Amendment to the Constitution of the European Union

[BrumBrum]

I can't in good conscious support such extreme limitations that risk undermining acts agreed upon by a majority of nations to make clear how territory and sea borders are decided to avoid any disputes and arguments by making a standard. I also note this undermines the act on no additional tax on sanitary products and would strike that off the books opening up women to additional taxes on sanitary products. Therefore will be tabling an amendment to make it work better to balance sovereignty against an effective EU that protects citizens rights and also stops disputes between member states by creating standards.

I also not many security laws and acts that might breach modification of state security policy particuarly an act that was inspired by a spanish proposal to introduce a European warrant and policing scheme thereby once again limiting the power of the EU and its effectiveness to solve international crime issues. This amendment as written violates pledges by the right honourable Juncker and Harland to "unleash the power of the EU" . Setting strict limits on what EU can do will make EU a paper organisation that cannot do its job to protect European citizens interests and benefiting of all people for the common good.

I would also suggest defining what warrants a major crime record and how it is judged. What would stop a state to stop a person running or taking a position prosecuting in a political trial a citizen with trumped of major crime charges? There needs to be safeguards against such circumstances.

Therefore I propose the following amendment which if not accepted or something similar accepted would mean I would have to vote against this amendment. The amendment I propose would read as follows:
VIII. The European Council may not adopt statutory laws which involve changes to borders of the Member States, the creation of an compulsory area of free movement or free trade on European territory, or the modification of a State's foreign, tax or security policy.

James Mizrachi-Roscoe, Councillour for United Duchies

[Spain]

Councillor Roscoe, I will not accept lessons of Europeism from a man that until a few months ago considered European integration a 'threat to its country's national sovereignty', nor any political attacks to members of the European Commission which I lead that are not on this room today. Please, keep Commissioner Harland out of this discussion, as it is impolite from you to attack someone that cannot defend from your acussations.

Let me begin with the only area we seem to agree on: the crime record. It is true that the amendment I have proposed is not very clear on the matter, and I might need the help of the Council to make it more exact. But the idea over the table that the Speaker and I discussed back in our meeting was not allowing killers, terrorists or thieves that committed huge crimes not to run for a position that is so important not only for the European Union, but for their own nation. The Council spends thousands of Euros per year to keep you all safe, and we need to keep improving safety measures due to the fact that, from time to time, crazy people storm the Chamber and attack some of you. And happenings like this are what makes this amendment so necessary.

On the security topic you have outlined, I would be willing to eliminate that area from my amendment if it would cause much trouble: during my term as Internal Affairs Commissioner, I proposed and supported the creation of an international system to fight against crime, EUROPOL, with something similar being currently discussed in the Council and a proposal to which I have offered my support. Nonetheless, I wanted to make a remark to a misleading fact you have just said: the proposal was not Spanish, but made by the European Commission. This makes me thing, and please correct me if I assumed things too soon, that you believe Commissioners are here to represent their nations and push forward the agenda their home nation would like to see in Europe. That is far from reality, and is a common TIC between Councillors and candidates that usually were once or still are anti-European. I am not devoted to any nation, but to Europe and its people. So please, refrain from ever again saying a proposal made by a Commissioner has a country of origin, it is only and uniquely European.

The thing is, Councillor Mizrachi-Roscoe, that we are unleasing the real European power with this amendment. Because we are regulating the power the EU should have and, indirectly, starting our way towards a new EU for the next years. I already knew some on this Chamber would oppose to lose power, but we cannot allow to have a Council that acts like it was God and can do whatever it wants, whenever it wants. What if someone ever came here with enough support for a piece of legislation that banned armies in Europe and it passed? What if someone proposed a bill to not allow James Mizrachi-Roscoe to ever again have any sort of business in European territory and made your company shut down? I can see you complaining if that happened about "how the Council has massive power over everything". Something you surely did in your anti-EU era, by the way.

In addition, you have implied that this amendment pretends to 'undermine acts that have been agreed by a majority of this chamber', an argument far from the reality. This Commission does not have a stance on any acts the European Council has passed: we might have our personal opinions, but we have not released, and we will not release, any statement against any piece of legislation that this chamber ever discusses or passes. Nevertheless, I as Premier Commissioner believe Europe shall not be able to create pan-European taxes or dictate the borders of its member states throughout legislation, because those areas are sensible, and sensible areas must be addressed throughout Treaties.

