Premier Commissioner Debate, June 2021
-
The European Union has a very interesting problem, which is a very deep political controversy with lot of work pending to do. You just need to look at us, the candidates, or to a Council Session to see this very clearly. What do we, as Europeans, want? More action, more inaction from the Commission, more or less sovereignty to take measures in your country? That is what we need to be clarified as soon as possible, and also Europe’s main problem: the constant conflict between the EU’s capacity of action.
To do that, we obviously a Constitutional reform and change how the European Union works when it comes to politics. The social part is also very important, and it shouldn’t be forgotten, that’s why it will also enter the Constitutional review; but all of this must be done with as many states as possible. We all need to agree on this new Constitution, but we also need to put an end to many things and push forward many more in our region.
I’ll give you a brief example, the European Council is there to control the Commission. But who controls the European Council? The ECoJ maybe, but apart from them, nobody else does. And until we don’t give the European Court of Justice new tools to control the Council independently, Europe won’t work politically. Same happens with our communication with member states: Apart from me, how many have met with the region leaders if it wasn’t for the Climate Treaty? Nobody has! A Juncker Commission guarantees European Union’s leaders a voice in what the Commission does, but also on the path Europe should take. If we all proceed together, we will of course manage to do great things together. If we choose inaction, get ready to see the EU’s doom.
Ms. Čikarová, is it unpredictable to propose the establishment of a dialogue between the UNSR and Icholasen with the mediation of the Premier; to propose a democratic solution or to propose free elections? I mean, for a declared supporter of the Communist regime it is, I can obviously see the reason why.
Of course, it’s unlikely one of the sides, or maybe both, will play their survival on a referendum, that’s why I have a Plan B. If both Icholasens disagree, then we should look into other solutions, but all of them should head to the same status: peace. But what cannot be allowed is to have the Council say how the EU should approach to this, because the decision adopted is obviously one-sided. Or are we forgetting about Free Icholasen, which remains being a member of our Union? This is very simple: both must be treated equally when negotiating.
-
Mr. Juncker, this is nonsensical. If the Council, the representative body of the EU, constituted of member-states, cannot decide on the Nicoleizian issue, then who exactly should? You? Do you believe yourself to be higher than the Council? Should we really place less-accountable bureaucracies over a more-accountable representative body of the nations?
As for Ms. Čikarová, how exactly are you going to ensure that ISI, which time and time again has led to severe debt and economic collapse in developing countries, works? It may sound as though I propose it - and indeed, I am in favor of developing undeveloped countries - but I believe in such things as comparative advantage. Or is that you don't believe in ISI?
-
Mr. Juncker, during your rally in Copala City in Reitzmag you said you won't ever allow the UNSR to join the European Union and that you are even willing to ignore the Council, just to prevent the UNSR from joining. To later express your support for a referendum in Icholasen in which the citizens of the country will get to choose the system, meaning that if the citizens would prefer the Union of Nicoleizian Socialist Republics, which you called incorrectly the "Union of Nicoleizian Soviet Republics", there shouldn't be any more barriers preventing them from joining the EU. That simply sends mixed messages and it makes you unpredictable. Unless of course you aim to violate the will of the Nicoleizian people too and either keep Icholasen out of the EU or manipulate the referendum to ensure that the people can't choose the UNSR over the old system.
-
First, I will reply to Ms. Koline: The Council should give an advice, but if they tell the Commission to work on the issue, then the European Commission should be given the powers and the independence to work as it believes to get the most successful result as possible. If we’re allowing the Council to say how everything should work and by thus, leaving no room for the Commission to make its own decisions, let’s abolish the Commission then. And about the second question, I’m not higher than the Council, but if the highest position of the EU cannot decide how to negotiate, then we’ve a problem.
But of course, you and Ms. Čikarová are like twins: you both pretend to say that you’re very different, but you’re mostly the same: both of you want to see a side being benefitted by the EU while the other side is forgotten.
