"Compromise"

[Baron Alexandreu Davinescu]

If it were up to me, I'd have this anachronistic, outdated institution scraped for a fully functional unitary Republic. The fact that I am willing to embrace this compromise and stomach the idea of having to call another human being "king" and "your highness" for the sake of contentious peace should count for something.

See, here's the thing: as far as I can tell, neither you nor any other Republican actually feels bound by this.  Are you saying that if your party leader Clarks a bill which would rename the king to "chief executive" or "noble leader" or "president," that you would vote "contra" on her bill?  Or that you would vote "contra" on a bill which altered the king's purview over appointments?

I'm not Françal (or a FreeDem) so I can't comment on his/their behalf, but yes, I would.

I'm glad :)  So you feel as though you would feel obligated for the future to vote against changes to the king's role?  If only the other three parties advocating for this presidency could make the same pledge!  It might have made it a real compromise, after all.

[Eðo Grischun]

(The below is 100% personal opinion)


The tactic being employed by the Baron De Skelped Erse (and his plus one) is very similar to the strategy used by opponents of Scottish Independence.

"You had a referendum in 2014.  We answered no. ThAtS DeMoCrAcY So YoU CaNt HaVe A sEcOnD sHoT"

They claim a second referendum can't ever happen because democracy.  It's makes no sense at all.  Surely, democracy allows for minds to change over time?  I mean, by the same logic, we might as well never, ever have any more than one election. 'The people got to choose the government way back in nineteen canteen, that was democracy, so no, you don't get another election'.  Nonsense.

So, in the same gaslighting manner, Baron Heed-da-Baw is hinging this whole thing on the idea that the Historic Compromise must be permanent. Really permanent. Never to speak about anything to do with it again permanent. Which... is nonsense.

Just like the Scottish Independence referendum, opponents like to say "it was supposed to be once in a generation!!!!".  But, they refuse to accept the fact that the material circumstances have changed since the first one.  (in that case, Brexit happened).

The Historic Compromise, no matter how long it lasts, is still an Historic Compromise.  It is utterly unfair to say that it not a compromise because it can't come with a future-proof guarantee that nothing about the monarchy ever gets mentioned ever ever ever again.  It is not only unfair, it is bad faith.  It is not only bad faith, it is absolutely and terrifyingly UNDEMOCRATIC.

You want honesty?  Ok.  The Historic Compromise will last as long as it lasts.  That's as confident an answer I can give without being able to read the future.  It will last as long as it lasts.  However, I am confident that the side that breaks it won't be us.  Supporters of the Historic Compromise will live with it and stand by it all the way up until the other side does something silly to force a material change in circumstances.

A major principle in governance is that one Parliament can't tie the hands of a future Parliament.  So, the Baron Von Bawlsax is asking for the impossible by demanding the compromise comes with some kind of guarantee that nothing in the future ever gets mentioned ever again regarding the monarchy.  Like, what if we did find some way to make that guarantee and then a King decides to just start abusing his side of the system in some way?  Well, we would just have to accept it and let him get away with it because, well, democracy had its day and the compromise is to last forever plus a day. 

Well, no.  The historic compromise will last as long as it lasts and it will only be broken in the event of a change in the material circumstances surrounding the Monarchy.  Demanding anything further, again, is absolutely and terrifyingly undemocratic.

[Baron Alexandreu Davinescu]

So, in the same gaslighting manner, Baron Heed-da-Baw is hinging this whole thing on the idea that the Historic Compromise must be permanent. Really permanent. Never to speak about anything to do with it again permanent. Which... is nonsense.

Nonsense.  Just utter nonsense.

Obviously, it would be absurd to say that any political agreement would need to last forever or else it's illegitimate.  That's not what I'm saying.

I'm also obviously not saying that the FDT should propose a law putting the honours system or veto out of reach of a future Cosa, because that's also absurd.  They might be put at a higher standard in the OrgLaw, of course, if an actual compromise is on the table.  But it's not.

So please consider that you have resoundingly defeated those straw men.  They're stone dead and you have triumphed.

My actual point is that there is no compromise at all, be it one that lasts a week or a month.  They won't even verbally commit to anything.  Republicans are just taking most of what they want now, and they plan to come back for more later.

