Amendment to the European Commission (Sanctioning Powers) Act 2021

[Istkalen]

Great apologies, but there is one point I have missed. There is no point to including the Foreign Affairs Commissioner in deliberation regarding these acts; it simply is not within the purview of the office, which has nothing to do with internal European affairs, but rather with relations between the European Union and other regions. Demanding that the individual occupying the office attend deliberation regarding sanctions, as such, would be completely nonsensical.

Iras Tilkanas
Councillor for the Republic of Istkalen

[BrumBrum]

I thank the right honourable Ms Tikanas for her contribution to this chamber and act. While the sanctions act works for me as it is now I can see why these changes make sense to make it more consistent and more accountable which is vital if we want the EU to thrive. It is also fair any member state or non-member state sanctioned gets its fair day in court , that should not be provisional on membership of the European Union.

James Mizrachi-Roscoe , Councillour for United Duchies

[Montenbourg]

I thank the right honourable Ms Tikanas for her contribution to this chamber and act. I am highly critical to interfere with the Sanctions Act. But the proposals hereby presented by the delegation of Istkalen are appropiate.

Emma Granger,
Councillor for Montenbourg

[Spain]

Thank you Cllr. Tilkanas for your proposals, and as Deputy Speaker of the European Council, I would like to welcome everyone back to the chamber after the summer break we all seem to have had. I hope you all have enjoyed your holidays and have recharged the batteries for the new political year we are starting today. I would like to say that this proposal amends one of the most complicated, from my point of view, of the current European Union's legislation. But that doesn't mean it cannot be touched, nor amended.

When you start reading the proposed amendments, you have some sort of a shock, and the reason given is even more shocking. Since the beginning of the European Council, if I'm not wrong, we have always used the Gregorian calendar, as it is the one used where we are right now, in Europolis. Since the creation of this chamber, I think nobody, or barely someone has got any problem with acts interpretations because of the Gregorian calendar. Every Councillor here works with it, even in the debates when we set deadlines or we mention several dates. Changing this is simply stupid, because I doubt somebody will have "significant problems". And if someone does, I encourage them to use the Internet, which has very useful tools.

About the unability to appeal to the European Court of Justice by states which aren't part of the European Union, but are still sanctionable entities, I encourage Cllr. Tilkanas to read our constitution's Article IV, Section I, Article I; which says: "The European Court of Justice is the supreme judicial authority of and in the European Union." By thus, the European Court of Justice just applies to member-states, and not to those outside of the Union. That's simple Constitutional law and cannot be broken.

I won't comment the harmonization part because it is the only thing I agree with; but I feel the need to comment both the Foreign Affairs Commissioner exclusion from the Commission's veredict and the Councillors passing of sanctions through other channels. The European Commission has 3 members, but if we remove one from making decisions, this number drops to 2, very simple Maths. This means that or either both agree to pass it, or no sanction motion will pass. This is basically, Cllr. Tilkanas, the perfect startegy to undermine this act. If you want to repeal it, please bring your proposal here instead of trying to make an act completely unuseful. I'm pretty confident that you could have some votes for that repeal, so I encourage you to try.

Finally, I don't understand at all what you want to do with the loopholes that you think there are, and more importantly, if this is a covered intention to repeal the Condemnation passed by this Council to the UNSR. I would like to hear more from you on this part to finally having a proper idea on what to think about this.

Thank you very much.

---

Debate on this shall CONTINUE until 09:41 GMT on September 3rd, 2021.

Donald Tusk
Deputy Speaker and Councillor for Spain

[Istkalen]

Councillor Tusk, I, as well as the rest of my colleagues in the PEL, am not some sort of witch who goes around trying to undermine the EU and the motions it has passed for the sole reason of being evil.

Let me begin with your comment regarding the Gregorian calendar. Have you ever heard of the Duxburian Union? Perhaps you haven't. Regardless, the Duxburians do not use the Gregorian calendar, and do not want to use it. They indeed have issues with acts and their interpretations because of this calendar, and, more importantly, have brought this up a number of times in the Council chamber. Dismissing them in such a flippant way is no short of insulting. Even ignoring this, it still must be said that it makes little sense to allow certain renewals to last 31 days while others last only 28.

As for the European Court of Justice, there is indeed precedent for this type of case - look only to Paloma Faith vs. Jeanne Kaushuronu. Non-member states clearly can be involved in ECoJ cases if said cases involve EU laws, regulations, or institutions.

I do not understand your comment about the Commission. Why must we involve the Foreign Affairs Commissioner in a process which has absolutely nothing to do with the duties of the position proscribed by the Constitution? It would be the equivalent of allowing, say, a Minister of Sports and Culture to interfere with the duties of a given Ministry of Finance. Even more confusing is your comment about "simple maths." Yes, removing one member from the European Commission would mean that there would be two members left; but what exactly are you trying to say. Before, three people's agreement was needed; if this amendment were passed, only two would be. Very, very little has changed. I do not see how this undermines the act, nor how you were even attempting to claim that it would undermine the act. A complete non sequitur!

