"Compromise"

[Tierçéu Rôibeardescù]

I must say that the pledge of "we won't make more changes to the Monarchy unless King John makes us angry again" is not very reassuring, because the FreeDems are often made angry by him (for some good reasons and some bad). Therefore it would not be hard for them to motivate taking away more powers if they were so inclined.

The proposal is meant to make it possible to remove the King without removing more of the Monarchy's powers.

"LOUDER FOR THE PEOPLE AT THE BACK"

[Miestră Schivă, UrN]

I must say that the pledge of "we won't make more changes to the Monarchy unless King John makes us angry again" is not very reassuring, because the FreeDems are often made angry by him (for some good reasons and some bad). Therefore it would not be hard for them to motivate taking away more powers if they were so inclined.

Yeah, and we can't do so unilaterally, unless Allà grants us a 3/4 majority. And if we thought we could get a 3/4 majority any time soon, we wouldn't be seeking a comrpoise. That is the point of the compromise.

You know this, so promoting the Baron's meme that the FreeDems could somehow unilaterally bring in a Republic is irresponsible.

[Ian Plätschisch]

I must say that the pledge of "we won't make more changes to the Monarchy unless King John makes us angry again" is not very reassuring, because the FreeDems are often made angry by him (for some good reasons and some bad). Therefore it would not be hard for them to motivate taking away more powers if they were so inclined.

Yeah, and we can't do so unilaterally, unless Allà grants us a 3/4 majority. And if we thought we could get a 3/4 majority any time soon, we wouldn't be seeking a comrpoise. That is the point of the compromise.

You know this, so promoting the Baron's meme that the FreeDems could somehow unilaterally bring in a Republic is irresponsible.

And if we thought the FreeDems and their allies were incapable of getting a sustained supermajority any time soon, we probably wouldn't be seeking a compromise either.

I'm not saying the FreeDems are going to usher in a republic. I am saying that the individuals currently touting the Historic Compromise could very well later find themselves in a position to take more Royal powers away later. I thank the FreeDems for their statement concerning the honors system; I would appreciate a similar pledge on the other powers (obviously I am aware that the future can not be foretold, but the individuals involved are capable of making pledges concerning their future behavior)

[Baron Alexandreu Davinescu]

"Okay then, enough of this arguing. Clearly we both would like access to your silver mine on the border. But admittedly, our army isn't large enough right now to take the whole thing by force. So we are proposing this grand and historic compromise: we're going to take most of the silver now. And then we'll just see what happens with our tank production and soldiers. But this can be an end to the conflict for generations, assuming we stay happy about how much silver we have. Isn't that a great compromise?"

[Miestră Schivă, UrN]

I thank the FreeDems for their statement concerning the honors system; I would appreciate a similar pledge on the other powers

In return for what? After your former leader was overthrown for giving too much away, the LCC pledged a "free vote" on the Compromise - you'll probably vote something like 2/3 against it, if I can judge by your party list - so will this demand for surrender mean that you'll fully support the Compromise in return? Or is it in return for supporting your "Compromise on the Compromise"?

If you've moved to Baron Head-The-Ball's position that there's no point compromising and you might as well fight all reforms all the way, then just say so.

ETA: Oh, sorry. I see that you're asking for particular individuals to make some kind of pledge. Exactly which individuals?

[Ian Plätschisch]

I thank the FreeDems for their statement concerning the honors system; I would appreciate a similar pledge on the other powers

In return for what? After your former leader was overthrown for giving too much away, the LCC pledged a "free vote" on the Compromise - you'll probably vote something like 2/3 against it, if I can judge by your party list - so will this demand for surrender mean that you'll fully support the Compromise in return? Or is it in return for supporting your "Compromise on the Compromise"?

If you've moved to Baron Head-The-Ball's position that there's no point compromising and you might as well fight all reforms all the way, then just say so.

ETA: Oh, sorry. I see that you're asking for particular individuals to make some kind of pledge. Exactly which individuals?

