Commission XX Debate, Oct. 2015
Halsberg last edited by Halsberg
"Hello, and a very good evening to all of you for this debate between the nominees for Commission XX. I'm Susan Callaghan, some of you may remember me from my few stints as Commissioner myself, while others may have seen me in my new fitness DVD collection, 'Shaping With Susan'. But enough about me, we're here for the seven candidates for the European Commission, all of which are here, ready and waiting to discuss the key issues in this campaign. In alphabetical order, we have:
- Geoffrey Asquith-Robinson of Davishire, one of the three candidates running again from the aborted elections a few months ago.
- Dr Suzannah Beech of Framptonia, fresh from her instrumental part in having the prior elections declared unconstitutional, Dr Beech is running under the S&D banner.
- Gordon Brown of the United Kingdom, also running as part of the S&D movement.
- Gorthuar of the Teutonic State, hoping his credentials of domestic reform translate into Europe-wide electoral success.
- Alexander Parks of The Weiss Isles, who eschews European level party politics and hopes to create a less partisan executive.
- Erna Soelberg of Kalmar, hoping to become her home nation's first European Commissioner.
- Eilidh Whiteford of Icholasen, who has not disguised her hopes for Premier and is, like most other candidates, running as an independent.
"The rules of the debate are as follows:
- Questions to be posed to the candidates must be sent to yours truly.
- Be sure to specify who each question comes from when you submit it, along with where they live (be as specific as you want), and their occupation.
- Questions may be submitted anonymously.
- The debate moderator (AKA me) reserves the right to reject any question if I feel I have legitimate grounds to do so.
- Pose questions to an individual candidate, or to the whole group, whichever takes your fancy.
- Be as biased or as unbiased as you like in your question.
- Only myself and the Commission candidates are allowed to participate in the debate.
"Before we start the questions, I'd ask the candidates to briefly introduce themselves."
"Hello, I'm Eilidh Whiteford. In my early life I worked on an onion farm in West Icholasen when it was under Communism. A devastating crash in the value of onions in 1989 meant I had merely one choice, to demonstrate against the corrupt nepotism of the state. It was tough times but the next year the country was finally reunified. After my first term as a Member of the Royal Chambre Des Délégués, I studied at the University of Queen Augustina in Portland City where I studied a major in Political Science and Economics. And in this recent election I gave up my second seat to become the Party of June's International Researcher. My job there involved intense research into the Political system of the European Union, and intense research into its member-states.
But it's not about me. It's about the European Union.
My hope for Europe is reform. I wish to have an open discussion into the EuroParty system. Where anyone can post their idea of the future of EuroParties, and there will be an informed discussion and vote about it. Also the Council and Commission will have reform, with the same method of proposal, discussion, and referendum. I believe need to consult the nations of the European Union as how they want our European Government to be run. I believe it's of paramount importance we do this: and in a timescale of 4 months I believe that is definitely doable. With each stage (proposal, discussion, and referendum) taking 1 month, and with a month to spare. Maybe even less time will need to be spent.
Speaker John Walters repealed the Nuclear Weapons Act and I commend him greatly for that. I believe we do need to have a disarmament plan that works for everyone. And that's possible definitely. It's clear that the Nuclear Weapons Act just wasn't going to work, and I will lead disarmament talks with the Nuclear Nations. With no Act that penalises them for having them. The way forward is not to alienate.
And yes, I have been very open with my hope of being Premier Commissioner because I believe it's where I can make the change I want. I plan to jump on the main issues we in Europe face, and tackle them and tackle them well. Some might say the Premiership is merely a position, and is doomed for inactivity. But I don't see why it has to be. I can make change and I will. Because that's what we deserve."
Hello, I am Gordon Brown of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland. I am from Giffnock, Scotland.
Before I get into further discussion of my credentials, I would like to thank Halsberg for hosting this important debate.
Some of you may want to define the United Kingdom based off of its recent excursions into the Teutonic State, and also by the fiasco of a court case that was the Beech-Question Time decision. I'm here today to explain to you my own background and what I can bring to the table.
I lived in Scotland for most of my life before politics, getting a degree from the University of Edinburgh in history, and received a PhD from the same university. I then began working for the Labour Party in the United Kingdom, rising from grassroots supporter to an MP, then Shadow Chief Secretary to the Treasury, then Prime Minister for 10 years. I have led a life of service, and I have found that I want to continue serving the public on a much more large scale.
