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

[Baron Alexandreu Davinescu]

@Breneir Tzaracomprada , just wanted to check and make sure you could see my posts and there's no sort of glitch or anything.

Earlier in this thread, I wrote at length about some obvious problems I saw with the bill, and you replied after me and said that you didn't see any objections being made.  And now again, you seem to be unaware of arguments I made with a significant investment of my time and thought -- not even acknowledging them but just addressing Miestra.  Is it just that you're ignoring me?  That's certainly your prerogative, but I thought I'd check.

[Breneir Tzaracomprada]

@Breneir Tzaracomprada , just wanted to check and make sure you could see my posts and there's no sort of glitch or anything.

Earlier in this thread, I wrote at length about some obvious problems I saw with the bill, and you replied after me and said that you didn't see any objections being made.  And now again, you seem to be unaware of arguments I made with a significant investment of my time and thought -- not even acknowledging them but just addressing Miestra.  Is it just that you're ignoring me?  That's certainly your prerogative, but I thought I'd check.

I do see your words and they have been answered. There is no need for me to directly answer them too. I am interested in Miestra's thoughts as yours are well known now.

@Miestră Schivă, UrN I am most interested in seeing through a path for action, if possible. I apologize for my own contribution to the delay in addressing the King's inactivity but a review of yours and Ian's words and actions (especially in comparison to the King's words and actions) have led me to the belief I can trust your genuine desire simply to ensure an active head of state. If, through this slimmed down amendment, we can address the concerns of Gluc, Therxh, and Carlus then I think that is a basis for bipartisan action as the TNC would have four of its five MCs likely to support the bill along with its senator. And I assume much of the FreeDems would support the bill.

[Miestră Schivă, UrN-GC]

@Miestră Schivă, UrN I am most interested in seeing through a path for action, if possible.

Thing is that I'm not 100% sure as to where we stand. I've put up two proposals in this thread:

1) the original proposal, which I call "clean decapitation". I still prefer this, though I take into account the people who worry about an indefinite empty throne.

2) a revised proposal, which appoints a new King right away and leaves it up to the Ziu to create further succession laws; the default option being "CpI names a successor to be confirmed in referendum". I haven't seen any substantial discussion on that one.

(Of course the good Baron is calling for his previously expressed preference that the King be allowed to name his own successor. But, given the incumbent's record, I don't feel happy about affording him that privilege.)

So which should we run with?
- Option 1?
- Option 1 amended slightly (eg with a "sunset clause")?
- Option 2?
- Option 2 amended slightly?

I am in favour of getting as broad a social consensus as we can, because you know what? A 2/3 majority in the Ziu isn't going to cut it. Three reasons:

- if the King vetoes, we will another 2/3 majority in the next Cosa, and thus have to win the argument in an election.
- either way, we will need to win a majority in a referendum.

I have bucketloads of respect for the good Baron as a political operator and I'm not confident of being able to beat him in a referendum (or get 2/3 in an election) if he's going to fight this all the way.

[Baron Alexandreu Davinescu]

Let the monarch nominate someone, confirmed by the Ziu and then by the people. It is the really obvious and sensible solution, even if it affords His Majesty little say in the matter. It takes advantage of our political system to provide a check, without turning the issue into a direct election that would destroy what value a monarchy can offer.

His Majesty did not endorse this view and might well oppose it, and for my part in this discussion I will be offering him my resignation as his counselor. I am not here showing loyalty to him, and that is hard for me. This is a conversation predicated on a future where he will leave the throne. But I am being loyal to the higher things that he too has venerated: country and honour.

My actual expectation is that he will decline to participate in the process once the larger change is made. But the man has saved the country more than once, helped shape it into much of what it is today, and has served with decency. He deserves this voice in the process. And more to the point, the institution is larger than him and this is the way it should happen for the larger future.

[Breneir Tzaracomprada]

@Miestră Schivă, UrN I am most interested in seeing through a path for action, if possible.

Thing is that I'm not 100% sure as to where we stand. I've put up two proposals in this thread:

1) the original proposal, which I call "clean decapitation". I still prefer this, though I take into account the people who worry about an indefinite empty throne.

2) a revised proposal, which appoints a new King right away and leaves it up to the Ziu to create further succession laws; the default option being "CpI names a successor to be confirmed in referendum". I haven't seen any substantial discussion on that one.

(Of course the good Baron is calling for his previously expressed preference that the King be allowed to name his own successor. But, given the incumbent's record, I don't feel happy about affording him that privilege.)

