Freedom of Navigation Act
-
You will find that the amendment I proposed does not extend to straits that are narrow if it impedes the transit of a ship through a strait but compromises must be made for smaller nations like Nofoaga. What you are going is telling nations they should not be able to protect the environment but even in straits nations should be allowed to require cleaner fuels for the environments sake. The amendment for marine zones is essential since if it does not have that amendment we risk hurting marine parks Europewide put in place to protect the environment. While freedom of transit is essential it should not come at the cost to the environment.I cannot support your amendment that does not classify the military ships as ships as this would endanger our national security and could lead to us being trapped inside our sea and unable to help allies while other countries are free to help their allies in times of need for instance if piracy situations were to develop. You'll find in my first amendment it mentions exclusive economic zones though if its needed we can add a definition of exclusive economic zones and the distance though that could lead to efforts to constantly repeal the act by nations like the Duxburion Union or even to them leaving the EU entirely. This is a threat that cannot be underestimated.
James Mizrachi-Roscoe , Councillor for United Duchies
-
In response to the Istkalen councillor about undefined terms I will add a amendment for a definition of an exclusive economic zone and Marine zone
SECTION I: DEFINITIONS
Transit passage: right to temporarily transit through territorial waters of a given state for the sole purpose of continuously navigating between two different parts of the high seas whose connection is unavoidably necessary through the territorial waters of a state.
Territorial waters: any mass of water, extending up to 10 nautical miles from a state’s coastline, in which that state exercises its sovereignty.
International waters: any mass of water extending up from 10 nautical miles from a state’s coastline.
Internal waters: any mass of water located within the contiguous coastline (i.e. some small bays and gulfs, harbours) or completely surrounded by land and fully located within the territorial boundaries of a single state.
Exclusive Economic Zone:Water outside of the Territorial waters by up to 200 miles or half in the case of the distance being less than 400 Miles where a nation has sole rights to set up Marine Reserves, or on the granting of exploitation licenses for any natural resources below the surface.
Marine Reserve:An area that is ecologically sensitive where a country may restrict fishing rights for part or all of the year and set restrictions on the type of fuels used , type of ships allowed though and size of ships allowed through the Marine Reserve for all or part of the year.James Mizrachi-Roscoe, Councillor for United Duchies
-
Mrs Speaker, given the level of hostility in what should be, in my view, a civilised debate, even involving threats of military action to oppose what is simply a legislative proposal instead of engaging in constructive dialogue to solve possible issues with the proposed drafting as it stands, I will not be taking part in further debate on this proposal. Thus I will leave the premises of the Council until it is time to vote on any amendments and on the legislative proposal itself.
Prince Charles Évere-Dancourt
Councillor for InelandThe Councillor stood up and walked towards the exit door to return to his office while unlocking his phone to make some calls.
-
Dear colleagues, I am afraid the Kingdom of Spain is and will remain opposed to this act, no matter how many amendments are passed. During the previous days, the Spanish Government and myself have been thinking about what the best stance was when it came to this act. While I do not doubt the good faith of the Inelandic Councillor, it comes to our attention that some nations will just support it because of geostrategic and political reasons against a country, the Kingdom of Spain, that is not doing anything illegal. Coincidentally, those nations are all members of the European Coalition of Nations.
The concerns arisen by my colleagues from the Empire of Inimicus and the Union of Duxburian Dominions have to be taken into account, but before I get to each Councillor’s statements, some of them are “amazing”; I would like to comment on the bill, warning beforehand the chamber twice: if this act passes, you can take for granted that the European Union’s relationship with Spain will be worsened, and second, if it passes, you will not only be attacking our sovereignty, but as the Duxburian Councillor said, supporting a war declaration on Spain.
This act does not only attempt to “quietly” get rid of the Spanish Straits taxing, which will never disappear, but also to solve an open conflict clearly benefiting one side over the other. Thankfully, I am not the only one to realise about this and you will not be able to say I am crazy, mostly thanks to Cllr. Yahontov, who warned us about the real purpose of this act: sabotaging Spanish interests through the Union while getting ECON several advantages. Colleagues, the fact that Reitzmag and their close friends are using a nation which aims to join their alliance to propose an act which would destroy their reputation is alarming, but it gets worse when you realise that they are also trying to use the European Union they are against of, to get their wishes to become true. This act is charged with political reasonings, and the EU as a whole should not allow this to happen.
