Commission Debate, July 2022

Istkalen

The European Union cannot legislate through regulations on waters, with the exception of common-sense restrictions - for example, prohibiting nations from sinking passenger ships without provocation. Apart from such obvious cases, there is a need for consensus on sensitive issues such as this - and legislation does not establish it by any means. However, there is a need for intervention of some type. Disputes over waters, as Mr. Cotilla has said, have led to the brink of war - and it is, as he has also said, the duty of this Union to uphold peace. I was unable to intervene previously because of how divisive the issue was - but with many of the past issues largely resolved, it is now at last an opportune time to create the lasting conditions for calm in Europe. I intend to hold conferences with the Mediterranean states to discuss the possibility of reducing naval presences on major trade routes, as well as a discussion between the Caspian states regarding military presence in their territorial waters, which appears to be creating a mild dispute between the UD and North Diessen.

In these waters lurks great danger, hidden but enormous nonetheless; rather than putting our heads into the sand, as Mr. Cotilla seems to wish to do, we must act for permanent peace - act without imposing, act to find a consensus, but act nonetheless.

Leagio

If Commissioner Kalessed wants to talk about heads in the sand then we can talk about her duty as stated in the constitution. Article 3 section 6 clause 4 states the following "The Office of Internal Affairs coordinates relations between the European Commission and individual Member States governments." When the crisis occurred over the Navigation Act, you worked to jab at the Spanish President, whose nation is a member of the community, and not try to coordinate strong relations between the Commission and the governments of the Union. When I was visiting Madrid, many people told me that felt insulted by your response and lost trust in the abilities of the Commission to work for them. The job of the Internal Affairs Commissioner is not simply focused on economics but is also maintain relations with its members; where you have failed to do throughout your whole tenure. I would be interested to know why you have been unable to foster relations between the EU Commission and the member states?

Istkalen

The Spanish government asked that I interfere in an ongoing legislative process by effectively starting a parallel one. I reacted accordingly and appropriately. It is my work to be accountable and impartial, and I will not undermine the workings of this Union just to satiate the desires of a lone government.

It is also absolutely incorrect that I have not fostered relations between the EU Commission and member-states. I have established a clear and efficient system of communication between my office and all member-states. When asked to by member-states, which has occurred exactly once, I responded promptly and efficiently. I have further sought further debate with the Council, the institution tasked with representing national govenrments; unlike multiple past Commissioners, I have not unilaterally announced major policy recommendations, but have instead genuinely engaged in dialogue with representatives of the member-states in order to govern.

Spain

Mr. Kühnert, you already admitted that you’ve lied to the Europeans about what I do when I become a Commissioner, but now you want to take the Europeans for fools. Even right now, in this very debate, you have implied what they are; and you also did through your campaign, by calling them ‘developing nations’. Why are you so obsessed with GDP per capita? Hear me out, raising nations’ GDP per capita doesn’t help the EU to solve the ECoJ activity problems, for example. You’re doing something nobody has ever done in this region, a bad thing: using money to divide us. I won’t allow that.

About your question on the agricultural fund, the proposal would go through the European Council, therefore I wouldn’t be the only one to set said requirements, but the European Governments. Nevertheless, believe me when I say they’ll be simple, easy to meet and affordable. We want to help farmers and fishers, we don’t want to control what they grow, catch or produce. And again, the only one lying tonight is you, who has tried unsuccessfully to deny that I’ve been one of the most productive Commissioners ever and the data has proved me right.

BrumBrum

Mr. Kühnert,:With respect "Developing" is not an insult but an acknowledgement of less resources primarilly due to nations like yours and nations that had empires having exploited nations like these resulting in them having less money to develop sustainably or protect themselves from climate change , so its not an insult its just what those nations are, developing despite the challenges put on them historically by the rich nations of Europe. It may not help solve those other problems but I have other solutions for solving activity problems by having a broader range of nations on the court for example and frankly it can only be active if cases are brought necessarilly, in theory you want less active courts as it means nations are behaving.

And on the agricultural fund it would be set at European levels which means they set the regulations and conditions for accessing the money. Unless you give block grants to national organisations controlled by the the local governments its the EU taking on extra power and telling nations how to run agriculture. That should be a power for solely the national legislatures who actually understand the local needs, I don't have a first clue about how banana agriculture in Nofoaga needs to be done for example.Would for example the regulations regulate how much wildlife space or what fertilisers they can use for example?

