Amendment to the European Constitution on Raising the Definition of Majority

[Istkalen]

Section III. Voting in the European Council

I. A Bill, Amendment, Repeal, Statement, Impeachment, Confirmation, or Rejection is proposed by a Councillor or a Commissioner. A Commissioner may only propose legislation within their brief, except for the Premier Commissioner, who may propose legislation on any topic.

II. Councillors and the proposing Commissioner then debate the proposal for 48 hours. During this period, unless the proposal is a Repeal, Impeachment, or Rejection, amendments may be proposed by any Councillor. Amendments proposed during this period shall be voted upon once the debating period has concluded, and it shall last for 48 hours to determine if the amendments shall be made. Amendments require a simple majority to pass.

III. During the debate period, unless the proposal is a Repeal, Impeachment, or Rejection,amendments may be proposed by any Councillor. Amendments proposed during this period shall be voted upon once the debating period has concluded, and it shall last for 48 hours to determine if the amendments shall be made. Amendments require a simple majority to pass.

IV. Councillors only then vote on the proposal for 72 hours. The proposal is to be voted on in its whole form and may not be changed during the voting phase. Each vote must be announced in public and is permanent once cast. Proposals requiring a simple majority to pass must garner 55% 60% approval of those present. Proposals requiring a super-majority to pass must garner 75% approval of those present.

---

Many controversial bills have passed with bare majorities; by raising the majority, from now on, we reduce the risk of unpopular legislation being passed, and therefore ensure a greater consensus in our Union.

Ilmaras Kalessed
Internal Affairs Commissioner

[Inquista]

This is a very interesting proposal by Comrade Kalessed. I don't entirely object to the idea, but I am very cautious against it. Here's what I'm concerned about:

Sure, a larger majority threshold will probably weed out more "bad" legislation from passing, but it will also stop more legislation from passing in general, including even, in my opinion, some good legislation from passing. Some of the EU's worst pieces of legislation were indeed passed by small majorities - some by large majorities too, though - but equally, some of our best pieces of legislation, especially those actually advancing the rights of workers, either barely scraped by with a small majority, or were never passed as it is. I'm concerned this will significantly impact the Council's ability to pass legislation entirely, especially because this could pave the way for a situation of a tyranny by the minority, which will lead to my second concern.

My second concern is that a lot of votes for or against in the European Council are already, in my opinion, quite often personal, sometimes spiteful, fueled by national rivalries, and then at other times often eccentric or plainly strange. A larger majority threshold will mean that the European Council will have to placate to more of this behaviour, rather than actually building consensus. It wouldn't take much for a small group of nations to hold the European Council hostage to their interests, as they only need 40.01% of the vote to block any sort of legislation. It is a bit of a democratic injustice, in my opinion, for a 59.99% majority to be at the mercy of a 40.01% minority. I think the current 55% threshold is a good balance inbetween 50%+1 and 60%.

Lastly, and most importantly, I feel this could block the advancement of the people's liberation from the shackles of oppression. The majority of European councillors are already capitalists themselves who are unapologetic in their wish to crush and trample on the workers of the European Union. Requiring that we need even more approval of this already powerful group would be disheartening. In order to pass any legislation to the benefit of Europe's most vulnerable populations, enlightened members and Commissioners of the PEL have already made very significant compromises, and in turn, virtually no grace or willingness to build consensus has been shown in return. The European workers have already handed the capitalists so much rope, and if we give them even more, then they will very surely hang us.

For example, as someone who worked on the latest european budget with the incredibly brilliant and inspiring People's Premier, Sofie Čikarová, I found it frustrating that there were some who opposed the budget for essentailly no reason whatsoever, and even more annoyingly, some opposed it because they felt the EDA received too much money and was "useless," and then ironically, many of those same people have in recent times remarked that the EDA is too useless because it doesn't have enough money. In the end, the People's Premier had to make quite a few compromises when making the budget in order to create a consensus, and still, there were numerous criticisms against it despite the significant moderation and grace shown by the Comrade Premier.

In the end, however, something like the budget is very important and I both understand and acknowledge the importance of it requiring a super-majority for it to pass, so that's fine. I just want to highlight, however, the fact that a "consesnus" often equally means towing the line and giving in to certain minority interests, and those interests, in our Chamber, will mostly belong to the minority of capitalists who exploit the working majority.

