|
|
Post by Munditenens Tresplet on Dec 10, 2012 20:22:50 GMT -6
If it is legal then why do we need to report it? It is legal to own Boeing stock in the US, but you'll find yourself in big trouble if you get yourself appointed as a procurement official responsible for an Air Force tanker jet contract without reporting that financial interest. It is legal to be a dual citizen, but if you want a job with, say, the State Department or the CIA, they'll certainly want to know about it. And while no one can force you to sell the stock or renounce the non-US citizenship, failing to do so could affect your prospects of receiving certain positions of public trust. Because such relationships can create the possibility of a conflict of interest that could affect the performance of your official duties, so the public has a right to expect disclosure of such relationships prior to entrusting you with governmental authority. But the difference between all those scenarios you described and this one is huge--America cannot all of the sudden outlaw owning Boeing stock for example, while Talossa can all of the sudden outlaw being a dual citizen with another nation. It is simply compiling a list of everyone for use in a witch-hunt by future Cosas. Are you guaranteeing that the list would never be used for discriminatory purposes? Of course not; it would be impossible to do so. In addition, only recently did the US Congress require disclosure of securities by congressmen; in the past, this wasn't required. For that matter, it isn't even required for running for office, only a requirement once one is in office. True, it would be a form of lying to the people if there were a conflict-of-interest, but that isn't something that a government mandate should step in and correct. |
|
Sir C. M. Siervicül
Posts: 9,636
Talossan Since: 8-13-2005
Knight Since: 7-28-2007
Motto: Nonnisi Deo serviendum
|
Post by Sir C. M. Siervicül on Dec 10, 2012 22:08:08 GMT -6
Even if you repeal the Semi-Permeable Wall Act, nothing can guarantee that a future Ziu will not ban micronational citizenship unless you put a right to micronational citizenship into the Covenant of Rights and Freedoms. And that's just not going to happen. And enough Talossans are concerned about the potential influence of micronational on Talossa that I don't think an absolutist "participation in micronations by Talossan citizens must not in any way be discouraged or inconvenienced" stance is politically realistic, either. Any change to current law, if it is to happen at all, will have to be a compromise of some sort.
|
|
Sir C. M. Siervicül
Posts: 9,636
Talossan Since: 8-13-2005
Knight Since: 7-28-2007
Motto: Nonnisi Deo serviendum
|
Post by Sir C. M. Siervicül on Dec 10, 2012 22:12:49 GMT -6
There is no such person or office as the Queen of England. Speaker 1: "Incorrect. There is no such person, because Francis II, King of England, France, Scotland, and Ireland, has no wife. However, there obviously is such an office, because if he married, there would be one." Speaker 2: "Also incorrect. He's disbarred because Maria Beatrice of Savoy's marriage was illegal under both English and Scottish law, despite the papal dispensation. Thus there is both such an office and person, Queen Alice, Queen of England, France, Scotland, and Ireland." Speaker 3: "Quite right! It's not a person OR an office; it's a band. And they will, they will rock you." |
|
Capt. Sir Mick Preston
Capitán of the Zouaves
Posts: 6,511
Talossan Since: 9-21-2006
Knight Since: 10-12-2010
Motto: Cuimhnichibh air na daoine bho'n d'thainig sibh
|
Post by Capt. Sir Mick Preston on Dec 10, 2012 22:42:16 GMT -6
Speaker 1: "Incorrect. There is no such person, because Francis II, King of England, France, Scotland, and Ireland, has no wife. However, there obviously is such an office, because if he married, there would be one." Speaker 2: "Also incorrect. He's disbarred because Maria Beatrice of Savoy's marriage was illegal under both English and Scottish law, despite the papal dispensation. Thus there is both such an office and person, Queen Alice, Queen of England, France, Scotland, and Ireland." Speaker 3: "Quite right! It's not a person OR an office; it's a band. And they will, they will rock you."  ROCK ON, Sir Cresti Dude! |
|
|
|
Post by Ián B. Anglatzarâ on Dec 11, 2012 2:25:50 GMT -6