The Commission, and this Commissioner, will however work on an amendment to fit your concerns.

Jean-Claude Juncker
Premier Commissioner

[BrumBrum]

The vague wording of the amendment does however undermine the bill that restricts from charging womens health products more than equivalent mens products. And I am not anti-EU in fact I'd like Europe to do more such as introducing broad European wide trade standards and consumer protection minimums, those are areas I want to increase legislation in. These are things where I think the EU power needs unleashing. I agree with banning legislation on army and defence but defence is separate from security which is a police and intelligence agency issue. I also note you haven't excluded social legislation from the powers of the council so EU could make a law on drugs , prostitution and social issues in a country but not on tax discrimination, laws to deal with corporate tax evasion or avoidance by creating a corporate tax minimum where the EU power could be really useful. The priorities are just wrong here.

On the security even if you restrict records banning people from office to records of violence, murder ,terrorism etc what is to stop a nation from convicting of terrorism, murder,fraud or other crimes just to make them ineligible to run for office. Your amendment could have unintended consequences without having specific langauge on how you determine if the record was not given in a political manner or not or a legitimate criminal record. I believe my amendment fixes most of the issues and am considering adding one exempting any laws on stuff like marriage or social issues from EU council instead.

James Mizrachi-Roscoe, Councillour for United Duchies

[California]

The healthy debate I'm seeing is good. We have to ensure this remains.

Snoop Dogg
Councilor for the Commonwealth of California

[Istkalen]

Debate will continue until 23:59 GMT on 11 May 2023.

As I previously told Commissioner Juncker privately, I am in favor of a reform along these lines, and applaud his effort to bring this Council to heel, so to speak. However, I have concerns over the exact wording of this amendment, which is vague and open to abuse. I therefore propose the following amendments:

---

AMENDMENT II

Article II

Section IV. Speaker of the European Council

I. The Speaker is a Councillor responsible for presiding over sessions of the European Council and moderating the legislative process. The Speaker is the official record-keeper of the European Council and is responsible for managing its statistical productions.

II. The Speaker may call the opening and closing of debating and voting phases in the European Council, set what constitutes a valid vote in accordance with the Constitution, and count the votes when a voting phase has ended. The Speaker may extend Council proceedings if deemed suitable, however, no phase of the legislative process may be shortened and this power cannot be delegated.

III. The Speaker shall act as a mediator if a Councillor lodges an official complaint against another Councillor or against the Deputy Speaker. The process for hearing complaints and coming to a decision is up to the discretion of the Speaker. Mediation responsibilities cannot be delegated.

IV. The Speaker may bar Councillors with a history of violence from entry into the Council chambers, but must provide them with alternative methods of participation.

IV. The Speaker is elected for a period of eighteen months with unlimited terms. There is a seven day period for nominations and debate, followed by a seven day period for voting. Voting shall follow the Alternative Vote system.

---

AMENDMENT III

Article II. The European Council

Section II. Powers of the European Council

I. The European Council has supreme legislative initiative to create statutory law (Acts) in the European Union. A Bill must garner a simple majority of those present to pass and become an Act.

II. The European Council has sole right to amend anything that has previously been passed into European law. An amendment must garner a simple majority of those present to pass.

III. The European Council has sole right to repeal anything that has previously been passed into European law. A repeal must garner a simple majority of those present to pass.

IV. The European Council may issue non-binding statements to express the opinion of the Council. A statement must garner a simple majority of those present to pass.

V. The European Council may discuss regional affairs with no specific course of action. A Councillor may move to turn the discussion into a type of proposal at any time. If seconded, it then becomes a proposal, subject to the relevant voting procedures. Alternatively, a Councillor may move to table the discussion at any time.

VI. The European Council must act in respect of the political and cultural sovereignty of the member-states of the European Union.

VI. VII. The European Council may hold a vote to impeach the Council Speaker, European Commission, European Court of Justice, or any member thereof on the basis of unbecoming conduct or gross negligence in the execution of the office. Such a proposal must garner a super-majority of those present to pass. If a vote of impeachment passes against the Council Speaker, the Commission, or the Court, then that entity must face a by-election or re-appointment as outlined by its relevant election procedures.

