Quote from: Ian Plätschisch on April 15, 2024, 09:16:52 AMHave we considered just asking the King who he would want his successor to be?

A concern of a lot of FreeDems is that, if the King picks, his selection would be unpalatable. If we ask in advance, we could see if that person would have broad support and then we can just amend the Organic Law accordingly, without all the red tape.

If only we knew someone who had the King's ear...

Quote from: Carlüs Éovart Vilaçafat on April 15, 2024, 08:31:14 AMSo my personal preference would be Option 2, amended to give King John 30 days to appoint a successor and step down. If one is not chosen within the appointed time, then the law will go into effect.

The 30 day deadline for resignation and a successor is a vital component of this proposal.

@þerxh Sant-Enogat What are your thoughts?

I just read Baron Alexandreu's words, and I agree that letting the King propose a successor would be the most coherent scenario to ensure the historical continuity on which our Nation is build upon.

Quote from: þerxh Sant-Enogat on April 15, 2024, 01:27:46 PMI just read Baron Alexandreu's words, and I agree that letting the King propose a successor would be the most coherent scenario to ensure the historical continuity on which our Nation is build upon.

What about the options Miestra listed? You did not mention those in your answer.

To be helpful, here are Miestra's words, Therxh which she directly invited comment on:

Quote1) 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?

Quote from: Carlüs Éovart Vilaçafat on April 15, 2024, 10:38:28 AM

Quote from: Ian Plätschisch on April 15, 2024, 09:16:52 AMHave we considered just asking the King who he would want his successor to be?

A concern of a lot of FreeDems is that, if the King picks, his selection would be unpalatable. If we ask in advance, we could see if that person would have broad support and then we can just amend the Organic Law accordingly, without all the red tape.

If only we knew someone who had the King's ear...

After I explained the situation to him, I offered my resignation from the Sabor. So I don't know if that person is still myself. I can ask him, but I don't know if he has anyone in mind. I very much doubt that he does!

Honestly, my expectation is that he would not participate in whatever process we establish. We should be thinking about this whole thing in terms of a longer future, not the immediate circumstance. We are trying to fix the country permanently.

How about this threading of the needle: generally speaking, the process will be for the future that the sovereign nominates a successor who is confirmed by the legislature and then by plebiscite. This change could be written to become effective 30 days after confirmation of the amendment, with a contingent clause stating that the throne will also become empty at that time if there is no successor yet confirmed by the legislature. And then a fixed and saner version of the convocation process detailed in the other thread could be put in place for any time the throne is empty, including immediately.

This is not an ideal scenario at all. In my opinion, giving the legislature a voice is a mistake generally, because it politicizes the process more than we should really want. I would prefer just a royal nomination that passes to a plebiscite. But in for a penny, in for a pound. I am already compromising a ton, and I can go a little bit further to make this happen.

I believe this would satisfy everyone's needs, even if no one would be perfectly happy with it. And I could help right the language and fix some of the weirdness of the convocation procedure.

Quote from: Breneir Tzaracomprada on April 15, 2024, 02:13:57 PM

Quote from: þerxh Sant-Enogat on April 15, 2024, 01:27:46 PMI just read Baron Alexandreu's words, and I agree that letting the King propose a successor would be the most coherent scenario to ensure the historical continuity on which our Nation is build upon.

What about the options Miestra listed? You did not mention those in your answer.

To be helpful, here are Miestra's words, Therxh which she directly invited comment on:

Quote1) 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?

Therxh, I'm really interested in your thoughts on the options as was requested. We already have options on the table which appear to have the support now of two TNC MCs.

Quote from: Ian Plätschisch on April 15, 2024, 09:16:52 AMHave we considered just asking the King who he would want his successor to be?

A concern of a lot of FreeDems is that, if the King picks, his selection would be unpalatable. If we ask in advance, we could see if that person would have broad support and then we can just amend the Organic Law accordingly, without all the red tape.

