On the Failure of 48RZ2

[Ian Plätschisch]

Estimeschti Membreux,

The July Clark is over, and, to the disappointment of the Government, the Democratic Amendment has fallen to the hands of the RUMP.  The RUMP have made their intentions clear, and, barring a scenario is which one or more RUMPers forget to vote, no bill with language too similar to RZ2 will pass this term.

The Ziu has two options.  The Government can wait and hope that the RUMP loses a blocking minority, but all the while leaving the King with his same unilateral power.  Or, we can try to work together to form a compromise that everyone is OK with (but not necessarily ecstatic about).  From what I have heard from Estimate Segnor Davinescu, even the RUMP prefers the King not to hold sole control over the Organic Law, but they require more safeguards than the current government does.

Compromise Bills on this subject have largely been ignored, due to what I assume to be the Government's hope that it could pass a solution it finds ideal.  Now that this has been proven unlikely, these bills (such as the How About This Amendment, the Balanced Government and the Consent of the People Amendment, and, yes, my bill as well ) should be reexamined.  Additional solutions can also be explored.  

Let me say again that inaction due to partisan splintering will result in neither the Government nor the Opposition getting what they want; a better Talossa.  I cannot emphasize this enough, no matter if it is on this issue or future issues.

Thanks for listening!

[C. Carlüs Xheraltescù]

With the Democratic Amendment receiving 123/200 votes, it's unclear to me that this has been a splintering vote at all. The majority of our legislators agreed with the Democratic Amendment, but they are being held back by a minority in the Cosa. As such, we will have to look again at how to accommodate a couple of legislators from the opposition so that we can actually deal with this. It is unfortunate that a good bill like this was prevented from passing, but we'll just have to deal with that by moving forwards and seeing what changes we'll have to make to ensure that the Democratic Amendment, when it is taken to the Clark once more, is able to pass.

So, I'd like to invite all our legislators, especially those who voted against the Democratic Amendment this time, to come back to the Hopper and to articulate clearly the changes they'd like to see to make it more palatable.

[Miestrâ Schivâ, UrN]

In fact, the blockage of the DA proves that one of the main arguments against the DA - that it's too easy to pass radical constitutional changes - is arrant nonsense!

[Magniloqueu Épiqeu da Lhiun]

Jul 21, 2015 19:29:12 GMT -6 Ian Plätschisch said:

Estimeschti Membreux

The plural of "estimat" is "estimats".

[Marcel Eðo Pairescu Tafial]

Jul 22, 2015 5:30:11 GMT -6 Magniloqueu Épiqeu da Lhiun said:

Jul 21, 2015 19:29:12 GMT -6 Ian Plätschisch said:

Estimeschti Membreux

The plural of "estimat" is "estimats".

Though maybe he uses the gender-neutral "estimescu"?

[Magniloqueu Épiqeu da Lhiun]

That's probably it. Although I have a knot in my tongue, saying "estimeschti mîmbreux" [ɛstiˈmɛʃtʲ mɨmbrɪʊ̯ʃ].

[Ian Plätschisch]

Jul 22, 2015 5:30:11 GMT -6 Magniloqueu Épiqeu da Lhiun said:

Jul 21, 2015 19:29:12 GMT -6 Ian Plätschisch said:

Estimeschti Membreux

The plural of "estimat" is "estimats".

Whoops.  This is my first time posting in the Cosa forum.

[Ian Plätschisch]

While we may disagree on what the compromise should be, my main point is a failure to compromise at least a little will result in the King maintaining his unilateral power to block Organic Law amendments, which no parties want.

[Sir Alexandreu Davinescu]

Jul 22, 2015 2:20:44 GMT -6 C. Carlüs Xheraltescù said:

With the Democratic Amendment receiving 123/200 votes, it's unclear to me that this has been a splintering vote at all. The majority of our legislators agreed with the Democratic Amendment, but they are being held back by a minority in the Cosa. As such, we will have to look again at how to accommodate a couple of legislators from the opposition so that we can actually deal with this. It is unfortunate that a good bill like this was prevented from passing, but we'll just have to deal with that by moving forwards and seeing what changes we'll have to make to ensure that the Democratic Amendment, when it is taken to the Clark once more, is able to pass.

So, I'd like to invite all our legislators, especially those who voted against the Democratic Amendment this time, to come back to the Hopper and to articulate clearly the changes they'd like to see to make it more palatable.

