McEntire
Well-known member
- Pronouns
- she/her
Opinion: Frontier/Stronghold Decision Deserves a Public Hearing
Written by: McEntire
Written by: McEntire
The opinions contained in this piece are the author’s alone and not reflective of Monkey's Musings.
Earlier this week,
In the past, I have been critical of the opaque nature of Europeian foreign policy decision-making. After all, one could suggest that this opacity contributes to the much-bemoaned lack of public involvement and interest in foreign affairs. And the current conversation around the upcoming Frontier/Stronghold update is this pinnacle of this closed system of decision-making.
In his statement, Peeps said that he “look forwards [sic] to a full round of public consultation once a complete plan is created.” Of course, this would be public consultation on a transition plan, not on the Frontier/Stronghold decision itself. I want to stress that this is not a particular criticism of Peeps, this train has been moving down the track unquestioned for months at this point, without ever having a full public hearing where all of the facts are laid on the table.
But McEntire!, you say with your voice rising with agita, We had an Election! Surely President Lime has a Mandate from the Europeian Public!
Quite the contrary, in my opinion. There was no ticket presenting an intelligent case for a Frontier option. Both Lime and Lloenflys were in favor of the Stronghold option, with the only daylight between them being that Lime preferred for satellite Frontier regions to point directly to Europeia while Lloenflys endorsed the Calvin/HEM plan of regions that sort of had their own thing going on. And given that the election ended with a tie that was decided by three Senators (two of whom are leading the administration’s F/S strategy), I do not believe we can say that the electorate gave a resounding endorsement to a single plan on Frontier/Stronghold.
Because while all indications are that the Europeian public and our policymakers are strongly in favor of becoming a Stronghold, it is not a unanimous call. In private pre-election conversations, an official now-close to the decision making process intimated that they saw no threat from Europeia becoming a Frontier, given our WA endorsement numbers and the strength of our mutual defense pacts. And in the recent election poll by the Organization for Independent Media, one in four Europeians supported the region becoming a Frontier. While that is a definite minority opinion, it is notable that so many Europeians support Frontier when Stronghold has been the only option seriously discussed.
And with all of this said, the Europeian public would not even know who to pressure if they dissented from the prevailing view, given that we do not actually know who is making the decision. Certainly don’t go calling on the EAAC, their subterranean bunker doesn’t have a doorbell. In response to the question of who is making this decision, then-candidate (and current Senate Speaker and legal luminary) Lloenflys said the following:
As for the mechanics of the decision itself, the most likely way it would be effectuated would be through an Executive Order. Since this is a matter of the conduct of inter-regional relations, an Executive Order provides a formal mechanism that has the force of law and announces a decision to the region... While the Senate will hopefully be willing to go along with this process (both because we would have won a mandate from the public in this scenario and because of the dialogue we will have carried out), it would be theoretically possible for the Senate to overturn the Executive Order. Ultimate power remains in the hands of the citizens acting through their elected representatives, which is as it should be.
The Senate is the ultimate arbiter of this decision, and frankly it is time that they started acting like it. While we do not know when (or even if) this update will come, the Senate has authority through their ability to overturn an Executive Order (should that be how the President chooses to make his will known). Many have advocated in campaigns for greater Executive accountability to the Senate, they should not overlook this opportunity to weigh in seriously on the largest decision the region will make in quite some time.
To be entirely fair to the Senate, they have been moving in this direction. The recent Gameside Omnibus Act includes a provision that requires Senate approval for the creation of new satellite regions for Europeia. And Senator Darcness recently made a cogent case for Senate involvement when he rebutted someone saying that the Senate shouldn’t be making foreign affairs decisions:
Constitution VI really really wants to disagree with you. The only time foreign affairs is even mentioned in that document is regarding ratification of treaties... which the Senate is required to do. Our Senate should be MORE involved in FA, not less.
No one is saying that the Senate should come in and override the Executive, at least not without careful consideration. But at least the Senate could play a fact-finding and advisory role, bringing some of the decision-making into the light of day and giving detailed public consideration to both Frontier and Stronghold options. Among the outlying questions, as I see them:
- What is the true level of risk of regional invasion or destruction in a Frontier scenario? In the recent campaign, HEM pegged it at 5%, is that accurate? In what situations in the past has a strong founder been important, and what kind of threats would we anticipate in the future? And even if our founder were weakened and our delegate captured, what kind of permanent damage could be faced? The primary argument of the pro-Stronghold faction is that it could lead to regional destruction, and that’s an argument that should be tested a little publicly and by expert testimony.
- What are the Interior implications of both scenarios? While the recent boom alleviated our fears of population cratering, Drew Durnil will not singlehandedly turn around long-term trends. In a Stronghold scenario, where our recruiting pool will be diminished by new nations spawning in UCRs, would we expect to see a decline? What’s our plan for that scenario? Are we going to try and somehow double our manual recruitment?
- What are the foreign policy implications of both approaches? Can we use our naval strength to protect Frontier UCRs, if we were to choose Stronghold? Could choosing Frontier add new vitality and necessity to securing our region? If there are large Frontier mutual defense pacts, are we disadvantaged by going the satellite-Frontier route?
If we refuse to adapt with the times, we will be swept away by them.
Those are the stakes for me. This community is incredibly important to me, and while this game change is unenviable, it presents us with opportunities we must seize. There is no "safe route". There is no "conservative path". Every choice we make will have risks, but the greatest risk of all is trying to just fit the square peg of this update into the round hole of how we've always done business and try to wish it away.
A billboard or sockpuppet region simply isn't enough.
Now, it is unclear how he or his erstwhile ticket-mate Calvin are carrying this advice forward in their role as F/S transition advisory team members, or how flexible the President’s plan is at this point. What is clear is this: the above is a warning from Europeia’s founder about our need to adapt with the times. We must make sure that we are taking advantage of this update, and not being left in the dust by attempting a safe course. That calculus should happen out in the open, and our elected leaders should go on the record and be held accountable for the reasoning behind their forthcoming decisions.
Any less would be short of the promise of the Europeian republic, and a disservice to a region barreling towards a global change.
Last edited: