Amendment to the Constitution of the European Union

[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

[BrumBrum]

I propose the further following amendment:
VIII. The European Council may not adopt statutory laws which involve changes to land 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,creation of direct EU tax or security policy.

James Mizrachi-Roscoe, Councillor for United Duchies

[BrumBrum]

I would like to point out that Nuclear weapons, chemical weapons and biological weapons bans change a states security policy. I am sure there are many acts broken by this amendment but if this passes the Nuclear Proliferation Act 2009, Chemical Weapons Act 2006, Anti-Terrorism Act 2006, European Relief Force Act 2012, Nuclear Test Regulations Act 2012 , Biological Weapons Act 2013 , Capital and Unusual Punishment Act 2017 and European Commission (Sanctioning Powers) Act 2021 would all be in breach of this amendment and immediately struck off with many more possibly struck off. This really needs a rethink.

James Mizrachi-Roscoe, Councillor for United Duchies

[Spain]

I propose the following amendment:

Amendment VI

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, and shall not legislate over land or maritime borders and taxes.

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.

---

The amendment is intended to avoid a legislative chaos, and is based on the one Speaker Tilkannas has proposed. I would those two areas, borders and taxes, to be explicitely reflected on the Constitution. And due to the huge catastrophical effects security or foreign policy limitations would have in our current Acquis Communautaire, I have decided that they should be given up.

Jean-Claude Juncker
Premier Commissioner

[UK and California]

I understand the Spanish position but why legislate this? Why not legislate military naval ability only? And this is for both Caspian and Med nations, both positions seem like paranoia has overridden regional trade: how come?

Ed Miliband

[Spain]

Councillor Miliband, first of all I would like to clarify this proposal does not come from the Spanish Councillor, but from the European Commission that lies under my command as Premier Commissioner. I believe we should legislate this for a simple reason: during the last months we have seen some concerning attempts to use the Council as a political weapon against other member states, which goes against the principles of the Council itself. This chamber and its powers are not supposed to be matching those of national Governments, this is not a national Government and should not be considered as such.

The European Union is entitled to benefit every single member state, and you, the lawmakers, are suppossed to respect the purpose of our Union. The systematic disrespect that the Commission has observed and that some others have warned that could continue are enough reasons to pursue this Constitutional amendment. However, I agree this region needs way less testosterone and more dialogue and understanding between nations: impositions, no matter where they are done are never the way to fix problems and issues between countries, and I urge the nations that might feel called out by this statement to put their differences away and talk, sit on a table and negotiate. Moreover, if they feel unable to do this alone, the European Commission is there to mediate between them. We are not standing still on serious matters like disputes between member states.

Jean-Claude Juncker
Premier Commissioner

[BrumBrum]

I would ask why only land or maritime borders and taxes are now in the amendment if that version is passed. The only act that fits both criteria if the Freedom of Navigation act and it would still hurt womens menstral health act by once again allowing extra taxes on womens hygiene products. I would suggest this is perhaps only admitting that this is being done to try and overide the FNA by deceit and promote only Spanish interests because the repeal of the freedom of navigation act failed. I'll give you a hint on democracy if you want to repeal the freedom of navigation act just put a repeal bill up don't use constitution and general sovereignty concerns that don't exist as a cover and use deceit to remove it. You are only showing fully this is an attack on the FNA because you didn't get Spains way in the repeal vote. As a commissioner you pledged to support the European interests of which most voted for the FNA and and to not repeal it , not act as a Spanish government puppet and use dirty undemocratic tricks to remove an act most nations support by deceit while at the same time taking womens rights backwards.We have compromised so much already but Spain seems to want to have the ability to send military wherever and trade wherever freely without doing the same in what it sees as its backyard. This is not the days of naked imperialism, nations have the right to choose which alliances they are in and to send cargo ships freely navigating. This attack on freedom of trade is just naked imperialism.

