June 2019 Senate Foreign Affairs Poll Results and Analysis
A Divisive Issue
Written by Astrellan
For the discussion about these topics, please see the Senate discussion thread.
(June 2, 2019) - With the incredibly heated issue of foreign affairs regulations sitting in the Senate, the EBC ran a poll to determine the public's thoughts on the issue. Citizens were asked if they supported the idea of certain ambassadorial confirmations, foreign affiliation disclosures, which roles should require said disclosures, and which drafts currently proposed in the Senate they would support. The EBC is happy to say that 31 Europeans responded to the poll with a variety of different results and split issues. Without further ado, here they are:
The Ideas
The Positions
Breaking away from the norm of the EBC, an optional multiple-choice question was added to this poll. This question asked respondents - if they supported the idea of foreign affiliation disclosures - to choose which offices should have forced disclosures. There were 24 responses for this particular question, two of which were "N/A" and so will be discounted from the results. Even with the modified amount of 22 responses, that is - mathematically - too many responses. The question explicitly states "if you support the above idea" and 13 respondents (42% of 31) do not -- therefore there should be 18 responses. To accommodate for this, the table below includes both the total substantial 22 responses and the actual 18 valid responses (as 4 people who voted against foreign affiliation disclosures still answered this question).
The 22 substantial responses gave these results. The number next to the office is the number of respondents who chose that option.
- Chief of State / Deputy Chief of State - 19
- First Minister / Deputy First Minister - 16
- Councillors of State - 12
- World Assembly Delegate - 11
- Director of the Europeian Intelligence Agency - 10
- Senators - 9
- Members of the Cabinet - 8
- Justices - 7
- Attorney General - 6
- Citizens' Assembly Chair - 6
The 18 valid responses gave these results. The number next to the office is the number of respondents who chose that option.
- Chief of State / Deputy Chief of State - 16
- First Minister / Deputy First Minister - 14
- Councillors of State - 12
- World Assembly Delegate - 11
- Director of the Europeian Intelligence Agency - 9
- Senators - 9
- Members of the Cabinet - 7
- Attorney General - 6
- Citizens' Assembly Chair - 5
- Justices - 5
Looking at both of these sets of responses, it is clear that the Chief of State (CoS) / Deputy Chief of State (DCoS) and the First Minister (FM) / Deputy First Minister (DFM) are the two most popular options for those who want foreign affiliation disclosures. For the CoS and their deputy, this makes sense. The former is the most senior foreign-facing official in Europeia and represents the entire region abroad. Moreover, they both manage the Council of State - another high scoring option - which contains all the foreign-facing ministries in the region. Foreign affiliation disclosures, therefore, make sense for these roles and this is an idea brought up many times in the Senate. For the FM and the DFM, a factor could be that they - along with the CoS/DCoS - are the most powerful roles in the region, making up the chief executive. This reason could be why they would require forced disclosures
Two interesting options that received a lot of support were the World Assembly Delegate and the Director of Europeian Intelligence (DEIA). These offices were previously unmentioned in conjunction with the idea of forced disclosures until Rand's draft in the Senate (though that didn't appear to have much of an effect on the results ... see below). Despite this, it is clear to see why they achieved the level of support they did. The World Assembly Delegate has the Delegate Nation in the NationStates region. With this, they exercise their vote which counts for hundreds of endorsements and is a very important way for Europeia to push her ideas into the wider world. It is also a completely foreign-focusing office and so mandated disclosures is an easy option. Moreover, the DEIA is responsible for uncovering and investigating possible threats to Europeia and her allies, and then reporting them to either the FM or the CoS. The role, while perhaps not fully focused towards the foreign side, has major external responsibilities and so it also makes sense why they got the result they did.
A role which scored the absolute lowest on both sets of responses is the Citizens' Assembly Chair. The office is responsible only for the management of the Citizens' Assembly (CA) and has no foreign-related duties. Moreover, the CA itself cannot pass legislation into law so it has little actual power at this current time (apart from passing legislation to the Senate). This means that the CA Chair is not a powerful role and has little to do with what goes on outside Europeia. Forcing foreign affiliation disclosures on this role does not make a lot of sense and many respondents chose not to include this option. Similar examples also include Justices - who are only responsible for cases inside Europeia, and the Attorney General - who acts as the state's main prosecutor and advises the executive.
The Drafts
Overall, it is an interesting product that - though gaining a majority "for" response from respondents when thinking about the idea of foreign affiliations disclosures - neither of the two bills garner the same response. It appears that the legislation that the majority wants is not yet written or proposed, or that some other factor is twisting the results of these two drafts.
The Comments
Giving respondents a chance to lodge their thoughts, an open-ended question invited them to record any comments they have about the topics at hand. There were 12 responses and three major themes present - those that support Rand's draft over Aexnidaral's, those that support the other way round, and those that think the entire idea is pointless.
