[Royal Society] All-Party Debate

[Lüc da Schir]

The biggest concern the MRPT has with the way our political system works is the deliberate exploitation of legislative loopholes by the Monarch in order to overrule the will of 83% of the voters. We fundamentally believe that the monarchy is good for Talossa, but this sort of undemocratic and illiberal behavior (with a (late) justification in the latest (late) Speech from the Throne) is clearly not the way the MRPT would like who should be the figurehead of us all to do his job.

The Moderate Radicals' Ian Platschisch and Magniloqueu da Lhiun were instrumental in the passage of the 3/4 Majority Amendment, which is the MRPT's proposal to ensure the Monarch still has a role in the proclamation of amendments while eliminating that kind of loopholes in the Organic Law. Once again, as with the provinces, the repeatedly bashed upon Moderate Radicals are the ones getting things done in the Ziu, by compromise with the opposition, not confrontation as the rest of the Cabinet wanted us to behave.

The leader of the RUMP stated a couple of hours ago:

While the monarch should still ultimately be accountable to the people -- indeed, the OrgLaw states that he or she derives their power from the democratic grant of the citizens -- it is almost important that the institution be able to serve as a check against the other parts of the government.

We respectfully (partially) disagree. We're monarchists as them, but his statement should be reversed: the monarch should still retain his check powers against the Ziu and the Cabinet, but the most important thing is that the monarch should be accountable to the people, from whom his powers (as the OrgLaw rightfully states) ultimately derive.

We also fundamentally agree that the scope of the Prime Dictates the Prime Minister can proclaim should be reduced; I also personally think that, while a real separation of the executive and the legislative branches is something which is not really achievable in the short term, the MRPT also agrees that the Justiciary should be completely separated from the other branches. Justices should not be able to sit on the Cosa, on the Senate or on the Cabinet, but may still take part in the Civil Service and, most importantly, in other Government-led non-political endeavors like the New Citizens' Committee.

[Miestrâ Schivâ, UrN]

Of course, the issue with the 3/4 Amendment is that the King can just refuse to proclaim that, too. Only naïve optimism will suggest that that won't happen. Meanwhile, the Free Democrat government pushed on to an Uppermost Cort challenge to the King's activity in the first place, rather than meekly accepting that it was constitutional. That is only our only real chance of success. If it doesn't succeed, we are at the mercy of someone who is totally unaccountable and doesn't care what Talossans (except his old buddies) think.

The FreeDems are the only party with constitutional reform at their heart. We are also the only party which refuses to take the word "republic" off the table - although compromise is still possible. Our main constitutional proposal - one which I think has broad support - is a provision allowing the people to prosecute the King for "nonfeasance" - I thank the RUMP leader for that word, which means "not doing his job". Personally, I want to push on and make it apply to Uppermost Cort Justices too. It is far too easy for a Justice bent on sabotage to simply not participate and ruin things that way.

As far as the Cosâ goes, a Real Cosâ of 15-20 members will ensure competitive politics - i.e. it will be possible for the people to exclude badly-performing or non-performing parties and kick MCs out. The current emphasis on "everyone gets a seat" means that there are no penalties for failure. And, in the end, competitive, democratic politics are the only effective check and balance on the unaccountable use of power.

[Sir Alexandreu Davinescu]

S:reu moderator, might I be permitted a rebuttal to the FDT representative?

[Miestrâ Schivâ, UrN]

If he gets to rebut, I get to double-rebut, and the debate will grind to a halt. Next question plz, Mr Moderator.

[Sir Alexandreu Davinescu]

I don't begrudge the FDT leader a response, if she'd like to give one after a rebuttal. S:reu moderator?

[Marti-Pair Furxheir S.H.]

There will be ONE round of rebuttals after the debate.

No counter rebuttals. Order will be fully randomized.

Are we at the last question already?

Let me write it...

[Marti-Pair Furxheir S.H.]

The Fifth Question is unique, and I ALWAYS planned it that way.

For the Fifth Question, each party will get a different question. Shocking twist!