I am looking to be a Commissioner in the European government, because I believe in Europe. What has happened over the past few Commissions and Courts have been something short of negligent. The Commission has not governed; it has simply postured for political gain. My political philosophy is to get on with the job. I have a vision of a Commission that will do just that. We need the European government more than ever. There are nations who simply do not follow European law despite it being voted by a majority of Councillors, human rights abuses within nations, and all we have had are statements, statements, statements. I firmly believe that Europe should be a place where our regional government functions. We waited 3 months for a court decision; that is an utter embarrassment to our institution.
My plans and policies will be about action. We need to secure the economic security of Europe while making it sustainable for the future. That means an investment of political capital into transitioning Europe to sustainable economies. This includes a look at reducing contributions to the European government. We have an enormous surplus to the European government, and while it is returned to our home nations, it makes no sense to keep collecting such a large sum. My policy will be about Commission accountability.
I firmly believe that the Council should play a larger role in scrutinizing the Commission, and as Premier Commissioner, I am prepared to answer questions to the Council on a weekly basis. It is important that the deliberative body of European policies be holding the Commission accountable for its actions.
Another point of policy is to get the Commission, Council, and Court to effectively be checked and balanced. That means the Commission will have to enforce laws in Europe passed by the Council. There has been very little to get the nations of Europe to even follow basic human rights. We need the Commission to assume its executive role that it was intended. I will work to ensure that an automatic procedure will keep our Court active, requiring that the Court be re-elected if no action is taken on a case 30 days after both the plaintiff and defendant have given their closing statements. It is imperative that a Court designed to settle European disputes do just that instead of sitting on inactivity.
I am a firm believer in nuclear disarmament, but the Nuclear Weapons Act did not provide a sensible solution to the problem. Instead, it politicised something that should be absolutely tantamount to our well-being as Europeans. As Premier Commissioner, I would work with the nuclear states along with the Internal Affairs Commissioner to bring about a steady and sensible reduction. What those who do not have these weapons realise is that the disposal of said weapons are costly and need to be done in a way that will guarantee no chance of these dangerous materials falling into the wrong hands or damaging our precious environment. But I am a firm believer that nuclear weapons in Europe have kept a very dangerous genie in the bottle and letting the genie out will be disastrous for Europe. They need to stay in a sensible manner, well regulated by an active ENAA, with sensible nations holding them.
Finally, as Premier, it will be my goal to listen to those I serve and Councillors from across Europe. My office will be open to all those who wish to discuss the issues. The key to an effective Europe is consensus. We've had contentious acts pass in our region, and instead of coming together behind an idea, they have divided us. As Prime Minister of the United Kingdom, I have the experience in working with those who were not of the same ideology. Those who share a different view are not our enemies, they are our neighbours. Divisive politics will only create a larger rift and ineffective governance. Consensus is key for us to tackle the challenges of tomorrow.
I am not coming to you as a Scotsman, a citizen of the United Kingdom, or its former Prime Minister. I am coming as Gordon, someone who has seen Europe's potential and believes that he can realise that potential at the helm of the European Commission. I want to bring Europe together and work towards those goals that we all have for Europe. I will do so without gimmicks. There will be no flash, just Gordon.
Good evening ladies and gentlemen and thank you to our hosts Halsberg for hosting this debate.
For those of you who don't know me, my name is Suzannah Beech and I am the Secretary of State for Constitutional and Judicial Affairs in the Government of the Federal Democratic Republics of Framptonia. My background is in the legal sphere. I was educated privately at the Bogthorpe School for Girls before achieving a scholarship to Harvard University where I gained a first class degree in Law and Politics. I trained to be a solicitor in the renowned firm of Scratchett, Sniffett and Vomit in Limpdom. After a series cases which generated a great deal of public attention, I she qualified as a barrister specialising as a defender of human and civil rights. After successfully challenging discrimination in the Kesteven Police Force against the indigenous population of Framptonia, I was asked to chair a Parliamentary Enquiry into institutional racism. I entered Parliament in Framptonia as a representative of the Democratic Socialist Party and following the election victory of 2014, I have been the Cabinet member with responsibility for the administration of Justice. Alongside the Framptonian Prime Minister, I was a member of the team that negotiated Framptonia's accession to the the European Union.
