June Senate Foreign Affairs Poll Results and Analysis






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

One of the least polarising issues in this poll, 61.3% of respondents were against the idea of ambassadorial confirmations, with a whopping 48.4% choosing the "Strongly Against" option. Some speculation has to be made about these results, but a driving factor could be the current state of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs (which employs Europeia's ambassadors). For a while now, the ministry has been seeing multiple resignations and a shortage of incoming ambassadors to share the workload. This has lead to many ambassadors taking on multiple regions and being understaffed. Concerns about creating further issues by holding ambassadors to certain regions to high standards may have factored into such a negative response to this idea.

One of the biggest questions coming off this poll was the views on the matter of foreign affiliation disclosures. Though a very polarising issue, a tentative majority of 52.6% of respondents said they were for disclosures. We also see a total of 42% of people who are against this idea with the rest being neutral. Interestingly, 76.9% of people who were against this idea entered the option "Strongly Against" while only 50% of respondents who were for this idea put down the "Strongly For" option. It can be inferred that those who disagree with this idea do so strongly and have strong reasons to do so, a contrast to the evenly split "for" side. Many concerns have been brought up on this issue - concerns about privacy, about opening people up to harassment, about the little practical benefit the bill could give. Despite this, it seems advantages like increased information for the electorate has swayed a majority of respondents on this debate.

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

With a huge 38.7% of responses being neutral/unsure, Speaker of the Senate Aexnidaral's draft is definitely the least polarising of the two. However, the draft itself failed to garner a majority "for" response with 38.7% of respondents being against the legislation compared to only 22.6% who were for it. This itself is surprising, as the draft mandates foreign affiliation disclosures for the Chief of State and their deputy, along with the First Minister and their deputy - the two most popular roles for forced disclosures as previously established. A possible reason for these results is that not enough offices were included within the draft for mandated disclosures. Even so, this is probably not the case as explained in the analysis of the results for Rand's draft below. It is unclear what other factors could have turned such a result.

A huge contrast to his colleague's draft above, Senator Rand's draft in the Senate gets an overwhelmingly high 64.5% of respondents against it, with a whopping 48.4% of responses being "Strongly Against" options. On top of this, 9.7% of respondents were "neutral/unsure" about the draft and the rest (25.8%) were for this draft. Though scoring a higher "for" response than the other draft, the difference in percentage between those who agree and those who disagree is a lot higher. Rand's draft includes mandated disclosures for every elected office as well as the Council of State, World Assembly Delegate, DEIA, and Attorney General. Though ticking off every box on the options list, it appears that this piece of legislation could face the opposite problem of Aexnidaral's draft - it mandates too many offices where it may not be appropriate.

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.

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.
 
I thought that having a limited amount of these "disclosure" positions could allow for this concept to be implemented but also allow room for those concerned about privacy to continue to interact with the government and maintain their privacy (in other positions). However, Rand was not satisfied with these options and continued to push for including all (or almost all) elected positions in the region, as well as almost all confirmed positions. That proposal is just untenable for me and I cannot support it.
The idea of this being imposed on any positions, nevermind all, is morally repugnant. It is essentially saying "Oh hey! If you want this job you have to agree to have less of a right to privacy than other members of the region and potentially open yourself up to previous or new, stalkers, harassers, predators etc. by giving them a much easier way to verifiably track you." Given the issues that both NS as a whole, this region and its members specifically have had with all of the above issues, I'm shocked that this is not being treated as what it is; a potential tool for those types of predators to easily track their victims. While this may not occur often, if at all, it is simply not acceptable to even allow the opportunity for it to be used in such a manner to occur, especially when the risk of it happening is known.
 
Regarding EAAC disclosure, the CoS could probably implement that policy currently without requiring any legislation, I believe.
 
Regardless of the outcome of the Senate iteration, DH, I would encourage you to post your own version of the disclosures idea with legislation that mandates the offices you think should have to issue disclosures in the CA. I feel like there's just a disconnect between our views here that won't be solved by arguing, and it's just going to be us going back and forth in circles. For me, I feel most comfortable with the iteration I proposed previously; I'd definitely keep an open mind to a proposal you'd make in the CA, and would look forward to that.
 
Indeed, the Senate has a great role to play in our politics! On this issue, even though I don't think disclosures accomplish a great deal substantively, I was very proud to have authored the compromise proposal I did, after working with my colleagues to find the most palatable solution among Prim and I.

Fixed that for you.
 
Indeed, the Senate has a great role to play in our politics! On this issue, even though I don't think disclosures accomplish a great deal substantively, I was very proud to have authored the compromise proposal I did, after working with my colleagues to find the most palatable solution among Prim and I.

Fixed that for you.

No, you didn't fix that for me, and this is neither cute nor accurate. Astrellan and UV would both say I talked to them extensively about a compromise and what I eventually submitted.
 
