FREE DEMOCRATS PARTY CONVENTION starts February 15

[Miestră Schivă, UrN-GC]

I would like to thank the Distáin for his contribution.

We are now coming to the end of the Convention. I will soon put up the candidates and proposals to be voted on in a separate thread. Once they are posted all Free Democrats will have 72 hours to vote on them.

After the votes closed, the incoming Party President will give a closing speech.

[Miestră Schivă, UrN-GC]

Speech of Miestra Schiva MC to the Free Democrats of Talossa Convention

¡Estimadas es estimats Democrätsen livereschti, oðreux amici Talossáes, es oðreux presints... es ausints!

I would like to dedicate this speech to an absent friend. Former citizen, former Seneschal, Bråneu Excelsio.

I would like to thank and congratulate my Free Democrat colleagues for a successful convention. We've had good discussion about both our programme and our constitution, and made significant changes to both. The constitutional changes make improvements to how we deal with our membership; while the programme changes update our platform for a new era.

Funny thing about our platform, though. And at this stage I would also like to thank the Distáin, cxhn. Brenéir Tzaracompradă, for his thought-provoking and friendly guest speech.

I wonder whether my colleagues remember a couple of elections ago. We ran on a very radical platform: THE KING MUST GO. The constitutional argument about amendments to the role and powers of the Monarchy had run aground. We decided to "cut the Gordian knot". No matter what "The King of Talossa" does in theory, Ián, first of his name of the house of Lupúl, was not doing it. So, change the incumbent.

This went down, as the Australians say, like a cup of cold sick. We got owned in that election. Beaten down by an absolute majority win – the first in a long time – by monarchist opinion, rallied behind the Talossan National Congress.

The very same Talossan National Congress whose founder – and let's face it, de facto leader – has just come to our convention and said: "I support the immediate end of the reign of King John."

Then: what was the 58th Cosă election all about? What are we to make of this about-turn from someone who not only led a thumping monarchist electoral victory, but just a few months ago, set up something called the Royalist People's Party?

Hold that thought in your head for a little while. Let's move on to another topic briefly.

Why was the "Royalist People's Party" set up? In protest at our former Seneschal and friend, Bråneu Excelsio. Who made a deal with the Free Democrats to enable the formation of a government; a deal that stuck in the craw of a lot of TNC opinion. The founder of the TNC quit his own party over this.

Let us quote from the long account of Bråneu Excelsio which he posted on Twitter (if Elon Musk can deadname his own trans daughter, I can deadname his ridiculous website).

The guy who supported me left the party, founded another one and dedicated himself to wasting my energy and sending me messages on WhatsApp telling me that I was an idiot. He left my cabinet half-finished and with infiltrators.

When Bråneu renounced his citizenship in despair, the Royalist People's Party founder was warmly reaccepted back into the TNC, and into its leadership. The TNC then proceeded to... uphold the deal that they made with the Free Democrats, to the letter, with good grace.

Success for all concerned, you might say? Well... not for poor Bråneu, of course. But we might repeat the question from above: if this is where we ended up, what was splitting the party and (allegedly) sending Bråneu annoying and insulting messages all about?

We've got two situations here. Two situations where the same, very prominent, very active Talossan individual has won a long and bitter political fight. And then adopted the political positions of the people he defeated.

The obvious question is: even if someone like with this kind of track record is saying exactly what you want to hear... what reason could you have to trust them?

***

I'll have to pause here. Don't get me wrong. This is not a personal denunciation. I sincerely appreciate Brenéir's good faith in coming before this Convention. But what I am aiming for here is a declaration of where our party stands going into the 60th (!!!) Cosă election, and how we will interact with other Talossans. And that is as a party of principle.

The Free Democrats are not a party based on a particular social group. We are not a party whose main selling point is that we turn up in the Immigration queue and – what was it Bråneu said? - "be nice to you". Tell you just what you want to hear.

We are not a party who builds a team based on being fun and friendly guys. We'd be bigger and more popular if we were. But we're also not a party where "the friendly guys" stop being friendly, if you cross them politically. Where they're suddenly sending you WhatsApp messages calling you an idiot.

We are the party of LIBERTY AND DEMOCRACY FIRST. We are not motivated by being popular. We are motivated by what Senator Plätschisch once called "the ideological long game". We are never going to do a political 180 degree term because we think it'll get us more power or popularity. Membership in our party is based on agreement with our Policy. And this is the "political compass" which has guided us well for so long.

