Freedom of Navigation Act

[The United Kingdom]

Goodness, no more amendments, please.

David Miliband
Councillor of the United Kingdom

[Gadalland and Aspern]

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

[BrumBrum]

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

[Istkalen]

The current situation, Cllr. Mizrachi-Roscoe, would be maintained by my amendments. If yours were to be passed we risk the chance of even more nations refusing to enforce this act, at which point it becomes useless. Under my amendments, opposition would become extremely difficult to justify; it would require openly stating that one has the intention of purposefully and directly attacking civilians as a policy during war, which everyone can recognize as ghoulish.

Iras Tilkanas
Council Speaker and Councillor for the Republic of Istkalen

[Vayinaod]

Madame Speaker, I request a summary of the amendments currently proposed, with the inclusion of which amendments currently conflict with each. I wish to see the comprehensive list so that we as a council may work to eliminate some unnecessary ones and combine them with other amendments before I release my full comments on this act.

Carita Falk
Councillor for the Archrepublic of Vayinaod

[BrumBrum]

In light of the increasing complexity of the amendments I ask my first three amendments are are withdrawn from consideration.

James Mizrachi-Roscoe , Councillior for United Duchies

[Istkalen]

I withdraw amendment XVI.

A summary of amendments is below.

Amendment 1 - Allows nations full right to regulate transit through their territorial waters, including within straits (conflicts with amendment 8)
Amendment 2 - restricts definition of a strait to bodies of water at least 24 nm wide.
Amendment 3 - permits nations' right to exclusive exploitation within their territorial waters
Amendment 4 - Allows a European agency to delineate territorial waters (conflicts with amendment 14)
Amendment 5 - Restricts the act to apply only to non-military ships (conflicts with amendment 15)
Amendment 6 - Removes suspension from the Council as a punishment for violation of the act
Amendment 7 - Allows nations to establish nature reserves within their EEZs
Amendment 8 - Restricts right of transit to non-territorial waters and within straits (conflicts with amendments 1 and 10)
Amendment 9 - defines marine reserves and EEZs
Amendment 10 - Exempts straits controlled by Spain and the DU from the legislation
Amendment 11 - Makes enforcement of the act optional
Amendment 12 - Redefines "right of transit" to apply only to international waters to align the definition with proposed amendments
Amendment 13 - Renames territorial waters
Amendment 14 - No longer delineates international waters as "international," but instead as areas of contested or undefined control
Amendment 15 - defines civilian and military ships (conflicts with Amendment 5)
Amendment 16 - permits anti-piracy operations, the establishment of nature reserves, under EU oversight
Amendment 17 - reduces economic penalties for violation of the act.

Iras Tilkanas
Council Speaker and Councillor for the Republic of Istkalen

[Istkalen]

I propose the following amendment:

AMENDMENT XVIII

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. Governments which lose a source of revenue as a result of the act's regulations, excluding loss as a result of enforcement rather than changes in policy, will be compensated for this loss on a yearly basis.

Iras Tilkanas
Council Speaker and Councillor for the Republic of Istkalen

[Inquista]

I have quietly and idly watched this entire debate unfold, and I was, until now, quite okay with either scenario of this Act passing or failing. I know this Act will both resolve nothing and will likely not be implemented by those that this Act is not-so-subtly targeting, and will thus amount to nothing in the end anyway. If there is ever to be any sort of Law of the Sea, or in this case, navigation, then it must clearly be done with consensus. There is no consensus here, only further and exacerbated tension. As always, the politicking of Europolis continues to do nothing but exacerbate conflict, while the workers of Europe grit their teeth in the face of such tension, because they know they will pay the ultimate price if things come to war. The last thing the European people need is war, and that is why I simply urge the parties involved in the Strait dispute to come to some sort of agreement instead.

