The Non-Hereditary Monarchy Amendment

[Glüc]

Should they have a veto over reforms that the centre-Left government have been fighting for for years, and have succeed in getting a Cosa supermajority for?

No. Nobody is arguing for that. In this particular case, my main point isn't even about keeping the hereditary monarchy. Personally I have doubts about replacing it, but if a majority wants to get rid of it, it is what it is (though I wish an even larger part of that had been new or old citizens being convinced and a smaller part had been monarchists leaving).
Just suggesting that taking some time to implement the best version of a suggested change and get some broader support isn't such a bad thing. Again, you are free to ignore that. I don't think it'd be very wise.

Please stop with the strawman arguments though.

[Miestră Schivă, UrN-GC]

The thing is in Talossa that "taking things slowly" often leads to a total dead stop.

The Mençéi has made a good point that the Senäts is fulfilling a duty to be a "brake" on the legislative majority's agenda, though as I say I think they could be more constructive and less obstructive (and the election of the Camerâ pü Înalt should be revised). But asking for the Government to start "self-denying" or even self-censoring - to stop moving forward on our agenda of our own will - is a recipe for Talossa to grind to a total halt.

I fully believe, there, that the Government has a duty to continue pushing forward on its agenda, because if we stop, nothing happens. But to some degree it's a "can't win" situation, because if we did "slow down", some people the same people who are accusing us of driving a legislative steamroller would start calling us do-nothing. Some people (among whom I do not include Lüc or Glüc) aren't happy except when they're using Talossa to ruin other's fun.

In any case, given the schedule of referendums, there is no need for any of these reforms to be finalised before the final Clark. But I honestly think it's good to get a vote on them and let any "surprise" Royal vetos come out in good time to deal with them before that happens.

[Sir Ian Plätschisch]

I am starting to think we are doing this all wrong.

What if we just added a section of the Organic Law that said:

The King is [insert King's name here]. If he abdicates, renounces his citizenship, or dies, the Uppermost Cort shall form a Council of Regency.

Then selecting a new King (or replacing the current King with someone else) is akin to every other major change in Government; amending the OrgLaw.

[Miestră Schivă, UrN-GC]

I approve of minimalist solutions in principle

[Sir Lüc]

I am starting to think we are doing this all wrong.

What if we just added a section of the Organic Law that said:

The King is [insert King's name here]. If he abdicates, renounces his citizenship, or dies, the Uppermost Cort shall form a Council of Regency.

Then selecting a new King (or replacing the current King with someone else) is akin to every other major change in Government; amending the OrgLaw.

I like the idea in principle, but I suspect it won't be so straightforward when the time comes. For example, if we are presented with the possibility of a protracted Regency, then even if evidently the powers of the council are the same as the powers of the King, we might want to define how the council should behave internally (eg. require unanimous decisions on important matters? potentially allowing just one member to okay less important stuff? some sort of accountability/transparency clauses?).

I would like to point out that a long Regency is a perfectly possible situation: I myself would be staunchly opposed to electing a King when there are no obvious candidates; and let's be honest, I don't currently see any present citizen that might fill such a role. In that case, I would much rather keep the Regency going as long as necessary than just place on the throne an underqualified candidate.

[esbornatfiglheu]

Apologies for being late to the party here.  I would like to note that, barring abolition of the Monarchy as a whole, the NPW supports the divorce of the monarchy from a hereditary structure.

However, as opposed to wedding ourselves to a specific methodology of replacement in the Orglaw, might I suggest something along the lines of the following:

"The monarch can be replaced by a Conclave, the makeup of which must be approved by 2/3rd assent of both Halls of the Ziu, as well as 3/4 of the populace in a referendum.  All decisions of this Conclave must be verified by a 2/3rd assent of the People in a referendum."

Honestly, the vetting of any future monarch must be done with the utmost care.  That also means choosing the body to DO the vetting with the same utmost care and responsiveness to the state of the nation.

[Sir Ian Plätschisch]

OK, how about this as a starting point for discussion

-Nominations are put forward by a committee composed of all Talossans who have been a citizen for longer than 7 years.
-Nominations must be approved by 2/3 of both houses
-Confirmation in a referendum

In particular tagging @Glüc da Dhi S.H.

[Glüc]

-Nominations are put forward by a committee composed of all Talossans who have been a citizen for longer than 7 years.

Is your idea that the committee as a whole (by majority vote or some other method) must approve of a nomination, or that any member of this committee could nominate someone?

[Sir Ian Plätschisch]

-Nominations are put forward by a committee composed of all Talossans who have been a citizen for longer than 7 years.

Is your idea that the committee as a whole (by majority vote or some other method) must approve of a nomination, or that any member of this committee could nominate someone?

