Amendment to the Nuclear Proliferation Act of 2009

[Spain]

Councillor Mizrachi-Roscoe, I do believe bringing up alliances to whether decide to vote for or against an amendment is against the principles of the European Council. We are here, you are here to get the best not just for your citizens, but also for the whole of the European citizens. Of course, we all are aware here that you do not believe in this project (the European Union) as much as I do, for example, but that is no excuse for deciding on such an important vote.

If we kept your "no-alliances in the ENAA principle", we would have to remove all of the countries with a permanent seat on the ENAA, because all of them are members of a military pact or alliance. Angleter has a military pact with Reitzmag, the Duxburian Union and Inquista are members of the Treaty of Telum. This is not how the ENAA works, and your view is far from what the ENAA should be. As I said before, the ENAA needs to control nuclear proliferation in Europe as well as having some knowledge on nukes. Being neutral is not part of their duty, nor it can be neutral, as they decide whether if a country can be trusted if they obtain nukes, simple. The ENAA is a pragmatic body, nothing further than that. Furthermore, I would like to hear what your concept of neutrality is, as I belive you have a way different view from the one I have.

I do agree with Deputy Speaker Benfield on his wishes to hear from both the Councillors for Icholasen and Vayinaod, as they are the other two parties involved in this debate, and before Councillor Yahontov claims "Spain has been influenced by Inimicus" or whatsoever she says, I would like to clarify this amendment has the only influence of Spain, and we believe the Empire of Inimicus is the most suitable for the place if the other Councillors believe we should do this change.

Donald Tusk
Councillor for Spain

[BrumBrum]

I would prefer as a matter of principle that no members of multi-lateral alliances or nuclear holding states are on the ENAA. Frankly those that hold nukes have an incentive to deny new applicants unless they are friends to said nations and those in alliances have even more inventive in this department. Now whether they act truly pragmatically without these being considered is another matter but one thing thats often said is there should not even be the "appearance of corruption" for regulatory bodies. Maybe the best thing would be to reform the system to have a rotation of experts but I certainly do not think adding yet another member of a big alliance on the ENAA pernament seat list is a good idea. This would create the appearance the ENAA is in the pockets of Telum with now a majority on it as members of Telum. This would create distrust in the mind of the public of any decisions that the ENAA may make in applications , there would potentially be an appearance of corruption and bias on the ENAA and that any decision may not be entirely on pragmatic grounds and therefore not to be fully trusted. I would suggest more putting a nation like Fremet, Mennrimiak or other nations like that who have no skin in the nuclear game nor the alliance game in Europe.

James Mizrachi-Roscoe, Councillor for United Duchies

[Duxburian Union]

The Union of Duxburian Dominions is quite surprised by the objection to nations with "alliances" on the ENAA. As Councillor Tusk stated, almost everyone has an alliance of some sort with someone.

Councillor Mizrachi-Roscoe takes issue with Telum having half of the permanent vote, but for the past 13 years, half the permanent ENAA seats have been held by Triumvirate members. In all those 13 years, the issue has never come up. Why? Because alliance affiliations have never been a problem or a factor in ENAA decision-making. I find the decision to bring up alliances this late in the game to be manufactured outrage over a non-issue and a bad attempt to politicize a seat that should never be politicized.

The Union of Duxburian Dominions supports Inimicus for the seat, not because it is a Telum member, but because it is the most senior nuclear state out of the eligible pool. Inimicus has held an ENAA license for about 8 years now and has demonstrated the maturity, wisdom, and restraint we ask of nuclear states. Inimicus has also shown its ability to de-escalate a tense international situation, as seen with its withdrawal of forces in the recent strait incident.

While Fremet would also be a good pick, Fremet's first application was rejected and its approved license is relatively fresh, only being 2 years old. Inimicus simply has seniority here and should be picked ahead of Fremet.

Wesley Greene
Councillor of the Duxburian Union

[Vayinaod]

I will confirm the Archrepublic has no interest in being made a permanent member on the ENAA at the present time. To accept such a position would undermine the nuclear state majority of the ENAA which is required for its legitimacy. If the Archrepublic wanted a permanent seat, it wouldn't have mentioned the lack of a election for the elected seat to stay in a quasi-permanent seat effectively.

The Archrepublic of Vayinaod endorses Inimicus for being elevated to the position of a permanent member. The Emperor of Inimicus is a regionally trusted office, the nation of Inimicus has shown its technical expertise in the Nuclear field, and is the most senior nuclear nation not on the ENAA. The Empire of Inimicus is the best pick for the job, no questions asked.

The purpose of the ENAA is to answer one question:

"Can this applicant state be trusted with nuclear weapons?"

That is the only question debated upon or mentioned in the ENAA discussion chambers. The nations of the ENAA have historically been "neutral" from the context of not letting their own geopolitical goals take precedence. Cllr. Mizrachi-Roscoe is gravely undereducated on this subject it seems, and I hope the statements of Cllr. Greene and Cllr. Tusk help him to understand the way the ENAA operates within the larger geopolitical landscape of the EU.

---

Carita Falk
Cllr. for the Archrepublic of Vayinaod

[BrumBrum]

I propose the folllowing amendment:

SECTION II. THE MAKEUP OF THE ENAA

The ENAA shall consist of five members, four of which will be permanent members and one three of which will be permanent members and two of which will be selected by the European Council every 12 months. This single elected member must be a non-nuclear state and will vacate their seat if they obtain nuclear weapons.

The four permanent members of the ENAA are as follows:
a. The Aelir of the Kendro-Laatzenian Dominions of the Duxburian Union
b. The Prime Minister of the Apostolic Kingdom of Angleter
c. The Archbishop of the Most Blessed State of Inquista
d. The Korojaunu of the United Dominions of Icholasen The Archkonsul of the Archrepublic of Vayinaod The Federation of Fremet

The nations that will have representation on the ENAA should assign their most powerful political figure to the role.

To ratify a vote within the ENAA, a majority of 51% or greater of the present voting members is required. For there to be a valid vote, a minimum quorum of three members must be obtained.

[Inquista]

As we all know, the only true Icholasen is the UNSR, which is also the same Icholasen which actually has a nuclear arsenal. Of course, due to the stench of the European bourgeoisie, the UNSR is currently not a member of the European Union, but it remains the greatest nuclear power outside of the EU, and thus for the sake of regional security, I believe it would be a good idea to have the UNSR seated on the ENAA anyway. In order to preserve regional security, and perhaps to allow the UNSR to join our Union, and therefore make our region even safer, we should give the legitimate and only Icholasen their rightful ENAA seat back.

Moreover, the greatest divide, in terms of security, is not between these so-called alliances, or even between nuclear and non-nuclear states. The greatest divide is between those who are living in freedom, and those who still live in the shackles of the oppression of capitalism. Currently, the ENAA is only made up of the oppressed, and those who propagate the dark and morbid grip the Roscoes have on the European people. In order to bring a balanced perspective, we need to include at least one liberated state on the ENAA, and that option is clearly the UNSR.

I therefore propose the following Amendment to Section 2:

2. The four permanent members of the ENAA are as follows:
   a. The Aelir of the Kendro-Laatzenian Dominions of the Duxburian Union
   b. The Prime Minister of the Apostolic Kingdom of Angleter
   c. The Archbishop of the Most Blessed State of Inquista
   d. The Korojaunu of the United Dominions of Icholasen The Archkonsul of the Archrepublic of Vayinaod The Korojaunu of the Union of Nicoleizian Socialist Republics

Bp. Karinn Lallana
Councillor for Inquista

[Istkalen]

In the interest of true neutrality, I propose the following amendment:

---

SECTION II. THE MAKEUP OF THE ENAA

1. The ENAA shall consist of five members, four of which will be permanent members and one three of which will be permanent members and two of which will be selected by the European Council every 12 months. This single elected member must be a non-nuclear state and will vacate their seat if they obtain nuclear weapons.

2. The four permanent members of the ENAA are as follows:
   a. The Aelir of the Kendro-Laatzenian Dominions of the Duxburian Union
   b. The Prime Minister of the Apostolic Kingdom of Angleter
   c. The Archbishop of the Most Blessed State of Inquista
   d. The Korojaunu of the United Dominions of Icholasen or a successor state, or in the case of the vacancy or contention of that role, whether in the United Dominions of Icholasen or in a successor state, the Emperor of the Empire of Inimicus.

3. The nations that will have representation on the ENAA should assign their most powerful political figure to the role.

4. To ratify a vote within the ENAA, a majority of 51% or greater of the present voting members is required. For there to be a valid vote, a minimum quorum of three members must be obtained.

---

Iras Tilkanas
Council Speaker and Councillor for the Republic of Istkalen

[Czech Slavia]

Dear colleagues, I think that we should ask a different question first, instead of asking the question who should replace Icholasen as a permanent member of the ENAA. The question is as follows, why should Icholasen be removed from the ENAA?

Despite the answer that may be given I am of the opinion that the Nuclear Proliferation Act requires an amendment. One that will allow this act to have a foresight. Instead of stating the precise titles of its members and the precise current names of the states, point two of section 2 should simply state the official shortened version of the name of the state and another point should be added stating that the Head of Government of the given country represents that state in the ENAA. This would allow the ENAA to be more flexible in respect to internal developments inside of its member states.

Before submitting an amendment I would however first like to hear the reasons for why should Icholasen be stripped of its membership in the ENAA and a potential response from a representative of Icholasen. As I would like to hear and consider the reasoning before submitting an amendment.

