|
| No. :-) | D. N. Vercáriâ | January 03, 2008 - 13:08 | | la garçâ malpadert | January 03, 2008 - 15:51 |
|
Parent message | | D. N. Vercáriâ | January 03, 2008 - 13:08 |
| Up yours too, you German sausage :)(#1833), posted by la garçâ malpadert, [IP Hidden], January 03, 2008 - 15:51. Viewed 206 times. |
|
la garçâ malpadert
Group: admins
(4379 posts total)
(last post: March 13, 2008 - 16:29)
Citizen #26:
Dieter N Vercáriâ |
> Let's not make this document a law, because
>
> a) it would impose an unfair restriction on politicians, groups and parties which like to pursue a different way in intertalossan affairs. It shall remain fully up to the wisdom of the electors whether they would support a different approach or not. Freedom of speech and thought must not be limited by a law, even if eternal repetitions of the same arguments that are going around in circles will supposedly make us sick and tired.
I want to make it a law, because that would mean that any attempt to change this Doctrine (thanks for the term) will have to be debated in the parliamentary arena. Making it a law just makes it a matter for the democratically elected Deputies rather than the indirectly elected Government to decide - which I think is important. Actually, ideally, I would like to make it a law only amendable by referendum, but that might be considered going too far.
I'm happy to amend it to make it clear that this act ONLY binds the Government of the Republic and its agents and places no limitations on the freedom of speech and political debate of private citizens.
> b) I'm not completely sure about this, but I reckon if the document became a law, it might introduce a new definition of Talossan nationality to our laws, which possibly exceeds the term and definition of citizenship that we are using by now. This extended definition might eventually implicitly trump Const. I,2.3.
It defines "Talossan nationality" as something distinct from "citizenship of the Republic". Nationality is defined nowhere else in our laws and constitutions, and this bill doesn't change the definition of citizenship. Perhaps this confuses the Seneschál because, I think, in Germany citizenship and nationality are the same thing. The purpose of the gesture is to make clear that Kingdom citizens are Talossans too, which is an important gesture of fairness.
Miestrâ Schivâ
Minister of Immigration
Editor, Qator Itrìns
Founder-President, ZRT - Party of National Unity
Chief High Language Geek of the Talossan Republic
TALOSSA, C’È ASÚNTS SERIÖSEN!
|
|
| | D. N. Vercáriâ | January 03, 2008 - 16:52 |
|
Parent message | | la garçâ malpadert | January 03, 2008 - 15:51 |
| Now, now, my good shepherd from the green lands ;-)(#1834), posted by D. N. Vercáriâ, [IP Hidden], January 03, 2008 - 16:52. Viewed 176 times. |
|
D. N. Vercáriâ
Group: citizens
(4498 posts total)
(last post: March 15, 2008 - 16:51)
Citizen #26:
Dieter N Vercáriâ | >
> > Let's not make this document a law, because
> >
> > a) it would impose an unfair restriction on politicians, groups and parties which like to pursue a different way in intertalossan affairs. It shall remain fully up to the wisdom of the electors whether they would support a different approach or not. Freedom of speech and thought must not be limited by a law, even if eternal repetitions of the same arguments that are going around in circles will supposedly make us sick and tired.
>
> I want to make it a law, because that would mean that any attempt to change this Doctrine (thanks for the term) will have to be debated in the parliamentary arena. Making it a law just makes it a matter for the democratically elected Deputies rather than the indirectly elected Government to decide - which I think is important. Actually, ideally, I would like to make it a law only amendable by referendum, but that might be considered going too far.
>
> I'm happy to amend it to make it clear that this act ONLY binds the Government of the Republic and its agents and places no limitations on the freedom of speech and political debate of private citizens.
Presently I'm withholding a comment, because I hope that more Deputies will want to express their opionion here.
> > b) I'm not completely sure about this, but I reckon if the document became a law, it might introduce a new definition of Talossan nationality to our laws, which possibly exceeds the term and definition of citizenship that we are using by now. This extended definition might eventually implicitly trump Const. I,2.3.