The order is:

RUMP, Free Democrats, Moderate Radicals, Talossan National Congress,


Here are the Questions:

For the RUMP:

The RUMP, back when a lot of its members were active, was considered by it's opposition as being a party lacking the ability to deliver it's promises, whether justified or not isn't the question. The question is: how does the RUMP plan to deliver on it's extensive promise when it appears to lack a sufficient number of active member?

For the Free Democrats:

The Free Democrats are now lead by Lady Miestra Schiva, who has a reputation (whether justified or not) of having a hot temper. Adding to that factor the idea that the Free Democrats plan to not form a coalition, how does the Free Democrats plan to take (keep) control the Ziu after the election?

For the Moderate Radicals:

The current rumor in Talossa (whether justified or not) is that the run for the Seneschal office is between the Free Democrats and the RUMP. Being in a way a third party (no judgement intended), what does the MRPT have to say to a strategic voter unsure how to cast his vote and how does the MRPT feel about this portrayal of a 2 party race?

For the TNC:

The TNC looks from the outside (whether justified or not) as a one man party typical of the past of Talossa, including the Moderator's new PC and the NiH party of the previous election, yet, the TNC attempts to project an image of a favor party and have apparently (again, whether justified or not), dodged questions about it's membership. Considering these rumours, can the TNC explain to us how they hope to create a cabinet should they end up making a majority government

First of all, all my apologies to any party who feel that their question is inadequate.

I have been preparing these question since the day I was rumored for debate leader.

The RUMP, FreeDem and TNC questions all came from direct exchanges which I, as a voter, would have wanted an answer to and which I felt, possibly wrongly, there was no satisfying answer.

The MRPT question however, came from the lack of any such interrogation. The discussion outside of the debate seemed, to my eyes, to either ignore the MRPT in favor of a two party duel, or to focus on the part of the MRPT and/or the fact that the MRPT would be a third party forming a coalition.

I feel like that this question is better than the original one I had planned which was about how the MRPT would act as a third part.

I felt that asking that question and NOT asking it of the other 3 parties was detrimental to the MRPT.

Any of the 4 parties can appeal to me to avoid answering the specific question I have asked.

Instead, they can answer my reserve questions, which WILL dig up dirt, in the interest of the voters...[/quote][/quote]

[Sir Alexandreu Davinescu]

Jan 31, 2016 16:43:36 GMT -6 Marti-Pair Furxheir S.H. said:

The RUMP, back when a lot of its members were active, was considered by it's opposition as being a party lacking the ability to deliver it's promises, whether justified or not isn't the question. The question is: how does the RUMP plan to deliver on it's extensive promise when it appears to lack a sufficient number of active member?

*sigh*

Much ado has been made over a hypothetical lack of RUMPers. I asked Senator Etho Grischun about it, and he wasn't sure why. Neither was Sir Cresti, when I inquired of him, or Pol D'Auribuerg, or Dama Litz Cjantscheir, or Brad Holmes. Sir Trotxa has been posting again lately, and so had Lord Hooligan, so I asked them, too.

Well, we can't figure it out.

Fortunately, in the event that all of these people are sockpuppets, I anticipate we will follow the same RUMP-style Cabinet of talents recently adopted by the Free Democrats -- that's if we're fortunate enough to be forming a government as a lone majority. I anticipate zero difficulty in achieving everything we have promised, and more.

It's time for a change. Vote RUMP!

[Miestrâ Schivâ, UrN]

Oh no, it's absolutely true, I do have a hot temper - particularly against what I consider to be lies and bullying. This is a character flaw which is known to all, even to the Free Democrats of Talossa who elected me leader for this cycle, and told me I was being silly when I offered my resignation.

All I can say is what I already said in my video speech on the subject. I have come to realise that the problem in Talossa is not individuals whom we might think we can punish or shame into behaving how we want; it's "scripts" and behavioural "roles" which we have come to accept as the normal way of doing business in Talossa. We all have to behave with more respect and less knee-jerk hostility in Talossa, and I am attempting to lead by example.