Václav Kohout
Councillor for Czech Slavia

[Fayrrendel]

I support Councilor Tilkanas' amendment. My government will not support Icholassen being removed as a permanent member of the ENAA, no matter how controversial the government might be. As it stands now however, the status of Icholasen is in a strange legal territory and as a result, I do not feel that Icholasen can fulfill this role at this time without their full ascension into the European Union. As a result, Ruthund will support the Empire of Inimicus as a member of the ENAA only in a provisional capacity until the question of Icholasen is resolved.

Prince-Councilor Tony Odhinazen
Councilor for Ruthund

[Vayinaod]

I think you can provide a very easy technical reason to why the UNSR or Icholasen should not be an ENAA member. It is unstable in the fact a coup, sudden change of government, whatever terminology you wish to use occurred virtually over night. It is not exactly the gold standard then for what one might call a 'stable' nuclear state. I think the UNSR should keep the legal license provided to Icholasen, if it is to be recognized as the legal successor state...however I think the content around how it came to be that state is a valid technical reason, rather than political one, for as to why it should not be on the ENAA for the present time.

I think the Empire of Inimicus would be a more appropriate state to have on the ENAA at this time, especially as the UNSR potentially retransitions into the EU.

Carita Falk
Cllr. for the Archrepublic of Vayinaod

[Istkalen]

While the Empire of Inimicus is a good option in terms of its seniority, I continue to have certain doubts in regard to its impartiality if it is to serve on a permanent basis. I do not have these same misgivings now, largely because current policy is pointing against the issues which I have; but it is certainly possible that, in the long term, over years, it might "swing in the opposite direction," so to speak, which seems, from a personal appraisal of the situation, well within the realm of possibility. Until very recently, the country appears to have taken a hard line against lefist states, refraining from engaging in diplomatic relations with several, most notably Czech Slavia, occasionally referring to what appear to be elements of their governments as "communist insurgents" in official state announcements, although perhaps I am mistaken on this point, I deeply apologize if I am.

These are completely legitimate actions on the part of the Empire of Inimicus; I do not want to cast any moral judgement on this. However, I would seriously argue that these policies, while now abandoned, should still be partially taken into account when discussing a possible position on the ENAA, for they seem to imply that some, although far, far, from all, in the government of Inimicus view leftist states as inherently violent or unstable.

While I understand that Fremet's nuclear license was granted only recently, I do not hold these same concerns regarding impartiality with them, and are presently more inclined, if it is absolutely necessary to remove Icholasen from the ENAA, to support their ascension.

Iras TIlkanas
Council Speaker and Councillor for the Republic of Istkalen

[Inimicus]

Speaker Tilkanas's point would be a valid one if we were talking about inter-state, one-to-one relations. If it were the Empire of Inimicus judging, by itself, whether to grant, say, Reitzmag, weapons of mass destruction without oversight or regulation. This is not the case. When a member of the ENAA, the only matter the Empire of Inimicus would judge is whether an applying state is stable and responsible enough to maintain a stockpile of nuclear weapons. And in doing so, the Empire's representatives would not resort to petty ideological disputes.

You may remember, Speaker Tilkanas, that our Dear and Beloved Head of State was very nearly assassinated by a rogue, communist regime, and several other high-ranking members of our Government were indeed killed. In light of this, I question whether Inimician state outlets referring to the perpetrators of this heinous crime in strong words would affect the Empire's impartiality and capability to sit on the ENAA.

The Imperial Government's long-standing status as a nuclear power and an international player in the region, as well as its recent efforts to open up diplomacy to hitherto disconnected states, show it would be ready to assume an ENAA status. If this Council deem it so, the Imperial Government would be honoured to do so.

Nicholas Benfield
Deputy Speaker

[Kingdom of Reitzmag]

As the primary proponent of this amendment, I think it's best we invite these leaders which we deem capable of carrying out the responsibilities to this chamber and allow them to give statements and to also be scrutinized and examined fairly. Apart from this, I request a debate extension for now.

Dame Yuridiana Yahontov GCC
Councilor, Kingdom of Reitzmag

[Inimicus]

With the leave of the Speaker, I shall grant a debate extension for a further 48 hours from now, until 11am GMT on 18th February 2022.

His Imperial Majesty would be more than pleased to address this Council should there be a wish for this to occur.

Nicholas Benfield
Deputy Speaker

[Czech Slavia]

After hearing the reasoning provided by Councillor Falk I am not convinced that Icholasen should be removed as a permanent member of the ENAA. There is no indication that the current government of Icholasen would be unstable. Czech Slavia will oppose any attempts to replace Icholasen's permanent membership by any other entity, not because it would oppose those entities gaining permanent membership, but because Icholasen would lose their permanent membership.

