VOTE NO TO MONARCHY AND VOTE YES TO DEMOCRACY!

[Colonel Mximo Carbonèl]

NOW IT'S THE TIME...

FOR REPUBLICANSTO UNITED UNDER A SINGLE FLAG
THE FLAG OF DEMOCRACY OVER TYRANNY.

SO VOTE NO ON MONARCHY AND YES TO DEMOCRACY.
AND WE HOPE TO SEE THE FREEDEM and the MRPT JOINS US IN THE FIGHT TO FREE TALOSSA!

Mximo Carbonèl
Leader Republican Party

[Viteu Marcianüs]

Considering the referendum is the result of an bill introduced by a FreeDem, and the moved up date is a result of the MRPT, I think we're a bit ahead of you on this.

[Glüc da Dhi]

I think Mximo is simply calling for a no vote in that refendum, something the MRPT (and part of the FreeDems) would disagree with. Its understandable that Mximo would call upon other parties to join him in opposing the Monarchy, but that doesn't seem likely to happen.
Personally I believe Talossa is already free and democratic, so no need to sacrifice the institution that has played a major part in Talossan history since its founding (despite certain ups and downs) for that.

[Viteu Marcianüs]

Talossa is not democratic until the Crown has been completely removed from all aspects of our civil government. Anything other than that is sheer compromise on democratic principles. Further, I find the notion that we should keep an inherently undemocratic institution in place by virtue of it "play[ing] a major part in Talossan history since its founding" to be not only devoid of logic, but evinces that there is no actual continued need for the monarchy other than, "oh it's pretty." Not a strong (if any at all really) foundation for continuing an inherently undemocratic institution.

In the most reductive fashion, people have two choices here: Either you support democracy (vote against the Monarchy), or you don't support democracy (vote for the monarchy). Any argument to support the monarchy is, by virtue of its position, an argument against democracy.

[Glüc da Dhi]

Are you seriously suggesting Talossa is not a democracy? Even though we have a democratically elected government and parliament? Even though the (admittedly not democratically electable, thats kind of the point of a hereditary monarchy) King is subject to the OrgLaw, that can be amended democratically? Even after we removed the Kings power (if he ever had that power, the CpI seems to disagree) to veto amendments? Considering the many countries in this world, monarchies or republics (and yes, there are other democratic monarchies and a lot of undemocratic republics) that don't have free and fair elections, that don't have rule of law and that don't have a government that's accountable, that claim is just ridiculous. Talossa is a democracy. That doesn't neccesarily mean we're a direct democracy where every single decision is voting on, it also doesn't mean that every institution is inherently democratic. For example you might want civil servants who aren't elected but appointed based on their capabilities, or you might want a head of state who is a cultural symbol and stands above the parties. But what is does mean is that in the end the people can decide what Talossa looks like, and we can! After all, we could change elect politicians to change the orglaw and become a republic (or a dictatorship or a theocracy or make all our decisions by random chance. Because it's non binding the referendum doesn't really state what the alternative is). Hopefully, though, we are wise enough to decide not to do that.

As for the aesthetic argument. You, understandably considering your position, try to make it into a bit of a charicature. I would agree that a very urgent practical or moral argument usually weighs heavier than "oh it's pretty", but I also sometimes feel aesthetical arguments are being underrated. After all, what would many of us be doing here on this forum if we weren't building something that we liked, if we weren't doing something that we enjoyed doing? I couldn't be a Talossan if I didn't like at least some of its aesthetics. And this is also how we attract immigrants, which seems like a very practical and logical reason to do something. And yes, I do think the monarchy in itself has a lot of aesthetic value. It's nice to have a King, to have the most powerful person in Talossa (definitely not the King) make statements in his name, to have arms and knighthoods and everything. So I think there are good reasons to support the Monarchy, without even the continuity aspect. However, this aspect in itself might be even more important. I think it's great to be part of a micronation that's not just formed yesterday, but that has a long long history. It was founded in 1979. How cool is that!? When I came here there were (and there still are) things I would like to change, for practical reasons, or moral ones or aesthetic ones, but I don't see this as one of those, and I worry that if we break all of our ties with history we will lose part of the excitement of being in a nation that is so old. In 1979 we were founded as a Kingdom. Maybe that's not worth everything, but it is worth something.