This is not an attempt to repeal this act, either; it is an attempt to introduce further accountability and efficiency in regards to the passing of sanctions, a very sensitive subject. You made a further comment about repealing the Condemnation of the Coup in Icholasen, but why exactly would I wish to repeal a motion which I wrote the majority of? Furthermore, regardless of intent, it would be illegal for these amendments to suddenly declare past Condemnations illegal, especially the Condemnation of the Coup in Icholasen - they cannot be enforced before the date of passage. Even the most extreme interpretation of my amendments would result only in requiring the Condemnation to come to vote every thirty days - and this in itself is legally questionable.

Iras Tilkanas
Councillor for the Republic of Istkalen

[Inimicus]

"As the successor of one of the original authors of this Act, I shall weigh in on the main point I disagree with in this Amendment proposal: the exclusion of the Foreign Affairs Commissioner.

Not only is Cllr Tilkanas incorrect in implying the FA Commissioner has "absolutely nothing to do" with the processes outlined in the Sanctioning Act, but in a larger sense, the relevance of Sanction Motions to a Commissioner's portfolio is not why a unanimous Commission judgement was written into the Act in the first place. Cllr Tilkanas, the Commission unanimously agrees to Sanctions packages before a Sanction Motion is sent to the European Council precisely because it is undesirable for one or two Commissioners -- who knows, possibly from the same party with vested interests in Sanctions.... -- to determine such an impactful decision by themselves. The 8-month term of the Foreign Affairs Commission is ideally suited to this additional check and balance. Removing it undermines the legitimacy of any Sanction Motion presented to the Council.

The issue of the wording of calendar month vs. 28 days is a dwarf in the light of this blatant attempt at removing the influence of a balancing factor from the Sanctioning process. Indeed, Cllr Tilkanas contradicts herself painfully when she suggests that, on the one hand, the FA Commissioner's portfolio is about as far removed from the Sanctioning Act as Istkalen is from stable governance, but on the other hand implies that non-member states, in other words, those who liaise under the auspices of the FA Commissioner, may be subjected to European Court of Justice ruling. If you will remember, Councillors, following the initial passing of the Sanctioning Act, the wording of the Act was changed by Amendment to include non-members. Now, it is not for me to determine whether non-member states can or cannot be subjected to ECoJ procedures -- however, for all practical intents and purposes, non-member states ought to be sanctionable if this Act is to have any practical use.

The Empire of Inimicus thus stands resolutely opposed to this Amendment and encourages all Councillors to speak out against it."

Nicholas Benfield
Councillor for His Imperial Majesty, the Emperor of Inimicus

[Istkalen]

I understand your worries, Councillor Benfield, but first, if this were an attempt to seize power, what good would it do? PEL commissioners would be able to veto sanctions regardless.

Secondly, non-member states do not liaise under the auspices of the FA commissioner. The FA commissioner is responsible only for relations with other regions, as well as for the defense of the region against invasion by other regions. Non-member EU states which are in the geographical region in which the member states of the EU exist - in effect the only non-member sanctionable entities - thus do not interact with the FA commissioner at all. I do not see how an FA commissioner would contribute at all to debate or voting, in light of this portfolio.

Iras Tilkanas
Councillor for the Republic of Istkalen

[Spain]

Debate is now over. Voting begins NOW and will last until 14:55 GMT on September 6th, 2021.

---

On behalf of the Kingdom of Spain, I vote AGAINST this amendment.

Donald Tusk
Deputy Speaker and Councillor for Spain

[Istkalen]

Quite honestly, a debate extension probably would have been in order given the controversial nature of this act, which I was did not expect, and arose, it appears, solely from baseless conspiracies; your habit of ending debate abruptly, especially in comparison with Speakers Michel and the former Speaker Firoux, is unusual and perhaps slightly unfortunate.

Regardless, on behalf of the Republic of Istkalen, I vote FOR this amendment.

Iras Tilkanas
Councillor for the Republic of Istkalen

[Spain]

Cllr. Tilkanas, debate extensions should be requested if we want to avoid what you've called an "habit of ending debates abruptly". I can, indeed, extend the debate by myself but that's subject to a personal interpretation. In fact I didn't think an extension was needed, as you answered Councillors' doubts. The Council offers 72 hours of debate, 3 days to be clear. If a Councillor believes a debate extension is needed, they can just say it. If they've got any problem, like a natural disaster or something which disallows them to attend the session, they can always phone me to request an extension as well. There are enough means to avoid my personal interpretation of extensions, Councillors just need to use them.

Donald Tusk
Deputy Speaker and Councillor for Spain

[Spain]

Voting has now concluded. With 1 vote FOR and 1 vote AGAINST, this amendment has FAILED.

Donald Tusk
Deputy Speaker and Councillor for Spain