A Joint Statement on 55RZ21

[Baron Alexandreu Davinescu]

As to why any Monarchist would put up with the Compromise? Simply put: because if they don't compromise now, something much worse is coming in a year or two years, given current demographic trends. A slightly fudgy deal now, or unconditional surrender later.

And there's the rub: I think that you folks will be pursuing the "much worse" thing before too much long, anyway.  What would that even be?  Would the president's term be reduced?  Would they no longer carry the title of "king?"  Oh, heaven forfend these calamities!

You can't threaten to remove some of the president's remaining powers, since that's already the plan!  Your incoming party leader has made that clear.

If you're going to threaten, then you need to be specific.

Path 1 is we do nothing, and the kind comes bach. We might lose a few citizen, but we will have lost face. Unless he provides a very good explanation, how can we trust him?

Path 2 is we abolish the position of the King. After 3 monarchies ending in fire, perhaps it's time to rethink the process? That's the Republican point of view, and YOU don't want that, and a few don't want that either. We might lose a few citizens, but we would not have lost face

Path 3 is we elect another King for life, ignoring the result of the referendum. Again, we might lose a few citizens, but if the new king messes up again, it might be the end of Talossa. It was almost the end in 2004, what's do say that the new one, whoever it is, won't end up destroying us?

Path 4 is the compromise. The idea, we elect the King, like we would have done anyway, but instead of electing him for life, we put a term limit of 7 years.

Path 2 and Path 4 seem pretty much the same to me, though.  I understand the punishing imperative of that 1.5% margin on the mid-term referendum, of course.  But "regularly elected partisan presidency" and "regularly elected partisan presidency we call king" is not much of a difference.

Obviously, an argument could be made for a real compromise.  Ian P has been saying, for example, that he would only consider this a compromise if Republicans refrained from further diminishing the role of the president.  But that's not the deal on the table and there's nothing in the law to enforce such a promise, even if it were the deal.  And that's why you have a host of committed Republicans loudly calling it a Historic Compromise while the committed monarchists are saying: Wait, what compromise?  What do we get?

This isn't a compromise.

[GV]

A x-year term of a reasonable length solves the issue of the power of veto. Periodic re-election takes the worst out of the edge of the monarchial blade and turns the post into one which with a seven-year term still promotes continuity.

In the hands of a perfectly-virtuous person, a lifetime term is the ideal.  With a perfect family who acts on perfect wisdom, a hereditary monarchy is the ideal.

Look at what Ben Madison did as King of Talossa.  We cannot blame Louis for anything.  And look at Ián Lupul's most-recent twelve months in office: disappearance with no real explanation and without a regent for the first two months.

The years 2020-2021 in Ián's reign will be remembered as being a benign prototype for the future inevitable rogue monarch whose actions, unlike Ián's, will be anything but benign.

A future rogue monarch?  With a lifetime term?  This is good for Talossa?

[mpf]

Path 2 is we abolish the position of the King. After 3 monarchies ending in fire, perhaps it's time to rethink the process? That's the Republican point of view, and YOU don't want that, and a few don't want that either. We might lose a few citizens, but we would not have lost face

Path 4 is the compromise. The idea, we elect the King, like we would have done anyway, but instead of electing him for life, we put a term limit of 7 years.

Path 2 and Path 4 seem pretty much the same to me, though.  I understand the punishing imperative of that 1.5% margin on the mid-term referendum, of course.  But "regularly elected partisan presidency" and "regularly elected partisan presidency we call king" is not much of a difference.

It is a MAJOR difference!

The President would be elected every 2 years or less, with massive regular electoral campaigns.

You would have parties, and people would plan well in advance their turn to run, just like our Senate elections.

But a King elected every 7 years, however, is a rare event! Think about SEVEN years ago, how the world was different! And Seven years before that. You don't get time to plan this. It's not a regular event.

The compromise offers the stability of a Kingdom, but with a King with an exit strategy.

We would have ERAS, like the Era of King Lupul, followed by the Era of King Gregorino (example), because of the long period.

