Well, just because the commission on the Hano-Pendronian union has, for whatever reason, decided to keep its deliberations behind closed doors, doesn't mean that we cannot continue to discuss the matter here.
If this were a macronational event, it would be reported on the news every day, it would likely be featured live on the equivalent of C-Span and, at the very least, the committee chamber would be open to the walk-in public. We the people would then discuss the project at work, at school, in coffee bars, bars and so forth.
It was the talk of unification which brought this discussion board back from the dead to begin with, so let's keep it alive. Now I know that His Majesty has directed that the commissioners report back to us regularly with the details but that doesn't mean we need to wait for them in order to speak about it.
That having been said, perhaps both Pendronian and Hanoverian participants on this discussion board would like to offer their views on what they would like to see happen with regard to and as a result of the union of our two nations. What would you like the empire (if such it is to be) to represent, to stand for? Who do we Pendronians and Hanoverians become as a united people? What are your primary concerns, questions or hopes? Once we do unite, where do we go from there? &c, &c, &c...
While the commission is discussing the nuts and bolts, there are any number of questions we might ask of ourselves pertaining to the larger, broader picture. Perhaps we might use this thread to air our ideas and our hopes about what our united nation can be or become.
I agree with the Duke of Marchmain. While we Commissioners are discussing this in private for whatever reason...I really have no idea why. I also thought it would be looked in by the public, like CSPAN. Or at least have a full CNN Report every evening, or MNN in our case...
couldnt help it... Anyway, I would like the people of Hanover to dicuss this issue, what you like, definately don't like and so on. Possibly in the Citizens retreat? This way, I, who will try to fully represent your views to the Commission, can know what you want. Please, continue to discuss this.
The reason that the discussion is behind closed doors is so that the Committee members can be frank and honest, without having to take into account any political considerations, and without any pressure from outside influences. I think that's very fair.
Not, of course, that that would stop anyone else discussing the matter. To be honest, I thought we'd already gone as far as we could go in public discussions in the original "Empire" thread.
Quote:The reason that the discussion is behind closed doors is so that the Committee members can be frank and honest, without having to take into account any political considerations, and without any pressure from outside influences. I think that's very fair.
I search in earnest, and finally without success for a reason why the commission could not deliberate frankly and honestly in the public eye just as easily as it could behind closed doors. Heaven forbid the public, through the discussion of the commission's labours, should have some sort of influence upon the activity thereof. Heaven forbid a commission member, reading a good idea regarding one of the matters at hand, should report back and say, "hey, you know Joe Shmo posted a good idea about how to get around that problem in the Ellicott Square forum, dup, dup dup..." Precisely what other influences, I wonder, does the commission fear may taint its negotiations?
I don't advocate that the public be able to post its thoughts in the commission's forum, only that it ought to have been allowed to view its proceedings. Were we able to observe the commission in action, we could discuss your activities and develop opinions about them. As regards a matter so grand, did you honestly suppose that after a week's worth of public discussion or so we had all had quite enough and from there on in we preferred to simply yield all considerations to a handful of people and no longer give the matter any thought?
There's nothing remotely fair about this set-up. I wonder who first proposed that these deliberations ought to be in secret, and why that individual feels that this empire should be designed away from the public eye, behind closed doors and if they feel that that really sets the proper tone for the character of the entity which is to follow.
The decision to hide the development of the union from the rest of us was an unfortunate one. I believe, however, that the rest of us ought to continue to develop and publish our hopes and ideas in consideration of the union despite being shut-out.
Say, for example, that a Commission member (for the sake of anonymity, we'll call him Prince J.) thought that the name of the Empire really should be "Zululand". But, in an email conversation with a member of the public - with whom Prince J. wanted to continue to get along - that member of the public (or "Duke J.") had said that he really hated the name Zululand and much preffered Bananaworld.
If the Committee were in public, Prince J. might very well feel inclined to vote for Bananaworld rather than Zululand, so he would continue to be in Duke J.'s favour. Can you see how that might happen? And yet, if the discussions were in private, he could safely vote for Zululand, without fear that Duke J. would think any less of him.
I'm rather proud of that little example. I hope it illuminates the issue for you.
Your example simply illuminates the mistrust which either yourself or this commission has developed of the very people who make up this proposed empire. Why, may I ask, is it a problem for the public to find out that you've all decided to name the empire "Zululand" and, taking issue with that, publicly express our displeasure with your decision?
Since it's not the commission which is going to be deciding whether this merger goes forward but rather the two peoples in plebiscite, wouldn't you want to know what they think about your decisions so that when you present everything to them they don't finally look at your proposals and say, "What, are you people nuts? Go back and start over; that sucks!"
Why should not the public have input in this process? That's the part I don't understand, and your sterling example only serves to intensify my annoyance.
Your unsavory insinuations offered within the example of which you're so very proud as regards "Prince J." and "Duke J." and whether "Duke J." might be puppetteering "Prince J" bring dishonour upon Prince Justin and myself, my young savage, but mainly upon you. Why did you feel the need to be so callous?
For the record, I have yet to exchange an email with anyone regarding the deliberations of the commission. I have expressed my views, in every case, publicly in these forums. Not that there would be anything sinister in discussing the matter via email, either with Prince J, or anyone else.
Duke of Brunswick,
I share the Marchmain's conclusion. I see no reason to make the proceedings closed to the general public. In fact, it does soe mistrust.
I think we all realize that at some point, the committee is going to make a decision we don't like. The problem will arise when this decision is announced without the populations having has the opportunity to say "Hey, I hate that idea".
Closed door meeting are good for isolation, and bad for unity.
Our trust in the commissioners is that they will hear us, and do their very best to pick the right balance in the end having taken everyones input into account.
That cannot happen if the general public cannot observe.
I predict what will happen is the commission will come out of its secret meeting with a fairly reasonable arrangement, and because it is a surprise, will have a great deal of trouble gaining acceptance from the general public.
You'll be asking people to vote in support of a agreement they only know from second hand reports.
Regards,
HM Alexander of Hanover
Regards,
HM Alexander of Hanover
The point of privacy isn't to protect the Commissioners from the public as a whole, but to prevent personal relationships from being affected. The Commissioners are there to represent their nations, and that's what they're doing - the reason there is a Committee in the first place is because having everyone involved with the discussion makes organisation almost impossible (as we can see from the Empire thread). The individuals involved in the Committee must be able to feel that they can freely say what they think, without the shadow of the personal opinions of other Hanoverians.
Obviously, they have to take into account the general will of the populations they represent, but not the will of any one individual (except perhaps the King, who can see the discussion anyway).
I'm sorry, I still have no idea what you're talking about. You seem to have concerns about one individual, previously named "Duke J.", exerting some sort of influence over the commission.
Would you care to address your concerns less obliquely? What is your problem, Thomas? I would like you to take an internal poll of your fellow commissioners and ask which of them has found themselves pressured by some "individual".
The reason the committee was created to begin with was to get take our ideas and turn them into realities through compromise. The reason was not to remove the process from the public view and to leave everyone else out of it.
The "shadow" of the personal opinions of Hanoverians? This entire thing--including your talks in the commission--will involve personal opinions. Again, what on earth are you talking about???
This is beyond insulting.
Later, chilluns.