|
Post by Sir Alexandreu Davinescu on Sept 8, 2014 11:51:17 GMT -6
I know that Owen Edwards, himself a magistrate, has pointed out that the Magistracy's existence permits appeal to a verdict, which is definitely valuable. But I guess in a rotating system, we'd still have that benefit. I would also suggest that another alternative is to have a single bank of judges, like before, but allow appeals to an en banc panel of the entire body of judges. If you want to appeal, you can appeal to all judges as a whole, and a majority might decide if we have an appeal. The problems with some of these solutions is that the CpI has other functions in our system, as with the Commission, and so this is a really complicated and difficult step to take. If we no longer have just the set of three leading jurists, then we need to rethink several other aspects of the system. And that's if such a move is even a wise one - there's a lot of benefit to being able to closely scrutinize a small group of very trusted people, and we might not want to step away from that. For obvious reasons of expertise, I'd love to hear the thoughts of Sir C. M. Siervicül and Owen Edwards on this matter.
|
|
Lüc da Schir
Senator for Benito
If Italy wins a Six Nations match I will join the Zouaves
Posts: 4,125
Talossan Since: 3-21-2012
|
Post by Lüc da Schir on Sept 8, 2014 13:22:22 GMT -6
I only briefly summarised her the topics of the conversation just as I did with my fellow party members I'm sure you won't be surprised to hear that Sir Alexandreu shared some key points from those discussions with the RUMP membership as well. It is apparent that someone has not been entirely forthcoming regarding the MRPT leadership's receptiveness to a coalition with the RUMP. Who is responsible for the misrepresentation, I can't say. I am not surprised to hear this, although I'm not sure what is the purpose of this remark in this thread. I knew Davinescu told you about the conversation, and I knew that his misunderstanding would be turned into my misrepresentation at the eyes of the RUMP membership, which probably by now considers me either some kind of traitor or a double-faced fool, for breaking a deal I had not even signed. If my sin was preferring to lead a reformer coalition with the snake-headed ZRTers rather than taking part in a coalition with the RUMP, then I sinned and I am guilty of taking advantage of my right to make the right choices for my party. Again, I don't see what is the purpose of your remark in this thread.
|
|
Sir C. M. Siervicül
Posts: 9,636
Talossan Since: 8-13-2005
Knight Since: 7-28-2007
Motto: Nonnisi Deo serviendum
|
Post by Sir C. M. Siervicül on Sept 8, 2014 14:27:11 GMT -6
Again, I don't see what is the purpose of your remark in this thread. The purpose is to find out whether there's any truth to Dame Miestra's claims that the moderate monarchist parties were "aghast at the sheer arrogance and meanness of (the RUMP's) coalition offers" and flatly "rebuffed" them. Because I had received a VERY different picture of how MRPT leadership viewed the idea of a coalition with the RUMP, even accepting that you ultimately felt you were not bound by a deal that had not been "signed" and concluded that it was in the MRPT's best interest to pursue a different course of action.
|
|
Miestrâ Schivâ, UrN
Seneschal
the new Jim Hacker
Posts: 6,635
Talossan Since: 6-25-2004
Dame Since: 9-8-2012
Motto: Expulseascâ, reveneascâ
Baron Since: Feudal titles are for gimps
Duke Since: Feudal titles are for gimps
|
Post by Miestrâ Schivâ, UrN on Sept 8, 2014 15:12:29 GMT -6
As to the validation process, Ián Tamorán had no idea that he had responsibilities in this regard until I told him, on Facebook, yesterday.
I'm totally in favour of justice reform, and I hope the new government will be putting forward proposals in this regard that get cross-party support. But a simple issue of informing the people responsible that they had a job to do might have helped.
|
|
Miestrâ Schivâ, UrN
Seneschal
the new Jim Hacker
Posts: 6,635
Talossan Since: 6-25-2004
Dame Since: 9-8-2012
Motto: Expulseascâ, reveneascâ
Baron Since: Feudal titles are for gimps
Duke Since: Feudal titles are for gimps
|
Post by Miestrâ Schivâ, UrN on Sept 8, 2014 15:13:18 GMT -6
I had received a VERY different picture of how MRPT leadership viewed the idea of a coalition with the RUMP "Still a man hears what he wants to hear, and disregards the rest" - Paul Simon
|
|
Ián Tamorán S.H.