You don't have that with a president, unless they get re-elected over a long periods, which isn't really a president.

AD, what you fail to grasp, is that the compromises puts water in BOTH glasses.

YOU revel at the idea that the King is elected.

Republican revel at the idea that there is a King, or that he has too much power, or that the elections are too far apart (it depends on their brand of Republicanism).

You have a shot at calming them, just by picking a new King, the same way the previous one was, but this time, for a term limit of 7 years.

Until 2028!!!

[Tierçéu Rôibeardescù]

The LCC has one further options that hasn't been considered.

We, the League of Centre Conservatives, see that support for the Talossa Shall Choose Its King Amendment stems not from any magical properties of a term length of seven years, but rather out of general discontent with the current Monarch. Consequently, we also see that the current Monarch is in the process of doing grave damage to the noble institution of the Monarchy, which we believe should, for the most part, continue to exist exactly as it does today. We will endeavor to modify the Talossa Shall Choose Its King Amendment to change its focus from the periodic election of a new King to providing a periodic opportunity to have a vote of no confidence in the current King. This will reaffirm the lifetime nature of the Office while making it easier to remove a King who is not performing well in the role.

Talossa must have a king, with all its history, pomp, and circumstance which has made our country great. We must end the turmoil that has made us look inward at internal conflicts and begin rebuilding, starting a new era of our nation where we can stand tall once more. We can reemerge like the groundhog in the spring to the fresh new world that eagerly awaits us.

[Baron Alexandreu Davinescu]

It is a MAJOR difference!

The President would be elected every 2 years or less, with massive regular electoral campaigns.

You would have parties, and people would plan well in advance their turn to run, just like our Senate elections.

But a King elected every 7 years, however, is a rare event! Think about SEVEN years ago, how the world was different! And Seven years before that. You don't get time to plan this. It's not a regular event.

I mean... you'd get seven years to plan it, right?  Probably at least your last couple of Cosas, you're going to be thinking about how you can please the majority-holders so they will vote you back into the presidency.  Why would there not be a massive regular electoral campaign?  Wouldn't the electoral campaign be even more massive, since the term is 7 years and not 2?  Wouldn't rival candidates have good reason to try to make the sitting president look bad?

I mean, I definitely understand and appreciate the idea that 7 is a long term and would insulate the president from partisan influence for at least a few years.  But it seems a bit optimistic to assume that there wouldn't be campaigning or electioneering.  People are going to favor particular candidates for the presidency, and look to their leaders for guidance about who would be a good choice.

AD, what you fail to grasp, is that the compromises puts water in BOTH glasses.

YOU revel at the idea that the King is elected.

Republican revel at the idea that there is a King, or that he has too much power, or that the elections are too far apart (it depends on their brand of Republicanism).

I'm not sure it's much of a compromise for Republicans... why, because they're not getting everything they want, right away?

Here's a parallel:

I have a barrel of apples.  You have a box of bananas.  I'd like some bananas, and you'd like some apples.

It would be a compromise if I gave you some apples and you gave me some bananas.  Depending on the exchange, maybe it's a better deal for one side.  Maybe it's equal.  Either way, that's a trade and a compromise.

But it's not a compromise if you give me nothing, but still demand all of my apples -- even if you only take half of them.  You may not have gotten 100% of what you wanted, sure... but a compromise should mean that I get something too, right?  And this is doubly true when you're already promising to grab some more apples, later, as your party leader has declared is one of his priorities.

Now, I understand I will still have some apples left right now.  Yes, the president will have a long term, and their title will be "king."  But typically, a compromise means that both sides give, not just that one side doesn't get all of their demands immediately, right?

You might have a point here if there really was some larger compromise.  But your party has made it directly and explicitly clear that there is not.  They want half the apples, and maybe later they will come back and demand the rest.

That's not a compromise.

[Miestră Schivă, UrN]

The LCC has one further options that hasn't been considered.