My core principles are those of Democracy and Justice and there is significant work to do within the Union to cement these principles in a more fundamental manner than we find at present.
By far the most pressing issue in the Union at the moment is the crisis within the Teutonic States. The crisis shows much of what is wrong within the Union. We have parts of our region where there is no democracy and no observance of basic Human Rights. But due to the inefficiency of its processes, little if any use is made of the European Court of Justice to redress the abuses. In the absence of a functioning Court, those nations which wish to resolve the issues in the Teutonic State have taken matters into their own hands and are pushing the region slowly bur inexorably towards a wider war.
It seems strange for me to say this, as a member of a Government from a declared Pacifist State, but the only way we can seek resolution to the crisis in the Teutonic States and avoid the hostilities spilling out into the wider area, is for the Union to take responsibility for the blockade from Davishire and the United Kingdom. The blockade should be implemented by a coalition of European nations and to a set of rules agreed by the European Council, rather than those selected unilaterally by individual nations. It should also involve an agreed programme for the distribution of humanitarian aid to the peoples of the Teutonic States. This action has to be a concerted action by the European Union and will require a supreme co-ordination between the Commission and the Council. But the alternative is a disastrous escalation
The mechanism of the European Court of Justice does not work. It cannot be made to work by adjusting the existing procedures. It needs dismantling and rebuilding from scratch. Without a functioning and effective Court, the rules of the Union cannot be enforced. If we fail to do this, we will simply be saving up the same problems for a later day. As a person concerned on a daily basis with Constitutional and Judicial matters, I am the ideal candidate to address this issue. As most of you will be aware, I have personal experience of the inefficiencies of the Court, and whilst I persevered and saw the matter through to the end, it was not a pleasant or satisfying experience.
We also have to deal with the threat of nuclear weapons. This becomes an even greater issue if we fail to fix the ECoJ. We have seen individual nations seeking to administer their own justice outside the control of the Court. For this reason we must seek mutual disarmament. This has to begin with a non-proliferation treaty, the refusal to accept new member states with nuclear arsenals and finally negotiation between the nuclear nations, using the Commission as the conduit through which those negotiations pass.
Each of those three items in isolation of the others would probably constitute a full workload for any Commission, but taken together there is unlikely to be much room for much else.
However there are items close to my heart which if I was to elected as a Commissioner and given the appropriate portfolio, I would be keen to explore. These include a greater enforcement of Human Rights and adherence to the Constitution; extensions to employment rights; the development of an effective recruitment campaign to attract new nation members; and exploration of an appropriate agricultural and fisheries policy.
These though must take a back seat to the issues of the Teutonic States, the European Court of Justice and the threat posed by nuclear weaponry, which if left unresolved threatens the very fabric of the Union.
Davishire last edited by
"Hello Ladies and Gentleman, thank you for coming along to this commission debate. Also, I would like to thank the interviewer and all the crew for giving us the opportunity to debate here tonight.
I am an independent candidate with big ambitions. Big ambitions fuelled by the chaotic events of the past few months. It is clear change is needed and I want to be apart of a commission which leads that change. It is quite obvious now that our current system cannot be continued in its current form. It does not work as efficiently as possible.
For this reason, I want to work with the council to reform our court. The court needs to be more active when it is needed but it also needs a more defined. I would want to consider the possibility of splitting the court into two functions. A constitutional court and a criminal court. Each with a different set of judges lead by an overall chief justice. This would allow petitioners to petition cases to the court which most suits their needs. This is one of the things I want to look at.
Another one of the key reforms that needs to take place in the EU is that of the ENAA. I believe that this organisation needs to be bought more up to date with the addition of new permanent members the possibility of more non-permanent members. Again, this is something I want to work with the council on.
Another key topic on the agenda is that of nuclear disarmament. Since the European Council has repealed the Nuclear Weapons Act the path has been opened for the possibility of nuclear disarmament discussions. I would like to be apart of the team which works with nuclear weapons states to reduce the number of these deadly weapons that exist within the EU
Anyhow, we will have enough time to talk policy later! Lets get on with the debate"
Halsberg last edited by Halsberg
"Our first question tonight comes from Ria Levion, a high school freshman from Dairghazbury, and is for all candidates:
"I started learning about the Commission elections in elementary school and enjoyed watching the debates. Back then, I was in awe of the candidates and their accomplishments. The region's political process was exciting and enthralling.