The bill creates more issues than it solves: it allows ships of any nature to freely navigate wherever, even in our territorial waters; it limits states sovereignty on their waters unless the country which ships are intended to be kicked from our waters is breaking the European law. Waters are not “international”, they are not a domain of everyone, they are just domains of nations until a certain point, and it is on our Governments to choose where their limit is, with responsibility and good behaviour. What the European Council cannot pretend to do, and nor should anyone in Europe, is to attempt to regulate something nobody has complained about for a lot of years until some countries got bothered. And those countries, Councillors, are the ones that today are using this chamber for mere political reasons, trying to get Spain or any country to adopt a certain policy just because someone does not like our policy. Pretty simple: cope with it and negotiate.
I was also forgetting about the many, many violations the act hides: the mentioned UDoHR article 20 violation, suspending voting rights on the European Council and establishing new crimes all around the European Union. If this all the act has to offer, believe me, we are more than ready to not comply with it, as taking it to the European Court of Justice would be enough to scrap it. The act needs heavy amending, but at this point it would be better if it is withdrawn and it never comes back around here. In just a few days, it has managed to get the Duxburian Union and Spain to feel this is a declaration of war, it is trying to impose a solution on a conflict without the agreement from both parties and meanwhile, others reveal the real reasoning of this act. I have a question for the Inelandic Councillor: did we really need this proposal? Or was it a prerequisite from (Tusk goes silent and points to Yahontov, intending it to mean Reitzmag) to enter an alliance that has been previously mentioned? Now I understand why not many join it.
Moving on, I hope the honourable Speaker allows me to go intervention by intervention, or at least, through those that I have found pretty interesting. Let me start with the Duchian Councillor, who would like to make everyone happy and submits quite a few amendments without even consulting the nations he is trying to please: Nofoaga or the Duxburian Union are two perfect examples of his pleasing policies. Mr. Roscoe, you are the Duchain Councillor, not the Nofoagan Councillor, that is Ms. Muzhare! Let other countries submit their own amendments, it is not that difficult. The Sertian councillor already raised awareness, let the CCCC councillors, for the love of God, submit their amendments as they will. I am pretty sure that, if they needed someone, they would call someone. Also, you target Spain with your amendments, because geopolitics first, then the Union. That is the principle you have, and that you actually share with Cllr. Yahontov.
Speaking of whom, her turn arrived! To make things way easier and try to turn Europe into a peaceful place, the Reitzmic Councillor, who recently became some sort of puppet or grey blob due to her inability to do something without the AEC authorisation, goes full “beast mode” and tries to help their friends on the other side of the Adventuranza Strait (at least she got something right!) calling Spain and Inimicus aggressive, bully nations. Ms. Yahontov, when on earth did you think that was a great idea? Your amendments are awful, and they just show what Reitzmag wants: if this act already might be made in Reitzmag, now you want to do it more Reitzmic. The whole bill just needs a passport, and that’s it, you have got a new citizen: The Freedom of Navigation Bill Grey Blob citizen. I would sign a request to make that happen if someone ever proposed it on the Internet.
I have taken some hours of my time to write up some amendments, just in case the Council decided to shoot itself in its feet and passed this madness. Nevertheless, even if it was amended, count Spain to be on the list of nations against it. This is my amendment:
Amendment I
SECTION II - REGULATIONS
II. Ships of any nature are entitled to transit through straits or any analogous natural waterway connecting two or more masses of international water under the right of transit passage unless the straits they are transiting through are compiled in Section III.
III. No state shall unilaterally grant itself the right to deny or limit the passage of any ship through international waters. or through territorial waters under the right of transit passage.
IV. Transit passage of a ship through territorial waters may be denied only in the event of a clear violation of European Union law and with the consent of the appropriate national court.
IV. An Observatory of European Navigation shall be established, in order to oversee the proper implementation of this Act.SECTION III: EXEMPTIONS
I. The Strait of Adventuranza, which boundaries are defined in Addendum I, is exempted from complying with Section I and Section II, Article II of this text.
II. The Strait of Gibraltar, whose boundaries are defined in Addendum I, is exempted from complying with Section I and Section II, Article II, of this text.
III. The Strait of Varia, whose boundaries are defined in Addendum I, is exempted from complying with Section I and Section II, Article II, of this text.
IV. These exemptions do not impact civilian transit from states bordering these areas that may not be subject to any taxation or restriction on their civilian transit.[Sections III & IV renamed to Sections IV and V]
ADDENDUM I
I. The Strait of Gibraltar has the following boundaries:
II. The Strait of Adventuranza has the following boundaries:
III. The Strait of Varia has the following boundaries:
Donald Tusk
Councillor for Spain -
Cllr. Tusk, Cllr. Greene, please, if you may, direct yourselves to the Council time-out corner. Threats of war over legislation are not a part of regular, civil, discourse.