The LCC's suggestion of a "compromise on the compromise" is well thought out and definitely worth considering if 55RZ21 can't get a 2/3 majority this time. I should warn, however, that it would need a 3/4 majority to have any effect. And the Baron Debate-Me-Bro would still be whimpering about how "this isn't a compromise", so be prepared for that.

[Baron Alexandreu Davinescu]

And the Baron Debate-Me-Bro

Good article.  It makes some good points.

Portnoy seems to have stopped attempting to draw Ocasio-Cortez into a debate and has instead decided to periodically call her "O'CRAZIO," reverting to the tactics of name-calling

And I agree with a lot of it.

Of course, most men screaming "debate me!" aren't white supremacists, and most haven't violated YouTube or Twitter terms of service. Still, a man who demands that someone debate him assumes that he is entitled to his or her — usually her — valuable time and attention; she can't possibly have more important work than engaging with an aggressive man online.

It's perfectly fine to critique men like Portnoy (who is now under investigation by the National Labor Relations Board for his tweets) without acceding to their presumptuous demands. Your critique can stand on its own, and you aren't obligated to repeat it at length in a more formal setting to give such men a chance to insult you and pepper you with bad-faith arguments in real time.

I don't believe I've ever followed anyone around on this message board, demanding that they debate me in this manner or getting huffy if they declined.  I never thought it was a matter of principle that permitted me to post on every reply, taunting about cowardice and how they absolutely had to debate me.  And I think it's possible to make reasonable and polite criticisms of someone's arguments without feeling obligated to a formal debate on their terms.  I have been fairly consistent on this point, I think.



But regardless, my point still stands: this is not a compromise.  Utterly transparent attempts to troll and insult to try to provoke a fight don't change that fact.

[Miestră Schivă, UrN]

The Senator from Florencia, the TNC leader, the person who posted this Joint Statement, has voted against 55RZ21.

[Françal I. Lux]

The Senator from Florencia, the TNC leader, the person who posted this Joint Statement, has voted against 55RZ21.

A feckless act of discourtesy. How utterly disappointing.

[Miestră Schivă, UrN]

Especially incomprehensible as the Senator for Florencia quit the League of Centre Conservatives precisely because they wouldn't wholeheartedly support 55RZ21.

The only way I can parse this is: former Atatürk Senator "Guy Incognito", after his acquittal on charges of using a false name, voted against every Government bill thereafter out of sheer spite. Although I have no idea what Brenéir is spiteful towards us for.

[Ián S.G. Txaglh]

seems, i missed a serious fun here. and i still do not understand, what is the problem about. is king-for-life of any importance to the stability and life of talossa? honestly, no. is king-for-life of any importance to fundaments of talossa? again, no. king-for-life is just one possibility of many, and talossans have democratically chosen some other issue. or, did not they, did i get smth wrong?

i can imagine people living in a representative democracy to be attracted to this king-thing, allusively a symbol of stability and duration, but it is just a façade, which may hold no content but rotten one. any permanent political position without the possibility to enforce to account for actions is dangerous.

we have now in czechia the pseudo-king serving as a president, who thinks that he is special and so so important, that he ignores not only the call of reason but also laws of the country (and our constitution was written by naïve guys who never assumed this may happen one day. does it ring a bell to you, fellow talossans?). luckily, we'll get rid of him in two years in the new elections, cos he is no real king. and that's a good thing.

renewable kingship is for me enough peculiarly talossan too, plus, it satisfies my sense for fair play.

[GV]

seems, i missed a serious fun here. and i still do not understand, what is the problem about. is king-for-life of any importance to the stability and life of talossa? honestly, no. is king-for-life of any importance to fundaments of talossa? again, no. king-for-life is just one possibility of many, and talossans have democratically chosen some other issue. or, did not they, did i get smth wrong?

i can imagine people living in a representative democracy to be attracted to this king-thing, allusively a symbol of stability and duration, but it is just a façade, which may hold no content but rotten one. any permanent political position without the possibility to enforce to account for actions is dangerous.

we have now in czechia the pseudo-king serving as a president, who thinks that he is special and so so important, that he ignores not only the call of reason but also laws of the country (and our constitution was written by naïve guys who never assumed this may happen one day. does it ring a bell to you, fellow talossans?). luckily, we'll get rid of him in two years in the new elections, cos he is no real king. and that's a good thing.

renewable kingship is for me enough peculiarly talossan too, plus, it satisfies my sense for fair play.