The last theme garnered a total of two comments, with an additional comment in this theme and that which sides with Aexnidaral's draft. One stated that the entire idea was "pointless," another said that "the whole idea is shit", and the last said that "its [sic] one of those things where no one really cares if its [sic] passed or not" and that "the whole idea should be scrapped."
The next theme is that which supports Rand's draft over Aexnidaral's, or otherwise disapproves of the latter, garnering a total of three comments. One respondent commented that "the anti-Rand crowd is out and about again," apparently claiming there is a group of people who are against Senator Rand. Another said that "Aex is stonewalling anything he doesn't like" and that "Senators should be behaving more professionally," possibly referring to the posts Speaker Aexnidaral made in the Senate. The last says that "to see the Speaker call this a legislative dumpster fire is disheartening and definitely beyond the pale," the last phrase meaning 'unacceptable behaviour.'
The final theme is that which supports Aexnidaral's draft over Rand's, or otherwise disapproves of the latter. This gets the majority responses of 6 comments. They range from mild comments which say "I feel that Aex's most recent drafts are the best" and "if i had to choose which bill to support of the two i'd go with aex's" to much more polarised comments such as claiming that Rand's draft is a "pointless 'transparency' circle-jerking piece of crap" and he "ignored all of the compromises and olive branches extended to him." One commenter even said that "if the Senate passes [Rand's draft] I will start a petition to block it from becoming law."
pointless
Rand's drafts go way overboard. If the Senate passes it I will start a petition to block it from becoming law.
if i had to choose which bill to support of the two i'd go with aex's but the whole idea is shit so . . . .
This is a pointless "transparency" circle-jerking piece of crap written by Rand, who has ignored all of the compromises and olive branches extended to him. The idea achieves nothing and is worth the same amount of time and energy being expended upon it.
To see the Speaker call this a legislative dumpster fire is disheartening and definitely beyond the pale.
As usual, Aex is stonewalling anything he doesn't like. Not everything needs to be so adversarial, and Senators should be behaving more professionally.
I feel that Aex's most recent drafts are the best.
The anti-Rand crowd is out and about again.
IMO, Rand's draft takes a view that is too wide of what should be considered a foreign interest, it should just be public offices. The idea of forcing ambassador confirmations seems to defeat the point of having an FA minister, if we are to do it we may as well hand over all FA policy to the senate.
I'm as baffled as Aex that this has continually increased in scope, when the public desire has clearly been the opposite.
There’s no real harm in disclosing foreign affiliations. People are inventing reasons it’s a bad idea.
From everyone I've spoken to about this legislation, its one of those things where no one really cares if its passed or not, and its not a hill worth dying on (unless you're Izzy or Rand, apparently). I don't know if there's an effective way to legislate around the IC concerns raised by NES and the very real OOC concerns raised by others (e.g. players stalking others in their other regions). At this point, I think the idea needs to be scrapped. The latest draft posted by Rand on 5/30 is full of some glaring holes and has myriad issues (did he consider the compromises offered by his colleagues?), and I would be surprised to see it passed.
Rand's drafts go way overboard. If the Senate passes it I will start a petition to block it from becoming law.
if i had to choose which bill to support of the two i'd go with aex's but the whole idea is shit so . . . .
This is a pointless "transparency" circle-jerking piece of crap written by Rand, who has ignored all of the compromises and olive branches extended to him. The idea achieves nothing and is worth the same amount of time and energy being expended upon it.
To see the Speaker call this a legislative dumpster fire is disheartening and definitely beyond the pale.
As usual, Aex is stonewalling anything he doesn't like. Not everything needs to be so adversarial, and Senators should be behaving more professionally.
I feel that Aex's most recent drafts are the best.
The anti-Rand crowd is out and about again.
IMO, Rand's draft takes a view that is too wide of what should be considered a foreign interest, it should just be public offices. The idea of forcing ambassador confirmations seems to defeat the point of having an FA minister, if we are to do it we may as well hand over all FA policy to the senate.
I'm as baffled as Aex that this has continually increased in scope, when the public desire has clearly been the opposite.
There’s no real harm in disclosing foreign affiliations. People are inventing reasons it’s a bad idea.
From everyone I've spoken to about this legislation, its one of those things where no one really cares if its passed or not, and its not a hill worth dying on (unless you're Izzy or Rand, apparently). I don't know if there's an effective way to legislate around the IC concerns raised by NES and the very real OOC concerns raised by others (e.g. players stalking others in their other regions). At this point, I think the idea needs to be scrapped. The latest draft posted by Rand on 5/30 is full of some glaring holes and has myriad issues (did he consider the compromises offered by his colleagues?), and I would be surprised to see it passed.
In conclusion, the public is very split on this issue. Though there is a small majority of those who are for foreign affiliation disclosures, neither of the two pieces of proposed legislation which would implement this idea garner majority support. The idea of ambassadorial confirmations is one not very popular and with the Senate possibly coming to vote on Rand's draft soon, it is unclear what will happen next.