~~VII. ~~ VIII. The European Council may reject the dismissal of a European Commissioner by the Premier Commissioner. A rejection must be proposed by the Speaker of the European Council within 48 hours of such a removal, and must garner a super-majority of those present to pass.

---

AMENDMENT III

ARTICLE IV. THE EUROPEAN COURT OF JUSTICE

Section II. Powers of the European Court of Justice

I. The European Court of Justice is responsible for determining whether an Act or Amendment of the European Council is in line with the Constitution, and may issue advisory opinions to this end.

II. The European Court of Justice shall receive petitions accusing nations, institutions, or individuals of contravening this Constitution or any part of it.

III. The European Court of Justice shall, upon giving a verdict in a trial, give a suitable sentence and/or course of action to be taken. The maximum sentence it may impose is one of life imprisonment, and it may not compel any action that itself would contravene this Constitution.

---

AMENDMENT IV

ARTICLE II. THE EUROPEAN COUNCIL

Section I. The European Council

II. Each member state has the right to one Councillor. Each Councillor is equal and has the same rights. Each Councillor has one vote and can only represent one member state. Each Councillor must be a citizen or legal resident of the member state they represent. No Councillor may serve concurrently as a Commissioner or Justice. No Councillor may have a major crime record.

Section II. Powers of the European Council

I. The European Council has supreme legislative initiative to create statutory law (Acts) about certain matters in the European Union. A Bill must garner a simple majority of those present to pass and become an Act.

V. The European Council may discuss regional affairs with no specific course of action. A Councillor may move to turn the discussion into a type of proposal at any time **if the subject of the discussion is within the legislative competences of the European Council If seconded, it then becomes a proposal, subject to the relevant voting procedures. Alternatively, a Councillor may move to table the discussion at any time.

Add the following article:

VIII. The European Council may not adopt statutory laws which involve changes to borders of the Member States, the creation of an area of free movement or free trade on European territory, or the modification of a State's foreign, tax or security policy.

DEROGATORY PROVISION

All conflicting acts are hereby repealed following the adoption of these amendments.

---

In essence, discretion over limitations on Council membership and competences will be in the hands of the Speaker and the ECoJ respectively.

Iras Tilkanas
Council Speaker and Councillor for the Republic of Istkalen

[Spain]

I do agree that the amendments would need a rewording, and I would like to thank the Speaker of the Council for bringing up a more detailed proposal, that under my vision would include the areas that I have proposed as restricted for this Chamber. And I am glad to hear that the Speaker has brought an answer to the only question that could arise from her amendments: who does acting in respect of the political and cultural sovereignty of the member-states of the European Union mean.

Councillor Roscoe, you are again mistaking my words: I have not said you are anti-European at the moment, I have instead reminded the Chamber about the days you shared that feeling with other Councillors and leaders of the region. I do not believe the priorities are wrong: countries should have tax autonomy to decide which products, what companies and which people they wish to tax; due to the fact that if Europe did that we would be attacking basic sovereignty of EU member states. At the same time, social issues are included in our Constitution through the UDoHR, therefore the European Union has always had the ability to legislate on those issues, and should still have it.

Jean-Claude Juncker
Premier Commissioner

[BrumBrum]

Social issues are not included as I'd define them. I see human rights as an inaleable non-political issue. Social issues are political choices. I do believe the EU should bot be policing social policies in nations that should be up to local regions or national governments to decide how they police social issues bar basic human rights. I was never anti-EU , I have always been pro-EU as long as its laws focus on the right areas such as trade standardisation and big picture international issues like the environment while leaving countries to police their own social laws on issues such as drugs, family law, adoptions and alcohol law.

James Mizrachi-Roscoe , Councillour for United Duchies

[Spain]

It is fine to have a different view on social issues, but it is wrong not to admit your anti-EU era. Back in 2021, you proposed an amendment to the European Budget Act 2012, that was passed and then reammended by this Council, with the following justification: "we could afford to cut down maximum contribution and keep EU purposeful and to the right size". I guess that the honourable gentleman did not believe that the European Union had a purpose back then.