Bp. Karinn Lallana
Councillor for Inquista

[Elthize]

While I understand the purpose of this bill and appreciate the sentiments behind it, I think this is the wrong way to look at the problem here.

For me, the problem is not that the bills are passed by a small margin, the problem, in my opinion, is that sometimes, so few votes are cast on a bill that it's questionable if it even represents the actual opinion of the European Council. Here are examples from 2019 or later. Bear in mind that the European Union has around thirty-five members:

• European Medically Assisted Reproduction Act (2019)
• Code of Conduct of the Council of the European Union (2019)
• Safe and Accessible Water Act (2019)
• Elected and Accountable Council Act (2020)
• European Space Exploration Act (2020)
• Ocean Protection Act (2020)
• Union Protection Act (2021)

Excluding abstentions, all seven of these acts were passed by only five votes. Five. Can we really say these bills were popular? Can we really say that the votes were representative of the whole council when they got such abysmal turnouts? How come did five people decide on such laws that would affect millions? It's outrageous!

Now, please understand that my critique has nothing to do with the bills' content. In fact, there are bills that have passed in this council that I disagree with in some parts, that had great turnouts: the European Neurodivergent and Disability Rights Act (2020) or the Banning of Conversion Therapy Act (2020), the latter of which was voted for, unanimously, with thirteen votes! That's incredible! I miss Evergreen. What a great man.

Anyway, as I said, If I had the opportunity to vote for the bills I gave as examples, I would probably support a majority of these bills and suggest amendments if necessary. However, I couldn't, and a lot of councillors couldn't vote either. I'm not certain as to why, but I won't dismiss it as laziness. We are human, we make mistakes. But the system is flawed. Quite flawed. It's not representative of the majority, and it needs to be fixed, but not like this.

Here's an example constitutional amendment that would solve the problem I mentioned:

Section III. Voting in the European Council

I. A Bill, Amendment, Repeal, Statement, Impeachment, Confirmation, or Rejection is proposed by a Councillor or a Commissioner. A Commissioner may only propose legislation within their brief, except for the Premier Commissioner, who may propose legislation on any topic.

II. Councillors and the proposing Commissioner then debate the proposal for 48 hours. During this period, unless the proposal is a Repeal, Impeachment, or Rejection, amendments may be proposed by any Councillor. Amendments proposed during this period shall be voted upon once the debating period has concluded, and it shall last for 48 hours to determine if the amendments shall be made. Amendments require a simple majority to pass.

III. During the debate period, unless the proposal is a Repeal, Impeachment, or Rejection, amendments may be proposed by any Councillor. Amendments proposed during this period shall be voted upon once the debating period has concluded, and it shall last for 48 hours to determine if the amendments shall be made. Amendments require a simple majority to pass.

IV. Councillors only then vote on the proposal for 72 hours. The proposal is to be voted on in its whole form and may not be changed during the voting phase. Each vote must be announced in public and is permanent once cast. Proposals requiring a simple majority to pass must garner 55% approval of those present. Proposals requiring a super-majority to pass must garner 75% approval of those present. All proposals must garner at least ten votes in the Council to pass, independent of approval.

---

Liam Zachary, Councillor for Elthize

[Istkalen]

Debate will continue until 23:59 GMT on 30 June 2022.

The Republic of Istkalen is strongly opposed to this amendment. That is all.

Iras Tilkanas
Council Speaker and Councillor for the Republic of Istkalen

[Inimicus]

Given the problems this Council faces in placating majorities as is, the Empire of Inimicus is opposed to this Amendment. Making it harder for legislation to pass will in no way solve any of the issues we face as a Union. This is why the Empire of Inimicus also opposes Cllr Zachary's amendment. Councillors can vote on whichever legislation they prefer, and occasionally situations will arise where not voting is as much of a political act as voting Yes or No. Forcing Councillors to vote is a restriction on our representative ability.

