European Constitutional Convention
-
This European Constitutional Convention is initiated by the Commissioner for Internal Affairs in collaboration with the European Council to review the relevance of the European Constitution and amend it as deemed appropriate. The fruit of this convention shall be the Omnibus Amendment to the European Constitution.
Councilors of each Member-state of the European Union or whoever is sent by the Government of the member-state to participate in the convention shall discuss and propose ideas to be included in the Omnibus Amendment. The convention shall discuss on certain parts of the constitution at certain time periods and end with the final deliberation of the Constitutional Committee along with the Internal Affairs Commissioner who shall collaborate in compiling the ideas gathered from this convention into the Omnibus Amendment. This event shall be presided over by the Speaker of the European Council.
TARGET TIMELINE
Article II. European Council - January 11 to 14
Article III. European Commission - January 14 to 17
Article IV. European Court of Justice - January 17 to 20
Universal Declaration of Human Rights, Remaining Articles and further changes - January 20 to 25
Final Deliberations and formulation of the Omnibus Amendment - January 25 to 31Applications for the Constitutional Committee - January 16 to 22
-
In regards to the Council, it is widely agreed, I feel, that its powers need to be deliniated in some way. I personally do not believe that there will be any formula for the limitation of the Council's power that will be universally agreed upon. What I propose would be a more organic limitation, so to speak.
In essence, the European Union should be expected to pay not merely for its own institutions, but for the regulations it puts into place. It is from it that these regulations are made, not the member-state; and thus it should be its responsibility, rather than that of the member-state, at least directly, to at the very least fund their enforcement. In the case that a member-state does not enforce a regulation, then the funding would merely be withdrawn as a punishment.
What this would do is create actual consequences for the Union when creating legislation. It would create a financial barrier to the imposition of new regulations, and thus limit them, particularly the more frivolous of them; it would also give a small incentive for member-states to actually enforce these regulations, as well as a minor and sensible punishment for those that do not.
There are also, I understand, questions regarding proportionality. I am opposed, as is the state I represent, to any model but the current model. It is simple, and protects the least well-off from the demands of the richest. Many of the larger states of this Union feel the need to impose their own economic systems and economic morality, so to speak, on others, and to give them more power - to establish a proportional system as so many demand - would simply be dangerous.
I don't feel as though the Commission needs significant reform, apart from extending terms to six months, perhaps, after the end of the current term.
Might I also suggest that the lengths of debate on specific subjects be extended? Currently they are too short for any meaningful progress to be made.
Iras Tilkanas
Council Speaker and Councillor for the Republic of Istkalen