Spain

What’s the point of bringing the past to this debate, Mr. Kühnert? I’d like to remind you that you are not running for becoming an MP in the UD, but rather Europe’s top position, yet you seem to be ignorant and prove to have no knowledge about what a Premier does. You’re also lying again, seems that’s what your candidacy is based on, by saying I want a less active court. That’s false, I want to bolster the court’s activity, and the Europeans can be sure I’ll do that if they give me their trust.

On developing nations, that’s a synonym of ‘being poor’, even you just implied it here, tonight! You cannot avoid it, you come here and insult nations that doesn’t meet Duchian GDP per capita standards. You’ve lost any legitimacy as a European candidate, you aren’t one either. You are a Duchian candidate wanting to make Europe look like your country. You are also against helping farmers or fishers, you’re against the current integration and you prove so by having Premier Biden as your idol, you want the Union to mean nothing and you gamble with our citizens’ money without hesitation. Definitely, you aren’t a serious candidate.

BrumBrum

Mr. Kühnert,:I'm not lying and you are twisting words. I am saying an active court is not necessarily desirable as it means things are going wrong and nations are possibly not complying with EU law. Activity should not the metric used to judge the success of the court but instead time to resolve the cases they get and the efficiency in getting judgements quickly that are also comprehensive and solve the issue at stake.The best way to achieve this is to have more people to handle cases when needed , having 2 judges selected by each nation to a jury pool is the most efficient way to do that, and was suggested which is why I am supporting it.

I am not insulting nations that do not meet our standards of per capita but tell me how do you expect Nofoaga that has a GDP per capita of less than 1/6th of Spains and in Gaddaland and Aspern's case an even more stark difference to be able to afford to transition sustainably and protect themselves from climate change mainly caused by higher GDP per capita countries. You can't seriously say their is no difference in support needed , a 10,000,000 Euro solar farm is not even 0.001% of Spains GDP but is almost 50% of Nofoagas GDP. Clearly one is far less able to afford the required flood protections, climate change adaptations and infrastructure necessary to go carbon neutral without significantly more EU help per capita. You can be this PC candidate saying there is no differences between nations all you like but its not going to help Nofoagans and Gaddaland and Aspern citizens when their house is flooding because they could not afford flood protection to protect against storm surges just because you didn't want to provide the necessary funding because you didn't want to "insult" them. I am sure they will appreciate you treating them with exactly the same funding per capita when they are drowning to death from a sudden storm surge. Poverty and lack of resource issues don't go away just because you wish it didn't exist and these nations need additional help to actually stand a chance of adapting to a new climate and developing in a sustainable way without bankrupting themselves and taking on debt!

Spain

First off, you should respect the debate rules, as you’ve spoken for nearly 4 minutes. Secondly, you say an active court isn’t desirable because that means things are going wrong; but you forget about the 2 cases delayed currently. You cannot get more people to judge a case unless you reform the Constitution, and if your idol is Joe Biden… that isn’t happening if you’re elected.

Mr. Kühnert, do you care about what Sertians or Nofoagans say? They’ve felt insulted, and you keep going. Again, this is not the Duchian General Election, this is a European Commission Election but you’re behaving as a local candidate. I don’t represent Spain, I represent the European people. It’s not the Premier job to be obsessed with GDP, it’s the ECB’s; so once again you’re confused about what the Premier does. Neither I’m saying they don’t need to be helped, but they already have a way to ask for help: the EDA. They haven’t made any requests, so don’t speak on their behalf, you aren’t their messiah but rather someone they’re feeling insulted by. Summing up, you lie, disrespect, don’t know what the job’s about and you set your own rules. What a shame.

BrumBrum

I can only speak for local councils and authorities and those in government nationally here but one of the reasons requests aren't put in often is because of paperwork and the fact that each project requires a separate request. Its often just easier to go through a national scheme than the EU one sadly which makes the EDA useless , no point giving the funding a boost if its still just as admin heavy to apply. Also you keep using personal attacks , maybe you should actually give details on your policy and your exact plans and focus on policy. I do not want to make Europe like the Duchies there is only one Duchies and our policies work there , I want to give countries control of their fair allocation of funding and leave the funding to the most accountable people , the people elected by the nations in their nation.

