Commission Candidates Debate (June 2011)
Commission Candidates Debate
I would like to ask the candidates what are their thoughts on the idea of a ?European Super State??
Mr. Kligenberg quickly stood up and addressed the issue.
I do not believe that such a thing should be created. It?s a complete violation of national sovereignty to all nations in Europe. It would also be a gateway for a dictator to swiftly seize power and have the whole EU totally incapable of removing such a figure. . It?s a total disrespect to different cultures. I for one do openly support having open borders and having inter-linking transportation systems, however, I do not want to hand away my country?s independence.
Enoch Shaw took his turn to speak, gently applauding as he got to his feet.
"Hear, hear. Not only is the idea of a federal Europe totally impractical- I can't imagine the Soviets joining at least, but it is a bad idea that defies the diverse histories and cultures and political systems and economies of Europe in the name of- well, I don't know in what name it's meant to be of. The harm, of course, that Eurofederalism could bring to this region in forcing individual and different states together could to my mind completely undermine the great progresses made by the EU as an institution, leaving us back at square one. This union was founded on the principles of regional co-operation, not regional unification, and I will oppose any efforts to take sovereignty away from the sovereign states of Europe."
"What we need is a Europe of nations, not a nation of Europe- and if elected, I shall promote that philosophy."
Maleeka Liszckoszi stood up straightened out her suit and walked collected to the podium
'May I ask what is the point of the union if we dont combine to work for a futre that is supporting of economic, democratic and civil liberties? I see the union as a place to exchange ideas and a way to work together for a future. If in europe we can work together on something like a human rights charter we can collectively exchange ideas on how to protect and serve our citizens well. We can work together on economic policy to ensure trade relations and freedom of enterprise. We can work collectively together to make sure we can reap the economic and social benefits.
We do not seek a euro-superstate we seek to promote a forum for the exchange of ideas and trade relations. If we stand united on issues such as humanrights we can promote a utopian future where difference is celebrated and individuality is protected. If we want to support individuality we must commonly work to protect human rights. My philosophy if elected will to be promote that'
Guest last edited by
What will the Premier Commissioner do to help the stability of the regional economy and will the Commissioner propose a unified currency?
Guest last edited by
Victor Zubeldia drinks water, clears his throat and starts his speech
I don't think we will see an European super-state in our lifetime. The process would be rather complicated. That state should have a huge legal framework behind it: a chart of human rights, an elected parliament, continent-wide institutions... and I don't see the nations we know nowadays taking the decision of committing suicide for the sake of Europe.
The United States of Europe may be an Utopian project, but I think that we can retain some of its requirements to improve governance in the European Union and to make a difference in the life of millions of Europeans.
We should build an European citizenship, guaranteeing that every EU citizen will have the same rights in every nation of the Union and will be free to travel, live, work, make businesses... without restrictions in every member state.
The EU still has a huge democratic deficit. It is a union of states and politicians and not a Europe of the citizens. An elected parliament and an elected commission, with more transparency, will help to bring the Union nearer to the interests of the people.
And, finally, I think many problems we are confronting nowadays are too big for a single nation to cope with them. Environment, consumers rights, economic globalization, human rights, terrorism... are simply too huge and complicated for our national administrations. We should work on them together within the Union, respecting the sovereignty of every state and the subsidiarity principle.
Shaw stood again.
"I can't say I share the worldview of my liberal counterparts here. Take a human rights law, and this so-called 'European citizenship'- we all hold this region dear, even as it is. Forcing a tightening of this Union by things such as a human rights charter would only serve to drive us apart further than we are now- look at Monogolia and the dress code fiasco, look at Unfreedomia, or at the staunchly independent USSR- we'll be endangering the fabric of the region. So, I predict that it simply won't happen, whoever gets in- not in the real world. Make of that what you will."
"What we do do in the EU is very important. We provide regional stability and security, give our nations a voice in this wide world of ours, oversee the regional economy as a whole, and are very active in fields like cultural preservation, transport and the environment. We have long operated on a hands-off approach that caters for all nations in the Union, and it works. It need not be changed."
"And as for the dreams of a 'European citizenship', I find it completely wrong that we should undermine the sovereign nation-states of Europe in such a way. In making a 'Europe of the citizens', we are bypassing the nations- especially in nations that aren't as big on democracy and accountability, the draw of European 'citizenship' and Parliament can only serve to weaken independent states in favour of Eurofederalism."
"So we have to create a balance between protecting the primacy of the nation-state, and accountability- because after all, we have to be open enough for people not to wonder what exactly this bureaucracy is doing for them- so I propose limited reforms. Perhaps a change in how we elect the Commission- because we already do elect the Commission, otherwise we wouldn't be here- and mandating that nations choose their Council representatives by electoral means would suffice in this respect."
