EQT #6

Aaaand...5...4...3...2...1...GO.

Welcome to the Sixth edition of the Europeian Question Time! We're just getting to the meat of Rachel Anumia's term, so what better time to bring out the big guns and ask the big questions? Let's introduce the panel once more. Today I am joined by conflict-igniting journalist PhDre, Senator Indycar Racing and Vice President Asperta. Now, let's get this show on the road!

All things considered, what kind of a position do you believe Europeia is in? Good? Bad? Average?

(Note: Please refrain from posting until the end unless you are either myself or a panelist. If you would like to ask a question, please PM it to me and I'll do my best to include it.)
 
Click to expand...
Thanks for having me, Sopo.

All things considered, what kind of a position do you believe Europeia is in? Good? Bad? Average?
Click to expand...

You know, some would have you believe that I'm not good for much more than diversity - that one guy who sits in the corner and bitches about everything, acting the eternal 'pessimistic prick.' I'm partly here because of that perception - a nice balance isn't it, to have some government officials square off with PhDre of Aftermath, known for his ability to spin every success into a tale of woe? But honestly, I'm not going to sit here and lie to Europeia, saying that things are worse than they are. We could be worse off. But I'm not going to sugar coat things either, and if that grates people the wrong way (and it seems to) tough dice; I'm not just going to give you a spoonful of sugar to help the medicine go down.

So the truth of the mater is that Europeia could be in a much better position. It could also be in a much worse position. In Resignation-Gate we survived what would have been the death of a weaker region. Our President left without a word, our most prominent intellectual figure followed her out the door. And let's not forget the loss of HEM, Europeia's most dedicated citizen. They all left. We could be much worse off today were it not for our collective character and our love of the region.

At the same time (because like I said, I'm not going to sugar coat the truth), we still have a long way to go. Where are we going, anyways? I don't know. You might ask one of the four Presidents from the last year, two Senators, two Ministers in this Administration, one Vice President, three Chancellors, and one Chief Justice who comprise the External Affairs Committee. They might be able to give you an idea of where they want Europeia to go. Me - I have no idea where they want Europeia to go, and I don't know know where this Administration wants Europeia to go. All I know is that wherever there was that debate, I wasn't a part of it. One of our most successful Foreign Ministers, Aurora, wasn't a part of it. Former Cabinet Members, former Speakers, former Associate and Chief Justices (since apparently we're throwing out that good old separation of powers), former Senators (and current ones): none of them got to contribute to Europeia's 'position' on a variety of Europeian issues which will tip the scale of Europeia's fortune. Where is our debate? Where is our conversation? An individual in the EAC approached me today and reminded me that prior to the creation of the EAC, policy discussion and debate often lead in circles, without decisive action being taken. I'm not sure if the EAC solved this problem by improving the process, or by limiting the conversation to a point where radical or new ideas were filtered out of the brainstorming process.

So to try and summarize my thoughts (which, I apologize, are scattered), I'm not really sure where Europeia is anymore. I believed that we were at one place, and now I'm told that a brain trust has us at another place. Maybe the solution is more transparency - maybe the solution is a bit of communication and bringing this back room to the attention of the public months ago when it was first created. Maybe the solution is abolishing the EAC, and maybe the solution is indeed a brain trust of individuals selected on an arbitrary system determining what is in Europeia's interests. All I know is that Europeia might rise to a position of even greater prominence in the NationStates world, but such a rise is ill gotten if it does not come from community interaction and positive debate. I don't want policies spoon fed to me. I feel that as a citizen of Europeia I have a right to help shape the Europeia of tomorrow, and that this power should not be limited to the ballot box, but comes in the Grand Hall and the Senate and the Media. I don't like the excessive entanglement between branches of government which is expressed in the EAC. And beyond the EAC, I think there are areas which Europeia needs to improve upon in order to be taken seriously in the NationStates world. Again, I don't know if that's an interest that Europeian's or the EAC has - I imagine that would be the case, as the EAC is a purely foreign affairs focused body, and thus it's looking at the tree of FA instead of the forest of Europeia to an extent. We need these hand picked 'experts' to be examining why we continuously fail to retain a fraction of the new citizens who sign up onto our forums. We need to be focusing on Welfare, where changes can and should be made to our Welcoming TG, to our Chatroom system, and to the priority which we place on recruiting instead of welcoming. We need to fight in the Interior for every nation we can get, we need to gather intelligence on potential recruiting scripters and report them to Max Berry. We need to revive the CRC and push government workers to see the quota not as a chore but as a challenge to meet and double. We need to be more aggressive in the Navy to achieve significant victories, train in both raiding and defending, and being a leader when it comes to interacting with the militaries of other regions. We need to be a leader on the interregional stage instead of a sidekick in a Summit which doesn't seem to be doing us much good. We need to be reviving activity in Europeia with cultural events, with interregional seminars and discussions in Europeia which are well attended and well advertised.


