Amendment to the Constitution on Strengthening the European Assembly of 2020
-
Debate starts NOW and will last until 04:50 GMT on June 14th, 2020.
I am very much in agreement that the European Assembly needs some fixing, but I am not convinced that these are the remedies. In fact, I think these make it worse.
I'll give my thoughts section by section.
In section I, I agree that we should remove the clause about the Assembly having to meet twice a year. However, I disagree with Clause IV that you've added. As a group of heads of state or government, they are of course already independent of the European Union. However, I do believe that the Premier or Internal Affairs Commissioner should be responsible for calling and moderating the Assembly, and thus I don't agree with the premise that the Assembly should be fully divorced from all institution of the European Union.
I really don't like the clause that you've added to Section II. Should it really be the responsibility of the assembly to "fix" conflicts between member states? I'd rather not have a whole dozen foreign heads of state and government intervening and putting their noses in every conflict between each member state. Not every conflict is the business of every single member state and their government, and their involvement will likely make these conflicts worse. Progress and consensus would never be achieved around massive negotiating tables filled with random and distant heads of state or governments. This genuinely sounds like one of my worst nightmares. Of course, if the Assembly wants to meet to discuss a certain conflict, then that's fine, but it shouldn't be a legally mandated responsibility.
Even worse, they're supposed to "meet until the conflicts are resolved"? So, will all our heads of state or governments be held hostage in a room until a resolution is made? I don't think any of our heads of state or governments have signed up for this job.
Do you know who has signed up for this job? The Commissioner of Internal Affairs. This literally is their job. Article III, Section VI, Clause VI of the Constitution: "The Office of Internal Affairs fosters co-operation between Member States and mediates conflict arising between them."
As for Section III, I like Clause II but I don't like Clause I. I'd rather not have the Assembly be at the beck and call of literally every single head of state or government at any given time. Again, I'd rather this be organized at the discretion of the Internal Affair's Commissioner - whose literal job it is to do this - who can act as a neutral arbiter between the member states.
Looking more broadly at these amendments, it seems that these amendments are specifically designed to "fix" a certain conflict in Reitzmag, and aren't really the reforms needed to fix a broken institution.
Edward Firoux
Council Speaker and Councillor for Inquista -
Thank you for those criticisms Coun. Firoux, but I see that there are misunderstandings on the premise of this act. First, the European Assembly should remain independent from any institution of the EU due to the fact that heads of states and governments are more responsible and knowledged on the state of their country. Furthermore, the Commission is currently not fair due to its composition of which not all member-states have representation in it. It is also possible that the positions of Premier or the Internal Affairs Commissioner is occupied by a citizen of a country involved in a conflict. And this would create a bias in the course of mediation.
I'm sorry Mr. Speaker but I think that with your recent comments, you are being biased and is supportive of your fellow political group members in the Commission. And with that I suppose, you support the idea that the conflict between Reitzmag and a majority of member-states should not be fixed as to what Commissioner Juncker said in his electoral campaign. I want to point out that he did not directly say my exact words but he is condemning his opponent Atty. Winston for his goal of removing the sanctions against Reitzmag. This proves that he is not interested in fixing those conflicts Mr. Speaker. And do you support this? You said that the Internal Affairs Commissioner can act as a neutral arbiter, but how can you prove this in our current state Mr. Speaker?
Lastly, you said that these are specifically designed to "fix" certain conflicts in my country of origin. And I strongly object and disagree with this, I believe that this would help fix the problems too in Icholasen and any future conflicts between nations.
I hope that you will understand that our society needs this reform as a remedy for any conflict arising between our member-states.
Friedrich van Allen
Councilor, Kingdom of Reitzmag -
Commissioners represent the European Union and not individual member states. Pointing out this fact, or the fact that the Commissioner of Internal Affairs is already tasked with resolving region-wide conflicts, doesn't make me biased. I'm not here trying to be "supportive" of a member of the EPA, I'm simply giving you the Commissioner's job description, and pointing out why this doesn't need to be the job of the entire region's heads of state or governments.
