"Compromise"

[Eðo Grischun]

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.

Yes.  Election pledges and manifesto promises are made all the time.  What is not done though, is asking for firm commitments on absurd hypotheticals that may never happen.  Yes, the coins might all be lost in some tragic accident one day, but it would be entirely unreasonable to demand that, today, we had the answer to solving such a hypothetical problem.  Would you like us to commit to a future crowdfunding venture that we might need to do but might equally might not need to do?

It seems like you are asking us to make commitments on future actions based on fantasy and prophecy.

I've said already.  From my own personal place in this, my future voting intentions and legislative approach will only seek to go beyond the scope of the currently proposed compromise if a fundamental shift forces it; that if the monarch in some way misbehaves to force action; that if a material change in circumstances develops.

And, again, this is not a proposed presidency.  Every time you say those words you are speaking a completely disingenuous untruth.

[GV]

And, again, this is not a proposed presidency.  Every time you say those words you are speaking a completely disingenuous untruth.

What this is, as best as I can tell, is Malaysia.  The fundamental difference between the Historic Compromise and a 'regular' monarchy is with what will hopefully be our system, a monarch is held to task every n years.

King John with his August 2020 - April 2021 AWOL gives us a very benign demonstration of what can happen when a future lifetime monarch really does go rogue.  Ben Madison went rogue in '04 (I know I keep mentioning that) and nearly destroyed the country.

Our elected monarch keeps the veto.  He keeps constitutional authority over honours and awards.

And if John is vested with that authority for another seven years, it will be a disappointment, but a democratically-chosen one by the most-involved citizens from all political factions representing the whole of the country.

That makes all the difference in the world.  VOTEZ FREEDEMS!

[Baron Alexandreu Davinescu]

Yes.  Election pledges and manifesto promises are made all the time.  What is not done though, is asking for firm commitments on absurd hypotheticals that may never happen.  Yes, the coins might all be lost in some tragic accident one day, but it would be entirely unreasonable to demand that, today, we had the answer to solving such a hypothetical problem.  Would you like us to commit to a future crowdfunding venture that we might need to do but might equally might not need to do?

It seems like you are asking us to make commitments on future actions based on fantasy and prophecy.

It takes remarkably little prophetic power to look at the speech by your party leader, in which he declares his sincere belief that the honours system should be put under Government power, and see a near future in which your party moves to put the honours system under Government power.  We're not talking about looking through the mists at dim visions of the future so much as reading the passionate speeches in which he states his plans.

It's not an absurd hypothetical to look at the thing your party leader vowed to do and wonder if he might try to do it.  I have no power to see the future (or I would have sold my Ethereum a week ago) but I can read.

What this is, as best as I can tell, is Malaysia.  The fundamental difference between the Historic Compromise and a 'regular' monarchy is with what will hopefully be our system, a monarch is held to task every n years.

Yes, and with a seven-year term (for now, I guess) it's going to be quite a vigorous campaign, I'd imagine.  If the referendum passes, have you guys already discussed who the Free Democrat candidate for "king" will be?

Our elected monarch keeps the veto.  He keeps constitutional authority over honours and awards.

For now.  After all, you told your party leader that such a discussion was just "ill-timed," even though you said you agreed with him on every count.  I mean, just to put you a not-very-hypothetical hypothetical, when he proposes his bill to make sure that the Government can vet all potential knights or peers, are you saying you would vote against it?

[Marcel Eðo Pairescu Tafial, UrGP]

Yes, and with a seven-year term (for now, I guess) it's going to be quite a vigorous campaign, I'd imagine.  If the referendum passes, have you guys already discussed who the Free Democrat candidate for "king" will be?

Quick question because I wasnt there when it happened: considering that the current status quo is a lifetime monarchy, how vigorous was His Majesty's election campaign in 2006/07? If I understand this correctly, the longer the term, the bigger the incentive to win.

[Baron Alexandreu Davinescu]

Yes, and with a seven-year term (for now, I guess) it's going to be quite a vigorous campaign, I'd imagine.  If the referendum passes, have you guys already discussed who the Free Democrat candidate for "king" will be?

Quick question because I wasnt there when it happened: considering that the current status quo is a lifetime monarchy, how vigorous was His Majesty's election campaign in 2006/07? If I understand this correctly, the longer the term, the bigger the incentive to win.

