[PASSED] The Vacant Throne (We Really Mean Business Now) Amendment

[Miestră Schivă, UrN-GC]

WHEREAS the King is not living up to the expectations of his citizens in a variety of ways; and

WHEREAS people have complained before but to no effect; and

WHEREAS the above two lines were copy-pasted from a bill first Hoppered five years ago (https://talossa.proboards.com/thread/13577/mean-business-amendment) and nothing significant has changed; and

WHEREAS we need a broad social consensus for any changes to the institution of the Monarchy, which we may not have after years of trying to get one; and

WHEREAS perhaps we do have a consensus on a more narrow issue:

THEREFORE BE IT ENACTED by the Ziu and people of Talossa that Article II.3 of the Organic Law be changed from the current text:

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.

to

a) The position of King of Talossa is currently vacant, until filled by an amendment to this section.

b) Until a King of Talossa is named in the manner described above, the Uppermost Cort shall act as a Council of Regency, and shall administer the government in the name of the King, and exercise all powers Organically or legally vested in the King, or else may appoint a Regent to fulfill these functions. No person not a citizen of Talossa shall be competent to serve as Regent. The Ziu may by law remove or replace any appointed Regent, and if the Ziu removes a Regent appointed by the Uppermost Cort, the Uppermost Cort may not reappoint the same person Regent without the prior consent of the Ziu.

[Miestră Schivă, UrN-GC]

Happy to consider other suggestions for the Regency btw, but this is the existing procedure (with a tweak or two) as stipulated in OrgLaw II.5. We could even have a "sunset clause" to make sure we do actually choose a King in a decent time frame.

I have no issue with either this or the Active Monarchy Assurance Amendment going through, but if they both got Clarked and both passed, we'd be in trouble :D I just have a feeling that this has a better chance.

[þerxh Sant-Enogat]

I am in favour of this Bill if the King does not want to resign. We keep our political institutions (do not shift to a tepid presidential royalty), and fix the current blocking issue. In France we say *Don't throw the baby out with the bath water*.

[Breneir Tzaracomprada]

Thanks Miestra. Can I co-sponsor this?

[Baron Alexandreu Davinescu]

Since it is relatively easy to block amendments with a Ziu minority, this would almost certainly be the end of the monarchy.  Supporters of the proposed presidency could simply block all attempts to amend the OrgLaw with a new sovereign.

[Glüc]

I have no objections to removing King John (although considering the many things he has done for our nation,  the bill probably should make some sort of mention of that),

but I would never vote for a bill that removes the King without either naming a successor or establishing some sort of meaningful succession procedure.

Otherwise I'm not convinced we will ever have a King or Queen again. If that is the point of the bill then it should be stated as such. If not, then this is a bad idea.

[Carlüs Éovart Vilaçafat]

I agree that this less dramatic solution is much better.

With the concerns around this being a step towards losing the Monarchy altogether, I do think it needs some kind of "sunset clause" as Miestra suggested, to ensure the throne is filled in a timely manner and without the need for another amendment to the OrgLaw.

[Breneir Tzaracomprada]

I agree that this less dramatic solution is much better.

With the concerns around this being a step towards losing the Monarchy altogether, I do think it needs some kind of "sunset clause" as Miestra suggested, to ensure the throne is filled in a timely manner and without the need for another amendment to the OrgLaw.

Thanks Carlus.
@Miestră Schivă, UrN with the input from Carlus and Gluc I'm wondering if we should just add a successor to the referendum, if that is possible. Is there any Organic issue with adding Sir Txec as the successor pending confirmation by a referendum?

Of course, if that is not possible then there seems to be support for the sunset clause.

I would add that if we are able, in the amendment, to depose and replace John, then this does hopefully allow for much more time to address the succession issue AND install someone who will be an appropriately active king.

