Firstly, Councilor thank you for telling me your thoughts on this amendments. Though I must correct you on a common mistake that many Europeans make when addressing Ruthenish people. The proper way to address me is Councillor Tony since Odhinazen is not a family name, or if that's too weird you may just call me plainly Tony. Formalities are not something I highly value afterall. Now, to address your criticism.
Firstly, we have to remember what we are asking of our member-states when we impose region-wide sanctions. It places what normally would be their decision into the hands of the European Union-- a diminishment of a nation's sovereign rights. I therefore think that any addition of complexity to ensure that the sanctions are being used properly and the processes are being properly followed. But with that said, my amendments do little to add to the complexity of the process itself. And I see little reason to claim otherwise.
You made the claim that the amendment in Section one comes into conflict of other provisions of the law. I am surprised to hear that you made this claim, for the purpose of the amendment is to clarify and support Section I of this law. All that this amendment does is it requires Commissioners to be put on the record that they approve the provisions of the sanctions, which I believe will help make the commission more accountable. I also suspected that some Councilors might raise concern that other Commissioners might be indisposed during the preposition of the sanctions proposal. However my main problem with this line of thinking is this is part of their basic duties as Commissioners. If they cannot be present to discuss sanctions or at least show support of disapproval, then I honestly don't think they are doing their job adequately. Besides, this amendment allows for time for Commissioners to voice their opinion if they are indeed busy with more important matters. This isn't just an extra step, this is to ensure that there is actually a consensus in the Commission before the sanctions move on to this Council. It is not my wish to have another Istkalen Sanction bill made entirely by one Commissioner with nobody besides the author giving any indication to this European Union that they supported it. Because if I am being honest with you Councilor, it does look shadey. But if you wish for me to clarify the amendment so that its more clear about its intention, I am happy to do so.
As for the second major amendment, I have to correct you Councilor on one thing: not only did I vote for the Istkalen Sanctions, my government sponsored the sanctions that your government proposed. I am honestly surprised that you were not aware of this. This is because Istkalen was a regime that presented a direct and overt threat to Europe and its member-states. This is in contrast to the UNSR, which has shown that they have no intentions (at least at the moment) of attacking Europe's member states. You can make the argument that the government in exile were attacked, but Ruthund recognized the establishment of the UNSR as an internal matter. That is why I would still vote against the UNSR sanctions if it were brought before this chamber today.
It may be true, Councilor that both sanctions failed because they failed to reach 55%, with the Istkalen sanctions narrowly failing. But I find this point irrelevant to what this amendment is trying to achieve. The point of establishing a supermajority threshold is to ensure that the sanctions are passed with the principles of consensus building in mind and to safeguard future attempts, however distant they might be, of sanctioning unpopular regimes. I want to ensure that should we impose sanction wide sanctions, there is a very good and universal reason to do it. I felt that a supermajority was a good compromise position to take since I understand that consensus is not always possible. As for swift action, the idea of sanctioning a state is anything but swift. It relies on time being on your side, there is certainty quicker ways of taking out a regime councilor. So if swift action is what you desire, then sanctions seem like a strange path to take.
The foundations of this amendment is the only way I can see this law being saved. As we speak, there are certain members of this chamber who are working to repeal this law altogether. This amendment will address the concerns that I have heard in this chamber so that we can move on with the task of serving the people of Europe.
EU Councilor, Ruthund