Amendment to the Constitution of the European Union

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.

Istkalen

Let us calm down. No one will be going to the time-out corner for now, but if this behavior continues, I may be giving a few, select board books to the worst offenders.

Furthermore, this is not the time to relitigate the Freedom of Navigation Act. We are discussing constitutional reform; if you want to debate the merits of regulating maritime claims, then do that through the appropriate channels, but not here, and not now.

Moving on, I am unfortunately opposed to the amendment proposed by Commissioner Juncker. The Constitution ought to belong, always, to the people and the spirit of the eternal present. It should therefore be the right of the people of the present, now and in the future, to be able to interpret it, through the judicial authorities they are charged with electing, according to the conditions that prevail in their times. I am, as a result, opposed to any attempt to strictly define sovereignty that does not allow for that definition to be altered, at least easily, in the future.

Iras Tilkanas
Council Speaker and Councillor for the Republic of Istkalen

Spain

Ms. Speaker, I would like to withdraw this amendment.

Jean-Claude Juncker
Premier Commissioner