I don't think it would be within proper decorum of the Council to have an ex-councillor debate the active Speaker, so I will answer on Master Devoy's behalf. Any feedback or criticism for what he's said should be directed to me.
Speaker Firoux, I don't think Master Devoy claimed to have written the entire Constitution or intended to marginalize other Councillors' contributions to the document. If you were listening, he was referring to very specific parts. That's also why I introduced him as "an" author and not "the" author.
We continue to have constitutional debates with you, because the Constitution doesn't really support the way you're using it to elevate democracy to such a pedestal. Yes, I acknowledge that it's very important, but the level you want it is just not required. "Promoting democracy" is part of the Preample...that's not a judiciable part of the document. It's just a mission statement, you can't violate a Preample. The Right to Democratic Governence in the UDoHR is enforceable by a court of law and the part to examine. Even the powerful first and third clauses appear to be aimed at national governments and not really at councillors.
We also disagree on the validity of representation as democratic. You seem to think anything short of a full election isn't democratic. I see appointed representatives as an extension of trust that voters put into the government representatives they did elect. They still have democratic legitimacy, flowing through the previous level of representation. If the people aren't happy with who their government appoints to do whatever, they can vote that government out.
I agree with you that a member-state is a country and that the people comprise a country. But, the government of that country is the only entity that can represent it internationally. The people just aren't the government, unless it's one massive direct democracy with no representatives at all, which describes no current member-state. The government is its own separate entity and it alone has the power to act on behalf of the entire country. Thus, a councillor must represent it, as stated by the EU Constitution.
Unfortunately, I don't think we'll be able to see eye to eye on these issues. The way you extrapolate meaning from things that weren't said, and the loose way you use the European Constitution to grant legitimacy to your ideological goals are highly concerning. You aren't listening or reading. Your way or the highway helped cost us Angleter, who is next? Master Devoy's way or the highway cost several member-states, as well. Tyranny by majority in the name of whatever goals rips the EU apart.
At the end of the day, there is a sizeable contingent of councillors and member-states who simply want to retain the freedom to choose how they are represented in the Council. They want to follow the Constitution as written rather than having it warped to mean whatever you want it to. This act has got to go.
Councillor of the Duxburian Union