Ms. Čikarová, I think it’s impossible to let the UNSR join when the condemnation says: “The European Union shall only recognize the democratically elected government of the United Dominions of Icholasen under Queen Anastasia II and Prime Minister Eilidh Whiteford as the legitimate government of Icholasen.” Besides, if the referendum was made, we’d have a different situation: a democratic choice which means the Condemnation could be repealed.
Also, it’s funny you suggest the referendum could be manipulated, and I think that’s not productive for the Europeans, nor realistic. So Ms. Čikarová, why don’t we do good proposals for the Europeans? Are you interested on proposing something? I can guarantee my full compromise to attempt the end of all conflicts around the EU with diplomacy and neutrality. You might have the first one in this topic, but not the second, and that doesn’t let you to be a good Premier.
-
Mr. Juncker, do you suffer from short-term memory loss? I was speaking more of your intentions in general. Just a minute ago, you were saying things like "but what cannot be allowed is to have the Council say how the EU should approach to this, because the decision adopted is obviously one-sided" and " until we don’t give the European Court of Justice new tools to control the Council independently, Europe won’t work politically," and, most sinisterly but also the most hidden of all, "A Juncker Commission guarantees European Union’s leaders a voice in what the Commission does, but also on the path Europe should take." Do none of these statements imply that you intend to subvert the Council as much as is possible? Or did you merely forget that you ever said them?
-
Ms. Koline, if I suffered from any illness, I wouldn’t be here. But, while you want to protect the EU economy’s future, I must say that crating several institutions which aren’t needed is doing the opposite. Anyway, the Europeans are more interested on what we want to do and I’ll now proceed to mention some of the several things I would like to do: Bringing the real EU back, the Erasmus programme, pursue the European values, bring back Premier questions, another Eurorail sections, which has been proved to be successful or the European Touristic Programme.
I’ve been the only candidate not to stick to a single topic, and while the other candidates keep attacking, I will keep proposing things. And about European leaders, I really want to hear them, that’s why I will host a Leaders’ Summit as soon as agendas are available to discuss the State of the Union.
-
It is very unfortunate that it seems that you deny modern economic orthodoxy, while at the same time refusing to answer me. I have a reading list I have prepared for you; shall I send it to you? In any case, what you propose is piecemeal - bandages on a Europe that has suffered so much trauma that it is bleeding to death. We do not need bandages; we need a much greater intervention. I propose a codification of sovereignty, the modernization of Europe's economy in the international sense, and the defense of the commons. Things that Europe can and should pursue - things that would give it definite purpose, give it a new lease on life.
Does a terrible scholarship and half-baked "touristic programs" compare to stability for European creditors? To the protection of the ozone layer, of the atmosphere in general? No, it does not, certainly not.
-
I think Ms. Koline you’re very lost on this debate and you haven’t read my programme. Have you ever heard of the EU 2030 Strategy? Let me explain it to you really briefly: change of the Constitution, changes to the ECoJ and a brand-new definition for sovereignty or other concepts. And this strategy’ll kick off as soon as I’m elected Premier Commissioner by abolishing the European Assembly.
A terrible scholarship would be awarding lazy students with a trip to Europe to do nothing related with their studies; half-baked touristic programs would be not helping the Europeans to travel around our region. But it’s with deep sorrow that you remember me to many that questioned the Eurorail project and now it’s a transport reference for 6 countries. It has been proved that when I do something, it works. That’s why the Europeans are always aware of what voting for me means.
-
Of course, I have heard of it, but it has been defined so vaguely that it appears to mostly exist in your mind, tied to some vague statements that everyone agrees with. Some of the things you've said, in fact, have not even been stated clearly, if at all, until now.
The issue with the scholarship and the touristic programs is that they are not a solution, nor anything approaching a solution. They are bandages to an issue that requires a much greater intervention - an intervention you doggedly resist, because it would mean the end of people like you.
