Potentially Conflicting Referenda Found

[Munditenens Tresplet]

While I was making some much needed updates to both OrgLaw and El Lexhatx, I came across a possible conflict. As I'm merely a Deputy Scribe, I wanted to post my findings here for advice before I move forward:

Sir C. M. Siervicül's Túischac'h Disentrenchment Amendment, amends El Lexhatx Section H.19. upon passage of the amendment in the following manner:

ADDITIONALLY, be it enacted by the Ziu of the Kingdom of Talossa that upon the ratification of the amendment to Organic Law proposed above, the following shall come immediately into force:

El Lexhatx, Section H.19, which currently reads:


19. Before the first Clark of a new Cosâ, and then again whenever the office of Túischac'h becomes vacant, the MCs shall convene as an Electoral Conclave under the leadership of the outgoing Túischac'h, or if none is available, the chronologically oldest MC. This Conclave shall decide upon a nominee for Túischac'h, who shall have the support of at least 50%+1 of the Cosa seats, and said nominee shall present himself for formal appointment to the King, as stated in OrgLaw XII.9. (48RZ29)

19.1 If there is no Túischac'h nor a nominee as chosen above on the first day of the month, a Warrant of Prorogation shall be issued as in OrgLaw XIII.2 if it is the first Clark of the Cosâ; or otherwise, a month of recess shall be declared as in OrgLaw XIII.3


shall be amended to read:


19. The King shall appoint a Member of the Cosa to serve as Speaker of the Cosa (Talossan: el Túischac'h) for the upcoming term, on the advice of the Seneschal after consultation with the leaders of all parties represented in the Cosa. The Speaker shall preside, direct and maintain order during Living Cosas, in an unbiased fashion. Otherwise, his function will be to advise Members of the Cosa of appropriate decorum. He is considered the honourable President of the Cosâ and shall be awarded all due veneration when serving as such.

However, El Lexhatx Section H.19. no longer reads as it did previously, as I have already updated El Lexhatx (and OrgLaw) in accordance with The OrgLaw Standing Committee Bill No. 1 (Article 9), proposed by Ian Plätschisch, Sir Alexandreu Davinescu, and Magniloqueu Épiqeu da Lhiun.

Section H.19., as amended by passage of the Standing Committee Bill, now reads:

19. The “Medal of Cincinnatus” may be awarded by the King in recognition for acts of extraordinary Talossanicity in the face of opposition. Recipients of this Medal are entitled to follow their names with the honorific “Cin.” (37RZ8)

It would have been a potential easy fix if the language regarding the Túischac'h was simply moved around somewhere within Section H, but it appears to have been removed completely.

The conflict herein is which bill takes precedence over the other since both were passed by referendum? I did amend Section H already, but I can revert my edits as they may now be called into question. Further, would the conflict apply only to sub-section H.19., or all sections? Further, would the conflict apply to the changes made in Organic Law (both amending two different articles entirely)?

[Ian Plätschisch]

I looked back at the text of Title H before the OrgLaw Committee changes were made (which I found in the Committee bill), and I did not see any mention of the Túischac'h there:

FURTHERMORE, upon the ratification of the above amendment by the People of Talossa, Title H of el Lexhatx, which currently reads;


1. Future elections shall be followed, when practical, by an official Living Cosa which shall be styled the "State Opening of the Cosa." At the State Opening, the PM shall read his Speech to the Nation and the Leader of the Opposition shall have a chance to rebut. A Living Cosa shall be carried out at the same time, on the Government's first Clark. At the start of the State Opening, the new PM will be sworn in publicly. The State Opening shall feature food, drink, and as many Talossans as possible will be invited to attend. (15RC9)



2. The Cosa authorises a question and answer period during Living Cosas. This will be called "Terpelaziuns" ('enquiries') or, for short, "Terps," or "Question Time." During Terpelaziuns, each MC may ask any other MC one question (plus a follow-up) and expect to receive some sort of answer. The Opposition Leader shall put the first question. Questions shall alternate between Government and Opposition members until all MCs on one side or the other have spoken. The remaining MCs may then put questions. Questions will be politely phrased in the third person and directed at the Speaker. Order of Questioners will be determined on an ad hoc basis by the Speaker. (14RC9)

