Why We Must Oppose the Proposed Constitution

[Miestrâ Schivâ, UrN]

Feb 12, 2019 22:15:50 GMT -6 Sir Alexandreu Davinescu said:

At least one province will reject it, and it must get 2/3 within each one.

You're just pulling things out of your ciùl now. Explain how XV:5 applies to the New Draft.

The king will hopefully veto the proposal if it passes

Yeah, it must be great for people whose politics are summed up by "spoiling other people's efforts to do anything" to have a Head of State of similar mind. I would think you'd have the decency to be embarrassed rather than smug about that, though.

[Ián Tamorán S.H.]

Feb 12, 2019 22:15:50 GMT -6 Sir Alexandreu Davinescu said:

Well, hopefully the proposed constitution won't pass the Ziu. Even you agree that it has a bunch of flaws. But if it does pass the Ziu, I don't think it will pass referendum. At least one province will reject it, and it must get 2/3 within each one. But then, we're talking about like a year from now. The king will hopefully veto the proposal if it passes, after all, which sets it back to the next term. And that also again raises the question of why not set a due date months from now, rather than rushing this through in two months, only to have it sit in abeyance all of next term?

There is still, I believe, some discussion as to whether the monarch has the power to veto, as opposed to the power to delay. In the context of this particular constitutional change, delay is not necessarily bad - but that is all it is: delay not refusal. Delay gives even more opportunity for thought, but need not change the outcome.

[Ián Tamorán S.H.]

Feb 12, 2019 21:31:05 GMT -6 Sir Alexandreu Davinescu said:

Honestly, I think that something big might have been possible if this whole thing hadn't been rushed. The timeline presented made it virtually impossible to produce an error-free and bug-free proposal, even if everyone involved had been on board the whole time. But with so few people working on a document in such a small time, and with so few skeptics, it was a monumental challenge.

Someday, maybe you'd be open to trying again?

Hmmm. You possibly have no real knowledge of computer programming, which teaches you that nothing can be bug free, no matter what the timeline. In computing there is testing, and if the product does not pass the tests or throws up some unexpected effects, then it is corrected. The same can be true with laws. Even if the laws dictate that there can be no change to them, there is always the option of revolution.

[Sir Alexandreu Davinescu]

Feb 13, 2019 1:40:00 GMT -6 Miestrâ Schivâ, UrN said:

You're just pulling things out of your ciùl now. Explain how XV:5 applies to the New Draft.

I decline to do so at this time, sorry.

[Sir Alexandreu Davinescu]

Feb 13, 2019 3:44:53 GMT -6 Ián Tamorán S.H. said:

There is still, I believe, some discussion as to whether the monarch has the power to veto, as opposed to the power to delay. In the context of this particular constitutional change, delay is not necessarily bad - but that is all it is: delay not refusal. Delay gives even more opportunity for thought, but need not change the outcome.

Indeed! Thank you! Proposing a flawed and controversial new constitution on the last Clark may not change the outcome at all, but it does mean that if the bills do get vetoed, we might just be looking at seven months of slack time when it comes to real reform while we wait for a referendum. If this had been proposed two or three months into the next term, then we'd have had literally three times as long to work on it (and maybe they would have caught the serious errors they now acknowledge) and it would take effect no later (should it pass). Haste makes waste.

Feb 13, 2019 3:50:04 GMT -6 Ián Tamorán S.H. said:

Hmmm. You possibly have no real knowledge of computer programming, which teaches you that nothing can be bug free, no matter what the timeline. In computing there is testing, and if the product does not pass the tests or throws up some unexpected effects, then it is corrected. The same can be true with laws. Even if the laws dictate that there can be no change to them, there is always the option of revolution.

10 PRINT "You are incorrect, simple and clear things can be bug-free, such as this perfect BASIC program."
20 PRINT "However, you are right in that the most deeply complex and difficult things, such as constitutions, require years of testing and perfection."
30 PRINT "I would suggest that it's ideal to run a government under a constitution for twenty years or so, perfecting it as necessary."
40 PRINT "Another good argument for not trashing our 1997 OrgLaw!"
50 GOTO 40

[Sir Alexandreu Davinescu]

Presented without further comment.

Feb 13, 2019 4:55:35 GMT -6 Lüc da Schir said:

JOINT STATEMENT by the Government of Talossa and Lüc da Schir, Senator from Benito

Hear Ye, the following:

1. We acknowledge that some important points concerning RZ19, the New Draft of the Organic Law, have been raised since this bill was Clarked. We think it is unfortunate that they were not raised during the Constitutional Convocation, but a good point is a good point whenever it was raised.