Any change to current law, if it is to happen at all, will have to be a compromise of some sort. Which I would be fine with. I certainly think almost all other micronations I've seen to be immature and a distraction for Talossa. I just think it's disgraceful to outlaw participation in them. |
|
|
|
Post by Eðo Grischun on Dec 11, 2012 5:51:06 GMT -6
Any change to current law, if it is to happen at all, will have to be a compromise of some sort. Which I would be fine with. I certainly think almost all other micronations I've seen to be immature and a distraction for Talossa. I just think it's disgraceful to outlaw participation in them. I find myself in complete agreement with the Senator. I made a statement a few months ago along the lines of "I don't care". I still don't. I honestly do not care if some Talossan citizens want to go join some smaller or similar to Talossa micronations. I don't care if some Talossans want to go form a new micronation in their own personal time as some kind of experiment or game. I really don't care if a prospective shows up already being a member of one or more other micronations. As it stands we won't allow such a prospective to join Talossa. I don't care if certain Talossans want to play around in the peculiar state of Dragon Isle! So what if Citizen X joins a micronation and somehow spends less time or effort towards Talossa because of it? I play emulators on this machine. Are we going to ban Oddworld and Grand Theft Auto roms because they obviously distract me from my Talossan duties? The bottom line is that Talossan law is infringing upon the personal freedom of her citizens. This can not go on any longer. It is high time to end the paranoia and selfish nature of these laws. I'm standing beside Tamoran this morning - Tear down the wall and let Talossan citizens do whatever they want in their own free time. Our laws need only control the actions of citizens within Talossa. [/end morning crankiness...perhaps.] |
|
|
|
Post by Eiric S. Börnatfiglheu on Dec 11, 2012 9:13:12 GMT -6
Though I have no legislative standing, I heartily endorse S:reu Grischun, Tamoran, and Anglatzarâ's statements.
|
|
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 11, 2012 13:46:58 GMT -6
If the issue is the word "participate", we can turn it into "be a citizen", but there's still a problem concerning how to define a level of involvement into a micronation.
Example: me and some friends have founded the Republic of Lucania three years ago. I renounced my citizenship according to the Semi-Permeable Wall act, but I still hold (as honorary title) the position of Lifetime Senator, awarded me by the former President De Luca before my announce.
I am currently respecting Talossa's Statutory Law voting "present" to any act except the VoC, on which I must express an opinion (usually voting yes).
Now, the current President, mr. Bragagnolo, asked me to form a caretaker government because of no possibility of forming any other in our 9-seats-Senate (my sister lost the majority just a couple of weeks ago). I rejected, obviously, and Bragagnolo called for new elections. According to this act, am I entitled to accept that offer?
|
|
Istefan Perþonest
Cunstaval to Fiôvâ; Regent of the University of Talossa
Posts: 1,024
Talossan Since: 2-21-1998
|
Post by Istefan Perþonest on Dec 11, 2012 19:33:27 GMT -6
Speaker 1: "Incorrect. There is no such person, because Francis II, King of England, France, Scotland, and Ireland, has no wife. However, there obviously is such an office, because if he married, there would be one." Speaker 2: "Also incorrect. He's disbarred because Maria Beatrice of Savoy's marriage was illegal under both English and Scottish law, despite the papal dispensation. Thus there is both such an office and person, Queen Alice, Queen of England, France, Scotland, and Ireland." ...assuming you consider the various Jacobite pretenders to be valid... I thought we dealt with you guys in 1745. I for one welcome our new Hanoverian overlords. Speaker 1: "It was established above, quite conclusively, that Queen Elizabeth isn't Queen of England, or of France, or of Scotland, or of Ireland. So there's no Hanoverian/Saxe-Coburg-Gotha/Windsor claimant to any of the four thrones to dispute the Jacobite succession." Speaker 2: "Exactly. The only remotely plausible challengers to any of the Jacobite claims left are the people who pretend Salic law should have interfered with the proper Capet succession in France." Speaker 3: "Um, wait, if you ignore Salic law entirely, then then the French throne would have gone to Joan of Navarre, and her heirs-general, instead of to Edward III through Charles IV. And the heirs-general of Joan of Navarre are, in fact, the Bourbons." Speaker 1: "Quiet, you!" Speaker 2: "Actually, he has a point." Speaker 1: "Traitor!" |
