May 2020 Results (54th Cosa, 5th Clark)

[Glüc da Dhi S.H.]

54RZ23 - The Uniform Seneschál Election Act: Passed (164-0-0, 4-3-0) (Amendment requires approval by referendum)
54RZ24 - The Uniform Túischac'h Election Act: Failed (120-0-44, 2-4-1)
54RZ25 - Judiciary Amendment of 2020: Passed (93-27-44, 3-2-2) (Amendment requires approval by referendum)
54RZ26 - The Non-Hereditary Monarchy Amendment: Passed (137-27-0, 5-2-0) (Amendment requires approval by referendum)
VoC: Passed (149-15)

Votes per MZ can be found here: http://www.talossa.ca/files/cosa_vote_result.php?cosa=54&clark=5

The following members did not vote and risk losing their seats if they miss the next vote:
@Iason Taiwos

The following members did not vote for the second consecutive time and have lost their seats:
Jordan Placie

[King John]

With regard to 24RZ26, the "Non-Hereditary Monarchy Amendment", I have various thoughts, and I've been puzzling for a month about how or whether to express them.  Herewith a few considerations.

First, suppose we pass this and actually try to live under it for a while.  OK, a King dies or abdicates, and presto! the nation is faced with the highest-stake election possible -- a lifetime appointment to the most prestigious office in Talossa.  It seems doubtful that everyone will agree on who the next King should be, so the election will likely be contested, and if recent Talossan experience is any guide, it will be pretty hotly contested.  Now, in a "normal" election, a periodical one (like Talossan General Elections or the American Presidential election), the losing side can say "We'll get 'em next time" and start getting their ducks in order for the next election; but if you're electing a *King*, there won't *be* a next time (most likely) until many years have passed.  So we'll be left in a situation where the losing side has no way foreseeable to recover from the loss, and where the winning side controls the Crown probably for the next generation or two.  Which will lead pretty quickly to most of the losing side simply quitting politics (and probably Talossa) altogether.

To remedy this, of course, it will be suggested that the King have a set term of office, three years or five years or whatever.  At which point we should simply change the name of the office from "King" to "President", and the name of the country to The Talossan Republic, and have done with it.  I mean, why pretend?

Then again, an elected King -- things being what they are -- will owe his office to one party or another, and is unlikely to act in a non-partisan way.  (It's hard to do, believe me.)  This is especially true if he's coming up for re-election at some point, and sees that his prospects of continuing as King depend on his effectively toadying to the people who elected him in the first place.  An elected Monarchy is a partisan Monarchy, and there's no way I can see even to mitigate that.

The preamble to this Bill says in part, "WHEREAS The best person to become the next Monarch is usually not going to be the child of the previous one".  I think that's very likely true.  It's also true that democratic processes like partisan elections are unlikely to come up with "the best person" for any particular office; we in the United States have been marvelling in recent years at the ability of elections to turn up some of the *least* qualified people.  But a hereditary monarchy has this very great advantage, that because everyone knows who the next Monarch is going to be, nobody is surprised or disappointed or feels unfairly outmaneuvered by the results of a transition.

I'll have more thoughts on this.  I've had an amazingly busy month of work, and it doesn't seem to be lightening any, but I will get some more ideas down.  Meanwhile, of course,

Ça el Regeu non piaça.

-- John Regeu

[Eðo Grischun]

Enough is enough.

The fact that it's fine for a monarch to voice his opinion on any matter that has been democratically decided upon by his parliament is an affront to what a constitutional parliamentary democratic monarchy is supposed to be.

The fact that it's fine for a monarch to voice his opinion on this particular matter, which has been democratically decided upon by his parliament is an affront to what a constitutional parliamentary democratic monarchy is supposed to be.

The fact that it's fine for a monarch to not only voice his opinion, but that he also has a veto on any matter that has been democratically decided upon by his parliament is an affront to what a constitutional parliamentary democratic monarchy is supposed to be.

Enough is enough.

