Speech from the Throne, Independence Day, 2015/xxxvii

[Sir Alexandreu Davinescu]

Jan 2, 2016 14:35:10 GMT -6 Miestrâ Schivâ, UrN said:

The 2/3 Majority Amendment, which I believe will be proclaimed without trouble

You mean "3/4 Majority". Why do you believe that? The King has said that he treasures his absolute veto over OrgLaw reforms. What makes you think he will make any concessions? He didn't give us any warning he would trash 48RZ27, just to fire a shot across the Govt's bows.

The Monarch is no bastion of stability or continuity if he doesn't do his job. I think that you can make an argument for a monarchy, but no longer one for this monarch. He's like Honey Badger now.

Yes, 3/4 Majority Amendment, thank you

And actually, I think you're forgetting the exact stated purpose of the whole Proclamation Crisis thing. It was not sprung on some important bit of law... indeed, His Majesty specifically picked (a) something that had gotten widespread multipartisan support, so that he wouldn't seem to be favouring any particular party, and (b) something that was chosen specifically because it was not very important. He chose a conspicuously unimportant change in order to affirmatively assert what he saw as his rights, that way the country wouldn't be held up on something actually important -- like a change to the election laws or the like. He did that exactly so that Talossa could sort through this balance of powers and come to a good solution. I think we've done that... it's less than I might have wanted, but that's because it's a compromise bill. In light of all that, I think His Majesty will probably proclaim the change.

[Miestrâ Schivâ, UrN]

Well, you know what would make that pleasant story much more believable? If his Colorado Majesty were to say - in public, for preference, or even telling you in private so you could tell us - "I will proclaim 48RZ14 if it passes". You think that that could possibly happen? It would put a lot of people's minds at ease...

[Sir Alexandreu Davinescu]

I have asked him to say as much, either way... so I agree on that, as far as it goes. Maybe he hasn't made up his mind? I don't know what's going on now with him, although he had been pretty busy before with weddings and such. I hope he becomes more visible and active in the future, and I'm going to do whatever I can to encourage that.

[Miestrâ Schivâ, UrN]

I have asked him to say as much, either way... so I agree on that, as far as it goes. Maybe he hasn't made up his mind?

The latter possibility is, in itself, just as terrifying to democrats as it would if he'd already decided to send it the same way as 47RZ28. I ask you to consider the possibility that the King's heart is no longer in the job; and that it may be possible to defend the monarchy, but no longer this monarch.

[Sir Alexandreu Davinescu]

Well, as a monarchist, if the King's heart isn't in the job, I feel that I'm going to help try to fix that... not sack the man because he's not as active as I would like. "Thank you for helping save the country in a moment of crisis, and for accepting a lifelong responsibility that will oblige you to endure relentless criticism, but you've been too quiet these past couple of years so we're giving you the boot, sorry." He made a commitment to Talossa of staggering breadth. I mean, sheesh... just ask any former Seneschal how heavy the burden of that responsibility can be... and they only serve for seven months! Just look at how people like Tim speak to His Majesty at every turn, and imagine being willing to accept that for life.

That said, it is my fond wish that he will proclaim the 3/4 Majority Amendment and become more active, and I will do what I can to make that a reality.

[Ian Plätschisch]

Jan 2, 2016 13:22:02 GMT -6 Miestrâ Schivâ, UrN said:

Jan 2, 2016 8:44:10 GMT -6 Ian Plätschisch said:

The law is clear, but this is disgusting

And now you begin to see the case for serious OrgLaw reform, I hope.

We just need some safeguards in case the King forgets or otherwise fails to do his job.

And besides, I did introduce a serious reform, and now you are asking for it to be enjoined from going to referendum. 

[Miestrâ Schivâ, UrN]

You understand why, right? If the Government loses the Cort case, I want it to go to referendum, and I will campaign for it.

[Ian Plätschisch]

Jan 3, 2016 0:13:38 GMT -6 Miestrâ Schivâ, UrN said:

You understand why, right? If the Government loses the Cort case, I want it to go to referendum, and I will campaign for it.

Yes, I understand why.  I read the brief!  Doesn't take a lawyer to understand it.