We can go further on this small research about the variation on Councillor Mizrachi-Roscoe's visions about the European Union by looking to his Eurogroup affiliation: He was a member of the European League of Sovereign States until just 25 days ago, when in a statement, he recognised the brand was regarded as "anti-EU" and that he had changed his mind about what Europe needed. Yet, until 25 days ago, James Mizrachi-Roscoe still agreed with the manifesto of the ELSS, and agreed with some parts of this amendment, as their own manifesto claims that their members are "opposed to any attempt to impose direct taxation on member-states of this Union of European Nations", need to "recognise nations rights to protect their unique cultures" and even aimed for an "opt-in free trade and movement area".

Supporting these principles, however, is not being anti-EU; it is being pro-EU and I believed this to be the 3 more reasonable proposals the ELSS had in their manifesto. Visions can variate throughout the years, but we cannot pretend to hide our past. However, Mr. Roscoe is now fully opposed to opt-ins per Treaties, which are the only way of doing such a thing and has been the procedure since the foundation of this Union for what we call 'core matters' and wants to directly tax people using the unlimited power of the European Council. Now, he tries to do what Europe did never ask him to do, but what his followers always wanted: destroy our Union from its legislation. We cannot simply allow that to happen.

Jean-Claude Juncker
Premier Commissioner

[BrumBrum]

You will very well remember despite your attempt to twist the facts it was in response to over 4 budgets where over 66% of the budget was unspent despite my votes against those budgets and my states votes against budgets with repeated calls to raise spending on departments like the EDA.So the aim was to get the money that was clearly at the time not being spent back into the member states hands from the start so it can be spent at home if the EU didn't need it. You have since thankfully and much appreciated boosted the budgets though issues remain such as how difficult and inefficient it is to claim EDA funding for smaller projects and how beauracratic and centred in brussels claims are in processing with lack of local understanding of development needs increased the budget allocation and spend though still more could be spent in my opinion like 100% of contributions.The regarding of my group or myself as anti-eu was never true and is not today, I am for an effective EU governed in a way that works with much decision making being made by local national panels that understand local cultures, economies and context.

We need a strong a powerful EU and limiting its competences beyond social issues is not going to achieve that. It will prevent unified policy on key international issues and issues that require co-operation and unified policies across borders.I would very much appreciate if you stop lying to this chamber and misleading as to what mine and the ELSS views actually are and were , we were never aiming to destroy the EU or oppose it merely make it more effective, useful and structure it in such a way that balances nationstates sovereignty in cultural and social policy against the need for unified policy on trade and big european issues including issues like climate change and indeed possibly corporate taxation if a race to the bottom tax situation develops in corporation tax harming the working class of Europe .

James Mizrachi-Roscoe, Councillour of United Duchies

[Yosai]

So apparently proposing that the EU organising the distribution of resources funds more locally with national panels that understand local context when giving grants is an existential threat?.....Ok?

Izumi Miwako
Councillor of the Federal Republic of Yosai.

[Spain]

Councillor Roscoe, the money that the European Union does not use in its budget is effectively returned to member states after the passage of our budget. No one here is twisting anything, but you still have not answered my remarks about the purpose of the Union to you back then. I will consider you agree with them and that, back then, the European Union was nonsense to you.

Now, about your Eurogroup departure or re-entry, because it seems you 'never know' with James Mizrachi-Roscoe, the case is you admitted it was regarded as anti-EU, and I quote: "I am afraid the brand of the ELSS is damaged seen as anti-EU". You, Mr. Roscoe, said that the ELSS was a threat to the European Union as it stood against it, why are you changing your ideas now that you have been reminded of it? I guess because you thought it would go unnoticed, but the truth is that it did not and now you have to justify your imposition hunger. Councillor, the European Council nor the Commission were made to impose, they were made to benefit Member States and their citizens, a principle that is even in our Constitution, when in Article III, Section VI, Article II, it says: "The Office of Internal Affairs implements European Union decisions and policies for the benefit of Member States and their citizens". The point is that some Councillors whose names I will not say are using the European Council in a way that only looks for the benefit of some Members, which goes against the Constitutional principle that I have just mentioned.