The time for this nation to decide once and for all if this style of monarchy is still acceptable is fast approaching.

[Ian Plätschisch]

Your Majesty, you are too late.

Article VII, Section 11 says in part:

If the King neither signs nor vetoes a Bill before the last day of the month in which it was passed by the Ziu, he shall be deemed to have signed it.

Today is the last day of the month. Therefore, vetoing today is not "before the last day of the month." You have already been deemed to have signed the bill.

We'll see you in Cort.

Egg on face moment I guess. I should have seen this coming given how many times I've been wrong before.

[Miestră Schivă, UrN]

The Cabinet is awaiting a formal legal analysis from the Attorney-General, but the Distáin's legal analysis seems sound to me. The King did not get the veto in in time and therefore 54RZ26 passes and goes to referendum.

I would like the Secretary of State to confirm ASAP whether he agrees with the Government's interpretation. If he does, then a Cort case will be avoided.

[Glüc da Dhi S.H.]

Rules for amendments are different:

"Article XII: Amendments to this Organic Law

Section 1 Amendments to this Organic Law may be proposed by two-thirds of the Cosa with approval of the Senäts. Approval of the Senäts shall be by simple majority, except that amendments to this article, amendments to the articles regarding election to and composition of the Senäts, and amendments to the article regarding territorial subdivisions require approval of two-thirds of the Senäts. (53RZ18)

Section 2 The King shall assent to amendments proposed by the Cosa and Senäts unless he returns them with his objections within thirty days of their proposal, or within fifteen days in the case of amendments passed on the last Clark of a Cosa term. The King shall not refuse assent if the identical amendment is approved by three-quarters of the same Cosa with an absolute majority of the Senäts, or by two-thirds of the following Cosa with a simple majority of the Senäts. (53RZ18)"

I'm not even the sure the automatic reproposal clause in VII.11 applies here. Probably not, because either the rules for amendments are simply different alltogether or the bill passed (which I guess means the Cosa and Senate propose the amendment but there still won't be a referendum.) The idea that the King could theoretically have waited until after the clark started suggests that interpretation is correct as well.
(Actually that clause might not actually be an automatic reclark clause either, cause apparently it wasn't interpreted that way before...)
Nevermind, apparently someone already clarked it again

[Glüc da Dhi S.H.]

Short answer: as far as I can see the bill is not automatically assented to, because the King had 30 days to respond and did so in time.

[Miestră Schivă, UrN]

Rules for amendments are different:

I confess myself amazed that the SoS knows the 2017 OrgLaw better than the Distáin who wrote it, lol

[Ian Plätschisch]

Rules for amendments are different:

I confess myself amazed that the SoS knows the 2017 OrgLaw better than the Distáin who wrote it, lol

To be fair, it's pretty long :P

[King John]

The fact that it's fine for a monarch to voice his opinion on any matter that has been democratically decided upon by his parliament is an affront to what a constitutional parliamentary democratic monarchy is supposed to be.

The fact that it's fine for a monarch to voice his opinion on this particular matter, which has been democratically decided upon by his parliament is an affront to what a constitutional parliamentary democratic monarchy is supposed to be.

The fact that it's fine for a monarch to not only voice his opinion, but that he also has a veto on any matter that has been democratically decided upon by his parliament is an affront to what a constitutional parliamentary democratic monarchy is supposed to be.

Senator, did I or did I not act within the powers accorded me by the brand-new Organic Law?

If I did not, please point out where the new Organic Law says I can't do what I did, and I'll try to correct it.

If I did act within my powers, are you now saying that the Organic Law, passed overwhelmingly by this Government just a few months ago, "is an affront to what a constitutional parliamentary democratic monarchy is supposed to be"?  So you now oppose the new Organic Law?

Talossa is not Great Britain.  A constitutional monarchy doesn't have to act exactly how Great Britain's does today.  It might act the way Britain's did a couple of hundred years ago, or the way Liechtenstein's (for example) does today.  Or the way Talossa's always has.

