Succession Solution Amendment

[Üc R. Tärfă]

Anyway, if you ever relax your red lines here

So you take the first step:

I'm not sure that everyone would sign off on a way to make it much easier to remove the monarch beyond the existing methods that permit removal with one vote in case of mis or non feasance.

Can you relax your red lines here?

[Baron Alexandreu Davinescu]

Well, this proposal is not my preference. I'd prefer the king simply make his choice of successor. I think turning the monarchy into a partisan office, subject to campaigning and vulnerable to shortsighted backlash, would be a mistake. So making that entire prospect possible with a concerted campaign is already an enormous concession. My proposal is that the king gets to offer a candidate for approval first - still popular election, and limited in scope to only three candidates before the entire thing moves past him to just open partisan election.

I will continue to work on this, and hope for progress.

[Miestră Schivă, UrN-GC]

This is coming only from me, not the party, but, I see possible room for manoeuvre.

The biggest objection to giving the King free choice would be that the "racing favourite" would be someone who would cause uproar from the opposition party.

If the King made a pinky promise not to pick that person - and if that person were to say something like "even if chosen I would decline" - that would undercut a lot of the heat from the debate.

But to do that would infringe on the principle of "the King makes the choice", which would possibly not be acceptable.

I will repeat as I suggested last year: that the King's choice could be made from a list of 3 candidates presented by the Seneschal and Leader of Opposition by consensus (i.e. with mutual veto).

But all this still runs up over the problem - since the status quo is preferable to anything that the Government is suggesting, the Senäts majority has no incentive to approve anything suggested so far.

[esbornatfiglheu]

For what it's worth, I don't much think there should be a guaranteed succession upon the ending of the monarch's term (life, abdication, or whatever).  Or at the very least, I don't think that the current monarch should be naming their IMMEDIATE successor (for public/popular review or otherwise).

At least partially, I think that is too prone to either:

• Simply going to whomever the King is tight with at the moment -or-
• You wind up with a Charles III situation where the heir apparent simply sits there like week-old crudite and YET ANOTHER person is locked into a near lifetime of relative inaction.

This is at least based on the assumption that the named heir will be expected to "hold themselves above the fray," and I don't see why they wouldn't be.  And its not like Talossa has the personnel to really sustain itself at current.  Locking down a second (presumably) active individual seems like a bad idea.

As it stands, I don't see how the preference of a single individual is at all preferable to the vagaries of partisan preference.  I know the current monarch has used to analogy of "the grumpy old man who saves the town from itself," and I guess that would be great if I at all trusted the current occupant to do right by Talossa.  And, quite simply, I don't.

The problem with monarchy is that it is almost impossible to fully divorce the structure from the personality.  It's right there in the name, baked right into the clay, that you cannot fully do so.

[Üc R. Tärfă]

Well, this proposal is not my preference. I'd prefer the king simply make his choice of successor. I think turning the monarchy into a partisan office, subject to campaigning and vulnerable to shortsighted backlash, would be a mistake. So making that entire prospect possible with a concerted campaign is already an enormous concession. My proposal is that the king gets to offer a candidate for approval first - still popular election, and limited in scope to only three candidates before the entire thing moves past him to just open partisan election.

I will continue to work on this, and hope for progress.

The point is that there are two aspects in this issue:

[1] Succession
[2] Term of office/Removal

The status quo is strong in both aspects but in two different directions.

If you ask one part to give up something on [1] you should give up something on [2].

Otherwise it's just one side relaxing their redlines: that's not a compromise.