Category Archives: dal Nordselvă

Seneschal pledges amendment to scrap Tuischac’h elections

Seneschal Sir Cresti Siervicül has told ETT that he intends to “propose an OrgLaw amendment to put things back the way they were” with respect to the selection of the Lord Speaker of the Cosa, the Tuischac’h.

The Seneschal’s comments came as the Cosa finds itself without a presiding officer following the resignation of Miestrâ Schivâ in June. According to the Organic Law, a “conclave” of MCs to elect a new Tuischac’h is assembled either by the outgoing Tuischac’h or by the oldest MC, if the former is not available.

Prior to 2014, the Speaker was appointed by the King on the nomination of the Seneschal. Subsequently, the Cosa was granted the power to elect its own presiding officer. The new process has however been plagued with difficulties, with the first election challenged in el Cort Inalt for irregularities in its organisation. 

Sir Cresti, who opposed the abandonment of royal appointment, told ETT that “before [the reform] I would simply have advised the King to appoint a replacement. But my hands are kind of tied.” He therefore advocates a return to the historic system.

Sir Cresti has asked the current most senior MC, FreeDem acting leader Txec dal Nordselva, to proceed with the organisation of the election. However this has not yet been started at the time of writing. Dr dal Nordselvă has not replied to a request for comment. 

ModRad leader Senator Lüc da Schir told ETT that “electing the Tuischac’h is still a good idea, even though back when the bill was passed most of us surely hoped for some more enthusiasm on the Cosa’s side when it came to actually holding such an election”.

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”.

49th Cosa election: FreeDem leader calls for “massive” yes vote on 3/4 Majority Amendment

FreeDEm leader and Attorney-General Miestrâ Schivâ took to the Witteberg Shoutbox on 14th February to call for a “MASSIVE YES” on the 3/4 Majority Amendment, which is before the voters during the 49th Cosa Election. As Attoney-General Senator Schivâ had led an attempt by the government to have the vote postponed, pending an examination of her appeal of a previous Cort judgement which found that the King’s refusal to proclaim an Organic law amendment was constitutional.

In her petition to the full five-Justice Cort, Senator Schivâ claimed that the Amendment was passed by the Ziu “under false pretences”, given that it was her contention that the asserton of a power to block Organic law amendments was not in fact constitutional. She argued that in the interests of avoiding an unintentional expansion of royal power if the Cort eventually ruled in favour of her petition that the Cort should enjoin the Secretary of State from placing the referendum on the ballot. However in a preliminary judgement delivered by Chief Justice Tamoràn, the Cort dismissed the appeal and declared that the vote could go ahead.

Senator Schvâ thanked the Cort for “much-quicker-than-expected decision”. She later said in the Shoutbox that the Cort ruling was “deeply unsatisfactory” in tha the Cort “refused to touch the question of whether an OrgLaw amendment needed to be proclaimed to be enacted”. However gven that all avenues of appeal had now been exhausted her party was now calling for a “MASSIVE YES” on the amendment, claiing that they had “exhausted all legal avenues to bring the monarchy under control”.

Supported by overwhelming majorities in both houses of the Ziu, the 3/4 Majority Amendment would if approved reduce the absolute power asserted by the King during the Proclamation Crisis to a suspensive veto only, which could be overridden by qualified majorities of the Ziu.

The FreedEm leader also expressed satisfaction at the “slapping down” of attempts by RUMP leader Sir Alexandreu Davinescu to intervene in the case. The RUMP leader had attempted to join the suit on the grounds that as a member of the Ziu the Cort should grant standing to hm and any other fellow MZ involved in the passage of the amendment. He also alleged impropriety on the part of Cort Justice and FreeDem Deputy Leader Dr Txec dal Nordselvă, claiming that there was an appearance of bias and that the Justice had been engaged in ex parte communications with fellow FreeDem activists.

Both Justice dal Nordselvă and the Attorney-General emphatically denied the allegations, which were based on an inadvertantly public post on the FreeDem Facebook group. A party member, Shadow Talossaware Commissioner Iason Bitxichë Taiwos, asked for advice after receiving a message for Sir Alexandreu asking for his support in the latter’s attempt to gain standing in the Cort case. Justice dal Nordselva advised S:reu Taiwos “not to fall for it”. Dr dal Nordselva argued that this was a political, and not a legal opinion, and insisted that he at no time participated in discussions of the legal implications of the case privately.

ModRad Senator for Maritiimi-Maxhestic Magniloqueu Épiqeu da Lhiun, who is being challenged by Sir Alexandreu for his Senate seat, called for an investigaton into the RUMP leader’s conduct, claiming that not only were the allegations unfounded but that it was “conduct unbecoming” of a member of the Bar.  FreeDem Shadow Minister of Stuff Admiral T.M. Asmourscu supported the call, adding that in his opinion Sir Alexndreu had “perjured” himself, and that for the Cort to allow him to present the recusal motion meant that “perhaps the next government ought reconsider its composition to restore dignity to the bench”.