[Miestră Schivă, UrN-GC]

Well, okay, the alternative suggestion is:

THEREFORE BE IT ENACTED by the Ziu and people of Talossa that Article II.3 of the Organic Law be changed from the current text:

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.

to

The King of Talossa is Txec, First of his Name, of the House of Nordselvă, and his heirs and successors as established by law. 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:

a)  the Heir Presumptive to the throne as established by law shall assume the Throne or;
b)  if there is no Heir Presumptive and one is not named by law, the Uppermost Cort shall be a Council of Regency and shall within 3 months name an Heir Presumptive, who will take the Throne upon approval in referendum, or;
c)  if an Heir Presumptive as named in b) is not approved by a majority of those voting in referendum, and has not been named by law, the Uppermost Cort shall repeat the process in b) above as many times as is necessary.

Some might worry that establishing the succession by ordinary law will be too simple; but it will also prevent the kind of "stalemate" that the good Baron foresees whereby any successor can be blocked indefinitely by a minority.

[Sir Ian Plätschisch]

An alternative is specifying after the tribe is vacant for a year (or however long), a random citizen is selected to become King and can be ratified by a simple majority in a referendum

An intentionally undesirable outcome designed to ensure we get something better done.

[Baron Alexandreu Davinescu]

This is crazy -- if we know this is a problem we have to solve and we all want to solve it, why are we engineering deliberately terrible alternate outcomes?  Let's just do it now!

To draw a parallel: in the United States, there has been concern about the budget deficit.  It was arguably just used as a partisan club (austerity was a very stupid policy during a recession), but some people held the debt limit hostage as a result, regardless of their motivation.  If the deficit wasn't reduced, they said, they wouldn't authorize the issuance of more public debt.  Eventually, a bargain was struck for an automatic sequester: if the deficit weren't reduced over the next two years, then huge cuts would be automatically imposed.

See, making the actual decision about budget cuts was too hard.  Instead, they planned to make the alternative so horrible that they'd feel like they had to do it.  Not now... later.  Always later.

It didn't work, of course.  The hard choices remained hard, and people tried to just use the threat of sequestration on their opponents to get their way.  Automatic cuts were triggered, and they were stupid and wasteful.  The deficit remains huge.

I see this with students, too, sometimes.  They want to make themselves do something, but it's still too hard to actually address the problem.  So they try to just make the looming threat even worse so that their future selves will feel like they have to do something.

Let's just fix the problem, instead.

[Breneir Tzaracomprada]

Well, okay, the alternative suggestion is:

THEREFORE BE IT ENACTED by the Ziu and people of Talossa that Article II.3 of the Organic Law be changed from the current text:

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.

to

The King of Talossa is Txec, First of his Name, of the House of Nordselvă, and his heirs and successors as established by law. 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:

a)  the Heir Presumptive to the throne as established by law shall assume the Throne or;
b)  if there is no Heir Presumptive and one is not named by law, the Uppermost Cort shall be a Council of Regency and shall within 3 months name an Heir Presumptive, who will take the Throne upon approval in referendum, or;
c)  if an Heir Presumptive as named in b) is not approved by a majority of those voting in referendum, and has not been named by law, the Uppermost Cort shall repeat the process in b) above as many times as is necessary.

Some might worry that establishing the succession by ordinary law will be too simple; but it will also prevent the kind of "stalemate" that the good Baron foresees whereby any successor can be blocked indefinitely by a minority.

We have at least three TNC MCs and possibly a fourth in support of a simple vacancy declaration. The subsequent issue raised concerned a successor and earlier in this term there was no TNC opposition to Txec's elevation. I have yet to hear one voice in opposition even now.

[Miestră Schivă, UrN-GC]

We have at least three TNC MCs and possibly a fourth in support of a simple vacancy declaration. The subsequent issue raised concerned a successor and earlier in this term there was no TNC opposition to Txec's elevation. I have yet to hear one voice in opposition even now.

The good Baron has been saying that he thinks the "simple vacancy declaration" is a trap, because the cunning Free Dems will then make sure the throne stays vacant forever, and the Senator from Cézembre agrees with him. This is both unkind and unnecessary, because the throne is already effectively vacant, if that's what we wanted we would just leave Zombie John there.

