May Clark: Budget and VoC pass, Prince Patrick loses Cosa seats

Secretary of State Marti-Pair Furxheir has announced the results of the 2nd Clark of the 49th Cosa. As expected, the coalition won both the Vote of Confidence and passed its Budget Bill, with only FreeDems opposing the government for the second Clark in a row. S:reu Furxheir also confirmed that the heir to the throne, Prince Patrick, has lost the RUMP Cosa seats he was granted, after failing to vote in two consecutive Clarks.

The Budget, the first by Finance Minister Sir Alexandreu Davinescu, provided funding for the long-awaited coin issue, as well as a new chain of office for the Seneschal and a legislative grant to BHAID [ETT: Inxheneu Crovâ is Administrator of BHAID]. While FreeDem leader Miestrâ Schivâ insisted that her party would vote against the Budget on principle, as in her view the duty of the opposition being to oppose, this was a point disputed by Senator Tresplet, who claimed to have judged the Bill “on its merits”.

Asked by ETT for his reaction to Senator Tresplet’s stand, FreeDem deputy leader Dr Txec dal Nordselvă stated that “Dien is our most conservative, pro-monarchist member, so he tends to blaze his own trail sometimes. I’m not concerned as our vote against it was never going to stop it”.

FreeDem entreaties to the centrist parties to end what they claim is the “farce” of the coalition would seem have had little effect. In the recent controversy over FreeDems claims that Seneschal Sir Crest Siervicül was a “puppet” of the Finance Minister, senior ModRad figures forcefully denied the charges, insisting that Sir Cresti was firmly in charge, and that the coalition was achieving its aims. In the Clark the coalition parties appear to have maintained their cohesion.

Among other bills on the Clark, the 2nd BHAID Disbursement Bill also passed with token opposition. The Bill donated the residual funds of TalossaAid as well as the proceeds of an election prediction competition to develoment in East Africa and to an international election monitoring organisation, respectively. Senator Lüc da Schir’s ambitious and long-gestating reform of provincial catchment areas also passed by substantial margins, despite reservations in certain provinces about the consequences for their future numbers.

Less fortunate was Senator da Lhiun’s bill condemning Turkish President Erdogan’s recent authoritarian turn, reflecting unease in the Ziu at “topical” legislation. Also going down to defeat was the sole Organic Law amendment on the Clark, FreeDem MC Chirbi Scherpa-Carreido’s “Resident Cunstaval” Bill which would have restricted the King’s power to appoint  a Crown representative to a province t residents of that province only. The bill fell victim both to conservative reticence but also the official FreeDem policy of waiting for the conclusion of the RCOR before voting in favour of any further constitutional reform.

May Clark: Tresplet breaks FreeDem ranks on Budget

FreeDem Senator Munditenens Tresplet has broken ranks with his party leadership on the 49th Cosa Budget. Declaring that he wished to judge the coalition Budget “on its merits…to see everyone has a fair chance” the Maricopa Senator and ephemeral FreeDem party leader has announced he will vote Për.

This contrasts with the forceful rejection of the Budget by FreeDem party leader Miestrâ Schivâ, who declared that in her view the duty of “HIS MAJESTY’S LOYAL OPPOSITION” was to oppose the fiscal centrepiece of the government. Speaking to ETT deputy leader Dr Txec dal Nordselvă further stated that his party will “oppose the budget and all government bills en masse as any real opposition would do in any other parliamentary system”.

However in his remarks in the Senäts voting thread, Senator Tresplet stated that he disagreed with this reasoning. Claiming not to find “anything necessarily disagreeable” in the bill, the FreeDem Senator declared that while he had “reservations” about the long-term viability of the government’s plans, that was “no reason to oppose the bill”. The Senator also claimed that the then opposition largely voted against the 48th Cosa Budget, but that despite this and the philosophy expressed by the majority of his colleagues, he intebded to vote Për  because “I’m judging this bill based primarily on merits, and my desire to see everyone have a fair chance”‘

There has yet been no public reaction from the FreeDem leadership to the Senator’s initiative, and Dr Nordselvă had not responded to a request for comment at the time of posting. Seneschal Sir Cresti Siervicül stated in the Cosa that he “appreciate[d]” the Senator’s stance on the Budget but that he disagreed with his comments on the RUMP votes on the 48th Cosa Budget, claiming that it was a constitutional issue, and not any blanket opposition to the bill, that led to the contrâ votes cast by himself and his party colleagues.

