If there is a desire for Rosie to have all these positions, then a "waiver" will undermine the rule of law - and toss out all previous deliberations, which may have more quality behind them then may be realized in a moment (I mean in general for a decision on law, any law), and which where made to envision future events. What you can do if you want one person to be leader of the NG and be in the RA, is to reform the NG as a Government department, which is what I was wondering about already because it has a monopoly position and is effectively an infrastructure department of the CDS Government. Then one can easily assign one of the RA to be minister over it, and dispense with the pretences of it being independent and separate from the RA, having a "neutral chair person."
Short of having made such decisions to change the role of the NG, I believe that it will be best to play by the rules as they where made for the time being, which seem to have sense to them and which where after all higher level decisions (about law, rather then about a practical single issue). The proper authority to change the role of the NG into a non-neutral Government department seems to me to be the RA ? That debate could then be waged as a debate on the general system for the CDS Government/economy (etc), rather then be pegged on one single practical issue that has tempers flaring (lol).
I note that the people who wanted to put the same person in all these positions have nevertheless claimed that neutrality was an important issue for them. By that token they have in my view made an illogical statement: either NG Secretary is neutral, or it is a 'colored force.' Secondly it was not addressed that there could be another person in this role to support Rosie. There was reasonable concern that someone may propose a new sim to the NG on a mandate crafted by the RA and that all that could be under some serious influence by the same parties - something that the independence of the NG principle seems to want to guard against or why else does it want to be indepedent. Although it is not an absolute power, it is an influence. Neither of these issues seem to have been logically answered, only by the repetition that this was a witch-hunt or against Rosie (which is demonstratibly incorrect since I think Rosie's builds are great and wish she did more including the Castle). The matter of it being a witch-hunt is refuted by the concerns for general law and the further future.
Hence the side that wanted to make this all one person, or to undermine previous law in the moment for a practical issue without showing serious reasons for needing it, that side has in my view failed to make the argument. Maybe they still could ?
1. Why is it necessary that the NG secretary is the same person as someone who already has the needed support to build ?
2. Why was the NG made independent, and how is this need now no longer important ?
3. If the NG should no longer be indendent, should there not be an RA debate about this ? The people who want Rosie in all these positions said they want an NG independence and neutral chair person anyway, by which they seem to have made contradictory claims for their position, imho.
4. If the NG should be independent, why not maintain that general principle against minor practical issues in the moment ? How hard would it be for an NG meeting under another secretary, to decide that Rosie's builds are great and should continue as before or even faster ?
I guess that the RA has referred the question to the NG, but without explicitly saying that the NG could become a dependent non-neutral part of the CDS Government. One could make the argument that the RA has left it to the NG on whether it still wants to be independent. Unfortunately the people that want Rosie in this position have not said that they prefer a depedent Government department as being the role of the NG, but they value neutrality and independence. That seems to make it problematic to elect the same person in all these positions, which threatens that very neutrality and independence. Had they made the reverse argument, that the NG should be a Gov department, then there would be no illogical statements in their arguments, and perhaps they should have won the vote for their cause.
If the CDS population is too small to support an independent NG with an independent and neutral secretary, then that is a powerful argument to remold the NG into a non-independent organization, I would think. Good luck in the RA to decide ? Then Rosie could be the minister over the NG, and proper procedure would have been waged on this issue with respect to the ground rules as they exist (which would then be somewhat altered).
Semi-independent is another option, without any considderations as to who is what in any other organizations, or explicitly saying that it does not matter.
best regards,
josjoha
PS Sorry for making this too long. But as a famous demagogue once said: repeat the lie often enough, and it becomes true ...
