[ABANDONED] The Active Monarch Assurance Amendment

[Breneir Tzaracomprada]

It's accession again.
Also, if there are any members of other parties wishing to co-sponsor please let me know.

[þerxh Sant-Enogat]

After an internal vote, The TNC has decided to endorse the Bill.

[Breneir Tzaracomprada]

After an internal vote, The TNC has decided to endorse the Bill.

To be clear on this, the TNC endorsed the bill but several TNC MCs will likely vote against it when it comes before the Ziu as this will be a free vote not a whipped vote. I mention this because I don't want people to be surprised when this is potentially voted down by TNC MCs (Therxh, Dama Litz, and Carlus) even though it was officially endorsed by the party and was modified to address concerns that arose during debate.

[Miestră Schivă, UrN]

I'm not sure an endorsement where most of the Cosă delegation are going to vote against it (thus dooming it to defeat) is much of an endorsement...

[Baron Alexandreu Davinescu]

If I still had a seat, I'd vote against it, too.  An incredibly important election process for a really important office where a single person exclusively is empowered to start it at any time within a six-month period, and then who also decides on the process for voter registration -- and who partially holds the power of that office for however long it takes to fill the office?  It's very strange, and has a lot of bad incentives that would tempt anyone.

And that's completely aside from the Txec stuff.  The text here is really unclear, but it seems as though maybe the Chancery is supposed to conduct the election and count the ballots?  I guess Txec would have to resign his office?

(Unless the chief justice is also supposed to count the votes, although that'd be way worse.)

I think the proposed process has significant flaws, even aside from the fact that it would probably end the monarchy in any real sense.

Think about other aspects of the logistics.  The candidate would be chosen during a meeting, implying an actual time-sensitive event.  How many of the eligible 88 voters (as of this moment) would show up to such an event?  It'd be hugely dependent on chance and the decisions of the chair.  And since the new office of president would be confirmed by a simple majority vote -- there would be little reason to suppose that the president would be a consensus candidate, despite the supermajoritarian nomination process.  There are like ten total people who have ever shown up to a live event of any kind, ever, and who would be eligible to vote in this process.

This is quite aside from the fact that we'd be discarding our oldest tradition, possibly irrevocably.

[Miestră Schivă, UrN]

Look, if people agree that the King is simply not doing his job, but have problems with the "Compromise" approach of a periodic no confidence vote, I will suggest this oldie but a goodie, by Senator Plätschisch, almost 5 years ago (which is an eternity in Talossan years).

In brief:
- this is not "discarding our oldest tradition", but completely in terms with Talossan tradition - the "legislative decapitation" of King Robert II in 1987.

- to be adopted this will need a 3/4 majority of the Cosa (to override the Royal Veto) + 5 Senators + approval in a referendum. That's slightly more than a partisan majority.

- there are two equally good flavours of this: either

There is currently no King of Talossa.

or

The King of Talossa is Txec, First of his name, of the House of Nordselvă.

I'm not fussed. Honestly I think Baron Alexandreu would make a great SoS.

But note the date above. John's absolute neglect of his duties (except for vetoing attempts to call him to account) has been going on for more than 5 years now. That's longer than most of you have been citizens. The Free Democrats and other parties - and more recently the Distáin - have been trying to do something about this. Our political opponents have blocked every attempt. And the King continues to do nothing. I'm not sure who is satisfied with this state of affairs.

[Baron Alexandreu Davinescu]

As I have mentioned recently, I am no longer opposed to the need to do something.  I have done everything I can for many years, but there comes a time when we have to accept the world as it is, not as we wish it would be.  So these days, even I agree that we need to make a change.

But I am not sure if we need wholesale institutional reform on this scale, and I am very sure we don't need the presidency proposed in this bill -- even if we still call it a king -- but we do need to make a change.  This bill is just not very good, riven deep with conflicts of interest that don't make any sense.

I reject the idea that the entire institution of monarchy is flawed.  This is a tiny country, and the first monarch was incredibly active and the central engine of invention for 90% of our culture.  Our current monarch has personally saved the country and was also a huge force for good for a decade, helping in large part to define the country as we know it today.  The institution has worked, and can work again.

Most probably, we just need a change of personnel.  But before that, we need to settle on a future shape for the office, including succession.  The whole thing needs to be kept away from politics as much as possible -- one of the abiding principles of Talossan honour has long been that it must never be sought, only accepted.  And some power must be restored to the office -- it needs the heft of something meaningful to do.  And then I suspect that once everything is set, it will have become apparent what the future shall be... cometh the hour, cometh the sovereign.

[Breneir Tzaracomprada]

Look, if people agree that the King is simply not doing his job, but have problems with the "Compromise" approach of a periodic no confidence vote, I will suggest this oldie but a goodie, by Senator Plätschisch, almost 5 years ago (which is an eternity in Talossan years).

In brief:
- this is not "discarding our oldest tradition", but completely in terms with Talossan tradition - the "legislative decapitation" of King Robert II in 1987.

- to be adopted this will need a 3/4 majority of the Cosa (to override the Royal Veto) + 5 Senators + approval in a referendum. That's slightly more than a partisan majority.