Indeed, the Senate has a great role to play in our politics! On this issue, even though I don't think disclosures accomplish a great deal substantively, I was very proud to have authored the compromise proposal I did, after working with my colleagues to find the most palatable solution among Prim and I.

Fixed that for you.
No reason to act this way, OD. Argue your points with your frontal lobe, not the back portions. You're better than this.

As for this argument, I find myself leaning away from and not toward disclosure. I acknowledge that the ooc concerns might be legitimate and I don't want to make sweeping generalizations when there might be concerns.

And I have to say, I had the thought Kari has voiced. That this is some kind of 'before you do this big thing, yoi have to do this'. It would feel like that for anyone who didn't want.to disclose.

I also feel a disconnect though. I don't feel these concerns. And I'm don't entirely get why they are concerns. Then again, I also don't feel stalked. And if someone is feeling stalked why is that being treated dismissively?

If this has no positive benefits, per our DEIA who knows security, and has concerns of negatives, why the push? You're not seeing strong enough arguments against, well I'm not seeing strong enough for.
 
I thought that having a limited amount of these "disclosure" positions could allow for this concept to be implemented but also allow room for those concerned about privacy to continue to interact with the government and maintain their privacy (in other positions). However, Rand was not satisfied with these options and continued to push for including all (or almost all) elected positions in the region, as well as almost all confirmed positions. That proposal is just untenable for me and I cannot support it.
The idea of this being imposed on any positions, nevermind all, is morally repugnant. It is essentially saying "Oh hey! If you want this job you have to agree to have less of a right to privacy than other members of the region and potentially open yourself up to previous or new, stalkers, harassers, predators etc. by giving them a much easier way to verifiably track you." Given the issues that both NS as a whole, this region and its members specifically have had with all of the above issues, I'm shocked that this is not being treated as what it is; a potential tool for those types of predators to easily track their victims. While this may not occur often, if at all, it is simply not acceptable to even allow the opportunity for it to be used in such a manner to occur, especially when the risk of it happening is known.
Again, there is no security issue. I do not know why you're putting so much effort into shaming anyone who disagrees with you. All citizens have to disclose foreign associations. If someone is being stalked or harassed by someone in the region, there are proper channels for dealing with that.
 
I will say it is pretty jarring to see some admins saying there is a security issue and some saying there aren't. I feel like maybe everyone should read this thread with a heavy dose of "retweets are not endorsements from my employer" mentality ? Everyone holds too many positions! Tell me what hats you're wearing when you post!
 
Again, there is no security issue. I do not know why you're putting so much effort into shaming anyone who disagrees with you. All citizens have to disclose foreign associations. If someone is being stalked or harassed by someone in the region, there are proper channels for dealing with that.
You may be shocked to hear Sopo; but despite the narrative that some have tried to push about me in this region, I do actually have a shred of human decency, a moral compass and empathy.
 
Indeed, the Senate has a great role to play in our politics! On this issue, even though I don't think disclosures accomplish a great deal substantively, I was very proud to have authored the compromise proposal I did, after working with my colleagues to find the most palatable solution among Prim and I.

Fixed that for you.

No, you didn't fix that for me, and this is neither cute nor accurate. Astrellan and UV would both say I talked to them extensively about a compromise and what I eventually submitted.

Fair, I went by the discussion in the Senate. I shouldn't have assumed, my apologies Aex.
 
I would like to say that this is a great, well-done analysis, Siph. It covers a wide range while still giving each its due depth. Great job!
 
Again, there is no security issue. I do not know why you're putting so much effort into shaming anyone who disagrees with you. All citizens have to disclose foreign associations. If someone is being stalked or harassed by someone in the region, there are proper channels for dealing with that.
You may be shocked to hear Sopo; but despite the narrative that some have tried to push about me in this region, I do actually have a shred of human decency, a moral compass and empathy.
I don't think it's a narrative when you showed literally zero compassion for Rachael being DoS attacked and zero regard for Wymondham's feelings about it on Discord. You even went so far as to tell him he should probably seek professional help for his "guilt over a game" because he felt bad for her due to the fact that it could have just as easily been him that was the victim of this real life crime if the circumstances had been different. It's all there in #eurochat for everyone to read for themselves.

EDIT:
For the record, since it is public knowledge that Kari and I have each other blocked on Discord, I had to temporarily unblock Kari to see her posts simultaneously for these screenshots. I have since resumed my blocking of her, not that that really does much in a shared server setting, though.
 
Last edited:
Alright, folks, let's try to refocus this back on the issue at hand.

OD thank you for the apology, I apologize for being so crude in response but I was immensely frustrated that my good faith work was poked at that way.

There have been merits to this discussion and it's been interesting to see how it's played out on both sides. Personally, I think I'd like to see the Chancellery run a trial balloon of this as opt-in disclosures in upcoming elections before it's outright legislated so we can see how the process plays out naturally before legislating it outright. I think such a trial would provide a good insight to see how both the candidates and public react to it, and that way we can write a relevant law that would be more effective than going in to it blind, so to speak.
 