But, what I see today isn't what I learned about in school, this isn't Europe. This is a fucking train wreck. The Commission is worse than useless, the Court can't even show up, the Council is a repeal circus, war rages from the Arctic to the Suez. I can't believe that we spend 126 billion euros on this dysfunction.
Next year, I will turn 15 and gain eligibility to vote in Commission elections for the first time. This was a day I've been waiting my entire childhood for, I've lived for that moment, I've literally counted down the days until I can finally vote. But, that dream now lies in ruins, at this point I might as well walk in, pick up my first ever ballot, and tear it to shreds.
My question to all candidates is, Why should we keep believing in Europe? Why should we even bother with any of this?"
"We also have a question for Mr Asquith-Robertson, from the Steward of the Duxburian Union himself, Dante Maximillian:
"Why should we vote for anyone from Davishire, when your country has demonstrated that it would rather bring down the region than comply with its laws? How do you have any credibility to lead nuclear disarmament negotiations when we almost needed to go to war with your country to force you to obey the ENAA and not build nukes illegally? Why would anyone in their right mind want to work with you?"
"Our final question for just now is specifically for Alexander Parks, this time from Erik Jedsen, a college student from the University of Westeria:
"How exactly do you plan to bring unity to a shattered region? And, why we should we believe you, when promises are made every election and then nothing ever happens?"
"Icholasen is relatively new to the European Union (almost 2 years to the day), and we share your discontent. However, the Nicoleizian people and I genuinely believe there's a solution to the problems we face. And the solution a new fresh breath of life with reform and dealing with the conflicts we face head on. I will not shy away from fixing conflicts. I will not rest until we have a new plan for the Council, Commission, and EuroParties. And I will not rest until there is free elections in the TS and Lord Vele is brought to justice. Then, (still not resting) to give economic aid to the TS to help them rebuild key infrastructure. As to what is the point in the European Union? It's what we make of it. I believe I can make it better and with mine and my country's optimism that there's still hope of it being fixed. A few cracks doesn't mean the wall has to crumble."
Thank you for your question Ria. It's not just Duxburian youth who are disillusioned with Europe, many in my own country and across Europe have become disenchanted with this place that only used to work, but needs to work if we ever going to get a coherent, stable Europe. Right now, progressive change is being undone. Many in the European Council have forgotten that we are living in a Union, and with any sort of government there has to be a contract for it to work. The national governments ask its citizens every day to give up a little bit of personal sovereignty in exchange for social protections, social cohesion, stability, order, and safety. The same is true of Europe and national governments. To be in a Union, a nation has to understand it gives up a certain degree of autonomy for greater protection, cohesion, stability, order, and prosperity. I can hardly imagine the United Kingdom or Framptonia or even the Duxburian Union being as prosperous as they are without being in Europe. But Europe does need some change, and I'm running a campaign to become Premier Commissioner because I fully believe that I can deliver the change that we need for Europe to be stable and functioning, no matter what. Here are my proposals
- There needs to be a check and balance between all three parts of the European Government. Right now, it's the Council that has all of the power, which shouldn't be the case. And even so, its power is very strange in the fact that it can make legislation, but it cannot really enforce it. The Commission should be the enforcement wing of Europe. I propose that our Commission be given the ability to enforce the Council's laws. Now, what does that look like? First, constant communication between national governments to ensure that they are complying with all of the legislation passed by Europe. Second, Europe needs to have penalties for non-compliance. Right now, if you do not comply with a European law, it has to go through the Council in debate, and what can they do? Start a trade embargo? Threaten to kick the nation out of Europe? Why? Sure. Now who is going to stop someone from trading with Nation X? There is no enforcement of the Council's laws, wishes, embargos, etc. If we are ever going to be effective we need that.