Chief Justice of the Uppermost Court
Proud Philosopher of Talossa
Posts: 1,401
Talossan Since: 9-27-2010
|
Post by Ián Tamorán S.H. on Sept 8, 2014 15:57:25 GMT -6
As to the validation process, Ián Tamorán had no idea that he had responsibilities in this regard until I told him, on Facebook, yesterday. I'm totally in favour of justice reform, and I hope the new government will be putting forward proposals in this regard that get cross-party support. But a simple issue of informing the people responsible that they had a job to do might have helped. I had completely forgotten that I had (and have) these responsibilities. My apologies. I shall get to work on this immediately. Thank you for your reminder, Dame Miestra, which I received only today (Monday).
|
|
|
Post by Magniloqueu Épiqeu da Lhiun on Sept 8, 2014 16:08:38 GMT -6
But a simple issue of informing the people responsible that they had a job to do might have helped. Way ahead of you; I e-mailled Litz a few days ago, and just heard back from her. If I should get permission to make her reply public, I’ll tell you how her progress is. But it sounds good!
|
|
Glüc da Dhi
Secretary of State
Posts: 6,112
Talossan Since: 5-14-2009
|
Post by Glüc da Dhi on Sept 8, 2014 16:34:51 GMT -6
Two votes have been marked as invalid . One of them is Hool's! What does that mean? Oh, found the reason as well (I think). Their referendum votes are incorrectly listed.
|
|
Dr. Txec dal Nordselvă
Puisne (Associate) Justice of the Uppermost Court
Fraichetz dels punts, es non dels mürs
Posts: 4,063
Talossan Since: 9-23-2012
|
Post by Dr. Txec dal Nordselvă on Sept 8, 2014 16:36:52 GMT -6
As to the validation process, Ián Tamorán had no idea that he had responsibilities in this regard until I told him, on Facebook, yesterday. I'm totally in favour of justice reform, and I hope the new government will be putting forward proposals in this regard that get cross-party support. But a simple issue of informing the people responsible that they had a job to do might have helped. Wow. Communication is quite important!
|
|
Sir C. M. Siervicül
Posts: 9,636
Talossan Since: 8-13-2005
Knight Since: 7-28-2007
Motto: Nonnisi Deo serviendum
|
Post by Sir C. M. Siervicül on Sept 8, 2014 16:46:33 GMT -6
"Still a man hears what he wants to hear, and disregards the rest" - Paul Simon Far be it from me to question the wisdom of Paul Simon! But it's not yet clear to me just who was hearing what they want to hear (e.g., how much everyone else hates the arrogant, corrupt RUMP too?), or telling others what they wanted to hear, or both. And to be perfectly frank, a RUMP-MRPT coalition is not what I wanted to hear. I tend to find myself in the minority within the RUMP when it comes to coalition negotiations, as anyone on the RUMP list can attest.