[Eðo Grischun]

So, in the same gaslighting manner, Baron Heed-da-Baw is hinging this whole thing on the idea that the Historic Compromise must be permanent. Really permanent. Never to speak about anything to do with it again permanent. Which... is nonsense.

Obviously, it would be absurd to say that any political agreement would need to last forever or else it's illegitimate.  That's not what I'm saying.

No, that's exactly what you have been saying.  The whole premise of your opposition is based around the fact that it's impossible for supporters of the HC to guarantee they won't ever, ever, ever fiddle about with anything related to the Monarchy in the future or else it's not really a compromise.  Hence your list in a previous reply:

You can't say that you're compromising your vision for a completely Government-run honours system, because you feel free to pursue changing that whenever you please.

You can't say that you'd refuse to rename the king to a new title, because you don't feel like you might want to do that, too.

You can't say that you're bound to protect the king's role in appointments, because maybe you'll disagree with a decision of his and want to change it.

You can't say that you're determined to prevent any change in the length of the "king"s term, because maybe seven years is too long and you'll decide to make it shorter sometime during the first term or next.

You can't say that you're going to protect the royal veto, because maybe it needs to be reduced a little bit more.

Yep.  We can't say any of those things because it's utterly impossible to comment on future events that have not happened and may never happen.  You're whole argument boils down to that.  That the Historic Compromise is rubbish because at some stage in the future we might want to pass a law tinkering with something related to the Monarchy.  It's complete BS.  I applaud your effort though, because you might have managed to confuse a few voters with that tomfoolery wordsmithery.  The fact is, though, that those kind of things will only happen as a reaction to some change in material circumstances caused by future actions of the Monarch.

My actual point is that there is no compromise at all, be it one that lasts a week or a month.  They won't even verbally commit to anything.  Republicans are just taking most of what they want now, and they plan to come back for more later.

Hyperbole.  And, that last bit Won't happen.  Sheer, unfounded speculation.  Unless, again, the material circumstances are caused to change by the actions of a King's mis, mal, or non-feasance.

[Miestră Schivă, UrN-GC]

Are you saying that if your party leader Clarks a bill which would rename the king to "chief executive" or "noble leader" or "president," that you would vote "contra" on her bill?  Or that you would vote "contra" on a bill which altered the king's purview over appointments?

Apologise to Txoteu for insinuating that he's not really FreeDems leader, right away. (Or misgendering Txoteu, either way.)

[Miestră Schivă, UrN-GC]

Er, no. An amendment to completely abolish the Monarchy could not have passed the Ziu.

This is right. Everyone forgets this. The Compromise was the only thing that could have got 2/3 of the outgoing Cosă and at the same time respect the (narrowest of narrow) verdict of the referendum for an Elected Head of State. Senator Plätschisch pretty much wrote the National Convocation bit himself.

Intransigent, no-compromise, monarchists are pretty loud on Witt, but if they'd mobilised just a little bit better in the referendum, they wouldn't be facing this predicament.

[Baron Alexandreu Davinescu]

No, that's exactly what you have been saying.  The whole premise of your opposition is based around the fact that it's impossible for supporters of the HC to guarantee they won't ever, ever, ever fiddle about with anything related to the Monarchy in the future or else it's not really a compromise.  Hence your list in a previous reply:

You can't say that you're compromising your vision for a completely Government-run honours system, because you feel free to pursue changing that whenever you please.

You can't say that you'd refuse to rename the king to a new title, because you don't feel like you might want to do that, too.

You can't say that you're bound to protect the king's role in appointments, because maybe you'll disagree with a decision of his and want to change it.

You can't say that you're determined to prevent any change in the length of the "king"s term, because maybe seven years is too long and you'll decide to make it shorter sometime during the first term or next.

You can't say that you're going to protect the royal veto, because maybe it needs to be reduced a little bit more.

Yep.  We can't say any of those things because it's utterly impossible to comment on future events that have not happened and may never happen.  You're whole argument boils down to that.  That the Historic Compromise is rubbish because at some stage in the future we might want to pass a law tinkering with something related to the Monarchy.

Many people think it is possible to make firm commitments about your future intentions, if you legitimately are willing.  If you honestly see it as impossible, then I think you've just begun vigorously agreeing with me, and I consider my point well-proven.