2.1. Any Member of the Cosa (MC) or Senator may at any time between the First and Last Clark of a Cosa Term, table in “The Ziu” board on Witt, or its equivalent, a “c (PQ)” or “Terp” in a new thread or its equivalent. (44RZ1) 2.2. The PQ or Terp may ask one question to a named Member of the Government relating to Public Affairs connected with their Ministry or on matters of administration for which they are officially responsible. 2.3. There is no limit to the number of PQs or Terps a MC or Senator may submit in any given Clark. 2.4. Any PQ or Terp that is submitted by a MC or Senator in accordance with Section 1 above, must be answered by the named Minister within seven (7) days of the question being tabled. Should the Minister be unavailable to answer the question within the seven (7) days, the question shall be redirected to the Prime Minister or his/her appointed Deputy who shall be granted a further seven (7) days to answer the aforementioned question. With the agreement of the questioner, there may be a extension of seven (7) days on top of this period. However, the period from the asking of the question to the answering of the question, shall in no circumstances exceed twenty one (21) days. 2.5. For the purpose of subsection (a) above, “unavailable” means being unable for to access Witt, or its equivalent, for a acceptable and reasonable reason. Having Logged into or visited Witt during the seven day period, or its equivalent and having not seen or ignored the PQ or Terp, shall not constituent being unavailable. (c) This provision shall not apply PQs or Terps which refer to matters of Security or Defence of His Majesty’s Realm and/or any project(s), Correspondence or activities in which the Government has deemed and classed as confidential or its release may damage the Kingdom in any shape or form. Such questions may not be answered by any Minister. 2.6. The Minister must answer the question in the same thread or its equivalent as the original question and the questioner may ask one (1) supplementary question, in which subsection (a) above applies, with the seven days starting from the date the supplementary question is asked. 2.7. Failure to answer a question within the given timeframe shall constitute an offense and a Minister if found guilty of such a offense, will be subject to a punishment at the discretion of the Courts. 2.8. It shall be a defence to the Minister if the questioner, notwithstanding any other legitimate defences, did not or failed to: (i) Correctly title his/her question or; (ii) Ask a clear question. E.g. An ambiguous question, in which the Minister tried to clarify but failed to do so in the timeframe and did not subsequently answer. Or; (iii) Post his/her question in the correct board, or; (iv) Engage with the Minister in trying to answer his/her question or; (v) Direct the question to one named Minister.

3. All MCs must vote for themselves, and not through surrogates. They have innumerable options to communicate their own votes to the Secretary of State or to Undersecretary of State, including postcards, letters and phone calls. MCs are responsible for casting their own votes with their own assigned seats, and cannot cast votes for other MCs. If an MC will be unavailable to vote for some reason during any particular month, they may inform the Secretary or Undersecretary that they wish to vote exactly as another, named MC. That will be considered the sole justification for MC surrogate voting. (6RC30, 16RC11)

3.1. A person who is named as a Proxy Vote for another in a Living Cosâ is under the moral and legal obligation, whenever possible, to represent the original seat-holder's wishes and intentions on specific Ziu bills and the Vote of Confidence, whenever and however he is instructed or publicly notified to do so. (24RZ44)



4. A difference shall exist (and be spelled out in future bills) between committees (which are set up as standing committees, free to issue reports at any time) and Royal Commissions (or Commissions Royal) which are set up on an ad hoc basis and charged with a specific one-time task such as preparing a dossier or White Paper on a specific problem, and presenting the same to the Cosa. Once a Commission's paper is done, the Commission has fulfilled its duty and ceases to exist. (8RC35)



5. The Secretary of State will punish all Members of the Cosâ who cast invalid votes in the Vote of Confidence; the punishment being the declaration of said member's votes in the same Clark as null and void. (23RZ39)



6. His Majesty, when affixing His Royal Seal to Bills sent to him by this Ziu, may exclaim with all His Royal Royal-ness in the National Language of Our Nation, "El Regeu en volt." (25RZ17)



7. His Majesty, when acting out His Constitutional and Traditional Duty to Protect the Citizens of His Kingdom from Poor Government, decides to Withhold His Royal Seal from said Bill sent by said Ziu, may exclaim with all His Truth-and-Justice-ness in said National Language of said Kingdom, "El Regeu non en volt."



