The Consent of the People and Balanced Government Amendment

[Glüc da Dhi]

Jun 4, 2015 9:22:36 GMT -6 Sir Alexandreu Davinescu said:

Gluc: The last clause is just to stop anyone from gaming the system, of course. Otherwise the entire change wouldn't be possible... a referendum could just be called in two successive days. It's actually a really lousy thing that should have been eliminated long ago... way, way too easy to use in a corrupt way.

Not sure what you are talking about. If only one referendum is needed as Sevastain is proposing, there would be no point in two referenda. If two separate Zius need to pass the amendment, as you are proposing, two succesive referenda in the same term wouldn't do anything. I'm not sure how this could be used in a corrupt way. If anything, it seems likely to me that a referendum called outside regular election season would be more likely to get people to focus on the amendment and alert them to the importance of it rather than an amendment which is hidden somewhere on a long ballot during a GE.

[Glüc da Dhi]

Oh, upon reading your response again, it seems I misintepreted it. If you are talking about the fact that the requirement for a vote to take 2 weeks doesnt seem to apply to early referenda, well that can easily be solved by adding such a required duration to the orglaw. Seeme like a much better solution than just doing away with the whole concept. I can think of plenty emergency situations where an early referendum might be of great benefit. Either way, this should probably be proposed in a separate bill.

[Sir Alexandreu Davinescu]

That's actually a really good point. Hm. What might be one of those situations? Maybe we should just add a specific period of time in the first section before the question can be put to referendum again.

[Magniloqueu Épiqeu da Lhiun]

A month seems like a good period of recollection and "cooling off".

[Sir Alexandreu Davinescu]

A month? Hm... I don't know, that could be a possible time. I'm trying to think back to periods of unrest here and in history, and thinking about how long it takes for the rawness to subside and reason to set in.

From my perspective, by the way, folks, it's important to retain the monarchy... I think it's vital to the future of Talossa. I know some people disagree and want to tear it down, but whether or not Talossa should have a monarchy at all is probably beyond my scope in this bill. But if there isn't any kind of cool-off prerogative, then it seems likely that the monarchy - and other institutions - might well not survive any temporary troubles that may face us in the future. If you think the monarchy is a good idea, then I really honestly do think that this bill is what will preserve it for the future. Your opinion may differ, of course - I know those who favor a republic may oppose this bill because of that - but this legislation limits the monarchy to its appropriate balanced role while still helping ensure its survival.

[Txosuè Éiric Rôibeardescù]

Jun 3, 2015 21:21:48 GMT -6 Miestrâ Schivâ, UrN said:

Because IRRATIONAL FETISHISM! Without a monarchy to defend, the RUMP would be an even sadder club than it is.

Fetishism? fascism surely? I don't think there is rope or ballgags involved

[Ian Plätschisch]

My suggestion of "4/5 majority 3 times in row" was not serious (I hope all of you knew that), it was to call attention to the fact that any more "brake" would enter the realm of ridiculousness

[Sir Alexandreu Davinescu]

Being able to reject a referendum and send it back for a strong affirmation is not that extreme, considering how it could be the only thing intervening on such an amendment. If a party holds two or three Senate seats already, then a single election could give them a majority in both houses of the Ziu, and they could then pass a referendum locking in their power (or tearing down a major institution, such as the monarchy). As noted many times, referenda have always passed, usually with quite a high rate of approval. So that single election essentially means that the majority party can make whatever big changes they want, unless they're sloppy or crude enough about it that voters run riot and vote it down -- and given my experience of Talossan politics, that is incredibly unlikely. No check and no balance... the Corts can't do anything, and the Seneschal is chosen by that same Ziu.

So grant His Majesty the power to send it back for another plebiscite, either at the next general or at some intervening period. We need some check on the situation... that's how our government (and many others) deals with issues of competing interests: checks and balances.

[Miestrâ Schivâ, UrN]

Jun 4, 2015 12:58:52 GMT -6 Txosuè Éiric Rôibeardescù said:

Jun 3, 2015 21:21:48 GMT -6 Miestrâ Schivâ, UrN said:

Because IRRATIONAL FETISHISM! Without a monarchy to defend, the RUMP would be an even sadder club than it is.

Fetishism? fascism surely? I don't think there is rope or ballgags involved

Fetishism, in its pre-Freudian meaning, meant ascribing mystical powers to an inanimate object or a set of words. There are no actual fascists in action in Talossa at the moment. Wouldn't even accuse AD of that on his worst day.

[Miestrâ Schivâ, UrN]

Anyway, the elephant in the room is that not everyone agrees that the current OrgLaw gives the King any veto power over amendments. The Scribe of Abbavilla, for one, disagrees. The outgoing Seneschál, as temporary Attorney-General, has taken a case to the UC to resolve this and they will determine whether 47RZ28 is now part of the OrgLaw or not.