I think things could be worse. But things can always be better. I know more than a few will read this laundry list and roll their eyes and say 'there he goes again, pointing out that people who try aren't trying hard enough.' Not in the least. You want to discuss ideas? Policies? Specifics? Let's talk. This EQT can be a platform for us to discuss. Three Eyes can be a platform. Whatever poll Sopo throws up can be a platform for discussion. Let's discuss. Where is Europeia? Where do we want it to go? I can't answer that question alone - I tried and look where I ended up. I'm sure that Indycar and Asperta have their (probably more optimistic if you want to call it that) own opinions as to where Europeia is, and I look forward to their (more coherent) thoughts.
 
First of all, thanks for having me here. Secondly, I apologize for my very brief answer to your first question, as I need to head to bed soon as my parents are acting like…parents :p

I tend to agree with PhDre about Europeia’s current position. Considering the recent events that have shook the region to its core, we have recovered rather well, and we are back on our feet. We are not at our peak form, but we are also not at bottom.

Is Europeia stagnating? Perhaps, perhaps not. What is important is that we work to improve the present situation, and the administration surely would be spearheading that effort. Europeia is not as good as it has been, but we could and would be taking steps to make our community better, together. We have a lot of potential at the moment, and we must work to maximize the talents of each citizen.
 
Thank you for your answers. We'll move on after we hear from Senator Indycar.
 
I would like to thank the EBC for inviting me to this panel. In response to the question raised I think Europeia is still struggling to find its way out of the resignation crisis. So I think all things considered Europeia is in an average but improving situation.

I would like to highlight some areas where Europeia could stand some improvement. First and most vital to our region is the Ministry of the Interior. While everyone huffs and puffs about foreign affairs (including myself) the fact of the matter is that without Interior we would just be another NationStates backwater waving around our in game titles like they were something important. Their has been talk among the cabinet about revising our recruitment telegrams, these discussions began under Earth22's second term and I believe we are closing in on some results. Otherwise we just need to recruit and keep in mind that because of the summer lull and the ensuing NS global population decline we will not get stellar results like we had over the winter.

The Navy is a particular concern of mine and the Grand Admiral's recent absence highlights a problem that has plagued the Navy in the past and all NS military forces, and that is absolute dependance on one person. I have an idea that I have floated to various members of the government and I will be introducing to the Senate very soon that will change the face of the Europeian Navy for the better by spreading out authority and will hopefully once and for all fix our military problems.

In regards to PhDre's concerns about the External Affairs Committee I think they are a bit overstated because of the recent announcement that a formal EAC does exist. The President ought to have a brain trust she can rely on solely for foreign matters other that the Foreign Minister.

In closing Europeia is still hurting from the crisis of last month but that does not mean we are hurt.
 
In regards to PhDre's concerns about the External Affairs Committee I think they are a bit overstated because of the recent announcement that a formal EAC does exist. The President ought to have a brain trust she can rely on solely for foreign matters other that the Foreign Minister.
Click to expand...

I'm relieved that so many complex and serious concerns regarding accountability, democratic representation, separation of powers, and the like can be responded to with such an insightful yet straightforward response. In all seriousness, President Rachel is clearly stepping away from the EAC as a brain trust; we've seen her come to the Grand Hall as well as the EAC thread with thought-provoking, nonsensitive questions that deserve to be discussed and dissected by the Europeian people. I believe the word your looking for instead of 'brain trust' is 'Cabinet.' The President has one, and Ministers without Portfolio such as yourself are typically brought onboard to add to the wealth of perspectives that the President has on his or her Cabinet. I'm not aware of any specific responsibilities you have as MwP - thus far you seem to be coordinating various ideas and plans of action - and that's exactly the idea behind having the Cabinet (and Cabinet access) being considered equivalent with a brain trust of sorts.
 
On the subject of the External Affairs Committee, what do you believe should change? Nothing? Everything? Should it even exist? It's a very controversial subject right now and I'd like to get your opinions.
 