So which should we run with?
- Option 1?
- Option 1 amended slightly (eg with a "sunset clause")?
- Option 2?
- Option 2 amended slightly?

I am in favour of getting as broad a social consensus as we can, because you know what? A 2/3 majority in the Ziu isn't going to cut it. Three reasons:

- if the King vetoes, we will another 2/3 majority in the next Cosa, and thus have to win the argument in an election.
- either way, we will need to win a majority in a referendum.

I have bucketloads of respect for the good Baron as a political operator and I'm not confident of being able to beat him in a referendum (or get 2/3 in an election) if he's going to fight this all the way.

Miestra, this is all reasonable. Option 2 is my preference as it is immediate removal and replacement pending a national referendum plus a sunset clause moving into a regency if necessary. I do think this seems to address the two major issues raised and allows time for the outstanding major issue to be resolved.

If you are not yet ready to move until there is more discussion on Option 2 then I would encourage others to let Miestra and the FreeDems generally know your thoughts specifically on the options or amended options she lists.

[Miestră Schivă, UrN-GC]

I'd like to hear other TNC MCs, in particular @þerxh Sant-Enogat and @Carlüs Éovart Vilaçafat, as to which option they'd prefer (a "clean vacancy" or a named successor + succession to be determined by law with a default option). Once we have 140+ votes declared for a preferred option we can proceed.

[Breneir Tzaracomprada]

I'd like to hear other TNC MCs, in particular @þerxh Sant-Enogat and @Carlüs Éovart Vilaçafat, as to which option they'd prefer (a "clean vacancy" or a named successor + succession to be determined by law with a default option). Once we have 140+ votes declared for a preferred option we can proceed.

@þerxh Sant-Enogat and @Carlüs Éovart Vilaçafat Your invitation is on the table. What say you as to your preferences on this matter?

[Miestră Schivă, UrN-GC]

If we don't get a consensus, I suppose I'll submit *both* versions to the CRL and then make the call over which to Clark at the last minute :D

[Carlüs Éovart Vilaçafat]

After getting caught up on the discussion, I think I agree with the Baron that King John should at least have the option to choose his successor, confirmed by the Ziu.

So my personal preference would be Option 2, amended to give King John 30 days to appoint a successor and step down. If one is not chosen within the appointed time, then the law will go into effect.

[Sir Ian Plätschisch]

Have we considered just asking the King who he would want his successor to be?

A concern of a lot of FreeDems is that, if the King picks, his selection would be unpalatable. If we ask in advance, we could see if that person would have broad support and then we can just amend the Organic Law accordingly, without all the red tape.

[Carlüs Éovart Vilaçafat]

Have we considered just asking the King who he would want his successor to be?

A concern of a lot of FreeDems is that, if the King picks, his selection would be unpalatable. If we ask in advance, we could see if that person would have broad support and then we can just amend the Organic Law accordingly, without all the red tape.

If only we knew someone who had the King's ear...

[Breneir Tzaracomprada]

So my personal preference would be Option 2, amended to give King John 30 days to appoint a successor and step down. If one is not chosen within the appointed time, then the law will go into effect.

The 30 day deadline for resignation and a successor is a vital component of this proposal.

[Breneir Tzaracomprada]

@þerxh Sant-Enogat What are your thoughts?

[þerxh Sant-Enogat]

I just read Baron Alexandreu's words, and I agree that letting the King propose a successor would be the most coherent scenario to ensure the historical continuity on which our Nation is build upon.

[Breneir Tzaracomprada]

I just read Baron Alexandreu's words, and I agree that letting the King propose a successor would be the most coherent scenario to ensure the historical continuity on which our Nation is build upon.

What about the options Miestra listed? You did not mention those in your answer.

To be helpful, here are Miestra's words, Therxh which she directly invited comment on:

1) the original proposal, which I call "clean decapitation". I still prefer this, though I take into account the people who worry about an indefinite empty throne.

2) a revised proposal, which appoints a new King right away and leaves it up to the Ziu to create further succession laws; the default option being "CpI names a successor to be confirmed in referendum". I haven't seen any substantial discussion on that one.

(Of course the good Baron is calling for his previously expressed preference that the King be allowed to name his own successor. But, given the incumbent's record, I don't feel happy about affording him that privilege.)

So which should we run with?
- Option 1?
- Option 1 amended slightly (eg with a "sunset clause")?
- Option 2?
- Option 2 amended slightly?

[Baron Alexandreu Davinescu]

Have we considered just asking the King who he would want his successor to be?

