"Compromise"

[xpb]

[Miestră Schivă, UrN-GC]

That's right, keep talking about the FreeDems as if we were the only party that mattered; that's how we get an absolute majority this time

[xpb]

That's right, keep talking about the FreeDems as if we were the only party that mattered; that's how we get an absolute majority this time

I suppose it is a possibility if enough citizens want a Republic instead of a Kingdom.

[GV]

That's right, keep talking about the FreeDems as if we were the only party that mattered; that's how we get an absolute majority this time

I suppose it is a possibility if enough citizens want a Republic instead of a Kingdom.

Let me deflect a bit and ask you this, how does John's going AWOL for five-six months for no good reason serve as a positive witness for the lifetime monarchy?

[xpb]

That's right, keep talking about the FreeDems as if we were the only party that mattered; that's how we get an absolute majority this time

I suppose it is a possibility if enough citizens want a Republic instead of a Kingdom.

Let me deflect a bit and ask you this, how does John's going AWOL for five-six months for no good reason serve as a positive witness for the lifetime monarchy?

I believe the time line, taking place during a period of heath issues on a global scale, also included the appointment of a Regent as requested administrative support.  Perhaps the King was not involved in detail, but who is determining the "without leave" portion of your statement?  Is that you as leader of the elected assembly?   Do you possess the authority to order another citizen to do or not do what they choose?  Or, instead are you just complaining as a pretext to acquire democratic control of the Royal powers?

[Miestră Schivă, UrN-GC]

The argument that "if you have any criticisms of how the King does his job, ever, you're a Republican" is turning a lot of people into Republicans

[Viteu]

You. Lost. The. Vote.

The fact that there is even a compromise is, per se, a compromise.

[Sir Ian Plätschisch]

You. Lost. The. Vote.

The fact that there is even a compromise is, per se, a compromise.

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

[xpb]

You. Lost. The. Vote.

The fact that there is even a compromise is, per se, a compromise.

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

Er, yes.  The Free Dems are happy to break the Monarchy and paste the title "king" (or queen) on a president.  They are happy to bargain with that which they do not possess.

[Sir Ian Plätschisch]

You. Lost. The. Vote.

The fact that there is even a compromise is, per se, a compromise.

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

Er, yes.  The Free Dems are happy to break the Monarchy and paste the title "king" (or queen) on a president.  They are happy to bargain with that which they do not possess.

I was responding to V, not you.

[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. I, along with republicans, are unabashed in our desire for a republic, while many would still prefer a monarchy—if we are to compromise, which is the government's prerogative here after the referendum, of course we'd end up with a ceremonial head of State.

If I can't have a republic, you can't have the status quo.

[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?

[Þon Txoteu É. Davinescu, O.SPM]

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 think out of everything I've experienced during my time in Talossa is the realization that AD will argue with a brick wall.

Why can't someone's answer be enough? To put it simply, a majority of the nation wants to compromise and move forward into a brighter day... counter to you arguing with anyone that doesn't share your worldview. The HC will not be a shot in the dark or a historical oddity... it is an agreement between the majority of the nation that see the current system as it concerns the head of state is broken and needs revision. Like it or not... the Historic Compromise is an incredible opportunity that, unlike our current system of "absent monarch", will allow the people of Talossa to chose their own course and THAT is what the FreeDems and the Historic Compromise is about both this election season & beyond!

[Marcel Eðo Pairescu Tafial, UrGP]

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.

[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 think out of everything I've experienced during my time in Talossa is the realization that AD will argue with a brick wall.

Why can't someone's answer be enough? To put it simply, a majority of the nation wants to compromise and move forward into a brighter day... counter to you arguing with anyone that doesn't share your worldview. The HC will not be a shot in the dark or a historical oddity... it is an agreement between the majority of the nation that see the current system as it concerns the head of state is broken and needs revision. Like it or not... the Historic Compromise is an incredible opportunity that, unlike our current system of "absent monarch", will allow the people of Talossa to chose their own course and THAT is what the FreeDems and the Historic Compromise is about both this election season & beyond!

If you're going to try to avoid the question, you're going to need to do better than that!

Look, I know why you guys hate this issue.  This whole thing is really, really dependent on branding.  And so it's inconvenient when people ask what exactly it is that you are compromising when it comes to your Historic Compromise.

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.

Now, maybe you say that you don't want to change some or all of these things.  Maybe it's dependent on the president's good behavior, and you'll keep these things if they do what you want.  But that's different than a deal -- it's different than a compromise.  You want to take what you want now, and maybe you'll come back for more later.   This isn't a compromise, despite the spin.

[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.)