Continuing with your accussations, you have said that I am a liar, something that many of my rivals have accussed me of and, surprisingly for them, they all were proved wrong. Today we are not going to see an excemption, as I want all Councillors to look at these papers that I am going to show you, extracted from the "key policy document" of the ELSS, that can be found on their webpage and in the European Council webpage. If you click the link, it takes you to a Google Presentation where you can find exactly what I have just said. But if some still do not believe it, these papers will show you I am not lying:

Juncker then starts to show some papers with the ELSS programme

As you can see, either way you are not saying the truth, or the ELSS webpage is lying. Now, you have aimed for the creation of a global corporate tax in Europe, but weren't you against that? (Donald Tusk laughs discretely and silently) Councillor Roscoe, do not try to justify yourself, it is not necessary when you and the Internet have such an extensive record of your political swinging.

Jean-Claude Juncker
Premier Commissioner

[BrumBrum]

I am against direct EU taxes yes but a law mandating minimum corporation tax for states is not that as it would be implemented by member states as would any carbon taxes and the like, it would not be a direct tax by the EU on the people or nations of Europe. And I'm not entirely oppose to opt-ins and treaties and never was and neither was the ELSS. You are twisting the facts again. If you knew economics you would know multiple countries harmonising their tax rates or having a minimum tax rate across the continent to prevent a race to the bottom is different than EU imposing its own corporate tax rate across the continent.

ELSS when I was a member and I still believe in a purposeful EU that keeps out of social issues but works together on trade standardisation and policies on trade and consumer protection. Something I will continue to fight for. You have a history of painting those who disagree with your fully centralised vision as anti-EU and spreading mis-truths about them. You are clearly misreading what is there and it is plain to see or you are lying and misleading people on our beliefs. You can be for a strong EU and effective adminstration , right now the EU does not have an effective administration and is too centralised. For most issues national level boards or adminstration would be able to implement policy and fund granting decisions with an understanding of local context. What does a person who lives in Europolis or Spain understand about the Duchies local context or vice versa for a Duchies person about Spain. Decision making should be made by people in the countries where the funding is going to within EU guidelines that allow for flexibility.So again stop lying and misleading the council and the people here about what our beliefs and policies actually are.

James Mizrachi-Roscoe, Councillor for United Duchies

[Yosai]

"So you want us to put our Eurogroup above Europe itself? I mean thats what it sounds like by that logic."

Izumi Miwako
Councillor of the Federal Republic of Yosai

[Spain]

Councillor Mizrachi-Roscoe, I think that you have no idea about how our legislative system works. You are against direct European Union taxes, yet you want to pass laws in the European Union that mandate countries to implement taxes as you wish. The money might not be going for the European Union but Member States, but by passing such ridiculous proposals you would be using the EU to impose direct taxation on European nationals and forcing Government to adapt to a new legislative reality that has been imposed by legislators here, in Europolis. The reality is so simple, Mr. Roscoe, that denying it is pointless at the moment.

You now claim to be "not entirely opposed" to opt-in Treaties, but you have advocated for legislation that is optional for member states not only through your platform, but also in this chamber and in political opinions. Councillor, what sort of bad joke is this? You are similar to a weather vane when it comes to politics, whenver the wind goes to you will point there and shout "this is the correct way, follow me!!". The Duchian Councillor, however, realises about the mistakes he has done and how he, on purpose, forgot about what he defended three, five months ago and tells the Premier Commissioner he does not know anything about the economy, when he has been the Commissioner to propose one of the most ambitious budgets ever in this Union since its creation. Mr. Roscoe, repeat alongside me: "if the European Union passes a law telling countries to tax corporations, the European Union is imposing a tax on European nationals".

During this extensive debate, throughout which I have remained quiet until now, I have seen you are confused about your ELSS membership: in the same statement, you claim to have left the Eurogroup yet you talk in plural 1st person, with sentences like "our beliefs and policies". Mr. Mizrachi-Roscoe, are you in or out? It is a very simple answer, it does not require any studies to say "I am still a member" or "I have definitely left the alliance". However, I find funny that you now advocate for trade standardisation, but at the same time I find it interesting: now that the United Duchies has seen how their proposals cause a huge disadvantage compared to the rest of the European Union, the Duchian Councillor and the owner of one of said nation companies tries to impose, through the European Union's unlimited powers, the Duchian system to everyone else in order to earn a way higer revenue, while filling his mouth with lies like "I am worried about the working class of this region".