It is incidentally somewhat odd that your amendment exempts every single strait in the European Union, removing that clause would have accomplished the same.
Iras TIlkanas
Council Speaker and Councillor for the Republic of Istkalen -
Mr. Speaker, with all due respect, saying that supporting this act is equal to supporting a war declaration on the Kingdom of Spain is not a threat of war, but rather an observation. The same goes with the Duxburian Councillor, who has given her opinion on what this act means to her.
And under my intepretation, the amendment I have registered does not exempt every single Strait in the European Union, just those compiled in Section III. But, I now would like to ask you, how would you write it?
Donald Tusk
Councillor for Spain -
I will concede that there are straits other than these, but these are perhaps the most strategic, and coincidentally those controlled by Spain and the DU.
Secondly, you are saying that, if this act is passed, Spain, and the Duxburian Union, will themselves engage in war. It is the choice of both the Kingdom of Spain and the Duxburian Union to view this act as war or not; clearly, both governments have the decision to view it as such, a decision that is a threat, regardless of whatever it is called.
Iras Tilkanas
Council Speaker and Councillor for the Republic of Istkalen -
Mr. Speaker, this act goes against the interest of Spain and therefore, I will do whatever to protect my country's straits. The same happens with the Duxburian Strait of Varia, which I have talked about with my partner from the Duxburian Union recently.
If this act passed, Spain would consider that Europe would be supporting a declaration of war towards Spain, not that Spain will enter war with the rest of Europe. And I assume Cllr. Greene might be meaning the same. To my point of view, it would be stupid for us to provoke a regional war, nor it is in our plans.
Donald Tusk
Councillor for Spain -
I am, as I have said numerous times, a woman, a cis woman at that.
Secondly, if Spain will not act on a declaration of war, what is the meaning of the declaration? If Spain has no intention of retaliation, then this is empty rhetoric.
Iras Tilkanas
Council Speaker and Councillor for the Republic of Istkalen -
"Well this is revealing. A nation possibly 2 nations threatening war over placing rules over the medieval principle of might makes right. I ask all of you is this the type of Europe we want to continue to live in? The notion of threatening war or considering placing rules of navigating seas, defining international waters and trying to come to a resolution that benefits all members of the union rather than a few and resolve some issues over claims made with arbitrary reasons that make no sense is something we should seek to resolve peacefully by civilised means. If a nation or its leaders cannot do that and resort to war threats as a way to resolve issues just by the sheer virtue of might, can we really call them civilised?
I will leave it for everyone else to decide. Now many of my colleagues have tried to come up with resolutions to benefit all and not themselves. But to threaten such amendments and legal arguments that they don't agree with as an act of war? Well that says more about the nation and its leaders than it does on those who actually try to help the situation. Now I again want it on record that the Yosainese government doesn't take issue with the act in its original form, we also support such amendments that cover bases and fill gaps where some countries feel that their concerns may have been missed or overlooked. It's that simple."
Izumi Miwako
Councillor for the Federal Republic of Yosai -
As a predominantly seafaring people, the concern of the Customary Logistics Council lies in the capacity of our Caribbean Maritime Service, which serves to protect our mariners from piracy and natural threats. It seems, due to this bill, that pirates would have an easier time claiming victims if the CMS can only act after there is a clear violation of European Law.
It is not just a question of fairness, in the case of straits, but also a question of maintaining security and eliminating unnecessary risk.
Whilst I understand it may help ensure fairness in the cases of nations which rely less on seafaring itself, please consider the needs of all EU nations. Gadalland and Aspern did not join the EU to be ignored. -
The United Kingdom believes in economic exclusion zones. As such, we are unclear how we feel about this
David Miliband
Councillor of the United Kingdom -
Councillor Miwako, I will not accept any lessons from your country, neither when you come to this chamber to insult two civilizations that have done much more for this Union that your country will do for it. Neither the Duxburian Union or the Kingdom of Spain are medieval or barbaric societies. The Kingdom of Spain, which last score on the European Union democracy index was a 8.83; and I hope to see a formal apology not only to me, but also the Duxburian Union for these insulting affirmations.