"As for the economy, I absolutely oppose the idea of a unified European currency. If nations choose to engage in their own monetary unions, then that is fine by me, but I shalln't want any top-down imposition of a certain currency, most likely either a good fit for some nations and a poor fit for others, or an unsatisfactory fit for all, on the sovereign nations of Europe. Indeed, currency is part of many nations' cultural fabric, and I firmly believe the EU exists to protect national and subnational cultures. In general, I support a light touch as opposed to an ever-watching eye over European economies- while I am a free-marketeer at heart, if nations choose to be socialist then they can be socialist. What we should do is call inquiries if a particular nation or the region as a while is in concerning economic downturn, and create a quick mechanism for bailing out nations which are struggling economically. Were a bailout needed, I would favour encouraging free-market solutions to the crisis of the nation involved."
Austrur last edited by
Luc Clazier stood up and walked to the podium
The European Union is just that, a Union of Europe. It is not a nation of Europe; it is a organization which seeks to bring together the nations which are member states. A Human rights charter is na?ve, and unrealistic. Nations have no reason to sign the charter, or follow it if they choose not to do so.
However, the European Union can pass laws which can bring up the average quality of life in our Union, such as healthcare, education, renewable energy and other such legislation. This would remove the need for certain governments to have to repress their people to remain in power, as they would be content with their government.
We must respect the sovereignty of our member states as well. As I mentioned before, this is just the Union of Europe, not a Nation of Europe. Our Continental Government should not be micromanaging our individual members, and our individual members must have the right to govern themselves.
_Maleeka Liszckoszi once again stood _
It is evidently clear I differ form my ELDL colleague in apporaching these issues and I cannot offer support in his views unfortunately. We all know it is incredibley dangerous to issue a europe wide currency as unfairly the larger nations will be called upon to prop up less eocnomically developed countries and would be forced into bail outs. So no to a europe wide currency.
Mr Clazier has made some rather curious points. He doesnt want a human rights charter as it apparently threatens sovreignty yet he is for the EU passing laws on healthcare, education,energy infrastructure et al. I'll let you read between the lines on that one. If the EU is based on a belief system what better way of imrpoving quality of life is there than by creating a charter of human rights. Without one we are saying that we will stand by and watch fellow humans be tortured for beliefs, gender, sexuality and because it's in another country, we don't care, it ain't our problem. I know as a citizen with the morality engendered within common humanity I certainly can't sit back and watch the horrors unfold.
I agree with Mr Shaw's ideas of comission reforms such as directly electing council members. Fantastic idea I'll sign up to that.
To stabilise a European economy we have to ask again how much sovreignty is affected, the golden word comes into play, why should we help out other countries with our tax payers money? Selfish idea huh! I would like to see legislated a European Monetary Fund to give regulated assistance and to hold bankers acocuntable for their criminal activites when destroying economies. Before you throw a hipocrisy knife I dont want a currency bailout system as it just doesnt work and again a currency affect sovreignty, do I get a brownie point for that word right-wingers?
I would like to ask candidates what does the union mean to them? what defines it? I genuinely am curious to see the response not in a snide manner but a manner of considering the sides of the shape.
Pax Aurea last edited by
Pax Aurea would like to inquire how the esteemed candidates see the Commission's -- and the Union's -- role in supporting democracy as a form of government among the EU's member nations. We have noticed with great sadness that several of our European neighbours still uphold very strict, authoritarian policies, allowing little if any political freedoms to their citizens. Do you feel the Commission should play any role in this?
"In short, no. Of course the European Union should promote democracy, and I feel the best way of doing this is by setting examples such as this election to the Commission, but as with the idea of a human rights charter, I believe it would be impractical and an infringement on national sovereignty to start properly interfering in countries' internal affairs. Of course, if individual members of the EU seek to apply pressure on authoritarian nations, then they're welcome to, and the Commission then may mediate in such disputes to secure peace and the Union."
"I must agree with my colleague, Mr. Shaw. I believe that nations in the EU should be given freedom. Freedom includes choice. I don't want to force human rights charters and singular currencies down the throats of everyone. Almost all of the nations in the EU already have their own charters and I applaud them. However, we must respect the identity and the specific needs of all the member states in the EU, regardless if you disagree with them."
Clorinaia last edited by
Charles Monty stands up to speak
While I agree that a super nation is both unfeasible and unacceptable, the next commission must face the fact that it is our separation that has lead to the recent terrorist attacks against us. Only through greater cooperation and a closer union can we hope to stop these terrorists by presenting an unreachable wall against them. We must de away with laws that make travel and trade difficult between nations to promote a sense of unity. Thank you.
