Premier Commissioner Debate, June 2021
-
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.
-
Dr. Koline, let me correct your words: As always, the Commission, in my opinion, should have an important say in how things are done. The Council Speaker doesn’t set up a Leaders’ Summit because it is not within its competences; that’re the Commission’s. You already know this, but trying to tell the opposite to the Europeans is bad for the Union, but shows the Europeans who we shall not trust.
Also, I might want to remember everybody watching this is a Premier Commissioner Debate, not a manipulation contest. It is obvious the Commission doesn’t have the power to pass the laws, that will always go through the Council and so it will be under a Juncker Commission. What I’m proposing is very simple: the Commission and the member states, along with the Council Speaker, will elaborate a proposal to submit to the Council and then it will be voted there.
-
Why must this be proposed at the Leaders' Summit, then? Why not directly to the Council?
-
"I will say just that empowering the Commission isn't a necessarily bad idea by itself. However I would really be interested in hearing what Mr. Juncker considers as competences that should be exclusive to the Union. On the other hand, unlike Dr. Koline, I don't really see a problem with speaking with the member states first and learning about their opinion, before proposing any legislation to the Council, I am more interested in what Mr. Juncker is actually planning to propose if he is elected.
On a small side note, Mr. Juncker, I wouldn't talk about this not being a manipulation contest when you yourself started with a manipulation by accusing Dr. Koline of believeing that the Union is "stupid"."
-
Thank you, candidates. I'm going to finish with a question for each of you. For this, you have 2 minutes ((OOC: 300 words)) to respond and, if you wish, include a final statement to the voters.
JEAN-CLAUDE JUNCKER: You've described the EU as 'broken' and said you want to 'bring the real European Union back'. But you're a veteran Internal Affairs Commissioner, and your party, the EPA, have been a powerful force for much of the EU's recent history. Isn't this 'broken' EU the one that you created?
SOFIE CIKAROVA: You've spoken about the EU 'violating the sovereignty of nations', but you also belong to the Party of the European Left. How can you reconcile those two positions: would a member state be free to be right-wing in your Europe?
ISKRIS KOLINE: You started off by saying 'we no longer have a Europe', but you're trying to achieve your agenda through the existing European institutions by running for Premier Commissioner. Why not lobby for countries to leave the EU and set up a new union more in line with your vision; and if you lose this election, will you remain committed to the current EU?
-
The fight for the sovereignty of member states is the most important issue in these elections. I fight for the right of the people of European nations to determine their own future. If their path is incorrect it is up to them to realize and change course, not up to the foreign elites. Of course the governments of the member states would be free to to remain or become right-wing, just as they would have the freedom to remain or become left-wing. And as I said before, you may disagree with me, I may disagree with you, but we should have the freedom to disagree, and we should have the freedom to fight for our ideals and to realize them, if we are capable of it.
Maybe some disagree with some of my proposals, but I want your option to be heard and taken seriously, I will never aim to silence you. Silencing your voices and making them not matter is what the EPA have attempted to do in the past and they show no plans of stopping those attempts, we have to stop them now and together, let our voices be heard!
Dear viewer I urge all of you to take part in these election, by showing your support and either contacting you representatives or voting directly, if you have the option to vote. The Union can turn a new page in its development and advance, or turn few pages backwards, "bring the real EU back", and see the same story play out again. An immense power lies in our hands, and if we use it, there is no force that could stop us from building a free and just Union!
-
Thanks for your question and the debate management Piyers. Now, concerning your question: it’s true I’m a veteran Commissioner and that the EPA has been in power many times, but look at what happened when it’s not: inactivity, no dialogue between the member states, nothing. Just an act which is useful for the European Union to act sometimes. But the broken Union hasn’t been created by the EPA or by me, because we have done many things to fix it, and some of them are working now and have been proved to be useful for every European citizen.
And now, I would like to address all the European citizens watching the debate tonight: Europeans, you are not alone, and you will never be alone again if I’m elected as Premier. When the debate started, I said Europe was playing its first survival round tonight, and now we have seen that with these 2 women, Europe will lose. The European Union needs to go back to the values we defend, to protect sovereignty, to evolve and adapt to the new times and challenges to come, to be solidary and empathic, to be a place where everybody wants to be.
It’s easy to sell promises which will make our Union worse, but I always say complex challenges need complex solutions. A Juncker Commission is hard-working, keen on helping every single citizen, no matter what they vote or what they think. Europe is a land of freedom, a land which everybody wants to protect. Together, if we’re united and we cooperate to fix our region, we will be able to enjoy a better Europe.
So, let’s bring the real European Union back, and let’s do it together. I’m Jean-Claude Juncker and I want to be the next EU Premier. Thanks and good night
The Kingdom of Spain