The Forums of Glennain

What follows is not in any way a policy statement from the Conservative Party. Indeed, I imagine many of my fellow Conservatives will passionately disagree with most of the statements below.

Recently I have realised that making political compromises and trying to be tactful when stating my opinions hasn't really been worth it: in the end, my policies aren't much more popular. Therefore, to please myself and to make Hanoverian politics that much more interesting, I will now state my undiluted personal platform. If anyone but me supports some of these ideas, then they will be followed up with Bills. Some of these things I have said before; some of these things may appear complete contradictions of my previous statements; in any case, this is what I want:

1. Constitutional Codification: We should replace the current ambiguous mix of Proclamations and unwritten rules with a single Act of Parliament, setting out the structure of the Hanoverian state in a simple and clear manner. This would be an ordinary Act, amendable by the ordinary means.
2. Constitutional Monarchy: The nation ought to be governed by Parliament, and a Government directly responsible to it. The King would be Head of State, and would retain a significant role as an adviser to and check on the Government. It makes no sense for the King to be above the law, and have no responsibility, unless he is not actually making the decisions.
3. Strong Premiership: Parliament should elect a Prime Minister to be Head of Government, and to nominate the other Ministers. The PM would be dismissable by Parliament, as would the other Ministers.
4. Less Focus on Pomp: Yes, I know this is heresy in modern Hanover. We do not need the massive network of titles and Orders of Chivalry and ceremonial military agencies that Hanover has built up. It doesn't make us look grand, it makes us look pompous and rank-obsessed. To be sure, most micronations devote lots of time to titles and ceremony, but Hanover has gone overboard, I think. I would solve this, first off, by disbanding the ceremonial military, disestablishing the Church, and dissolving most of the Orders, all besides the Act.
5. Micronationalism: Another heresy! I think Hanover is a micronation, and I don't think that's anything to cover up or be ashamed of. It was a lot more fun to be a Hanoverian (and there were more of us, remember?) before we evolved into the often-excessively serious group we are today. Yes, this means we sometimes achieve much better things than other micronations; but it causes many more problems than it solves. The largest and most stable online micronations are often not that serious, you will find; we are not an offline nation like Ascalon, and we need to accept that fact.
6. Transparency: So much in modern Hanover takes place behind closed doors, in the Privy Council or in private Audiences. This not only makes the end result less reliable -- since not as many people are consulted in the decision-making process -- but it also alienates newcomers, and makes the public nation look less active. I think that we should place strong legal limitations on what can be done without consulting the public or Parliament. Referendums are quick and easy in Hanover, we should have more of them.

Many of these problems are largely my fault, which is one reason why I have become more and more concerned about trying to solve them. I know first-hand how much a lack of transparency hurts policy, because many of my own failed policies were quietly ushered in without the public discussion that could have made them successful. Unfortunately, I fear that simply regressing our laws and structures will only help so much; the reform would be useless unless people accepted a different mindset along with it, a mindset of realism, and more importantly a mindset of not taking ourselves too seriously. The latter alone would work wonders.

But I can already feel Lord Marchmain and Prince Justin, and perhaps the King himself, rolling up their sleeves to type lengthy refutations of these ideas. I think I can respond to most of the potential criticisms quite simply: I want to return to what we had two or three years ago, when I first immigrated. It worked better then than the current system does now, as evidenced by our larger number of citizens and higher activity. I think that fact is adequate evidence that these ideas should at least be considered. I have no intention of writing more than a paragraph or two in response to whatever others think of my proposals, so quite frankly I would advise my fellow Hanoverians to save their keystrokes and respond with brevity.

Sincerely,

Christopher D. Livingston
Unrepentant Heretic

Wow...I don't think the parties are working right because I agree with you, but the chair of your party probably won't on this, and the only other present member of my party would also disagree on this...I don't think either of the existing parties can really have official positions on these issues, but my person opinions are very much in line with that (only going even further in some ways...I really adore the Swedish model of a parliamentary monarchy and of a parliament, and of equality for example).