Now, how do you expect the Spanish interests, which I am in charge of protecting, to be heard and protected? The answer is simple, you do not want them to be heard because it is not in your interest for them to be heard. This country, which I represent, has offered a thousand times a solution to an open conflict through dialogue, always met with an outright refusal despite continuous concessions. Yosai expects everything to go as it wishes in negotiations in which one side has already made sacrifices, while the other side only wants its will to be the final outcome. But as your country does not want to take it, now it is too late, and this is the straw that broke the camel's back. Using the European Union to get an imposition on us will not work, and if we wanna play the political implications game, Spain is more than ready to play it.
I would also like to raise awareness on how this act pretends to be implemented. Not a long time ago, I heard some members of the pro-sovereignty political groups to defend "treaty based EU legislation", and this act might be a good one to try if it would work. Councillors, we cannot pretend to impose regulations on our member states' territories while many nations, some of them really important for the Union and its functioning, are against it. That is why I'll be submitting another amendment:
SECTION IV: ENFORCEMENT
I. All member states of the European Union have the right not to follow the provisions in this act, previous notification from their Government within six months time from the approval of the act.
II.All member states of the European UnionOnly member states that decide to follow the provisions in this act are required to harmonize their national law(s) with this Act in six months of time from its approval by the European Council.
II. Breaches of this Act shall be considered a punishable and criminal offense in member states deciding to follow the provisions of this act. Failure of member states deciding to follow the provisions of this act to enforce this Act may be tried in the European Court of Justice.
III. Any state deciding to follow the provisions of this act found guilty of violating this Act shall be made liable for any economic damages caused as well as have its right to vote in the European Council suspended for a period of up to two months.
IV. Any state deciding to follow the provisions of this act found guilty of abusing the situation described in section II (IV) to unlawfully halt free navigation shall be made liable for any economic damages caused as well as have its right to vote in the European Council suspended for a period of one to three months.
V. Any official from a country deciding to follow the provisions of this act found guilty of violating this Act or of assisting others in violating this Act shall be imprisoned for a period of six to eighteen months, as well as having its passive suffrage rights suspended for a period of three to six years.Donald Tusk
Councillor for Spain -
Cllr. Tusk, no. Just no. This is a ridiculous game, and I would like it to stop. For one, referring to democracy index means nothing; the most imperialist nation can be a complete democracy, while the most anti-imperialist can be a totalitarian dictatorship. What matters here is not political freedom but how a country behaves on the international stage; the defence of the murder of civilians in the open ocean as a legitimate policy of war, for example, is not a good thing, will never be a good thing, and is a policy that deserves to be criticized in the name of peace and human dignity.
Secondly, your amendment is the equivalent of striking out the whole of this act and replacing it with nothing.
To the United Kingdom - this act does not exclude the creation of economic exclusion zones. They may still exist; all that this requires is freedom of passage. In light of this, I propose the following amendment, to appease the concerns of Cllr. Miliband, Cllr. Mizrachi-Roscoe and...Cllr. Dina, I believe?
AMENDMENT XV
IV. Transit passage of a ship
through territorial watersmay be denied only in the events of illegal resource extraction, military activity, piracy, smuggling, excessive pollution, or a clear violation of European Union law and with the consent of the appropriate national court. The payment of compensation is not to be a legitimate way through which a ship engaging in such activities is able to legally pass through waters.
Iras Tilkanas
COuncil Speaker and Councillor for the Republic of Istkalen -
I further propose the following amendments:
AMENDMENT XVI
III. Any state found guilty of violating this Act shall be made liable for any economic damages caused
as well as have its right to vote in the European Council suspended for a period of up to two months.
IV. Any state found guilty of abusing the situation described in section II (IV) to unlawfully halt free navigation shall be made liable for any economic damages causedas well as have its right to vote in the European Council suspended for a period of one to three months.
V. Any official found guilty of violating this Act or of assisting others in violating this Act shall be imprisoned for a period of six to eighteen months,as well as having its passive suffrage rights suspended for a period of three to six years.
AMENDMENT XVII
- Transit passage: right to temporarily transit through
territorialwatersof a given statefor the sole purpose of continuously navigating between two different parts of the high seas whose connection is unavoidably necessarythrough the territorial waters of a state.
AMENDMENT XVIII
Replace all references to "territorial waters" with "Zone of National Control"
AMENDMENT XIX
Replace all references to "international waters" with "Zone of Undefined Control"*
Iras Tilkanas
Council Speaker and Councillor for the Republic of Istkalen - Transit passage: right to temporarily transit through
-
I would like to propose the following amendments to each section:
Ammendment for Section I:
SECTION I: DEFINITIONS
Transit passage: right to temporarily transit through territorial waters of a given state for the sole purpose of continuously navigating between two different parts of the high seas whose connection is unavoidably necessary through the territorial waters of a state.