>
> It defines "Talossan nationality" as something distinct from "citizenship of the Republic". Nationality is defined nowhere else in our laws and constitutions, and this bill doesn't change the definition of citizenship. Perhaps this confuses the Seneschál because, I think, in Germany citizenship and nationality are the same thing. The purpose of the gesture is to make clear that Kingdom citizens are Talossans too, which is an important gesture of fairness.
Your Seneschál is not confused. I'm quite happy that the laws of the Republic take an utterly modern approach to the issue of defining "citizenship" (whereas we may have taken it too far, as by giving up on the concept of "dandelions" we became a childless society by default, which is unusual, to say it cautiously), and wouldn't recommend us to get into legally defining "nationality" as something that is not identical to "citizenship". In comparision to macronations, in the nationality legislation issue we're more like the revolutionary France and less like the still a little bit quaint Federal Germany by now, and your exceptionally unconfused Seneschál likes it this way.
Actually there's no doubt about the matter of fact that the Kingdomcits are Talossans and that many people who quit one or the other political instance of Talossa are still Talossans if they're feeling like this... there is no need to pour every human sentiment into the casting mould of a law, IMHO.
_________________
- Dieter
A long history is fine, a long future is better.
|
|
| | Ep Inxheneu Crovâ | January 07, 2008 - 23:20 |
|
Parent message | | D. N. Vercáriâ | January 03, 2008 - 16:52 |
| having had a chance to read it...(#1847), posted by Ep Inxheneu Crovâ, [IP Hidden], January 07, 2008 - 23:20. Viewed 186 times. |
|
Ep Inxheneu Crovâ
Group: admins
(1303 posts total)
(last post: March 13, 2008 - 03:56)
Citizen #26:
Dieter N Vercáriâ | Tuischa'ch,
The Bill as proposed is an excellent restatement of current ZRT policy on the national question-and as such should not be confused with a majority position, let alone a consensus one. Being of the opinion that there is more than enough Talossa to go round, I do not see the need for the liquidation of any Talossan state.
That being said, there is much in this Bill that is stimulating, and I congratulate Dp Schiva for that at least. I would however take issue with the logical core of this legislation. This Bill as it stands, I fear, answers a question that has never been seriously asked-"what would it take from us in Abbavilla to get you to come under our flag?" I see no reasonable likeliehood that it ever will be asked by the present leadership.
I should also note, Tuisca'ch, that our governments policy has not, as far as I am aware, changed either-that the Republic should retain its independent existence as the homeland for those Talossans who reject a monarchical form of government. This was a position held by a majority of the Deputies elected in the last general election, a hard fought contest if there ever was one. Whatever else may be said, the issue has not been ignored-far from it.
Who therefore, aside from the Blue Wave, is even talking about unification as a serious priority? I should remind the Chamber that while my esteem for that party's distinguished founder and Deputy remains unstinted, his is an extreme minority viewpoint in both states. The proof is in the results-it is not apparently such a raging priority for either state that even "talks about talks" have begun.
That is why I propose that this Bill, which is sweeping in its implications, be moved into a Committee of the Whole House, under a chair selected by the Committee, to allow not only a free and open debate, unlimited by the necessary business of state that must flow through this Chamber, but also to permit this Committee to hear submissions from outside witnesses from within and outside the Republic, in a way that would be impractical for this Chamber.
One may take the New Ireland Forum of the early 1980s as an example of this process. While this was an unsuccessful initiative in and of itself, it did provide a new basis for discussion among nationalists and much of its thinking informed elements of Anglo-Irish discussions on Northern Ireland, and the later Peace Process.
I would further propose Dp Schiva as Chair of this Committee, considering her experience in such roles in her political career.
An answer to the National Question will become necessary. But we cannot be alone in providing it. We must first pose the National Question in a way that makes sense for all involved. Not merely the twenty citizens of the Talossan Republic but the 30-40 odd active citizens of the Abbavilla state as well, whatever the predjudices of their leaders. I am a sceptic when its come to "civil society" solutions in the Talossan context-we have so little of it, it seems a feeble basis for progress. But a call for ideas and thoughts, founded on a democratic mandate, which is open to all points of view cannot be a bad start.
================================
Would to God that all the Lord’s people were prophets
|
|
|
|