Mr. Thompson,

Interesting. I figured that if anyone agreed with me, it would be you, and perhaps some Hanoverians of the old school, such as Sir Aderyn and Lord Brunswick. I joined the Conservatives so that there would be a bit of balance between the parties, in terms of active members; in reality, my own policies are decidedly Liberal in Hanover's political spectrum. In any case, since it would seem that I won't be a completely lone voice, I shall try to turn some, at least, of the above ideas into Bills.

I love the majesty and history of the British government, but when you get right down to it, many aspects of that government are simply not as perfect as some Hanoverians make out. The lack of a codified constitution, for instance, has allowed the Prime Minister to become a veritable dictator; only a few months ago, Parliament came close to passing an Act that would have allowed Ministers to revise Acts of Parliament by executive order, but thankfully not even the modern parliamentary whip system could force that through. Hanover should continue to be a British-themed micronation, but we should also bear in mind the wisdom of other nations, especially the European constitutional monarchies and the Commonwealth nations -- most of which correct the flaws in the British system while retaining its overall feel.

Sincerely,

Christopher D. Livingston

A degree of pomp and ceremony has it's place.

That said:

I believe open governance in micronationalism is the best recruiting tool at our disposal.

Participants must feel empowered, that is why people join a micronation. A government accountable to a parliament provides that empowerment. The government should not be restricted to members of parliament, this opens greater avenues for participation.

The King must continue to play an active role in the life of the nation. The King provides some backbone, some tradition, and some steady leadership. I believe we should continue to acknowledge the theoretical supremacy of the King, and welcome an active role for the King in the processes of governing and legislating.

Codifying the process of government in a single act would make government more accessable to newer members. That said, we must resist the temptation to continually reinvent our system of government.

regards,

Mr. Livingston: You and Mr. Thompson are very correct in your hypothesis that I would not love your proposals. Am I really that predictable? As you may know, I am heavilly against disbanding orders, pomp and the Church. Orders should be given out with extreme frugality and thought but not disbanded. We have done things of that nature before or thought of going that route.

While I disagree with the anti-pomp sentiments, I do agree that our government needs to be more transparent. As always, the Privy Council does have its purpose and should remain cloistered. We do need to have more public votes and my royal cousin the Lord Chancellor's survey made me think that in that direction.I would like to know more of what people want instead of making them want what I want. I agree with Aderyn that this transparency would be our best recruiting tool.

Onto lack of seriousness... I partially agree. While I think we should maintain our dignity we shouldn't refrain from developing and growing and shouldn't take actions that hinder such progress.

The King: I believe that our greatest asset is our sovereign. We have been blessed with Alexander R. I want our king to continue to be a source of activity and inspiration.

Gentlemen,

With regard to pomp and ceremony, I don't think that we should completely ignore it. But it has received so much attention in the last year as to become an end in itself -- which it shouldn't be. The pomp and ceremony should be something that adds to the majesty of already great institutions; we shouldn't create whole new bodies just for its sake. Concerning the Orders, it is plain that something needs to be done when we have almost as many Orders as active citizens. Aristocracy should, by its very nature, be an elite group, otherwise no-one will feel all that special when they are brought into it, which defeats the purpose of honours.

The Church is another matter. I think that it should be disestablished because only a serious Christian would have the knowledge necessary to run it, and no serious Christian would want to head a Church that is little more than a club for fans of ecclesiastical titles and ceremony. Speaking for myself as someone who will be devoting their life to serving the macronational Church, I don't want to have anything to do with it if it's just a secular institution. That's certainly not what I had in mind when I wrote the Supremacy Act.

Finally, with regard to the King: His Majesty will continue to hold a huge role in decision-making no matter what we do, simply because he is at the centre of things, and is the most active citizen. Even back when the Government was in charge and he couldn't do anything without a countersignature, he was still the leading government figure. I don't think we need to worry about him becoming a figurehead.

Sincerely,

Christopher D. Livingston

The way I see it, Hanover has the capability of appealing to two basic types of participant:

1. Persons interested in getting into the thick of government and politics.

2. Persons who love monarchy, royalty and all the flummery and pomp and antiquity which surround monarchy and royalty.

So why should we have to decide to choose between one or the other? Why can we not have both?

Let the politics and government lovers focus on their politics and their government, and if they want nothing to do with titles and knighthoods, let them eschew all of that and simply stick to politicking.

