Amendment to European Council Political Groups Act 2016
-
Su Tefvik rises from his seat.
"Councilors, this amendment seems to have good intentions imbued into the spirit of the document, however it is hard to ignore that this amendment serves no practical purpose beyond the aesthetic purpose of being in a formal political alliance with a banner.
Allow me to explain: First, we must understand what exactly a party is and why it emerges. Parties take form, sure, when a people share the same political sentiment and goals. However the practical purpose of a political party is to coordinate activities when a such an alliance becomes too cumbersome to manage without some form of central management. An alliance, or at an understanding, between two councilors is perfectly acceptable and in fact encouraged by my government. However, two people working to fulfill an agenda does the match the practical purpose of a political party and is waste of paperwork for the European Union. It would be a different story if 3 Councillors decided to form a political party, since there is promise in growth. But no reasonable person should reliably expect that two people in a political party is going to succeed on any tangible level.
Might I also add that despite Councillor Firoux's sponsorship of the bill, this bill was proposed by a government that is not even recognized by this council. By voting for this bill, we are legitimizing a government that has been quite explicitly declared illegitimate. I would argue Councillors that the Council's authority would be tarnished if this bill passed. I ask you all to vote against this bill."
Su Tefvik
European Councillor from the Court of Osman -
To clarify for the Cllr from the Ottoman Empire. European Council Political Groups are not political parties, the age of the European political party is from years ago and no longer relevant. I'm more inclined to support the two person requirement, however since the passage of this act only two European political groups has formed. The European Progressive Alliance, and the European Liberals only one which has been able to maintain any level of success.
The Political Groups are almost entirely for branding, I wish we had more issue specific European Groups, but the nature of the act precludes that by limiting Councillors are limited to being members of one. The obvious results is that the Eurogroups have done nothing to improve upon the situation from the previous Europarties. At this point I would much rather bring back Europarties.
In fact, the European Council Political Groups Act forbids the use of member-ship even associate membership to anyone outside potential candidates for commission or the European Council. So their point of being made for the council and only for the council has effectively made them fairly inactive. Sure, lowering the requirement may go to help them to /some/ extent but really what has been different in the last four years? I doubt lowering the requirements will help that much to alleviate the issue. For example I only joined the EPA since there was no other ideological equivalent but it was the closest thing in the Council at the time, and it would be unlikely I could muster and support a long term group based on what I would consider my own ideologies. We simply do not have the numbers.
Now I expect some Councillors to cite how people can always make European Political Groups, and so on and so forth. But the fact remains, people haven't and political parties at our national level are fairly left out in the process of European level politics.
Considering for example the creation of the 'Institute of the European Left' we should look into bringing back Europarties to some extent, I believe that would be far more effective in long or short term.
Cllr. Carita Falk
Archrepublic of Vayinaod -
Just a brief reply to the Councillor from Vayinoad. I must apologize for the slip of tongue, of course I meant to speak of Political Groups. Regardless, I still do feel my statements ring true. In fact, I think the Councillor actually proved my point: Most political Groups are for branding, an aesthetic show. So I am sure all of the Councillors in this Chamber can agree with me that bills designed to satisfy politicians' blissful needs have little place in this chamber.
Su Tevfik
European Councillor from the Court of Osman -
I can't disagree with you more, Councillor Tevfik. Eurogroups are substantially more meaningful than a brand or an "aesthetic show."
Anyone who has ever experienced just one single Commission election can tell you that eurogroups serve far greater purposes than just that. I don't think it's a coincidence that the EPA happened to sweep the last Commission election, including defeating an independent candidate for Premier. It's also likely no coincidence that the Chairman of the EPA also happens to be the Speaker of the Council and that the EPA Spokesperson is also the Deputy Speaker of the Council. It's almost as if eurogroups are political vehicles that can be used for elections? Which, if we're honest, is one of their biggest purposes.
In addition that, and this might be more of an EPA thing than a eurogroup thing, but members of the EPA run legislation ideas and pieces of text by each other all the time. I can't think of a piece of legislation that I've written in the last three or four years that hasn't gone through at least two or three hands of other EPA councillors. We've all given each other ideas, co-written and edited each other's bills, we often come to consensuses as how we should - as a group - vote on legislation, and quite frankly, we also sometimes whip votes.
Do I think a eurogroup of 2 will be achieving these same things? No. But that's not the aim here. The aim is that it should easier for eurogroups to form, so that they could then grow and expand. The EPA only started with four members and look at us now: we have an extremely loyal base - just look at Councillor Falk, you'll never hear a more ringing endorsement than "I only joined the EPA since there was no other ideological equivalent but it was the closest thing". We stan political opportunism.