I mentioned an alternative to the the EAC in the extensive EAC thread, so I'll just post it again here with a link to the original post. Let me preface with saying that I would abolish the EAC and replace it with the body I propose:

My biggest problem with the EAC is that it is incredibly poorly implemented. Membership was secret up until yesterday, and has revealed serious Constitutional violations and a lack of respect for that same document or an incredibly strange oversight by the organizers of the Committee and the individual who accepted the position in the EAC. A much more feasible and appetizing system would replace the EAC with a private subforum in the Foreign Affairs area of the forum which can only be accessed by the Foreign Minister, President, Vice President, and potentially the highest ranking ambassadors and Foreign Affairs Junior Ministers. This would force the FM to keep enrollment 'honest;' we wouldn't see this Foreign Minister's favorite sidekick unconstitutionally involved in the process if we had approached having a private subforum for sensitive FA conversations in the manner I'm describing. I imagine it would work in tandem with the Situation Room, which is a private subforum perfect for security sensitive information. This subforum, which would be required to maintain a list of members available to the public as well as a general outline of discussion would only deal with strategic interactions with other regions and organizations. Eliminate the EAC and incorporate this fancy brain trust into the Foreign Ministry department instead of allowing it to remain a tumor - separate but equal to the Foreign Ministry Department. What we have now in the EAC is perhaps one step forward - but it is also a step back for regional activity and discussion.
Click to expand...

Those are my two cents, I would encourage my fellow panelists to evaluate the above proposal against the current (and in my opinion, incredibly flawed) incarnation of the EAC. Obviously it needs tweaks, it needs support, it needs to have political interest (read: from the Administration) to go forward, but I think it's an immense improvement.
 
I agree with PhDre that the EAC should committee as a department within the Foreign Office, sort of analogous to the admirals in the Navy. I also agree that the EAC's membership should be rationalized, potentially by an EO, this would remove the risk of it becoming an 'old guard' club in the region. My suggested membership would be President, Vice President, Foreign Minister, Grand Admiral, the DEIA (now that we have one), the Supreme Chancellor (by the president's invitation only), other members of the cabinet by the president's invitation, ambassadors invited by the president, and Foreign Affairs JMs invited by the president.

That being said I think you are overreacting to the situation since it was just unveiled publicly. However, I do share some of your concerns since the President did not issue an EO or formally consult the cabinet (apart from the members that are in the EAC).
 
I do not see anything wrong with having an advisory group to the President and Cabinet that does not implement policies or make decisions, such as the EAC, and the utilization of such a think tank would be up to the discretion of the President. Should it stay? I think so, but I definitely agree with my colleagues that its structure can and should be improved.

The President, Minister of Foreign Affairs, Vice President, DEIA and the Grand Admiral could serve as the core group, and it would be supplemented by the Supreme Chancellor, senior Ambassadors and Junior Ministers and other Cabinet members or citizens which would be selected by either the President or MoFA, and I agree as well that it should be placed under the Ministry of Foreign Affairs. The entire transcripts of the discussions need not be released, but as PhDre said, key points must be made available for the public for their contributions. Important issues would be raised by the President, the EAC (or its future counterpart, if we would be making changes) would be consulted, we seek inputs from the citizens, and the final decision would be made.
 
Thank you for your replies, gentlemen.

The Senate has been experiencing some issues lately. Along with the general issues of inactive or barely active Senators weighing down discussion, a number of crucial mishaps have been uncovered. The largest is currently being repaired, but more remain. What does this say about the Senate in general? Who is at fault here? What do you believe the best course of action is for the Senate?
 
I believe that the a Senate plagued by inactive Senators is to be blamed. The problem is that when a newbie comes to Europeia the Senate looks like quite an attractive bargain, a body that does not really require personal connections (like the cabinet) or legal experience (like the court) only the confidence of the public which is easy to obtain if you are active enough. Unfortunately those newbies usually get bored with Europeia and NS quickly and resign or fall off the face of the earth.

Speaking about EO 64 I believe it was just a scrivener's error as pointed out by Skizzy Grey. The Senate at the time and President Earth obviously did not want to get rid of the Senate's legislative power but accidentally did. I agree that someone probably should have caught this but no one did, I once again turn to the fact that NS is a game but the Senate and President have been caught with their pants down.
 
The Senate has been experiencing some issues lately. Along with the general issues of inactive or barely active Senators weighing down discussion, a number of crucial mishaps have been uncovered. The largest is currently being repaired, but more remain. What does this say about the Senate in general? Who is at fault here? What do you believe the best course of action is for the Senate?
Click to expand...