- The Commission needs to be able to be in charge of a force that will bring criminals to the Court when requested and intervene in dangerous situations. The Teutonic State situation is a result of a war criminal. But what happened? The Council talked about it for months, didn't legislate anything, didn't decide anything, and two nations took it on themselves because the safety of their own people were at risk. It should not come to this. The Council should be able to authorise a force under the control of the Commission to extract the war criminal. If a defendant in a court case at the ECoJ does not show up, the justices should be able to issue a warrant that the Commission can execute and bring that person to trial. I'm sure many would not like those proposals, but the fact is that there is NOTHING stopping a rogue nation from refusing to turn over a defendant in a court case or turning over their war criminal to the European court. Absolutely nothing. And then how do we get them? A coalition of nations, because Europe has no effective force? We end up with the same Teutonic situation, where individual nations are doing the work. This force could be donated to by all European nations, and free for all European citizens to sign up for, and will best represent the interest of Europe. A coalition of nations still can have ulterior motives, as we have seen in conflicts in the past.
- Automatic ascent to laws should not be given to every European law passed. What we're finding is that these laws have giant loopholes in them, or have inconsistent definitions, or didn't define anything, and are being passed. Yet nothing stops from just automatically becoming European law. I propose that, as an executive body, the Commission votes on giving a bill ascent to law. How this would work is that the Commission takes an authorisation vote, and if it passes the simple majority, it gets signed by the Premier. If it does not, then it returns to the Council who can after that override the Commisison's veto after a second look at the bill and maybe proposing any changes if there. It's not a perfect system, but it keeps us from having automatic repeals of legislation thanks to a simple majority of nations who simply wish to undo progressive change, and vice versa. This could not be hijacked by ideology. It would provide us with stability and functionality and would not grind Europe to a complete halt any time one ideology has an issue with legislation.
- This is beyond what would be my authority as a Commissioner, but I think the Speaker of the Council should come up with a code of conduct for councillors and debate rules and procedure. What we've found in many debates on legislation is that it's a mess of dysfunction. People aren't able to take their turns in debate, and a couple of times in the debates I've watched, it would be two councillors going at each other. That's not what the ultimate deliberative body of Europe is supposed to be. Now, this may come as a shock to you as someone who has served in the Westminster system, but I do believe that if there was a more orderly way to scrutinize legislation, like waiting to be called on by the Speaker, then making statements, or having points of order...that would give our deliberative body more stability and structure.
- I would like to bring in further accountability of the European Commission with two thing: a Question period in the Council where the Commission answers questions about the European government, and Councillor committees that will serve a purpose of greater scrutiny on our job as Commissioners. A question period will be able to give the legislature an insight into how the Commisison was enforcing its laws, the financial state of affairs in Europe, its safety, all the questions that should matter to any legislative body. Right now, the Commission is ALSO not being held accountable. Many times, Commisisons do nothing and aren't getting the fire lit under them to do something. A question time in which Councillors ask the Commission what they are doing about crises and the like will really get us to do our job. I FIRMLY believe in that. Also, the idea of councillor committees should come back but in a different way. There should be Councillor committees that will allow for greater scrutiny on each of the Offices of the Commission, and they should be able to ask questions in greater detail about what that specific office is doing, and what legislation should be needed based on the evidence given to them by the Office. Greater transparency in our institutions needs to be there, and every European should be able to see through a committee report what each office is doing.
- Visits to European nations should be bi-weekly and the entire Commission should be involved. Having Commissions go out into Europe and meet with the people who elected them will give them better insight as to how to serve Europe. I know previous Premiers have done regular visits and the results were tremendous legislation proposed by the EFP. Legislation that has stood the test of time and scrutiny over and over again, because it best represented the wishes of Europe. It is very easy in Europolis to be clouded by ideology, but that is what will drive us further apart. Accurately representing the people and bringing the change and the Europe THEY deserve is what we need most of all.
These proposals to get Europe functioning as a stable entity may not be popular, and I may take a lot of heat from my political opponents here, but I believe these changes will bring Europe stability and order, and therefore prosperity and freedom for our citizenry. I hope I answered your question, Ria.
Framptonia last edited by Framptonia
Thank you Ria for your question, though the terms in which you have couched your question fill me with sadness.
There is a clear disenchantment and consequent disenfranchisement with the democratic processes in the European Union, which we must seek to address if the Union is to continue to flourish. There are probably as many reasons and explanations for the disenchantment as there are European Councillors and Gordon has already hit upon some of them.
