The We Really Mean It This Time Bill

[Miestră Schivă, UrN-GC]

And that's a dumb amendment, whenever it was made. "King Florence" was one of our quirkier and cooler historical features.

[Eðo Grischun]

In all honesty, I truly think John Woolley should be Talossa's last "King". 

I just cannot think of a single Talossan that I would (or even could) swear fealty to after KJI, and when I think about it, I'm not even sure why I swear allegiance to the House of Woolley in the first place.  I think I only do so because I want to be Talossan, but really my allegiance is to the nation and it's people.  It always has been.  All my years of service and all the work I have done has never really been for the King nor do I see it as having been for the benefit of the King.  No, rather, all my service given and work carried out has always been for my fellow citizens.  I view the 'tree of importance' as nation and people first, law second and the Monarchy third.  So, yeah, I don't think I could ever swear allegiance to another King after the current one and actually mean it.  I'd rather we pledged allegiance to symbols of the nation and for what they stand.

Although, I still recognise the worth of all the trappings and pomp of monarchy.  We can still have all that without having a "King" though.  We can be a kingless Kingdom with a Head of State whose functions and purpose can be similar to a 'your highness', but who acts as a kind of a national steward and who also swears a similar oath to the rest of us; an oath to the symbols of Talossa and for what the stand and to protect and defend the nation, its peoples and its laws. 

A Head of State who is head OF STATE, but not head of others.  A common citizen, like the rest of us, elevated (and ideally elected) to shepherd the nation with a temporary authority granted to them by their fellow citizens.  It can be that way while keeping thrones and crowns and fancy titles.

I can also understand Miestra balking at the idea of becoming King.  I think each and every Talossan should recoil at the thought of themselves ever becoming King or Queen.  You know, way back when it first happened, John Woolley probably hated the thought of it happening to him too.

I don't know what my point is.  Just some thoughts I felt like sharing, I guess.

[Tierçéu Rôibeardescù]

Order order,

Although the honarable members are discussed this as a possibility to be enacted if required, I fear that conversation on this bill has moved a little too towards the realm of fantasy and I would like to remind members to continue to discuss the bill as currently writen. This is not to impede or to stamp out discussion on this line of thinking, but more to return the focus to the bill and not purely personal opinion and speculation.
A spear without a point is just a stick.

[Eðo Grischun]

Order order,

Although the honarable members are discussed this as a possibility to be enacted if required, I fear that conversation on this bill has moved a little too towards the realm of fantasy and I would like to remind members to continue to discuss the bill as currently writen. This is not to impede or to stamp out discussion on this line of thinking, but more to return the focus to the bill and not purely personal opinion and speculation.
A spear without a point is just a stick.

Does the Túischac'h have authority over the Hopper? It's a public discussion sub-board after all, not strictly a Cosa/Ziu board.  I'm not sure the Túischac'h can call for order on either Senators or members of the public outside of the Cosa chamber.

[Baron Alexandreu Davinescu]

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.

Thank you, D:na Seneschal.  So if I understand correctly, the Government intends to hold a referendum on the future of the monarchy.  Talossan voters have affirmed over and over that they wish a monarchy, but perhaps if the question is asked enough times in enough different ways, the outcome might be different.  But regardless of the outcome of the referendum, the Government still intends to try to institute this third Talossan Republic in the meantime.  That will be the new status quo, no matter what Talossans actually say in the referendum, as far as I can tell from your plans.

Then during this status quo, folks may propose a new king/queen, or a purely ceremonial one, etc.  That future plan will be subject to judicial veto by the High Cort and will need the 2/3 majority necessary for all amendments.  It will be quite easy to block, even for a minority.

This current proposal, then, seems like it is quite likely to remain in place for a long time.  Why, then, is it being proposed as though it were a temporary measure?  The explanatory clause is almost entirely a series of attacks on His Majesty, with the new system being proposed seems almost like an afterthought.  May I suggest a revision to the bill to include another "whereas" clause, announcing the new Third Talossan Republic which will exist for a minimum of nine months?  You may obviously want to phrase it differently, but it seems as though it would represent the actual outcome better if the proposal paused to mention the new constitutional system it was inaugurating.

[Tierçéu Rôibeardescù]

Order order,

Although the honarable members are discussed this as a possibility to be enacted if required, I fear that conversation on this bill has moved a little too towards the realm of fantasy and I would like to remind members to continue to discuss the bill as currently writen. This is not to impede or to stamp out discussion on this line of thinking, but more to return the focus to the bill and not purely personal opinion and speculation.
A spear without a point is just a stick.

Does the Túischac'h have authority over the Hopper? It's a public discussion sub-board after all, not strictly a Cosa/Ziu board.  I'm not sure the Túischac'h can call for order on either Senators or members of the public outside of the Cosa chamber.

The order maybe was a bit dramatic, I withdraw that part. It was more trying to as a advisory to bring the focus back to the bill, opinions on what should replace the monarchy is surely for elsewhere.

I'd also like to add that I was not envoking any role directly and was mearly advising the honarable members within the hopper, not citizens not senators.

[Miestră Schivă, UrN-GC]

Does the Túischac'h have authority over the Hopper?

Yes.