I disagree with Indycar that it's newbies who are dragging down the quality of the Senate, specifically with their inactivity. Subron is hardly a 'newbie' to the game of NationStates, he's simply been inactive for quite some time and I'm encouraged to see the Senate starting to take the steps towards removal. I'm sure that when he returns he'll be able to contribute in another manner, but the Senate is a body which is in serious need of life, and having one of six members simply disappear is a poor start for the term, as is the revelation that EO064 was improperly passed by the Senate despite some serious issues. Hy has also pointed out that the Senate's version of the EO is different from Earth's posted version in the Board Room. Honestly, I'm not going to point fingers at an individual because it was both the fault of the executive and the Senate that this major point was missed at the time, but I'm glad to see that steps are being taken to salvage what we can, both in the Senate and the High Court. A tangent, but again something that I'd be interested in seeing the Senate do is 'RP' legislation - acts that announce a stance on a Foreign Policy issue or Security Council Resolution, commend an individual (which we already do with Ovations, that's arguably covered) or organization, friendly regions, etc.
 
I am not pointing a finger directly at Subron, I'm talking about people like Free Politie, NK, and Rizchang. People who come into the region with a bang and then go out with a whimper.
 
Indycar Racing said:
I am not pointing a finger directly at Subron, I'm talking about people like Free Politie, NK, and Rizchang. People who come into the region with a bang and then go out with a whimper.
Click to expand...
Mm those are examples of newer citizens who fell inactive, but I think there's a larger problem than a handful of Senators when we cannot seem to pass laws with timeliness and quality. It's easy to say that's the case but for every inactive Senator we have five who seem to skim what's on the table and pass error-filled legislation. I'm not saying that legislation has recently been filled with errors, because there's always going to be some oversight or way to clean up the law. What's occurring at the moment is shuffling of feet, a lack of accountability by the Europeian people / an apathy towards quality legislation. The same trend can be seen in the relative inactivity of the CC.
 
Firstly, I apologize for the delay. Real life has been hectic.

There has been a general lack of interest in the Senate over the past few terms, mostly due to the inactivity of the body. In a body of let's say eight Senators, two are inactive, two properly study the bills and contribute in a meaningful matter, and the remaining four just give proposals a quick reads and later would say "looks good" or "I support this", then we have a great problem and that has been the case. While Subron's removal from the Senate was unfortunate, it is what is best for the region and I commend the Senate for taking such an action. I am hoping that we see an improvement for this term. We should consider reinvigorating the City Council. It served as an avenue for citizens to sharpen their legislative skills before moving on to the Senate before, and it would play a big role in crafting quality legislators.

I agree with PhDre that one cannot blame any specific person if flawed bills are passed into law. A piece of legislation must pass through several stages, and I believe that we have a good, but not infallible, system. The Senate should exert more time and effort into making sure that bills are in the best possible condition before their submission to the President. Our top executive must also not assume that there are no errors and study the bill as well. Of course, some problems might be overlooked, but at least they would be minimized
 
Sorry for the delay in questioning. I've been busy elsewhere.

EO 68 codifies and puts into law the EAC. Do you feel this is a positive step? Will it really change anything?
 
Sopo said:
EO 68 codifies and puts into law the EAC. Do you feel this is a positive step? Will it really change anything?
Click to expand...
While I feel that the realignment of the EAC into the FA Department as well as the forced accountability via Senate approval of... 'non leadership positions' in the EAC is definitely an improvement over the previous incarnation of the EAC. That being said, I feel that creating the EAAC via Executive Order, as well as legislating strict demands on the workings of the EAAC, will limit its ability to produce... 'advising.' Furthermore, there is a degree of red tape created by the Executive Order; I'd argue this red tape is manifested in the EAAC itself, which could have easily and comfortably been incorporated into the Cabinet. The EAAC's concentration on Foreign Affairs has resulted in this Administration straying from its responsibility to effectively lead and direct not only the Foreign Affairs Ministry, but more neglected Ministries such as Interior and Welfare. President Rachel's failed Culture Minister Panlu, and her flubbed replacement of Asianatic in Interior (resulting in our President taking over the Interior Ministry while she searches for a politically viable and reasonable Interior Minister candidate), has renewed focus on these Ministries and perhaps reminded the public that we need to look beyond just foreign affairs in terms of improving Europeia. The replacement of the EAC with a Cabient Advisory body could have gone a long way towards improving that; now we're stuck in limbo without an idea of who our Culture and Interior Ministers will be, and an inactive and recently unused EAAC.
 
I would like to thank everyone for their participation. The public may comment now. :)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top