[Françal Ian Lux]

Jun 4, 2015 9:22:36 GMT -6 Sir Alexandreu Davinescu said:

Francal: I have indeed seen some extremely, um, creative proposals. Tim Asmourescu has returned after a long absence, self-imposed after he made that big criminal confession, to propose a royal house sort of feudal thing. It's interesting, although I'm not sure I want to live in a Talossa modeled after Dune. And I know Dama Miestra is proposing to just start over with a constitutional convention, and wants a republic. That's rather a bigger discussion than this bill, but I still think a monarchy is by far the best thing for T And of course, there are people with personal agendas who are just seizing this opportunity to press them.

I agree with you that the maintenance of the monarchy is the best for our Kingdom. What we might have trouble agreeing on, however, is the role of his majesty in the politics of our nation.

[Sir Alexandreu Davinescu]

Jun 4, 2015 16:19:55 GMT -6 Miestrâ Schivâ, UrN said:

Anyway, the elephant in the room is that not everyone agrees that the current OrgLaw gives the King any veto power over amendments. The Scribe of Abbavilla, for one, disagrees. The outgoing Seneschál, as temporary Attorney-General, has taken a case to the UC to resolve this and they will determine whether 47RZ28 is now part of the OrgLaw or not.

That's not really the elephant in the room. From a legal standpoint, it seems pretty clear to me which way the CpI will have to rule. And either way, it's probably a bad plan to do nothing in the meantime.

Jun 4, 2015 16:20:00 GMT -6 Françal Ian Lux said:

Jun 4, 2015 9:22:36 GMT -6 Sir Alexandreu Davinescu said:

Francal: I have indeed seen some extremely, um, creative proposals. Tim Asmourescu has returned after a long absence, self-imposed after he made that big criminal confession, to propose a royal house sort of feudal thing. It's interesting, although I'm not sure I want to live in a Talossa modeled after Dune. And I know Dama Miestra is proposing to just start over with a constitutional convention, and wants a republic. That's rather a bigger discussion than this bill, but I still think a monarchy is by far the best thing for T And of course, there are people with personal agendas who are just seizing this opportunity to press them.

I agree with you that the maintenance of the monarchy is the best for our Kingdom. What we might have trouble agreeing on, however, is the role of his majesty in the politics of our nation.

Absolutely we might disagree on that. For myself, I think the monarchy is very important for specific practical reasons. One of these might be the aesthetic appeal, which is considerable. My country of residence is a presidential republic, and so that style of government doesn't appeal to me as something that draws me to Talossa specifically (although there are other reasons why Talossa is great, of course). But in addition to that, which we could maybe maintain with a figurehead monarch, the king also represents a real strength that specifically suits Talossa in governance.

We are a really, really small country. And we have periodic times of considerable apathy, and have even had serious crises based around those times. During those periods, it really helps that we have a permanent figure on the throne as a symbol of continuity and real power (as in, he can actually do something, not just watch and make speeches), who is able to jump-start the country again if necessary. Thankfully, it's been a while since that's happened, but it has happened often and there's no reason to think it might not happen again.

Talossa can also change quickly. Like, really quickly. Like the Talossa of 2003 is nothing like the Talossa of 2008 is nothing like the Talossa of 2012. We also have a lot of new immigrants who frequently gain significant power without too much trouble. A couple of new immigrants command something like a tenth of the Cosa now, for example! That's awesome and one of the best things about Talossa (you get jump in and get involved and have fun!) but it also means that it's difficult to really value any institution or custom. New immigrants didn't grow up here and have no reason to understand or respect something like the CpI, for example. It's possible to accustom them to those norms, but it's really hard to make that stick or matter when Talossa can shift so drastically. We just went from having one court to two courts to a combined enpaneled court in like six years! The monarch is one of the best and only ways to really lock down any authority in an immediately accessible way: he's a cultural anchor, helping stop the country from redefining itself every year entirely. I'm not saying (despite what someone will reducto ad absurdum) that we'll discard everything and riot in a year if we don't have a monarch, but his presence and that stability really, really helps. If you want to actually build something lasting within Talossa (speaking as member of a small business!) that's something that's pretty important.

Also: kings are cool. There aren't a lot of places with functioning constitutional monarchies where the monarch has a real role, and isn't just a figurehead.

So yes, we might disagree. But I hope you'll also consider my position. As you can see, I have carefully considered this question in a real and serious manner. I actually think a real monarch with a real governing role, like ours, helps Talossa continue to exist.

[Françal Ian Lux]

I have considered your position and I respect your views. And I hope you understand the basis of my own opinions. I'm a big compromiser so let's see how we can satisfy both sides of the aisle.

[Sir C. M. Siervicül]

Jun 4, 2015 12:58:52 GMT -6 Txosuè Éiric Rôibeardescù said:

I don't think there is rope or ballgags involved

With all due respect, Txosuè, you have no idea what goes on in the RUMP's Supreme Executive Coven.

[Sevastáin Pinátsch]

Rumour has it the secret password is: "Thank you sir, may I have another?"