The We Really Mean It This Time Bill

[Miestră Schivă, UrN]

IN ACCORDANCE WITH the recent Government statement on the Regency, summarised as follows:

• The King of Talossa, Ián I of the House of Lupúl, has for years frustrated successive elected Governments and Ziu majorities with his lack of consultation, his unpredictable use of the legislative veto, and his "surprise attacks" on his political opponents, such as the veto which caused the Proclamation Crisis;


• In recent terms, this has been compounded by simple inactivity;


• His surprise decision to appoint a Regent follows more than 2 months of inactivity, consequent upon the Ziu and people of Talossa endorsing Organic Law amendments removing his right to name the Seneschál and to pass the throne on in his hereditary line;


• This can succinctly, if colloquially, be construed as "a sulk, followed by a rage-quit";


• He decided without consultation to appoint a Regent who - notwithstanding his competence or performance so far in the role - was guaranteed to outrage the opinion of the Government and Ziu majority;


• All these render him no longer a fit and proper person to be Head of State of Talossa, much less one with a life-long term;

BE IT ENACTED THAT the Ziu of Talossa hereby "legislatively decapitates" King John I, by amending Organic Law II.3 to read as follows:

The role of King of Talossa is currently vacant, and until further amendment of this Organic Law, all the powers of the King of Talossa shall be held by the Uppermost Cort, including the right to appoint a Regent or a Council of Regency as described in II.5 below.

[Eðo Grischun]

Co-sponsor please.

[Miestră Schivă, UrN]

Might I just say that, if the performance so far of the current Regent were to continue, I would have no problem - if this bill were to pass - for the UC to immediately restore Sir Alexandreu to the Regency until a permanent Head of State/means of selecting a Head of State could be established.

[Þon Txoteu É. Davinescu, O.SPM]

I would love to Co-Sponsor this Bill!

Davinescu

[Baron Alexandreu Davinescu]

Will the Government entertain questions about this bill?

[Miestră Schivă, UrN]

We're always willing to be entertained.

In other words, I would be disappointed if the Regent didn't have his say.

[Baron Alexandreu Davinescu]

Thank you, D:na Seneschal.

The proposed bill would assign the powers of state held by His Majesty to the Cort Pü Inalt.  Should the Cort Pü Inalt act with these powers in a fashion that comes under dispute, which entity decides the dispute?

[Miestră Schivă, UrN]

The proposed bill would assign the powers of state held by His Majesty to the Cort Pü Inalt.  Should the Cort Pü Inalt act with these powers in a fashion that comes under dispute, which entity decides the dispute?

Well, that's an issue with the existing OrgLaw II.3 as well:

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.

The Cort coped reasonably well with the problem when KR1 abdicated, by appointing a Regent ASAP. I am sure they would do the same thing if this measure were to be taken.

[Baron Alexandreu Davinescu]

Thank you for the response, D:na Seneschal.  I apologize to press you, but I notice that you didn't actually quite get to the central problem in your answer.  It seems an important issue.  It might make sense to also address the same situation if the cort appointed a regent, and then suit was brought against them and their appointee, of course.  Maybe we could consider the two cases separately?

1.  The proposed bill would assign the powers of state held by His Majesty to the Cort Pü Inalt.  Should the Cort Pü Inalt act with these powers in a fashion that comes under dispute, which entity decides the dispute?

2.  If the cort appoints a regent and the regent acts in a fashion that comes under dispute, which entity decides the dispute?  In this scenario, the regent is an appointed part of the judicial branch -- would the cort be hearing cases about the scope of power held by its appointee (and by extension, itself)?

[Miestră Schivă, UrN]

No, honestly, it's not an important issue. If it were an important issue, someone would have fixed the existing OrgLaw long before now. When people were making long lists of problems with the current Organic Law, no-one thought "the UC takes over if the King abdicates/dies" was a problem. It wasn't much of a problem in 2005.

My preference is always for minimalist constitutional change, in that if you try to change too much at one time, you'll get bogged down in the details, and nothing will be done.