There was no campaign at all.  He had been one of the most prominent figures in resisting Robert I's thuggish tyranny, and he had helped organize a ton of things during the long regency of King Louis, and as I recall the whole thing was a bit of a surprise to him.  One of his closest friends, Hooligan, started it by writing a ton of people, asking them what they thought of the idea.  The circumstances were fairly unusual and there were no other real prospective candidates with his reputation for honesty and solid background.  The only contrary voices were ones that said maybe we should wait some time before choosing anyone.  EDIT: The ultimate vote was 37 to 6, with turnout somewhere north of 60%.  The opposition was confined mostly to members of the Cort who were acting as regents at the time, although I think that was more coincidence than anything else.

I don't know that it's really as simple as "the longer, the more incentive," necessarily.  After all, people can be Secretary of State for basically forever if they want to and they do a good job.  But head of state is a different bird, and the monarch still has some powers left.  Surely you agree there will be a vigorous campaign, yes?

[Marcel Eðo Pairescu Tafial, UrGP]

I don't know that it's really as simple as "the longer, the more incentive," necessarily.  After all, people can be Secretary of State for basically forever if they want to and they do a good job.  But head of state is a different bird, and the monarch still has some powers left.  Surely you agree there will be a vigorous campaign, yes?

The longer the king's term, the bigger the incentive. A seven year term is shorter than an unlimited term.

Under the HC, the King would not be directly elected by the population at large but rather by a Conclave consisting of representatives of the Ziu, the Cort Pü Inalt, the Civil Service and provincial governments. The only way I can envision campaigning of any kind would be for the yes/no referendum afterwards, but considering that an Heir presumptive has to be chosen by two-thirds of the aforementioned Conclave, the referendums would probably end up being fairly uncontroversial.

I could be wrong about this though. I'm not sure we can really tell how it would pan out beforehand, the whole procedure is terra incognita.

[Miestră Schivă, UrN]

Under the HC, the King would not be directly elected by the population at large but rather by a Conclave consisting of representatives of the Ziu, the Cort Pü Inalt, the Civil Service and provincial governments. The only way I can envision campaigning of any kind would be for the yes/no referendum afterwards,

If you'll check, the referendum afterwards was removed in the version of 55RZ21 that passed the last Cosa, at the recommendation of the monarchist opposition who contributed to the Compromise. Actually, let's emphasise that - this is a true compromise, for no other reason, than to get it 2/3 in the last Cosa, the conservative opposition's suggestions on how a King should be chosen were accepted almost unanimously. True, no-one asked AD, because he's not an MZ and he doesn't bargain in good faith anyway.

I should also note that 55RZ21 also admits all Talossan citizens of 10 years seniority and more to the Conclave Convocation (that's another change that Senator Plätschisch made)

[Miestră Schivă, UrN]

If the referendum passes, have you guys already discussed who the Free Democrat candidate for "king" will be?

There won't be one. The last thing we want to do is politicise this. This was something that was suggested to us, by the actual monarchist opposition in the Ziu, that would be good to establish as good faith.

In fact, they asked me to confirm that I, personally, would not put myself forward as King. Doubling over with laughter, I would like to hereby put it on record that I have no intention of ever being King or Queen or Empress or Shahbanu of anything, and if anyone offered me a crown even for 1 year, let alone 7, I would say no.

[Baron Alexandreu Davinescu]

The longer the king's term, the bigger the incentive. A seven year term is shorter than an unlimited term.

Under the HC, the King would not be directly elected by the population at large but rather by a Conclave consisting of representatives of the Ziu, the Cort Pü Inalt, the Civil Service and provincial governments. The only way I can envision campaigning of any kind would be for the yes/no referendum afterwards, but considering that an Heir presumptive has to be chosen by two-thirds of the aforementioned Conclave, the referendums would probably end up being fairly uncontroversial.

I could be wrong about this though. I'm not sure we can really tell how it would pan out beforehand, the whole procedure is terra incognita.

As near as I can tell, the electorate would at this moment comprise something like 90 citizens, roughly half of the voters, assuming some people who are eligible by their office (like Txec) kept their positions and assuming that parties leveraged their seats allotment to put in people who wouldn't otherwise be eligible.  There doesn't seem any reason to think campaigning would be any different for such an election than for any other, since this group of 90 citizens would represent the overwhelming majority of active Talossans (since the bulk of those not included are recent immigrants who don't participate or follow much).  There's a big chunk of people who presumably will vote for the Free Democratic candidate, for example, so that endorsement (formal or informal) would carry some weight in the presidential election.

If you'll check, the referendum afterwards was removed in the version of 55RZ21 that passed the last Cosa, at the recommendation of the monarchist opposition who contributed to the Compromise. Actually, let's emphasise that - this is a true compromise, for no other reason, than to get it 2/3 in the last Cosa, the conservative opposition's suggestions on how a King should be chosen were accepted almost unanimously. True, no-one asked AD, because he's not an MZ and he doesn't bargain in good faith anyway.