Speaking to ETT, Senator Tresplet reiterated that “I read the budget, it seemed fine to me, and I voted how I felt”. He also stated that “I don’t believe that it is necessary to vote it down without looking at the bill for its merits..honestly, it’s not like we’re probably ever going to get around to spending this money anyway, so what’s the point?”

The Senator claimed that the FreeDems had not discussed the Budget beyond the question of the propriety of Minister of Finance Sir Alexandreu Davinescu contacting individual MCs on their views on the bill. The Senator declared that he personally had received no such message, however, and that he had not discussed the Budget privately with the RUMP leader.

Senator Tresplet also told ETT that disagreed with the Seneschal’s assessment as to the motives of the RUMP opposition to the 48th Cosa Budget. He declared that “I would wager to say that most of the RUMP-ers who voted against it did so because they were either opposed to having Republicans in government or because they were following the rest of the crowd”.

Distain says Sir Cresti is not “puppet”, says plans on schedule

Distain Senator Lüc da Schir has rejected allegations that Seneschal Sir Cresti Siervicül is a “puppet”. The ModRad leader told ETT that Sir Cresti is leading the government and “makes all the important decisions”.

The Distain rejected recent claims by the FreeDems that RUMP leader and government Chief of Staff Sir Alexandreu Davinescu is the de facto leader of the Cabinet. Senator da Schir told ETT that Sir Alexandreu was aiding the Seneschal with “paperwork and coordinating projects”. He also claimed that in the absence of the Seneschal the coalition agreement provides for he, the Distain, to supervise the work of the government both internally and with respects to its public actions.

The Distain also pronounced himself satisfied with the progress of the government so far. Despite a delay due to legal issues, the crowd funding campaign for the issue of coinage is “being finalised and will be launched sometime in June”. He also told ETT that he was “confident” the Census would start in June as scheduled. He also commended the progress made by the Minister of Stuff, fellow ModRad Ian Plätschisch, in the website transition process.

FreeDems claim Seneschal is “puppet” of RUMP leader

In a comment on a recent article at ETT, FreeDem Deputy Leader Dr Txec dal Nordselvă has accused Sir Alexandreu Davinescu of working “the legitimate Seneschal as a puppet”, and called on the moderate parties to “end this unaccountable farce”.

The FreeDem MC, echoing suggestions made by a number of opposition figures in the past few weeks, claims that it is the RUMP leader and not Seneschal Sir Cresti Siervicül who is in fact directing the government. Sir Alexandreu serves as both Minister of Finance and “Chief of Staff”, and continues to be leader of the RUMP party. The newly created role of Chief of Staff in particular has elicited opposition scrutiny. Sir Alexandreu himself explained that the role was “basically a management or clerical position, keeping track of projects, deadlines, and the like.”

FreeDem criticism of the relative prominence of the Finance Minister compared to the Seneschal has grown since the formation of the coalition. In April FreeDem MZs criticised the Seneschal for failing to present the government’s Activities Report to the Ziu personally, allowing Sir Alexandreu to do it instead. However according to the Finance Minister he was simply facilitating Sir Cresti who was experiencing computer problems. In response to this incident, FreeDem Senator C. Carlüs Xheraltescú asked the Seneschal in a Terpelaziun “what it is you actually do in government?”

The Seneschal maintains that leaving aside his public actions the other work of the government has been “at his direction”. In May Sir Cresti revealed what he claimed was the reason for his low public profile earlier: the unexpectedly early birth of his second child. The Chief of Staff for his part insisted that the government’s plans are on schedule, and that the Seneschal is “keeping everything on track just fine!” ModRad Minister of Stuff Ian Plätschisch has also come to the defence of the Chief of Staff this weekend, claiming that due to his responsibility for “paperwork” the Chief of Staff publicises the work of the government, but that this “does not translate into having written all of it…or acting independently of the Seneschal”.