Then let the pomp and circumstance lovers focus on the pomp and circumstance, recreating it and revelling in it as fully and as authentically and as traditionally as they please, accepting any title or honour the Crown will give them, to their hearts' content.

I see no reason to all but dismantle the honours system and the ceremony of the nation for the sake of those few citizens of a monarchy who won't have any interest in all of that. Those who don't want to participate or get caught up in all of that should just ignore it and go about their business, rather than depriving those who do want all of that of the very thing that attracts them to a nation like this, don't you think?

I think what we really need is a casting director to make sure that pomp and circumstance lovers aren't miscast as agriculture ministers and that political junkies aren't miscast as Earls Marshal. I think people would be alot happier here if they held jobs that were most suited to their interests. I find that that's often not the case.

I see in Hanover politicians who want to be bishops, kings who want to be technology professors, Lord Chancellors who know nothing about law and parliamentary procedure, cabinet ministers who love crown jewels, Chancery officials who want to make policy...and I really think this is where we wind up shooting ourselves in the foot.

Quote:Aristocracy should, by its very nature, be an elite group, otherwise no-one will feel all that special when they are brought into it, which defeats the purpose of honours.

Perhaps, in our circumstance, we need to rethink this. Perhaps we shouldn't look at aristocracy and nobility as an elite group composed of persons who have been honoured for their efforts, but as one of two main categories into which prospective citizens may be placed upon their naturalization. Since aristocratic titles in Hanover don't have any power attached to them, it doesn't give anyone an advantage over anyone else to hold one. Power is wielded by the government.

So let persons choose what they want. There are going to be some people who will come here to be politicians and statesmen and who may have no interest at all in noble titles. Fine. But there will be others whose primary desire is to enjoy a romp in the traditions of the old order and who will expect it to be done right, with all the stops pulled out. Let those people join-up as aristocrats. That's what they want, right? Let them start out as baronets and work their way up the aristocratic ladder.

And let those who have no interest in all of that just ignore it and mind their own business.

Don't get rid of elements of the kingdom that make some people happy...just give the right people the right jobs.

Your Royal Highness,

Way, way back in the past, during the Congress of Bergen, someone proposed something like what you mention above: there would be two citizenship tracks, one ending in a noble title, and one ending in a ministerial office. That was abandoned at the time because it was associated with a plan to dissolve the Commonwealth nations, but I don't see any reason why it would be unworkable. If we could legally define a separation between the pomp and circumstance side and the politics side, things could work out fine -- but it would need to be fairly explicit, I think.

One question that remains is, what about the people in the gray area? For instance, unless I'm gravely mistaken Your Royal Highness is most definitely in the pomp and circumstance side, and yet you occupy an office that is currently the most important in the Government by far...

Sincerely,

Christopher D. Livingston

Reading back through this thread, I believe some degree of concensus is achievable.

1. We all support a strong role for the monarchy, we all support the King.

2. We all appear to agree that to some degree the process of decision making and the ongoing political debate that this entails should be more public in order to make our nation more inviting to outsiders and newcomers.

3. I believe we all agree that we need to build individual empowerment.

I should probably define what I mean by empowerment. The feeling, what I have described as a sense of empowerment, that any citizen can make a difference, that everyone can launch themselves into the life of our community, is essential to recruiting, engaging and retaining members for our community.

Whether it means an elected parliament, a government accountable to that parliament, or the ability to participate in pomp and ceremony; in order to build a vibrant Hanover, we need empowered citizens.

On these things I believe we can all agree.

Mr. Livingston:

I see no need for anything to be legally defined and certainly not in any sort of black or white way.

I don't mean to say that persons primarily interested in politics and government should be forbidden from becoming members of the nobility or from otherwise partcipating in the pageantry of the realm; neither do I mean to say that aristocrats shouldn't be allowed to participate in politics if they want to.

What I'm trying to express is the idea that those who do want to participate in, say, the aristocracy or otherwise with respect to the "tradition and pageantry" side of things should be allowed to, whereas those who do not want to do not have to.

I would, I suppose, in the scenario I'm suggesting, regard the aristocracy as somewhat like the Church of Hanover: it ought to be there for the sake of any who would like to participate in it, but any who do not want to participate in it don't need to worry about it. They can just go about their business and not get caught up in it.