See about joining the Free Democrats, then.  :-)

At about the time when the hereditary aspect of the monarchy was quashed in August 2020 (a year ago, believe it or not), the King disappeared from Witt for two months.

In October 2020, I made a welfare-check-phone-call and established he was not only healthy, but was also free of any crises which might have precluded him doing Talossa.  Yes, he said work was saddling him down, but from August to October 2020, he was nowhere to be found.

It was soon after my welfare-check to the King in October 2020 he appointed Alexander Davinescu as Regent.  Alexander for personal reasons was repugnant to many on the Left, and his appointment as Regent by the King was seen by many as a middle finger and an insult.

To Alexander's eternal credit, he was a very good regent: he performed his legal and ceremonial duties and maintained the high level of Talossan activity and enthusiasm he has maintained since he came to us in 2006.

There is more to tell, but this should be a good starting place.

Again, the Free Democrats are always welcoming of new people.

GV

[Ián S.G. Txaglh]

seems, i missed a serious fun here. and i still do not understand, what is the problem about. is king-for-life of any importance to the stability and life of talossa? honestly, no. is king-for-life of any importance to fundaments of talossa? again, no. king-for-life is just one possibility of many, and talossans have democratically chosen some other issue. or, did not they, did i get smth wrong?

i can imagine people living in a representative democracy to be attracted to this king-thing, allusively a symbol of stability and duration, but it is just a façade, which may hold no content but rotten one. any permanent political position without the possibility to enforce to account for actions is dangerous.

we have now in czechia the pseudo-king serving as a president, who thinks that he is special and so so important, that he ignores not only the call of reason but also laws of the country (and our constitution was written by naïve guys who never assumed this may happen one day. does it ring a bell to you, fellow talossans?). luckily, we'll get rid of him in two years in the new elections, cos he is no real king. and that's a good thing.

renewable kingship is for me enough peculiarly talossan too, plus, it satisfies my sense for fair play.

See about joining the Free Democrats, then.  :-)

meirci, meirci, graschcias, i'll stay with NPW :)

i know the story as it began, i missed the recent peak of "activity" in this matter. i was here lately like two months ago, iirc, and read all the stuff on this topic. i voted as a deputy for the respective bill. anyway, thnx for the summary, it makes it intelligible for anyone, who does not follow it word by word for the last half a year.

"storm in a teaspoon" metaphor is a common occidental cultural heritage, and it fits the situation. king became too comfortable in his position. royalists are afraid of losing their game. but is it worth having a situation in which the king may go partisan? although i am republican, i do not insist on talossa turning republic, i care about the functionality of the royal institution, an elective monarchy, even with the limited serving terms, allows to keep things going on. good king may still be a king-for-life, i do not insist on a "presidential" limited number of terms. hereditary and unlimited kingship is of no benefit for talossa. and the comment with the accelerated pace of time in talossa is also valid, one year talossa maybe a decade in real life. my two groats.

[Miestră Schivă, UrN]

... and the NPW delegation to the Cosă just abstained on this bill that the Party promised to vote for.

I just give up on Talossan politics, as long as there's no way for a party to be put out of the Cosă in an election. There is just nothing to stop people making agreements and then just tearing them up without reason, logic, or explanation. You can't make multi-party deals in such circumstances and therefore doing anything "important" is impossible.

[Ián S.G. Txaglh]

... and the NPW delegation to the Cosă just abstained on this bill that the Party promised to vote for.

could you be more specific on "this bill"? am i missing some colloquial english thing, like "this bill" = "some unnamed bill"?

and i am not sitting in cosâ now ;) i always tried to get along the line, even we were frequently reminded by eiric what was part of the agreements. is it a conspiracy or just bad communication?