Succession Solution Amendment

[Baron Alexandreu Davinescu]

WHEREAS the monarchy is a good thing for Talossa, and the Talossan people have repeatedly affirmed that they want to maintain a strong, stable, and active monarchy, yet only the people should be the ultimate arbiters of power, through their democratic assent, and

WHEREAS this issue has consumed Talossans for years, often causing bitter rifts and exhausted partisans, and neither the restoration of the hereditary monarchy nor a regularly-elected president has the support of a majority of the people, and a middle path which embraces the virtues of both traditions might be the way to go,

THEREFORE Article II, Section 3 of the Organic Law, which currently reads

The King of Talossa is King John I, until his demise, abdication, or removal from the throne. Should the King at any time renounce or lose his citizenship, that renunciation or loss shall be deemed to imply his abdication of the Throne. Upon the demise, abdication, or removal from the Throne of the King, the Uppermost Cort shall be a Council of Regency.

shall be amended to read

The King of Talossa is King John I, until his demise, abdication, or removal from the throne. Should the King at any time renounce or lose his citizenship, that renunciation or loss shall be deemed to imply his abdication of the Throne.

FURTHERMORE, new sections 5 and 6 shall be added to Article II, with succeeding sections renumbered accordingly.  The new section 5 shall read

With the advice of the Sabor, the King may select any Talossan citizen of his choice, and submit them to the people by referendum for confirmation as crown prince or crown princess.  Should this referendum succeed, the confirmed crown prince or crown princess shall be the heir apparent to the throne.  Upon the serving King's demise, abdication, or removal from the throne, the crown prince or princess shall be promptly crowned as the new King by the serving Seneschal.

The new section 6 shall read

If the confirmation referendum described in section 5 should fail to achieve a majority any three times, or upon the demise, abdication, or removal from the throne of the serving king at a time when there is no confirmed crown prince or crown princess, then a nationwide election shall be conducted by the Secretary of State.  Any Talossan citizen may be nominated by another citizen as a potential crown prince or princess during a period of one month, after which any citizens who accept their nomination shall be submitted to the people in an open election conducted by Instant Runoff Voting. In case of a tie between two or more candidates, the Chief Judge of the Cort pü Inalt shall break the tie.

Uréu q'estadra så:
Alexandreu Davinescu (MC-TNC)

[Baron Alexandreu Davinescu]

Plainly speaking, this bill lets the king choose a successor, but the successor has to be approved by popular referendum.  If the referendum fails three times in total (either with the same person, or with different potential nominees) then it just becomes an open election.

So after seeing GV specifically endorse this approach, and after consulting a whole bunch of people about ways to approach this, I thought this would be a way forward that could suit everyone.  It looks specifically to the people for their endorsement of any choice and doesn't allow unlimited bites at the apple, even allowing for the people to essentially call for a free election by thrice voting down a nominee.  But it also plays to the strengths of the crown, permitting individual choice at the heart of the selection and relying on the good judgment of the sovereign.  Finding a balancing point here was quite difficult, but I'm pretty proud of the results.

[Miestră Schivă, UrN]

Go into detail on the last section: "If the confirmation referendum described in section 5 should fail to achieve a majority any three times". Does this mean for one particular candidate, i.e. the King gets three goes at trying to impose a successor? Or, the King picks 3 different successors and each one get rejected?

I wonder whether there's merit in an opposite approach. If there's no Crown Princess, the Ziu picks a slate of 3 candidates, and the King chooses one?

[Baron Alexandreu Davinescu]

Go into detail on the last section: "If the confirmation referendum described in section 5 should fail to achieve a majority any three times". Does this mean for one particular candidate, i.e. the King gets three goes at trying to impose a successor? Or, the King picks 3 different successors and each one get rejected?

The intent is for any combination -- retrying the same person three times, or two times and then a new person, or three different people.  Any three failed referenda will do it.  I might need to redraft the language.  It's a little fiddly, and I might need fresh eyes before I can see how to do it.

I wonder whether there's merit in an opposite approach. If there's no Crown Princess, the Ziu picks a slate of 3 candidates, and the King chooses one?

Do you mean rather than the king making his choice, or instead of the open election after three referenda?

