The Non-Hereditary Monarchy Amendment

[Glüc]

Agreed.

I agree that if any of this happened it would not be great,

So any thoughts on amending this proposal to minimise these risks?

One possible alternative could be to have the general electorate vote on candidates one at the time where the first candidate is the person who is closest to being a citizen for 30 years. (wanted to say 59 but that may be a bit long)

Or we could institute some kind of electoral college where the members are selected separately over a longer period.

[Sir Ian Plätschisch]

With due respect, this amendment had been Hoppered since December and has generated little discussion.

I am sympathetic to calls to delay Clarking a bill while discussion is ongoing (my opposition to Clarking the Electoral Roll stuff is what got the rest of the Government to lay off) but that isn't what happened here.

A 2/3 bar in both the Ziu and the populace is a pretty high bar, but I agree there could be a better system. However, developing such a system could take years and this is a step in the right direction.

[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).

[Glüc]

With due respect, this amendment had been Hoppered since December and has generated little discussion.

I am sympathetic to calls to delay Clarking a bill while discussion is ongoing (my opposition to Clarking the Electoral Roll stuff is what got the rest of the Government to lay off) but that isn't what happened here.

A 2/3 bar in both the Ziu and the populace is a pretty high bar, but I agree there could be a better system. However, developing such a system could take years and this is a step in the right direction.

Hard disagree.

1. I'm not sure that developing a more complex system would take multiple years. It depends on how much effort supporters of the change want to put in it. Alternatively, we could probably come up with a bill that creates some extra barriers or an electoral college right now. Of course there's not much reason to assume any quick solution would be the best or even a good solution, but that's not the case for this proposal either. (Actually there seems to be pretty much a consensus that this bill would not be the best solution.)

2. Taking some time to do this is not at all a bad thing either. It's a pretty big change. At the moment, the pace of change in Talossa is leaving people behind. Activity on new witt hasn't been particularly high. Many will not even have seen this amendment yet. Of course, the government is correct that they have the right everything they've got a majority for at the rate they please, but that doesn't mean it might not be wise to take some time to do it right, and maybe take some more people along as well.

3. tbd

4. tbd

5. tbd

6 tbd

[Miestră Schivă, UrN-GC]

At the moment, the pace of change in Talossa is leaving people behind.

More anecdotal evidence that the ex-ModRads are becoming Talossa's "new conservative party", in the absence of the RUMP or the ZRT.

Who exactly are these people who are being "left behind"? 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?

[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.