Dr dal Nordselvă and his FreeDem colleagues remain unconvinced, however. Speaking to ETT Dr dal Nordselvă claimed that they have “serious concerns that Sir Cresti is Seneschal in name only”, citing the latter’s frequent absences from Wittenberg and that “almost all of the governmental information has come directly” from the Chief of Staff. The FreeDem Deputy Leader also criticised the ModRads and TNC for “propping up” the government under the circumstances.

49th Cosa: Party leaders vote in May Clark

On 4th May, RUMP leader Sir Alexandreu Davinescu MC revealed his Clark votes. Unsurprisingly supporting the Budget, the Minister of Finance did however vote contrâ on D:na Schepa-Carreido’s Resident Cunstaval Amendment, claiming that it “didn’t make sense”, given the primary and largely ceremonial role of the Cunstavals is to act as “the voice of the Throne in the provinces”. He suggested that a better route would be to allow provinces to remove Cunstavals who act inproperly or who neglect their duties.

Sir Alexandreu abstained on both Making the Bosphorous Great Again Bill and on the Provincial Catchment Area Reform Bill, explaining that while in the latter case he disagreed with its impact on his home province of Maritiimi-Maxhestic he wished to acknowledge the work put into the proposal by its sponsors.

Finally, the Cabinet Chief of Staff stated that he was voting për on the BHAID Disbursement (II) Bill and on the VoC, declaring with respect to the latter that the coalition is “getting things done, and it’s a welcome change”.

In addition to her contrâ on the Budget and the VoC, FreeDem leader Dama Miestrâ Schivâ MC also voted against her party colleague Chirbi Scherpa-Carreido’s Resident Cunstaval Amendment. She explained that the latter proposal was “against the party policy here that we will not be proposing or voting for any OrgLaw amendments until the RCOR [Royal Commission on Organic Law Reform] has finished its work”.

As reported by ETT, the FreeDem leader also opposed the VoC, declaring that as far as the Budget and VoC were concerned those interested in her reasons should see “four words: HER MAJESTY’S LOYAL OPPOSITION”.

The FreeDem leader however voted për on the BHAID Disbursement (II)Bill as well as the Provincial Area Catchment Reform Bill proposed by Senator Lüc da Schir.

The FreeDem leader also announced that she would abstain on Senator da Lhiun’s proposed condemnation of Turkish president Erdogan. She claimed this was due to being “suspicious” of using Ziu legislation to make topical political statements, as well as feeling that there were worthier targets for such treatment than the “humourless authoritarianism” of the AKP government, such as Russian president Vladimir Putin.

In other Clark news, following complaints from Republican leader Col. Maximo Carbonel, Secretary of State Marti-Pair Furxheir has apologised for inadvertantly leaving a bill proposed by the former off of the May Clark. Col. Carbonel’s bill deals with the procedure for the  dissolution of the Ziu at the end of its term. S:reu Furxheir ascribed this to a technical problem due to how the Republican leader had published his text in the Call for Bills.

49th Cosa: Davinescu denies pressuring opposition MZs on Budget

Cabinet Chief of Staff and Minister of Finance Sir Alexandreu Davinescu has denied he attempted to put opposition MZs under pressure to justify their votes on the Budget, which was published in the May Clark.

Sir Alexandreu was responding to an accusation made by FreeDem leader Dama Miestrâ Schivâ, who claimed the RUMP leader had sent a “snarky message” to FreeDem Deputy Leader Dr Txec dal Nordselvă regarding his vote on the 49th Cosa Budget. Dama Schivâ claimed that expecting the opposition in a parliamentary democracy to justify their votes against government bills was not “conducive to democracy”. In common with other FreeDem MCs, Dama Schivă voted both against the Budget and confidence in the government, explaining that those interested in the reason should see “four words: HIS MAJESTY’S LOYAL OPPOSITION”.

Sir Alexandreu claimed that he sent “polite” messages to certain opposition MCs. He stated that wished to know whether the individuals involved had a specific issue with the details of the Budget, or if it was “a matter of principle”. The Minister, quoting what he claimed was his message to Dr dal Nordselvă, asked the latter “..why did you vote against the budget and the VoC? …Is there something you’re looking for…that we could better provide?”