[Antaglha Xhenerös Somelieir]

Ok, whilst I can appreciate that this is some movement from the TNC on this front, i in all good conscious vote for, nor support a bill that will give the Monarch a say over their successor, or any possible veto, In all honesty, i don't feel comfortable straying away from the compromise too much, but that doesn't seem like it can go anywhere at the moment. But my personal absolute red line, is that the ZUI proposes and votes (with a 2/3 majority in each chamber) on a successor, and that person is confirmed by the people in a referendum. Separate from the Monarch and institution of the Monarchy. IF it will help, i would concede to it happening before the monarch abdicates, dies etc, but that is the most i feel i could personally support, also this is not an attack on these proposals, and i appreciate that something has been proposed, i am just stating my own personal boundaries with proposed changes on this

[Baron Alexandreu Davinescu]

Ok, whilst I can appreciate that this is some movement from the TNC on this front, i in all good conscious vote for, nor support a bill that will give the Monarch a say over their successor, or any possible veto, In all honesty, i don't feel comfortable straying away from the compromise too much, but that doesn't seem like it can go anywhere at the moment. But my personal absolute red line, is that the ZUI proposes and votes (with a 2/3 majority in each chamber) on a successor, and that person is confirmed by the people in a referendum. Separate from the Monarch and institution of the Monarchy. IF it will help, i would concede to it happening before the monarch abdicates, dies etc, but that is the most i feel i could personally support, also this is not an attack on these proposals, and i appreciate that something has been proposed, i am just stating my own personal boundaries with proposed changes on this

If you've declared a red line beyond which you won't go, committing yourself to opposing any compromise, then certainly it becomes impossible to persuade you.  Thank you for your views, at least.  I respect the sincerity of your beliefs.  I think that the monarchists who would prefer a hereditary monarchy -- or a free hand for the monarch to choose his successor, or something else further to the monarchist line -- might have their own red lines.  I hope that enough remain in the middle to support this compromise proposal.  It's not my preferred outcome, but it represents a real attempt at finding consensus.

[Sir Ian Plätschisch]

I feel like we could actually be close to something here.

The only big issue I have with this bill is that it does not provide an opportunity to dethrone the King before their life term is up (or they abdicate). If a King is not doing their job, there should be a way to "legislatively decapitate" them, as some have called it. My compromise amendment provided this opportunity once every seven years.

Also, once we get to the point of having an election, I prefer the Convocation method described in my amendment compared to a regular IRV election.

[Baron Alexandreu Davinescu]

I feel like we could actually be close to something here.

The only big issue I have with this bill is that it does not provide an opportunity to dethrone the King before their life term is up (or they abdicate). If a King is not doing their job, there should be a way to "legislatively decapitate" them, as some have called it. My compromise amendment provided this opportunity once every seven years.

Also, once we get to the point of having an election, I prefer the Convocation method described in my amendment compared to a regular IRV election.

Thank you for your feedback.  I don't want to be unreasonable, but this represents a pretty careful months-long effort to bring together a number of stakeholders with very different views.  So please believe me when I say that I'm going to do my best, but I think only some of what you propose is possible.  I think the convocation thing might fly, on the one hand, if a significant number of others agree with you.  It's slightly less democratic, but I don't see think that the change would be insuperable if it really is warranted.   But I really doubt that there's any version of a "decapitation" provision that would pass.  Such a provision already exists for when the monarch is ill or convicted of a crime or reckless nonfeasance.  If such a thing were included, there'd probably need to be significant concessions going the other way, including restoration of some royal powers.  And I know to a mortal certainty that no presidential term of office would pass.

Do you think that a lot of others would prefer the convocation rather than a voter-wide referendum?  Would you prefer we reuse some of the language from your bill?

[Miestră Schivă, UrN]

this represents a pretty careful months-long effort to bring together a number of stakeholders with very different views.

... not including any Free Democrats or Reformistàes, of course! Seriously - this is a partisan proposal, a Monarchist proposal. It's not the worst one imaginable but let's not pretend it's a new Compromise.

However, if the TNC (and, behind them, the King) were interested in actually taking a step towards compromise, we might want to consider taking the Seneschál's concerns into account by lowering the bar for removing the King as contained in the current II.4.

I must say that the track record of the King, nominating a Regent who was guaranteed to outrage majority opinion, does not give me any confidence that the incumbent could name a successor who wouldn't be bogged down in a series of divisive referenda, under this proposal. I humbly suggest that the idea of allowing the Ziu to pick a slate of possible successor, with the King making final call, would minimise the chance of a literal War of Succession.