-
Dr. Koline, the economic plan of PEL doesn't stand against specialization of economy in any way, if a member state sees higher advantage in specialization and has a development project for which requires some form of subsidization I'm not against that. If, on the other hand a member state sees higher advantage in diversifying their economy and replacing imports with domestic production in certain areas and has a development project requires some form of subsidization I'm once again not against that. My policies don't aim at forcing the states to adopt a uniform model. I aim to preserve the freedom of member states to pick their own path. As long as the project would increase the well-being of citizens of said country, for example projects supporting education and combating unemployment, it could be supported. I feel that the dilemma you presented doesn't apply here.
Mr. Juncker you were almost right and yet you ended up being completely wrong. If you payed any attention to our campaigns you must have noticed that I said that some of Dr. Koline's policies are similar to mine, which she denied yet you claim that we both pretend that they are different. Mr. Juncker, you don't remember the names of important actors in Europe, you either do not pay attention to others or lie about them, I am not sure which is worse and not to mention that you think it's wrong to focus on economy, as you accused Dr. Koline for focusing on economy as if it was something bad, while focusing on issues that do not involve the Commission like the Copala City. Are those the qualities of a good Premier Commissioner in your eyes?
-
Seems like Dr. Koline only follows her twin’s campaign, ladies and gentlemen. By the way, the Touristic Programme or the scholarship that I’ve named as ERASMUS don’t pretend to be a solution for the political problems of the EU, but a new possibility for many people around Europe. The Europeans deserve some help from the European Union, not to be forgotten once and another while we all pay attention to our political system. One and another have to go hand to hand. By the way Ms. Koline, I thought the European left wanted to help people to make their lifes better, but now they don’t. Coincidence?
The EU 2030 Strategy just pretends to bring the real European Union back, that one many want to destroy and it’s their worst nightmare. And by the way Ms. Koline, if you think an intervention would draft me out, then you don’t know me.
Ms. Čikarová, the same that according to you happened to me, now happened to you with your first sentence. One says you are similar, the other says you are different but still you remain to be the European left twins, and that cannot be denied by anybody on this room.
By the way Ms. Čikarová, we can all make mistakes on any name, as far as we don’t make things worse. The way Dr. Koline focuses on economy is outrageous, trying to spend even more money despite the major though of the EU is else cutting or keeping the budget the same! How can we allow that when the EU is on risk because of things like that? And finally, Ms. Čikarová: any diplomatic problems which risks the European Union’s stability concerns and involves the Commission if it keeps on going, and that’s a Commission service basic lesson.
-
I am not a leftist, Mr. Juncker. I would say that I am a liberal, but in reality I am a pragmatist. I do what works. Like, for example, ensuring the stability of creditors, placing regulations on trade as to prevent such things as the infamous Framptonian trade dispute from 2016, and attempting to prevent balance of payment crises with a mixture of proactive - investment-based - and reactive - immediate funds as to prevent a default, for example - policies. This has, of course, the added benefit of ending economic colonialism and mercantilism, which are terrible for all involved and which I utterly despise.
I do not even know whether you know what a balance of payment crisis is, which is horrifying, especially as, per the Constitution, the primary objective of the Premier Commissioner is the maintenance of the European economy.
Ms. Čikarová, thank you for clarifying your policies, that is all I will say. However, I would like to ask, if, say, if it were known that a specific course of development that a nation wishes to take loans for leads almost always to an inability to actually pay for those loans in the end, would it be advisable to lend that money? I believe you have already answered this, but I would simply like to confirm this. In my mind, it is not, which is why I would generally be against loaning money for the purpose of ISI, unless there is extenuating evidence that such a thing would not result in disaster; but of course you may think differently.
-
Dr. Koline, if it will be proven that the member state would mismanage or is mismanaging the subsidies provided to it, than the subsidies for that state should end until the member state will be able to use them properly. However I think that if, in a potential case, a member state requests subsidies to develop agricultural machinery in order to not import the machines, perhaps over long distances, I don't think there should be an issue with granting them such subsidies, provided it will use them for the mentioned project.
-
Thank you, candidates. Our next question comes from a Vardic citizen. You can see it on the screen there:
What's the point of the European Union if all the nations do their own thing? Also, how do you pronounce Vayinaod?
