Debate moderator Marti-Pair Furxheir announced on 1st February an opportunity for rebuttal. S:reu Furxheir stated that “each party will get to rebut ONE answer from ONE question, from ONE party”, and that participants should “choose wisely”.
The rebuttal order was announced as MRPT, RUMP, TNC and FreeDems, with closing statements to follow in reverse order. The TNC ultimately waived their right to rebuttal.
ModRad leader Senator Lüc da Schir chose to address the response of RUMP leader Sir Alexandreu Davinescu to the fourth question of the debate, relating to constitutional reform.
He expressed scepticism at the RUMP leaders commitment to reform along the lines of the 3/4 Majority Amendment, emphasising again the role of ModRad MZs in its passage.
He insisted on the monarchism of his party, but that it supported reforms to ensure the King “did not forget where his power came from” and challenged the RUMP leader to state whether he could expect ModRad support while being unwilling to specify the reforms he had in mind.
RUMP leader Sir Alexandreu Davinescu, claiming that Senator da Schir had gone beyond a rebuttal in his remarks, requested the opportunity to respond directly to the ModRad leader, outside of the rebuttal rules.
This was after some hesitation ultimately denied by S:reu Furxheir, with Society President Dr Txec dal Nordselvă publicly disagreeing with any change, while insisting that he did not wish to impose his view on S:reu Furxheir. Sir Alexandreu stated in a comment to ETT that “it wasn’t ideal” that Dr dal Nordselvă intervened, as he is deputy leader of the FreeDems.
Claiming that he felt obligated to respond to the ModRad leader’s challenge, Sir Alexandreu stated that in his opinion the Proclamation Crisis showed the “dangers” of royal power, even if he insisted on the positive legacy of monarchy in Talossa.
He rejected what he called the mischaracterisation of his party’s position on the issue, which he defined as support for prudent reform of the institution of monarchy, but “stalwart” opposition to republicanism, or to any attempt to make the monarchy a purely ceremonial office. He stated that whom the MRPT chose to support was their affair, declaring that the party wished to continue to “find solutions that everyone can support”.
With TNC leader Breneir Itravilatx finally having declined his opportunity for rebuttal on 4th February, FreeDem leader Miestrâ Schivâ chose to address the RUMP leader’s response to the fifth question of the debate, relating to the RUMP’s ability to form an active government.
Claiming that Sir Alexandreu’s response was “disingenuous”, the FreeDem leader claimed that in what she claimed was the absence of a truly active RUMP team, a vote for the party was a “blank cheque” to the RUMP leader, and that certain members of the RUMP were “only interested in Talossa if the RUMP are in control”. She contrasted this with the “active and competent” government team she claimed the FreeDems had assembled.
She also claimed the TNC were a “one-man band” despite the protestations of its leader, and that the ModRads “have a team” but claimed that their recent record in government left doubts as to their capacity.