Ian Plätschisch
Senator for Maritiimi-Maxhestic
Posts: 4,001
Talossan Since: 3-21-2015
|
Post by Ian Plätschisch on Oct 21, 2015 19:50:31 GMT -6
Look, Ián, as with the Royal Commission on the OrgLaw, AD's method is to find bogus legalistic reasons to oppose anything that would cause him or his partisan disadvantage. So do what I did and just ignore them, trusting in principles of majority rule. Newsflash: not EVERYTHING in the Ziu has to get the support of every party. Of course not. However, this is an amendment to the OrgLaw, and the RUMP maintains a blocking minority. I'm certain I don't need to point this out to you, but it means that I have to get at least a little RUMP support, or else it won't pass. Unless, of course, you are of the opinion that an amendment does not need to be made. I am not a law scholar, and you are A-G, so I would be apt to listen if you think this, but AD would possibly see us in Court*
*Forgive me if this is not how the Courts work, but you get my idea.
|
|
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 Oct 22, 2015 15:59:14 GMT -6
Personally, I would prefer that the RUMP just block OrgLaw amendments if they really want to; that way the people can see what they do with their blocking minority, and take it off them at the next election. Some things can only be settled on the field of political battle.
|
|
|
Post by Sir Alexandreu Davinescu on Oct 22, 2015 16:18:11 GMT -6
Personally, I would prefer that the RUMP just block OrgLaw amendments if they really want to; that way the people can see what they do with their blocking minority, and take it off them at the next election. Some things can only be settled on the field of political battle. This does explain a lot of behavior.
|
|
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 Oct 22, 2015 16:38:42 GMT -6
If by that you mean that I have no interest at all in wimpy compromises which only satisfy conservatives and others who wish that nothing changes; then yes, I really would prefer that the democratic parties push on to a 2/3+ majority in the Ziu so we can get a democratic OrgLaw, with things like mandatory Cosa lists and a removal of the Royal Veto over OrgLaw changes altogether.
|
|
|
Post by Sir Alexandreu Davinescu on Oct 22, 2015 16:47:54 GMT -6
If by that you mean that I have no interest at all in wimpy compromises which only satisfy conservatives and others who wish that nothing changes; then yes, I really would prefer that the democratic parties push on to a 2/3+ majority in the Ziu so we can get a democratic OrgLaw, with things like mandatory Cosa lists and a removal of the Royal Veto over OrgLaw changes altogether. Yes, I did mean the unwillingness to compromise. In many cases, it's possible to find a win-win. Indeed, in my experience it's usually possible to find a version that serves everyone. It's only a minority of times that partisan interest comes into direct conflict -- and even then, a third path can sometimes be found if we're creative. A preference for trying to steamroll over all opposition is... well, sad. It's a preference for victory over good governance. Not going to comment on the embarrassing "don't want anything to change."
|
|
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 Oct 22, 2015 16:51:09 GMT -6
The conservative minority blocked the Democratic Amendment and endorsed a royal veto over OrgLaw reforms which had never been used before, not even by Mad King Bobby himself. That's a massive example of bad faith. No party can ask for compromises after making it clear that they'll go further than King Robert did in finding loopholes to do end-runs against majority rule. Perhaps you didn't understand how much 48RZ27 was a declaration of total war on the side of the monarchists.
|
|
|
Post by Sir Alexandreu Davinescu on Oct 22, 2015 17:06:42 GMT -6
Out of curiosity, how is it an example of bad faith? His Majesty deliberately chose a test case with little importance to the nation, specifically to assert his legal powers in a manner which did not interfere or impinge on otherwise necessary mechanisms of the country. That seems to me to be an example of extremely good faith, rather than waiting until it was something else more important. He has not vetoed the solution that recently passed with wide support, and I expect he will proclaim it.
If it is "total war," I'm afraid you seem to be the only combatant. The rest of us are here to govern a country, campaign for votes on the strengths of our ideas and record, and have fun. You should try it.
|
|
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 Oct 22, 2015 17:17:26 GMT -6
The RUMP did not support the Democratic Amendment. They took the King's side against democracy's side. The central question is who runs Talossa, its people or an unaccountable oligarchy whose privileges are backed up with a Royal veto to be wielded as-and-when necessary. And that's what I fight for in Talossa - democracy above all. That has been true since 1997.
|
|
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 Oct 22, 2015 17:57:58 GMT -6
I really would prefer that the democratic parties push on to a 2/3+ majority in the Ziu so we can get a democratic OrgLaw Where in this case, "democratic OrgLaw" means restricting voters' choices because people should not be allowed to choose the kind of representation they want, they should only be allowed to choose the kind of representation the government wants them to have.
|
|
|
Post by Sir Alexandreu Davinescu on Oct 22, 2015 18:07:06 GMT -6
Actually, we proposed a different solution. And we just recently -- a majority of my party -- voted in support of the 3/4 Majority Amendment, which proposes an equitable solution to the issue.
That issue, if you'll recall, was that major national institutions (such as the Senats or provinces) all are given a voice in their own defense, but the proposed Democratic Amendment would have simply stripped that away entirely. While the status quo wasn't a good one, and I'm glad His Majesty raised the matter with a bill that didn't mean much (rather than waiting to give notice about this power until some vital or contentious or partisan bill), it was certainly not acceptable to respond by putting the monarchy in a position where it had no voice in its own survival, unlike every other major institution.