2. We recognize that certain functions of the Monarch which were left out of the New Draft are important ones to many Talossans, and that there should be guarantees that they will not simply be erased, even if left out of the Organic Law.

3. Notwithstanding the above, the New Draft as a skeleton and a broad outline is significantly superior to the existing 1997 Organic Law structure, and deserves on balance to be enacted, if assurances can be given that lately discovered issues will be dealt with before it comes into effect.

---

THEREFORE Senator da Schir is now undertaking to vote PER on RZ19, on the understanding that if RZ19 is enacted by the Ziu and by Referendum, the current Government will support the following in the next Ziu:

a) a Joint Committee, composed of all Senators and a number of MCs roughly proportional to each party's strength in the Cosa, to propose fixes and amendments to the new OrgLaw, to be enacted if possible before it comes into effect;

b) a Royal House Law to be added to El Lexhátx, codifying prerogatives of the Monarchy such as the Privy Council, heraldry, titles and pardons.

Released today, February 13th 2019/XL,

The Mençei and HM's Government

[Miestrâ Schivâ, UrN]

An excellent initiative from Lüc! This is how people who don't like a government proposal can work with the government to reach an acceptable compromise; not by grandstanding, bogus legal challenges, and campaigns of Fear, Uncertainty and Doubt.

---

Can I just warn the RUMP/Davinescù faction that, assuming RZ19 passes the Ziu, the threatened Royal veto combined with the current attempt to rig the referendum on it would be a massive electoral advantage for the Free Democrats in the upcoming election.

The election then becomes a clear choice between "letting the people have their say" and "unaccountable Royal power and bogus lawyering preventing the people having their say". Democracy; or a country where not only is the King's veto wielded in a partisan manner, but one opposition MP who fancies himself a lawyer and has strong skills in trolling and obstruction can stop anything happening that he doesn't approve of.

You can make an argument for the King having a veto; not for AD having a veto. Because, let's face it, what this boils down to is that RUMP/Davinescù want to live in a country where nothing can change unless it has RUMP/Davinescú's approval. They are prepared to use any means, up to and including actual defamation, to make this happen, to make arguing with them too dirty and not worth bothering with. And then they have the nerve to wonder why the country becomes stagnant.

[Sir Alexandreu Davinescu]

I do not have a veto and have no power to rig anything. I am just an ordinary MC with a handful of seats and the ability to read the OrgLaw, think things through, and voice my opinion.

I persuade in the public square, the chambers of the Ziu, and the courtroom. To the extent that I am ever successful, it is because I am often lucky in the facts. It does not take a great deal of brilliance to persuade others that the house is on fire; it just requires pointing out the smoke.

I am grateful that our system allows even those with relatively little power to speak their minds against those in charge.

[Miestrâ Schivâ, UrN]

Feb 13, 2019 14:49:11 GMT -6 Sir Alexandreu Davinescu said:

I do not have a veto and have no power to rig anything. I am just an ordinary MC with a handful of seats and the ability to read the OrgLaw, think things through, and voice my opinion.

You are admittedly highly skilled in whipping up plausible sounding worst-case scenarios to stir up Fear, Uncertainty and Doubt - perhaps you could take a job at Microsoft or Philip Morris. You are also a demagogue who uses trolling, defamation and bogus legal challenges to intimidate and infuriate your opponents and to make them give up the struggle in disgust. I don't forget the way you actually drove me away from Talossa for 6 months because I was being made physically ill by your bogus legal challenges / accusations of corruption re: the Proclamation Crisis. But you eventually lost that battle. So I persevere.

[Sir Alexandreu Davinescu]

It is indeed the job of a responsible legislator to anticipate negative consequences. The failure to do so is a large part of the reason why the proposed constitution has so many flaws.

[Miestrâ Schivâ, UrN]

Speaking only for myself, but let's put it this way - if RZ19 fails in the Ziu, or to pass a referendum - I will be minded to accept the result and take other routes to OrgLaw reform in the next Ziu, depending on how the election turns out.

If it fails because the King refused to let the people have its say, then, as the kids apparently say, it's on like Donkey Kong.

[Sir Alexandreu Davinescu]

I, too, would prefer that the proposal be rejected by the Ziu.