The Cosa shall elect one of its members to serve as Speaker of the Cosa (Talossan: el Túischac'h) for the upcoming term. The Speaker shall preside, direct and maintain order during Living Cosas and in the Hopper, in an unbiased fashion. Otherwise, his function will be to advise Members of the Cosa of appropriate decorum. He is considered the honourable President of the Cosâ and shall be awarded all due veneration when serving as such. In the absence of the Túischac'h from the Hopper, the Mençéi shall perform these duties.

[Antaglha Xhenerös Somelieir]

Order order,

Although the honarable members are discussed this as a possibility to be enacted if required, I fear that conversation on this bill has moved a little too towards the realm of fantasy and I would like to remind members to continue to discuss the bill as currently writen. This is not to impede or to stamp out discussion on this line of thinking, but more to return the focus to the bill and not purely personal opinion and speculation.
A spear without a point is just a stick.

Does the Túischac'h have authority over the Hopper? It's a public discussion sub-board after all, not strictly a Cosa/Ziu board.  I'm not sure the Túischac'h can call for order on either Senators or members of the public outside of the Cosa chamber.

The order maybe was a bit dramatic, I withdraw that part. It was more trying to as a advisory to bring the focus back to the bill, opinions on what should replace the monarchy is surely for elsewhere.

I'd also like to add that I was not envoking any role directly and was mearly advising the honarable members within the hopper, not citizens not senators.

Honourable Túischac'h, I do disagree with your view on this, whilst I don't agree with some of the points made in regards to this bill, I would argue that with the size and scope of removing a monarch, and all possible implications of that, and the views in favour and opposed to the measure, and all possble consequences of the decision, and having a vigrous debate about that in such a bill, i do feel is not just importaint, but crucial to not just improving the legislation, but also will help give memebers of the Ziu, and the wider public, and more rounded view on the topic, and might bring about issues that needs to be addressed, just because something might not obviously fit with the view in being relevant, something that comes out of discussions in the Hopper, could potential make or break a piece of legislation, and i feel it is better sorted out here, in the hopper, so things might be changed before hadn if needed, before anything here is submitted to the Clark. So some degree of lieniency in regards to the hopper is reasonable, and in my view, this discussion has not come close to the point where it isnt potentially relevant to the passage of this bill, as im sure that many members of the Cosa have had some questions answered already by the conversation had here, one way or the other, based on discussions not strictly related to the text, but possible effects of the legislation, which i belive is just as importaint as the text of the Bill itself.

[Tierçéu Rôibeardescù]

Order order,

Although the honarable members are discussed this as a possibility to be enacted if required, I fear that conversation on this bill has moved a little too towards the realm of fantasy and I would like to remind members to continue to discuss the bill as currently writen. This is not to impede or to stamp out discussion on this line of thinking, but more to return the focus to the bill and not purely personal opinion and speculation.
A spear without a point is just a stick.

Does the Túischac'h have authority over the Hopper? It's a public discussion sub-board after all, not strictly a Cosa/Ziu board.  I'm not sure the Túischac'h can call for order on either Senators or members of the public outside of the Cosa chamber.

The order maybe was a bit dramatic, I withdraw that part. It was more trying to as a advisory to bring the focus back to the bill, opinions on what should replace the monarchy is surely for elsewhere.

I'd also like to add that I was not envoking any role directly and was mearly advising the honarable members within the hopper, not citizens not senators.

Honourable Túischac'h, I do disagree with your view on this, whilst I don't agree with some of the points made in regards to this bill, I would argue that with the size and scope of removing a monarch, and all possible implications of that, and the views in favour and opposed to the measure, and all possble consequences of the decision, and having a vigrous debate about that in such a bill, i do feel is not just importaint, but crucial to not just improving the legislation, but also will help give memebers of the Ziu, and the wider public, and more rounded view on the topic, and might bring about issues that needs to be addressed, just because something might not obviously fit with the view in being relevant, something that comes out of discussions in the Hopper, could potential make or break a piece of legislation, and i feel it is better sorted out here, in the hopper, so things might be changed before hadn if needed, before anything here is submitted to the Clark. So some degree of lieniency in regards to the hopper is reasonable, and in my view, this discussion has not come close to the point where it isnt potentially relevant to the passage of this bill, as im sure that many members of the Cosa have had some questions answered already by the conversation had here, one way or the other, based on discussions not strictly related to the text, but possible effects of the legislation, which i belive is just as importaint as the text of the Bill itself.

I thank you Ma'am for your views.
We may both have different interpretations on how we view this debate.
Again I say that my comments where advisery as to the matter  the minister previously was saying that he would not bend the knee to any further nor current citizens whom may be raised to be king if king John was removed. This is his opinion and he has rights to express it, however, in my view there are other spaces more suited for discussion of opinion than on this bill specifically. I advised this course of action to avoid a spiraling of difference of opinion which has been known to happen (perticulerly of late) and I wished to try and gently shepherd the conversation back onto its discussion points.

[Miestră Schivă, UrN-GC]

I thank you sir for your views.

* ma'am

[Miestră Schivă, UrN-GC]

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.

[Baron Alexandreu Davinescu]

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.

[Tierçéu Rôibeardescù]

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