Premier & FA Commissioner Debate, October 2021
-
Thank you and good evening Europe.
Europe is more divided than ever. The extremes on all sides have dominated discussion in Europolis. Instead of coming together and working out innovative solutions for the future, we are fear mongering about perceived enemies. Instead of basing facts on our governance, public figures in Europolis have been sabotaging each other for their own political gain. Instead of preparing the European Union for the future era of technology, outdated and dogmatic beliefs prevail. Tonight, I predict that we will see, as we usually have, what I describe play out right before our own eyes. Because people in Europolis are more interested in agenda than looking forward, more interested in ideological superiority than figuring out the best solutions, and more interested in “winning” than they are about finding common understanding.
I hope tonight proves me wrong, but based on how things are looking I don't think they will. Which is why our movement, the Femboy Party, is here tonight. We are here to not only serve Europe, we are here to give fresh leadership to Europolis and usher in a new era of facts-based governance, a human-centered Europe, and reforming the European constitution to allow all member states to feel included at the table. This is why I am running for Premier, to give this fresh and better start thank you.
-
Rosemary Barker: Thank you, these have been some enlightening opening words. We will now have a moment of free debate, where candidates may question or rebuke another candidate of their choosing with a brief statement. If one candidate directly addresses another, then the candidate in question may also rebuttal.
((OOC: questions/statements may only be 150 words maximum; if your candidate has been specifically mentioned, you may have an additional 150 words. Several back and forths will be allowed. If you have still not made your opening statement, you may continue to do so now. Free debate shall last for~24 hours.))
-
Hello Europe, im Ville Niinistö or as you might better know me im the Nephew of the Current Prime Minister of Mennrimiak, i have participated in my country parliament and currently participate on government agencies that help the enviroment and endangered animals prey of human activity, yes im a green and i support a green way of life, im running independently because neither the EPA or the PEL would accept me.
Now what do you want Europe?
You might already think that you wont vote for me because i think different than you but the truth is that i have been more honest about me and my work and any politician you migth know im not here to advocate for a stronger and more united EU like Mr Juncker would want, or a Europe where a Nation is the maximum authority like Mr Desai would want, im here to advocate for a change, not a change in policy, not a change on leadership but a change in honesty and how the EU behaves with its citizens letting people know of all the descitions taken in a government is a esscential part of a democracy, easier to access information and easier to understand explanations of what we do will be my priority, i wanna do more than propose a budget or have the last saying on the most defining matters of the EU i want people to know what i do and let them take part on it, and maybe help the emviroment a little bit too, the planet needs it after all
Thank you all. -
Hello Europe, Im Pekka Haavisto, Candidate to Foreign affairs Commissioner, im Experienced at the job serving for the Ministry of Foreign relations for a while and i would make a good Foreign Affairs Commissioner.
Thank you!
-
I'd like to bring attention to the manifesto of Mr. Juncker. Just four month ago Mr. Juncker called for a breach of Reitzmic sovereignty and involving the EU in the issues surrounding Copala City, now the same Juncker speaks against such breech of sovereignty. Similarly his stance on the conflict in Icholasen has changed many times as did his stance on the Sanctioning Powers Act, perhaps it would be best if he could tell us what his stance on this act is now. To me it seems that if EPA nominated a weather vane for the position of Premier, the consistency would stay the same, turning around according to the wind. Why should the people of Europe trust you, Mr. Juncker?
Before I continue I will ask the host if it is possible for us to question more then one of our opponents? I also have a question for Mr. Desai. Thank you.
-
Harish Desai : In response to Ville Niinistö saying he is different because he values citizen sovereignty over national sovereignty how are the two different? Is not giving more power back to national parliaments citizen sovereignty because they choose the representatives? Also I'd like to point out a candidate in the last election proposed the ultimate sovereignty for citizens , referendums and direct votes to be able to remove EU law if there were enough signatures last election but it was considered “crazy” and “insane” to give Europeans a say in the laws that govern them, what has change now? Maybe we should all be supporting the referendum idea as a way to directly involve citizens in the legislative process of the EU or is it insane if reformists suggest it?
-
To begin with, I’d like to mention culture in this debate, something nobody ever cares because that doesn’t give you votes. I want to give culture the relevance it should have, as well as implementing several cultural programmes for the European youth, such as a pan-European student exchange programme or EU culture cheques, which would receive foundation from the EACF.
Moving on, Miss Čikarová has accused the EPA Councillors of “fighting for increasing the budget to increase their own salaries”. Europeans, we've just started and already have the first misleading statements. With Whiteford, the budget expenses were worth €31,733,835,111.70, with Čikarová, they were worth €32,782,188,100.66; an increase of a 3.303% compared to last year. And if that’s not enough, something else: The proposed amendment wanted to keep the Council’s budget as it was in 2020. Why is her ignoring this information? Why doesn’t the Premier want to say the truth?
