Amendment to the Constitution of the European Union

[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