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 Dec 15, 2018 12:34:09 GMT -6
A new Article 5 be added to Chapter II to read:
|
|
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 Dec 15, 2018 16:36:00 GMT -6
A new Article 5 be added to Chapter II to read: Why?
|
|
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 Dec 16, 2018 6:10:24 GMT -6
I'm just restoring text from the current OrgLaw, with some changes. Look, I know the current Privy Council, as far as we know, has hardly ever met in recent times. It's understandable, since it got appointed more than ten years ago, when Dan L was still around, and Q and Fritz were both active (they had just ceased to serve on the Senate); today, Q is the only Counsellor that sometimes visits Witt around the electoral season.
The King needs to at least have the option to be advised regarding the current situation of the Realm - and if he doesn't want to, that's fine and I'll be proven wrong; I suspect that a number of "Letters to the King", issued at certain times during the last couple of years or so, could very well have saved us some headaches. We're certainly not going to see him around more, or issue less "surprise vetos", by isolating him from public life and taking away the tools he has.
The fact we're rewriting the OrgLaw is, IMO, no reason to abolish the Privy Council. If anything, we should seek to revamp it - obviously not by giving it additional powers, but by enticing John to actually use it as a board of advisors, through providing for yearly reappointments and broadening the pool of potential Councillors.
As a minor additional point, he did veto bills that took away from his royal prerogatives in the past; I suspect that submitting a bill to that aim again, and with an office that is essentially powerless, will do no good on that front.
|
|
Ian Plätschisch
Senator for Maritiimi-Maxhestic
Posts: 4,001
Talossan Since: 3-21-2015
|
Post by Ian Plätschisch on Dec 16, 2018 7:20:21 GMT -6
The reason it was taken out is not because we want to abolish it, but because it could easily be established by statute or by the King himself with no law whatsoever.
|
|
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 Dec 16, 2018 15:12:27 GMT -6
The King needs to at least have the option to be advised regarding the current situation of the Realm Surely that's what the elected government is for?
|
|
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 Dec 17, 2018 6:20:11 GMT -6
The reason it was taken out is not because we want to abolish it, but because it could easily be established by statute or by the King himself with no law whatsoever. I suspected that could have been the case*, but: a) it's hardly a piece of legislation that is going to be frequently amended; b) by nature, the definition of a deliberative assembly should probably be in the OrgLaw rather than in statutory law; c) I would strongly advise against estabilishing anything pertaining to the organization of the State without a law; which is not intended to mean that everything should be carried out by passing legislation;
d) Last but not least, stripping the PC entirely would leave the current PC in a limbo. Is it still there? Is it abolished? Nobody knows!
* - although Miestra's comment, which I respect and is understandable from her own perspective, makes me think that the FreeDems would not support the provision being inserted in the draft on ideological grounds. Surely she would not question why this amendment is needed, if the Government's intention was to retain the Privy Council through supplementary legislation?
The King needs to at least have the option to be advised regarding the current situation of the Realm Surely that's what the elected government is for? A valid point, but the government is a political body, while the Privy Council is not. The King can't (de facto) choose who sits in the Cabinet, while he can appoint a Privy Coucil as he pleases.
|
|
Ian Plätschisch
Senator for Maritiimi-Maxhestic
Posts: 4,001
Talossan Since: 3-21-2015
|
Post by Ian Plätschisch on Dec 17, 2018 12:05:58 GMT -6
a) I agree with you there, but it still doesn't seem important enough to be in the OrgLaw. At the very least, I think all the truly important content could be condensed into a single section.
b) I would hardly call the Privy Council a deliberative body since they can't enact anything binding. All they can do is advise the King on an informal basis, which anyone can already do anyway.
c) Again, I don't think the Privy Council is integral to the organization of the state.
d) The Councillors could be retained at the pleasure of the Monarch, who could, again, maintain it without any establishing law.
|
|