I need my computer to respond fully, but nothing I've said so far is different from anything I've been saying for the past few weeks (for example, in my farewell address). The "demand for surrender" as you are now calling it is merely a recognition that Monarchists are actually getting anything in return for supporting either proposal (which, with our updated party list, will likely mostly support so long as we are assured it is really a compromise)

[Ián S.G. Txaglh]

*taking a seat and asking the neighbour * where could i get zero sugar soda & vegan popcorn here?

is there a deep-state in talossa too? like freedems puppet mastering talossans through some dark ritual into kingless zombies or suchs? boy, that would be fun  8)

[Françal I. Lux]

*taking a seat and asking the neighbour * where could i get zero sugar soda & vegan popcorn here?

is there a deep-state in talossa too? like freedems puppet mastering talossans through some dark ritual into kingless zombies or suchs? boy, that would be fun  8)

I already eat children and worship the Devil in the American iteration of this storyline, why not add masterminding a coup d'état against the king in an attempt to turn everyone into republican dogs


(Sarcasm for the uninitiated)

[Miestră Schivă, UrN]

I already eat children and worship the Devil in the American iteration of this storyline, why not add masterminding a coup d'état against the king in an attempt to turn everyone into republican dogs

THIS AIN'T ROCK AND ROLL! THIS IS GENOCIDE!!! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OTIsnYPG4lU

[anglatzara]

To me, anything that retains a King as the head of state but introduces a working democratic way of electing/sacking them, is a compromise. Whether it's a compromise that benefits that Monarchists or the Republicans, is a different matter.

I think it's an absolutely vital compromise for Talossa. I've been a Talossan for 23 years, and I've seen the ills of having a non-elected head of state, many times, in different forms. I will never agree that it is a good idea to have a King for life, even if there is a theoretical (but not practical) way of getting rid of him/her/them.

However, I have also been a proud citizen of the Talossan republic, and I firmly believe that the choice of having a republic instead of a monarchy seriously harmed our immigration. For some stupid reason, especially Americans seem to think that Royalty are so exciting and sexy, that they are attracted to them like flies to a honeypot. So let the monarchy be our honeypot. That, and having an apolitical high-prestige citizen on the tallest stool in the Talossan kitchen, are the two main good points with having a King. Let's keep them, but make the King answerable to the nation.

Remember -- and this is vital -- discussing and tinkering with the constitution and the nature of Talossa are Talossa's life blood. Nothing should be exempt from discussing. No legislation should be set in stone. If the die-hard republicans want to take this compromise and like Fianna Fáil in Ireland use it as a stepping stone to a full-fledged republic, let them try. I will argue against them, but I will relish the discussions. To claim that a piece of legislation is the end of the road is very un-Talossan and outright harmful to our political life.

[GV]

Many thanks, Ián, for your support!

To me, anything that retains a King as the head of state but introduces a working democratic way of electing/sacking them, is a compromise. Whether it's a compromise that benefits that Monarchists or the Republicans, is a different matter.

I think it's an absolutely vital compromise for Talossa. I've been a Talossan for 23 years, and I've seen the ills of having a non-elected head of state, many times, in different forms. I will never agree that it is a good idea to have a King for life, even if there is a theoretical (but not practical) way of getting rid of him/her/them.

However, I have also been a proud citizen of the Talossan republic, and I firmly believe that the choice of having a republic instead of a monarchy seriously harmed our immigration. For some stupid reason, especially Americans seem to think that Royalty are so exciting and sexy, that they are attracted to them like flies to a honeypot. So let the monarchy be our honeypot. That, and having an apolitical high-prestige citizen on the tallest stool in the Talossan kitchen, are the two main good points with having a King. Let's keep them, but make the King answerable to the nation.

Remember -- and this is vital -- discussing and tinkering with the constitution and the nature of Talossa are Talossa's life blood. Nothing should be exempt from discussing. No legislation should be set in stone. If the die-hard republicans want to take this compromise and like Fianna Fáil in Ireland use it as a stepping stone to a full-fledged republic, let them try. I will argue against them, but I will relish the discussions. To claim that a piece of legislation is the end of the road is very un-Talossan and outright harmful to our political life.