Now, answering to Mr. Niinistö, I’d like to remember him the motto of our Union: “United in Diversity”. I, of course, believe on a more united Europe, because the Union cannot be divided and we have plenty of reasons to believe in it, such as deciding what’s done in the region or a guarantee of help in times of need. The EU is a needed pillar for this region, despite what someone in this room says.
And referring to that someone, let me remind him something: Citizens-wide referendums just make EU states more disengaged; if we want an EU that works, we need to be coherent with ourselves and listen to the citizens by more engaging means, e.g., the EU app. By the way, this isn’t your country election, but an EU one, so please don’t emphasize what your nation does to criticise us, this isn’t about nations but Europe.
Now, the current Premier asked me why should you trust me? And my answer is simple, as well as supported by data: from the last 4 Commissions the EU has had, approximately around 16 months, I’ve been the most hard-working Commissioner. The Europeans are relaxed when they see me in Commission, because they know it won’t stop working, no matter what, no matter who. The Europeans are aware of all of this, and they rather prefer someone that works instead of someone that does nothing, for instance yourself, Ms. Čikarová.
Furthermore, they know my management is a synonym for transparency, action and development, something we haven’t had this term unless you count 2 bills and 2 statements as these. Summing up, they want a responsible Commission that works for them and is always there when they need it, instead of a missing one that just earns money for doing nothing.
-
"Mr. Juncker you completely ignored the issue of your constant changes in position, but regardless the expanses have seen a very slight increase since the revenue has increased greatly. Furthermore, in my original proposition the expanses were lower then in the final budget, they were increased by the Councilors and one of the propositions to raise the budget came from Mr. Tusk, so if that increase seems too high to you, you should scold Mr. Tusk. The proposed raise of the Council expanses would see increased spending on individual Councilors, since the number of Councilors has decreased since 2020. That means the EPA Councilors tried to increase the amount of money going directly towards them.
On a side note, you said that the people are relaxed to see you in the Commission. An interesting conviction considering that last election the people decided that you shouldn't be in the Commission. "
"I see Ms. Barker nodding to my question so I will turn to Mr. Desai. Mr. Desai, let's momentarily ignore your obsession with Mr. Juncker and the EPA and focus on a different issue. A former candidate for the position of Premier Commissioner, a well respected Dr. Koline has said that the EU needs a reason to exist, otherwise it is not good for anything. You seem to think that almost all of the EU institutions should be replaced by bilateral agreements among individual states, what reason to exist does the EU have in your vision, what role should it play?
I would also like to know where do you think the current Commission is trying to control the social policies of the member states? I have not noticed we would try to do that, so I want to know what it is specifically that you aim to fight against."
-
Harish Desai:Sofie Čikarová I thank you for your question and would answer that by saying the EU would still be beneficial under my proposed system. Now it would act as a discussion chamber for big picture issues and a common organisation to talk over treaties and solutions to problems sponsoring talks on coming up with treaties. It would essentially act as a mediator bringing together ideas which then nations can choose to accept the treaty proposal or not. Essentially it would be tallking shop of Europe , where issues get discussed and co-operation through treaties co-ordinated but with maximum nationstate power.This way you get benefits of co-operation while countries that would otherwise leave due to sovereignty issues will maybe consider staying in and the Green European Fund proves treaty based solutions can work.
-
Rosemary Barker: Thank you all. We have our first questions from Kieran from Saint Dominico. Kieran's first question is for the Premier candidates, and he asks, "what, in your opinion, are the boundaries of national sovereignty that the EU shouldn't touch, and conversely, what are areas that the EU should have a strong role in?"
Kieran's second question is for our Foreign Affairs candidate. Kieran asks, "what would you do to further strengthen and solidify our relations with allied regions?"
((OOC: You'll have ~36 hours to respond, and as always, you can also comment on someone else's answer. If there's an active debate going I will extend the time.))
-
Ms. Premier, even if Mr. Tusk amendment had failed, the budget would still have increased because there’re other amendments, then don’t just blame an Eurogroup for this budget raise. Moreover, you are once giving the Europeans a misleading argument by saying “the EPA Councillors tried to increase the amount of money going directly towards them”. Firstly, if the Council salaries rise, they rise for everyone and secondly; the budget would have been the same than in 2020, then no changes would have happened concerning salaries.
Now, it’s funny you mock about my defeat four months ago, when you also lost against Angela Merkel on your first run for Premier, or have you already forgotten about that? But losing is fine and needed, because it’s a direct message from the people that are telling “your policies need a change”. And that’s why my team and I’ve changed some of our policies.