***

It seems strange that the Distáin should resurrect the question of whether King John is up to the task, right at this point in history. Of course, we still think that John is not and he should shuffle off the stage of Talossan history before he gets shoved off.

But ironically, right now he's doing exactly what many in the Free Democrats think a Monarch should do – absolutely nothing. We were most outraged at him when he was doing nothing except popping up to randomly veto legislation, sometimes to defend his positions and grandeur, sometimes just to be annoying. The status quo is better.

It may also not be a coincidence that currently the Government includes his old buddies from the former RUMP, so why would he want to be disruptive. But I can't for the life of me imagine what those very people are saying, to hear their party founder/Distáin talking like this. What is Litz Cjantschéir saying? What is X. Pôl Briga – the most flamboyant monarchist in Talossa, the guy who wrote that notorious essay about squirrels and wolves – thinking about "I support the immediate end of the reign of King John"?

The most famous ex-RUMPer, Baron Alexandreu Davinescu, the master operator of Talossan politics who came out of retirement to lead the TNC to an epoch-making election victory, has now left that party. I don't think it was related to this abrupt shift away from Lupulian monarchism – perhaps, more to do with... well, that splitting/sabotaging Cabinet/rejoining thing I mentioned above. But I wonder what he's thinking, too.

You can't have a stable political movement which turns on a political dime when the Big Guy decides that another ideological pathway is more to his liking or will get more political rewards. (Who can forget when the TNC both adopted cryptocurrency because it was the "thing" of a new member, and then dumped it within a week or two because they realised the broad masses weren't interested?)

The Distáin keeps saying that Sir Txec dal Nordselvă is his preferred candidate for successor to the throne. Certainly, Txec could do the job – and extremely well! Several huzzahs! Of course, to do so, he would have to withdraw from the Free Democrats and leave his current job as Secretary of State. If you've been following controversies in Talossan politics over the last couple of Cosă terms, you can see why an uncharitable person might see something "Machiavellian" in this proposal.

But if the Distáin thinks it better to have a New Talossan Republic with an active head of state, let me speak for a moment as an individual, not as FreeDems President, and not on behalf of my party. So do I! That would rule! Again, I think Txec dal Nordselvă could do a job in that regard!

If so, we may still be a minority, the two of us, in Talossa. I think we could even both be minorities within our own parties. Building a new coalition for such radical constitutional change might require a wholesale dissolution/reformation of Talossa's party system, in the same way that the Free Democrats united the forces behind the "Historic Compromise" – and the TNC united the forces against it.

Sorry, does everyone remember the "Historic Compromise"? It was a proposal to split the difference between monarchy and republicanism; to preserve the Monarchy but to allow periodic "votes of confidence", or even a term limit. It was defeated. It was defeated after a prolonged struggle over several Cosăs. It was defeated after the TNC – which originally supported it – switched sides, after a personal falling out with the then-FreeDems President, and ended up becoming the party of the monarchist reaction. The now-Distáin actively crowed about its defeat. I may be miscomprehending, but now I think that's what he means by "potential revisiting of the previous legislation".

***

Given all this history, I have to say it plainly. Brenéir Tzaracompradă is, right now, not a partner for constitutional change that the Free Democrats have any reason to trust. This is not a reflection on his character. This does not mean we cannot work with him, or that we could never trust him again in future. This is simply and solely a reflection on his political track record to date.

Some of you are aware that I have had a very stormy relationship with Baron Alexandreu Davinescu over the years. He is my antithesis politically. We don't get on personally. He has pulled several political moves I would consider "hardball" – even "Machiavellian".

And yet, he has always done so for political reasons, to advance his agenda for Talossa, which does not change. He has never made a political U-turn on something as vital as The Monarchy because of a personal falling out with someone. He has never made someone's political life in Talossa intolerable and then gone on to adopt what they wanted to do anyway.

I trust Baron Alexandreu in a paradoxically fundamental way in which I don't even trust some of my political allies. That is the kind of trust – a trust between political mortal enemies, a trust in our basic good faith and mutual Talossan patriotism while we knock lumps out of each other on the battlefield – that Talossa needs to survive and thrive.

To sum this all up. We refer the TNC, and the Distáin in particular, to the revised Part B of our party policy:

We will offer our support to a Talossan Head of State who is continually active, puts the interests of the Nation above defending their own interests and prestige, and acts as the servant rather than the owner of the State. We support Organic structures which ensure that our Head of State operates in this way. We oppose any attempts to change the current provisions to replace or establish a successor to the Monarchy - that is, the standard provisions of Organic Law amendment - without a full reform and/or replacement of provisions for Talossa's Head of State.