[xpb]

Many thanks, Ián, for your support!

To me, anything that retains a King as the head of state but introduces a working democratic way of electing/sacking them, is a compromise. Whether it's a compromise that benefits that Monarchists or the Republicans, is a different matter.

I think it's an absolutely vital compromise for Talossa. I've been a Talossan for 23 years, and I've seen the ills of having a non-elected head of state, many times, in different forms. I will never agree that it is a good idea to have a King for life, even if there is a theoretical (but not practical) way of getting rid of him/her/them.

However, I have also been a proud citizen of the Talossan republic, and I firmly believe that the choice of having a republic instead of a monarchy seriously harmed our immigration. For some stupid reason, especially Americans seem to think that Royalty are so exciting and sexy, that they are attracted to them like flies to a honeypot. So let the monarchy be our honeypot. That, and having an apolitical high-prestige citizen on the tallest stool in the Talossan kitchen, are the two main good points with having a King. Let's keep them, but make the King answerable to the nation.

Remember -- and this is vital -- discussing and tinkering with the constitution and the nature of Talossa are Talossa's life blood. Nothing should be exempt from discussing. No legislation should be set in stone. If the die-hard republicans want to take this compromise and like Fianna Fáil in Ireland use it as a stepping stone to a full-fledged republic, let them try. I will argue against them, but I will relish the discussions. To claim that a piece of legislation is the end of the road is very un-Talossan and outright harmful to our political life.

Indeed -- discussion and debate is excellent and important!  I am pleased that this thread, like the previous one that I triggered with an image or two (worth the proverbial kiloword) has been a place where citizens can state their thoughts.  One can hope that the opinions can be the focus, and that agreement to disagree can be the context.

[Baron Alexandreu Davinescu]

To claim that a piece of legislation is the end of the road is very un-Talossan and outright harmful to our political life.

I agree.  It would be extremely harmful to our country for someone to claim that any piece of legislation closes all future discussion on a topic, forever.

But of course, no one is claiming that.  No one is asking for that.

Instead, monarchists are asking -- quite reasonably! -- what exactly republicans are conceding with their proposed presidency.  As far as I can tell, the only concession is that republicans are not getting all that they want right now.  But that's not a compromise, and it's really hard to see why a monarchist should support it.

If republicans were saying that they would commit to preserving the role of the monarchy in the future if this deal passes, then that might be a compromise.  It would be a bad deal, but at least it would be a deal.  But they are not making that commitment.

No one is saying, "You must promise to make no changes to the monarchy under any circumstances forever," because that would be an absurd request.  But it is equally absurd to pretend that it's simply impossible to make any commitments about your future intentions!  We do that all the time -- this Government has done so repeatedly in recent years.  For example, the coalition agreement states that the Government "will investigate further avenues to sell our coins and stamps."  Was that some crazed pronouncement demanding impossible fealty?  No!  It was a reasonable expression of future intentions.  If all the coins were lost in some tragic accident, then no one would be upset that they stopped selling them.

I am glad that some individuals have expressed reservations about further action.  But there is no official statement about this because there is no larger deal, and no republican considers themselves bound by any compromise.  And that's because there is no compromise.

To me, anything that retains a King as the head of state but introduces a working democratic way of electing/sacking them, is a compromise.

I will note that you are again highlighting a key problem with this "compromise," which is that the people proposing it have not made any commitment to retain the label of "king."  You don't seem to think you are bound to keep it, even if you do think it's a good idea in order to fool Americans into immigrating.

[GV]

Then, and knowing how difficult under the current system it is to remove an incumbent monarch, I can go on vacation whenever I want!  And when people make welfare-check calls to my phone, I could just go ahead and appoint Miestrâ Schivâ as Regent for an undetermined period of time.

It's absolutely brilliant.  No wonder Ián Lupul vetoed 55RZ21 because right now, he can be king for however long he wants and go AWOL with no reprecussions.

[Miestră Schivă, UrN]

... and whoever steps in to cover his tracks for him gets rewarded with the hereditary honour of Duke of Earl, Sheikh of Araby, Baron von Harkonnen or whatever