Monarchy Reform

[Sir Txec dal Nordselvă, UrB]

I don't think officials with access to Government records should use that privilege as a political weapon.

Out of genuine curiosity Baron, why is taking the civics test an issue? Did you support the initiative but now no longer do? Thanks.

[Sir Txec dal Nordselvă, UrB]

As GV gets ready to give John a piece of his mind...

I actually admire, like, and respect John immensely.  I'm genuinely sorry it was Talossa and not real life through which I 'met' him and Hooligan.  Both seem like amazing people.  Ditto for AD.

That's all.

GV

I spent a rather enjoyable afternoon and evening with the King and Hooligan a few years back in Denver. I found both of them to be great fun, and they even convinced me to try rocky mountain oysters! It's always cool to meet in person other Talossans, and in my nearly 10 years in the kingdom, they (apart from my wife Chelli) are the only ones I have personally met.

[Baron Alexandreu Davinescu]

I don't think officials with access to Government records should use that privilege as a political weapon.

Out of genuine curiosity Baron, why is taking the civics test an issue? Did you support the initiative but now no longer do? Thanks.

I already have an ID. I was the one who designed the original versions, and issued them to everyone who wanted one. It was a long time ago now, but I still have it. So I haven't really felt a rush.

[Sir Txec dal Nordselvă, UrB]

I don't think officials with access to Government records should use that privilege as a political weapon.

Out of genuine curiosity Baron, why is taking the civics test an issue? Did you support the initiative but now no longer do? Thanks.

I already have an ID. I was the one who designed the original versions, and issued them to everyone who wanted one. It was a long time ago now, but I still have it. So I haven't really felt a rush.

That makes sense. I didn't actually remember that. Thank you!

[Miestră Schivă, UrN]

The king can slow consideration of a bill at most.

Even by your standards that's a bit of a naughty fib. If that were true, either version of the Compromise would have passed and we'd be gearing up for the National Convocation now. The King can, at his whim, inflate the numbers need to pass a bill from a majority to a supermajority, or from a supermajority to an insane supermajority, or to require a fresh election before a revote. Which is great if you're part of the minority who agrees with him, I suppose.

Because that's what all this about, you'd agree? The principle of whether the majority of Talossans should set the form and the policy of the state, or whether a minority should get "special rights" to stop changes. I'm pretty unapologetic about the fact that I believe in majority rule with safeguards for minority rights, and that a stuffy, Byzantine system of government which makes big things almost impossible to do (if One Guy In Colorado doesn't like them) is only fun for a particular kind of warped psychology.

I think the government has too much power

So a TNC majority government would legislate to... do what? Make legislation even harder to pass than it already is? Require the Ziu minority and/or the Senäts to endorse Government initiatives? Meanwhile the FreeDems-led government brought in the CRL, where non-government officials get input into the quality of legislation - a system in which you've participated quite well, even though you were performatively dismissive earlier in the term. I also don't remember anything being different during the 9 terms you held power in a majority government.

I don't think officials with access to Government records should use that privilege as a political weapon.

The Civics Test is not a Government record; but nevertheless, I'm sorry. I didn't realise you were keeping it secret.

[Baron Alexandreu Davinescu]

The king can slow consideration of a bill at most.

Even by your standards that's a bit of a naughty fib. If that were true, either version of the Compromise would have passed and we'd be gearing up for the National Convocation now. The King can, at his whim, inflate the numbers need to pass a bill from a majority to a supermajority, or from a supermajority to an insane supermajority, or to require a fresh election before a revote. Which is great if you're part of the minority who agrees with him, I suppose.

Yes, the king has a suspensive veto now.  The current Seneschal wrote that bill to make the change.  He can force a bill to be reconsidered and slow its passage.  A regular bill, once vetoed, needs a higher margin to overrule the veto or can just be passed as normal the next term.

Because that's what all this about, you'd agree? The principle of whether the majority of Talossans should set the form and the policy of the state, or whether a minority should get "special rights" to stop changes. I'm pretty unapologetic about the fact that I believe in majority rule with safeguards for minority rights, and that a stuffy, Byzantine system of government which makes big things almost impossible to do (if One Guy In Colorado doesn't like them) is only fun for a particular kind of warped psychology.

Yes, I agree that this is the heart of the disagreement.  I believe that it's probably a good thing that we have a constitution and mechanisms which ensure that a temporary majority can't enforce its will on the minority.  It requires sustained support or strong support to make significant changes.  That's a good thing, and it's why we even have a written constitution.