I have made many commitments in my life based on sincere beliefs and intentions, and I have done my best to uphold them.  When I got married, I said that I would love and honour my wife, and I was able to do this without prevaricating about how "it's utterly impossible to comment on future events."  It's surely possible that I will get sick in some way and be unable to hold up my end of the deal, but somehow I soldiered through and made a promise, anyway.

You won't commit to protecting the role of the monarchy, because you don't intend to do so.

My actual point is that there is no compromise at all, be it one that lasts a week or a month.  They won't even verbally commit to anything.  Republicans are just taking most of what they want now, and they plan to come back for more later.

Hyperbole.  And, that last bit Won't happen.  Sheer, unfounded speculation.  Unless, again, the material circumstances are caused to change by the actions of a King's mis, mal, or non-feasance.

Your incoming party leader already announced he intended to do this!  It's not any kind of speculation at all, it's just seeing a thing and noticing it.

It was just a couple of weeks ago that he announced his plans, and stated in firmness that they were based on principle, and even made a fiery speech about how important it was for him to speak his mind.  "We all have a voice," he wrote. "Whether I agree with you or you agree with me, shouldn't we all have the right to engage in the public square?! I say yes! Because the more active we are, leading and engaging in spirited discussion... the better we all are!"

You're surely not saying that he was lying and he's actually not interested in immediately stripping the honours system from His Majesty, right?  And he was extremely clear about his intentions and how sincere they were.  And what is more, even though there was a lot of hinting about how this "wasn't the right time," your fellow party members were unanimous in their agreement that his goal was well within-bounds.  No one said, "Now wait a second, we have a Historic Compromise, and it's absolutely sincere!"

There is no compromise.

[Françal I. Lux]

If it were up to me, I'd have this anachronistic, outdated institution scraped for a fully functional unitary Republic. The fact that I am willing to embrace this compromise and stomach the idea of having to call another human being "king" and "your highness" for the sake of contentious peace should count for something.

See, here's the thing: as far as I can tell, neither you nor any other Republican actually feels bound by this.  Are you saying that if your party leader Clarks a bill which would rename the king to "chief executive" or "noble leader" or "president," that you would vote "contra" on her bill?  Or that you would vote "contra" on a bill which altered the king's purview over appointments?

Call him Chief Maxwell of the Boogaloo clan for all I care. I'm not hung up on the label--all I care about is the institution behind it. I have always been apathetic to the issue of monarchy in this country. Yes, I am principally opposed to monarchy, in general, as a form of governance since I find it outdated, backwards, and immoral, but to embrace the spirit of Talossan Peculiarism, fine I'll go along, I'm having too much fun exploring what this country can offer anyway. BUT let us not forget that SOMEONE dropped the ball on his responsibilities--responsibilities you yourself had to do double time and pick up! Look, I've certainly gone AWOL on here for various reasons over the years, but no one refers to me as "Your Majesty".

[Eðo Grischun]

You've already been told that the raising of issues surrounding Honours was in response to the King acting wide.  The government instructed the Monarch to issue a National Honour and he didn't do it, instead he choose to issue a Dynastic Honour.  I'm still of the opinion the King broke the law on this.

[Françal I. Lux]

The institution is broken. It needs an update. Having the benefit of hindsight now, I believe it was only natural for the current monarch to go AWOL as he did, and for no more other reason than the fact that the role of King in this country is granted a lifetime appointment and yet not encouraged, either actively or just through cursory interest, to participate in the day to day running of the State. Of course this would lead to complacency and neglect.

I've looked and looked up and down the halls of the Ziu with my bloodhounds for a while now and I cannot find a perfect solution to this problem--and I'm not gonna find one. This Compromise could be better in my opinion, (albeit in ways I'm sure many of you would disagree with ;) ) but frankly it's the best we're going to get. It's called a compromise for a reason. We can't win and neither can you, but the problem is still there. Let's at least plug the hole before we continue to jump down each other's throats.

I fully support this compromise and I urge everyone to do so. I will defend it with integrity if and when it passes and becomes law chiefly because, as far as I'm concerned, it is a genuine attempt to remedy an existential issue in this country instead of not doing anything which we all know will lead to nothing good.

[Miestră Schivă, UrN-GC]

You've already been told that the raising of issues surrounding Honours was in response to the King acting wide.  The government instructed the Monarch to issue a National Honour and he didn't do it, instead he choose to issue a Dynastic Honour.  I'm still of the opinion the King broke the law on this.