-
I do not propose a European Union where all the nations do their own thing. I propose a European Union that respects sovereignty, based on a codified definition of it, while at the same time engaging in activities beneficial for all its members - upholding a modern form of trade in line with present economic orthodoxy, for example, or allowing for cooperation in different spheres - agricultural development, for example, or health. There is, of course, an obvious purpose in this. /väjɪnu꜓d/ is a lovely country.
-
Thank to that citizen from /väjɪnu꜓d/ for his question. I think the European Union would have no sense if everybody did its own things, that’s why we need the Constitution, adapted to these times in which countries should agree which competences do they want to give up to the European Union, to reflect the willings of the European nations that, at the end, make this project possible. A constitutional reform is needed, but it should be done taking care of representing two major factors: the European values itself and the representation of every member state, or at least, a huge majority of them. That’s the only way the European Union can be and should be fixed.
Europe and the Union are useful is they are well-designed, and we obviously have a problem with that because we have many people willing to leave the European Union because they believe it’s stupid and no longer useful, like Dr. Koline who runs for a position of an organisation she doesn’t believe. Seems weird, right? The European Assembly has no longer any sense with the leaders summit, that should go as soon as possible; we should establish a control mechanism to the Council which is independent from the Commission and directly elected by the Europeans or any other alternative that seems feasible. There are many things to do in the European Union, I think all of us on this room and many of you in your homes will surely think the same, but we need to choose wisely and think about the Europe we really want: compare an Union which might be similar to what happens with the UNSR or another which might be a complete utopia with one we all know it’s going to work because we’ve the best team working on it.
-
"Thank you for the question., I regret not yet having the chance to visit your country, Vayinaod, but I will correct that mistake as soon as I get the chance. As you could hear, I pronounce it just as you'd write it, with the "y" pronounced like the Czech "j" or Ruthenish "j" when written in the Latin script.
Now to your question, The purpose of European Union should be in promoting and developing co-operation among its member states, helping the member states with economic development in case they require help, such development would after all benefit all the Europeans, and in exceptional situation of the danger of conflict it should serve to mediate between the sides in order to prevent a conflict. The point of a European Union should be to help the member states and their citizens, not to strangle them.
-
Lovely, absolutely lovely. Mr. Juncker, Europe needs to be saved - that is what I believe. I do not think that the Union should be abolished - I see it, in fact, as a useful tool which has been driven to destruction by the worst of politicians. My hope is to revive it as that tool - no longer use it where it is not supposed to be used, but rather as it was designed to be used. I don't see how changing nothing of importance, save for abolishing one institution and replacing it with another that is almost identical, as well as attempting to constrain the ability of member-nations to shape the Union they belong to - for that is the purpose of the Council, to be a convocation of the member-states - within the bounds made by the sacred line of sovereignty - does anything to help it.
-
Speaking about sovereignty, Dr. Koline, I wanted to remark the words I said in Reitzmag about the matter, which actually a lot of people care about: the European Union needs to have some clarification on this matter and so I proposed 3 different types of competences: Exclusive, in which the EU alone is able to legislate and adopt binding acts; Shared, in which the EU and EU countries are able to legislate and adopt legally binding acts and Supporting, in which the EU can only intervene to support, coordinate or complement the action of EU countries.
How would a Juncker Commission give a boundary to these competences? That’s very simple: the Commission will make a proposal on which areas should be awarded to each type of competency, and then discussed with member states. That will allow the Commission to have a better view and the Europeans to be involved.
OCC: The rally in Reitzmag is still to be published but it will speak about that
-
As always, the Commission, in Mr. Juncker's opinion, should have the final say. It is above, it knows better - it should dictate, with confidence, support, and advice from below. This is not how things work - no, it would be a travesty. The Commission can and should have the ability to propose; but the Council, which must be returned to its original state as the convocation of the nations, should have the final say on all things. There is no reason to create convoluted methods as to bypass it and to centralize power in the Commission, unless if one is powerhungry.
The Kingdom of Spain