The King, should he be available, is free to publicly announce his preferred successor; in fact I encourage him to do so. And the Ziu and people should be free to utterly ignore that suggestion.

We need 134+ votes in the Ziu to even put the replacement of the King on the agenda. 85 of those votes - the Free Democrats -  fought the last election precisely on the issue that the King should not be allowed to choose his own successor without the threshold required for any other OrgLaw reform. There are currently two options on the table:

- 1) leaving the succession open until after we know the Throne is empty;
- 2) naming a successor which would have broad support from both major parties.

If neither of these options will get 134+ votes anymore, then this debate is inoperative and Zombie King John stays. It seems the two "swing votes" in the TNC have gone back to precisely the option that the FreeDems fought the last election against, and I'm very discouraged.

Quote from: þerxh Sant-Enogat on April 15, 2024, 01:27:46 PMI just read Baron Alexandreu's words, and I agree that letting the King propose a successor would be the most coherent scenario to ensure the historical continuity on which our Nation is build upon.

There have been two "successful" Kings of Talossa: Robert I and John I.
 
Robert I founded the nation; John I was chosen by the Ziu by a supermajority and endorsed by the people in referendum.

"Hand-picked successors" were: Robert II, Florence, and Louis.

I'll leave it to you to decide what the appropriate Talossan "historical continuity" is.

Florence did fine until she got sick of it, and Louis was hereditary.

I don't think there is any magical taint involved in the king having some say in the process that would not be abrogated by both the approval of the duly elected legislature followed by the approval of the people as a whole.

I personally will never support any solution to the current temporary situation when it would lead to permanent disability or destruction of one of our most important institutions. If we agree that we're in a bad spot, surely we can just fix the problem -- are we really saying that we won't help the country unless we can also advance our personal goals at the same time?

If the King makes a nomination, but that nomination has to achieve an "OrgLaw" threshold (2/3 of the Cosa), and the Ziu is free to make an alternative nomination if the King's is unacceptable, then that's fine by me. I note that the King has always had the right to introduce legislation, of which this is a special case.

There's a difference between what is technically allowable and what is normatively expected.  We should establish an expectation and a norm in the law that His Majesty nominates someone, the Ziu approves it, and the people affirm it.  Technically, the Ziu can always just do whatever the hell it wants and send it to the people -- a Living Cosa could be held that just involved nude hula-hooping, if the Ziu wanted it.  (I would win such a contest, for the record, although all observers would be struck blind with horror/ecstasy.)

Okay, then, sounds like we really do have a path forward.

If this is how we finally get Txec on the throne then so be it...

Tonight I am processing the ID cards, but I think the language for a compromise bipartisan bill will be pretty easy to write up, and I bet I can get it done tomorrow. Fixing the convocation proposal will be the trickiest part. The SoS will probably need to be in charge, with a standard electoral commission for backup.

If I write it, someone will have to sponsor it. Hopefully someone will agree to do so on my behalf?

Quote from: Baron Alexandreu Davinescu on April 15, 2024, 07:36:42 PMWe should establish an expectation and a norm in the law that His Majesty nominates someone, the Ziu approves it, and the people affirm it.

I have to reiterate the expressed position of the Free Democrats that Ziu approval must be OrgLaw-amendment threshold, i.e. 2/3 of the Cosa.

I also don't want to be in the position I have been over and over again in Talossa - where I express myself loosely and AD decides that I just agreed with him and bulldozes forward on that position. This is not a "compromise". This is an alternative.

Let me be very clear. If the King, or someone working for him, puts up a OrgLaw amendment establishing a timeline for his abdication and a process for succession in time for the 6th Clark, then I will hold off on my own bills for it to be voted on, on its merits (assuming that it is a bill solely dealing with these matters, with no tinkering to the role/powers of the Monarchy). If no such OrgLaw amendment is ready in time, then we proceed to a Vacant Throne or to a Ziu nomination.