Yes it is sad that the 2 cases are delayed , I believe Judge Sheindelin has criticised that and multiple times requested they speed up and I will be on to that as soon as elected. As for you complaining about time maybe you should stop attacking other candidates and making up lies that require them to rebutt you. People want premiers focused on policy not ones who only attack the opponent , so tell us Mr Juncker your actual policy and focus on policy , none of this vague "I will increase the budget" without telling us how much , an increase could be 1 Billion , 10 billion or 40 billion but if you don't tell us we don't know and we can't judge your policies fairly. Give specifics not vague statements and tell us what subsidies for agriculture will actually look like who will control them and allocate them out for example and by what rules and who sets the rules. You come up with a policy its up to you to give the details.

Spain

You’ve exceeded the time limit, again. Now you say European countries don’t ask for help because of paperwork, but the EDA has got 5 requests in 10 months, which is a nice indicator of two things: one, nations that didn’t need help didn’t ask for it and second, the EDA works. Clearly bureaucracy isn’t the issue here. And let’s say it clearly, you want this Union to become something useless, why not just propose to disband it then? Oh wait, you want a new salary.

By the way, it’s the first time I heard about Judge Sheindelin and his criticism, I haven’t seen it on the news either… May you show us your sources, please? If not, I won’t have any other choice but deeming it as another lie. On the budget, I don’t gamble with the Europeans’ money, and I will never. We don’t know yet what the final contributions amount is going to be, and therefore all I can say is the EDA budget will be over 35 billion. Then again, I want to remark that money will not make this region a better place, action will. And you’re clearly the candidate of the inaction party, like Biden.

Inimicus

"Thank you, Candidates. I believe I was very clear on the rules of this debate, which state rebuttals may not exceed 90 seconds ((OOC: 200 words)). Mr Kühnert, please adhere to this rule, and to all candidates, please keep this debate civil.

"We move on to the second round of questions. Our third question of the evening is from María Consuelo Carrillo, who has described herself as a fan of the former Spanish dictator, Francisco Franco, to Calvin Kühnert -- however, I will expand the question to all candidates for both positions: should the European Union give member states the right to allow or ban gay marriage? What's your personal stance on gay marriage?

"Fourth, a question by none other than His Imperial Majesty Emperor Artabanos Himself, who asks to all candidates for both positions: What, if anything, do you think can be done about member states' nautical claims, given we have seen fairly inflammatory situations arising from nations' responses to these claims?

"Again, candidates have two minutes ((OOC: 300 words)) for answers per question, and 90 seconds ((OOC 200 words)) for rebuttals, before we move on to the next round of questioning."

BrumBrum

Calvin Kühnert:I believe there is zero reason to open up the constitution on gay marriage while if opened up the Duchies position is it is a social issue and up to the Duchies in our nation its not any priority now. What is is making sure any remaining social issues are left up to the nation-state not the EU. My personal stance regardless is love is love and it is as simple as that, who cares if it is two men , two women or a man and woman in a relationship or more than two partners as long as its consensual.

On nautical claims I'd prefer there was a standard that all can agree on but it might not happen and if I have to choose between keeping peace or having a consistent standard I will choose the former. However if a bill setting standards can be agreed on fantastic but I'd leave it to the councillors to do their work. Currently an agreement between Spain and ECON has been reached so perhaps it is best to leave things as they are at the moment though if further tensions spark over nautical claims from anywhere I think it is appropiate that a meeting of EU nations occurs to set a series of standards for nautical claims, the most important thing is peace reigns supreme if we can achieve that with an act in the council on nautical rights and territorial standards I would back that if that can be achieved by letting nations deal with it themselves I back that and if the EU needs to intervene then I would also back that but I wouldn't prioritise EU intervention on an issue such as this. In general EU should stay out of nations foreign policy unless necessary.

Istkalen

There are men devoted, body and soul, to other men; and women to other women. Who am I, who is anyone, to force them apart? Their bonds are noble; they should be respected and seen as being as important and as beautiful as all others.

Issues on nautical claims must be solved by consensus. That does not mean that we should simply give up. Ignoring them, particularly in regards to the effects they have on civilians across Europe, is the surest path towards mass death and destruction. Tensions, as of now, are low enough that something of an agreement is possible without provoking violence - hope for lasting peace is the highest it has been for a long, long time. I thus intend to discuss, with the Mediterranean and then Caspian states, where tensions have erupted and seem likely to interrupt, the possibility of a reduction of military presence, especially around international trade routes, a respect for the transit of passenger ships in the open ocean, and then perhaps, if necessary, limtations on these claims.