There is a part of me that wonders if this had been approached from the angle of: "Citizens desiring to run for elections are required to update their citizenship applications", would any of this, well I can think of no better word than rhetoric, have been attempted.
 
Again, there is no security issue. I do not know why you're putting so much effort into shaming anyone who disagrees with you. All citizens have to disclose foreign associations. If someone is being stalked or harassed by someone in the region, there are proper channels for dealing with that.
You may be shocked to hear Sopo; but despite the narrative that some have tried to push about me in this region, I do actually have a shred of human decency, a moral compass and empathy.
I don't doubt that, but I think it's misplaced in this case.
 
I think that Aex's compromise proposal is sufficient and I think that the security concerns are overstated. I simply think that there isnt really a reason to require discloser from the Senate. Symbolically, the Senate plays a role in FA that would suggest requirement is a good idea however in practice that role is marginal. The Senate gets at most one treaty a term, if that, and ratifies it almost entirely based on the additional commentary from the Cheif of State/President. I struggle to recall a time where significance questions were raised. Senators have almost always been domestically minded and that is completely reasonable considering foreign affairs makes up at most like 5% of the job.
 
I don't have a concrete position on the Senate being included in this bill, but I find it ironic how we're debating a bill that affects officials who's entire job is foreign affairs focused. Senators are not chosen for their foreign affairs experience (and I don't want them to be), but law affects everybody, whether you're domestically focused or turning your eyes abroad. And the Senate makes laws.

Whether that's a strong enough link to require a mandate I'm not sure, and considering the middling amounts of support for it, I'm not particularly interested in pushing it through. But it's kinda short-sighted to say that the only link from the Senate to FA is treaty ratification, and it's pretty short-sighted to say there's no link to FA at all.

That's my two cents at least, and shiny new ones that don't have a lot of experience, so take it as you will.
 
Whether that's a strong enough link to require a mandate I'm not sure, and considering the middling amounts of support for it, I'm not particularly interested in pushing it through. But it's kinda short-sighted to say that the only link from the Senate to FA is treaty ratification, and it's pretty short-sighted to say there's no link to FA at all.

I guess I would be curious to know what you think the other links are? We've got treaty ratification, war, nominations/CoS, and ... removal from office? The Senate definitely has a pinky finger in our foreign policy agenda, but the rest of the two fists are a mix of the Chief of State, the Council of State, the DEIA, and the EAAC. And even when we're looking at what fingers the Senate has in our Foreign Policy agenda it is mostly just oversight, and not necessarily the policy-making -- as treaties are hashed out by the Chief of State or their Councilor of Foreign Affairs, and both the day-to-day agenda and the long-term philosophical alignments are influenced by the executive branch officers or the EAAC members. I've always been a very strong believer of the Senate's role in oversight in the Region and their power to compel answers and shape policy, but it just isn't true to say that the Senate has a particularly major share of duties that encompass the foreign affairs agenda of the region. Relevant, yes, but major, no.
 
Whether that's a strong enough link to require a mandate I'm not sure, and considering the middling amounts of support for it, I'm not particularly interested in pushing it through. But it's kinda short-sighted to say that the only link from the Senate to FA is treaty ratification, and it's pretty short-sighted to say there's no link to FA at all.

I guess I would be curious to know what you think the other links are? We've got treaty ratification, war, nominations/CoS, and ... removal from office? The Senate definitely has a pinky finger in our foreign policy agenda, but the rest of the two fists are a mix of the Chief of State, the Council of State, the DEIA, and the EAAC. And even when we're looking at what fingers the Senate has in our Foreign Policy agenda it is mostly just oversight, and not necessarily the policy-making -- as treaties are hashed out by the Chief of State or their Councilor of Foreign Affairs, and both the day-to-day agenda and the long-term philosophical alignments are influenced by the executive branch officers or the EAAC members. I've always been a very strong believer of the Senate's role in oversight in the Region and their power to compel answers and shape policy, but it just isn't true to say that the Senate has a particularly major share of duties that encompass the foreign affairs agenda of the region. Relevant, yes, but major, no.
I do agree for the most part -- as I said in my post above. It isn't something people want and it isn't something I'm going to push through. My previous reasoning for pushing the Senate through was that of the FM - it's a powerful role, and I'm definitely going to argue that it is a powerful role, with the power to make laws, ratify, oversight, whatever as a body. If the Senate was a single person, they would be the most powerful in Europeia. That's obviously intentional, and it's obviously intentional that the Senate is a body and not an individual

But my first paragraph, being intentionally written that way, summarises my own thoughts. I'm happy with the building blocks we have now and I'm glad something came out of this entire ordeal.
 
Back
Top