I have two reservations;

1) What if the Cort issues an injunction, the election goes by, and then Cort rules against the government?
2) Personally, I think the King ought to have some role in the amendment process.  He has a role in the making of statuary law, after all, so it seems logical.  However, this is a matter of opinion, so less concerning than the first point.

[Miestrâ Schivâ, UrN]

1) What if the Cort issues an injunction, the election goes by, and then Cort rules against the government?

a) This is an excellent reason for the Cort to hurry the hell up!
b) I would want the Chancery to put 48RZ14 to referendum the instant a negative verdict in the case is received, no matter if it's between elections.

Thanks for your compliments on my brief writing, btw. I was trying to go for something that would be legally tight but still accessible to Not-A-Lawyers, like myself.

[Ian Plätschisch]

Jan 3, 2016 0:23:31 GMT -6 Miestrâ Schivâ, UrN said:

1) What if the Cort issues an injunction, the election goes by, and then Cort rules against the government?

a) This is an excellent reason for the Cort to hurry the hell up!
b) I would want the Chancery to put 48RZ14 to referendum the instant a negative verdict in the case is received, no matter if it's between elections.

Thanks for your compliments on my brief writing, btw. I was trying to go for something that would be legally tight but still accessible to Not-A-Lawyers, like myself.

As to point A, while I agree in principle, I'm not holding my breath.

As to point B, you said in your brief that an injunction to the SoS would involve returning the amendment to the Ziu, so it would not be as easy as you describe, unless I misunderstood.

In the case the government wins, I will still reintroduce the amendment for the reasons I laid out in my previous post

[Colonel Mximo Carbonèl]

NO MORE KING, NO MORE KING!!!

JOIN US IN A RALLY ... on JANUARY 15th... Here on the Witt.

If their is to be a new governement, this governement most be for the people no for a King Ben II.

NO MORE KING , NO MORE KING !!!!

[Miestrâ Schivâ, UrN]

Max, just to remind you - EVERY SINGLE PARTY part from the Free Democrats (and your splinter group) supports and loves the King and the current monarchy in all its dysfunctional detail.

[Renalt da Fhamul]

I believe this is getting a tad bit out of hand, I have said it before and will say it again, we must not have another spilt... need I remind you of the "republic of Talossa"? I and most other Talossans, however displeased by resent events, strongly support a king. By saying "NO MORE KING" you are causing a devide. We must stay united. Even if, by some off chance, a party forms with the plan to oust the king the only thing that will happen is that we will fight with ourselves! What is your plan? You will never get enough votes in the cosa to oust the king! Is that your plan? We must think rational! You even are mocking the king, calling him "King Ben II". This is madness... In all my days I never thought that this would happen! Open rebellion! You are the minority! Do you plan to reform the republic?

[Miestrâ Schivâ, UrN]

Renault, please make it plain that you are referring to Col. Mximo el Extremistà Moart-Dureu with your above comments, not me.

The pearl-clutching is unnecessary - Max is allowed to express his extremist die-hard views, which have not changed in a while. But let me be clear: no-one but no-one in the ZRT, let alone the wider Free Democrats, wants a return to the National Schism of 2004-12. I don´t really think Max does either (especially since he was a royalist at the time!!!), so you're doing him a disservice. But something is rotten in this country now and needs fixing.

[C. Carlüs Xheraltescù]

Jan 3, 2016 15:08:29 GMT -6 Renalt da Fhamul said:

I believe this is getting a tad bit out of hand, I have said it before and will say it again, we must not have another spilt... need I remind you of the "republic of Talossa"? I and most other Talossans, however displeased by resent events, strongly support a king. By saying "NO MORE KING" you are causing a devide. We must stay united. Even if, by some off chance, a party forms with the plan to oust the king the only thing that will happen is that we will fight with ourselves! What is your plan? You will never get enough votes in the cosa to oust the king! Is that your plan? We must think rational! You even are mocking the king, calling him "King Ben II". This is madness... In all my days I never thought that this would happen! Open rebellion! You are the minority! Do you plan to reform the republic?

I have no desire to return to the post-reunision politics *either* whereby people who held genuinely republican beliefs were labelled as disloyal, and that we should shut up about republicanism because it had lost. There's nothing wrong with republicanism, just as there's nothing wrong with holding a sincere belief in constitutional monarchism. Let's try to avoid calling political demonstrations rebellions, no matter how... out there Colonal Carbonara might be.