Nuclear States Meeting
Dear esteemed colleagues,
As you are all aware, the "Nuclear Weapons Act" was passed around 2 months ago leaving several of you feeling disenfranchised in determining your own policies regarding nuclear weapons. It has come to my attention that no nuclear state wishes to disarm since disarmament was which was the original intention of the act, since disarmament would not be on your terms, and with the instability happening around the region it seems that we may be restricting legitimate states from being able to defend themselves against rogue state or non-state actors that may come to hold nuclear weapons. I would like to open this debate up as a forum for those states who were unheard during the time when legislation was being passed.
Therefore I would like to invite @Angleter @Duxburian-Union @Halsberg @The-United-Kingdom and all other ENAA authorised nuclear states to come forth and discuss the state of nuclear weapons in the European Union.
Eloise Murray Councillor of the Constitutional Monarchy of Miraco
Disenfranchised would be an understatement, Councillor Murray. I have been lucky enough to serve my country in the European Council for the past 9 years, able to observe how the will of my constituents has evolved over time. There is no major country in this Union more disillusioned with the people in European institutions than mine, consistently year in and year out. The recurring complaints are overreaching commissioners and overly idealistic councillors voting for concepts instead of what's actually written in the bills.
We have a badly strained history with the Commission, in particular. We hated certain commissioners so badly that effigies were burned, massive protests turned violent, upscale Riverside burned to the ground, and hundreds of people lost their lives. Commissioner actions directly or indirectly almost brought us to war with several countries and did result in war with one. While the Commission has achieved great things, it has also screwed a lot up, and lost ground with young Duxburians. According to Nemiro polling, only 7% of Duxburians ages 65 or older think the EU would be better off without the Commission. That number jumps to 19% when you hit Generation X, a staggering 58% majority when you hit Generation E (OOC; Older millennials), and 33% with Generation I (OOC: Younger millennials).
Generation E came to power during really controversial commissions. A whole one was impeached, they had the ruinous Stipe Riots, they had brutal fights over EU taxation, and they had a protracted fight over nuclear weapons management. Gen E Duxburians compromised via the ENAA and Council authoring/presenting rules. They thought the nuclear issues were settled.
My country has slowly shifted its stance on nukes, especially with Gen I entering the political scene. Disarmament talks have been proposed in the past, but the political landscape was not ready for that. When the Nuclear Weapons Act was proposed, the general consensus had shifted to support a freeze at the current warhead numbers and summit with nuclear nations to discuss possible disarmament levels. In my professional opinion, Commissioner Johnson and Councillor Firoux jumped the gun, especially with the 1st amendment banning development and use, in particular. Sentiment favoring disarmament did not mean, go ahead and start banning things. A Duxburian head of state has the sole power to manage our nuclear arsenal. This isn't like cannabis or fatty foods, the nuclear arsenal is a matter of global life and death, it takes a head of state to sign off on any changes. I'm sure that other nuclear states feel similarly.
The Steward sees the amendment (not the whole act) as an insult to his authority, and will not even come to talks until its repeal, that is why I am here to represent him. Duxburian nukes are of high quality and the military's longevity audit has given them projected launch viability of at least 83 years as currently deployed. I do believe that he has the upper hand here, as he can hold out past the end of our lifetimes and no one's going to disarm if he doesn't.
The proposed roadmap he wishes me to present is:
- Repeal of part or all of the Nuclear Weapons Act
- Nuclear nations summit with a commissioner with legitimacy in the field
- An arrangement or compromise for the UK (which does not wish to disarm)
- An initial disarmament round
- A treaty to set future rounds of disarmament, whether it reaches 0 is up to the positions of the other nuclear nations. The Steward is not adverse to a conditional goal of 0.
Acwellan Devoy Councillor of the Duxburian Union
The United Kingdom certainly has felt disenfranchised and ironically the European conservatives who wanted this bill, progressive or otherwise, are the same people who find other liberal pursuits as a breach of national sovereignty, but did not exactly care because there was a sense of childish selfishness by the councillors of certain nations. The attitude of "if I can't get any legally then no one should have them" was written across the face of those councillors and despite protestations by the legitimate nuclear states, it went ahead. This was an irresponsible piece of legislation, leaving the world vulnerable to a rogue state that is determined beyond anything else to achieve nuclear status.