I was trying to dispel these suspicions, but I'm sure if your numbers are correct we *could* push a simple vacancy through over their objections - is that what you think best? I should note that Carlüs was asking for some kind of "sunset clause" to avoid eternal delays in naming a successor.

[Breneir Tzaracomprada]

We have at least three TNC MCs and possibly a fourth in support of a simple vacancy declaration. The subsequent issue raised concerned a successor and earlier in this term there was no TNC opposition to Txec's elevation. I have yet to hear one voice in opposition even now.

The good Baron has been saying that he thinks the "simple vacancy declaration" is a trap, because the cunning Free Dems will then make sure the throne stays vacant forever, and the Senator from Cézembre agrees with him. This is both unkind and unnecessary, because the throne is already effectively vacant, if that's what we wanted we would just leave Zombie John there.

I was trying to dispel these suspicions, but I'm sure if your numbers are correct we *could* push a simple vacancy through over their objections - is that what you think best? I should note that Carlüs was asking for some kind of "sunset clause" to avoid eternal delays in naming a successor.

Miestra, I think two-thirds is a significant level of approval. 51-49 and yeah maybe you can be accused of pushing but 67-33 after repeated negotiated changes to address emergent concerns is not forcing at gunpoint here. Especially if an immediate replacement with a sunset clause for resolution of other issues seem to reduce the risk.

[Glüc]

The good Baron has been saying that he thinks the "simple vacancy declaration" is a trap, because the cunning Free Dems will then make sure the throne stays vacant forever, and the Senator from Cézembre agrees with him. This is both unkind and unnecessary, because the throne is already effectively vacant, if that's what we wanted we would just leave Zombie John there.

Just as a clarification. Im not saying this is your plan. If you say you intend to work towards finding a replacement I believe you. And I always believe you are acting in good faith.

However even then it's still perfectly possible for someone who didn't sponsor this bill and doesn't feel committed to any sort of compromise, to vote in favour of this plan, which would be in good faith, because they dont think King John should be King, and then also vote against any successor, which would also be in good faith, because they don't think anyone else should be King either.

It seems like a big risk. A sunset clause would solve that but I'm curious to see what that would look like. Ian's idea seems sensible enough.

[Baron Alexandreu Davinescu]

The good Baron has been saying that he thinks the "simple vacancy declaration" is a trap, because the cunning Free Dems will then make sure the throne stays vacant forever, and the Senator from Cézembre agrees with him.

Just to clarify: I don't think it's a trap in a malicious sense, but just that things would tend to naturally flow in that direction, and that your incentives are clear.  I just think it's helpful to be explicit about these things, since the subtext and future flow of events might not be obvious to some folks.  As far as I can tell, you have been 100% operating in good faith throughout this whole discussion.  I think you play political hardball and you're not inclined to show your hand -- if you'll forgive the mixed metaphor -- but that's different than any kind of skullduggery.

I agree that probably the numbers are there to shove through some kind of change over the objections of a lot of monarchists.  I've been inactive and I'm not in the Ziu at all, so that's one obstacle gone right there.  I just think it will be disastrous, badly hurt the country, and possibly lead to the death of Talossa as any kind of real living community.  I don't think we'll dissolve, but you can limp along for years in a kind of twilight, and that's a very possible future if we discard the legitimacy of the throne in the eyes of the public and future.

If you step back, we're a gaggle of weirdos on the internet pretending to run a country in a way that mostly involves fiddling with pretend procedures, clumsily aping real-life structures like political parties and peerages and courts, and clinging to beliefs that we mostly know are imaginary.

Of course, from our perspective, we're a group of people united around a shared vision that is equal parts silly and serious, having fun through enacting our own versions of nation-sized institutions and engaging with a whimsical culture that dates back nearly fifty years and that has just as much reality through lived experience as some other national cultures.

Making people see Talossa the way we see it involves several unique things, such as the antiquity of our country's institutions.  We are uniquely vulnerable in this regard.  A macronation that frequently changes regimes and rulers will still be taken seriously in some regard, since people live there and must care.  But no one thinks that the North Korean legislature really matters, and no one cares what they do or say.  Even North Koreans sometimes have a hard time caring about it.  But no one "lives" in Talossa in that sense.  We can be utterly ignored.  Worse: it requires proactive effort to participate in Talossa.  We're uniquely vulnerable to perceptions of illegitimacy.

