FreeDems statement on reClarking of 55RZ21

[Miestră Schivă, UrN]

It is proper to let the people of Talossa know what will be happening with 55RZ21, the Talossa Shall Choose Its King Act (aka the Historic Compromise), adopted by the requisite margin in the last Cosa but vetoed, ¡qët 'n supriça!, by the King who doesn't want to get unchosen.

The recent election of the Cosa gave 120 seats to parties committed to supporting the bill - not the 2/3 majority required. Therefore, for the bill to have any chance in the new Cosa, some kind of "Compromise on the Compromise" was necessary.

First of all, the Free Democrats exercised their mandate to form a Government. This was a different task than pushing forward the Constitutional issue (for example, MC M. Tresplet pledged his support and help with a FreeDems government while being 100% opposed to changes to the monarchy). Our first choice of partners was the League of Centre Conservatives (LCC), who - while having differences with us on precisely what kind of monarchy reform is necessary - were clearly the most enthusiastic of the other parties for the hard work of government, and with whom we had a pretty good relationship on a personal level.

We were also approached, without solicitation, by the leader of the Talossan National Congress (TNC), volunteering his services as part of a new Government. We accepted this happily, although it was not necessary for a Cosa majority, because a broader-based government would be more stable and have more resources.

The new three-party Government then discussed where to move on monarchy reform (for which we would still require at least the other two pro-55RZ21 parties to consent, i.e. the Peculiarists and the Tafialistàes).  The preferred option was to find some kind of fresh bill which could get the necessary 3/4 margin to start from scratch but still override the royal veto.

To this end, the LCC (chief proponents of the Compromise on the Compromise) engaged in talks with the "King Lüc Party". Certainly, the pro-compromise parties could have totally gotten behind King Lüc I. But the course of these discussions revealed that - a) the KLüP was not prepared to actually put their flagship policy into action at this time; (b) after a week or two of delays, we found out that no-one had actually asked Lüc da Schir, who actually does not want to be King of Talossa. So that went nowhere, and the KLüP's voters might wonder what they actually voted for.

The next step would have been to create some kind of sequencing. The plan was that the LCC would support 55RZ21 now, long enough to elect a new King, and then the Ziu would enact the LCC's preferred compromise - of a mechanism of triggering Votes of Confidence in the monarch, rather than regular 7-year renewals of the mandate. In theory, this got support from the other pro-Compromise parties. But the TNC leader insisted in Cabinet that he couldn't agree to this without seeing details of the "revised compromise" bill in advance. The LCC pointed to their current proposal in the Hopper (which the FreeDems don't support in its current form, but is at least a basis for beginning discussions). The TNC did not reply to this.

The next thing we learned was that the holder of the TNC's Cosa seats had broken Point 1 of the coalition agreement by not voting for Txoteu Davinescù to become Seneschál. Our Seneschál-candidate sent a message to the TNC leader about this, saying in part: "I need to hear from you directly by noon TST tomorrow or I will be forced to remove your party from the coalition". The TNC leader's response to this was to... quit the coalition, on the justification that the Seneschál-candidate had "threatened" him - and to not respond to any further communications from either FreeDems or LCC leaders after that.

While cxhn. Davinescu could certainly have phrased his please-explain letter in a less confrontational way, bear in mind that he is brand new to the highest echelons of Talossan politics and is still learning the proper modes of communication. Senator Itravilatx could be certainly excused for taking offence, but cxhn. Davinescù has subsequently apologised, both privately and publicly, for his hard tone - to no avail. You could see this as a huge overreaction from the TNC leader; or, alternatively, as an escape hatch from a situation of government which was harder than he had anticipated.

Senator Itravilatx's  withdrawal has not only required a last-minute Cabinet reshuffle, but ended the negotiations that were underway to get 55RZ21 through (and the King replaced) in return for a "reform of the reform" later. As to the first, the Government, now comprised of two parties, welcomes Francal I. Lux MC on board to take up the Cabinet posts abandoned by the TNC.

Meanwhile, if the TNC no longer wnt to talk, there is no point in further negotiations on "cunning plans" to get monarchy reform through. Our last, best hope is now that the LCC will at least abstain on this bill, if they cannot in good conscience support it - and that the TNC will stick to their pre-election pledge to support it.

