Amendment to the European Constitution (Emergency Bills) 2021

[Kingdom of Reitzmag]

Amendment to the European Constitution 2021

An amendment to the European Constitution on allowing a faster procedure for bills and motions that must be executed at the soonest time possible

Written and Proposed by: Coun. Yuridiana Yahontov, Kingdom of Reitzmag

---

Section I. Article II, Section VI shall be created under the title "Emergency Legislation"
Section II. Article II, Section VI, Clause I shall be created with the following words:

I. Emergency Legislation shall be defined as any motion in the European Council that require immediate action and implementation at the soonest possible time.

Section III. Article II, Section VI, Clause II shall be created with the following words:

II. The classification of Emergency Legislation shall only apply to Bills, Amendments, Motions, Statements, and Confirmations.

Section IV. Article II, Section VI, Clause III shall be created with the following words:

III. Emergency Legislation shall have at least 24 hours of debate, and may only be extended by increments of 12 hours every 10 hours. After the debate period, any amendment proposed shall be voted within 24 hours, and may only be extended by increments of 6 hours every 3 hours. Final voting shall then commence and end within 24 hours, and may not be extended.

Section V. Article II, Section VI, Clause IV shall be created with the following words:

IV. Councilors may challenge the classification of any proposal as an emergency legislation during the debate period. This shall then be voted within 24 hours and require a simple majority to take effect. Should a proposal be deemed not as an emergency legislation, it shall follow regular council procedures.

[Inimicus]

This is a very interesting proposal, and possibly the first proposal from a Reitzmic Councillor which the Empire of Inimicus could find itself supporting. I would ask Cllr Yahontov to provide a more detailed explanation of the rationale behind this Amendment, given that they have not done so. I am particularly interested in the proposed timeframes: why were these chosen, what was the reason for these timeframes rather than shorter or longer periods? The Empire of Inimicus thanks Cllr Yahontov for this proposal.

Cllr Nicholas Benfield
Empire of Inimicus

[Kingdom of Reitzmag]

First of all, thank you Mr. Benfield for the recognition.

I'd first like to explain why I proposed this amendment. As we have observed during our past proceedings in the European Council, there have been some proposals that had been implemented already behind the goal timeframe due to the long procedures. As such, there were proposals that became useless because it was no longer necessary at the time it has passed. Therefore, introducing a special classification of proposals with a shorter procedural timeframe is necessary to prevent more situations similar to what I have mentioned.

Now, I'd like to explain each of the clauses I had proposed to be included under this new part of the European Constitution. Clauses 1 and 2 are completely self-explanatory, so I'll move onto the timeframe in Clause 3. I have proposed that each procedural timeframe be decreased to at least 24 hours and limit the amount of extensions on 2 parts of the procedure for I see that such time is enough for at least 2-3 members of this council to contribute to the debate, vote for amendments, and vote for the proposal. Such time guarantees at least 3 days for an emergency legislation to be implemented if passed. Should these time frames be shorter, it might have more or less just 1 member contributing to the debate, voting on amendments, and voting on the proposal. Such would be undemocratic and that I consider only at least 3 votes on the council to be valid enough for a go-signal. Should the timeframes have been longer, then it would take more than 3 days before a proposal is implemented. And I think that 3 days is too long.

Clause 4 mainly prevents members of the council from abusing the power of Emergency Legislation. It also prevents legislation that isn't really necessary at the soonest possible time from being rushed and given "special treatment".

That is all for now. I look forward to further contribution from my fellow members of this assembly.

Yuridiana Yahontov
Councilor, Kingdom of Reitzmag

[Spain]

Thank you Councillor Yahontov for your proposal.

I think we all agree with 2 things I am going to mention now: the first one is that the Council procedures take a long time, even if it's necessary for everybody to take part on debates and have enough time to think about what they are going to say or just come here and deliver their speech. And secondly, that the Council procedures are extended more than they should because of several factors, including that I'm alone at the management of the Council right now with the absence of the Speaker. And I'm not blaming the Speaker for being absent, he surely has some reasons to be absent from his job after the late spring events we have had; but I shouldn't be blamed, and I hope I am not, if I cannot attend and hear all the Councillors' proposals at the same time.

Is this legislation necessary to my point of view? I think it is. Should we expect the new "Emergency bills" to be given priority? Yes we should. But should we expect it if all the Council activity right now relies on the Deputy Speaker and has nobody to help with procedures? There comes my concerns. I would like to hear Cllr. Yahontov thoughts on this and what she thinks that could be done to sort out this institutional crisis we are going through right now. I would also like a clarification on the proposed Section IV, as votings aren't usually extended unless I can't keep up with all the Council proposals influx and maybe, we should look into that.

Thank you very much.

---

Debate starts NOW and will last until 15:56 GMT on September 25th, 2021.

Donald Tusk
Deputy Speaker and Councillor for Spain

[Kingdom of Reitzmag]

Mr. Deputy Speaker, I think you may have spoiled my upcoming amendment to the European Constitution with your question. The solution that I see due to the unstable activity levels in this chamber is to have 2 Deputy Speakers that would work together regardless of the level of activity. I am also looking into the possibility of allowing the deputy speaker(s) to work even if the Speaker is not absent. In these ways, the Council would be more productive despite the situation.

That is all for now, thank you.

Yuridiana Yahontov
Councilor, Kingdom of Reitzmag

[Spain]

I see, Councillor Yahontov. And I am looking forward to discuss that proposal in this chamber, so I wish we can have some debate about it now. Also, thank you for answering my concerns, which helped me to decide my position concerning this amendment.

---

Debate is now over. Voting begins NOW and will last until 12:11 GMT on September 30th, 2021.

---

On behalf of the Kingdom of Spain, I vote FOR this amendment to the European Constitution.

Donald Tusk
Deputy Speaker and Councillor for Spain

[Gadalland and Aspern]

On behalf of the SIx Unions of Gadalland and Aspern, I vote FOR this amendment.

Edutitalle Dina
European Councillor for the Sertian Union

[BrumBrum]

On behalf of United Duchies I vote FOR this ammendment
James Mizrachi-Roscoe , Councillour for United Duchies

[Istkalen]

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

Iras Tilkanas
Councillor for the Republic of Istkalen

[Kingdom of Reitzmag]

On behalf of the Kingdom of Reitzmag, I vote FOR this amendment.

Yuridiana Yahontov
Councilor, Kingdom of Reitzmag

[Inimicus]

The Empire of Inimicus votes FOR this Amendment.

Cllr Nicholas Benfield

[Montenbourg]

On behalf of the Kingdom of Montenbourg, I vote FOR this amendment to the European Constitution.

Emma Granger,
Councillor for Montenbourg

[Spain]

Voting has now concluded. With 7 votes FOR and none AGAINST, this amendment to the European Constitution has PASSED.

Donald Tusk
Deputy Speaker and Councillor for Spain