[Baron Alexandreu Davinescu]

Thank you, S:da Seneschal.  I do not agree that it's unimportant, though.  You are proposing a major change to our entire governmental system by permanently assigning the powers of the king to the Cort Pü Inalt or its at-will appointee.  A moment's thought shows the problems here.  Is the Cort Pü Inalt approving or vetoing new members to the Cort Pü Inalt?  Is the Cort Pü Inalt hearing lawsuits deciding whether the Cort Pü Inalt made the right decision?

I understand that your proposal is identical to the current backstop, but that doesn't make it a good choice.  If my car needs a tune-up, I might take my bicycle to work.  But that doesn't mean it's a good idea to sell my car.

But since you refuse to consider this a problem because otherwise "someone would have fixed it," we can move on.

If you'll entertain a different question, S:da Seneschal?

This proposal would establish a second Talossan Republic, if I'm not mistaken.  All powers of state would be held by the judiciary or legislative branches.  The change would be permanent, unless another bill amended the OrgLaw, avoided a judicial veto, and passed into law.  It would be trivial for you to muster the necessary votes to block any replacement monarch.

The obvious way to solve this would be for your proposal to actually replace the monarch or provide for a method of selecting one, rather than simply eliminating the position and leaving the rest of the country to trust that it will eventually happen.  Will you do that?  If not, why not?

[Miestră Schivă, UrN]

The question of what would replace Ián I Lupúl is actually a very good one, and this is precisely why the Government seeks to hold a Ranked-Choice Referendum on the issue of what kind of head of state we want, going forward.

It may be that "status quo" (a life-term Monarchy with legislative veto rights) may win that referendum. In which case, we would bend our minds as to how and whom such a person could be chosen who would be acceptable to a broad range of opinion. And that might be a very different person from whom we would recommend for a purely ceremonial monarch, an elected and term-limited Head of State, or a "dual monarchy" as proposed by our Peculiarist friends.

Of course, the Referendum might never happen, if the Regent vetoes the bill and the Opposition stands fast in opposing it. In which case, the Government would have no choice but to press on with our own preferred option: an elected head of state with a multi-year term (precise length of term, manner of election or possibility of re-election yet to be established). That said, we much prefer the Referendum to go ahead, for broad legitimacy.

On the use of the term "Republic". For reasons of historical continuity, I'm shying away from that, as too much of a hutsch-tú to our monarchist citizens. My preferred solution would be for Talossa to remain a Kingdom with a Permanently Empty Throne, powers to be held by an elected Regent or perhaps Steward. I did consider whether changing to "the Realm of Talossa" might be nice, but I found out that the Talossan word for realm is reic'h, so no thanks.

I should also point out that I do not intend to introduce this bill on the First Clark, which will be massively overloaded as it stands. The Government is determined that "Ián I Lupúl will never reassume the powers of the Throne". As long as the current Regency is in place (and working in co-operation with the elected government, lol), it's not a priority - it's more a statement of intent.

[Marcel Eðo Pairescu Tafial, UrGP]

On the use of the term "Republic". For reasons of historical continuity, I'm shying away from that, as too much of a hutsch-tú to our monarchist citizens. My preferred solution would be for Talossa to remain a Kingdom with a Permanently Empty Throne, powers to be held by an elected Regent or perhaps Steward. I did consider whether changing to "the Realm of Talossa" might be nice, but I found out that the Talossan word for realm is reic'h, so no thanks.

Assuming things ever get this far, what would stop us from calling that future elected head of state "King"? The Talossan monarchy has always been de facto elective, how far off would it be to impose a fixed term on the office as well?

[Miestră Schivă, UrN]

Eh, I suppose so. The name isn't the important thing; if the people will support an elected, term-limited King but not a President or a Regent or a Steward, then that's fine. As I say, these details will be ironed out either after a R.C. Referendum vote for an elected head of state; or if the R.C. Referendum is prevented by Regent and Opposition.

[Miestră Schivă, UrN]

Also: a new Republic would be the Third Talossan Republic, after the "Provisional Peculiar Republic" of 1987-8 (between Kings Robert II and Florence I) and the secessionist Republic of 2004-2012. Not counting all those times that KR1 overthrew himself for laffs while he was the only citizen, of course.