However, I am quite taken aback by Comrade Tilkanas' most recent amendment, which is an unexpected betrayal of the working class people of Europe. It is completely unacceptable to force workers across Europe to pay the price, literally, for the current politics of the Strait dispute. The Comrade's amendment does nothing but simply export the price of the dispute to the rest of the Union, and to the workers of the rest of the Union, who currently have their own struggles against the bourgeoise to contend with. The fact that already-oppressed workers in poorer states such Nofoaga would essentially need to bailout the Reitzmic government for their revenue losses is not just an injustice, but is, quite frankly, evil. The majority of the countries currently being taxed at the Straits are some of Europe's most well-off and developed countries, not to mention that pretty much all of them are extremely decadent capitalist regimes which oppress their workers - and the working class from the rest of Europe, including Europe's poorest regions, will have to pay them compensation! Leave the workers out of this.

I urge Comrade Tilkanas to withdraw her amendment immediately. Should her amendment pass, then I will vote against this Act without hesitation.

Bp. Karinn Lallana
Councillor for Inquista

[Yosai]

This Act is in essence about establishing a rules based framework and preventing states from abusing their position to enforce will on other states based on geography. The Federal Republic of Yosai doesn't believe in taxing by geography or posing any penalties or sanctions on the basis on geography. My state for example can under the principles of state sovereignty can easily preform a blockade between Spanish and DU trade routes withing the Red Strait or force a band on both Spanish and DU goods from trading as my territory is in between both within the strait.

Or we can impose a tax or some kind of tariff of our own, forcing good from the DU and possibly Inimicus to go through the UD. But we decided against that because ewe don't believe in unfairly punishing nations or placing economic limitations simply by virtue of geography. Under the current status quo that is our right that we choose not to exercise under the principle of equal treatment.

What the status quo does is allow states to do whatever they please under the principle of state sovereignty, with no rules in place to prevent such abuses from happening, not just from Yosai, but from other nations with similar positions within the EU, its that simple. To that end, rules have to be established, that is the reason why we are here.

To that end Yosai wishes to for now abstain from the latest amendment proposed from Councillor Tilkanas until we have more information presented to us as to why she proposed this.

[Istkalen]

I withdraw my amendment; I will propose legislation to set up a fund that member-states may apply to for the protection of marine ecology, the reason why all currently existing taxes that would be prohibited by this act are in place.

I would, however, like to ask, generally, whether such a fund would be a suitable solution to the issue.

Iras Tilkanas
Council Speaker and Councillor for the Republic of Istkalen

[Yosai]

"We are fine with this. The Federal Republic of Yosai sees no issue with your latest amendment proposal Council Speaker Tilkanas. Marine life gets protected without imposition of arbitrary taxes and it doesn't blow up the EU budget or force poorer states to pay taxes when they shouldn't need to but on a voluntary basis. Simple."

Izumi Miwako
Councillor for the Federal Republic of Yosai

[The United Kingdom]

@Istkalen said in Freedom of Navigation Act:

I withdraw my amendment; I will propose legislation to set up a fund that member-states may apply to for the protection of marine ecology, the reason why all currently existing taxes that would be prohibited by this act are in place.

I would, however, like to ask, generally, whether such a fund would be a suitable solution to the issue.

Iras Tilkanas
Council Speaker and Councillor for the Republic of Istkalen

We would be pleased.

David Miliband
Councillor of the United Kingdom

[BrumBrum]

Since Spains main concern is loss of revenue for marine conservation of the strait and protection we will vote for the amendment to this act to replace lost taxes with a fund from the EU to protect the marine areas and also propose the following amendment ourselves.

SECTION III: OBSERVATORY OF EUROPEAN NAVIGATION
I. The Observatory of European Navigation (from now on, “the Observatory”) shall be established in the Free City of Europolis to oversee the proper implementation of this Act by issuing annual Freedom of Navigation reports.
II. The Observatory shall be administered by a director, appointed by the Internal Affairs Commissioner.
III. The Observatory shall be requested to issue a report any time a case on the violation of this Act is brought to the European Court of Justice, in order to assist the Court in its deliberation.
IV. The Observation of European Navigation shall pay any nations with Straits or ecologically sensitive areas to manage the safe shipping and protection of the environment of straits. or area of the sea or manage the area with permission of the nation involved or on behalf of the nation. This shall be funded out of the EU budget.

