Welcome to Wittenberg!

Author Topic: The We Really Mean It This Time Bill  (Read 1233 times)

Offline Miestră Schivă, UrN

  • Prime Minister
  • Citizen
  • Posts: 841
  • Large and In Charge
    • Talossan since: 2004-06-12

    • View Profile
    • Free Democrats of Talossa
Re: The We Really Mean It This Time Bill
« Reply #30 on: October 26, 2020, 08:03:35 PM »
Thank you, D:na Seneschal.  So if I understand correctly,

Of course you don't "understand correctly", and you don't really think you do. You are so clearly misrepresenting the proposal that I can only think it's deliberate. This is of course the kind of trolling behaviour you're known for, and a major reason that we don't think you were qualified to be Regent.

If this is a warning that you're going to veto the R. C. Referendum bill, come out and say it.

Prime Minister of the Kingdom of Talossa. Ask me anything.
JOIN THE FREE DEMOCRATS OF TALOSSA - ask me how!

"IS INACTIVITY BAD? I THINK NOT!" - Lord Hooligan

Offline Sir Alexandreu Davinescu

  • Rexhaint d'Ian Regeu/Regent for King John
  • Citizen
  • Posts: 526
  • CONSISTE ET COGITA
    • Talossan since: 6-9-2006

    • View Profile
Re: The We Really Mean It This Time Bill
« Reply #31 on: October 26, 2020, 08:43:03 PM »
Thank you, D:na Seneschal.  So if I understand correctly,

Of course you don't "understand correctly", and you don't really think you do. You are so clearly misrepresenting the proposal that I can only think it's deliberate. This is of course the kind of trolling behaviour you're known for, and a major reason that we don't think you were qualified to be Regent.

If this is a warning that you're going to veto the R. C. Referendum bill, come out and say it.

I would prefer to have a reasonable discussion rather than some sort of confrontation that could be simply dismissed out of hand.

You are proposing a dramatic change to the existing system that will be in place for a minimum of nine months, and most likely significantly longer.  I would propose that you note this in the bill's explanation of purpose.  If I am simply mistaken about the logistics, please just point it out.

As far as I can tell, the following things are all true.
  • The Government intends to try to pass a referendum on the monarchy.
  • The Government intends to introduce this bill even if the referendum again indicates that a majority of Talossans support the monarchy.
  • This bill deposes His Majesty and assigns the powers of the monarchy to one of the other pillars of state, the High Cort.
  • Thereafter, this system will remain in place until another referendum can pass, which means a delay of at least nine months.
  • Because another referendum can be blocked by a minority of the Ziu, as with all referenda, the new status quo might last somewhat longer than that.  It might be much longer.  It might be multiple years.
  • Therefore, your new cort-as-king system, which you have corrected as the Third Talossan Republic, may well be in place for quite a while.
  • So it seems more honest and proper if that fact is at least acknowledged in the bill and some justification put forth.
Please explain to me my mistake, if only so that I can understand the plan, D:na Seneschal.  I am more than willing to admit I'm often mistaken about complicated things like this, so I'll happily admit that I might be wrong here, too.  But it all seems to be correct, and so I think this is at least one way the bill could be improved: with an honest accounting of its effects.
« Last Edit: October 26, 2020, 09:24:42 PM by Sir Alexandreu Davinescu »
Bitter struggles deform their participants in subtle, complicated ways. ― Zadie Smith
Revolution is an art that I pursue rather than a goal I expect to achieve. ― Robert Heinlein

Offline Txosuè Éiric Rôibeardescù

  • Moderator
  • Posts: 92
    • Talossan since: 2014-02-21

    • View Profile
Re: The We Really Mean It This Time Bill
« Reply #32 on: October 27, 2020, 01:37:57 PM »
Thank you, D:na Seneschal.  So if I understand correctly,

Of course you don't "understand correctly", and you don't really think you do. You are so clearly misrepresenting the proposal that I can only think it's deliberate. This is of course the kind of trolling behaviour you're known for, and a major reason that we don't think you were qualified to be Regent.

If this is a warning that you're going to veto the R. C. Referendum bill, come out and say it.

ORDER! AND THIS TIME I DO MEAN IT!

The regency was merely asking the question and he appears to be merely seeking clarity.

We are all aware of Sir Davinescu past, however being that no legal qualifications required for regency exist, the attack towards Sir Davinescu is without merit.
If he wishes to make a warning as to weather or not he shall veto AN ENTIRELY SEPARATE piece of legislation, it would not be up for  discussion on this bill.   

I am also very aware that you both have a tendency to rub each other the wrong way, hence I will inform you both that, where at all possible, I will have a short leash on you both. Debating points and free speech is very impotent, but when you try to make politics personal, within the hopper and cosa chambers, I will come down hard on you both.

These are very trying times for our future together, this must be done carefully and without malice or we may end up repeating our own history. If we do not learn from that history we are going to be prone to repeat it
« Last Edit: October 27, 2020, 03:05:59 PM by Txosuè Éiric Rôibeardescù »
Túischac'h of the 55th Cosa
MC, 55th Cosa, League of Center Conservatives
Member of the L'Etats de Cézembre