-- John R

[Eðo Grischun]

Aye, very clever. 

The curious case of Lichtenstein and its gaslighting Prince Regent notwithstanding, this outdated style of monarchy doesn't jibe well with modern democratic standards.  It just doesn't.

But, yeah, okay.  If the majority of Talossans still want the monarchy to have this veto power and the ability to wade about in the political quagmire then ... well, in your own words:

At which point we should simply change the name of the office from "King" to "President", and the name of the country to The Talossan Republic, and have done with it.  I mean, why pretend?

I still feel Talossa is better being a Kingdom, but for the monarchy to survive in the long term it simply must accept and embrace the growing sense of this nation that the monarch should not be messing around in the legislature.  You mention the monarchy of the United Kingdom, which, to me, is the ideal model for what a modern Talossan monarchy needs to look like else risk falling completely.

[esbornatfiglheu]

Or it needn't have a King.  Perhaps an eternal Regent?  Or a Holy Crown?  Or an office like the Sh'botay or Panarch from science fiction?  Talossans are a creative bunch, and those looking for pomp and ceremony could find something far more effective, I'm sure.

[Miestră Schivă, UrN]

To remedy this, of course, it will be suggested that the King have a set term of office, three years or five years or whatever.  At which point we should simply change the name of the office from "King" to "President", and the name of the country to The Talossan Republic, and have done with it.  I mean, why pretend?

His Majesty might be unwise, on the 16th anniversary of Calonda Gün 2004, to suggest that Talossans have to choose between a King who involves himself in politics outside of constitutional crises, and a New Republic. Many Talossans, like Senator Grischün, don't want to make that choice; it would be unwise to push them, unless one were sure one had the numbers.

Talossa is not Great Britain.  A constitutional monarchy doesn't have to act exactly how Great Britain's does today.  It might act the way Britain's did a couple of hundred years ago, or the way Liechtenstein's (for example) does today.  Or the way Talossa's always has.

The way Talossa's monarchy has "always" operated is elected. Every monarch - with the exception of the founding of the State, and the brief, abortive and embarrassing "reign" of Boy King Louis - was elected by the Ziu and/or by referendum. His Majesty was himself elected. Which makes all the things that he's saying above about how an elected King "will owe his office to one party or another" seem curious when he's spent the last 14 years telling us that no, he didn't hold office in the name of the now-defunct RUMP party.

I would also suggest that the benefits of "certainty of succession" are obviated when - for example - the Heir to the Throne is even less active in Talossa than its incumbent. But the point is: it is Talossan tradition that, in practice, we elect the Monarch.

That said, I must agree that His Majesty's veto is entirely in accordance with the letter of the law; though waiting until possibly the literal last minute (in the hope that its sponsor would not be around to re-Clark?) seems somewhat outwith its spirit.

[Eðo Grischun]

Or it needn't have a King.  Perhaps an eternal Regent?  Or a Holy Crown?  Or an office like the Sh'botay or Panarch from science fiction?  Talossans are a creative bunch, and those looking for pomp and ceremony could find something far more effective, I'm sure.

Yeah.  Talossa can definitely be whatever Talossa wants to be, but whatever Talossa decides to be I'm sure my Peculiarist friend will agree with me that political clout should not be held by one person holding a lifetime position.

[Miestră Schivă, UrN]

Section 2 The King shall assent to amendments proposed by the Cosa and Senäts unless he returns them with his objections within thirty days of their proposal, or within fifteen days in the case of amendments passed on the last Clark of a Cosa term. The King shall not refuse assent if the identical amendment is approved by three-quarters of the same Cosa with an absolute majority of the Senäts, or by two-thirds of the following Cosa with a simple majority of the Senäts. (53RZ18)"

A question for the SoS, to forestall any problems: do you read "an absolute majority of the Senäts" here to mean an absolute majority of the current Senators (i.e. 4 PËR votes / 7) or an absolute majority of Senäts seats (i.e. 5 PËR votes / 8)?