Opinion: F/S Deserves Public Hearing

[McEntire]

Opinion: Frontier/Stronghold Decision Deserves a Public Hearing
Written by: McEntire​

The opinions contained in this piece are the author’s alone and not reflective of Monkey's Musings.

Earlier this week, Coordination Transition Minister Peeps announced the formation of the Frontier/Stronghold Transition Advisory Group, made up of himself, the President, Vice President, Kazaman, HEM, Calvin Coolidge, and North East Somerset. All fine Europeians, to be sure, and they have something else in common: all are part of the EAAC, Europeia’s unelected body of foreign affairs poo-bahs who discuss and advise Presidents on big-picture foreign policy in the safety of a protected subforum.

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:

1. • 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?

In the last election, VP candidate HEM made a strong case for the necessity of his ticket’s plan, saying:

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.

 

[Pichtonia]

for the necessity of his ticket’s plan, saying (bolding his, not mine):

I wouldn't have seen the difference. Looks like you forgot the bolding.

I enjoyed the read. Hopefully it injects further life into the F/S debate. I favour the Stronghold route myself, but I think you pose some interesting questions, and I do agree we're not talking about it enough. Changing that is a hope I not only have for our Senate, but also our Transition Minister.

 

[Olde Delaware]

Really good read Monke

 

[HEM]

A few points to make here.

I don't think President Lime, Minister Peeps, or anyone else is trying to shut down public discussion and dialogue. Certainly, I have personally tried to initiate conversation on this topic and will continue to do so. I think the motivations of this administration are to have a system in place and keep us on a track that leads to direct action and not talking in circles. Ultimately, we have a timer on when this change happens and we don't know where the countdown is. We could have two months, two weeks, two years. Personally, I think we probably have 90ish days, but that's just a hunch.

Going into the last election, I was torn between an ambitious provincial system and the frontier route as the best two options for Europeia. To some degree, I am still torn. But I think after thinking it through the last week or so, I am shifting the frontier route to my first choice and the provincial system to the second choice.

I think the chance that Europeia loses our delegacy and control of the region is about 5%. There is no obvious coalition that could take us on -- much less the combined power of us and our allies. But there are certainly risks. Given the novelty of the system, I would not be surprised to see an alliance of strange bedfellows who just want to topple a frontier, especially a UCR as old and storied as Europeia. If this 5% chance does indeed occur, I think there's a 50/50 shot we can retake the region itself. Ultimately, I would peg the chance of destruction of Europeia gameside at about 2%.

That being said, feeders have shown time and time again that coups and losing control of a region is not the end of the world. Indeed, conventional wisdom is that these events have revived and helped restore some feeder regions. Both TSP and TNP have benefitted from coup attempts, and while they have been stable for some time now, they only got to that place because of the activity inspired by campaigns of resistance. This is not a scenario we should be rooting for, but should the unlikely happen, it comes with silver linings.

However, I understand the other side. There are countless people here who have put time, care, and love into this region. The feeling that all that effort is being put on the line for an uncertain benefit could be jarring. I also think my provincial proposal does have some upsides that we can't take advantage of with Europeia being a frontier herself -- the fact that the first 50 nations in a region are incredibly more likely to "be involved" than any nations after them, for one.

My strongest opinion here is that the billboard/sockpuppet scheme is a waste of time. It's a worst of both worlds. It saps our navy's time and energy with no effort to build a community that could hold the delegacy itself. I suspect the conversion rate of getting nations that spawn there to move to Europeia will be comparable to the conversion rate for normal telegrams. I am open to both alternative ideas, but very strongly against that particular one.

 

[Seva]

Great read! I have to admit that, when reading the platforms, I didn't really focus on the tickets' stance on the update at all. The rest of the platforms was more important to me.

So, while choosing a ticket, I do believe we were not choosing the F/S plan, and it would be good to once again bring it to the public, I agree. I think even that I chose the Lloen/HEM option in that poll by OIM, but then still voted for Lime before switching my vote because I liked both candidates and wanted to spread my vote evenly

 

[SkyGreen]

Hey there
Thank you for this article, I think it was an interesting read.
Without going much into detail, I would like to say that we fully expect and accept the Senate being involved in the process. After all, regardless of what we as a region decide to do about the update we will need to make some long-standing legal adjustments. We have also not yet excluded the option of Europeia itself becoming a Frontier region.
Additionally, if you think that there is something that we should take into account that you're worried we aren't, feel free to post either in the Grand Hall or DM anyone on the Advisory Board, or all of us, even, if you want to do so.
Finally, as part of my VP duties I also have been preparing a short little surprise for y'all in order to increase transparency and communication.

 

[Olde Delaware]

Can you really call it transparency if the entire advisory board is on the EAAC, itself a board known for being, you know, not publicly transparent?

 

[Inishmaan]

Everything about this. Just everything. I wholeheartedly agree that the Senate, and FA policymakers more generally, should hold public consultations, or at least consultation with the Senate, on this. I was a voter who chose Frontier over Stronghold in the pre-election poll (at least I'm fairly certain) and my decision-making is more based on what Europeia could offer to new residents over any security concerns (which I'm also pretty certain are functionally will.