Nothing will be imposed, nothing can be imposed, if we truly value peace - but all the same we must work for at least something, even the smallest thing, so that life is protected.

Spain

I would like to subscribe the words Commissioner Kalessed has just said. The answer to the first question María Consuelo has asked is no, I won’t unprotect LGTBIQA+ people all around the Union by risking their right to marriage. On the second, who am I to tell someone to love a woman when that he likes men, or vice-versa? It is not my job or anyone’s job to do that, it is their decision and only theirs. To all the LGTBIQA+ people watching us tonight, and especially those going through hard times, you are loved, you are appreciated, you are beautiful, you are amazing. I love you, and we must all, no matter our ideologies, end with ‘having to come out of a closet’. You are people like you or my colleagues, and being a member of said community shouldn’t shock anyone. We shall work to achieve that, together.

On the second question, I would like to send a hug to Emperor Artabanos and thank him for watching this debate with the interest for European affairs that always has characterised him.

Your question is really interesting, because it has been one of the most frequent topics throughout the first half of 2022. I believe the European Union has no right to tell member states how far their waters go, that should be up to member states themselves, acting responsibly and trying to avoid conflict. If conflict appeared, one of the duties the Internal Affairs Commissioner has is mediating in them, and therefore if nations are unable to solve the dispute on their own, the EU should intervene no matter what. Our region cannot afford being on constant tensions or on the brink of a war due to nautical claims, and the Commission should play a big role in avoiding conflicts, as it is expected to do.

Some months ago, the Inelandic Councillor submitted an act to limit nautical claims, and even if there was good faith in his attempt, which I commend; the debate heated up and ended being tense, which wasn’t his fault by the way. Some very important nations felt displeased by it, the Duxburian Union for example, while others were happy. The conclusion that I extract from this attempt to regulate this is the following: whatever we try to do, someone will feel displeased about it. Therefore, we cannot do nothing but offer the Commission mediation and wait for the dispute to be fixed sooner or later. This is not about supporting one side or the other on this exact point, it is about supporting Europe’s survival, peace and diplomacy. Regulation would lead to tensions and unknown consequences that it’s better not to get to know.

Leagio

I would like to agree with Candidate Juncker;s stance on LGTBIQA+. Combating to protect all is a task impossible to complete. But my personal feelings on them is that if their love is true and pure, then who I am to tell them that they cannot get married and be happy. Marriage is bond of true happiness and that happiness is the best thing for the world.

On to His Majesty's question on the claims, my opinion is that now since times has passed since the Navigation Act Fiasco where we might be possible to reopen dialogue on the issues through a soft of method of diplomacy but the issue is that it just reopens tensions. But I personally do not think that a heavy dialogue on it is needed as the position of the Internal Affairs Commission is to mediate with all the governments on the issues and conflicts that they have with each other as the Constitution does not have a strong emphasis on an intervention that on paper should provoke conflict.

Inimicus

Thank you, candidates. We move to the next round of questioning.

To both candidates for Premier Commissioner, Penelope Graham from Dublin asks: I am concerned we sacrificed the Union for select nations; what can we realistically accomplish?

From an anonymous citizen of Elthize, a question to all candidates: Do you think the EU should be more centralised or decentralised when it comes to government structure, and why?

BrumBrum

Calvin Kühnert:I answer both questions as they are quite similar. I don't think we have sacrificed Union for a few nations. The European Union is made of many nations as they say "United in Diversity" , this means inevitably compromise will be needed. I think we can achieve a climate change solution that is better than not having a European wide agreement and we can create closer trade ties by potentially adding a voluntary free trade zone and possibly freedom of movement zone but keeping it entirely voluntary and funded by only the member states that join.

I do think we need a Glocal policy, global policy objectives on key issues but nations choose how to meet those goals for example to get to net zero by 2050 at the latest but how you achieve that is up to you so you can get more to agree to , would 2030 or 2040 be more ideal yes , but frankly that might not be realistically achievable. I would seek to set targets but nations choose how to reach said targets not a one size suits all solution and look at repealing or changing legislation to reflect this and allow nations more flexibility in finding their own solutions.What we cannot afford is more centralisation and losing key nations like the DU who may be on the verge of leaving due to not liking the EU telling them how to do things.