Gordon and I disagree though on both the causes of the problem, but more clearly on possible solutions. We can all see the symptoms of the problem. A Court and Commission where absence is more apparent than progress and a Council which seems more intent on posturing and point scoring or giving Davishire a good kicking than improving the lives of Europeans.
I see the causes of this as resting in a lack of democratic accountability. My nation has been criticised by several Councillors for complaining about Council decisions impinging on our National Sovereignty. To be honest I don't give much truck to the concept of National Sovereignty - it is generally the cry of politicians who are losing some of their powers. What matters is Democratic Sovereignty. The fact that decisions are made by democratic bodies that are close enough to the people affected by the consequences of those decisions, so that they express their feelings on the decisions through the ballot box. And that is often where we fall down, as nations and as a region.
As an example, think about a rural cul de sac in some remote village in any particular country. Who should be responsible for making decisions about the street lighting in that cul de sac? The European Union? The National Government? The Regional Government? The Local Government? Or the residents and visitors of the cul de sac? The most accountable decision would be one made by an almost Soviet style committee of residents. But for practical purposes it will usually fall to the Local or Regional Governments. But in more centralised nations it may well rise up to National Government level. The further the decision making body is from the people it affects, the less likely it is to make the right decision. To counter this we have to ensure that decisions are made at the lowest level of democracy possible. And I'm afraid to say that that means that the Council has to butt out of decisions that should be left to bodies better placed to understand the people that will be affected. I shudder to say it, but the EU Cannabis Act is a real case in point.
Gordon's solution is to centralise additional powers in the Commission, but I fear that this will simply make matters worse. I fear that Gordon's proposal for a Commission that has some form of veto over Acts of the Council and also has power of enforcement of those Acts will become a de facto powerful central body taking power from both the Council and the Court and place an extreme amount of power in the hands of very few. In the wrong hand that could be catastrophic.
In my view, the difficulty with Gordon's proposals are that he misunderstands the roles of the various European bodies. The Council enacts legislation, the Commission is responsible for implementing the legislation and the Court for enforcing it. The Court are also charged with enforcing the Constitution. There are obvious and sensible reasons why these powers have been separated and the Constitution requires that the nation of the Premier Commissioner cannot provide a Justice to the Court, to limit the opportuntiy of the Commission to influence the Court. Gordon's proposals are very dangerous.
What we need is a dismantling and reconstruction of the Court to make its functioning more efficient and effective. I can see merit in having more Justices, perhaps in having three levels of seniority, so perhaps a Chief Justice, with three or four Higher Justices and then each nation providing a Justice to make the pool from which Justices can be drawn much wider and hopefully avoid the drawn out travesty that my recent case exhibited. A properly functioning Court would be better placed to hold nations and the Commission to account.
The problem in the Council and the reason that there have been difficulties with the system of Euro Parties is because it is a Council of Ministers and not a Parliament. The Councillors represent their national Governments, are selected by a variety of mechanisms and each nation gets a single vote, irrespective of its population size. It is a quasi democratic institution. Under those circumstances, there needs to be some limit on its powers to ensure that it does not try to turn the street lights off in our rural cul de sac.
So in conclusion Ria, to strengthen Democracy in Europe, I feel we need to overhaul to European Court and restrict the work of the Council to those areas where it can and ought to make a difference.
As a final plea, I would simply say, Ria, get involved in your local politics, tell the politicians what it is you want them to do. And when they don't do it, remind them that they need your vote. You are the one in charge and if you become disillusioned and stop participating in the democratic process, then the powerful will have taken away from you the power that you had.</>
Dr Suzannah Beech
My policies are not to centralise powers in the Commission; that is an outright lie. I am proposing a proper check to the Council. I ask that you retract that statement. That is not my policy, nor am I going to allow someone to define it as such. Just because you are Euro-sceptic doesn't mean that everyone in Europe has to be as well.
> My policies are not to centralise powers in the Commission; that is an outright lie. I am proposing a proper check to the Council. I ask that you retract that statement. That is not my policy, nor am I going to allow someone to define it as such. Just because you are Euro-sceptic doesn't mean that everyone in Europe has to be as well.
(Looking slightly perplexed)
Oh come on Gordon, let's not get unprofessional about this.