The Free Democrats will thus go straight to reintroducing 55RZ21 on the First Clark. In the event that it fails to get the 2/3 of the Cosa necessary, we will revert to our manifesto position - "to enact the result of the Ranked Choice referendum, i.e. an elected Head of State", through some yet-to-be determined means, at a time when the electoral calculus is better.

[GV]

It is proper to let the people of Talossa know what will be happening with 55RZ21, the Talossa Shall Choose Its King Act (aka the Historic Compromise), adopted by the requisite margin in the last Cosa but vetoed, ¡qët 'n supriça!, by the King who doesn't want to get unchosen.

[snipped]

The Free Democrats will thus go straight to reintroducing 55RZ21 on the First Clark. In the event that it fails to get the 2/3 of the Cosa necessary, we will revert to our manifesto position - "to enact the result of the Ranked Choice referendum, i.e. an elected Head of State", through some yet-to-be determined means, at a time when the electoral calculus is better.

100% support for this statement.  She tells this history very well, indeed.

GV, Senator for Fiova

[Baron Alexandreu Davinescu]

Meanwhile, if the TNC no longer wnt to talk, there is no point in further negotiations on "cunning plans" to get monarchy reform through. Our last, best hope is now that the LCC will at least abstain on this bill, if they cannot in good conscience support it - and that the TNC will stick to their pre-election pledge to support it.

@Txosuè Éiric Rôibeardescù , I'd be interested to know where you're at on this one.  Will your party help pass the bill by abstaining from the vote?

[Tierçéu Rôibeardescù]

Meanwhile, if the TNC no longer wnt to talk, there is no point in further negotiations on "cunning plans" to get monarchy reform through. Our last, best hope is now that the LCC will at least abstain on this bill, if they cannot in good conscience support it - and that the TNC will stick to their pre-election pledge to support it.

@Txosuè Éiric Rôibeardescù , I'd be interested to know where you're at on this one.  Will your party help pass the bill by abstaining from the vote?

I welcome the question, however, as we said during the election, the LCC party members have a free vote on matters of the monarchy.

[Glüc da Dhi S.H.]

a) the KLüP was not prepared to actually put their flagship policy into action at this time; (b) after a week or two of delays, we found out that no-one had actually asked Lüc da Schir, who actually does not want to be King of Talossa. So that went nowhere, and the KLüP's voters might wonder what they actually voted for.

Well the first part of this is an egregious lie. The KLüP (which is not Lüc) would be more than happy to make Lüc our King, preferably in a backroom deal without an election, as the coalition generously proposed.

Sadly, the part about Lüc not currently wanting to be King is true, at least at this moment. I guess he is the hero we need, but don't deserve. In the KLüP's defense though, we never claimed he did. (As our campaign mails noted: "Lüc da Schir is not responsible for the content of this advertising.") I still dream of the day Lüc returns to fulfill his destiny. Perhaps a bigger mandate for the KLüP next election would help convince him.

[Glüc da Dhi S.H.]

On a separate note, the KLüP will vote against 55RZ21. I don't think there would be much left of the monarchy if that passes. On the other hand, if it fails I would be open to supporting some kind of alternative, perhaps along the lines of what the LCC said they would propose, though it depends on the details and the discussion in the Ziu. (Or perhaps the KLüP will come up with its own bill, who knows ;))

[Baron Alexandreu Davinescu]

a) the KLüP was not prepared to actually put their flagship policy into action at this time; (b) after a week or two of delays, we found out that no-one had actually asked Lüc da Schir, who actually does not want to be King of Talossa. So that went nowhere, and the KLüP's voters might wonder what they actually voted for.

Well the first part of this is an egregious lie. The KLüP (which is not Lüc) would be more than happy to make Lüc our King, preferably in a backroom deal without an election, as the coalition generously proposed.

I can't tell if this is a joke or not.

[Miestră Schivă, UrN]

Well the first part of this is an egregious lie.

Interesting that you're happy to call Senator Plätschisch an egregious liar. I'm just repeating what he told me.

ETA: it's precisely this sort of "raising the rhetorical temperature" which makes Talossa unpleasant for people who don't pick political fights for fun. I know I'm guilty of it myself, but to quote Samuel L. Jackson, "I'm trying, Ringo."

[Ian Plätschisch]

Well the first part of this is an egregious lie.

Interesting that you're happy to call Senator Plätschisch an egregious liar. I'm just repeating what he told me.

Well, specifically I reported part (b). I'm not sure how (a) differs immensely from (b) given that if Lüc doesn't want the job then the policy can't be enacted.