I should also note that 55RZ21 also admits all Talossan citizens of 10 years seniority and more to the Conclave Convocation (that's another change that Senator Plätschisch made)

Yes, Ian P contributed to the bill.  If you'll notice, he's also on record repeatedly saying exactly what I have been saying:

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

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.

This is no compromise, because republicans aren't giving up anything.  They get most of what they want now, and they'll be back for the rest soon.

[Marcel Eðo Pairescu Tafial, UrGP]

As near as I can tell, the electorate would at this moment comprise something like 90 citizens, roughly half of the voters, assuming some people who are eligible by their office (like Txec) kept their positions and assuming that parties leveraged their seats allotment to put in people who wouldn't otherwise be eligible.

I'm not sure how you've reached that number. Even if the FreeDems maximised their seat allotments as you said, the Cosă at large would only send at most eight representatives to the Convocation so I'm not convinced that would make a big difference. The only way I can explain this is by assuming that we just have a ton of people here who've been citizens for over a decade...? Maybe that's the case, I havent checked. But...

Wait...

If you'll notice, he's also on record repeatedly saying exactly what I have been saying:

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

(Emphasis mine)

Didnt you accuse S:reu Grischun of strawmanning earlier when he brought this talking point up...?

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.

I dont know about you, but I am proper confused now.

[Baron Alexandreu Davinescu]

As near as I can tell, the electorate would at this moment comprise something like 90 citizens, roughly half of the voters, assuming some people who are eligible by their office (like Txec) kept their positions and assuming that parties leveraged their seats allotment to put in people who wouldn't otherwise be eligible.

I'm not sure how you've reached that number. Even if the FreeDems maximised their seat allotments as you said, the Cosă at large would only send at most eight representatives to the Convocation so I'm not convinced that would make a big difference. The only way I can explain this is by assuming that we just have a ton of people here who've been citizens for over a decade...? Maybe that's the case, I havent checked.

70 citizens have been here longer than ten years.  It will be 71 by the time of the next Government, and it will be 73 by the time any Convocation could take place.  Add in the list of office-holders and strategic choices of partisan representatives, and we'll have something like 90.

Didnt you accuse S:reu Grischun of strawmanning earlier when he brought this talking point up...?

I can't speak for him, but I didn't take Ian P literally as meaning like no change, ever.  He also indicated immediately in the very next post that wasn't what he meant.

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)

So yeah.

And I have certainly never asked for blanket or eternal assurances.  I haven't asked for assurances at all, really.  I don't think they would be given.  I've only pointed out that there are no assurances of any kind.  The only thing that most republicans are promising is to take now, and then we'll see.

[Miestră Schivă, UrN]

I should note that the Free Democrats are talking with monarchist parties - privately - about what assurances we could give them that would enable them to full-throatedly endorse 55RZ21 when it's re-presented to the next Cosa, and I do hope to have an announcement in a day or three. AD is not a party to these talks, for reasons mentioned above.

[Baron Alexandreu Davinescu]

Which parties? Voters obviously deserve to know which parties are planning to endorse the proposed presidency and change their stance after the election is over.

[GV]

Which parties? Voters obviously deserve to know which parties are planning to endorse the proposed presidency and change their stance after the election is over.

[Talluminati]

[Ián S.G. Txaglh]

jokes aside, i am not sure what is going on here. so, some fans of good ol'times do worry, that talossa may change and that change is sure for worse?

i am by no means conservative, and definitely not that type of spooked conservative who jumps up-and-down when the date on the calendar moves on. what even would be a problem if talossa turns republic? like someone is going to lose hir aristocratic sandbox, no more fancy and empty titles, no dandy CoA-s? or republic would be so unattractive to those new prospective citizens who today stay in lines before the gates of talossa and then when let in, they swirl in social and cultural activity?

more, do not we believe in our democracy? why do we pretend to have a constitutional parliamentary monarchy? we are holding a referendum, boy, this is not a governmental or parliamentary coup d'etat.

talossa needs a practical political system, which hardly goes with king gone AWOL. anyway, aren't we already too old for micronational cosplay? talossa rather needs vivid cultural life than vain symbols. or we're going to turn into a dusty museum. don't get me wrong, i love museums, but just as deposits of well-organised artifacts, not a place to live.

let me go with this: what's in a name? that which we call talossa by any other name would smell as sweet.

¡sa viva talossa!