You've said you want the Commission to be able enforce breaches of the law, which is the role of the Court, you've also said you want the Commission to have some role in the passing of legislation. So the Commission is involved in creating, implementing and enforcing legislation? This in my view is a centralisation of power in the Commission. You may have a different view and think my view is wrong, but to accuse me of lying? That is to accuse me of deliberately telling something I know to be untrue. I do not retract my views to any extent whatsoever.
Neither can I reasonably be accused of being a Eurosceptic. I was the lead negotiator during the discussions that lead to the accession of Framptonia to the European Union. I was also the politician who ensured that the EU Cannabis Act passed through the appropriate statutory legislatures in the Framptonian Republics.
Simply accusing people who do not agree with you as liars and saboteurs is not the best way to try to persuade colleagues to work collaboratively, though it seems to me that politicans of the United Kingdom seem to find me an irresistible target for such accusations.
Maybe you should choose the words you use with more care.
Dr Suzannah Beech
But you put words into my mouth. How is a veto power for the Commission that can be overridden by the Council a consolidation of power?
How is asking for Council committees to scrutinise the work of the Commission harmful to Europe?
How is giving our Council a way to prevent singular nation intervention by having a Council and Commission controlled force dangerous?
It is not unreasonable to propose these ideas. It is what will get our Europe moving again and working together and increasing transparency.
Your proposal is less Europe at a time when rogue nations have the ability to run rampant and unchecked. Dr. Beech, you are simply wrong on the issues, and your views are accurately described as Eurosceptic. That is not false, that is an actual fact.
It is not unreasonable to propose these ideas.
Your proposal is less Europe at a time when rogue nations have the ability to run rampant and unchecked. Dr. Beech, you are simply wrong on the issues, and your views are accurately described as Eurosceptic. That is not false, that is an actual fact.
Ah, now who is putting words into other people's mouths?
I never said it was unreasonable for you to make your proposals, simply that I disagreed with them.
And I don't believe that I'm promulgating less Europe, simply that what we do has to be better directed. The question was about the democratic disconnection of young voters. Your proposed solution of creating additional committees to scrutinise the work of the Council ..."
(Dr Beech makes a show of mock boredom by covering her mouth with her hand as she yawns)
... and making the opportunities for legislation to be delayed and filibustered by the Commission. I'm sure that Ria will be overwhelmed in her enthusiasm. If adding additional levels administrative bureacracy to our functions is a sign of being a Europhile, then I am happy to admit that I am a Eurosceptic. If wanting a leaner and more effective European Government is a sign of Euroscepticism, then count me in.
It is better to have stability with proper checks and balances than let rogue leaders run across Europe, doing as they please. It is better to have a filibuster on controversial legislation than to see the farce that has gone on in the Council, Dr. Beech. I'm sure Ria did not pay for Europe to pass and then repeal it's own legislation later. Why go through the unnecessary steps of passing bad legislation when more checks can ensure there are only laws that can last and be enforced Dr. Beech.
And you can cut out that yawn act. No one is amused by primary school antics.
"Indeed. My British colleague is right. Primary School antics is not what we want. Let's keep this civil and respectful." Eilidh Whiteford said, calmly.
Oh come on Gordon. You must have put your Grumpy Pants on today.
Someone who wishes to be elected to the Premier Commissioner ought not be so thin skinned that they cannot accommodate their views and proposals being challenged and subject to scrutiny without resorting to accusations of mendacity.
I'm doing fine handling criticism and critique. Europe just deserves better than fake yawns. Europeans deserve answers to the issues most important to its safety and prosperity. We have put our opinions out there. Two different visions of Europe, and two contrasting visions of leadership. Let's leave it at that.
> I'm doing fine handling criticism and critique. Europe just deserves better than fake yawns. Europeans deserve answers to the issues most important to its safety and prosperity. We have put our opinions out there. Two different visions of Europe, and two contrasting visions of leadership. Let's leave it at that.
Indeed Gordon, something we can agree on. Unfortunately having put my opinion "out there", you accused me of lying. An accusation you have yet to withdraw.
I will go on record as retracting my statement. Let's discuss some more issues, and bring the candidates in. This can't be the Beech and Brown show.
Thank you Gordon