I was thinking the whole committee (but only those who indicated they were present in some way) would vote to make a nomination.

[esbornatfiglheu]

Personally, I think that the members of the "nominating conclave" should also be very carefully chosen.  As opposed to a blanket over "everyone above 7 years," lets make that the floor to be considered.  Then membership in the body needs to be approved by 2/3 of each house of the Ziu.

[Glüc]

OK, how about this as a starting point for discussion

-Nominations are put forward by a committee composed of all Talossans who have been a citizen for longer than 7 years.
-Nominations must be approved by 2/3 of both houses
-Confirmation in a referendum

In particular tagging @Glüc da Dhi S.H.

I like the general direction of this idea.

One thought I have is whether it might be worth to somehow make the citizenship threshold more flexible, for example depending on population size. For example in a situation like in 2005 where we simply don't have a lot of long-time citizens it might be wiser to have a slightly more lenient threshold, whereas if we ever get thousands of citizens it might be worth having a more strict threshold to prevent the nominating committee from becoming unwieldy due to its size.

I can also see the case for additional criteria or procedures to determine the membership, but I don't like the suggestion of letting the Ziu pick the members. My worry is that the Ziu might then pick the members with the intent of steering the committee to a certain outcome. This would be unneccesary anyway as the Ziu already has to approve of the proposed candidate anyway so there is no risk of the Ziu not having enough influence on the outcome.

Finally I think it would also be good to have a clear procedure and timeline established for the committee nominating a candidate. Some procedure vaguelly inspired by papal conclaves seems like an obvious choice here (as others have already hinted at).

[esbornatfiglheu]

I cannot help but feel that having a well-trodden path for the replacement of the monarch might not be the best idea, lest it lead to choosing a replacement too easily. 

[Sir Ian Plätschisch]

Personally, I think that the members of the "nominating conclave" should also be very carefully chosen.  As opposed to a blanket over "everyone above 7 years," lets make that the floor to be considered.  Then membership in the body needs to be approved by 2/3 of each house of the Ziu.

I don't see what the point of this would be given that the Ziu would need to approve of the committee's nominee. The point of this provision was to ensure that whoever is chosen is approved by Talossa's "senior" citizens.

[Açafat del Val]

I see that this did not make it to the most present Clark. In which case, may I offer two changes?

First, that the Ziu may not elevate to the throne any person who has not been a citizen of Talossa for 6 consecutive years at least.

Second, that such choice be ratified by the nation in referendum, but by three fifths of those voting (instead of a mere majority).

I'd like to ask these questions again. The current bill as it was proposed in the first post of this thread + the two suggestions above = success ???

[Sir Ian Plätschisch]

Glüc and I had a conversation about this on the video chat a few weeks ago, and he convinced me that having a more established process for selecting a new monarch would give the office more prestige.

[Açafat del Val]

"A more established process", such as?

[Sir Ian Plätschisch]

"A more established process", such as?

The one I currently propose

[Açafat del Val]

OK, how about this as a starting point for discussion

-Nominations are put forward by a committee composed of all Talossans who have been a citizen for longer than 7 years.
-Nominations must be approved by 2/3 of both houses
-Confirmation in a referendum

In particular tagging @Glüc da Dhi S.H.

This proposal specifically? Okay. So what do you have against changing 7 years to 6, and modifying the referendum to require 3/5 approval instead of a simple majority?

For what it's worth (and I did read the reasons why), I also don't think that a 'committee' would work very well. Who selects the committee? And wouldn't that process be as political if not more political than merely leaving the choice to the Ziu? Perhaps the committee could be comprised of certain officials (the Senior Judge, the Mencei, etc.), but then everyone else would feel left out.

The Cosa is accessible to everyday Talossans. If someone wants a voice in choosing the next King, they simply can become an MC. Plus the fact that the choice is ultimately approved (or rejected) by a referendum anyways.

It would seem so much better to just leave the nominations to the Ziu, i.e. members of the Cosa and Senate, rather than mire the process under more bureaucracy under the guise of 'fairness' or 'inclusivity'.

[esbornatfiglheu]

I'm not sure that having such a low bar adds any prestige to the office of the Monarchy.  If prestige is desired, then even potential nominators should be strongly vetted.

[Miestră Schivă, UrN-GC]

I would like to reaffirm, as a constitutional minimalist, that I would like to simply have something in there saying "John I of House Lupúl is King of Talossa, and if he dies or abdicates or loses citizenship there will be a Council of Regency". Then we can set up a process *at the time*, via OrgLaw amendment, to appoint a successor, which I think would be more appropriate than to try to imagine one in advance.