I stated my objections succinctly when I voted, but I'll say again here, to be clear and so we can move forward to an accommodation that will suit everyone:

In the Organic Law, the central institutions are granted a limited check on the Cosa or Ziu's power. The Senats, for example, must approve by a supermajority any changes to itself. In the same way, provinces must approve any changes to their makeup. I'm not sure how many people have actually thought about this, but think about it now: why have those protections? Pretty clearly, it's to prevent temporary waves of majority power from instituting permanent changes. Institutions like the senate, the provinces, or the monarchy are seldom representative of the nation as a whole. Fiova's politics differ dramatically from national politics, for example, and the political makeup of the Senats is very different from the Cosa. The national majority can and will be tempted to remedy this difference, if it gets outraged or angry enough. But when the political differences of the moment pass, institutional changes remain... and can weaken these parts of our system from their purpose.

As S:reu Plätschisch mentioned, there are a host of alternatives that were proposed. Discussion on most of them ground to a halt very quickly, once it became apparent that the powers-that-be were backing the Democratic Amendment over all objections and despite all alternatives. Contrary to what has been suggested, the entire experience has been a great example of why an alternative is necessary... if the single largest party in the Cosa hadn't voted to stop this bill from steamrolling through, then we would be seeing a bill written and backed by a majority within a day of a controversy forcing through a permanent institutional change!

[Magniloqueu Épiqeu da Lhiun]

Now you are exaggerating. This controversy has been going on quite a bit, AD. And if you have not noticed: while the Senäts, the provinces, and the Cosa do not represent the whole nation as a whole, they do represent a portion thereof. The King, however, basically only represents himself. And while he may be an institution heading the Royal Household, etc., etc., that does not mean that the King should be as important a voice as the many voices of the Senäts, the provinces unto their own, or the Cosa.

And HELL, the King's voice should not be louder than the voice of the WHOLE FREAKING NATION IN A REFERENDUM. Because, as opposed to the Senäts, the provinces, the Cosa, and the Crown, a referendum is actually, and really the representation of the whole nation (or those who cared to vote; but waiver of that right does not mean that the referendum does not represent them, it was there to represent them, but those who have not voted on referenda have chosen to not be heard).

[Ian Plätschisch]

Jul 22, 2015 10:58:56 GMT -6 Magniloqueu Épiqeu da Lhiun said:

And HELL, the King's voice should not be louder than the voice of the WHOLE FREAKING NATION IN A REFERENDUM.

Of course not, which is why even the RUMP want a change.  Let's not forget that S:reu Davinescu himself proposed a bill that would take this power away, even though it was rather more conservative than most members liked.

[C. Carlüs Xheraltescù]

I would say too conservative, which is why I couldn't support it. A number of the alternatives also fell short as well, but regardless I look forward to working with people to present an amended Democratic Amendment.

[C. Carlüs Xheraltescù]

Jul 22, 2015 7:41:19 GMT -6 Sir Alexandreu Davinescu said:

Jul 22, 2015 2:20:44 GMT -6 C. Carlüs Xheraltescù said:

With the Democratic Amendment receiving 123/200 votes, it's unclear to me that this has been a splintering vote at all. The majority of our legislators agreed with the Democratic Amendment, but they are being held back by a minority in the Cosa. As such, we will have to look again at how to accommodate a couple of legislators from the opposition so that we can actually deal with this. It is unfortunate that a good bill like this was prevented from passing, but we'll just have to deal with that by moving forwards and seeing what changes we'll have to make to ensure that the Democratic Amendment, when it is taken to the Clark once more, is able to pass.

So, I'd like to invite all our legislators, especially those who voted against the Democratic Amendment this time, to come back to the Hopper and to articulate clearly the changes they'd like to see to make it more palatable.

I stated my objections succinctly when I voted, but I'll say again here, to be clear and so we can move forward to an accommodation that will suit everyone:

In the Organic Law, the central institutions are granted a limited check on the Cosa or Ziu's power. The Senats, for example, must approve by a supermajority any changes to itself. In the same way, provinces must approve any changes to their makeup. I'm not sure how many people have actually thought about this, but think about it now: why have those protections? Pretty clearly, it's to prevent temporary waves of majority power from instituting permanent changes. Institutions like the senate, the provinces, or the monarchy are seldom representative of the nation as a whole. Fiova's politics differ dramatically from national politics, for example, and the political makeup of the Senats is very different from the Cosa. The national majority can and will be tempted to remedy this difference, if it gets outraged or angry enough. But when the political differences of the moment pass, institutional changes remain... and can weaken these parts of our system from their purpose.