Political opportunism aside, I find myself in some agreement with Councillor Falk. Eurogroups essentially serve as political parties within the Council, but they are theoretically not supposed to be extensions of the political parties of our home countries. When we moved from europarties to eurogroups, the idea was that we would keep Council politics strictly to Council politics, and that a councillor wouldn't be acting as an agent of a specific political party of a member state. However, it's become clear that a councillor's politics is extrinsically linked to their domestic politics. This has become the case even more so considering that councillors are now also elected officials.
However, I don't think we have to tear down eurogroups and destroy the system. I think we can make other adjustments and reform it so that we can expand who are considered associate members, etc., so that we can bring domestic political parties into the fold. There's also other adjustments we can make, but I'm just using that as an example.
Anyway, at the very least, I think this amendment is a step forward in the right direction. Nobody ever claimed it would revolutionize the game or totally change the system, but it's one step in the right direction. I don't see how this amendment has any negative consequences. There are literally no negative drawbacks. It will become easier to form a eurogroup, period.
Edward Firoux
Council Speaker and Councillor for Inquista -
I must say to the Councillor from Inquista that if he put my statement into context, I was referring to a 2-person political group as an 'aesthetic show', or as Councillor Falk put it, "branding". The concept of Political Groups themselves I feel should for another conversation that I am more than willing to have another day.
Anyways, there is no other purpose for a two-person political group to have other than pretense that I might eventually grow. As we have seen, the European Progressive Alliance was the only such Group that has succeeded to this day. So I believe that this Council deserves more reassurance that such Groups the will last and serve a real permanent to this Council, and reducing the already small number of 3 will not do that.
Might I also remind the Council that this bill was introduced by a government that is not even recognized by this council. Are we to legitimize this government by allowing this bill to pass. Regardless of your opinion of this bill, it would only make sense for the Council to reject this bill. I sincerely hope, Councillors, you reexamine your support for this bill.
Su Tevfik
European Councillor from the Court of Osman -
That exact pretense is the point of the argument I presented in my previous statement. We're not having a discussion on whether we should commend two-person entities as the gold standard of eurogroups. The point is that we should allow eurogroups to form more easily so that they can grow from there. All eurogroups starts from somewhere. EPA started at four. It could of quite easily started with two. Liberals started at four, went up to five or six at some point, and then collapsed. Any other sort of eurogroup could just as easily start from two and go from there.
Inherently, a two person eurogroup minimum would mean that most eurogroups would probably last longer than under a three person minimum. It's easier to maintain two than three members. The European Liberals were hanging on to bare threads with two councillors for months and months before I dissolved it. If they were supposed to have three, then they would of been dissolved like a year ago already. The argument that eurogroups should only exist if they are "real permanent" and and are guaranteed to last is ridiculous. The Council isn't a planned economy. The situation is always ebbing and flowing. Besides, eurogroups are supposed to be blocs of like-minded councillors. Councillors change all the time. We have new ones all the time. Many leave. Naturally, the politics of the Council always changes. Eurogroups are supposed to serve councillors anyway, not the other way around. Instead, we're going to keep an arbitrarily high hurdle in front of councillors.
Also, I've always disliked the argument that nothing should be done unless it becomes some sort of permanent fixture or it's guaranteed to be a success from the beginning. Imagine if we look at anything else the same way. I can use businesses as an example. Small and medium sized businesses? Sorry to break the news sweeties, but you're flops. Get out, big businesses only! If you can't start out as a big business, then you're not even worth it. Are you even real permanent, bro? Things grow with time.
This goes beyond eurogroups and even includes europarties. Anyone remember when the EPP and ECR merged to make the UEC? Had like two members to start with. I mean, we all remember when they ended up flopping anyway, with like 6 people running in a Commission election, so maybe we should of just dissolved it? Anyone remember the EFP? Another very famous flop. Started with only two members - the iconic Lizcows and Alexander Kligenberg. It totally didn't dominate the Council for like 2 years after that.
Eurogroups, like political parties, girl groups, businesses, whatever, should all be allowed to come and go. They don't have to be permanent or some monolith to warrant an existence. Even though ABBA dissolved too soon for my liking, I'm still glad we had them in the end. Even as the Chairman of the EPA, I say the same about the Liberals and I openly welcome any new eurogroups to the fray. Councillors should be able to form their own eurogroups more easily and that's that.
I sponsored the continuation of this amendment because I think it has merit independent of the ideology of the person who wrote it. I quite literally kicked the author from the Council floor, so if that's not a condemnation, then I don't know what is. I'm still supportive of this amendment though. For any communists out there watching: I just want you to know that I recognize Eilidh Whiteford as the legitimate head of Nicoelizian government. Also, I support small and medium sized businesses and #StandWithTheKulaks.
