A transformational reform that would see the Principality of Noland dissolve its monarchy and become a republic has been proposed by its monarch, Prince John V.
The proposal is being fleshed out by the Prince in a new draft constitution that centres the government of the micronation on a “Congressional Cabinet”.
Mirroring the congress that it will replace, the Congressional Cabinet would consist of ten seats, filled by an election every three-months in which each citizen may vote for two separate candidates. Where the Congressional Cabinet differs, however, is that its members will assume the duties of the current Executive Council, much in the style of a Westminster parliamentary system. Unlike that system, however, one of the ten seats in the Congressional Cabinet would be assigned to the Chief Justice.
Under the proposed constitution, the duties of the former Prince would be assigned to a Prime Minister who would sit as head of the Congressional Cabinet and be the highest ranked government official in the micronation. The Prime Minister’s powers would be balanced by allowing the Congressional Cabinet to overrule any executive order with a two-thirds supermajority.
It is unclear when the reform will take effect as Prince John did not include a time frame for implementation in his announcement.
A bill tabled in the Nolandian Congress that would allow for the impeachment of the micronation’s head of state has been universally rejected after a short debate in which it appeared to lose even the support of its proposer.
Tabled on March 29 by Islandic Senate Leader Gunnar, the bill, if passed, would have allowed the Congress to impeach the Prince if he engaged in any unlawful or unconstitutional behaviour. If an impeachment was successful, the entire Royal Family would then be replaced with a new family decided by the Supreme Court.
Horatio Eden quickly spoke in opposition to the proposal, saying that it would result in a significant change to the nature of Noland. “It would go from being an absolute monarchy to a constitutional one, where we could remove the Prince if and when we feel like it, making the system [unnecessarily] unstable,” he charged, though he acknowledged that the idea was a “nice thought”.
Most legislators agreed with Eden’s assessment, finding the proposal logical but not suitable for Noland’s system of government.
Less forgiving in his assessment was Daniel Bandler who suggested that Gunnar’s motives were less than honourable. “Another risqué and bordering illegal post by [Gunnar]. Why should be get away with planning on banishing the sole ruler and founder of this nation? … Is this him hinting at inciting a coup d’état?” he opined.
With the end of voting on the bill yesterday, the measure failed to receive a vote in support as all six legislators present voted to reject it.