Let us talk brass tacks. There is no changing the Talossan monarchy without a 3/4 majority in the Cosă, to override the Royal veto. Or a 2/3 majority in two successive Cosăs. Or a 2/3 majority, and the King just "gives up" or abdicates.

It's not entirely clear what the Distáin means by "consideration of my own proposal". If it means the "minimalist solution" - a regular process of changing OrgLaw II.4 to simply "legislatively decapitate" Ián Lupúl and just put Txec dal Nordselvă in his place - that would technically abide by our Party Policy. But it would brush a lot of issues under the carpet.

The Talossan monarchy does not attract bad people, but there is something in it which breeds a few deadly sins - pride and wrath in the case of Robert I, sloth in the case of John I. So, since we are still going to have a devil of a job changing the Monarchy (absent an abdication), surely it is just as easy to have a good look at the Monarchy itself at the same time?

• If there is a possibility that the Historic Compromise might be revived and get the requisite majority – then let's do it, right now.
• If there is a possibility that a "broad-based convention" might come up with a different proposal for monarchy reform which could get that majority – then let's call it, right now. With the proviso that everything has to be on the table, including the position of the incumbent.
• If, God help us, there might be a possibility to get the requisite majority to declare a New Talossan Republic and elect Sir Txec dal Nordselvă its head of state, then I will join that political party!

But all these options are pipe dreams without that 3/4 majority - or, with a 2/3 majority and King John "surrendering" in some way. Either way, it requires a political partner for change who the Free Democrats can trust.

J. Michael Stracynzki's short-lived television story Crusade posed the question: "who do you serve? And who do you trust?"

Who do the Free Democrats of Talossa serve? We serve liberty and democracy first.

Who do we trust? That is a question that will be explored in the coming weeks and months.

¡Så vivadra Talossa¡ Sa vivadra Talossa democrätic! ¡Qareinçe es simca års pü! ¡El Regeu fost xhencular, es láßar sieu Regipäts alçar!

[Breneir Tzaracomprada]

Speech of Miestra Schiva MC to the Free Democrats of Talossa Convention

¡Estimadas es estimats Democrätsen livereschti, oðreux amici Talossáes, es oðreux presints... es ausints!

I would like to dedicate this speech to an absent friend. Former citizen, former Seneschal, Bråneu Excelsio.

I would like to thank and congratulate my Free Democrat colleagues for a successful convention. We've had good discussion about both our programme and our constitution, and made significant changes to both. The constitutional changes make improvements to how we deal with our membership; while the programme changes update our platform for a new era.

Funny thing about our platform, though. And at this stage I would also like to thank the Distáin, cxhn. Brenéir Tzaracompradă, for his thought-provoking and friendly guest speech.

I wonder whether my colleagues remember a couple of elections ago. We ran on a very radical platform: THE KING MUST GO. The constitutional argument about amendments to the role and powers of the Monarchy had run aground. We decided to "cut the Gordian knot". No matter what "The King of Talossa" does in theory, Ián, first of his name of the house of Lupúl, was not doing it. So, change the incumbent.

This went down, as the Australians say, like a cup of cold sick. We got owned in that election. Beaten down by an absolute majority win – the first in a long time – by monarchist opinion, rallied behind the Talossan National Congress.

The very same Talossan National Congress whose founder – and let's face it, de facto leader – has just come to our convention and said: "I support the immediate end of the reign of King John."

Then: what was the 58th Cosă election all about? What are we to make of this about-turn from someone who not only led a thumping monarchist electoral victory, but just a few months ago, set up something called the Royalist People's Party?

Hold that thought in your head for a little while. Let's move on to another topic briefly.

Why was the "Royalist People's Party" set up? In protest at our former Seneschal and friend, Bråneu Excelsio. Who made a deal with the Free Democrats to enable the formation of a government; a deal that stuck in the craw of a lot of TNC opinion. The founder of the TNC quit his own party over this.

Let us quote from the long account of Bråneu Excelsio which he posted on Twitter (if Elon Musk can deadname his own trans daughter, I can deadname his ridiculous website).

The guy who supported me left the party, founded another one and dedicated himself to wasting my energy and sending me messages on WhatsApp telling me that I was an idiot. He left my cabinet half-finished and with infiltrators.