A concern of a lot of FreeDems is that, if the King picks, his selection would be unpalatable. If we ask in advance, we could see if that person would have broad support and then we can just amend the Organic Law accordingly, without all the red tape.

If only we knew someone who had the King's ear...

After I explained the situation to him, I offered my resignation from the Sabor. So I don't know if that person is still myself. I can ask him, but I don't know if he has anyone in mind. I very much doubt that he does!

Honestly, my expectation is that he would not participate in whatever process we establish. We should be thinking about this whole thing in terms of a longer future, not the immediate circumstance. We are trying to fix the country permanently.

How about this threading of the needle: generally speaking, the process will be for the future that the sovereign nominates a successor who is confirmed by the legislature and then by plebiscite. This change could be written to become effective 30 days after confirmation of the amendment, with a contingent clause stating that the throne will also become empty at that time if there is no successor yet confirmed by the legislature. And then a fixed and saner version of the convocation process detailed in the other thread could be put in place for any time the throne is empty, including immediately.

This is not an ideal scenario at all. In my opinion, giving the legislature a voice is a mistake generally, because it politicizes the process more than we should really want. I would prefer just a royal nomination that passes to a plebiscite. But in for a penny, in for a pound. I am already compromising a ton, and I can go a little bit further to make this happen.

I believe this would satisfy everyone's needs, even if no one would be perfectly happy with it. And I could help right the language and fix some of the weirdness of the convocation procedure.

[Breneir Tzaracomprada]

I just read Baron Alexandreu's words, and I agree that letting the King propose a successor would be the most coherent scenario to ensure the historical continuity on which our Nation is build upon.

What about the options Miestra listed? You did not mention those in your answer.

To be helpful, here are Miestra's words, Therxh which she directly invited comment on:

1) the original proposal, which I call "clean decapitation". I still prefer this, though I take into account the people who worry about an indefinite empty throne.

2) a revised proposal, which appoints a new King right away and leaves it up to the Ziu to create further succession laws; the default option being "CpI names a successor to be confirmed in referendum". I haven't seen any substantial discussion on that one.

(Of course the good Baron is calling for his previously expressed preference that the King be allowed to name his own successor. But, given the incumbent's record, I don't feel happy about affording him that privilege.)

So which should we run with?
- Option 1?
- Option 1 amended slightly (eg with a "sunset clause")?
- Option 2?
- Option 2 amended slightly?

Therxh, I'm really interested in your thoughts on the options as was requested. We already have options on the table which appear to have the support now of two TNC MCs.

[Miestră Schivă, UrN-GC]

Have we considered just asking the King who he would want his successor to be?

A concern of a lot of FreeDems is that, if the King picks, his selection would be unpalatable. If we ask in advance, we could see if that person would have broad support and then we can just amend the Organic Law accordingly, without all the red tape.

The King, should he be available, is free to publicly announce his preferred successor; in fact I encourage him to do so. And the Ziu and people should be free to utterly ignore that suggestion.

We need 134+ votes in the Ziu to even put the replacement of the King on the agenda. 85 of those votes - the Free Democrats -  fought the last election precisely on the issue that the King should not be allowed to choose his own successor without the threshold required for any other OrgLaw reform. There are currently two options on the table:

- 1) leaving the succession open until after we know the Throne is empty;
- 2) naming a successor which would have broad support from both major parties.

If neither of these options will get 134+ votes anymore, then this debate is inoperative and Zombie King John stays. It seems the two "swing votes" in the TNC have gone back to precisely the option that the FreeDems fought the last election against, and I'm very discouraged.

[Miestră Schivă, UrN-GC]

I just read Baron Alexandreu's words, and I agree that letting the King propose a successor would be the most coherent scenario to ensure the historical continuity on which our Nation is build upon.

There have been two "successful" Kings of Talossa: Robert I and John I.
 
Robert I founded the nation; John I was chosen by the Ziu by a supermajority and endorsed by the people in referendum.

"Hand-picked successors" were: Robert II, Florence, and Louis.

I'll leave it to you to decide what the appropriate Talossan "historical continuity" is.

[Baron Alexandreu Davinescu]

Florence did fine until she got sick of it, and Louis was hereditary.

I don't think there is any magical taint involved in the king having some say in the process that would not be abrogated by both the approval of the duly elected legislature followed by the approval of the people as a whole.

I personally will never support any solution to the current temporary situation when it would lead to permanent disability or destruction of one of our most important institutions. If we agree that we're in a bad spot, surely we can just fix the problem -- are we really saying that we won't help the country unless we can also advance our personal goals at the same time?