A coalition of parties or a single majority party can't, for example, change how the Ziu operates to make it more to their liking -- and possibly more in their favor, permanently.  Take the example of the Senats: imagine that the TNC were to get majority control next term.  Would it be a good thing for us to be able to eliminate the Senats with that bare majority, if it blocked a key bill, thus securing greater power by changing the rules?  No, of course not.  We have the Organic Law to prevent such a thing.

Nonetheless, a sustained or a strong majority can and has enacted repeated change.  I think it's getting a little embarrassing that you're awkwardly ignoring this fact and my long list of recent examples.   Literally the entire OrgLaw was revised in its entirety, the hereditary monarchy was eliminated, the royal veto was made merely suspensive, the Royal Household was almost entirely transferred in control to different Government offices, the justice system was reworked entirely (four times over), we eliminated literally every single statute and replaced them with a sweeping legal code, we approved a massive merger of two nations that included reassignment of territory for a new province... And I can go on.  You personally just rewrote the entire criminal law and created new structures for legislating like... a few months ago!

It's just funny to watch someone who recently changed the legislative process and the entire criminal law, pretty much by herself, proceed to complain that it's impossible to change anything.

I think the government has too much power

So a TNC majority government would legislate to... do what? Make legislation even harder to pass than it already is? Require the Ziu minority and/or the Senäts to endorse Government initiatives? Meanwhile the FreeDems-led government brought in the CRL, where non-government officials get input into the quality of legislation - a system in which you've participated quite well, even though you were performatively dismissive earlier in the term. I also don't remember anything being different during the 9 terms you held power in a majority government.

Well, we've certainly seen that your memory can be quite flexible as necessary, but yeah... things did used to be different.  The Government has assigned itself a lot of control over aspects that didn't use to be within its power.  Over recent years, for example, the Government has assigned itself the management of the Chancery, whereas elections used to have more of a buffer of independence.  And the Government has assigned itself control over not just expenditures, but also the dispensation of funds.  Some of these changes are a good thing, like the latter, and some are a bad thing, like the former.  But please be aware that the TNC isn't a "fan club" and I'm not its leader, so I'm not making policy announcements or promises.  This is just my general thinking.

The Civics Test is not a Government record; but nevertheless, I'm sorry. I didn't realise you were keeping it secret.

Well, as near as I can tell, it's being administered by the Government after being created by the Government and graded by the Government with a list of success or failure held by the Government.  So that's quite a feat.

Not really a secret, but please take it as a general guideline for the future: whenever you try to use your official access to Government records to publicly embarrass people, I will pretty much always dislike the practice.

[Miestră Schivă, UrN]

Take the example of the Senats: imagine that the TNC were to get majority control next term.  Would it be a good thing for us to be able to eliminate the Senats with that bare majority

Look, I was quite hoping you guys *would* support us abolishing the Senäts this term. (That's just my opinion, not FreeDems policy, though I note the Seneschal is not as bicameral-positive as he used to be.) We're not like you guys; we're democrats, not counter-majoritarians. If you win a majority, you should get to enact your programme; if you win a 2/3 majority, you should get to change the OrgLaw.

the entire OrgLaw was revised in its entirety, the hereditary monarchy was eliminated, the royal veto was made merely suspensive,

During that one term that the ultra-conservatives boycotted, and sensible forces had the mythical 3/4 majority  :D I'm glad we agree.

we eliminated literally every single statute and replaced them with a sweeping legal code,

With 100% support. Because we let you write it.  ;D I repeat my contention: substantive change is impossible if the King + a tiny, angry minority don't like it. That's great, if you're the King or part of a tiny, angry minority.

the Royal Household was almost entirely transferred in control to different Government offices... the Government has assigned itself the management of the Chancery, whereas elections used to have more of a buffer of independence.

*sigh* Look, we know you love playing that game where you tell a stream of outrageous lies and hope your opponents get tired of refuting them. But this is quite serious, now. Firstly, anyone can just read the OrgLaw and El Lex and realise you're fibbing again. El Lex C.2. does not say what you're going to claim it says. Secondly, we know that your party is hostile towards the SoS and has been making all kinds of accusations against him, which is a bit embarrassing on your part. I think for your own sake you have to "put up" with your accusations that the Government controls or manages the Chancery, or withdraw and apologise. Real people who work incredibly hard for Talossa are getting hurt here.

But more seriously, let's keep on topic, that topic being Monarchy Reform. The parts of this thread which are still relevant are the argument of the TNC "Chief of Staff" in favour of the monarchy as something which is necessary to stop a majority in the Cosa doing what it wants, which would be a Very Bad Thing; of course in combination with the Senäts, and with a Royal Civil Service which would be under no obligation to consult with or report to the elected Government. But let's focus like a laser on what we want the monarchy to do. There's the "ceremonial" aspect, and the "anti-majoritarian" aspect as explained above. I see an argument for the former, but the latter is IMHO noxious; it's embarrassing to me that the latter is what the TNC seems to be riding and dying for.

