with anything related to the Monarchy in the future or else it's not really a compromise.  Hence your list in a previous reply:

You can't say that you're compromising your vision for a completely Government-run honours system, because you feel free to pursue changing that whenever you please.

You can't say that you'd refuse to rename the king to a new title, because you don't feel like you might want to do that, too.

You can't say that you're bound to protect the king's role in appointments, because maybe you'll disagree with a decision of his and want to change it.

You can't say that you're determined to prevent any change in the length of the "king"s term, because maybe seven years is too long and you'll decide to make it shorter sometime during the first term or next.

You can't say that you're going to protect the royal veto, because maybe it needs to be reduced a little bit more.

Yep.  We can't say any of those things because it's utterly impossible to comment on future events that have not happened and may never happen.  You're whole argument boils down to that.  That the Historic Compromise is rubbish because at some stage in the future we might want to pass a law tinkering with something related to the Monarchy.  It's complete BS.  I applaud your effort though, because you might have managed to confuse a few voters with that tomfoolery wordsmithery.  The fact is, though, that those kind of things will only happen as a reaction to some change in material circumstances caused by future actions of the Monarch.

My actual point is that there is no compromise at all, be it one that lasts a week or a month.  They won't even verbally commit to anything.  Republicans are just taking most of what they want now, and they plan to come back for more later.

Hyperbole.  And, that last bit Won't happen.  Sheer, unfounded speculation.  Unless, again, the material circumstances are caused to change by the actions of a King's mis, mal, or non-feasance.

Wittenberg / Re: "Compromise"
« on: May 15, 2021, 07:46:18 PM »
(The below is 100% personal opinion)

The tactic being employed by the Baron De Skelped Erse (and his plus one) is very similar to the strategy used by opponents of Scottish Independence.

"You had a referendum in 2014.  We answered no. ThAtS DeMoCrAcY So YoU CaNt HaVe A sEcOnD sHoT"

They claim a second referendum can't ever happen because democracy.  It's makes no sense at all.  Surely, democracy allows for minds to change over time?  I mean, by the same logic, we might as well never, ever have any more than one election. 'The people got to choose the government way back in nineteen canteen, that was democracy, so no, you don't get another election'.  Nonsense.

So, in the same gaslighting manner, Baron Heed-da-Baw is hinging this whole thing on the idea that the Historic Compromise must be permanent. Really permanent. Never to speak about anything to do with it again permanent. Which... is nonsense.

Just like the Scottish Independence referendum, opponents like to say "it was supposed to be once in a generation!!!!".  But, they refuse to accept the fact that the material circumstances have changed since the first one.  (in that case, Brexit happened).

The Historic Compromise, no matter how long it lasts, is still an Historic Compromise.  It is utterly unfair to say that it not a compromise because it can't come with a future-proof guarantee that nothing about the monarchy ever gets mentioned ever ever ever again.  It is not only unfair, it is bad faith.  It is not only bad faith, it is absolutely and terrifyingly UNDEMOCRATIC.

You want honesty?  Ok.  The Historic Compromise will last as long as it lasts.  That's as confident an answer I can give without being able to read the future.  It will last as long as it lasts.  However, I am confident that the side that breaks it won't be us.  Supporters of the Historic Compromise will live with it and stand by it all the way up until the other side does something silly to force a material change in circumstances.

A major principle in governance is that one Parliament can't tie the hands of a future Parliament.  So, the Baron Von Bawlsax is asking for the impossible by demanding the compromise comes with some kind of guarantee that nothing in the future ever gets mentioned ever again regarding the monarchy.  Like, what if we did find some way to make that guarantee and then a King decides to just start abusing his side of the system in some way?  Well, we would just have to accept it and let him get away with it because, well, democracy had its day and the compromise is to last forever plus a day. 

Well, no.  The historic compromise will last as long as it lasts and it will only be broken in the event of a change in the material circumstances surrounding the Monarchy.  Demanding anything further, again, is absolutely and terrifyingly undemocratic.

Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 ... 28