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

[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.

[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]

@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]

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]

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.