As to "controlling the Ziu" - well, naturally, unless we get a majority government, we'll have to rely on the confidence of other parties, which will have to be based on comity, trust and policy agreement. Without that there won't be a FreeDems government and the question won't arise. There is one party which has made their hostility towards me and the FreeDems clear - and I applaud them for putting that up front in front of the voters. But I have faith that if the FreeDems become the biggest party - which you the voter can help with! - we could put together a stable minority government on the basis of a joint legislative/policy programme.

[Lüc da Schir]

I apologise if I've passed the deadline for answering the question (I'm not sure if I actually have, but just in case); unfortunately Miestra's reply was at 2 AM and I can't reply before I get home in the afternoon.

But anyway:

The current rumor in Talossa (whether justified or not) is that the run for the Seneschal office is between the Free Democrats and the RUMP. Being in a way a third party (no judgement intended), what does the MRPT have to say to a strategic voter unsure how to cast his vote and how does the MRPT feel about this portrayal of a 2 party race?

What I can say is that the Moderate Radicals still are the premier option for liberals, progressives, centrists and moderate monarchists. There is no way the parties you've just named can get an outright majority a month away from today. Whoever gets the most seats on the first of March will need to compromise with us to form a government that can hope to sustain multiple VoCs, and this puts us in a position of strength, where we can negotiate and implement points of our agenda even outside of the Cabinet. I have already outlined our legislative accomplishments in the last Cosa (and the Cosas before that), and you can rest assured that they will keep coming.

Two party races are just deleterious to the political situation of Talossa. Picture a Ziu dominated by the Davinescu vs Schiva rivalry, with both parties with 80+ seats in the Cosa. Is there any chance of compromise, cross-party dialogue and endeavors that way? Wouldn't we be headed towards the animosity that characterizes the parliamentary politics of our bigger neighbor? The Moderate Radical Party is the only political force that can prevent Talossa and the Ziu from falling in a pit of confrontation and antagonism. Voting Moderate Radical would not be wasting your vote. Voting Moderate Radical would be voting for an experienced team of legislators who have consistently gotten things done in the Ziu. If you are for liberalism, progressive politics, provincial reform and moderate monarchism, the Moderate Radical Party of Talossa is the party that has consistently delivered just that.

[Breneir Itravilatx]

This will be my fourth time answering this question.

Our Cosa list now has three public members and we have an additional two members who are mostly non-Witt users. We received two positive responses from our platform email and I count them as supporters but do not know how they will eventually vote. Do we have a FULL slate? No we do not. We are a new and small party but we were founded with the goal of participating in COALITION government in the belief that cooperation and compromise produce stable and productive governments. Should voters place their trust in us then we will build a coalition cabinet (we hope of three parties) to achieve an agreed raft of goals based on necessary compromises.

The failures of the previous Government were not due to the absence of a “full slate” and are not a sign of the inherent unworkability of coalitions rather they are instructive on the importance of accountability with respect to its participants. I do understand the desire for some participants in the last Government to avoid such a discussion but when these failures occurred there simply was no accountability. I respect the leader of the Moderate Radicals because he took responsibility and refrained from aggressive posturing and blame. He has even proposed that the Moderate Radicals take time out of Government and rebuild. This sober, reasonable and humble response to difficult circumstances and disappointment is the kind of maturity that Talossans deserve and we look forward to working with them in future.

I started the TNC in a spirit of hope and optimism and when we published our platform I was ready and truly excited to discuss the ideas and goals in this platform. I was deeply insulted and angered, as a party leader and for my party’s members, when our small numbers were used to denigrate our party’s capabilities and even motivations. This “teasing” spread to multiple threads and in response to this bullying and as someone who suffered vicious bullying as a black gay kid in rural Kentucky I did now what I did then. I responded forcefully, firmly and did not back down. Any person or group should know that if you take teasing, condescension and passive-aggressiveness as appropriate “styles” of communication then you will reap what you sow in the form of my “aggressive” responses. I will defend the integrity of myself and my party and if you do not deal with respect and cordiality with me and others then do not expect to receive it from me.