If anyone is using the council to promote the interests of one nation and alliances its you, freedom of navigation with no taxes is in the interests of all Europeans including Spanish as taxes on cargo value have a compound effect in a global economic trading system. Few products uses a majority domestic parts in manufacture any more instead utilising on components from many countries that would have themselves be made from parts from many countries. That is why tax free freedom of navigation is so essential and it only compounds more if the precedence is set and every nation decides to introduce such taxes on cargo going through , this will hurt Spain as much as anyone else.It is in the European interest to have tax free freedom of navigation of ships. If you want to levy environmental pollution fines for using the wrong fuels that is legitimate or mandate use of only clean fuels again fine, but a tax is an attack on economic prosperity for all.

James Mizrachi-Roscoe, Councillor for United Duchies

[UK and California]

But wouldn't military regulation be better than a tax? That seems more effective and would encourage trade while protecting areas. It seems like we're dictating everyone's trade policy because adding a fee to free trade sure doesn't seem like free trade.

[Spain]

Councillor Roscoe, with all due respect that I need to have to Council members, refrain from paranoid statements that only intend to heat up the debate. This Constitutional amendment does not target any act, it was not done to target any act and is not promoted by any national Government, but the European Commission. This amendment has been in the works since December 2022, months before the passage of the Freedom of Navigation Act. In addition, the Reproductive Healthcare Act 2021 that you have brought up would not be affected by this amendment, as the text only includes this provision as a requisite to receive a grant from the EHO. That means that women whose countries applied for these grants will still be protected even if the amendment passes.

Stop the alarmism. Europe is not going to stop existing for this Constitutional amendment, women will not be unprotected, millions will not die from hunger and millions will not be put into poverty. Affirming that is simply cheap populism and alarmism that does not help to promote a sensible, polite and correct debate. It just proves my point all over again: Council lawmakers might not be ready to handle certain affairs on their own and they need to see their power reduced. But you are judging me and assuming my ideas, once again, making a huge mistake: I indeed support regulations on waters, I have never shown support for the Spanish proposal on the Strait of Gibraltar and I believe on the Freedom of Navigation Act. I just do not believe on the way you have chosen to implement it. Believe me, I could not care less about the repeal attempt my colleague Cllr. Tusk pushed forward unsuccessfully, I need to care about results of the proceedings of this Chamber, because I stamp my signature on passed acts and passed repeals.

But I agree with you that it is in the European interest to have freedom of navigation. It is not in the European interest, however, to impose solutions without dialogue and manu militari on Member States, because that puts stones on the wheel of the car that takes us to unity. And I am afraid to say that the way you chose is indeed making things complicated.

Jean-Claude Juncker
Premier Commissioner

---

Cllr. Mizrachi-Roscoe, stop selling this Council your usual Duchian propaganda. The United Duchies has not compromised anything: it has not asked the GSSA authorities to meet, it has not asked the competent Minister over these affairs, Doña Cayetana Álvarez de Toledo, to meet with her counterpart of the Duchian Government. The Strait of Gibraltar is rightfully Spanish: we have an act that allows us to claim it as it is under 12NM, the Freedom of Navigation Act 2023 allows us to set up a tax in our waters and before you say that Spain shares the Strait: we do not share it, and we have been controlling the waters you claim that we do not control for 3 years already.

Spain does not give a flying flamingo about the effects our tax on the Strait of Gibraltar has in Duchian goods. The United Duchies also taxes goods going to and coming from the Caspian on its canal, for different reasons to the ones that we tax traffic entering and exiting the Mediterranean, but in the end both do the same. If the United Duchies cares so much about these "negative effects", then what they should do is make their canal free-to-use and prove they really care about European people that much. Nevertheless, and I can make a bet here, the Duchians will not do this, because indeed they only care about when their pockets are touched, and not about when they touch others' pockets. It is not an attack on economic prosperity, it is using the provisions of your disastrous act in our advantage, something that, by the way, any other country is allowed to do.

Answering my friend and colleague Councillor Miliband, Spain does not have any obligations to respect free trade agreements between third parties that are using its territory to get a profit together. Therefore, and again, using the FNA, we have the right to impose a tax to those ships crossing through our Strait and our waters.