Anyways, I agree that a Senate hearing is a necessity. Even if the discussion happens and the consensus is that the Lime/Sky plan is fantastic or the route we need to take, it's better that the Senate (and by extension we) were involved in that discussion than not. If that doesn't end up the case, and I would like to see a Senator argue for Europeia to be a Frontier should this end up causing a public hearing, it would only prove the utility in having the hearing in the first place. I think it would be a massive mistake to have this stay in the hands of the EAAC who, while I'm sure they wouldn't injure Europeia, could choose a path which ends up not being an overall positive for our region out of some desire to be conservative re: our regional security.

(Which, contrary to HEM's point here, and just opining a bit on ideology, hesitance or resistance to change is a conservative viewpoint. I may not be a conservative or have much sympathy for ones in real life anymore, but I don't see why it should be a dirty word or one that's not embraced by policymakers more often.)

 

[sanjurika]

Great read! I have to admit that, when reading the platforms, I didn't really focus on the tickets' stance on the update at all. The rest of the platforms was more important to me.

^ This

F/S was on my mind, but it didn't weigh as heavily as I expected it to.

Nice article McEntire!

 

[Fhaeng]

Just to add some of my thoughts on the matter, I am more in favour of the Province idea, I’ve put some thought into comparing it with the billboard idea and it makes more sense. I’m not sold on Europeia becoming a Frontier itself, but that could be due to there being less debate for that. Though I 100% agree with McEntire here in that the administration has absolutely zero mandate due to the electoral tie, and that it was by no means a single issue election. More discussion is required in public so that the region can coalesce around a clear singular policy around our response to this update. Here is my reasoning for the Province idea, and some other aspects that I believe require discussion.

A billboard is easier to set up and maintain. Also it would be easier to create a new one if it were to be lost to invasion. In the event of an invasion, while creating new billboards would be the simplest solution tactically, it could be seen as a military/political loss with an enemy gaining a trophy region regardless of it’s importance. The Lime/SkyGreen24 platform advocated for the use of citizen volunteers to hold the frontier to free up the ERN. I fail to see much of a difference between citizen volunteers and the ERN reserves, both would function as a piling force. Every ERN hold thereafter would need the administration to calculate the merits of that hold vs the rate of return on the Frontier as these are all essentially mobile WA resources.

A province would be more difficult to setup and maintain. It would also present a more politically potent target for invasion while also being harder to recreate. A loss would be more damaging as it is not just a region associated with Europeia being taken, but part of the culture. Developing this culture with retaining native nations founded within would strengthen the Frontier and help protect it without as much of a need for mobile WA resources, freeing up the ERN. Given the nature of cosmopolitanism in NS, there is little need to focus on a citizen resident nation in Europeia proper, when West Europeia or potentially another frontier is part of the same region offsite.

Regardless of either choice, the political repercussions of any potential invasion should also be up for discussion. More than just a NS forum statement, Security Council proposals should be part of the calculus in responding to such breaches of Europeian Sovereignty. This update brings new SC measures to the table, while proposals to condemn, repeal commendations as well as the newer declarations remain powerful tools in the region’s arsenal.

Hopefully those events would never happen, and to help prevent that the security needs of a founderless region need to be addressed. Essentially Delegacies should be long term, I feel any President-appointed, Senate-approved Governor to serve as Delegate should serve a six month term similar to the Delegate of Europeia. To be frank, not everyone gameside will be as responsive as ERN sailors, and Delegate transitions can take time. A new Delegate is also typically the most vulnerable to invasion due to their lower levels of endorsements. Furthermore a single Governor alone is not enough to protect a region, trusted deputies, potentially with Border Control privileges, would be needed. These would all need to be WA citizens. Deputies while not necessarily needing to have as long term appointments, would still need oversight. Lastly both of these positions should require a citizen who is active gameside to keep track of endorsements and influence, be in the loop with naval command, and be knowledgable about the mechanics of influence.

Regardless of if the future Frontier adopts a unique gameside culture or not (however that may be decided), there are related aspects that should be answered ahead of time. It will need a flag, banner, wfe, tags, pinned dispatches, and potentially the automated rmb posting of IFV recommendations as well. Most of these will likely be the same as Europeia though. Naturally an embassy to Europeia would be essential, allowing more gameside active residents to assist any newcomers. A different welcome telegram would be needed, alongside new manual/api telegrams for new nations.

There would also likely be a natural impetus for non-aggression-pacts and mutual-defence-agreements between Frontiers as well as regions creating Frontiers. Also analysing what is already covered in existing treaties and how they may relate to legal obligations between our treaty partners would be prudent.

No doubt an undertaking to respond to the update is a large task let alone attempting to take advantage of it with creating a new region. I wouldn’t be surprised if I’ve made some glaring oversights here as someone relatively new to the region, but I hope this helps us prepare so that the region meets this update with a competitive advantage.