Territorial waters: any mass of water, extending up to 10 nautical miles from a state’s coastline, in which that state exercises its sovereignty.
International waters: any mass of water extending up from 10 nautical miles from a state’s coastline.
Internal waters: any mass of water located within the contiguous coastline (i.e. some small bays and gulfs, harbours) or completely surrounded by land and fully located within the territorial boundaries of a single state.
Merchant or Civilian Ship:A ship without a military purpose or use
Military Ship:A ship who's primary purpose is militaryAmendment for section 2:
SECTION II: REGULATIONS
I. Ships of any nature or are entitled to freely navigate international waters.
II. Ships of any nature are entitled to transit through straits or any analogous natural waterway connecting two or more masses of international water under the right of transit passage.
III. No state shall unilaterally grant itself the right to deny or limit the passage of any ship through international waters or through territorial waters under the right of transit passage.
IV.No state shall unilaterally grant itself the right to deny or limit the passage of any ship through international waters or through territorial waters under the right of transit passage.Countries may deny transit to any ship through territorial waters and shall maintain full control of territorial waters.
V:Marine Conservation Zones by nations may be set up within waters up to 210 miles from shore that are not a straits or any analogous natural waterway connecting two or more masses of international water. In these areas ship size, fuel type and type of ships going through may be regulated with bans allowed on grounds of environmental protection.
VI. Countries may perform a limited number of random searches of ships in anti-piracy operations up to 210 miles from its shore or in approved multi-national anti-piracy operations approved by the Observatory of European Navigation .If there is evidence or intelligence a ship may be complicit in piracy then a warrant may be sought by national authorities and acted upon to search a ship.Authorities must show this warrant and give a clear reason why the ship is being searched. Any nation or groups of nations may request permission for anti-piracy operations from the Observatory of European Navigation
VVII. An Observatory of European Navigation shall be established, in order to oversee the proper implementation of this Act.Amendment for section IV:
SECTION IV: ENFORCEMENT
I. All member states of the European Union are required to harmonize their national law(s) with this Act in six months of time from its approval by the European Council.
II. Breaches of this Act shall be considered a punishable and criminal offense in member states. Failure of member states to enforce this Act may be tried in the European Court of Justice.
III. Any state found guilty of violating this Act shall be made liable for any economic damages caused as well as have its right to vote in the European Council suspended for a period of up to two months.
IV. Any state found guilty of abusing the situation described in section II (IV) to unlawfully halt free navigation shall be made liable for any economic damages caused.as well as have its right to vote in the European Council suspended for a period of one to three months.
V. Any official found guilty of violating this Act or of assisting others in violating this Act shall be liable for a share of the economic damages caused
shall be imprisoned for a period of six to eighteen months, as well as having its passive suffrage rights suspended for a period of three to six years.James Mizrachi-Roscoe , Councillor for United Duchies
-
Councillor Miwako rolled her eyes and sighed "Mr Tusk I don't know what kind of weird conspiracy about my country in your mind you've hatched up. But I can tell you, whatever it is, chances are its not real. Now if you are done with your tantrum, I suggest that you calm down and have some water or something. Now let it be clear because I feel like I have to keep stating this over and over again. We have no issue with the act in its original form. But welcome amendments for those who have specific concerns that leave a gap in addressing the concerns of other states who otherwise would be overlooked."
Councillor Izumi Miwako
Councillor of the Federal Republic of Yosai -
Goodness, no more amendments, please.
David Miliband
Councillor of the United Kingdom -
Councillor Tilkanas, I support those amendments, and would gladly support this bill. However, this debate must resolve the several other issues with the bill before it has my vote.
I will only vote for a bill that is not probable to cause further discord in other regions of the EU.Édutitalle Dína
Councillor for Gadalland and Aspern -
I must once again object to amendment XV which could still potentially leave nations behind straits vulnerable and without ability to get aid from other allies militarily when needed or to conduct legitimate training exercises or help their allies. This is a legitimate concern of our nation and many others and it honestly feels like you are ignoring our needs in this regard to have the ability to get help defending ourselves if needed or to get help dealing with issues in our waters with military if needed.Istkalen may not see this as important being inland but for nations like ours our militaries ability to get to our allies in time of need or our allies to us is essential. I will be submitting a fix to this shortly.
James Mizrachi-Roscoe , Councillor for United Duchies
The Kingdom of Spain