Chief Justice Tamoràn announced however that the Cort had “unanimously” found that Justice dal Nordselva had committed no impropriety. Sir Alexandreu himself expressed disappointment in the ruing, stating that based on the preiliminary judgement “the Cort had legalised ex parte communication”.


All-party Debate: Rebuttals and a clash over rules

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.

Inaugural class of Royal Society Fellows announced

Dr Txec dal Nordselvă, President of the Royal Society for Advancement of Knowledge, has announced the inaugural class of members of the Society.

Under the patronage of HM King John I, the Royal Society has 5 Senior Fellows, one Fellow, and an Associate Fellow.

Dr dal Nordselvă told ETT that Fellows must maintain a certain scholarly level by delivering a lecture in their declared area of interest at least once a year, and by participating in Society events. More details about the requirements for Fellowship may be found here.

Citizens of Talossa may apply for fellowships from 1 November to 31 January and from 1 June to 31 July each year, with the first application period having thus just come to an end.

When asked about the role of the monarch as Patron, Dr dal Nordselvă told ETT that “we’ve not ironed out the details yet, but I expect it will be mainly ceremonial. [King John] has not applied to join the Society”, though he is a Senior Fellow of the Society by right.

ETT also asked Dr dal Nordselvă to shares his thoughts to the recent All-party Debate, sponsored by the Society. He told ETT that “the debates have gone well, I think. I was a little concerned at the rule change mid-way initiated by MPF [Secretary of State and debate moderator Marti-Pair Furxheir], and a little annoyed that I was blamed for not allowing Sir Alexandreu [Davinescu] to rebut a specific question”.

When asked if he was disappointed that moderator Marti-Pair Furxheir had apparently decided to organise future debates independently of the Society, Dr dal Nordselvă stated that even in that eventuality “I’d still like the Royal Society to host its own in the future as well”.

Cort rejects Schivâ brief: 3/4 Majority vote to go ahead

Justice Txec dal Nordselvă has announced that the Uppermost Cort had ruled against the request to block the referendum on the “3/4 Majority Amendment” made by Attorney-General and FreeDem leader Senator Miestrâ Schivâ.

The 3/4 Majority Amendment was passed by the Ziu in an effort to resolve the Proclamation Crisis. King John I had claimed a right to block Organic Law amendments approved at referendum by “explicitly refusing” to proclaim them. The 3/4 Majority Amendment would limit this to a suspensive veto only, and would place the King’s intervention in the process before the popular vote.

In a brief appealing an initial Cort ruling on the Crisis Senator Schivâ argued that if the King’s action was in fact inorganic the Ziu had “solved” a problem that did not exist. As the Amendment was passed “under false pretences” she asked the Cort to enjoin the Secretary of State from including the measure on the ballot, pending the final ruling of the Cort on the substance of her brief.

Writing on behalf of the Cort, Justice Txec dal Nordselvă stated that the Cort could not find any flaw in the process by which the amendment was passed by the Ziu, and that despite the Attorney-General’s contention otherwise, the Cort had to assume “MZs voted with due dilligence” on the matter. Justice dal Nordselvă concluded that to interfere with an amendment otherwise Organically enacted by the Ziu would be a violation of the separation of powers, and that the Organically required process of ratification by popular vote had been triggered and could not now be interfered with.

The 3/4 Majority Amendment will thus be on the referendum ballot on 15th February. Senator Schivâ called on the Cort to move to the substantive issue in her petition, claiming that “the Cort will be doing the people of Talossa a disservice if they do not know, when voting in this election, whether they are voting for a limit on or an expansion to Royal powers in re: Organic Law amendments”.

Email privacy: Davinescu responds on RUMP database

Note: My conversation with RUMP leader Sir Alexandreu Davinescu dates from 17th January. Unfortunately (my) time constraints prevented me from posting the result until now, so apologies to Sir Alexandreu for the delay.

Sir Alexandreu Davinescu MC responded to a series of questions from ETT, following our article on the controversy over private email databases.

Asked by ETT if he accepted the existence of a more extensive email database maintained by the RUMP than he had originally claimed, Sir Alexandreu stated that “it appears [the file existed], given what [Dr dal Nordeselvă] has said. He is a trustworthy person”.

The RUMP leader however stated that as he had deleted the “RUMP Citizenship Roll” file on discovering Dr dal Nordselvă’s access to it he had “no way of knowing” what it contained at that point. He also declared that he had “completely forgotten about [the file] until Txec brought it up.”

