[ABANDONED] The Active Monarch Assurance Amendment

[þerxh Sant-Enogat]

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?

Yes I will. Let's fix the root cause first if this is the will of the People.

[Miestră Schivă, UrN]

Poland cannot into space

[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?

Yes I will. Let's fix the root cause first if this is the will of the People.

Great, @Carlüs Éovart Vilaçafat ?

[Barclamïu da Miéletz]

Poland cannot into space

Poland actually can into space. They just have too many problems to worry about and there are plans to make a "Polish" car (platform from Geely, car design from Pininfarina). I've read the planned stats and they are quite impressing, mostly the range which is around 800 kilometres.

[Baron Alexandreu Davinescu]

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.

Well, the status quo means that the monarchy would end with King John's retirement.  Your choices in order of preference, as far as I can see:
1. Presidency.
2. Depose His Majesty, then block further amendments that might fill the throne (unless they move further towards a presidency).  This is a slower version of #1.
3. Fix the succession to some form of election, then depose His Majesty.
4. Fix the succession to direct nomination, reform the office to grant it more power and activity, then depose His Majesty.

Repeated efforts at 1 have failed, so now you're moved to #2.  And that's fine, except that monarchists have the opposite incentive structure.  I guess some might even add a desire to return to hereditary monarchy, although that wouldn't be my preference.

My point is that I'm asking you to accept #3, instead, since that would allow us to actually fix the problem in a way that's not ruinously divisive.  Asking monarchists to accept the likely permanent end of the monarchy in order to solve the temporary preoccupation of a sovereign isn't okay.

[Sir Lüc]

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

I would friendly suggest you held off on this as lively debate on merits seems to still be going on; remember there's plenty of time for CRL review before the next Call for Bills opens.

[Breneir Tzaracomprada]

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

I would friendly suggest you held off on this as lively debate on merits seems to still be going on; remember there's plenty of time for CRL review before the next Call for Bills opens.

Agreed, sorry I forgot to post that I was withdrawing my request for movement to the CRL. It looks like we are now focusing on the amendment proposed by Miestra so this one is now on hold.

[Sir Lüc]

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

I would friendly suggest you held off on this as lively debate on merits seems to still be going on; remember there's plenty of time for CRL review before the next Call for Bills opens.

Agreed, sorry I forgot to post that I was withdrawing my request for movement to the CRL. It looks like we are now focusing on the amendment proposed by Miestra so this one is now on hold.

No worries and noted!