Rejecting the criticism as “nastiness and bitterness” Sir Alexandreu declared that his curiousity on the question was satisfied, claiming that “if the biggest complaint that the [FreeDems have] is just that they’re not in charge, we’re in good shape”.

Civil Service: from theory to practice?

Civil Service is inching closer to reality as the Civil Service Committee of the Cosa, under the chairmanship of ModRad MC Glüc da Dhi, starts the search for a Civil Service Commissioner.

Civil Service was created by the 45th Cosa through 45RZ15, the Lets Have A Civil Service Act. The goal was to create a cadre of non-political public officials to assist members of the Cabinet in their duties. The Civil Service itself would consist of a number of Permanent Secretaries appointed for an indefinite period, each responsible for a bureau within a Ministry.

The law provides for a five-member Civil Service Committee, appointed by the Tuischac’h of the Cosa from among its Members. The Committee is empowered to draft the rules of the Civil Service, working with the head of the Service, the Commissioner. The latter is actually responsible for hiring and where necessary for dismissing Secretaries. Such dismissal can only be done for cause, however.

The Civil Service concept has not however been implemented in practice. The first and thus far only Civil Service Commissioner, Txosué Eiric Rôibeardescù, resigned as a result of the BEER Affair, when then Senator Rôibeardescù attempted to corruptly influence an MC into withdrawing a bill he objected to. Rôibeardescù was not replaced on his resignation.

Another obstacle was the chronic inability of the Cosa to elect a presiding officer. This was only remedied in 2016 with the election of Miestrâ Schivâ as Tuischac’h. D:na Schivâ, one of whose stated goals as Tuischac’h was to activate Civil Service, thus appointed the five Committee members on 14th April.

At the time of writing, the Committee had begun tentative discussions on recruiting a new Civil Service Commissioner. The Commissioner is appointed for a two-year term, on recommendation of the Committee and approved by a two-thirds majority of the Cosa and a majority of the Senäts. Once the Commissioner has been appointed, each Cabinet Minister will then present their requirements for civil service appointees to the Committee.

49th Cosa: May Clark published

Secretary of State Marti-Pair Furxheir has published the second Clark of the 49th Cosa. MZs have until 21st May to vote on the five bills in the Clark.

In Government business, Minister for Finance Sir Alexandreu Davinescu MC presents his budget (49RZ4, the Omnibus Finance and Budget Bill).

The budget reveals plans to purchase a new chain of office for the Seneschal, funding for the design of the proposed issue of coinage during the term, as well as and for the production of ID cards. The budget also allocates funds for promotion of the Kingdom in the Greater Talossan Area and internationally.

For the first time since its establishment a budget has been allocated to BHAID, the Kingdom’s overseas development and emergency relief agency. Prior to this the organisation has relied exclusively on private donations. [ETTInxheneu Crovâ is Administrator of BHAID] The bill would also authorise the government to hold a national fundraising drive for general purposes, capped at $60.

In other government business, Foreign Minister Breneir Itravilatx MC has proposed 49RZ7, the BHAID Disbursement (II) Bill. This would authorize the support of the GiveDirectly project in East Africa with the funds received in 2015 from TalossaAID, as well as a small grant to IFES, which promotes free and fair elections globally. The bill is co-sponsored by Minister of STUFF Ian Plätschisch MC and FreeDem Senator C. Carlüs Xheraltescú.

Three other bills feature on the Clark. The sole constitutional amendement on the Clark, 49RZ6 the Resident Cunstavals Bill, has been proposed by FreeDem MC Chirbi Scherpa-Carriedo. This would require the Crown’s personal representative in each province to be a resident of that province.

ModRad Senator Epic da Lhiun has proposed 49RZ5 Making the Bosphorous Great Again Bill, which would officially condemn what the Bill claims is the illiberal and authoritarian turn in Turkish politics under President Erdogan. The bill is co-sponsored by FreeDem MCs Dr Txec dal Nordselvã and Chirbi Scherpa-Carriedo.