8. If the Prime Minister or a member of the Government party proposes a bill, and with the PM's permission marks it as a Government Bill, the Clark will denote this as a bill proposed by "HM Government, represented by" the member. If the Opposition Leader, or a member of the Opposition proposes a bill, and with the Opposition Leader's or the member's Party Leader's permission marks it as an Opposition Bill, the Clark will denote this as a bill proposed by "HM Loyal Opposition, represented by" the member. Any other bill will be called a Private Member's Bill, and will be denoted in the Clark the same way they've always been. (25RZ31)



9. Official non-Ziu titles may also be used when a member of the Ziu submit a bill, if the submitter feels that he is submitting a bill in another capacity as Ziu member. Such a title shall be called a "Limousine" or by its Talossan equivalent. A title of Senator, Distain or Member of the Cosa is a Ziu title, and as such not a Limousine. A person can only be entitled to a Limousine if he is both a member of the Ziu and holds an official title. A Limousine may contain, but is not restricted to: a governor's title, a minister or deputy minister's title, or a title conferred by a national organization such as the CÙG or the Secretary of State's office. This is not a means to allow non members of the Ziu to post bills using their Limousine, nor does this provision allow any submitter to use unofficial titles or party-specific titles. (32RZ13)

9.1. The use of a Limousine instead of a ziu title engages that person in that capacity. For example, a bill submitted by a Cosa member as being "Minister of Culture" indicates that the bill is trully submitted in the name of the Minister of Culture.

10. Members of Cosa shall be free to represent any constituency within the geographic boundaries of the Kingdom of Talossa including any and all of its territories and overseas colonies. Any Member wishing to represent a constituency shall publicly declare such representation before the conclusion of the first Clark following a General Election. (44RZ25) (48RZ3)



11. The Senatorial Medal of Honour may be awarded by the Senate for meritorious or honourable service to State or Nation. This award, awarded only and solely by a resolution in the Senate given the Royal Assent, will be the highest honour bestowed by the Talossan legislature. This award has a single class, and recipients may, in official RT affairs, affix the initials "S.H." (Senatorial Honour) after his/her name. (25RZ77)



12. The "Medal of Cincinnatus" may be awarded by the King in recognition for acts of extraordinary Talossanicity in the face of opposition. Recipients of this Medal would be entitled to follow their names with the honorific "Cin.". (37RZ8)



13. It is strongly suggested that MCs limit their bill submissions to five at the very most for each Clark. (25RZ91)



14. If there is the SLIGHTEST problem with any bill in excess of five (misspellings, inorganicity, etc.), the Secretary of State is empowered to refuse to put same on the Clark.



15. If at all possible, bills presented for review in the Hopper should be translated into Talossan before being Clarked. (38RZ12)



16. The King shall sign a physical printed copy of bills at the time they pass into law, and collect these bills for posterity.



17. Except in cases where the current Secretary of State is no longer able or eligible to perform his duties, any nominations of a new secretary of state must take effect on the day of the normal publication of a Clark. If the normally scheduled Clark is not published by the previous Secretary of State on the appropriate day, the new Secretary of State can still start his duties, starting with the publication of the Clark. (32RZ2)



18. No person shall hold more seats in the Cosa than ten times the total number of seats in the Cosa divided by the number of ballots cast for the Cosa in the most recent General Election, rounded up to the next integer.

[Munditenens Tresplet]

Feb 8, 2017 19:38:32 GMT -6 Ian Plätschisch said:

I looked back at the text of Title H before the OrgLaw Committee changes were made (which I found in the Committee bill), and I did not see any mention of the Túischac'h there:

I saw how it was in the bill as well, but when I went to amend Title H, it was still listed as being in El Lexhatx. Unless it was removed by a bill before the 49th Cosa (all laws are supposed to be updated prior to this time), no other bill touched that particular section.

[Sir C. M. Siervicül]

I think what happened is that at the time 49RZ22 was originally drafted, el Lexhatx had not been updated to account for 48RZ29. But the Scribe incorporated 48RZ29 into el Lexhatx before the referendum was held on 49RZ22.

I suppose the question really is: what is the Scribe to do when the "which currently reads" language in a bill is simply incorrect?

[Munditenens Tresplet]

One option is the Seneschal could issue a PD to clarify and add the language passed in both bills.

[Munditenens Tresplet]

Found one more. The Mandatory Cosa List Act and Amendment, which is now enforce, proposes adding a new B.2.3. to El Lexhatx. Problem is, there is already a B.2.3. I've made the necessary amendments to Organic Law, but clarification is again needed here. Tagging Ian Plätschisch and Lüc da Schir.