When Bråneu renounced his citizenship in despair, the Royalist People's Party founder was warmly reaccepted back into the TNC, and into its leadership. The TNC then proceeded to... uphold the deal that they made with the Free Democrats, to the letter, with good grace.

Success for all concerned, you might say? Well... not for poor Bråneu, of course. But we might repeat the question from above: if this is where we ended up, what was splitting the party and (allegedly) sending Bråneu annoying and insulting messages all about?

We've got two situations here. Two situations where the same, very prominent, very active Talossan individual has won a long and bitter political fight. And then adopted the political positions of the people he defeated.

The obvious question is: even if someone like with this kind of track record is saying exactly what you want to hear... what reason could you have to trust them?

***

I'll have to pause here. Don't get me wrong. This is not a personal denunciation. I sincerely appreciate Brenéir's good faith in coming before this Convention. But what I am aiming for here is a declaration of where our party stands going into the 60th (!!!) Cosă election, and how we will interact with other Talossans. And that is as a party of principle.

The Free Democrats are not a party based on a particular social group. We are not a party whose main selling point is that we turn up in the Immigration queue and – what was it Bråneu said? - "be nice to you". Tell you just what you want to hear.

We are not a party who builds a team based on being fun and friendly guys. We'd be bigger and more popular if we were. But we're also not a party where "the friendly guys" stop being friendly, if you cross them politically. Where they're suddenly sending you WhatsApp messages calling you an idiot.

We are the party of LIBERTY AND DEMOCRACY FIRST. We are not motivated by being popular. We are motivated by what Senator Plätschisch once called "the ideological long game". We are never going to do a political 180 degree term because we think it'll get us more power or popularity. Membership in our party is based on agreement with our Policy. And this is the "political compass" which has guided us well for so long.

***

It seems strange that the Distáin should resurrect the question of whether King John is up to the task, right at this point in history. Of course, we still think that John is not and he should shuffle off the stage of Talossan history before he gets shoved off.

But ironically, right now he's doing exactly what many in the Free Democrats think a Monarch should do – absolutely nothing. We were most outraged at him when he was doing nothing except popping up to randomly veto legislation, sometimes to defend his positions and grandeur, sometimes just to be annoying. The status quo is better.

It may also not be a coincidence that currently the Government includes his old buddies from the former RUMP, so why would he want to be disruptive. But I can't for the life of me imagine what those very people are saying, to hear their party founder/Distáin talking like this. What is Litz Cjantschéir saying? What is X. Pôl Briga – the most flamboyant monarchist in Talossa, the guy who wrote that notorious essay about squirrels and wolves – thinking about "I support the immediate end of the reign of King John"?

The most famous ex-RUMPer, Baron Alexandreu Davinescu, the master operator of Talossan politics who came out of retirement to lead the TNC to an epoch-making election victory, has now left that party. I don't think it was related to this abrupt shift away from Lupulian monarchism – perhaps, more to do with... well, that splitting/sabotaging Cabinet/rejoining thing I mentioned above. But I wonder what he's thinking, too.

You can't have a stable political movement which turns on a political dime when the Big Guy decides that another ideological pathway is more to his liking or will get more political rewards. (Who can forget when the TNC both adopted cryptocurrency because it was the "thing" of a new member, and then dumped it within a week or two because they realised the broad masses weren't interested?)

The Distáin keeps saying that Sir Txec dal Nordselvă is his preferred candidate for successor to the throne. Certainly, Txec could do the job – and extremely well! Several huzzahs! Of course, to do so, he would have to withdraw from the Free Democrats and leave his current job as Secretary of State. If you've been following controversies in Talossan politics over the last couple of Cosă terms, you can see why an uncharitable person might see something "Machiavellian" in this proposal.

But if the Distáin thinks it better to have a New Talossan Republic with an active head of state, let me speak for a moment as an individual, not as FreeDems President, and not on behalf of my party. So do I! That would rule! Again, I think Txec dal Nordselvă could do a job in that regard!

If so, we may still be a minority, the two of us, in Talossa. I think we could even both be minorities within our own parties. Building a new coalition for such radical constitutional change might require a wholesale dissolution/reformation of Talossa's party system, in the same way that the Free Democrats united the forces behind the "Historic Compromise" – and the TNC united the forces against it.