Finally Distain and ModRad leader Senator Lüc da Schir has proposed the long-gestating 49RZ8 Provincial Catchment Area Reform Bill. The bill would reallocate the territories om.which the citizenry of each Talossan province  is recruited in order to provide a more contiguous area, as well as encourage local cooperation between citizens. The Bill has been vociferously and at times profanely criticised by a number of leading Benitian citizens for its treatment of that province, and indeed Senator da Schir has offered to abstain on his own Bill in response to the disquiet. The bill has been co-sponsored by Seneschal Sir Cresti Siervicül MC, Senator Xheraltescú, Dr dal Nordselvã, and Senator da Schir’s party colleague Glüc da Dhi MC.

Organic Law: Cort closes “proclamation” loophole

In a decision announced on 18th April, a five-justice panel of el Cort pu Inalt has rejected the King’s assertion of a power to block Organic Law changes by refusing to proclaim them after they had been duly ratified. The King claimed that by “explicitly refusing” to proclaim 47RZ28, which curtailed his discretion in appointing provincial representatives, he was able to prevent its inclusion in the Organic Law. The subsequent controversy has become known as the Proclamation Crisis.

Four of the Justices of the Uppermost Cort, with one Justice abstaining, upheld the appeal launched by the last government to a previous decision of the Cort delivered in November 2015. At that time a three-Justice panel decided 2-1 that the King’s action was Organic, and that 47RZ28 could not be incorporated in the Organic Law.

However following an appeal launched by the outgoing government prior to the general election, the Cort has now determined that such a power was “undemocratic and not in keeping with the body of law upon which the Kingdom was founded. The Cort has thus ordered that all amendments certified as having been ratified by referendum are to be incorporated in the Organic Law, regardless of whether they are proclaimed or not.

This means in practice that both 47RZ28 and the more recently ratified 48RZ16, the so-called “3/4 Majority Amendment”, are now the law of the land, despite the King’s rejection of the first and controversial reticence on the second. The latter measure, intended as a solution to the Crisis, grants the King a veto over bills amending the constitution, which will be possible for the Ziu to override with a supermajority, or by re-enacting the same amendment following a general election.

In a public statement FreeDem leader and former Attorney-General Miestrâ Schivâ described the decision as both “gratifying” and “vexing”. She declared that the decision vindicated her legal strategy and provided a “legal, political road” to political reform, even over the monarchs objections. However she regretted that the Cort had not suspended the holding of the referendum on 48RZ16, as she had requested. She stated that her party’s attitude of cautious support towards the proposal would have been different had the Cort been able to reach a decision before the vote was taken, and that the amendment had “made things worse”. She accused 48RZ16’s RUMP supporters of deliberately obstructing her case in order to “win whichever way the Cort ruled”.

Reaction from other MZs was swift. ModRad Senator Epic da Lhiun welcomed the decision and bluntly reiterated his lack of confidence in the King. His party colleague and fellow sponsor of 48RZ16 Ian Plätschisch MC took issue with D:na Schivâ’s criticism of the amendment, calling it a “landmark compromise” and denying it would have negative consequences. The Minister of Stuff later told ETT that in his opinion 48RZ16 was most in line with moderate principles and that he believed that the Proclamation Crisis was over, “but you never know what could happen”.

Speaking to ETT Minister of Finance and Cabinet Chief of Staff Sir Alexandreu Davinescu stated that he welcomed the “practical effect” of the ruling, even as he criticised its legal basis. He noted that the two Justices in the majority in the November 2015 decision, Justices dal Nordselvă and Cjantscheir, had now reversed themselves in what he claimed was defiance of the principles of precedent. He also stated that as far as he was concerned the Cort’s ruling and 48RZ16 had closed the issue, expressing a desire to “move on” from the controversy.

There has been no official statement from the Royal Household at the time of writing.

Repost: Crowned Radicals and Conservative Democrats

Your humble correspondent is away on vacation until next Monday. Follow ETT on Twitter for breaking news @ElTamlalt

In the meantime, I am republishing my take in the failure of the Democratic Amendment in July 2015. The first, and certainly not the last, attempt to resolve the Proclamation Crisis.

The Democratic Amendment has gone down to failure. While 123 seats in the Cosa and 6 of 8 Senators supported the Amendment, this was not enough to overcome the opposition of the RUMP, which narrowly retained a blocking minority in the Cosa after the general election, even while losing 11 seats in the process.