|
Sir C. M. Siervicül
Posts: 9,636
Talossan Since: 8-13-2005
Knight Since: 7-28-2007
Motto: Nonnisi Deo serviendum
|
Post by Sir C. M. Siervicül on Dec 11, 2012 19:58:26 GMT -6
1) the definition of "micronation" must be tested against France (which is clearly not a micronation), Penguinea (which is, or was), and Taiwan, Vatican City, South Sudan and Palestine. You might like to include Switzerland, Guernsey, The Isle of Mann, Kingston upon Hull and Sealand in that list too - as each of these could (under the above definition in this proposed act) possibly fall in to the category of "micronation" Might as well apply this test -- France: not a micronation (UN member) Penguinea: micronation Taiwan: not a micronation (recognised by Talossa and member of UNPO) Vatican/Holy See: micronation (but if a Talossan citizen actually stood to gain Vatican citizenship, I have little doubt recognition or at least whitelisting could be achieved) South Sudan: not a micronation (UN member) Palestine: micronation (although adding UN observer states to the non-micronation list would probably be fairly uncontroversial, and would also solve the Vatican problem) Switzerland: not a micronation (UN member) Guernsey: not a micronation (no separate citizenship; residents have British citizenship) Isle of Man: not a micronation (ditto Guernsey) Kingston Upon Hull: not a micronation (city of the UK that does not claim independence --were you thinking of Hay-on-Wye?) Sealand: micronation |
|
|
|
Post by Adam H. on Dec 12, 2012 1:07:26 GMT -6
Adding observer states of UN(Vatican and Palestine) and maybe Cook Islands and Niue as non-micronations should be better than micronations. But what with Order of Malta? 103 UN members and Vatican maintains diplomatic relations. 6 other UN members maintains official non-diplomatic relations. European Union and Palestine exchange ambassadors.Mongolia accepts their stamps. And other countries (except Netherlands,Finland,Sweden,Iceland and Greece) accept their passports. And as I know it is also observer of UN and other international organisations.
|
|
|
|
Post by Vitxalmour Estinc-Vatna on Dec 12, 2012 19:33:16 GMT -6
So lets get this straight. If I were a citizen of another micronation, I couldn't be Talossan? And if I become Talossan, the Kingdom government is going to tell me what I can and can't do?
|
|
Glüc da Dhi
Secretary of State
Posts: 6,112
Talossan Since: 5-14-2009
|
Post by Glüc da Dhi on Dec 12, 2012 19:36:53 GMT -6
sadly, yes.
|
|
Dr. Txec dal Nordselvă
Puisne (Associate) Justice of the Uppermost Court
Fraichetz dels punts, es non dels mürs
Posts: 4,063
Talossan Since: 9-23-2012
|
Post by Dr. Txec dal Nordselvă on Dec 12, 2012 19:36:59 GMT -6
So lets get this straight. If I were a citizen of another micronation, I couldn't be Talossan? And if I become Talossan, the Kingdom government is going to tell me what I can and can't do? Thus the reason why we are debating a significant change. Good to see a brand new prospective jumping in to the fray! |
|
Glüc da Dhi
Secretary of State
Posts: 6,112
Talossan Since: 5-14-2009
|
Post by Glüc da Dhi on Dec 12, 2012 19:41:00 GMT -6
4. If the appointment to any of these offices requires a vote by any house of the Ziu, the candidate must provide the required information before the vote takes place. Otherwise, the appointment will be invalid. 5. Candidates for the position of Senator can not receive votes in the election for Senator untill they have provided the required information. There may be an organic problem with these paragraphs. A statute can create a criminal offense that creates the possibility of impeachment from an organic office, but generally can't add new requirements to hold the office. Are paragraphs 2 and 6 organically ok? Is there a way to rephrase 3-5 to make it organically possible or is the entire concept inorganic? |
|