The Duchian Councillor goes further on his acussations and says the Premier Commissioner is lying, without any justification, without any proofs of his lies but his words. Mr. Juncker, who is not suspicious of misleading the public, brings proofs to this Chamber, shows Councillors the ELSS policies and Roscoe still denies the evidences. Therefore, Councillor Mizrachi-Roscoe has finally admitted what the European Progressive Alliance has been warning people for ages: the ELSS lies in their key policies and would never do what their members wrote down there. And last, but not least, you say the European Union should just give the money to local boards and let them do whatever with our money, because we do not have an effective administration and people that assume Commission roles do not understand the local context of each nation. Councillor, the people we elect to be our Commissioners are suppossed to understand local contexts or learn about them during their terms, and are capable and ready in most cases to handle European affairs. And more importantly, I can affirm without being afraid to be wrong that Jean-Claude Juncker has been one of the best Commissioners this region has had and that he understands nations' context.

By the way, Mr. Roscoe, if you have nothing better to use as an attack rather than "he is lying and misleading", please refrain from more counterreplies and focus on the point.

Donald Tusk
Councillor for Spain

---

I would like to urge Councillors to focus on the point of the amendments rather than on discussions that have got nothing to see with the current proposal.

Jean-Claude Juncker
Premier Commissioner

[BrumBrum]

I honestly have nothing more to say except my views have not changed and remain consistent on how the EU should be run. We need a globalism but local running. We need these amendments to reflect that under this many necessary competences would be stripped that require international solutions while social issues could still be legislated on that should be kept local. Its the reverse of the situation it should be if this passes. An I am not advocating for a minimum corporation tax rate to be harmonised yet but think we need to leave the option open for the future in case the race to the bottom tax cut race heats up too much and hurts government revenues and therefore the working class and middle class of Europe by cutting the revenue for their social protection programmes and public services. That is why tax policies should be allowed to go through council as long as it isn't a direct tax took by the European Union , though it should only be used sparingly and as needed.I'd like all of you who support such a big limiting of EU power to answer how does this line up with your "unleashing the power" of the EU and will you explain when a conflict breaks out over maritime borders or a tax cut race causes cuts to public services and increases poverty and misery that you voted for them to suffer these consequences.

You should really think of the consequences of cutting the power of this union so heavily. Where cuts in the power are needed is stopping the council setting social policy for nations but the EU is there precisely for the reason protecting consumer rights, quality standards , harmonizing trade , protecting from unfair competition and preventing international disputes and conflict to protect the average European. This is not about me , any past affiliations like the ELSS or peoples egos , we are here to serve the people of Europe improve the lives of the average person not wealthy elites like us and protect this planet for future generations and our children.

These reforms threaten that ability to do so, a carbon tax rate minimum set by the EU may be needed to protect the future of the planet and the economy so that people may live. You stripping away these powers could condemn millions and tens of millions to poverty , famine and pestilence and also could lead to millions of the poorest losing their homes or lives and entire nations like Nofoaga for example which is mostly low lying in the habitable areas and other low lying nations being destroyed.

We are fortunate in duchies to be able to dyke our low lying areas and build up our defenses over many years but many are not so the EU needs these powers to be able to act in the interests of all Europeans. So Tusk are you for this proposal as written that will put millions into poverty and possibly kill millions of Europeans over the years and have millions struggling for food and before you say I am being alarmist or an eco-warrior or anything like that this is not , this is the scientific fact , we have 10 years to act and the EU needs powers to protect against the climate emergency.

James Mizrachi-Roscoe, Councillor for United Duchies

[Spain]

Councillor Roscoe, the European Union has powers, even with this reform, to act against Climate Change. It is called Green New Deal, it was proposed by Premier Commissioner Juncker 2 years ago, continued and taken to a summit by former Internal Affairs Commissioner Birdane and failed because of discrepances between states. Even if there were countries not willing to sign the agreement, it could have been signed by others willing to do so, but that was rejected by the Duchian Government, for example.