[Viteu Marcianüs]

(1) You're going to ignore the ability of the Crown to potentially veto amendments, laws, etc, as the Crown sees fit, and even go so far as to undermine the Rule of Law in Talossa by maintaining that a UC ruling does not apply, but Talossa is a democracy, because, hey, we have an elected Ziu. You're going to ignore the fact that our Head of State can still influence our politics, and, if his continued subversion of the Rule of Law results in an eventual adoption of his preferred point of view, hold him above the Organic Law, thus rendering him the final arbiter on Organic Amendments.

-Fine. You can do that, but spare me the unnecessary screed, and don't try to dress it up in "democratic" drag.  

(2) As I said before, you want to keep the monarchy because it's pretty. Your point here doesn't really undermine my claim; in fact, it reinforces it.

You want to keep the monarchy- great! You want full democracy - great! But here's how to do it - remove every single power of the Crown when it comes to our laws and government. You want an unelected figurehead to feel pretty, fine, but don't dress up why you support the monarchy in "historical" and "traditions" drag. 

[Miestrâ Schivâ, UrN]

I think Munditenens Tresplet may have more to say on this issue, but I would argue that: given that the Moderate Radicals have sponsored legislation which pretty much guts the Monarchy of any political function (and quite rightly too), to preserve monarchy as a kind of empty shell, a guy who waves and cuts ribbons on supermarket openings, does not seem either fair on the Monarch or dignified for the Constitution.

Basically, the current Monarch cannot be trusted. We have seen that he has his own idiosyncratic interpretation of the OrgLaw which gives him total veto over changes to it, and that he refuses to recognize the authority of the Cort pü Inalt which contradicted him in that regard. In this he is backed up by the RUMP leadership. The question remains: what happens when push comes to shove? What happens when the democratic parts of our Constitution say ÜC and the King says NÔN? Will the King kneel and let his kingdom rise? I argue that, based on John Woolley's actions so far and the support he's gained from the RUMP leadership in them, the answer is no. I argue that - if the OrgLaw amendments for more democracy which are now on the ballot pass their referenda - His Colorado Majesty will just say "veto", legally in his eyes and illegally in the eyes of the CpI, thus breaking Talossa altogether and leading to a new National Schism like that of 2004-2012.

We are coming up to a final, head-on conflict between Talossan monarchy and democracy. Short of an abdication, and the new King promising (like William of Orange did in 1688) to respect and defer to the other branches of the State - this referendum is the only way to head off civil strife which will make the original Proclamation Crisis look like a game of patty-cake.

[Glüc da Dhi]

I tried to write a response to V, but then something went wrong with my internet and I lost my post, so I don't feel like re-writing it.

Anyway, here is the much shorter non screed version.

1) The King does not have a veto on orglaw amendments that were approved in a referendum.

2) You can simplify a whole range of arguments into "it's pretty", but then I'm also a Talossan because it's pretty (which I guess is essentially true).

[Glüc da Dhi]

Jun 1, 2017 15:03:45 GMT -6 Miestrâ Schivâ, UrN said:

. I argue that - if the OrgLaw amendments for more democracy which are now on the ballot pass their referenda - His Colorado Majesty will just say "veto", legally in his eyes and illegally in the eyes of the CpI, thus breaking Talossa altogether and leading to a new National Schism like that of 2004-2012.

I would disagree. I strongly believe that regardless of what the King says or maintains or whatever, the scribe will side with the CpI, amend the OrgLaw and we will all go on using the newly amended orglaw. The system is resistant to one person being objectively wrong.

[Xheneta Britxind]

Hear hear to Gluc da Dhi. And exactly how is there any tyranny here, anyhow?