[Antaglha Xhenerös Somelieir]

Another point i wish to raise with the Baron, is that you already knew what the Free Democrats and other parties had come to as a compromise position ourselves, which we has stated previously, represented a lot of red lines on our side, and yet, you bring up a proposal, calling it a solution, with prior knowledge of what i have already said, and no negotiations with us, so i ask, how did you think this being proposed would go? As, as far as i can see it, based on the current makeup of the Ziu, i cannot see this passing. Also, i am not saying i am not interested in a compromise, as you have suggested above, also having red lines, despite your position, does NOT mean that the individual is opposed to negotiations, it means that there is a base line of principles they can't go past, i concede that my own views and the views in the bill proposed i dont think can be bridged, especially if, by your own admission, you have little room to manoeuvre yourself. So it is a little rich saying you cant change my mind on things, when your own position is essentially the same. But i honestly feel that the honest middle of the road of positions was the compromise bill we have been proposing, but the goalposts kept being moved in a monarchist direction. But a monarchy without democratic accountability, without being able for the Ziu to dismiss them outside of extreme circumstances, is just not something most of the people, if not all, of the Free Democrats, which holds and represents a large percentage of the views in Talossa, can accept. And that idea is basically being dismissed almost out of hand. So, whilst this might be a compromise amongst the monarchists, i do ask you, how is this a true compromise with people on our side of this debate? Because honestly, i cannot see that it is.

Also, i have one more question, do you know who, if this does somehow pass, the King might present as an heir? As another issue i can see, is that even if this is passed, somehow, is who a possible heir might be, in line with this bill, as if it is someone not palitible to one side of talossa, and that somehow is shoehorned through, a large portion of the population will be alienated in the country. Which is why i said what i said earlier, without some democratic safeguards from the Zui in this matter, as that makes it more likely a cross party support is reached. Also it doesn't solve the fact that a large portion of people would like some sort of term limits on the monarchy too (and your previous arguments dismissing the concept of elected monarchies when they have existed for millenia, and the fact that the current monarch was ELECTED, doesn't have much grounding in facts) is something that i cant see something like this being passed without. This just feels like alot of the concerns raised just by having the compromise bill we have been proposing have been dismissed and ignored as unimportant in the eyes of your party, which makes it harder to support this. So i ask, why the step BACKWARDS from what we were proposing, and not an olive branch towards our side? As i believe if you were serious about reaching a middle ground, these things should have been addressed with us before such a proposal was made. But it wasnt. So i just dont understand how this can honestly be thought of as a "middle of the road" proposal when is is so far from the middle its like a speck of dust in the far distance.

[Breneir Tzaracomprada]

this represents a pretty careful months-long effort to bring together a number of stakeholders with very different views.

this represents a pretty careful months-long effort to bring together a number of stakeholders with very different views.

... not including any Free Democrats or Reformistàes, of course! Seriously - this is a partisan proposal, a Monarchist proposal. It's not the worst one imaginable but let's not pretend it's a new Compromise.

However, if the TNC (and, behind them, the King) were interested in actually taking a step towards compromise, we might want to consider taking the Seneschál's concerns into account by lowering the bar for removing the King as contained in the current II.4.

I must say that the track record of the King, nominating a Regent who was guaranteed to outrage majority opinion, does not give me any confidence that the incumbent could name a successor who wouldn't be bogged down in a series of divisive referenda, under this proposal. I humbly suggest that the idea of allowing the Ziu to pick a slate of possible successor, with the King making final call, would minimise the chance of a literal War of Succession.

However, if the TNC (and, behind them, the King) were interested in actually taking a step towards compromise, we might want to consider taking the Seneschál's concerns into account by lowering the bar for removing the King as contained in the current II.4.

I humbly suggest that the idea of allowing the Ziu to pick a slate of possible successor, with the King making final call, would minimise the chance of a literal War of Succession.

Changes to the removal criteria were not a part of internal discussions so I can't speak for the party. But, personally, as an alternative to the confidence votes, I am open to it. I am also, personally open to the Ziu's involvement with the King making the final call.

Miestra, are these measures which would garner significant FreeDem support?

[Baron Alexandreu Davinescu]

Another point i wish to raise with the Baron, is that you already knew what the Free Democrats and other parties had come to as a compromise position ourselves, which we has stated previously, represented a lot of red lines on our side, and yet, you bring up a proposal, calling it a solution, with prior knowledge of what i have already said, and no negotiations with us, so i ask, how did you think this being proposed would go?

Except that your red line is that the monarch can't have any say over his successor, which is a line drawn dramatically far away from any kind of possible compromise.  This proposal is already a big compromise between my preferred outcome and opposing views, and I designed it to bridge the gap after consulting with people in the FDT and my own party, with the king, and with ardent monarchists.  Moving dramatically in either direction is going to lose other people, many of whom already feel these are painful concessions.

I mean, under this plan, with three votes the citizenry could demand an open election and reject any royal say in a successor.  That's a very hard pill for a lot of people to swallow.

Also, i have one more question, do you know who, if this does somehow pass, the King might present as an heir?

I have no idea.  I'll note that I asked this same question when the presidency bill was proposed, and no one could answer that, either.  There's no obvious successor right now.