We agree with the Duxburian Steward that the amendment to the act was an affront to our national sovereignty and the British Sovereign and His Government will not continue any talks without its immediate nullification, and go further with the demand of a repeal of the Nuclear Weapons Act. We believe that the ENAA should be reformed to handle an orderly, responsible and voluntary disarmament when all present threats are no longer a threat. The United Kingdom has 100 nuclear weapons that, much like my Duxburian counterpart, will last for the better part of a century, and our nation will not disarm them if the Sovereign and His Majesty's Government does not approve. Compare 100 to thousands by other nations, and it's very clear as to why we believe we do not need to disarm immediately or be forced to do so. Our arsenal is simply not at all at the same level as others. We also already had no plans in this Government to produce any more, but this legislation has changed the political discourse of our nation to say that we will produce in spite of the legislation.
If an immediate ban is ever going to be enforceable, we would have to also ban the resources needed to produce the weaponry, which as we know can be used responsibly in nuclear power. Therefore, any nation could say that their policies are geared towards nuclear power production, hide its production of weapons in mountains, underground, and lie to the European Union that they do not have any until it is launched. This act was not pragmatic and did not understand the loopholes it created when it limited responsible nations, three of whom are aligned with each other and the fourth a valuable trading and diplomatic partner, without ensuring that rogue nations would not be able to simply develop a weapon. This was a completely irresponsible piece of legislation that placed the Union into an even less secure position, not more secure.
We support Mr. Devoy's proposals and will be more than willing to negotiate an arrangement or compromise on our own nuclear arsenal.
Rushanara Ali Councillor, The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland
I'd like to thank Commissioner Murray for opening up this meeting, although I'm not sure what else I can add. Councillors Ali and Devoy have summed up Halsberg's feelings extremely well. The Nuclear Weapons Act was premature in the extreme and, as Councillor Ali has said, was childish and selfish in some respects. While the spirit behind the bill was admirable, its naivety and disregard for the opinions of the states it would effect made it irredeemable.
Halsberg has always maintained that nuclear disarmament should be a long-term goal however, like the Councillors have indicated, we don't feel we'd be able to enter any negotiations on the subject unless the Nuclear Weapons Act is either the repealed in its entirety, or amended substantially. If this proves impossible, any progress on disarmament will be quite unlikely, considering the apparent unanimity of the nuclear states in this area.
Councillors Ali and Devoy are quite right when they talk of disenfranchisement. The nuclear states were completely bypassed when the legislation was being drafted, when it was being proposed and indeed still today when it is supposed to be being implemented. This is not the way to achieve disarmament. This is the way to ensure disarmament will never be seen. It has to be inclusive of all the nuclear states of the region. The frankly naive and selfish views of some non-nuclear states, while entitled to be heard, should not be imposed upon us as has been the case. One simply has to look at the voting record for the Act in question. Of the nations that voted, every single nuclear state voted against, while all votes in favour were from non-nuclear ones. This disparity isn't the way forward.
I'd support Councillor Devoy's proposal and reaffirm Halsberg's desire for a nuclear-free Europe.
John Walters Speaker of the European Council and Councillor for Halsberg
I'd also like to thank Cllr. Murray for bringing us together here. I would like to add my voice to that of Cllrs. Devoy, Ali, and Walters against the Nuclear Weapons Act. It is tyranny by majority, passed for its intentions rather than its actual words, and borne out of the politics of division and envy. It is also an unprecedented, en masse case of disregard for national sovereignty. Angleter will continue to push for the repeal of that piece of legislation as long as it remains on the books, and, though we would be unwilling to commit to full nuclear disarmament - there are, we believe, no foreseeable circumstances in which that would be anything but bad for our national interest - we will be more than happy to considerably reduce the size of our nuclear arsenal as part of the plan outlined by Cllr. Devoy.
Peter Montfort Councillor for Angleter