The Empire of Inimicus recognises the points made by Cllr Lallana, about the spiteful and personal way business is conducted in this Council all too frequently -- although I suspect the Inimician government isn't one for advancing the "people's liberation from the shackles of oppression" -- one could say, far from it. Nevertheless, this is not an issue solved by legal ways, at least not mainly. We could, for instance, make it more difficult for councillors to simply withdraw legislation which has been amended by the Council and subsequently no longer serves the purpose of the proposing Councillor, as happens time and again from the side of our Reitzmic colleagues. We could prevent Councillors from introducing hundreds of nonce amendments changing single words in legislation to obfuscate the process, as I'm sure you all know occured at least once courtesy of our Istkalenian colleague.

These are things that would help our work and make us a more effective and relatable Council that works for, in Cllr Lallana's words, the proletarian masses. Making it harder for a 40% minority to block proposals backed by a clear majority will, clearly, not.

Cllr Nicholas Benfield
Deputy Speaker

[Spain]

I would like to welcome Councillor Kalessed to the European Council and thank her for this very interesting proposal.

However, it being interesting does not mean that it arises my concerns for a series of reasons already addressed by Councillor Lallana on her first and second concerns, yet I will not comment on the third one because I am suspicious of, under the Inquistan Councillor's criteria, 'wishing to crush and trample on the workers of the European Union'. Still, Councillor Lallana, let me correct you on something that you have said about the consensus: many of us would agree if some of the proposals made by your Eurogroup were not on the far-left ideological spectre.

That said, the Council usually relies on short majorities, and if it is already difficult to pass legislation with the 55% threshold, which in my opinion should be turned into a 50%+1 majority; the Commissioner needs to be reminded about the low activity this chamber has had during the past months. It is clear that the European Council has a huge activity problem, and it will have to be addressed at some point in the future. Another issue that this institution has is, as the Deputy Speaker mentioned, the increase of fillibusters as well as the behaviour of some Councillors (Tusk looks at Cllr. Yahontov for a moment) that take the Council procedures as a joke and withdraw their proposals when an amendment they do not like is passed. Maybe an update of the Council's Code of Conduct could work?

The Council needs to be active and effective, and as a matter of fact, we all need to cooperate towards that, incluiding the European Commission. Here is my advice for you, dear Commissioner: make proposals that do not hold up the Council, but that gets this institution moving.

Donald Tusk
Councillor for Spain

[BrumBrum]

Having considered the proposal I am opposed to this amendment. We already have great difficulty passing much needed acts and reforms as it is due to the 55% +1 ,60%+1 added with a minimum of 10 will only make this worse. I wouldn't be opposed to a quorum of 10 if the majority was lowered to 50%+1 . The system should either remain the same or be changed like I just mentioned to avoid gridlock in the EU Council. We don't want a council easily passing radical euro-federalising acts with ease but neither do we want nothing to ever pass or be accomplished. We must strike a balance.

James Mizrachi-Roscoe , Councillor for United Duchies

[Istkalen]

Before beginning voting, I would like to clarify whether Cllr. Zachary proposed his amendment merely as an example or as an actual amemdment.

Iras Tilkanas
Council Speaker and Councillor for the Republic of Istkalen

[Elthize]

Councillor Tilkanas, I would like to clarify that the amendment I proposed was a mere example and I wish for it to be not up for voting.

---

Liam Zachary, Councillor for Elthize

[Istkalen]

Voting starts NOW and will continue until 23:55 GMT on 9 July 2022.

On behalf of the Republic of Istkalen, I vote AGAINST this amendment.

Iras TIlkanas
Council Speaker and Councillor for the Republic of Istkalen

[BrumBrum]

On behalf if United Duchies I vote AGAINST this ammendment
Councillor for United Duchies, James Mizrachi-Roscoe

[Spain]

On behalf of the Kingdom of Spain, I vote AGAINST this amendment.

Donald Tusk
Councillor for Spain

[Elthize]

The State of Elthize votes AGAINST this amendment.

---

Liam Zachary, Councillor for Elthize

[Ineland]

On behalf of the United Principalities of Ineland I vote AGAINST this amendment.

Dominic Ferry, Councillor for Ineland

[Istkalen]

With five votes against, this amendment has failed.

Iras Tilkanas
Council Speaker and Councillor for the Republic of Istkalen