James Mizrachi-Roscoe, Councillor for United Duchies

[Istkalen]

Debate will be extended to 23:59 GMT on 25 April 2022.

Iras Tilkanas
Council Speaker and Councillor for the Republic of Istkalen

[Elthize]

Based on the tension that has brewed over the discussion of this act alone, and the fact that some of my colleagues here have mentioned an all-out war, as well as my personal beliefs on how the European Union should function, I believe that this act is beyond salvation, no matter how many amendments we throw at it. Citing my Inquistan colleague here, an act like this should have consensus, which is something we have failed to achieve as far as I can tell. I suggest this act to be withdrawn completely, and state that I, representing Elthize, will be voting against this bill regardless of any amendments.

---

Liam Zachary, Councillor for Elthize

[BrumBrum]

The tension and disagreement is the entire reason the act is necessary. There are times when when there is disagreement you need a consistent standard to be made by majority oppinion. Currently as there is no reference it leads to disputes due to the lack of clarity this leads to potential flashpoints in many areas of Europe with risk of conflicts and issues developing. This act would solve that by setting a baseline and also ensure stability of shipping in Europe. I know some will say try bilateral negotations or leave it up to nations to decide between them but look where that gets you . So far within 1 year we've had the Caspian islands crisis and the Spain-Yosai crises with potentially more crises where straits are narrow or where EEZ's meet less that 212 Miles from shore.

The best way to avoid tension in the future is have a standard enshrined that the majority of countries agree on by voting for it. Yes some nations have raised issues but exceptions with amendments these have been solved if they haven't and you have a particular grievance propose and amendment or say what your issue is we are not mind readers. The choice here is between peace and consistent standards or constant risk of conflict and tension and uncertainty , that choice really shouldn't be hard to make. The might makes right approach and have power over what you can defend is a fundamentally unfair approach that is unbecoming in a civilised Europe. All it does is leave nations with weaker militaries at the mercy of strong powers with imperialist ambitions, this is especially dangerous for smaller nations.

James Mizrachi-Roscoe, Councillor for United Duchies

[Elthize]

My issue is that we're all representing our nations here, voting on behalf of them, and our behaviours are almost always reflective of how our nations act. When at least two of my colleagues mention a possible declaration of war if the bill passes, it would be foolish to think the European Union would fare better than before. The choice is not between peace and tension, in fact, I doubt there is even a choice here. This bill will lead to further tension, full stop. I find any other opinion on this bill to be utopic at best.

---

Liam Zachary, Councillor for Elthize

[Lusitanovetonia]

We have waited to hear all the proposals and issues raised about the law to be voted on. We have noted with concern the tension generated in some cases by disagreement with the draft legislation, but the federal government's position will nevertheless be as follows:

We support the intention of the law to regulate maritime passage and put an end to the various conflicts that have arisen and will arise in this regard, however, we are seriously concerned that this law will serve as an authorisation for any type of ship to enter territorial waters. We therefore support the intention also in Amendment No 5 to exclude military vessels from free passage.

We also understand the dilemma created with regard to rights to exploit territorial waters. We also believe that each state should have the right to permit or prohibit the passage of vessels through its territorial waters on the basis of its own laws and not on the basis of Community laws. However, we agree that no state should prohibit free passage through the straits. We consider ourselves entitled to express an opinion on this matter when our only access to the sea is a navigable river not claimed by any country.

Although this is our humble and inexpert opinion, we would also like to announce that we will follow the debate thoroughly and listen to any allegations or corrections that our colleagues would like to make to this opinion, as our vote on this matter has not been decided yet.

---

Luis Castro
Councilior for the Federal Republic of Lusitania and Vettonia

[Istkalen]

Debate will be extended until 23:59 GMT on 28 April 2022.

Iras Tilkanas
Council Speaker and Councillor for the Republic of Istkalen