|
|
Lüc da Schir
Senator for Benito
If Italy wins a Six Nations match I will join the Zouaves
Posts: 4,125
Talossan Since: 3-21-2012
|
Post by Lüc da Schir on Sept 8, 2014 18:26:14 GMT -6
Again, I don't see what is the purpose of your remark in this thread. The purpose is to find out whether there's any truth to Dame Miestra's claims that the moderate monarchist parties were "aghast at the sheer arrogance and meanness of (the RUMP's) coalition offers" and flatly "rebuffed" them. That is Miestra's personal opinion. There was no straight rebuffal. The offer was deeply pondered by the party, and there was no meanness in your offers - just a huge misunderestimation of the MRPT's role and potential. Which ultimately led to the request to review the terms of the deal before a final decision was taken. Which in turn led to the MRPT pulling out of the negotiations after the RUMP persisted in its refusal. If what upsets you is our refusal after my initial openness to a coalition, I have to remind you that AD expressly asked for the negotiations to be kept secret. Thus, the party was not informed of the negotiations and could not provide its input until the end, when I was allowed to talk about the negotiations. What AD failed to include in his picture is, however: primum, during the negotiations I was speaking for me, not for my party, because the party had to be informed, and I clearly told him so; secundum, the MRPT does not decide before the polls are closed, and that was the first thing I told him; tertium, I can not take any decision without a vote from my party, and can not sign any deal without my party's approval, as per the MRPT's constitution. If this could be the origin of all this jibberjabber, then it's best if I state it clearly and thoroughly: the leader is not entitled to decide on coalitons alone, as per the MRPT's constitution. He can take minor decisions alone, but he is but a speaker and a medium when it comes to coalitions. If I say "It's okay with me, but I have to hear from my party before I can take a decision" and he takes it as "It's okay, my party agrees, deal", then it's not me who has got to be blamed.
|
|
Lüc da Schir
Senator for Benito
If Italy wins a Six Nations match I will join the Zouaves
Posts: 4,125
Talossan Since: 3-21-2012
|
Post by Lüc da Schir on Sept 8, 2014 18:27:31 GMT -6
"Still a man hears what he wants to hear, and disregards the rest" - Paul Simon And to be perfectly frank, a RUMP-MRPT coalition is not what I wanted to hear. I tend to find myself in the minority within the RUMP when it comes to coalition negotiations, as anyone on the RUMP list can attest. See, then? It's not only me who lied, if - ultimately - I did lie.
|
|
Miestrâ Schivâ, UrN
Seneschal
the new Jim Hacker
Posts: 6,635
Talossan Since: 6-25-2004
Dame Since: 9-8-2012
Motto: Expulseascâ, reveneascâ
Baron Since: Feudal titles are for gimps
Duke Since: Feudal titles are for gimps
|
Post by Miestrâ Schivâ, UrN on Sept 8, 2014 18:43:54 GMT -6
I can't believe the RUMP is being so precious about this. Coalition negotiations all come out after the election. I wondered why the RUMP were being so smug, and if they really thought they had the ModRads "sewn up" as coalition partners, that would explain their even-more-offhand-than-usual treatment of the rest of us.
|
|
|
Post by Sir Alexandreu Davinescu on Sept 8, 2014 19:01:12 GMT -6
The purpose is to find out whether there's any truth to Dame Miestra's claims that the moderate monarchist parties were "aghast at the sheer arrogance and meanness of (the RUMP's) coalition offers" and flatly "rebuffed" them. That is Miestra's personal opinion. There was no straight rebuffal. The offer was deeply pondered by the party, and there was no meanness in your offers - just a huge misunderestimation of the MRPT's role and potential. Which ultimately led to the request to review the terms of the deal before a final decision was taken. Which in turn led to the MRPT pulling out of the negotiations after the RUMP persisted in its refusal. If what upsets you is our refusal after my initial openness to a coalition, I have to remind you that AD expressly asked for the negotiations to be kept secret. Thus, the party was not informed of the negotiations and could not provide its input until the end, when I was allowed to talk about the negotiations. What AD failed to include in his picture is, however: primum, during the negotiations I was speaking for me, not for my party, because the party had to be informed, and I clearly told him so; secundum, the MRPT does not decide before the polls are closed, and that was the first thing I told him; tertium, I can not take any decision without a vote from my party, and can not sign any deal without my party's approval, as per the MRPT's constitution. If this could be the origin of all this jibberjabber, then it's best if I state it clearly and thoroughly: the leader is not entitled to decide on coalitons alone, as per the MRPT's constitution. He can take minor decisions alone, but he is but a speaker and a medium when it comes