[Viteu Marcianüs]

1) He thinks he does. The Kings continues to spit on the Rule of Law and you defend it. You're also willing to place who is right on whether the Scribe decides to adhere to the King's or Cort's interpretation.

2) All of your pro-monarchy arguments reduce to "it's pretty." You can attempt to distract from the lack of substantive support but it's quite clear what it is.

[Glüc da Dhi]

1) Well the great thing about having a democracy and rule of law is that even if that were true it wouldn't matter, because the system is not subject simply to the opinions of the King. You also know full well (or at least should know) that I have never been afraid to criticise the King when I think he's wrong, but I don't need to always agree with the King to support the monrachy. You're twisting my arguments, I have never said that the Scribe decides what is right. The scribes actions just show that its the CpI who hold the power to interpret the law, not His Majesty. Frankly, if the scribe had decided to go against the CpI, the CpI or the government would have intervened.

2) By that logic all arguments for Talossa's existence can be reduced to "it's pretty". I'm not denying that the Monarchy in itself has a lot of aesthetic value, but that is still different from pointing out that doing away with the monarchy would remove one of the major connections to our past, or that it appeals to immigrants, even though all these arguments could be reduced. (There's also practical arguments, though some of those would be related to whatever the alternative is, which we don't know, but I think its good to have someone who stands above the parties take another look at our laws before they are passed, even though democracy prescribes that we can overrule him, which we can. I also think its useless to have elections every year for a position that has virtually no power, and I'm glad that we don't have two captains with a democratic mandate running this ship, but again, all this is speculation, because of the nature of this referendum, which forces us to make the unfair choice between a system we know we have and whatever system everyone of us personally likes most, even though the actual chance we will agree on what system should replace it seems rather slim.) But the thing is, even though it covers a range of aspects, I believe the main criterion for a head of state should be that "it's pretty". So that would probably explain why to me, these arguments are pretty substantive.

[Alèx Soleighlfred]

Well, it is quite pretty.

[Viteu Marcianüs]

Jun 2, 2017 8:10:45 GMT -6 Glüc da Dhi said:

1) Well the great thing about having a democracy and rule of law is that even if that were true it wouldn't matter, because the system is not subject simply to the opinions of the King. You also know full well (or at least should know) that I have never been afraid to criticise the King when I think he's wrong, but I don't need to always agree with the King to support the monrachy. You're twisting my arguments, I have never said that the Scribe decides what is right. The scribes actions just show that its the CpI who hold the power to interpret the law, not His Majesty. Frankly, if the scribe had decided to go against the CpI, the CpI or the government would have intervened.

2) By that logic all arguments for Talossa's existence can be reduced to "it's pretty". I'm not denying that the Monarchy in itself has a lot of aesthetic value, but that is still different from pointing out that doing away with the monarchy would remove one of the major connections to our past, or that it appeals to immigrants, even though all these arguments could be reduced. (There's also practical arguments, though some of those would be related to whatever the alternative is, which we don't know, but I think its good to have someone who stands above the parties take another look at our laws before they are passed, even though democracy prescribes that we can overrule him, which we can. I also think its useless to have elections every year for a position that has virtually no power, and I'm glad that we don't have two captains with a democratic mandate running this ship, but again, all this is speculation, because of the nature of this referendum, which forces us to make the unfair choice between a system we know we have and whatever system everyone of us personally likes most, even though the actual chance we will agree on what system should replace it seems rather slim.) But the thing is, even though it covers a range of aspects, I believe the main criterion for a head of state should be that "it's pretty". So that would probably explain why to me, these arguments are pretty substantive.

 (1) Not entirely. The Rule of Law in the Anglo-American sense is something that only exists when there is absolute respect and deference paid to the courts. A.V. Dicey, in his 19th century treatise on the British Constitution, explains it as thus - there are two sources of law in the UK: (1) Parliament; and (2) the Rule of Law (i.e., the independent judiciary and the respect paid to it by the people). The King's active refusal to adhere to the CpI's decision fundamentally undermines the Rule of Law. Hell, even Trump, while complaining, is still listening to the Courts. The Scribe made a decision to follow the CpI, great! Had he followed the King, you would think the government would have intervened, and you might be right, but we would be in a constitutional crisis still absent the votes to do anything about it (thank you Rump!). As I said, you place the fate of our Talossa on one person to maintain your pretty monarchy. 