This Constitutional reform will not kill millions or put millions into poverty, as the Union will keep the necessary powers to push forward solutions on that areas. It will, however, stop the Council from being used like a divine tool to export failure to other European nations. Let me repeat this clearly: the European Union, after these reforms, is still able to provide international solutions to problems.

By the way, two minor sidenotes: one, if you say something is "possibly a good idea" and that "we should leave the door open", you are advocating for a discussion about said topic in the Council and, if you want to take it further, for its passage. And second, whenever a conflict has broken out in this Union, the European Commission has always solved them per Treaty and not per manu militari, using the Council. In addition, national Governments should be free to decide what to do with taxes in their national territories: Inquista or the Duxburian Union have no corporate tax, if the EU imposes them to have one, have you thought of the consequences of such a thing? I doubt you have.

Donald Tusk
Councillor for Spain

[BrumBrum]

With respect you are entirely wrong it cuts off many avenues to have unilateral action through the council for many competencies that may be necessary in the future. Your belief in treaties is sometimes justified and treaties are great an opt-in free trade area or movement area is great but sometimes if you can't get universal agreement on a key issue like climate change the solution is council legislation that a majority support. If you cut off that you could condemn millions to poverty , death and famine. But you likely don't care because like me you'd mostly be fine, if you have billions or millions as many of us do we can move easily to avoid the consequences if you are working class you often cannot and yes I have thought about those issues but lets move on from the corporate tax issue that this would stop the EU having any say on but I ask what if it leads to a race to the bottom on taxation and hurts the working class and middle class through public service cuts? Will you then say you had to go into poverty to benefit two nations in Europe? Will you say their interests had to be sacrificed for corporations interests in the EU. We must leave legislation to be allowed to deal with taxation and will you explain to the almost 1.2 billion women of Europe why you voted to destroy their garuntee menstrual health products won't be taxed extra over mens products just so the EU didn't have the power to make tax policy. If you vote for this in its current form and many women suffer then you have those womens pain for those who can't afford the menstrual products and lose access to free feminine hygiene products on your hands. Stopping the council having powers on many of these areas has implications on peoples lives and rights you will not have to suffer. Perhaps that is why you haven't considered it? You must think of all the implications of the act or amendments in question. This has wide reaching consequences for many groups of people in Europe and the poorest in society potentially turning the EU into a Do nothing EU.

James Mizrachi-Roscoe, Councillour for United Duchies

[Yosai]

"So again, we still talking about the possibility of the EU organising the distribution of resources funds more locally with national panels to meet those communities needs in order hand out grants? Because this whole thing is absurd when we talk about a debate that attacks national sovereignty when you get to the heart of the matter when you look behind the long winded speeches that are, quite frankly much ado about nothing. I would implore both Junker and Mr Roscoe to stick to the issues at hand and not get distracted please."

Izumi Miwako
Councillor of the Federal Republic of Yosai

[Spain]

Councillor Miwako, it is Mr. Tusk right now who is replying to Councillor Roscoe's remarks. I think that I have had enough discussions with him on the matter, and like you, that we need to focus on the issue rather than on secondary things.

Jean-Claude Juncker
Premier Commissioner

[BrumBrum]

They frankly are not secondary because the limitations you intend to place on the council remove a potential course of action to avert climate change , to deal with tax avoidance and evasion or remove key acts protecting womens health equality by immediately scrapping the act stopping women's hygiene products being taxed more than men's hygiene products but I'm sure women and vulnerable groups like the working class and poorest that would suffer because of this would limiting EU action on their issues being dismissed as secondary by rich men in this chamber. By voting this as this is currently worded and with current exclusions you condemn millions to poverty ,misery and potential famine and remove protections for vulnerable groups , you become an enemy of the working class ,women and people who would suffer from climate change where one of the most effective ways to convince companies to change over is set a minimum carbon tax price for carbon or set carbon prices for a cap and trade scheme .

So you are either for this an enemy of the people or against it on its current form and an ally of the people. There is no in between by limiting EU competencies so much you only benefit rich elites like myself yes but also many of you here. You can advocate for elite friendly restrictions on economic issues I will stand for the people. Hope you enjoy telling working class ,women and people in low lying nations their rights and protections are secondary to this reform that will destroy many avenues to defend those.

James Mizrachi-Roscoe, Councillor for United Duchies