A policy : compromise between monarchism and republicanism

[Miestrâ Schivâ]

I put up for discussion as the following policy plank:

"As a compromise between the monarchic and republican traditions in Talossa, the Free Democrats support an empty throne solution: the Monarchy to be permanently vacant and its powers permanently exercised by a Council of Regency, as described in the current Organic law."

Charlie and I both like this, but I want to hear from other former-Liberals. Not rejecting monarchy on principle could form a good compromise while bringing Royal powers under effective democratic control. However, it could look like it's just a personal attack on the current Monarch? Not that there's necessarily anything wrong with that.

[Dien]

I think it would look like it's a personal attack on the current Monarch. I also kind of feel that this policy may be too republican to comply with our neutrality clause.

[Miestrâ Schivâ]

Just to confirm - if we supported someone else for King, would that be "too republican"? Or does "constitutional agnosticism" mean that the identity of the Head of State is out of bounds for discussion?

[Dien]

I take the position that "constitutional agnosticism" just means that members are free from party line votes on anything that would cut out the Monarchy. A party plank might be used in the future to whip members into voting a particular way, which would go against our constitutional agnosticism. Taking a position that the Monarchy should be permanently vacant may not be amenable to those who hold monarchist beliefs in our party.

I think that supporting someone else for King, given that we currently do have a King, also might be looked at as pressuring the members who are monarchist to vote in particular ways that may violate their beliefs on the issue; given that we would have to first kick the King off the throne, leaving it vacant, before another one could assume the gilded chair, I think that might be too much to ask.

Agnosticism goes both ways, though, and members can always team up to present a bill doing whatever they want to the monarchy. This also means that other FreeDems can vote against any proposal without repercussions.

[C. Carlüs Xheraltescù]

My interpretation of "bridging the gap" is such that I think we could justify this third way, but I don't think it's the sort of thing we ought to whip too much.

[Dr. Txec dal Nordselvă]

I personally like the idea of a vacant throne approach. My concern is how the Council of Regency would be selected. There are a few provisions in Legeu Orgänic where the CpI acts as the council and others where it is more vague.