Thanks, Kieran, for your question.
The current EU distribution of power areas are correct with the Constitution we have now, but if we start the Constitutional review procedures, something I’m carrying on my agenda; we will surely have to negotiate and write down in the Constitution what competences we want the European Union to have. There are some areas it shouldn’t touch, like education or the industrial planification, while we need to cooperate on others like environment and pan-European transports and others that are exclusive, such as External defence and external EU borders.
There is one thing we should point out in this debate too, and that’s the ECoJ current functioning, as I believe a reform should be submitted to the European Council after a discussion period and make the European Court of Justice more useful and interesting at the same time. I think it’s possible, we just need some compromise from the European Union leaders and Councillors, as well as from the European Commission, to make it real. Of course, some people in this room like Mr. Desai would love this to never take place, just look at how he is selling you his country agenda and initiatives instead of bringing good proposals for the union like the “European Green Fund”, which by the way, is not sponsored by the European Union.
I also want to keep speaking about my agenda, now I have some time to do so, about the Digital Services Act, for which I’ll accept suggestions: With this act, I want to guarantee 2 things: a safer digital space where the Europeans basic rights are protected and foster innovation, growth, and competitiveness within the European Union. We need to adapt to the new times, and this act would mean a very important step towards that direction.
-
Mr. Juncker, one of the amendments that passed was made by Mr. Tusk and I didn't blame the Councillors for the increase, I don't blame anybody, the increase is minimal compared to the much larger revenue from 2020, I don't have a problem with it. You seemed to be upset by it so I told you that your party colleagues played their role in it.
It seems you struggle to grasp the obvious. The number of Councillors has decreased since 2020, if you divide the same amount of money as in 2020 among less Councillors, the individual Councillors would get more money in 2021 then in 2020. That is an increase, simple. I hope we all understand now and can move forward.
Lastly, I didn't mock your defeat. Not in the slightest. I said your conviction of how the people perceive you is intriguing.
Mr. Desai you said that you would turn the EU into a "discussion chamber", ignoring how highly improbable that is to occur, the individual states are capable of holding discussions without any supranational organization, I don't see how that organization would provide the benefits of co-operation.
You propose stripping almost all the capabilities from the Union, Yet it would still require funding for the administration. I don't see a reason why the people of Europe should pay the remaining army of bureaucrats who would administer an organization that is not beneficial, since it lacks almost any power and performs only task that the individual states are able of performing themselves. I think the people expect some benefits form the Union they pay for and that is what PEL aims to deliver.
Could you please also answer my second question now?
Thanks for the question Kieran and warm greetings to Saint Dominico, the EU shouldn't concern itself with the internal affairs of its member states apart from guaranteeing the basic human rights, such as the right to life, the freedom of religion etc., the EU should also not aim to establish a unified foreign policy. It is unacceptable for the EU to put up barriers against free trade, such as sanctions, hurting everybody in the process. On the other hand it is unacceptable for the EU to fight against economic independence of states that choose to pursue it. I will continue standing for the rights of states to choose their own path.
The EU should play a role in assisting the member states. It should assist them in their development, it should mediate between two sides of a conflict if requested and sponsor all such talks, it should support research, culture and health and I also think that it should protect some basic rights of the workers.
I think the current Commission was able to set a good standart for the respect of the national sovereignty. We have stayed out of the Reitzmic internal affairs and the existing issues were solved almost instantly without the EU trying to intervene. We have abandoned the aggressive stance towards the UNSR and now we were able to sponsor talks between the two sides of the Nicoleizian conflict, eliminating almost any threat of a destructive nuclear war. Even Mr. Biden has recognized the success of our policy in that matter and Mr. Juncker proves us right too, when he altered his stance on those issues to be closer to our policies. That is a great success of this Commission and by electing PEL candidates, you have a guarantee that this successful approach will continue.
-
Harris Desai:I will gladly say in response to the discussion chamber the EU can play a more effective role there than bi-lateral negotiations so it would be of great use. My view is simple any project should be assessed by the following: 1. is the project pan-european ? 2:Does it benefit all European nations? If the answer to both of those is no the EU should not have power over it. This would need to be done on a case by case basis.
I would like to speak about the Green European Fund yes it's not EU endorsed but it's also why it's more effective as it is a focused fund on one issue which by the way has more than enough money to fund the Azrekko project for solar of 2.9 billion Euros which I've heard from sources the EDA cannot because it does not allow donations or encourage going above minimum funding like the Green European Fund does. Overall treaties just allow far more flexibility and allow nations to choose what they do and do not want to be involved in , at the moment EU is a take all or take none and this offputs many nations or makes them consider leaving this will only get worse as centralisation continues such as give EU control over borders and immigration as has been proposed ,nations should administer that.With these reforms we can downsize EU funding and reducing bureaucrats while allowing nations to choose their level of financial involvement.