We are a constitutional monarchy governed by a legitimate sovereign, with a hypothetical connection to the Berbers, a less hypothetical connection to the GTA, and our own language and minor traditions.  But very few of us have even visited the GTA, almost no one knows the language, and no one at all really cares about the Berber thing much.  We change our constitution every year, often quite dramatically.  Even our national identity has been flimsy at times... there was a long stretch with two competing groups claiming to be Talossa, and even a time with three Talossas.

What makes Talossa stand apart at all from any group I might create next week with a dozen friends?  To an outsider, not a lot.  We need desperately to conserve those resources that give our country some historical heft.  Even if it doesn't particularly matter a lot right now to you, or if other things seem important, they're not something we can easily restore.  We should be very careful with our few precious institutions that have stood the test of time.

I'm a progressive liberal in macronational politics, so it's funny that this is my role in Talossa.  But you guys are proposing changes that could permanently cripple or even destroy the country.

We should fix the succession so that it will continue working for the future in a permanent way that has consensus support.  Once the institution is assured to continue existing in a legitimate manner, we can address other problems.  Doing it backwards is risky and bizarre.

[Ián Tamorán S.H.]

We should fix the succession so that it will continue working for the future in a permanent way that has consensus support.  Once the institution is assured to continue existing in a legitimate manner, we can address other problems.  Doing it backwards is risky and bizarre.

We could (possibly) "fix the succession" merely by changing the stated order of choice.  For example, we could replace "eldest offspring of current monarch (etc. etc.)" with "list of citizens arranged in such-and-such an order".  In other words, create a different rule of precedence.

Such a rule would have to be explicit and unambiguous; it would have to allow for the choice of monarch to be denied by super-majority of the citizens; and (I would suggest - though perhaps this is not the place to discuss this) would be re-applied every seven years or when the monarch resigned (abdicated) or died or ceased to be a citizen.

It is up to this current tranche of citizens to make, and largely agree upon, the succession rule.  Future "generations of citizens" could also do what we are now (in our freedom) talking about doing.

"Talossa is free" is not the same as "Talossa is unchangeable" - Freedom is stability: Fettered Stasis is not.

[Baron Alexandreu Davinescu]

Yes, that is definitely one way we could do it. Oldest citizen, or citizen with the longest citizenship, or any number of ways.

Practical problems with longest citizenship have already been pointed out, and of course if we went with the oldest citizen, it could be someone who had only been a citizen for a week. More importantly, there's just no reason to think either of these traits will result in a good choice.

In my personal opinion, I think that the king should nominate someone and then that should be democratically confirmed. I proposed confirmation by plebiscite, but maybe it should be a two-step process where the king proposes a nominee that must be confirmed by the Ziu before going to the people.

[Baron Alexandreu Davinescu]

Props to Gluc for the Rawlsian veil of ignorance approach, by the way. That's definitely a really important way to think about this!

[Breneir Tzaracomprada]

We have at least three TNC MCs and possibly a fourth in support of a simple vacancy declaration. The subsequent issue raised concerned a successor and earlier in this term there was no TNC opposition to Txec's elevation. I have yet to hear one voice in opposition even now.

The good Baron has been saying that he thinks the "simple vacancy declaration" is a trap, because the cunning Free Dems will then make sure the throne stays vacant forever, and the Senator from Cézembre agrees with him. This is both unkind and unnecessary, because the throne is already effectively vacant, if that's what we wanted we would just leave Zombie John there.

I was trying to dispel these suspicions, but I'm sure if your numbers are correct we *could* push a simple vacancy through over their objections - is that what you think best? I should note that Carlüs was asking for some kind of "sunset clause" to avoid eternal delays in naming a successor.

Miestra, what are your current thoughts on moving forward with a revised vacant throne amendment (simple removal, immediate successor, and sunset clause)? The revisions do address most stated concerns and allow time to address the succession issue permanently.