When asked by ETT how a presumably unauthorised person, who left the RUMP some years ago, still had access to a file with potentially sensitive information, Sir Alexandreu stated that “the main concern is voter privacy, and I’m confident that was respected”.

He stated however that he felt it was  “worrying” that Dr dal Nordselvă had not informed the RUMP first before publicly revealing the existence of the file, but ascribed this to “campaign season”.

When asked if to his knowledge the file had been accessed by other unauthorised persons or had been downloaded, Sir Alexandreu stated that it had not “unless Txec made copies.”

49th Cosa Election: Party leaders to debate starting 25th January

Dr Txec dal Nordselvă, President of the Royal Society for the Advancement of Knowledge, has announced that the party leaders debate will start on 25th January, with Chief Justice Ian Tamoràn and Secretary of State Marti-Pair Furxheir as moderators.

Any citizen may submit questions to the moderators by Wittenberg private message in advance of the debate. Five questions will then be chosen by the moderators, and will be put to the party spokespersons in alphabetical order, with the first participant chosen at random.

Each participant will have 24 hours to respond to the question. A proposal by S:reu Furxheir to apply a maximum word count to responses was not accepted by Dr dal Nordselvă, who stated that the Royal Society would not impose a word limit since each “debate participant knows the effectiveness of concise language and the acronym TLDR is quite apropos here”.

Any party registered with the Chancery may participate in the debate, with an opportunity for rebuttal. Once all participants have responded, the process will start again for the next question. At the time of writing four parties were registered: the FreeDems, RUMP, TNC and MRPT. Other parties, such as the Republican Party of Colonel Carbonel and the Progressives, have been informed of the debate, and will be included in the lot for first participant if they register before the debate.

49th Cosa Election: Davinescu lays out plan for government

In response to a post by Chief Justice Tamoràn, which bemoaned the prevalence of “noise over signal”, RUMP leader Sir Alexandreu Davinescu MC laid out what he described as his party’s most important specific policy proposals.

These include the production of national ID cards, the promotion of commercial activity with official merchandise and the sale of stamps, and the completion of the coin project as rapidly as possible.

Declaring that he “overwhelmingly and wholeheartedly” agreed with the Chief Justice’s call “to stick with the policies, and not the personalities”, the RUMP leader stated that he wished “to get us past the tribalism” that he described as a “serious danger in a partisan democracy”, and that he hoped the campaign would focus on “the case, not the person”.

When challenged by Dr Txec dal Nordselvă of the FreeDems to publish the RUMP Cabinet list, Sir Alexandreu refused to be drawn on the RUMP’s capacity to actually complete the agenda he described. Stating that in the particular conversation he was engaged in he wanted to hear about “specific policy proposals…less heat and more light”, but that he would be prepared to address the question elsewhere.

FreeDem leader Senator Miestrâ Schivâ responded that the FreeDems “agree with every single one of [the policies mentioned]”, but that the real issue was “who has the personnel and the reputation to be trusted to enact them?” She claimed that “the RUMP doesn’t have the personnel, and the ModRads (based on recent months) don’t have the reputation.”

She also revealed specific FreeDem proposals on the revitalisation of a Council of Governors, a monthly news digest issued by the government for the benefit of inactive citizens and a “succession plan”  for training Deputy Secretaries at the Chancery, where Secretary of State Marti-Pair Furxheir has stated that will leave the post after the “nationalisation” of the Database is complete, which he recently estimated to be “three Cosas at least”.

Proclamation Crisis: Cort rules Royal “inaction” organic

The Uppermost Cort has ruled on the case taken by Senator Luc da Schir in September 2015, which challenged the constitutionality of King John’s refusal to proclaim an amendment to the Organic Law, 47RZ28.

The amendment received the required double majorities in the Ziu and was approved by referendum and would have made the governor of one province ineligible to be appointed as Cunstaval, or royal representative in another. The King disagreed with the restriction on his discretion in the matter and as a “test case” utilised a hitherto little-understood provision of the Organic Law which stated that the King “may” proclaim changes to the constitution, thus giving them formal force of law. In refusing to proclaim the amendment in this fashion the King sparked what has become known as the Proclamation Crisis

In a majority decision Justices dal Nordselvă and Cjantscheir (with Justice Edwards dissenting) found that “the Organic Law puts no obligation on the King to proclaim the amendment, he has the discretion to do so or not to do so”. Reasoning that as the King is excluded from the Organic Law amendment process up to the point at which the Bill is presented for proclamation, it would be “incompatible with the Organic Law nor is in the spirit of the Organic Law” to remove the prerogative of the King at this point.

An Organic Law amendement passed by the Ziu in September that is known as the 3/4 Majority Amendment will if passed by referendum and proclaimed by the King alter the language of the Organic Law, allowing the King to issue a suspensive veto on constitutional changes unless overridden by a qualified majority of the Ziu.