[Lüc da Schir]

Bloody hell, so much for parsimonious usage of Prime Dictates.

[Lüc da Schir]

To be honest, this one does say that other subsections are to be renumbered. Well, best to avoid any incongruences.

[Munditenens Tresplet]

Feb 12, 2017 4:46:50 GMT -6 Lüc da Schir said:

To be honest, this one does say that other subsections are to be renumbered. Well, best to avoid any incongruences.

You are correct, I didn't see that. The PD is unnecessary, my apologies to all.

[Ián Tamorán S.H.]

Hmmm. Is this (partly) caused by our renumbering things?

IMHO all cross-references should be made to labels which can never change. Ever. Then there can never be a re-numbering problem.
Of course, if we use numerical labels, we will get gaps in the number-sequence - but this does not matter. What matters is that cross-references never go out of date.

To cover cross-references to a clause, in law or regulations, that is changed or deleted, the old copy may be modified to point the link on to the new version of the clause, or (in the case of deletion) to state that "the chain ends here" - that is, any link to that (deleted) clause is now considered to be null. But that is the only kind of modification that may be made: the rest of the old text must be retained in its full.
Admittedly, it also means that sometimes some text may have to be re-entered - but in this day of computerised cut-and-paste that's not such a hard thing.

It also means that our body of laws and regulations gets longer and longer, containing a complete history of our laws and regulations. From time to time (but at gaps of quite a few years - at the very least least ten years, maybe?) - we may, as a nation, choose to recompress the complete body of law, remove the old text, and remake all the cross links. This is a lot of work, but (very occasionally) worthwhile. We would have to be certain, however, that NO change to the wording takes place in this reconsolidating. None. Not even "this is obviously what the old law meant, let's fix the wording". NO change of any sort should ever be made without explicit discussion in the Ziu of the change: making an "on the nod" agreement to a large group of changes is, well, dangerous - and can can allow unintended (or unsupported-except-by-a-few) changes to be made, and only later used to the advantage of some group or other. 

And we would also have to be sure to retain, in the archives, the old, unconsolidated, version of the laws / regulations / whatever is being reconsolidated.

Law is already hard enough, without our making more complicated to find out what the law actually is!

[Magniloqueu Épiqeu da Lhiun]

Feb 12, 2017 10:44:00 GMT -6 Ián Tamorán S.H. said:

Hmmm. Is this (partly) caused by our renumbering things?

IMHO all cross-references should be made to labels which can never change. Ever. Then there can never be a re-numbering problem.
Of course, if we use numerical labels, we will get gaps in the number-sequence - but this does not matter. What matters is that cross-references never go out of date.

To cover cross-references to a clause, in law or regulations, that is changed or deleted, the old copy may be modified to point the link on to the new version of the clause, or (in the case of deletion) to state that "the chain ends here" - that is, any link to that (deleted) clause is now considered to be null. But that is the only kind of modification that may be made: the rest of the old text must be retained in its full.
Admittedly, it also means that sometimes some text may have to be re-entered - but in this day of computerised cut-and-paste that's not such a hard thing.

It also means that our body of laws and regulations gets longer and longer, containing a complete history of our laws and regulations. From time to time (but at gaps of quite a few years - at the very least least ten years, maybe?) - we may, as a nation, choose to recompress the complete body of law, remove the old text, and remake all the cross links. This is a lot of work, but (very occasionally) worthwhile. We would have to be certain, however, that NO change to the wording takes place in this reconsolidating. None. Not even "this is obviously what the old law meant, let's fix the wording". NO change of any sort should ever be made without explicit discussion in the Ziu of the change: making an "on the nod" agreement to a large group of changes is, well, dangerous - and can can allow unintended (or unsupported-except-by-a-few) changes to be made, and only later used to the advantage of some group or other. 

And we would also have to be sure to retain, in the archives, the old, unconsolidated, version of the laws / regulations / whatever is being reconsolidated.

Law is already hard enough, without our making more complicated to find out what the law actually is!

The Scribery of Abbavilla would welcome any specific suggestions you might have, good Sir.
Please contact me, the newly-appointed Scribe, if you wish to submit certain proposals on how to improve our bodies of law, and the recording thereof.