'I think you can already expect my response to this. If we as a union have this charter we can then sanciton the nations who break it by pulling away trade form them together united cutting off an essential link which they have to change to get back. We can't sit and use sovreignty as an excuse not to help our fellow man/woman who is being opressed and denied a plethora of basic human rights from freedom of expression and speech to the right to running water and food form which money is diverted ot fuel military strength and this could in tunr impact our own sovreignties if invasion came into it wouldnt you rathe rnip things in the bud before they blew up in our face?
If you don't agree on workin on a common goal because of sovreignty then why are you in the union?'
"Strange. I'd have thought Ms. Liszckoszi would at least try to cover up her desire to tear at the fabric of this Union. I have warned all through this debate that a human rights charter and the forcible imposition of liberal democracy upon EU member states would threaten the continued membership of the affected nations, and it turns out that to threaten the continued membership of the affected nations is exactly what Liszckoszi and her ELDL supporters want! EU membership is apparently synonymous with a 'common goal' of telling nations what government form to adopt."
"And then we have trade sanctions! Not only do the ELDL want to alienate any nation that isn't a liberal democracy, but they want to alienate any nation that wants to trade with a nation that isn't a liberal democracy. This would be a revolutionary restriction on the sovereignty of nations in this Union, and it would certainly ramp up the tensions in this region to a degree we haven't seen since the old ETO vs USSR days, if not worse."
'Mr Shaw I applaud your tearing and twisting of my ideals, so you are saying that your nation will happily trade with dictators that kill opposition in their own nation? I guess your response is to have that choice open. How does a human rights charter impose a liberal form of democracy? when the charter is not written I mean you guess this will automatically be the case but the ELDL cant possibly be the only commission party right?
Perhaps sovreignty is a word use to cover up so mis goings on I mean maybe this would affect arms deals with dictators ruining the secret backbones of economies coudl this supposition be true Im sure Mr Shaw can answer me with some polite defiling answer. I merely suggest this and do not accuse before we all get up up in arms if you'll ahem pardon the pun.
Mr Shaw what does this union mean to you? I dont mean it in condescention but you seem so against a joint effort on things then what is the point of the union to you?'
"Ms Liszckoszi, you may wish to brush up on your political jargon, because a 'liberal democracy' is the going term for a democratic state with adequate civil rights. But let's not befuddle ourselves with facts, shall we? Not when we're making bizarre 'suggestions' about national economies reliant upon trade with oppressive dictators, because it's somehow completely unimaginable that someone would legitimately oppose a human rights charter."
"I can't speak for what my nation would do, nor how reliant Angleter's economy is on trade with dictatorial states, but I am here defending the rights of sovereign nations to trade with whomever they want to. I've already said what the point of the Union is to me, and indeed I've already said that I've already said that, but I'll quickly go through it again- stability, security, a unified voice on the world stage, and other matters such as transport. What we have now- this hands-off approach to national internal politics, and thus respect for national sovereignty- works, and I like it. We need not become so hands-on, and indeed as I have said becoming hands-on could easily imperil this region's stability and security."
Shaw turned to face the audience and the camera.
"The way I see it, to the ELDL leaders, there is wheat and chaff in this region- and those of us who don't want our regional politics messed with, and don't want to be told with whom we're allowed to trade by Europolis, we are the chaff. They want to thresh the Union to leave only the wheat- we can comply or go. So why, Ms. Liszckoszi, if you love the EU so much, do you want to thresh it?"
Shaw turned back to Liszckoszi.
Lisckosi Stands up and applauds
'Got to hand it to you Mr Shaw that was good! You well and truly sorted me out cheers!'
Lisckosi sits down and sips her water
Clorinaia last edited by
"I must say that what Mr. Shaw said is correct. Our trade polices are the private affairs of our sovereign nations. The can not and must not be dictated to us. Yet I do not believe that is what the ELDL stands for, and if it does than I shall leave this instant. I can not support a regime that will willingly out those of us who will not tow the party line."
"I still believe that an increase in the ease of trade between member nations must be one of the goals of the coming government. Without it we will not be able to sustain our recent growth. We must also as a region work to cement foreign relations with our friendlier neighbors. The recent attacks on our sovereignty as a region has been partly due to misconceptions people have about us. These misconceptions have allowed the true terrorists to break us apart at the seams. We must not have another Hasima or Gustionate. Thank you."
'Perhaps I have been misconceived on such this issue I dont mean a charter dictate every trade line but to all unanimously agree not to trade with those who oppress their citizens to ensure we set a collective example that we dont tolerate those who dictate to their citizens and oppress their lives and opinions. This charter wouldnt legislate this'