Post by Miestrâ Schivâ, UrN on Apr 4, 2016 15:48:21 GMT -6
Honorable colleagues:
In the interests of public debate, we believe that the Free Democrats should take an early opportunity to let the other parties know what they think about the current Clark. While our Constitution does allow for "whipped" votes (i.e. vote how the Party Leader says or face brutal consequences), this will only be enacted under rare circumstances. Thus, take the comments that follows as ideas which are being debated, rather than how our Party will vote in lock-step.
Anyway, at the moment, the majority opinion in the Party is to vote PËR on 49RZ1&2, CONTRÂ on 49RZ3, and NON on the VoC.
49RZ3
This is an OrgLaw amendment, and - as many outraged ModRads can tell you - the FreeDems have already said we're voting against all OrgLaw amendments until the Royal Commission on the OrgLaw makes its report(s). Barring obstructionism, this should be by the end of this month, so this wouldn't have to go on for long. Regardless of whether we agree with it or not, to vote for it would be rightfully pointed to as hypocrisy.
On its merits, on the other hand, the bill would render the holding of elections independent on whether the King is awake, or sober, enough to dissolve the Cosâ, thus avoiding the delay caused to the current election. I don't think that's a good idea. It means the King can fail to do his job with no consequences. But accountability for the exercise of monarchical powers is probably the #1 goal of the Free Democrats in this Cosâ. A real alternative - which should be put before the Royal Commission if it finds any real takers - is for the King to lose the power to dissolve the Cosâ altogether. But if the King refuses or forgets to do his job, the right option for me is to impose consequences on the King, not take away those consequences.
VoC
Someone, somewhere, started telling me that there's a "tradition" that there should be a unanimous PËR on the VoC of the first Clark. Well, no-one ever called me a traditionalist.
The Free Democrats have confidence - unless proven otherwise - in the individual capacities of the various people appointed to the Cabinet Ministries. Many of them would have been offered the same jobs if we had led this Government. But to say we have confidence in the Monarchist Grand Coalition government would be a blatant lie.
The main problem, Free Democrats say, with Talossa as it stands is lawless and unaccountable exercise by the King of his powers, or alternatively, failure to exercise them. The King is enabled in this by the monarchist parties, prevented from enacting serious reforms by their political allegiance to monarchy and their personal allegiance to this Monarch in particular. Let's look at the King's track record:
The other point, of course, is that Sir Cresti's long and noble record of service to Talossa was tarnished by what I think he admits in retrospect was his lapse in judgement which led to the disaster known as Canún-gate. Some Talossans might still consider that a disqualifying stain against our new Head of Government. Note that this is an opinion which has been raised, rather than one I (necessarily) hold myself.
But aside from the Seneschál's judgment, the real question in the 49th Cosâ is the King's unaccountable, lawless and wholly partisan wielding of his Royal powers. The Free Democrats are reluctant to vote confidence in any Government which not only seems unlikely on "principle" of monarchism to deal with the King acting the goat, but in fact actively benefits, in a partisan way, from Royal unaccountability. I'm sure that, for some, arbitrary rule is perfectly alright if it's arbitrary on your side, if its wielder takes the advice of you and your cronies. Not so for Free Democrats.
Our goal in this Cosâ is to bring the lawless, unaccountable King to heel. And we will not vote ÜC on the VoC until we are convinced that the Government parties agree with us.
In the interests of public debate, we believe that the Free Democrats should take an early opportunity to let the other parties know what they think about the current Clark. While our Constitution does allow for "whipped" votes (i.e. vote how the Party Leader says or face brutal consequences), this will only be enacted under rare circumstances. Thus, take the comments that follows as ideas which are being debated, rather than how our Party will vote in lock-step.
Anyway, at the moment, the majority opinion in the Party is to vote PËR on 49RZ1&2, CONTRÂ on 49RZ3, and NON on the VoC.
49RZ3
This is an OrgLaw amendment, and - as many outraged ModRads can tell you - the FreeDems have already said we're voting against all OrgLaw amendments until the Royal Commission on the OrgLaw makes its report(s). Barring obstructionism, this should be by the end of this month, so this wouldn't have to go on for long. Regardless of whether we agree with it or not, to vote for it would be rightfully pointed to as hypocrisy.
On its merits, on the other hand, the bill would render the holding of elections independent on whether the King is awake, or sober, enough to dissolve the Cosâ, thus avoiding the delay caused to the current election. I don't think that's a good idea. It means the King can fail to do his job with no consequences. But accountability for the exercise of monarchical powers is probably the #1 goal of the Free Democrats in this Cosâ. A real alternative - which should be put before the Royal Commission if it finds any real takers - is for the King to lose the power to dissolve the Cosâ altogether. But if the King refuses or forgets to do his job, the right option for me is to impose consequences on the King, not take away those consequences.
VoC
Someone, somewhere, started telling me that there's a "tradition" that there should be a unanimous PËR on the VoC of the first Clark. Well, no-one ever called me a traditionalist.
The Free Democrats have confidence - unless proven otherwise - in the individual capacities of the various people appointed to the Cabinet Ministries. Many of them would have been offered the same jobs if we had led this Government. But to say we have confidence in the Monarchist Grand Coalition government would be a blatant lie.
The main problem, Free Democrats say, with Talossa as it stands is lawless and unaccountable exercise by the King of his powers, or alternatively, failure to exercise them. The King is enabled in this by the monarchist parties, prevented from enacting serious reforms by their political allegiance to monarchy and their personal allegiance to this Monarch in particular. Let's look at the King's track record:
- the King sleeps in and forgets to dissolve the Cosâ;
- the King neglects to proclaim 48RZ14, the OrgLaw amendment which would take away that disastrous "refuse to proclaim" loophole altogether, thus leaving intact the possibility that he might refuse to proclaim it later and thus legally destroy the OrgLaw;
- during the Canún-gate scandal, the King makes outrageous comments impugning the legitimacy of convictions for sexual offences against children;
- the King announces his intention not to enforce a law passed by this Ziu (re: the election of the Túischac'h), rather than taking said Law to the UC as any half-decent constitutional Head of State would do.
The other point, of course, is that Sir Cresti's long and noble record of service to Talossa was tarnished by what I think he admits in retrospect was his lapse in judgement which led to the disaster known as Canún-gate. Some Talossans might still consider that a disqualifying stain against our new Head of Government. Note that this is an opinion which has been raised, rather than one I (necessarily) hold myself.
But aside from the Seneschál's judgment, the real question in the 49th Cosâ is the King's unaccountable, lawless and wholly partisan wielding of his Royal powers. The Free Democrats are reluctant to vote confidence in any Government which not only seems unlikely on "principle" of monarchism to deal with the King acting the goat, but in fact actively benefits, in a partisan way, from Royal unaccountability. I'm sure that, for some, arbitrary rule is perfectly alright if it's arbitrary on your side, if its wielder takes the advice of you and your cronies. Not so for Free Democrats.
Our goal in this Cosâ is to bring the lawless, unaccountable King to heel. And we will not vote ÜC on the VoC until we are convinced that the Government parties agree with us.