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 28, 2018 15:56:53 GMT -6
One option for Sir AD if he's really sincere in his proposals would be to watch the OrgLaw convention, wait until the Final Draft text is revealed, and then offer a counterproposal to the Ziu of "all the same concrete proposals as the New Draft OrgLaw, except phrased as amendments to the 1997 OrgLaw". That would offer a real choice on what he claims to be the real issue, rather than trying to prevent a New Draft OrgLaw from ever appearing.
|
|
|
Post by Sir Alexandreu Davinescu on Oct 28, 2018 16:34:29 GMT -6
That is true, that would be one approach. However, given the attitude shown in this thread, it seems unlikely that any proposal of mine outside of a coherence and continuous negotiated process is likely to get a fair hearing. That's one of the problems with an approach that begins and ends with attacking the person, rather than the merits of their arguments. The person begins to suspect that you don't actually care about anything they have to say or any substance, but just want to "win."
If you come into a process poisoning the well with such verve as you and V have, attacking me and declaring that my mild suggestions for compromise are some hidden and nefarious scheme, then you can't be surprised when I'm dubious that I'll be able to take a fresh drink at the end of the day.
|
|
|
Post by Sir Alexandreu Davinescu on Oct 28, 2018 16:37:22 GMT -6
If Sir AD proposed a bill to amputate all Talossan's left legs at the knee, and V set himself in opposition to it, I imagine that Sir AD would then propose a "compromise" of moving the amputation point to the ankles, and then complain about the intransigent Distáin. Seriously: the question for the FreeDems has always been a brand-new totally rewritten OrgLaw. This is the question we want to put to the legislators and then to the people. If a brand-new totally rewritten OrgLaw is rejected by the Ziu or by the people, then fair enough. But we want that option on the Clark/ballot. Compromising it away before it can even get to that point is not an option. The point of the OrgLaw convention is to produce the text of a brand-new totally rewritten OrgLaw that will stand the most chance of getting Ziu and popular approval. I understand that people who oppose the concept will fight it, and that's their right. But they won't be able to talk us out of the concept through verbiage, bafflegab, appeals for "compromise". They may be able to defeat it, and that's their right. But they won't be able to bamboozle its proponents out of even getting it to the Clark/people in the first place. I had been told that the main point here was to fix problems in the Organic Law. Let's just rename it the FDT/MRPT Law, make no changes, and call it a day. It's clearly not about making anything better, just declaring victory. Thank you for the clarity.
|
|
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 28, 2018 16:53:49 GMT -6
I had been told that the main point here was to fix problems in the Organic Law. Let's just rename it the FDT/MRPT Law, make no changes, and call it a day. It's clearly not about making anything better, just declaring victory. Thank you for the clarity. Ha ha, a new OrgLaw has been a central FreeDem plank since ages ago, and - since you LEX-D-8ed the Coalition Agreement, you'll know this - it was a make-or-break demand for the current Government, which our Moderate Radical allies thankfully agreed to. Don't act so shocked that we meant what we said. If this means that you'll be abstaining from the OrgLaw convention, because you totally oppose the concept, that's your choice, but I hope you don't mean that.
|
|
|
Post by Sir Alexandreu Davinescu on Oct 28, 2018 16:58:15 GMT -6
No, I guess you're right. I was probably being naive in believing otherwise.
I do not think that most voters will agree with you on the destruction of the Organic Law as a goal unto itself, but I have been wrong before, very often! Maybe I will be wrong in this too. Either way, this exchange has provided some valuable insight into the motives here.
You don't think I should participate in this process at all? Like, sincerely, you do not think my perspective would be helpful or valuable?
|
|
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 28, 2018 17:03:52 GMT -6
It depends on what you really think is important. If what you think is important is that the 1997 OrgLaw should be amended but not repealed, I'm not sure how much fun you'll have debating the details of a draft replacement. In addition you would open yourself up to suggestions that, since you wouldn't vote for any Replacement OrgLaw anyway, any amendments you suggested to the Draft would be designed to sabotage it and bring it down to defeat.
Alternatively, if you might vote for a replacement OrgLaw given the right content, then your input would be valued and appreciated.
|
|
Óïn Ursüm
Posts: 1,032
Talossan Since: 3-10-2009
|
Post by Óïn Ursüm on Oct 29, 2018 7:38:27 GMT -6
As a non-politician citizen, I am very uneasy with wholesale replacing the 1997 Organic Law.
I suspect that the people on the whole will not read it carefully and will most likely approve whatever is put before them.
I really don't see the problem with a carefully crafted series of amendments which do specific things, and maybe a restructuring amendment which fixes up the ordering of sections/chapters etc.
I can do nothing more than state my concerns here, but we need to think carefully about sweeping away the OrgLaw without a broad consensus. After all, we are a community, and we will all have to live under it.
|
|
|
Post by Viteu Marcianüs on Oct 29, 2018 8:07:24 GMT -6
Ad hoc amendments strongly portend inconsistent provisions. The document needs to be singular and cohesive.
|
|
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 29, 2018 13:56:38 GMT -6
I can do nothing more than state my concerns here, but we need to think carefully about sweeping away the OrgLaw without a broad consensus. How broad? Broader than 2/3 of the Cosa and a referendum?
|
|
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 29, 2018 15:38:39 GMT -6
since you LEX-D-8ed the Coalition Agreement I fully support "lexdiate" becoming a Talossan English word, meaning to request disclosure of a government/state document.
|
|
|
Post by Sir Alexandreu Davinescu on Nov 1, 2018 12:14:00 GMT -6
I admit that this conversation has been frustrating to me. After a lot of haranguing and gnashing of teeth, folks finally consented to discuss actual changes to the law. We were discussing Article I reform, and I saw the possibility of bipartisan discussion and hashing out a bill to fix things, as with the Committee back in the day. It was actually moving briskly, politely, and productively. But now we're back to this stuff about how all questions or objections are a secret scheme to destroy reform, and revelations about the real goal here, and it's all very frustrating.
We were halfway to reforming Article I, deciding on entrenched law and its future form, and basically a bill. Can we maybe get back to working on that, and set aside these grand questions? If at the end of that discussion you want to vote against an Article I reform bill, that's fine. But let's at least return to the excellent discussion were having.
Entrenched law as a new Title A of el Lexhatx, with the stuff from Article I moved there. Thoughts?
|
|
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 Nov 4, 2018 11:02:36 GMT -6
since you LEX-D-8ed the Coalition Agreement I fully support "lexdiate" becoming a Talossan English word, meaning to request disclosure of a government/state document. Whoops.
|
|