Edward Firoux
Council Speaker and Councillor for Inquista -
I would hardly call a two person political group a living organisation that has any potential. With all do respect, but I feel that I have exhausted all the reason to not support this bill to the Councillor from Inquista. Yet he is adamant on supporting this naively written bill. I would, of course, support more political groups in this chamber but ones that actually have potential to be meaningful to pass good laws.
I commend the Councillor from Inquista for throwing out an illegitimate Chancellor, but to sponsor a bill that this Council has condemned does not merit, in my government's opinion, appraisal.
Su Tevfik
European Councillor from the Court of Osman -
I gave several examples of how eurogroups and europarties could grow from just having two members. I suppose the UEC and EFP were useless organization which had no "potential". Both became the most dominant forces in the regional for quite a long time. You've exhausted your argument because it is absurd. Apparently, nothing ever grows, even though this region has several successful cases demonstrating otherwise. Not only do things never grow according to your logic, but they shouldn't even be allowed to have the potential to grow.
Anyway, I need to stop using examples and stating facts about past europarties or eurogroups. As the leader and founder of the EPA - the largest and only eurgroup - and as a successor of Alexander Kligenberg's legacy as Councillor - who help found the EPA - I clearly know nothing about the potential of eurogroups. Glad that Councillor Tevfik has finally enlightened me and the region on the matter.
Edward Firoux
Council Speaker and Councillor for Inquista -
Eurogroups do have potential, and but not how they are currently operated. They're limiting instead of expanding what the old Europarties were able to do. Lowering the threshold to two Councillor will help a little bit. What we should do is remove the limit on a Councillor only being allowed to be a member of only one Eurogroup at a time. This will allow for the creation of single-issue caucuses such as a Denuclearisation caucus etc. We could have informal groups, however, without making these official Eurogroups it ends up just relegating the Eurogroup we have to being a failed Europarty effectively.
What I would like to see to help this as well, is allow national parties to become associate organizations to Eurogroups. Eurogroups would still be organized, and regulated by the Council. But by introducing national parties as associate organizations it will showcase the practical application of Eurogroups at the national level. For example Cllr. Firoux before the military coup in Icholasen, you were taking part in their primary process for one of their Cllr. nominees. That's the real potential of Eurogroups, however, as is they are drastically limited in what they should be doing.
Cllr. Carita Falk
Archrepublic of Vayinaod -
At the moment, we only have an Eurogroup, the European Progressive Alliance, and do you know why? Because of the lack of interest by other councillors to try searching for new members for them. The European Liberals have dissapeared, and now it's the EPA the one that keeps alive. At the moemnt, we must start thinking on our democracy, and also say: "We need to enocurage people to have diverse ideas". Why? Because that's what democracy is about. If you don't agree with that, maybe you should ask yourself if you are a democratic person, or else, your country is democratic.
This will of course have my complete support, as I'd like to see more divrse ideas in the European Union. But please, if you want to make your own Eurogroup, think that you'll have to keep it active, and much important, you'll have to search for new members. If you aren't able to do that, you'd like to think 2 times about doing an Eurogroup.
Cllr. Donald D. Tusk
Councillor for Spain -
Final voting begins NOW and will last until 23:15 GMT on April 8th, 2020.
On hehalf of the Most Blessed State of Inquista, I vote FOR this amendment.
Edward Firoux
Council Speaker and Councillor for Inquista -
On behalf of the Kingdom of Gallorum, I vote FOR this amendment.
Marion Rousselot
Deputy Speaker, Councillor for the Kingdom of Gallorum -
The Kingdom of Fremet votes FOR this amendment.
Charles Michel
Councillor for the Kingdom of Fremet -
The Ottoman State votes AGAINST this admendment.
Su Tevfik
European Councillor from the Court of Osman -
On behalf of the Kingdom of Reitzmag, I vote FOR this amendment.
Friedrich van Allen
Councilor, Kingdom of Reitzmag -
On behalf of the Archrepublic of Vayinaod, I vote FOR this act.
Carita Falk
Councillor for the Archrepublic of Vayinaod -
On behalf of the United Dominions of Icholasen, I vote FOR this amendment.
Councillor (Duchess) Poppy Carlton-Romanov
The United Dominions of Icholasen -
On behalf of the Kingdom of Spain, I vote FOR this act.
Cllr. Donald. D. Tusk
Councillor for Spain -
With 7 votes FOR and 1 vote AGAINST, this amendment has PASSED.
The European Council Political Groups Act of 2016 will be ammended accordingly.
Edward Firoux
Council Speaker and Councillor for Inquista
The Kingdom of Spain