Overall what I think is needed is to basically have EU dialogue with all nations ask them what they want to achieve , not have a vision force it on nations and force them to have laws a certain way or have legislators force their nations ways on others nations ways as it won't work if that happens.

Istkalen

We don't have to choose one or the other. We have institutions like the ECB and ECoJ which are completely ineffective because of their more decentralized or democratic nature, which encourages derelection of duty - there is a need, there, for centralization, if our Union is to actually function. On the other hand we have such institutions as the EHO or the ESA, who, while legally decentralized, have had past directors who have attempted to take on much more power than they need to be. Decentralization of function needs to be very strictly enforced there - we otherwise end up with expensive, unnecessary, and bloated bureaucracies which are little more than the pet projects of a few.

In essence - do what is necessary! Centralize when needed, and decentralize when needed - don't apply one dogmatic approach to everything!

Spain

Thanks for your question, Ms. Graham.

In opposition to my rival for the Premier race, I do indeed believe this Union has been sacrificed for some nations, and it has been a planned, slow destruction of the EU pushed by these pro-sovereignty candidates like our current Premier, that has done absolutely nothing for you or any European citizen. Some nations are already preparing to leave if Mr. Kühnert doesn’t win, which is quite a childish behaviour; but that’s cause they know that the era of giving them what they want and ignoring the rest is over if I win.

You also do a second question, what is realistically accomplishable for us, the Premier Commissioner candidates. I want to tell you that if your nation’s vote goes to me, I will commit and deliver every single point in my agenda, no exceptions. There are no excuses to ignore the agenda I designed for this election, and if I don’t manage to deliver a single point for my inaction, I swear to all of you watching us tonight that I won’t ever run again for Commission. I’m not in politics to earn money or to seat on a comfy chair in a luxurious office in the European Union’s capital; I became a politician to work for the citizens of my country. And when I entered European politics, my only purpose was to help the people, like you and like many others watching us tonight.

We will obviously need the Council to pass our legislation proposals, but it’s pretty much achievable. Consensus, dialogue, negotiation and listening to European Councillors is key to continue our way towards the European Union we want in the future. But the journey begins in a few days, and only the Europeans’ vote will allow me to start it.

I thank that anonymous person from Elthize for his question.

The European Union needs to work towards finding the perfect balance. We can neither go for a full centralised model, in which the European Union has power over the most critical issues our member states Government handle, such as immigration; nor for a fully decentralised model in which we make the EU mean absolutely nothing, if that was the case we could just declare this project as dead. I want the Union to mean something, to do something else than being an irrelevant institution like some others wanted. We need to act as a centralised Union when it’s needed, and as a decentralised one when it’s needed too. The Green Deal, for example, can be either used as guidelines for states or as a treaty between several members. Both options are on the table.

However, now a second question might appear in your mind, and that is: ‘how will you find that perfect balance you are speaking about?’ Surprisingly, that is not the biggest issue we have, because the European Union has the means to directly communicate with member states, we used to do that when I was the Internal Affairs Commissioner and mostly everyone showed up at the time. Of course, this is a matter for the IAC, but I would love to join a new possible summit if it happened. The European Union can also conduct a survey in which states would express their concerns and could let us know what they want.

I have said it before, we ought to take everyone into account. Nations like the DU have been ignored, not to mention the Caribbean nations, always forgotten. We are all equal in this Union when it comes to citizenship, that’s why all your opinions matter.

BrumBrum

Calvin Kühnert: Can we just acknowledge the DU is unhappy and that if we continue on the path of increasing powers of the EU we could face a critical loss of budget which benefits no one. Equally they will never want to meet a 2040 deadline for carbon neutrality, so we need to do stuff like listen to them and aim for less optimistic deadlines on environment. Its not ideal but if its the only way to keep nations like DU in we must compromise. I don't want this to be a irrelevant institution but one that trusts nations to handle implementation of common goals within their culture and systems. We cannot have a one size fits all policy that many have done, for example Spain didn't adopt Bergen because of mistakes insisting on a carbon tax, which sadly the UD government were partially responsible for. More centralisation in most areas will upset nations and cause them to leave, so anyone calling for centralisation I hope you are happy when a load of nations leave destroying your precious budget and unity.How do you Mr Juncker plan to centralise on key things when DU will leave if you do?