-
Let’s please not try to change what we say just a few minutes ago in front of the Europeans, after putting the focus on certain people or Eurogroups. By the way, when the budget stays the same for an institution, that doesn’t imply their salaries rise, the budget can be destinated for different things.
Anyway, I think it is best for the European Union to leave this topic and move on to new ones, and I would like to bring up my Constitutional reform proposal, which would need to be agreed with member states and it would need to count with as much support as possible. And I want to ask all the candidates here what section would they change, because it would be a good start and a demonstration of responsibility if we could all agree about a section we would like to reform from our current constitution?
-
Rosemary Barker: Moving on to our next question. Premier candidates, Marcus from Copala City asks, "if you could propose one piece of legislation to the European Council tomorrow, what would it be and why?"
((OOC: You'll have ~36 hours to respond.))
-
Harrish Desai:I think we all are by now especially in Duchies aware of the plight of our Councillours son is fighting for life having suffered a shocking attack just based on his neurotype. I would support any efforts to make a law to make Autistic Pride, Disability Pride and any other major days for the Neurodivergent as official awareness and acceptance days in EU law to celebrate the great neurodiversity and disabled in our great continent. I feel things like this are areas the EU can do a lot of good without affecting sovereignty. It would help solve hate and promote awareness and acceptance of difference something which is definitely needed in these dark times of often great division among the people.
-
"Thank you for the question Marcus. What I consider one of the most important issues, at the present time are the rights and the protection of workers, as working people create the vast majority of all human societies. Sadly the rights of the workers were ignored by the previous Commissions and it seems that in some cases, sadly the EU was endangering the employment of workers in certain fields and it still could endanger them if we do not stand up for them. For that reason I would try to pass a legislation protecting their rights. But I can't yet speak about the details of such legislation as I would like to consult it with other Commissioners and Councillors to arrive at hopefully satisfactory legislation for all. I would also like to point out that some Councillors, like Councillors Tilkanas or Lallana, already started this important process.
Unlike my oponent, Mr. Desai I don't think that the major issues of our Union are about symbolism. I of course take no issue with days dedicated to symbolic matters such as raising awareness or celebrating something, but I take Issue with symbolism taking a precedence over concrete politics. And I want the EU to be a meaningful organization that has something to offer to its member states and their citizens rather than a symbolic organization with no real capabilities. Words don't bring bread and meat on the table, work does. And people of Europe first and foremost need jobs, they need peace, they need sustainable development , they need solidarity and equal treatment and their need their independence and autonomy. That is what I and what PEL, continues to stand for."
-
Hamish Desai:Ms Čikarová the allegation I want the union to be symbolic is false . I want it to be a union of sovereign nations there's a difference. Further more Marcus asked what would you introduce tomorrow , complex deep acts are not possible in that timeframe so saying anything other than simple laws would be a lie.I would also argue awareness days and months are not symbolic they have real social impacts and change attitudes which is the start of major change later on.
-
Thank you, Marcus for your question, I have to admit it is quite good. Now, getting into the topic of the question, if I had the chance to submit a bill to the Council tomorrow, I would submit a bill to protect the fauna and flora of the several European Union member states, as well as to protect our most precious and beautiful landscapes, like huge forests in many European Union countries. That has been already done with our oceans, and we have, all together, compromised to protect them and it’s working amazingly. Who says the European Union countries cannot compromise to this?
Of course, this bill requires quite a lot of preparation, but I trust the European Council and I trust the Councillors and the current member states of our Union enough to believe they would support such an important bill for our Union. However, this is not the only area I would focus on if I am elected by the whole of the European Union to be their next Premier Commissioner, as this union requires professional action in many areas, for instance its constitution, how we handle sovereignty and integration or defining the European Union we want to have in the future.
A Juncker premiership would not focus on irrelevant matters, but prioritize those which are important and that many citizens depend on. Many say I am an Eurofederalist, but I have not proposed to create a Federation of European states, nor I want to. Europe needs a reform that changes how people see it, how they think about it. We have to admit many have lost their hope in Europe, nonetheless their proposals would mean the end of this Union forever and ever, to divide the region using lies. I want the opposite, an EU with sense.
-
Rosemary Barker: Thank you, candidates. It is now time for closing statements. You now have 2 minutes ((OOC: 300 words)) to provide Europe with your final words and thoughts.
The Kingdom of Spain