For voters, we will announce our coalition preferences soon to let you know who we hope to work with. Please read our platform and know that we will work with other parties after the election to actuate a program of action that moves Talossa forward. Soon, should you gift us with the privilege, you will know what an accountable and effective cabinet of the talents really looks like.

[Marti-Pair Furxheir S.H.]

Now will be the time for the rebuttals...

Each party will get to rebute ONE answer from ONE question, from ONE party.

For example: "This is a rebuttal to the MRPT answer's on the 2nd question".

This is the only rebuttal you will get, so choose wisely.

The order was picked by a random dice roll, but I forgot to film it, sorry..


The order is:

MRPT, RUMP, TNC, Free Democrat.

I used a D8 and picked the MRPT. (2 digits per party)

I then used a D6 and picked the RUMP. (2 digits per party)

I then used the D8 again (I love those), and 1-4 was the Free Democract, and 5-8 the TNC. I rolled a 7.

Hence the order.

The MRPT has until 8H00 AM TST tomorrow morning to answer.

[Sir Alexandreu Davinescu]

Will there be closing statements afterwards?

[Marti-Pair Furxheir S.H.]

Feb 1, 2016 14:25:18 GMT -6 Sir Alexandreu Davinescu said:

Will there be closing statements afterwards?

Good point... they will be in reverse order of the Rebuttals.

[Lüc da Schir]

I had at least two choices for my rebuttal, but as I can only make one of them I have chosen the RUMP's fourth answer. Particularly, the piece on the monarchy:

Jan 30, 2016 21:55:59 GMT -6 Sir Alexandreu Davinescu said:

We also need to take a look at the monarchy. Like most people, I opposed the blanket veto that the monarch held over all referenda, by refusing to proclaim them. We're fortunate that we found a workable compromise in the 3/4 Majority Amendment. But at this point, we should consider further reforms to help maintain the monarch's important role in the country as an active figure. As I said in the M-M debate recently, the monarch provides the benefits of a stable and removed presence to both guide the nation and to serve as a cultural touchpoint. Particularly in such a small and volatile country as ours, this is important. Talossa has the potential to be utterly transformed in a short span, making it difficult to form deep attachments or traditions, and a strong and independent monarch is one of the only protections against mercuric election cycles. While the monarch should still ultimately be accountable to the people -- indeed, the OrgLaw states that he or she derives their power from the democratic grant of the citizens -- it is almost important that the institution be able to serve as a check against the other parts of the government.

I take issue with your suggestion that you actually "opposed the blanket veto that the monarch held over all referenda" etc. etc., unless you call this "opposing" the limitless power by the King to stomp on the will of the 83% of the voters, the 100% of the Cosa and the 100% of the Senate. But never mind that, as you have apparently supported the 3/4 Majority Amendment, later on, a bill that had a quite extensive Moderate Radical contribution in it. You have furthermore bashed the Moderate Radicals for not being "true Monarchists", as our Manifesto includes pledges to reduce the Monarchy's powers to make it more acceptable to the less conservative parts of Talossa's citizenry (and fun fact, it was in our manifesto way before the Proclamation Crisis). Yet, you have once again mentioned yourself that we should consider reforming the monarchy even further, but once again as well you fail to mention which kind of reforms you would like to make happen.

You might think that the Proclamation Crisis has turned us into firebrand republicans, but nothing could be farther from the truth. We still are steadfast monarchists, we just want to ensure our monarch (or as he apparently now goes by, Talossa's Town Curmudgeon) doesn't forget where does his power come from. I'm not particularly fond of superhero movies, but there was a quote in The Dark Knight, "You either die a hero, or you live long enough to see yourself become the villain.": did his almost ten years long reign make John forget what happened to his predecessor's grandfather?

Sir Alexandreu, should you be asked to form a government after March 1st, would you expect to receive the support of the Moderate Radical MCs if you failed once again to pledge to get your party to take meaningful steps to reduce the illiberal and undemocratic powers of the monarch?