As I indicated in my earlier comment I will now propose the following amendment to section 2:

---

SECTION II. THE MAKEUP OF THE ENAA

2. The ENAA shall consist of five members, four of which will be permanent members and one three of which will be permanent members and two of which will be selected by the European Council every 12 months. This single elected member must be a non-nuclear state and will vacate their seat if they obtain nuclear weapons. All member states will be represented by their Head of Government

3. The four permanent members of the ENAA are as follows:
   a. The Duxburian Union
   b. Angleter
   c. Inquista
   d. Icholasen

---

I believe that this amendment would allow for more flexibility in a case of internal changes in the permanent member states, and their form of government is altered. As Icholasen has demonstrated recently, this can happen and we should anticipate such changes and be ready for them.

Finally I would like to say that we do not have a problem with the Empire of Inimicus becoming a permanent member of the ENAA, but only in a case where the ENAA membership is expanded and the Empire of Inimicus, or any other state, won't replace a current permanent member. If this is proposed I am ready to consider supporting such proposition.

Václav Kohout
Councillor for Czech Slavia

[Istkalen]

I will further extend debate until 21:50 GMT on 22 February 2022.

Iras Tilkanas
Councillor for the Republic of Istkalen

[Ineland]

Even though I am myself, and the government of the member state I represent, favourable to the normalisation of relations with the UNSR and the recognision of their government, I feel that the situation across the strait in Icholasen has been and continues to be too unstable. Therefore I believe that transferring the seat at the ENAA table from the leader of the UDI to the leader of the UNSR would be an unwise move. Thus I feel inclined to support Mr. Tusk's ammendment to replace the seat currently held by the Icholasian Korojaunu with one for the Inmican Emperor.

However, in light of the controversy surrounding the replacement of the Icholasian seat, I suggest that we consider this change a temporary one for the time being, with a revision of the situation in Icholasen vis à this legislation in six months time to settle on whether this change should be temporary or permanent.

Prince Charles Évere-Dancourt
Councillor for the United Principalities of Ineland

[Kingdom of Reitzmag]

Considering the suggestion of the Honourable Councilor for Ineland, I have thought of the idea of having this 3rd nuclear seat up for election at the same time as the 2nd non-nuclear seat. However, I'd be very welcome to the inputs of my fellow members here on such an idea. Until so, I will not be putting forward such an amendment to my own amendment. This is all I could say for now.

Dame Yuridiana Yahontov GCC
Councilor, Kingdom of Reitzmag

[Istkalen]

I will further extend debate to 12:00 GMT 25 February 2022, to allow Councillors to speak their final thoughts, but will not be giving any further extensions unless there is a significant change in the situation underlying the reasoning behind this proposal.

Iras TIlkanas
Council Speaker and Councillor for the Republic of Istkalen

[Inimicus]

With the permission of the Speaker, I suggest we now move to voting on Amendments.

---

Amendment I, proposed by Cllr Tusk of Spain:

SECTION 2:
d. The Korojaunu of the United Dominions of Icholasen The Archkonsul of the Archrepublic of Vayinaod The Emperor of Inimicus

---

Amendment II, proposed by Cllr Mizrachi-Roscoe of the United Duchies:

SECTION 2:
d. The Korojaunu of the United Dominions of Icholasen The Archkonsul of the Archrepublic of Vayinaod The Federation of Fremet

---

Amendment III, proposed by Cllr Lallana of Inquista:

SECTION 2:
d. The Korojaunu of the United Dominions of Icholasen The Archkonsul of the Archrepublic of Vayinaod The Korojaunu of the Union of Nicoleizian Socialist Republics

---

Amendment IV, proposed by Speaker Tilkanas of Istkalen:

SECTION 2:
d. The Korojaunu of the United Dominions of Icholasen or a successor state, or in the case of the vacancy or contention of that role, whether in the United Dominions of Icholasen or in a successor state, the Emperor of the Empire of Inimicus.

---

Amendment V, proposed by Cllr Kohout of Czech Slavia:
SECTION 2:

2. The ENAA shall consist of five members, four of which will be permanent members and one three of which will be permanent members and two of which will be selected by the European Council every 12 months. This single elected member must be a non-nuclear state and will vacate their seat if they obtain nuclear weapons. All member states will be represented by their Head of Government

3. The four permanent members of the ENAA are as follows:
   a. The Duxburian Union
   b. Angleter
   c. Inquista
   d. Icholasen

---

Please note, colleagues, that all of these amendments are exclusionary. In other words, one cannot vote in favour of multiple Amendments in this case without obfuscating the purpose of the legislation. Voting on Amendments starts NOW and ends 27 FEBRUARY AT 5PM GMT.

The Empire of Inimicus votes FOR Amendment I and AGAINST all other Amendments.

Nicholas Benfield
Deputy Speaker