The Free Democrats are, as the name implies, a democratic party; we see the need for checks and balances against a majority, but those checks and balances should not privilege one particular person, chosen for life, or one particular "clique" which has formed around that person.

it's being administered by the Government after being created by the Government and graded by the Government with a list of success or failure held by the Government.

Replace "the Government" with "Miestra, personally" and you'd be right. And I just wanted to know whether the TNC leadership had an objection to the Civics Test that they actually wanted to make public, or whether it was "for internal consumption only".

[Baron Alexandreu Davinescu]

the entire OrgLaw was revised in its entirety, the hereditary monarchy was eliminated, the royal veto was made merely suspensive,

During that one term that the ultra-conservatives boycotted, and sensible forces had the mythical 3/4 majority  :D I'm glad we agree.

The Still Into This Amendment passed during the 53rd Cosa.  The Judiciary Amendment was the 54th, and so was the Non-Hereditary Monarchy Amendment.  The Community Jurists Act was the 55th and so was the The Make the Ziu Actually Read This Stuff Bill.  The Talossan Criminal Reform Bills were the 56th.  The list goes on as you go further back.

Steadily, term after term, we've seen large-scale changes.  They're not uncommon at all.  When you say that there was only one term where significant changes happened, that's either a clumsy lie or your memory is very badly faulty.

the Royal Household was almost entirely transferred in control to different Government offices... the Government has assigned itself the management of the Chancery, whereas elections used to have more of a buffer of independence.

*sigh* Look, we know you love playing that game where you tell a stream of outrageous lies and hope your opponents get tired of refuting them. But this is quite serious, now. Firstly, anyone can just read the OrgLaw and El Lex and realise you're fibbing again. El Lex C.2. does not say what you're going to claim it says.

To your credit, I think you're probably just mistaken here or we just differ in interpretation.  But pretty recently my own office of Túischac'h, an office elected or removed by simple majority of the Cosa (ie, the Government) was granted the power to manage and/or fire the Secretary of State.  It's not like some giant thing or huge disaster, and obviously I'm personally never going to abuse it, but I do think that probably it's a mistake that could be abused.  Maybe you didn't reflect on this aspect of it, but this was the end result.  It didn't even occur to me at the time, honestly, but I saw it later. It's compounding the existing and added power that the Seneschal already had along the same lines.

There's been a lot of things like that. The burgermeister was my other example. He reports to the Government now. I'm not so sure this is a good thing, although admittedly I haven't spent a lot of time thinking about it.

I'm not going to bother to praise the incumbent SoS or rise to your clumsy baiting.  He knows his high worth, and so do I.

one particular "clique" which has formed around that person

Yes, you might end up with a sort of fan club.

[Baron Alexandreu Davinescu]

I do think we have run badly off topic and don't want to hijack this thread anymore. Let's give other people a chance to talk before we continue, okay?

[Tric'hard Lenxheir]

This is probably water that is over my head and I may drown by jumping in but I have to say that it is very obvious that @Baron Alexandreu Davinescu  and @Miestră Schivă, UrN have a longstanding dislike for each other that goes back before my time here in Talossa so perhaps others from each of the parties should get more involved and take a cooler more levelheaded approach to the discussions. Now as a member (sort of) of the TNC I will say that I do think that some sort of monarchy reform needs to be done. His Majesty does seem to be somewhat uninterested in performing any duties other than the occasional ceremonial duties such as granting CoA's and such (which I thank him for). I would personally be in favor of some sort of vote of confidence held at set times, it should be a fairly long time (7-10 years in my opinion) with the possibility of some sort of impeachment in between requiring a very large majority to pass. Impeachment it should be noted is not necessarily removal from office as proven by at least two U.S. presidents. That would be a job that I think should be reserved for the Uppermost Cort (assuming my understanding is correct). I will be the first to admit that writing such a law would be above my head intellectually. I am an idea guy but not a technical guy. I think the long time frame between each vote of confidence maintains some semblance of the monarchy while giving those unsatisfied with the current King or Queen a way of removing them from office. Maybe I'm wrong and maybe this current government is too broken to function in a calm manner and come to some sort of amicable agreement. I will stand by what I said some time ago, the best laws are those that nobody is completely happy with but everybody gets something they like out of them. This is not and should not be about whether the TNC, PdR or FreeDems win or lose, no, it should be about whether Talossa wins or loses.

