Quote from: Barclamïu da Miéletz on April 12, 2024, 01:12:01 AM

Quote from: xpb on April 11, 2024, 10:06:42 PM

Quote from: Barclamïu da Miéletz on April 11, 2024, 10:10:08 AM

Quote from: Sir Txec dal Nordselvă, UrB on April 11, 2024, 08:22:11 AMPardon my intrusion, but I'm sure there is some AI option out there that can create a unique musical arrangement that fits your lyrics.

Ok no I think I will use AI to make a melody basing on Belgium's anthem and Denmark's civil anthem. Do you know any AI tools that could do just that?

Might just be able to do a mashup with the sheet musicm, but there was previous comment that the Belgium anthem might not ring true in Brittany (from someone in the vicinity)  https://musescore.com/user/21755791/scores/7904504 and https://musescore.com/user/1714461/scores/1432146

In that style I did a segue between Dangerous by Big Data and Feel It Still by Portugal. the Man.
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1ziE3rN0yS00RSiQ8QvVfro14EFdHb6z5/view?usp=sharing sheet music
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1Q8ObhDBzdXo0zsWCO1DfvXmYfGmrKdlL/view?usp=sharing mp3

As I said I would try to make a melody out of "La Brabançonne" and "Der er et yndigt land". Both anthems have awesome melodies.

Not sure what tools you may use, but I took a look at fadr.com and that looks promising - it was pretty straightforward to upload the mp3s available at https://nationalanthems.info/ available of both.

Let the monarch nominate someone, confirmed by the Ziu and then by the people. It is the really obvious and sensible solution, even if it affords His Majesty little say in the matter. It takes advantage of our political system to provide a check, without turning the issue into a direct election that would destroy what value a monarchy can offer.

His Majesty did not endorse this view and might well oppose it, and for my part in this discussion I will be offering him my resignation as his counselor. I am not here showing loyalty to him, and that is hard for me. This is a conversation predicated on a future where he will leave the throne. But I am being loyal to the higher things that he too has venerated: country and honour.

My actual expectation is that he will decline to participate in the process once the larger change is made. But the man has saved the country more than once, helped shape it into much of what it is today, and has served with decency. He deserves this voice in the process. And more to the point, the institution is larger than him and this is the way it should happen for the larger future.

I'd like to apologise somewhat for my post above - it came out more ill-tempered and accusatory than it sounded in my head. I don't think Glüc is consciously trying to troll and derail.

But I have to reiterate that - if it really doesn't matter who's King because the job is low-powered - then I am suddenly in favour of the continued rule of John I rather than this option. Talossa has already tried the "King who no-one really wants" option, it didn't end well.

Quote from: Breneir Tzaracomprada on April 13, 2024, 03:28:20 PM@Miestră Schivă, UrN I am most interested in seeing through a path for action, if possible.

Thing is that I'm not 100% sure as to where we stand. I've put up two proposals in this thread:

1) the original proposal, which I call "clean decapitation". I still prefer this, though I take into account the people who worry about an indefinite empty throne.

2) a revised proposal, which appoints a new King right away and leaves it up to the Ziu to create further succession laws; the default option being "CpI names a successor to be confirmed in referendum". I haven't seen any substantial discussion on that one.

(Of course the good Baron is calling for his previously expressed preference that the King be allowed to name his own successor. But, given the incumbent's record, I don't feel happy about affording him that privilege.)

So which should we run with?
- Option 1?
- Option 1 amended slightly (eg with a "sunset clause")?
- Option 2?
- Option 2 amended slightly?

I am in favour of getting as broad a social consensus as we can, because you know what? A 2/3 majority in the Ziu isn't going to cut it. Three reasons:

- if the King vetoes, we will another 2/3 majority in the next Cosa, and thus have to win the argument in an election.
- either way, we will need to win a majority in a referendum.

I have bucketloads of respect for the good Baron as a political operator and I'm not confident of being able to beat him in a referendum (or get 2/3 in an election) if he's going to fight this all the way.

Quote from: þerxh Sant-Enogat on April 13, 2024, 05:33:37 PM

Quote from: Ián Tamorán S.H. on April 13, 2024, 10:31:16 AMA TalossaCézembre would be great for us Europeans... though Cézembre itself is a little inaccessible (and expensive). London (or its environs) would be a good alternative? And I would be there (provided an 85 year old can get there!).

Why not indeed - or Paris, may be more central for Italy, the Netherlands, Germany and London. In 5 years I'll be retired and able to spend some time on this

Germany sounds like a good idea. Maybe somewhere in the Alps, or even better, at the lake Boden (Bodensee) in Lindau

Quote from: Ián Tamorán S.H. on April 13, 2024, 10:31:16 AMA TalossaCézembre would be great for us Europeans... though Cézembre itself is a little inaccessible (and expensive). London (or its environs) would be a good alternative? And I would be there (provided an 85 year old can get there!).

Why not indeed - or Paris, may be more central for Italy, the Netherlands, Germany and London. In 5 years I'll be retired and able to spend some time on this

Quote from: Mic'haglh Autófil, SMC EiP on April 13, 2024, 02:26:08 PMHearing no objection to this motion since its introduction over two weeks ago, should we regard it as having been given unanimous consent?

Sounds reasonable to me.

Quote from: Baron Alexandreu Davinescu on April 13, 2024, 03:12:34 PM@Breneir Tzaracomprada , just wanted to check and make sure you could see my posts and there's no sort of glitch or anything.

Earlier in this thread, I wrote at length about some obvious problems I saw with the bill, and you replied after me and said that you didn't see any objections being made.  And now again, you seem to be unaware of arguments I made with a significant investment of my time and thought -- not even acknowledging them but just addressing Miestra.  Is it just that you're ignoring me?  That's certainly your prerogative, but I thought I'd check.

I do see your words and they have been answered. There is no need for me to directly answer them too. I am interested in Miestra's thoughts as yours are well known now.

@Miestră Schivă, UrN I am most interested in seeing through a path for action, if possible. I apologize for my own contribution to the delay in addressing the King's inactivity but a review of yours and Ian's words and actions (especially in comparison to the King's words and actions) have led me to the belief I can trust your genuine desire simply to ensure an active head of state. If, through this slimmed down amendment, we can address the concerns of Gluc, Therxh, and Carlus then I think that is a basis for bipartisan action as the TNC would have four of its five MCs likely to support the bill along with its senator. And I assume much of the FreeDems would support the bill.

@Breneir Tzaracomprada , just wanted to check and make sure you could see my posts and there's no sort of glitch or anything.

Earlier in this thread, I wrote at length about some obvious problems I saw with the bill, and you replied after me and said that you didn't see any objections being made.  And now again, you seem to be unaware of arguments I made with a significant investment of my time and thought -- not even acknowledging them but just addressing Miestra.  Is it just that you're ignoring me?  That's certainly your prerogative, but I thought I'd check.

Quote from: Sir Lüc on April 13, 2024, 01:31:38 PMThis is a bit of an issue as I'd love to encourage further debate, but I don't know if that's possible under the rules we currently operate under. I suppose we could stipulate that if any amendments are made, the bill must go through the CRL again. I'd love to hear what the A-X and Mençei think.

Legally, it is made explicit that the bill may be amended after CRL approval, and it doesn't have to go through the CRL again.  It would only need to go through again if it is "so substantially different from its form as a legislative proposal when "passed to committee" that it constitutes a significantly different proposal" (Lexh.H.2.1.7.4).

You are certainly welcome to send it through the CRL again if you want another set of eyes on it after you change it up.