An Opposition committed to democracy has to be a good thing for the nation, one assumes. I hope this legislation will get a second wind: https://wittenberg.talossa.com/index.php?topic=4183.0

The Union of Free Reformists is the Party of Talossan Democracy, an ideal we place so much importance on that is in the first sentence of our party's platform.

In an era where a party which explicitly does not believe in democracy will be part of the Government, the defense of Talossan democracy is more important than ever. Therefore, as part of our rebuilding towards the 63rd Cosa, the Union of Free Reformists is opening broad debate on a Democracy Agenda.

As the last election shows, simply defending Talossa's current, flawed, democratic procedures won't seize the popular imagination. We must dare something worthy -- dare to dream of a more democratic Talossa. One where the popular will can be expressed freely and fairly; where that will can manifest in an empowered yet accountable Government, able to enact a political program, yet restrained by basic democratic rights and by the ballot box.

A situation of "elective dictatorship" is not a democratic one; nor is one of permanent institutional gridlock, where a determined minority can prevent things from happening forever. Any attempts to repower the monarchy, on the other hand, will revive trauma reactions from anyone who lived under King Robert I, the equivalent of a "Liechtenstein monarchy".

The URL therefore pledges to promote one bill for a major democratic reform on every one of the Clarks of the 62nd Cosa term, even if it manages to last all six. In the event that these bills are not adopted by the Ziu, they will form the basis for our program for the 63rd Cosa election. The "Pseudo-Real Cosa", proposed by URL-affiliate MC-elect Marcel Tafial will be the first of these.

This thread will be for elaboration and discussion on these bills as well as other democratic proposals. Non-URL members will be welcome to participate, although if necessary they will be "moderated with a blowtorch", to borrow one member's phrasing.

... for the Progressive Alliance to come to their senses;

drop the "coalition" deal which would bring anti-democratic forces into the Government of the country;

and return to negotiating confidence/supply deals with both the URL and the IDT.

This blunder which has crippled the new Seneschalsqåb before it has even started is reversible.

I should note that I didn't say that the Baron personally opposed codification; but his party, the RUMP, did.

For those keeping track: here is the thread where I announce (on behalf of the then-Opposition parties) the programme of codification, a full year before the post linked above; and where Baron Hooligan (on behalf of the ruling RUMP party) comes in to argue against it.

Locking the thread now. We can continue either the historical discussion or the political debate elsewhere.

Quote from: Baron Alexandreu Davinescu on Yesterday at 05:48:03 AMThe old system of laws was just a crazy hodgepodge of dozens of individual things that only a few people knew about,

This is true, though you yourself didn't seem to have seen it that way at first:

Quote from: Baron Alexandreu Davinescu link=https://talossa.proboards.com/thread/9034/el-lexhatxSome Talossans have complained that they have difficulty figuring out the laws and procedure. Frankly, in my experience these individuals have never actually bothered to try... especially with the existence of the wiki, which allows a simple-word search through the whole law, it's not too difficult to find laws on any given subject.

But besides all this, saying that you yourself never opposed the creation of a unified Legal Code -- I don't have a reason not to believe you on this -- in no way refutes the fact that having a unified Legal Code was part of the Opposition manifesto as early as two months after Reunision, meaning more than a year prior to the passing of el Lexhatx, or that the party you were a member of was historically opposed to this endeavour.

Happily, the record reflects that I didn't oppose this.  Instead, I actively encouraged you to work on the project, and mentioned it frequently as something I wanted to see happen.  Here's an example. It was just a question of the sheer amount of work. And I'm not afraid of hard work.

Being the most progressive member of a conservative party was sometimes awkward, of course. I know some people in my party at the time opposed it, just like some people in your party at the time opposed it, but I'm not sure how that's really relevant when I've been consistent on this the whole way through. It's false to suggest that I ever stood in the way. I remember when I was defending the bill to establish the secret ballot, I had to argue for quite a while with Cresti. Sometimes that's how it goes.

I'm not a big believer in the idea that it's good to "rattle" someone -- I'm not sure it says much about the truth of the matter.  So I don't know that it matters a lot if someone is getting upset. But people should have learned at this point not to believe you, Most Honourable Seneschal.

Quote from: Baron Alexandreu Davinescu on Yesterday at 05:48:03 AMThe old system of laws was just a crazy hodgepodge of dozens of individual things that only a few people knew about, until my project of coming up with el Lexhatx.

...

Codification of Talossan law was a platform of the Talossan Republicans, led by me. Your party, the RUMP, opposed it for a long time. Eventually, after you'd lost the political argument, you (personally) did most of the work putting El Lexhatx together. And you deserve recognition for that. But it was a Republican idea.

When you're rattled, Alex, you start telling open lies, that anyone who looks it up on OldWitt can check.

BTW, the angry ranting and psychological projection ("no it is YOU who are angrily ranting!!!") from the Progs are getting out of control, so this thread is close to being closed down. No doubt we'll continue the discussion elsewhere.

Quote from: Marcel Eðo Pairescu Tafial, UrGP on Yesterday at 08:49:08 AMSetting aside the deeply unprofessional and needlessly aggressive tone

Looks like "hard-charging aggression and creativity with the truth" is fine when they do it.

That's the issue here, isn't it? We don't think the PA believe in absolute monarchy. We think the PA brought someone who doesn't believe in democracy into government because they don't believe in anything. Except that their team should be in power - and our team shouldn't.

The Progs have screwed the pooch royally. A confidence/supply deal with Monarchist Max would have raised grumbles but not scared people. Why?

My theory is this: the Baron is a reasonable man and was prepared to discuss URL proposals. But the Prog caucus is held together by no principles, but one: the URL are bad guys. They preferred to compromise on Talossan democracy than to make an agreement with the "defeated" URL. They have started their term in government by "neglecting their responsibilities (to democracy) because of personal animosities."

Quote from: Baron Alexandreu Davinescu on Yesterday at 05:30:17 AMPlease be aware that Max has agreed to a coalition agreement in which he is only going to work on promoting our language, and anything else requires approval from me.  Talossa will not be turning into a theocratic autocracy on my watch, don't worry.

"Please be aware that Comrade Stalin has agreed to a coalition agreement in which he is only going to work on ethnic minority issues, and anything else requires approval from me."

I suppose that someone who's only even lived in a liberal democracy doesn't understand how people who come from a country where they're a real threat would react to the politics of reactionary Traditionalism.

Quote from: Baron Alexandreu Davinescu on Yesterday at 05:30:17 AMWe went through a whole campaign of this, and the voters just rejected it in a very clear voice.  It's not a good idea to try to scare people by lying about your political opponents, since it creates a lot of animosity and scares people.  And also we just saw how it doesn't work. 

Quote from: Breneir Tzaracomprada on Yesterday at 12:12:44 PM@Mximo Malt Once again speaking only as an individual MC I would support this bill assuming the former King acknowledged and assumed responsibility for the facts of what happened.

With that assumption, the return of Ben to the nation he founded could be an enormous positive. Generally, I support your efforts at reconciliation.

I have reached out to him, and have received no reply as of yet. I'll let him clarify his actions once he comes back, if at all.

+++ MISM +++


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk