A Joint Statement on 55RZ21

[Breneir Tzaracomprada]

We are Talossan political parties and intervals who represent the whole range of opinion on the Constitutional issue, from monarchist to republican and everywhere in between.

We believe that the time has come for a historic compromise which settles the question for a Talossan generation or more. Talossa has other, better things to debate.

We believe that the "Talossa Shall Choose Its King Amendment" (proposed to the last Cosă as RZ21) meets the qualifications to be precisely that compromise.

We are disappointed that His Majesty King John vetoed this proposal, and we pledge that - if it is re-presented to the next Coså - we will vote for it.

Despite our disagreements on other issues, we hope, between us, to win sufficient support in the current election to thus at least present this Historic Compromise to the people in referendum, over the Royal veto.

Long live the Kingdom of Talossa!

Signed:

E. S. Börnatfiglheu for the New Peculiar Way
T. E. Davinescù for the Free Democrats of Talossa
B. Itravilatx for the Talossan National Congress
M. E. P. Tafial per el Parti Tafialistà

[Baron Alexandreu Davinescu]

This is a very well-crafted statement.  But it also seems to shy away from the main point... what is the "question" being settled?

Like most people, I saw some of the positives of a proposal for a "historic compromise which settles the question for a Talossan generation or more."  After all, even though it would yield a presidency in a new Republic of Talossa, at least some of the trappings of monarchy would remain.  The president would be called a king, and this king would still have a few powers.  And at least that would be the end of this fight.  The relentless attacks on the monarchy would stop, and that at least would be a relief.

In other words, I thought the "question" was the broader one: what shall be the role of the monarch in Talossa?

So I was surprised when the incoming FDT leader posted a speech about one of his next priorities: putting the honours system entirely under Government control and supervision.  Under the proposed presidency, the "king" would have few powers, but... the next goal was eliminating one of them?  And he was already planning that?

The current FDT leader and Seneschal agreed that this was entirely possible, although it wasn't her initiative.  And while some folks didn't care about this particular proposal, they still agreed that they would feel free to do it.  Senator Válcadác'h said that this just wasn't the "time to bring up that discussion," since it was a distraction.

In other words, the FDT was just upset with their leader because he spilled the beans.  And they've been trying to do clean-up ever since.

So then... if the people seeking a republic (the Republicans) are getting an elected presidency with a seven-year term, and they intend to continue diminishing the role of this "king"... what the hell kind of compromise is this, anyway?

Honestly, as far as I can tell, the Republicans are getting exactly what they want, and the sole concession is that they're willing to call the president a "king."  They're not agreeing to anything else in any way, even though they don't want to highlight that fact.

This isn't a compromise.

[Miestră Schivă, UrN-GC]

Whenever the Baron von Tollbooth gets involved in a political issue, he starts with the personal abuse. His opponents are sneaky. His opponents are corrupt. His opponents lie, his opponents are shameful, and they "get caught" by the virtuous Baron. I'll never forget having to take 6 months off Talossa after the Baron harassed me into insomnia and a health breakdown over wholly imaginary corruption with the Uppermost Court.

These accusations against the new Free Democrat president are exactly the kind of assuming the absolute worst about those who disagree with you that the LCC leader claims to be against. I call upon the Baron to apologise for his attempts to demonise, discredit and smear General Davinescu. I call upon the LCC leader to disavow this poisonous rhetoric, just as he disavowed the leader of the Balancéu party's nonsense about "hate".

[Miestră Schivă, UrN-GC]

I should also note that, if the Baron of Beef were sincere, he would offer a simple compromise: "we will support 55RZ21 in exchange for an entrenchment of the current honours system". I'd go with that.

[Sir Ian Plätschisch]

It seems like the Seneschal is responding to the tone of AD's argument rather than its substance, which is very similar to what I said in my farewell speech.

Unless there is broad understanding that this is the last change; no more changes to the honors system or any other remaining royal powers; then the Historic Compromise is neither of those things

[Baron Alexandreu Davinescu]

I should also note that, if the Baron of Beef were sincere, he would offer a simple compromise: "we will support 55RZ21 in exchange for an entrenchment of the current honours system". I'd go with that.

I'll ignore the weird taunting with names, since I understand that you're having a hard time keeping your composure after I dared to say that someone "spilled the beans."

But I will say that I am extremely grateful for your support of my point, and I will focus on that. Notice how she is admitting the central point? Nothing else is included in this "compromise."

[Miestră Schivă, UrN-GC]

It seems like the Seneschal is responding to the tone of AD's argument rather than its substance,

In Talossa, it is precisely the tone of discussion that causes feelings to get hurt, tempers to rise and feuds to escalate. The Baron von Rucksack knows this perfectly well, which he why he does this. If you don't think his "tone" is a problem, then please never, ever complain about the "tone" of anything I say again.

[Sir Ian Plätschisch]

It seems like the Seneschal is responding to the tone of AD's argument rather than its substance,

In Talossa, it is precisely the tone of discussion that causes feelings to get hurt, tempers to rise and feuds to escalate. The Baron von Rucksack knows this perfectly well, which he why he does this. If you don't think his "tone" is a problem, then please never, ever complain about the "tone" of anything I say again.

I didn't make any statement about whether his tone is a problem or not, but you used it to avoid addressing the key issue under discussion (and you avoided addressing it again in your response to me)

[Þon Txoteu É. Davinescu, O.SPM]

I should also note that, if the Baron of Beef were sincere, he would offer a simple compromise: "we will support 55RZ21 in exchange for an entrenchment of the current honours system". I'd go with that.

I'll ignore the weird taunting with names, since I understand that you're having a hard time keeping your composure after I dared to say that someone "spilled the beans."

But I will say that I am extremely grateful for your support of my point, and I will focus on that. Notice how she is admitting the central point? Nothing else is included in this "compromise."

No one "spilled the beans" AD... unlike some high tower citizens of this Kingdom, I have my own mind... my own thoughts... and my own goals. I don't need John whispering in my ear or Vice versa. I brought up a discussion topic because unlike you, I want everyone involved in topics & ideas. It's an idea... a personal one that I decided to bring up because I wanted to see where others stood. I assure you, I am likely as close to a total opposite of someone like you... you Lordship. I want people to see me for who I am and to trust that unlike you... I don't have some "secret agenda". My agenda is the HC. To see it become law EXACTLY as it stands and secure the future of this Kingdom from manipulators and schemers. I deal with that horseshit enough in my birth country and I refuse to let someone like you piss on my good name and the hard work I have done & will for years to come.

Again... you have a question. Bring it. Don't pussy foot around it. Be a man and ask me to my face

[Miestră Schivă, UrN-GC]

I didn't make any statement about whether his tone is a problem or not

Yes, I consider that a problem in itself. If only we could also reach a Historic Compromise on the question of how we treat each other in Talossa.

But if the "substantive issue" is whether the Historic Compromise is wide enough, I challenge the LCC (and the other monarchist parties, though I doubt they'll answer) to set what additional terms they would require to add to 55RZ21 so that it would be an acceptable compromise in their terms.

[Sir Ian Plätschisch]

I didn't make any statement about whether his tone is a problem or not

Yes, I consider that a problem in itself.

By that logic, you must have a problem with every Witt post that doesn't explicitly denounce AD.

[Miestră Schivă, UrN-GC]

...now that you mention it...

Seriously: he's on your party list. That means you guys are now responsible for him. This whole thread started because the Free Dems are being held collectively accountable for something Txoteu said! Likewise, if the Baron is a LCC candidate, what he says and how he says it becomes the responsibility of the LCC leadership.

[Munditenens Tresplet]

But if the "substantive issue" is whether the Historic Compromise is wide enough, I challenge the LCC (and the other monarchist parties, though I doubt they'll answer) to set what additional terms they would require to add to 55RZ21 so that it would be an acceptable compromise in their terms.

From my perspective, there are no additional terms that could make 55RZ21 an acceptable compromise. I don't believe that we can have a compromise on this issue that would satisfy everyone, or one that would completely end the debate on the monarchy.

If the people adopt 55RZ21, then they clearly feel that an elected head of state is the right path forward for Talossa. I disagree, but I would respect that decision. But I would not want to call the elected head of state the King (or Queen) of Talossa. They should be referred to what they are: a President, and we should then take steps to restore the political powers that should be given to a head of state who is now subject to the changing winds of the populace. If Talossa desires a republic, then we should have a republic.

It feels to me, someone who admittedly hasn't been present nearly enough since we made the switch from ProBoards, that 55RZ21 is the proposed solution to two distinct issues: The monarchy debate, which I addressed above, and the debate with our current monarch. I can understand why a Republican would want to support this compromise, but I cannot understand it from the perspective of a Monarchist. Even if I were to agree that we should depose the King for his lack of activity--and to be clear, I don't--then shouldn't the solution be to hold a convocation and elect another lifetime monarch? (Perhaps bringing back hereditary monarchy in the process?)

[Miestră Schivă, UrN-GC]

For me, the 7 year renewable monarchy is a uniquely Talossan solution to a Talossan problem, and therefore Peculiarist. The problem is that a human-lifetime monarchy is FAR TOO LONG for a constitutional democracy where there's an election every 8-9 months. Talossa functions in "dog years", as it were.

QE2 of the UK has reigned 69 years and has had 14 Prime Ministers. Ian I Lupul has reigned 16 years and I was his 15th Seneschál. Talossa moves too quickly for a lifetime monarchy to be appropriate. Imagine if Victoria were still Queen, and imagine someone born in 1820-something had a veto over 21st century legislation. That's Talossa.

Of course, the other issue is that the proportion of Talossans who think that the King's behaviour (especially going AWOL) is worthy of a King is getting smaller all the time. Honestly, though, I would have been just as happy with a compromise over a purely ceremonial monarch (who would give out peerages etc. only with the advice and consent of the Government). But that option came last place in the Referendum, so we went this way.

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.

[mpf]

AD, we are as a crossroads, I am not sure that you see it.

We had a King, who, in 2004, started attacking his most trusted supporters and no way to remove him or do anything. Most did nothing. I almost did nothing, but then people left for the Republic of Talossa and I stayed as his Secretary of State, he was left without a target, attacked me.

Ok, so that wasn't a very regal king, at least, not in the end. Some will say that he was bad for years, I wouldn't know.

So a new one was selected, and recently, he vanished and stopped being active.

It's ok! He can if he wants to. Recently, I've been dealing with my own issues, my own life crisis. I didn't want to tell everyone here about it, but it's pretty much soon to be over.

But here is the thing, my obligations were two fold: vote in the Clark, a duty I didn't neglect, and maintain the Database. I even helped the transition from one SoS to another.

If I hadn't been able to vote on the Clark, I would have resigned, or been expelled.

But the King vanished without explanation and leaving us without our head of state.

So, that's another king that didn't work.

Wait, between those two is was a kid who probably didn't know much about us.

So, what is the crossroad?

I see 4 paths before us.

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.

Now, here is the genius of this:

King Robert I, in his first 7 years, wasn't to bad, it's over time that his attacks began, first on the liberal party and the Penguinean, then on a citizen I won't name, then on his own PC party which led to the Halloween crisis.

What if he had been replaced after 7 years, for 7 years? Someone else might have done some good.

As for our current king, remember his first 7 years? Even if he was re-elected, If someone had replaced him after those, he would have been remembered as our greatest king! He oversaw the reunison! He led us throught stability.

After 14 years, he could have just let the position to someone else, instead of trying to just stay in place when he doesn't have the time, or no longer cares for it.

Stay long enough in a position, and you can no longer see anyone but you in it. Trust me, I know. I was SoS way too long, but I still gave it up, and look at that, we've had two GREAT SoS in a row.

Sure, they were rookie at first, but both rocked.

The question isn't, should we have a new king. It's obvious we need one who is more active.

The question is: shouldn't we bake some sort of renewal, so the king, whoever it is, doen't get too bored over time?

Well, that's part of the compromise, and it's why I voted for it.

[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.