Donald Tusk
Councillor for Spain

[UK and California]

That's all I wanted clarified. Even though Spain may not always believe in this kind of trade, others do. This will always be a point of contention.

[BrumBrum]

You know as well as anyone the convention when there is a border closer the 12 nm the convention is to share halfway. Your tax and our canal fees are entirely different, you do not have to provide additional maintenance on the sea for it just to exist, you do not need to invest in capacity and channel deepening upgrades as ship standards change, we do in a canal. To compare them is ludicrous, we do the same as you do in our seas managing the ecology, quotas and safety and we do not charge unless one is using port facilities or tugs and navigators to go through as services at their discretion. You are comparing two totally different situations , you could easily fund safety and nagivation out of fees for tugs and charge for navigators if they are used so safety isn't a reason and environmental almost all nations are doing this out of their pocket because they realise economic damage of a world where a precedent for taxes is present and this tax will hurt Spanish consumers who use products with components made in other countries with parts from around Europe. The only one showing greed is Spain here. Our canal fee is also highly different because it is charged on a per ship basis and based on tonnage not cargo value and it does not go up in proportion to the cargo tonnage so the bigger the ship you send through the lower the fee per tonne of cargo or value of cargo. This is obviously is not the case with a tax based on the percentage of value. A ship carrying a 1,000,000,000 euros of goods would get a 10,000,000 euro charge at 1% yet a more polluting ship going through with 200,000,000 euros of goods would pay 2,000,000 euros despite it polluting more and costing more to deal with its effects , surely if it was based on environment you'd focus on what fuels are used, discharge and things like emissions when considering taxes yet you don't you focus on the cargo which undermines your claim it is about the environment.

Is it that hard for you to understand economics and compound effects of taxes if every country decides to do it. You can't be that naive and economically idiotic. This is why the FNA and its protections are needed. We never specified what happened in the act is the gap is less than 12 nm because civilised and not imperialist governments don't get greedy and claim a whole strait for themselves when other countries exist on the other side. However we considered you too highly obviously and maybe there needs to be an amendment to specify what should be common decency of sharing halfway if the strait is less than 12 nm.

James Mizrachi-Roscoe Councillor for United Duchies

[Spain]

Cllr. Mizrachi-Roscoe, the conventions and laws of the United Duchies do not apply in Spain, to put it simple.

In addition, I would like the Speaker to ask the honourable gentleman to go to the Council corner for a moment to reflex on whether calling another Councillor "an idiot" is an appropiate behaviour for this Chamber or not.

Donald Tusk
Councillor for Spain

[BrumBrum]

I did not call you an idiot I said simply you cannot be that naive and economically idiotic. The first thing in business and taxation you look at is compound affects. Its why most taxes that are sales tax are only applied on the final stage and not every state or based on the value added to the product at each stage. This is common knowledge as well you do not need to be an economic expert to see in this globalised world that products made of parts from multiple countries which themselves are made up of parts from multiple countries often crossing over the same strait two or three times will have a compound effect on cost of goods if you tax 1% of the value each time. In fact compound effects are that basic they are taught a secondary school level qualifications not university, its just basic fundamental mathematics and economics. Does the Spanish curriculum not teach this? Yet Spanish councillors and comissioners want to use an underhanded way to remove the FNA despite it failing to be removed by 7 votes to 2.

But then you also want to decieve by saying its not about that despite making the only remaining areas you couldn't legislate on in the council the two precise areas that affect that act. It doesn't take a genius to put two and two together there and they are not conventions of the United Duchies they are general conventions the vast majority of states agree on and operate on unless the state is being greedy because its just basic common decency and fairness. If your convention on that issue is totally different to most states around Europe then surely that tells you something? And when they vote not only for an act protection principles of territorial water limits but then vote not to remove it maybe its time to accept the act?

James Mizrachi-Roscoe , Councillor for United Duchies

[UK and California]

12 nm is debated by a certain nation. I merely bring it up. Talk to that nation.