Also, I'm not getting involved with your entire country's rabid blood feud with the Commissioner of Internal Affairs. That's for you, your country, and the Commissioner to settle. Not only do I not want to be involved with it, but I'd rather not drag the region's entire heads of state or governments into it either.
Just like how this legislation doesn't really fix the problems with the Assembly, I also get the sense that you aim to make the Assembly do what the Internal Affairs Commissioner already does. It's no coincidence that this happens to be related to the feud that I mentioned earlier?
Anyway, I've already said my piece. I have nothing more to add and I look forward to what my colleagues have to say.
Edward Firoux
Council Speaker and Councillor for Inquista -
I'm sorry but the uselessness of the European Assembly shall not be resolved through this amendment. It still lacks any powers to actually change anything. "Responsible to fix conflicts" will automatically be violated without any ability to hold whatever is discussed accountable. Not to mention if the EA can be called up by any member-state no doubt it will be called up for trivial matters that honestly are just two nations bickering for the sake of bickering at this point.
I know personally at least why that section was introduced, the Cllr. is from a nation who would get another soap box to preach against the tyranny of other nations where no such tyranny exists. I can't support this amendment because I know for a fact Archkonsul Nylund would kill me if this passed for the sole reason that they have to go to its meetings, and can not leave until said conflict is resolved. That itself is a non-starter.
Much like what the speaker already said, commissioners represent the Union and not their member-states and have been able to perform their duties to the best of their abilities for years in the name of resolving conflicts. Once again this is clearly an underhanded atttempt to make up for a lost election in my opinion.
There's much better ways to fix the EA and I would prefer a council discussion first on everyone's feelings on that first before proposing any hard concrete proposals it is a much better use of our time and the time of our nations.
Cllr. Carita Falk
Archrepublic of Vayinaod -
Good evening all.
I see this amendment to the Constitution as nonsense. Mr. van Allen, I'd like to figure you out one single question, in front of the other European Councillors but also in front of Commissioner Juncker. Does Mr. Winston know how to lose fairly? Or, using another words, if Mr. Winston can't win, you need to make our fairly elected Internal Affairs Commissioner have no functions? I hope you can answer to that question because it would be so good to know the answer.
The approval of this admendment would mean removing the Internal Affairs Commisioner, as it's unuseful according to this act. Anyway, I'm going to talk about every section. In Section I, the Assembly should meet once a year and also meet if it's necessary. For example, an economical crisis situation that affects all of us and the Heads of Governments can discuss what's better for us all. Also, I have to note that it's supposed to be the "European Assembly", where the Commissioner gets to moderate the debate, not a Parliament.
Section 2 it's another thing that I'm interested on. Many nations here have prooved that they can't fix their problems without mediation from a Commissioner or a Head of Goverment or State between them. Do you really think that all of them should meet for a problem that involves only 2, 3 or 4 nations? I think no.
And Section 3, agree with Clause II, because as I said, it shall meet once a year instead of twice as it does now, but I can't agree with Clause I, because that would make every Head of State or Government to come here every single day. Thank you.
Tusk sat down as Juncker stood up and started to talk
Thank you Mr. Speaker and good evening everyone. It's a pleasure for me to take part in this debate.
Firstly I would like to answer the accusations that I have recieved from Mr. van Allen about my supposed "lack of neutrality." You've said: "I want to point out that he did not directly say my exact words but he is condemning his opponent Atty. Winston for his goal of removing the sanctions against Reitzmag. This proves that he is not interested in fixing those conflicts Mr. Speaker." I'll enter once again in that campaign to explain what Atty. Winston wanted. Winston wanted to intervene in the Spanish Government which violates the national sovereignty of a nation; to remove those sanctions. That's something completely illegal. As an Internal Affairs Commissioner, I can't force a member state to do anything, but I can mediate with them, I can suggest what to do. But I can't force them or even take control of the member-states just to do what I want.