to coalitions. If I say "It's okay with me, but I have to hear from my party before I can take a decision" and he takes it as "It's okay, my party agrees, deal", then it's not me who has got to be blamed. I'm sorry, but this isn't quite an accurate description of things. I do have to say that I feel that this rehashing of private negotiations is a bad idea, but if we're going to do it, we should be accurate. We had a deal. You and I did, as party leaders. I was fully aware that you had to get the support of your party for the deal, as did I. That's the whole point of being a leader - you know what your party is willing to do, what they want, and you have their trust to guide them towards their goals. When I first contacted you about forming an alliance, I even took care to make sure you could actually, you know, form an alliance. I knew you had to vote, but as you can recall, I took a lot of care to get your assurances that you were capable of actually negotiating a deal. I didn't want to negotiate with someone who couldn't actually come to any terms. For goodness' sake, why would I bother negotiating and agreeing on something if it wouldn't end up mattering?! If you had said you couldn't actually agree on anything and were just a neutral channel, then I would have said, "Fair enough, thank you very much " and wouldn't have gone through some kabuki show negotiation. I would have just waited until after the election, and then said, "Please present this proposal to your party." After the election, I worked hard to uphold my deal. Not everyone was enthusiastic, since the RUMP is a diverse party of different ideas, but I argued for our deal and convinced people that it would work well. I would never have agreed to terms that I didn't think my party could accept. I did not underestimate the MRPT or its important role. After all, I negotiated in good faith with their leader to try to forge a coalition, to sort out a deal to which he would agree. But you were, I'm afraid, dishonest at at least one point. You assured me that you could agree on terms and that we could work together. You certainly also took care to say that there would be a vote, but you also said that wouldn't be a problem. I took particular care on this point, remember - I wanted to know that you could actually agree on something and that your leadership mattered. And you were either misleading me then, on purpose, or you didn't actually fight hard to hold up your end, later, and broke your word then. I know you just started leading your party, but you can't represent your group, make a deal, and then decide that you're not bound by it. It's dishonest, no matter whether the falsehood was your assurances that you could represent your group, or a later decision that you could suddenly demand a lot more. This might just have been inexperience at work. But it was really uncool. If I didn't think that you're basically a good guy, I might think that you'd done it deliberately to stop me from making a deal with someone else who might actually uphold it. But intentionally or not, it was not okay. I honestly didn't want to go into all of this in public, of course. And I should also say that I really do appreciate both you and Gluc chiming in to contradict Miestra's attempt to spin this new conspiracy story that everyone secretly hates me and thinks I'm evil. Let's just chalk this up to a serious misunderstanding, and all strive to do better in the future.
|
|
Miestrâ Schivâ, UrN
Seneschal
the new Jim Hacker
Posts: 6,635
Talossan Since: 6-25-2004
Dame Since: 9-8-2012
Motto: Expulseascâ, reveneascâ
Baron Since: Feudal titles are for gimps
Duke Since: Feudal titles are for gimps
|
Post by Miestrâ Schivâ, UrN on Sept 8, 2014 19:12:11 GMT -6
No, no, of course they don't think that. In fact, it's precisely this kind of blowing up of political disagreement into venomous hatred which marks out the deep lack of serious and sincerity at the heart of your political practice.
The fact is, if what I've heard from my spies is true, your offer to the ModRads was quite insulting, and was definitely in the "beads and trinkets" category - and before I'm accused of mocking 530 years of colonialism, let me explain. The metaphor refers to someone who thinks they're cunning who offers, to someone they think is naive, something of little value in the hope of getting something of big value in return. It's a lack of respect being shown.
To paraphrase Oliver Cromwell, I beseech you in the bowels of the Good Lord to ask yourself whether the reason the RUMP seems to have failed to negotiate their way into government is in fact due to your own behaviour, rather than... I don't know, why did you think the ModRads would make a deal with you, considering that (a) you lost the Senäts, glory be; (b) everything you can give them, the other parties can give them better; (c), the other party leaders don't have a reputation as a devious snake?
Luc has done nothing wrong if, in fact, he has allowed another party leader's hubris to lead him into an embarrassing situation.
|
|