Wave elections or moments of great feeling happen with regularity, particularly in such a small country as ours. That is why the Senats must approve changes to its own makeup, or the provinces to their own makeup. Such a protection isn't absolute -- the people are sovereign, above all, in Talossa. But they represent a way to lift these institutions out of the high-water mark, so that if changes are made or they are abolished, it happens only with the unified support of the whole nation, not during a temporary partisan swell. That's the only way, frankly, to ensure an institution endures for a long time. This is because there will always be the corrupt, or the spiteful, or the angry, or the impassioned, and they will often get enough support to enact their will against their "enemies" and their enemies' institutions.
I could understand if you disagreed about the political principles behind these things. But I'm concerned that you just see things in black and white -- that any compromise is "losing" to the monstrous and all-powerful Other in your mind. You often talk about the privileges of some unnamed oligarchy... for heaven's sake, the coalition government has just shy of a supermajority! What "privileges" are this group protecting, and what sort of "oligarchy" is it? I'm reminded of Umberto Eco's discussion of the main traits of fascism, where in the fascist mind the villains were always omnipresent and threatening yet simultaneously spoke only for a minority: "Thus, by a continuous shifting of rhetorical focus, the enemies are at the same time too strong and too weak." I'm definitely not calling you fascist, but this rhetorical shifting of focus where the RUMP is the All-Powerful Other is just ridiculous.
Or to put it another way, in the paradoxical expression of George Lucas: "Only a Sith deals in absolutes."
It is definitely possible that your approach might work. Discarding compromise as a valid tactic has benefited many political movements in the past (indeed, even in the present) in different countries, since it's much more effective at enforcing an Us verus Them attitude that prevents defections from people who might otherwise be moderate. But it's terribly destructive, and not very responsible. Whatever your opinion of the RUMP and our legislators, you should at least have the fortitude to admit that opposition criticism and points often make a bill better... and that RUMP voters deserve to be heard and represented, too.
|
|
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 Oct 22, 2015 18:08:48 GMT -6
The conservative minority blocked the Democratic Amendment and endorsed a royal veto over OrgLaw reforms which had never been used before, not even by Mad King Bobby himself. This sounds almost like a complaint that the King has been too restrained, and should have been throwing his weight around more if he didn't want his powers taken away. The RUMP did not support the Democratic Amendment. Granted, we do believe that checks and balances are an important part of constitutional government.
|
|
Ian Plätschisch
Senator for Maritiimi-Maxhestic
Posts: 4,001
Talossan Since: 3-21-2015
|
Post by Ian Plätschisch on Oct 22, 2015 18:12:28 GMT -6
Where in this case, "democratic OrgLaw" means restricting voters' choices because people should not be allowed to choose the kind of representation they want, they should only be allowed to choose the kind of representation the government wants them to have. I think you have exaggerated. I understand where you are coming from, but I am of the opinion that increased accountability and transparency are innately democratic. If voters chose a party with no candidate list because they liked the platform, it would still be advantageous to the voter to know who would represent them, so they could feel confident the platform would be followed.
|
|
|
Post by Sir Alexandreu Davinescu on Oct 22, 2015 18:15:49 GMT -6
Unless the voters wanted to choose a party which valued new citizen participation in government, or which had a flexible approach when it came to the unforeseen (Reunision, new parties like the LibCon, etc.) In that case, it wouldn't matter what the voter preference was... the sorts of parties presented to them for their vote would be pre-screened by legislators' requirements and recommendations. It's just not quite as cut-and-dried as all that.
To pose you a different counter-example: it is easy to see a parallel issue, where a majority party posted a list of pre-commitments on specific issues. Call it the Mandatory Issue List. Now, is it inherently democratic for them to require, by law, that a party shall lose its seats if they fail to post a Mandatory Issue List? After all, that's more transparent and more accountable, right? And yet in that case, too, the RUMP would say that the voters shouldn't have their choices filtered out according to the desires of the Cosa. The voters should get to pick the party, and part of their choice is party protocol.
A second example: a majority party governs itself by simple majority votes when making internal decisions. They want to require every party to govern itself this way. A minority party that has internal caucuses opposes this... who is "inherently democratic?" In this case, too, voters should be able to choose which party mechanisms they favor, and use their vote as a way to express their preference. The government shouldn't get to decide what choices the voters are permitted.
|
|
Ian Plätschisch
Senator for Maritiimi-Maxhestic
Posts: 4,001
Talossan Since: 3-21-2015
|
Post by Ian Plätschisch on Oct 22, 2015 18:18:28 GMT -6
As Sir Cresti has pointed out before, this bill concerns assignment, not reassignment. If a major event occurred, mid-term reassignment protocols could be set by a party as they see fit, within the bounds of what is Organic, of course
|
|
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 Oct 22, 2015 18:20:33 GMT -6
Generally, it's a good idea to assume that any objections Sir Alexandreu raises are not made in good faith. They are only meant to derail. Like if he were saying "but this proposal doesn't allow for a ZEPPELIN crashing into the Water Tower!!!" He doesn't really think that anything like that is likely to happen; he is just looking for ways to sow Fear, Uncertainty and Doubt in the minds of those proposing change. Note he had no issues with a totally unforeseen Royal Veto of an OrgLaw amendment approved by 2/3 of the Ziu and the people in referendum.
|
|