Also, don't forget: raising the stink of corruption by giving a Hereditary Peerage to his crony who did his job for him while he sulked.

[Eðo Grischun]

You've already been told that the raising of issues surrounding Honours was in response to the King acting wide.  The government instructed the Monarch to issue a National Honour and he didn't do it, instead he choose to issue a Dynastic Honour.  I'm still of the opinion the King broke the law on this.

Also, don't forget: raising the stink of corruption by giving a Hereditary Peerage to his crony who did his job for him while he sulked.

Indeed.

And, while we are on the topic of peerages, let's just point out the extremely rare times that they have been handed out by King John.

The King's most loyal subject, AD. 
The King's drinking buddy, Hooligan.
And, The King's son, Patrick.
Also, Fritz Buchholtz, which is fair enough, he actually deserved it.

That's it. 

Anybody willing to defend this as anything other than cronyism is having a laugh.

[Baron Alexandreu Davinescu]

You've already been told that the raising of issues surrounding Honours was in response to the King acting wide.  The government instructed the Monarch to issue a National Honour and he didn't do it, instead he choose to issue a Dynastic Honour.  I'm still of the opinion the King broke the law on this.

Your incoming party leader made a speech about how he wanted to strip the honours system from the king, everyone in your party agreed with him but told him to wait a bit so he wouldn't be a "distraction," and then later Miestra made a long speech on behalf of the party about the real motivation.  That all seems irrelevant.

Ultimately, the uncomfortable fact remains that you guys aren't agreeing to any larger compromise or deal.  You claim this is an agreement that will settle the question of the king's role for generations of Talossans, but all that means is that you get most of what you want now, and you'll come back for more later.

Will you rename the king to a new title?

Will you strip him of his role in appointments?

Will you shorten his term of office?

Will you remove the already-reduced veto power?

Will you snatch all authority over honours?

If this had been some sort of compromise, then you'd be giving something up.  Instead, you're already planning what you want to take next.  If this had been a Historic Compromise, then you'd have struck a real deal with real concessions.  This isn't any kind of compromise.

[Miestră Schivă, UrN-GC]

Your incoming party leader made a speech about how he wanted to strip the honours system from the king,

No he didn't, stop lying.

But as to your questions, speaking only for myself and not my party: depends on how the King behaves. I'll keep saying it until it seeps through your mind: the King's behaviour is the chief cause of anti-monarchist feeling in Talossa.

And we struck a deal with the royalist opposition in the Ziu, the only people with any democratic legitimacy to strike a deal.

[Baron Alexandreu Davinescu]

Your incoming party leader made a speech about how he wanted to strip the honours system from the king,

No he didn't, stop lying.

lol

So yeah, when I said "party leader," I meant General Davinescu, who is nominally the FDT leader.  I understand the confusion, but the pronouns should have made it clear. I wasn't referring to your later speech, but to his initial one.

This is what he wrote:

I propose that, moving forward, Peerages and Knighthoods may originate from either the Crown or the Government... but, specifically in the case of Peerages, must be approved by both. Knighthoods, depending on Grade, may too originate from either... with the Government generally taking lead on approvals of Member, Officer, Commander/Knight and the Crown on Knight Commander & Knight Grand Cross.

Generally, I feel if we are going to have Peerages & Knightly Orders... we should do so in the manner that literally all other recognized nations do theirs.

Respectfully,
Gen. Txoteu Davinescu, O.SPM     

This was followed by a variety of FDT personages saying reassuring yet utterly noncommittal things, as when GV said:

Certainly, our award system needs an overhaul which can adapt to the future, but now is not the time or the place to bring up that discussion.

You folks didn't say, "Now wait a second!  We've come to a compromise about the nature of the monarchy!  It is impossible that we could already be planning our next move against it!  We have made a commitment!  An agreement!  A deal!  A Historic Compromise!"

Even your own speech, speaking on behalf of your party, was careful about this.  You don't plan on trying to eliminate the royal veto, appointment authority, honours, etc... but you obviously consider it an option.  If someone makes a decision you don't like, then you feel completely free to act. You're not bound by a compromise, after all.

And that's because there is no compromise.  You're taking most of what you want now, and you'll be back for more soon.