[Miestră Schivă, UrN]

Now as a member (sort of) of the TNC I will say that I do think that some sort of monarchy reform needs to be done. His Majesty does seem to be somewhat uninterested in performing any duties other than the occasional ceremonial duties such as granting CoA's and such (which I thank him for). I would personally be in favor of some sort of vote of confidence held at set times, it should be a fairly long time (7-10 years in my opinion)

Yeah. This is precisely the monarchy reform that the TNC voted down on the First Clark; a vote of confidence at 7 year intervals. But the TNC said that a King who had to face a VoC at regular intervals wasn't a King at all, but a "President".

You're absolutely right about the heated partisanship, which goes along with people simply misrepresenting what "the other side" are proposing. But maybe the TNC will surprise me and come up with something better.

with the possibility of some sort of impeachment in between requiring a very large majority to pass.

We actually already have that, Organic Law II.4: "In dire circumstances, when the King is judged by competent medical authority to be incapable of executing his duties, or if he is convicted by the Talossan Uppermost Cort of violation of this Organic Law, treason, bribery, nonfeasance endangering the safety, order or good government of the Kingdom, or other high crimes, the nation may remove the King from the Throne. The Cosa shall pronounce by a two-thirds vote, with the approval of the Senäts, that the King is to be removed, and this pronouncement shall immediately be transmitted to the people for their verdict in a referendum. If a two-thirds majority of the people concur, the King is removed."

The problem with this is IMHO it's a waste of time because it's a higher bar than simply amending the OrgLaw to name a new king or even to abolish the monarchy.

[Tric'hard Lenxheir]

Now as a member (sort of) of the TNC I will say that I do think that some sort of monarchy reform needs to be done. His Majesty does seem to be somewhat uninterested in performing any duties other than the occasional ceremonial duties such as granting CoA's and such (which I thank him for). I would personally be in favor of some sort of vote of confidence held at set times, it should be a fairly long time (7-10 years in my opinion)

Yeah. This is precisely the monarchy reform that the TNC voted down on the First Clark; a vote of confidence at 7 year intervals. But the TNC said that a King who had to face a VoC at regular intervals wasn't a King at all, but a "President".

You're absolutely right about the heated partisanship, which goes along with people simply misrepresenting what "the other side" are proposing. But maybe the TNC will surprise me and come up with something better.

with the possibility of some sort of impeachment in between requiring a very large majority to pass.

We actually already have that, Organic Law II.4: "In dire circumstances, when the King is judged by competent medical authority to be incapable of executing his duties, or if he is convicted by the Talossan Uppermost Cort of violation of this Organic Law, treason, bribery, nonfeasance endangering the safety, order or good government of the Kingdom, or other high crimes, the nation may remove the King from the Throne. The Cosa shall pronounce by a two-thirds vote, with the approval of the Senäts, that the King is to be removed, and this pronouncement shall immediately be transmitted to the people for their verdict in a referendum. If a two-thirds majority of the people concur, the King is removed."

The problem with this is IMHO it's a waste of time because it's a higher bar than simply amending the OrgLaw to name a new king or even to abolish the monarchy.

Two points, first YOU chose to become a citizen of a nation that is now and always has been a monarchy, and you took an oath if memory serves swearing fealty to the King and to Talossa. Now I know that doesn't mean that you cannot attempt to make changes but you also did not go into this blindly. A second point is that the above skips impeachment completely and jumps directly to removal from office. Impeachment is defined as a charge of misconduct made against the holder of a public office. So first one would need to bring charges against the King and then prove them in a cort of law. If successful in proving said charges then the Ziu would continue on the the removal from office procedure which would and SHOULD require a large majority of at least 3/4. Removal from office should never be easy to accomplish and should be agreed upon by both parties to some degree. I would say the bar for impeachment should be somewhat lower than removal...perhaps even a simple majority of the Cosa but removal should be much more difficult.

[Miestră Schivă, UrN]

Two points, first YOU chose to become a citizen of a nation that is now and always has been a monarchy

Firstly, Talossa has not "always" been a monarchy.

Secondly, attached is a picture of me swearing the oath of citizenship in 2012. Written on my hand is the words, in Talossa: "My oath is to the Talossan people".

[Ian Plätschisch]

For what it's worth, I still would be most happy with something similar to the original Compromise on the Compromise. For the uninitiated:
-Convocation of everyone who has been a citizen for more than seven years meets every seven years for a vote of confidence in the King
-If the vote fails (more than 60% vote no confidence), they meet again in six months to elect a King

I understand AD's critique of this plan (even though I don't agree with it). There are plenty historical examples of elective monarchies and making this change would not turn the King into a President. I would still love to hear what S:reu Tzaracomprada doesn't like about it since I still don't know.