As S:reu Plätschisch mentioned, there are a host of alternatives that were proposed. Discussion on most of them ground to a halt very quickly, once it became apparent that the powers-that-be were backing the Democratic Amendment over all objections and despite all alternatives. Contrary to what has been suggested, the entire experience has been a great example of why an alternative is necessary... if the single largest party in the Cosa hadn't voted to stop this bill from steamrolling through, then we would be seeing a bill written and backed by a majority within a day of a controversy forcing through a permanent institutional change!

So what change are you suggesting? Succinctly, if possible. Because to my knowledge there's a lot of talk about temporary majorities and halting change, but not much palatable change being proposed which addressed the issue of an undemocratic veto.

[Ian Plätschisch]

Jul 22, 2015 11:52:07 GMT -6 C. Carlüs Xheraltescù said:

I would say too conservative, which is why I couldn't support it. A number of the alternatives also fell short as well, but regardless I look forward to working with people to present an amended Democratic Amendment.

Don't get me wrong, I too am of the opinion that S:reu Davinescu's bill is too conservative.  However, an amended version of the Democratic Amendment may very well be comparable to one of the other bills which, in your opinion, "fell short."

[Sir Alexandreu Davinescu]

Jul 22, 2015 10:58:56 GMT -6 Magniloqueu Épiqeu da Lhiun said:

Now you are exaggerating. This controversy has been going on quite a bit, AD. And if you have not noticed: while the Senäts, the provinces, and the Cosa do not represent the whole nation as a whole, they do represent a portion thereof. The King, however, basically only represents himself. And while he may be an institution heading the Royal Household, etc., etc., that does not mean that the King should be as important a voice as the many voices of the Senäts, the provinces unto their own, or the Cosa.

And HELL, the King's voice should not be louder than the voice of the WHOLE FREAKING NATION IN A REFERENDUM. Because, as opposed to the Senäts, the provinces, the Cosa, and the Crown, a referendum is actually, and really the representation of the whole nation (or those who cared to vote; but waiver of that right does not mean that the referendum does not represent them, it was there to represent them, but those who have not voted on referenda have chosen to not be heard).

With due respect, I don't see why I am exaggerating, and I'd humbly suggest you may have missed much of my point. I am not defending the status quo, since I have (as you may have noticed) written a bill to change it myself. My point is that all of these institutions frequently are out of concord with the national majority, and so accordingly the Organic Law has safeguards in place that allow them a certain degree of protection against a temporary majority. A province might get a sudden influx of immigrants or one politically powerful boss with terrible beliefs, to draw upon an example that has happened in our own province of M-M, but it has Organic checks on the power of the Ziu to -- for example -- disband that province during a surge of feeling. Otherwise temporary situations can have a permanent deleterious effect. If Jahnhaven, a fascist state, was disbanded twenty years ago, there'd be no Maritiimi-Maxhestic today.

Jul 22, 2015 11:55:02 GMT -6 C. Carlüs Xheraltescù said:

Jul 22, 2015 7:41:19 GMT -6 Sir Alexandreu Davinescu said:

I stated my objections succinctly when I voted, but I'll say again here, to be clear and so we can move forward to an accommodation that will suit everyone:

In the Organic Law, the central institutions are granted a limited check on the Cosa or Ziu's power. The Senats, for example, must approve by a supermajority any changes to itself. In the same way, provinces must approve any changes to their makeup. I'm not sure how many people have actually thought about this, but think about it now: why have those protections? Pretty clearly, it's to prevent temporary waves of majority power from instituting permanent changes. Institutions like the senate, the provinces, or the monarchy are seldom representative of the nation as a whole. Fiova's politics differ dramatically from national politics, for example, and the political makeup of the Senats is very different from the Cosa. The national majority can and will be tempted to remedy this difference, if it gets outraged or angry enough. But when the political differences of the moment pass, institutional changes remain... and can weaken these parts of our system from their purpose.

As S:reu Plätschisch mentioned, there are a host of alternatives that were proposed. Discussion on most of them ground to a halt very quickly, once it became apparent that the powers-that-be were backing the Democratic Amendment over all objections and despite all alternatives. Contrary to what has been suggested, the entire experience has been a great example of why an alternative is necessary... if the single largest party in the Cosa hadn't voted to stop this bill from steamrolling through, then we would be seeing a bill written and backed by a majority within a day of a controversy forcing through a permanent institutional change!

So what change are you suggesting? Succinctly, if possible. Because to my knowledge there's a lot of talk about temporary majorities and halting change, but not much palatable change being proposed which addressed the issue of an undemocratic veto.

Succinctly: one of the several alternative bills that have been proposed is probably a great place to start. Mine or S:reu Plätschisch's, for example.