One of the ironies of the situation we now find ourselves in is that the most conservative measure yet proposed is the Democratic Amendment itself. It was a direct solution to the crisis, in that it removed the legal ambiguities exploited by the King to radically assert a power to block duly authorised constitutional amendments that was dramatically at odds with the customary way our constitution has worked. The Amendment would have brought the letter of the Organic Law into line with decades of precedent that even the unlamented King Robert never dared to challenge. No Talossan, including it seems not even the King, would want any but the people to have the final word on an issue like this, but here we are.

Unlike the Balanced Government Amendment proposed by Sir Alexandreu Davinescu, the Democratic Amendment would not have created new supermajority requirements triggered entirely at the King’s discretion that would make any change to the Organic Law unacceptably slow, if not impossible, without virtual unanimity in the Ziu. Sir Alexandreu’s proposal was eloquently made and undoubtedly well-meant, but it unfortunately smacks of special pleading for a minority and has been marginalised as a result.

And unlike Ian Plätschisch’s Court Ordered Pontification proposal, the Democratic Amendment would not have created an unprecedented situation where the Uppermost Cort would in effect be asked to pronounce on the comparative representivity of the Ziu that voted the law, and the quality of the debate that led up to that vote-an innovation the Chief Justice has himself expressed public reservations about. S:reu Plätschisch’s political courage and honourable desire to bring both sides of the Ziu together should be heartily commended, but in my view he errs in bending too far to accommodate rhetoric about “wave elections” which are almost impossible to satisfactorily define in practice.

The reality is that the King is not a deaf mute, trapped in a gilded cage by crypto-Jacobins. He is a member of the Ziu and has the perfect right to participate in debates, and to propose alternatives in the Hopper to measures he views as unwise or ill-conceived (he has for example already done so with the so-called “Time Bomb Amendment” in the 48th Cosa). This is a privilege that most modern constitutional monarchs do not enjoy. Furthermore the King also has the right to offer his own advice to voters in referenda on Organic Law amendments since he is not bound by any law to remain silent if his conscience moves him. If in his opinion the level of debate or the quality of the proposals are lacking, the King has many tools at his disposal to intervene.

My modest proposal for resolving the Proclamation Crisis is for the Ziu to do…nothing. If the King does not wish to have the power he asserted in strangling 47RZ28 at birth, then he should reverse his explicit inaction on that measure, and state that he will never exercise it again, or at the very least not without seeking the advice of his government. And for the future? Most Members of the Ziu, and I believe most Talossans regardless of their view of hereditary monarchy, would welcome the insight and intelligence of a constitutional scholar of the King’s calibre in what are often highly technical debates. Let him exercise that formidable legal intelligence constructively when laws are made, and leave the final word to the sovereign people.

The best protection a constitutional monarch can have is the respect of his people and the trust of his government (whatever its political stripe). It seems to me that rather than trying to create a paper palisade around the monarchy by legalistic means, the King should seek to rebuild that respect and that trust, for the sake of his own legacy and that of the House of Lupul.

(NB: the above is strictly the opinion of the author and does not necessarily reflect the views of the publishers)




Post navigation




Your email address will not be published.Required fields are marked *




























Search for:


Sir Cresti announces Coalition Cabinet – El Tamlált Talossán on Miestrâ’s Musings #013: What does a chief of staff do, anyway?M. A. Schivâ on Miestrâ’s Musings #013: What does a chief of staff do, anyway?AD on Miestrâ’s Musings #013: What does a chief of staff do, anyway?Berich’t Talossan closes down after 48 issues – El Tamlált Talossán on Civil Service Commissioner resigns amidst corruption allegationsBerich’t Talossan closes down after 48 issues – El Tamlált Talossán on Talossa Aid: Beric’ht promises Molinar revelations, $192 for BHAID



April 2016March 2016February 2016January 2016December 2015November 2015October 2015September 2015August 2015July 2015June 2015May 2015April 2015March 2015February 2015January 2015




RegisterLog inEntries RSSComments RSS



a Talossan Press Association affiliate publication