Moreover, you added this: "You said that the Internal Affairs Commissioner can act as a neutral arbiter, but how can you prove this in our current state Mr. Speaker?" Mr. van Allen, in all the things I have done during my short period in the office, I haven't done anything against anyone. We have setted up a mobile phone app, I have met with Czech Slavia's Prime Minister and I'm setting up the European Assembly meeting that will take place in Europolis in 3 weeks. But really Mr. van Allen, I don't want to make this a bloobath, so let's move on to what it really matters.
This amendment removes me from the functions I assumed when I got into the Internal Affairs Commissioner. I would like to think that your purpose it's to make a better European Union, and I think it is, but with this admendments I could think your purpose it's to remove every single fuction from my office in order to make this an useless high office, but at the moment, I don't.
Anyway, I surprisingly agree with meeting once a year instead of 2 times a year, because as we can be able to hear here, member-states want that. The rest of the amendment it's not something I like, but I can't vote here, so that's up to councillors who always do a great job representing their nations, so I must congratulate you all for that. I'm able to answer any questions you could have. Thank you.
Donald D. Tusk
Councillor for SpainJean-Claude Juncker
Commissioner for Internal Afairs -
While I do believe that the powers of the European Assembly should be strengthened, I do not think that this is the best way to go about it.
Few of my concerns are original; most have already have been addressed by Cllrs. Tusk and Falk. However, I truly must bring to attention the havoc this would wreak on national governments. By making it so simple to summon the European Assembly; by giving it these powers; one would essentially force heads of state or government to deal almost perpetually with matters of the Union rather than their own nations.
Many member states would not be prepared to deal with this. Take my own, Eastern Haane, as an example. Local governments refuse to cooperate with the central government, attempting to pursue their own, highly radical agendas. You can see this very clearly in the news - Kiel is making up evidence in order to prosecute former members of government, Nancy is trying to abolish currency, and so and so forth. Our head of state - the State Elder - has the work of unifying the nation, of stopping these conflicts and encouraging cooperation. If these amendments were passed, and she were so incapacitated as I have described, her role would pass to the Premier, who is already burdened with the work of promulgating and executing laws, at the same time managing day to day governance.
This would result in disaster, as the Premier would be unable to tend to national integrity at all times, as the State Elder is.
While other countries likely have different systems, I am quite sure that those in the line of succession of their heads of state or government would, like the Premier, not be as competent as those who are currently in the position.
To get to the point: these amendments would force heads of state or government to participate in work entirely different to that they were elected or appointed to do, while at the same time incapacitating them to the extent that another, most likely less qualified, would have to perform their work for them, resulting in the possible destabilization of several nations.
However, it is not as though the entire proposal is unsalvageable. Giving the EA a voice in internal affairs - albeit as an advisory body and not exactly as stated - would, I feel, greatly help the Union, giving the Internal Affairs Commissioner a source of diverse opinion and suggestions.
Martin Bourgaize
Councillor for the People's Confederation of Eastern Haane -
The debate period has closed. Final voting begins NOW and will last until 05:00 GMT on June 17th, 2020.
On behalf of the Most Blessed State of Inquista, I vote AGAINST this constitutional amendment.
Edward Firoux
Council Speaker and Councillor for Inquista -
Mr. Speaker, I request that the debate period be extended for the last minute.
Friedrich van Allen
Councilor, Kingdom of Reitzmag -
On behalf of the Archrepublic of Vayinaod, I vote AGAINST this constitutional amendment.
Carita Falk
Cllr. for the Archrepublic of Vayinaod. -
On behalf of the Kingdom of Fremet, I submit my vote AGAINST this amendment to the constitution.
Charles Michel
Councillor for the Kingdom of Fremet -
On behalf of the People's Confederation of Eastern Haane, I vote AGAINST this constitutional amendment.
Martin Bourgaize
Councillor for the People's Confederation of Eastern Haane -
For which I believe that this amendment could not help after my consultation to my advisers, I formally withdraw this bill.
Friedrich van Allen
Councilor, Kingdom of Reitzmag -
Per the request of the author, this bill has been withdraw. This council session is officially over, as further voting is now unnecessary.
Edward Firoux
Council Speaker and Councillor for Inquista
The Kingdom of Spain