- there are two equally good flavours of this: either

There is currently no King of Talossa.

or

The King of Talossa is Txec, First of his name, of the House of Nordselvă.

I'm not fussed. Honestly I think Baron Alexandreu would make a great SoS.

But note the date above. John's absolute neglect of his duties (except for vetoing attempts to call him to account) has been going on for more than 5 years now. That's longer than most of you have been citizens. The Free Democrats and other parties - and more recently the Distáin - have been trying to do something about this. Our political opponents have blocked every attempt. And the King continues to do nothing. I'm not sure who is satisfied with this state of affairs.

Wonders never cease as I agree now with all of this including the Baron as a great SoS. I will request moving of this current amendment to the CRL tomorrow as it has the TNC endorsement/non-endorsement.

[Breneir Tzaracomprada]

@Sir Lüc I am requesting this amendment be moved to the CRL for review.

[Miestră Schivă, UrN]

As I have mentioned recently, I am no longer opposed to the need to do something.  I have done everything I can for many years, but there comes a time when we have to accept the world as it is, not as we wish it would be.  So these days, even I agree that we need to make a change.

But I am not sure if we need wholesale institutional reform on this scale, and I am very sure we don't need the presidency proposed in this bill -- even if we still call it a king -- but we do need to make a change.  This bill is just not very good, riven deep with conflicts of interest that don't make any sense.

I reject the idea that the entire institution of monarchy is flawed.  This is a tiny country, and the first monarch was incredibly active and the central engine of invention for 90% of our culture.  Our current monarch has personally saved the country and was also a huge force for good for a decade, helping in large part to define the country as we know it today.  The institution has worked, and can work again.

Most probably, we just need a change of personnel.  But before that, we need to settle on a future shape for the office, including succession.  The whole thing needs to be kept away from politics as much as possible -- one of the abiding principles of Talossan honour has long been that it must never be sought, only accepted.  And some power must be restored to the office -- it needs the heft of something meaningful to do.  And then I suspect that once everything is set, it will have become apparent what the future shall be... cometh the hour, cometh the sovereign.

You would have seen that I have proposed a "clean decapitation" bill elsewhere. I have sympathy with your wish to have a full settlement for the future in advance, but all the evidence of the past five or more years suggests that that just will not happen. The only reason we got the abolition of the hereditary monarchy through was by saying "we'll sort out the succession later". If we want, as you put it, "a change in personnel" any time soon, let's do that, have a Regency as described in OrgLaw II.5, and then get down to the nitty-gritty. I've suggested a "sunset clause" which would concentrate minds to get such a settlement within a relatively brief time-frame.

We don't have a social consensus for a Republic, and we don't seem to have one for a "term-limited King" either, but we certainly don't have one for "more monarchy, less democracy" either. (Although I would consider compromises like - for example - restore the King's right to name a Seneschal while removing their legislative veto.) So let's do what we seem to all agree on, and the rest later. Otherwise we'll do nothing.

[Baron Alexandreu Davinescu]

Notice that we did not sort out the succession later, and instead that very omission has become a significant obstacle to solving the current dilemma (to put it delicately).  It is glaringly apparent that if we tear down the current building -- and it needs serious repairs at this point! -- without laying the foundation for the next, the monarchy will just become a vacant blight.  Repair can't become an opportunity for permanent destruction.

We need to restore the succession so that we're no longer in this no-win situation.  I would prefer we also restore some royal power to rehabilitate the office into something a sane person might want to do, but in the interests of finding a consensus path forward, we should just set that aside for now.  And after we fix the succession and resolve the current situation, the question of the future of the monarchy can be rejoined.  Does that sound reasonable?

[Miestră Schivă, UrN]

Well, I am not going to support letting the current, admittedly otiose incumbent choose his own successor, let's put it that way. But I'm open to other suggestions.

[Breneir Tzaracomprada]

I'd support a simple measure vacating the throne and moving toward a regency until someone can be found who wants to actually be Talossa's monarch. I would still like to believe we will have a King Txec (or some other regnal name). @þerxh Sant-Enogat you actually spoke in support of this as an alternative to the currently hoppered amendment during our debates. Would you still support a simple removal of John as the alternative to the current proposal?

[Miestră Schivă, UrN]

Well, I am not going to support letting the current, admittedly otiose incumbent choose his own successor, let's put it that way. But I'm open to other suggestions.

I should specify that I and the Free Democrats are perfectly fine with the status quo of succession, i.e. by regular process of Organic Law amendment - in essence an "elective monarchy" as was ancient Germanic tradition, the way of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth, and today the Papacy lol.

If people are perfectly fine with the status quo you need to offer them something better to shift, which is a sword which has cut both ways over the years with the monarchy. For several years we have been in a position without enough people to "legislatively decapitate" or to impose a new consensus on succession. But if we're now in a position where the need for LegDecap is clear to almost all, then to tie that to a need to find a concession for change on the latter issue will mean, again, years of inaction.

[Barclamïu da Miéletz]

Well, I am not going to support letting the current, admittedly otiose incumbent choose his own successor, let's put it that way. But I'm open to other suggestions.

the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth

You have summoned me because you have mentioned a form of Poland.