As another issue i can see, is that even if this is passed, somehow, is who a possible heir might be, in line with this bill, as if it is someone not palitible to one side of talossa, and that somehow is shoehorned through, a large portion of the population will be alienated in the country. Which is why i said what i said earlier, without some democratic safeguards from the Zui in this matter, as that makes it more likely a cross party support is reached. Also it doesn't solve the fact that a large portion of people would like some sort of term limits on the monarchy too (and your previous arguments dismissing the concept of elected monarchies when they have existed for millenia, and the fact that the current monarch was ELECTED, doesn't have much grounding in facts) is something that i cant see something like this being passed without. This just feels like alot of the concerns raised just by having the compromise bill we have been proposing have been dismissed and ignored as unimportant in the eyes of your party, which makes it harder to support this. So i ask, why the step BACKWARDS from what we were proposing, and not an olive branch towards our side? As i believe if you were serious about reaching a middle ground, these things should have been addressed with us before such a proposal was made. But it wasnt. So i just dont understand how this can honestly be thought of as a "middle of the road" proposal when is is so far from the middle its like a speck of dust in the far distance.

For my part, I don't see the presidency proposed in the former bill as any sort of compromise, just because it still has the label "king" on it.  I still don't see why exactly that was ever presented as a compromise, since typically both sides give way in a compromise.  I know that your party line is that a regularly-elected king with very little power can still be called a king, but that's only true in the most banal technical sense.  The word has been used a ton of different ways and has no inherent meaning!  We could elect someone to a one-year term and require them to collect stray dogs from the street, and they'd still be a dogcatcher even if we called them king.

This bill represents an actual compromise, on the other hand.  Instead of a hereditary monarchy, the next monarch would need to be confirmed by a plebiscite.  If the people decided to reject the offered choices, then there would be an open election instead.  That actually represents real compromise from both sides.

[Baron Alexandreu Davinescu]

I must say that the track record of the King, nominating a Regent who was guaranteed to outrage majority opinion, does not give me any confidence that the incumbent could name a successor who wouldn't be bogged down in a series of divisive referenda, under this proposal.

Then you should certainly support this bill, since if no successor could be found who was broadly acceptable, then it would just go to a general election!

[Breneir Tzaracomprada]

Go into detail on the last section: "If the confirmation referendum described in section 5 should fail to achieve a majority any three times". Does this mean for one particular candidate, i.e. the King gets three goes at trying to impose a successor? Or, the King picks 3 different successors and each one get rejected?

I wonder whether there's merit in an opposite approach. If there's no Crown Princess, the Ziu picks a slate of 3 candidates, and the King chooses one?

These are only personal suggestions for discussion based on Miestra's suggestion:

What if the Ziu picks a slate of three with the King choosing from those three. But the King has the option of rejecting the first slate and sending it back to the Ziu. The Ziu sends a second slate and if the King rejects those again it is reversed. The King makes a selection and sends to the Ziu. In any of these three situations where a candidate is approved. They are to be approved in a public referendum by two-thirds vote.

That is three potential rounds with up to 7 potential candidates being considered. If there is no successful choice then we are in an exceptional situation which is where the Convocation suggested by Ian could be activated.

Would this address your concerns Miestra? Would this allow the King to have a significant say in choosing his successor, Baron?

[Sir Ian Plätschisch]

Thank you for your feedback.  I don't want to be unreasonable, but this represents a pretty careful months-long effort to bring together a number of stakeholders with very different views.  So please believe me when I say that I'm going to do my best, but I think only some of what you propose is possible. 

On one hand, I see what you mean, but on the other, it's kind of irritating. If you were having a months-long discussion with the goal of presenting a nearly-finished amendment, it probably should have included everyone important enough to have their own entrance music (i.e., the Seneschal).

With that aside, I think there are two conceptually distinct aspects of Monarchy reform that both need to be addressed:
1. How should a new King be selected?
2. How should the current King be able to be replaced before their death or voluntary abdication?

Unlike my fellow Free Democrats, I am not that concerned with #1. I personally like my Convocation idea but the other proposals seem mostly fine to me as well (although I am not sure a new King should be able to be elected with only a bare majority of the votes). I think it is fine if the current King gets a say over their successor, and I do not think the democratic-ness of the selection process should be the overriding consideration, as long as there is an element of democracy involved.

As should surprise no one, I am very concerned with #2. A King could be doing a very poor job without committing anything actually criminal, so I don't think the current mechanisms for removing the King pass muster. I understand the aversion to regular votes of confidence, though. What about this:

If the Secretary of State is presented with a petition signed by 1/3 of all the citizens of Talossa to remove the King, then the Secretary of State shall call a referendum on the question. The King is removed if at least 3/5 of the votes are in favor.

Now there is no fixed term of office. I will also point out, given the nature of Talossa, getting 1/3 of all Talossans on the petition would be an enormous task, so this isn't something that could be done willy-nilly.