(2) "It's pretty" arguments are not substantive. Just because you want to live under a monarchy doesn't mean we should. And no, Talossa's mere existence cannot be reduced to "it's pretty." It can be reduced to an online club of quirky if not somewhat off-putting masochists (:-P) but it's not a mere "it's pretty" argument. Put another way, it's fine to have a club, but there could be elements of that club that exists for nothing short of aesthetic purposes. Talossa exists (technically) as a club with delusions of grandeur, but it doesn't have to be pretty. Talossa doesn't exist because it's pretty - we value it, we enjoy it, we want to grow it. But there are institutions in Talossa that serve no legitimate purpose than "oh it's pretty" (e.g., the King). So no, there are no substantive arguments to support the monarchy if they all come down to "well, we've had one since 1979" (France was a monarchy for centuries, see Ancien Regime; Germany was a monarchy from 1871 - 1918; etc.) Countries have thrown off the shackles of monarchy many times. They didn't lose something by doing it (well, unless you're Russia). As I said, if you are vested in growing Talossan democracy, then completely reduction of the monarchy to nothing short of a figurehead who had absolutely zero input in government is the only logical compromise. And I mean fully amending the Organic Law to remove all legal obligation of the Crown and his household. If we wish to keep some civil servants in the royal household, fine, but create the position of Royal Governor, someone answerable to the democratically elected Ziu, to run those civil service positions. But really, keep the King out of our politics; it's none of his business. 

[Ián Tamorán S.H.]

Monarchy and Democracy do not have to be in conflict, provided that:
    1) the Monarch has NO political powers whatsoever, AND
    2) the Monarch may be deposed and replaced at any time by the democratically expressed will of the citizens.

These two conditions mean:
    1) No political power:
        The Monarch must have NO power to perform any acts other than symbolic acts, such as conferring honours, and making comments on the status and history of the nation, and being part of the representation of Talossa to other nations, and suchlike. If the Monarch is granted any political (executive) powers whatsoever, then the Monarch MUST be elected, by the citizenry, at pre-stated intervals: NO person - not even the Monarch - is free from the rule of Law, and (above that) the rule of Justice. The Monarch must be a Democratic Monarch.

    2) Re-election
        The Monarch is the head of State. But the State is the collective will of the people. The Monarch is a symbolic head, and even ancient symbols may be replaced. If the Monarch cannot be replaced and the Monarch has political powers then we have a dictatorship - unchecked power invested in an individual. And even if the Monarch has no political powers, we - the people - must still have the freedom to replace the Monarch: what represents the State must be, in the end, a choice of the whole State itself. The Monarch must be a Democratic Monarch.

Note that I have stated AND for these two conditions: we must have not just "no unchecked political power" but also "freedom to replace". This does not, in any way, mean that we must also declare that this Monarch has performed such-and-such an action with which we do or do not agree, and that this Monarch must be replaced, but that we, the people, declare that we are explicitly removing from the Monarch and all future Monarchs any possible pre-existing unchecked powers - that the Monarch must be a Democratic Monarch. 

We can have, elsewhere, a separate discussion about any particular Monarch: criticisms of any individual Monarch do not affect the basic questions. And there are two questions, not just one:

1) Should we have a Democracy: Yes/No
2) Should we have a Monarchy?: Yes/No

I think all of us would say Yes to Democracy. So that leaves us asking "Should we have a Democratic Monarchy or Should we have No Monarchy?". It is not a choice between Democracy and Monarchy, but between Democratic Monarchy and No Monarchy.

There is a saying that you can't have your cake and eat it - but in this case we can have some of our cake, and eat it. That is, we can still (if we wish) retain the Monarchy and still retain Democracy.