Sorry, does everyone remember the "Historic Compromise"? It was a proposal to split the difference between monarchy and republicanism; to preserve the Monarchy but to allow periodic "votes of confidence", or even a term limit. It was defeated. It was defeated after a prolonged struggle over several Cosăs. It was defeated after the TNC – which originally supported it – switched sides, after a personal falling out with the then-FreeDems President, and ended up becoming the party of the monarchist reaction. The now-Distáin actively crowed about its defeat. I may be miscomprehending, but now I think that's what he means by "potential revisiting of the previous legislation".

***

Given all this history, I have to say it plainly. Brenéir Tzaracompradă is, right now, not a partner for constitutional change that the Free Democrats have any reason to trust. This is not a reflection on his character. This does not mean we cannot work with him, or that we could never trust him again in future. This is simply and solely a reflection on his political track record to date.

Some of you are aware that I have had a very stormy relationship with Baron Alexandreu Davinescu over the years. He is my antithesis politically. We don't get on personally. He has pulled several political moves I would consider "hardball" – even "Machiavellian".

And yet, he has always done so for political reasons, to advance his agenda for Talossa, which does not change. He has never made a political U-turn on something as vital as The Monarchy because of a personal falling out with someone. He has never made someone's political life in Talossa intolerable and then gone on to adopt what they wanted to do anyway.

I trust Baron Alexandreu in a paradoxically fundamental way in which I don't even trust some of my political allies. That is the kind of trust – a trust between political mortal enemies, a trust in our basic good faith and mutual Talossan patriotism while we knock lumps out of each other on the battlefield – that Talossa needs to survive and thrive.

To sum this all up. We refer the TNC, and the Distáin in particular, to the revised Part B of our party policy:

We will offer our support to a Talossan Head of State who is continually active, puts the interests of the Nation above defending their own interests and prestige, and acts as the servant rather than the owner of the State. We support Organic structures which ensure that our Head of State operates in this way. We oppose any attempts to change the current provisions to replace or establish a successor to the Monarchy - that is, the standard provisions of Organic Law amendment - without a full reform and/or replacement of provisions for Talossa's Head of State.

Let us talk brass tacks. There is no changing the Talossan monarchy without a 3/4 majority in the Cosă, to override the Royal veto. Or a 2/3 majority in two successive Cosăs. Or a 2/3 majority, and the King just "gives up" or abdicates.

It's not entirely clear what the Distáin means by "consideration of my own proposal". If it means the "minimalist solution" - a regular process of changing OrgLaw II.4 to simply "legislatively decapitate" Ián Lupúl and just put Txec dal Nordselvă in his place - that would technically abide by our Party Policy. But it would brush a lot of issues under the carpet.

The Talossan monarchy does not attract bad people, but there is something in it which breeds a few deadly sins - pride and wrath in the case of Robert I, sloth in the case of John I. So, since we are still going to have a devil of a job changing the Monarchy (absent an abdication), surely it is just as easy to have a good look at the Monarchy itself at the same time?

• If there is a possibility that the Historic Compromise might be revived and get the requisite majority – then let's do it, right now.
• If there is a possibility that a "broad-based convention" might come up with a different proposal for monarchy reform which could get that majority – then let's call it, right now. With the proviso that everything has to be on the table, including the position of the incumbent.
• If, God help us, there might be a possibility to get the requisite majority to declare a New Talossan Republic and elect Sir Txec dal Nordselvă its head of state, then I will join that political party!

But all these options are pipe dreams without that 3/4 majority - or, with a 2/3 majority and King John "surrendering" in some way. Either way, it requires a political partner for change who the Free Democrats can trust.

J. Michael Stracynzki's short-lived television story Crusade posed the question: "who do you serve? And who do you trust?"

Who do the Free Democrats of Talossa serve? We serve liberty and democracy first.

Who do we trust? That is a question that will be explored in the coming weeks and months.

¡Så vivadra Talossa¡ Sa vivadra Talossa democrätic! ¡Qareinçe es simca års pü! ¡El Regeu fost xhencular, es láßar sieu Regipäts alçar!

This is a great speech full of the usual miestraisms. Oh, and I've responded to your private message concerning discussions around monarchy reform. I've even re-proposed Ian's old Compromise on the Compromise for internal discussion. I do think we have the potential for action right now but my party mates need to weigh in.

Over the next few weeks we will see whether you are interested in making progress on this issue. In my speech I made clear that you have a partner on the issue moving forward. The consequences of your inability or unwillingness to engage that partner are yours and your party's to face.

To repeat a piece of your speech: "If there is a possibility that the Historic Compromise might be revived and get the requisite majority – then let's do it, right now."

Yeah...let's do that. :) If you can get over the trust issues.