[Discussion] European Assembly and Other Changes
-
Juncker stood up to talk
Well, I think that the European Assembly is not necessary to change it. Its function it's simple. A meeting with the Head of Governments or Head of States in which they all debate different proposals. A bicameral System would be difficult for new member-states, and when the Assembly was removed, there was a reason for that. Maybe that reason could happen again.
About the council of Ministers proposal, I'm taking note of that. I can ensure that I will open a discussion about that to see what member-states think and, if we get a common point of view, then I'll start working on the amendment to make that happen.
-
van Allen rose up and talked
I'm sorry Mr. Juncker but I think you don't understand. The function and the procedures of convention by the European Assembly is not properly outlined in the constitution. And I want to remind you that the current statements about the European Assembly as per our current constitution does not say who is the primary responsible in initiating a convention. This means Mr. Juncker that no one including you are authorized to initiate a convention of the European Assembly. But yes, you may call the heads of governments of every member-state. Though, that would not be mandatory for them to attend to.
Now for the European Council, I agree that we must enhance our legislature and I do believe that we must allow more voices and more opinions to be opened up during our council discussions. I propose the following system:
General Information
Type of Legislature: Bicameral- Upper House: European Assembly
- Lower House: European Council
European Assembly
Number of Seats: 3 for every member-state (does not include presiding officers)
Number of Votes: 1 for every member-state
Presiding Officer(s): President (elected by the highest decision-making body of the elected member-state)
Term: 2 years
Term Limit: 2 termsEuropean Council
Number of Seats: corresponds to 1 for every 80,000 registered voters
Number of Votes: corresponds to the number of seats
Presiding Officer(s): Speaker (elected by the council)
Term: 1 year
Term Limit: 3 termsAnd which the current European Assembly will be replaced by the European Summit. This would then have the following system:
European Summit
Composition: heads of state or government of each member-state and the president of the european assembly
Leadership: Chairman (circulates between the heads of state or government of each member-state every year)
Convention: at least annually or if necessary
Host Country: country of origin of the current chairman
Mediation: Commissioner of Internal Affairs -
For myself, Cllr. Van Allen's system is already broken.
I do not believe the EU requires some form of bicameral legislature where both are binding is needed. One or the other should be binding, the EU requires concise and focused debate in its institutions.
To begin with, under Cllr. Van Allen's proposed European Council, the Duxburian Union will have Councillors numbering in the thousands. I'm sorry but no one needs a legislature numbering in the thousands once we include numbers from Inquista, and Angleter. Who is going to pay for all that? I hope it isn't coming out of national government budgets for an institution that will upend the current infrastructure the EU budget supports. Noting term length and limits should be dictated by individual member-states much like it is now.
I take issue with multiple sitting members and some presiding officer(?) in the European Assembly. If the Council is already so bloated why would the EA need to be made up of multiple representatives but then they only have one vote? The EA in this scenario should take on the current council model but simply EU Governments may choose how to appoint their representatives.
To me the concept of what the EA attempts to be now, or what a European Summit intends to be is still somewhat pointless. Heads of State and Government shouldn't be required to attend such a meeting, especially if there were to be more pressing matters. Cllr. Van Allen pointed out how Commissioner Juncker can't force anyone to attend any meeting, and that is how it should be. Noting in the current case even though its mandatory, it would be a stretch at an attempt to enforce it in any meaningful way. Frankly, I applaud Commissioner Juncker for even attempting to get discussions and any kind of meeting going and look forward to the results and flexibility it may offer.
The Commissioner for Internal Affairs thus far in an official capacity has not made an attempt to call the EA, but rather their own meeting as they see fit which they are very much in the clear for.
This is a more through explanation of my beliefs:
The European Council should remain largely untouched. It should remain the highest decision making body in the EU.
The European Assembly should be made into a "Council of Ministers" where member-states may send ministers of different portfolios or assign a minister specific to the EU to represent them as meetings are called. The Commission of Internal Affairs should be the presiding officer of these meetings. This Council of Meetings should take up a mostly advisory role but should be able to issue statements on its own behalf.
Commission, ENAA, and ECoJ votes should be submitted through this reformed 'Council of Ministers'.
Alternatively, I'd like to see the Council be made into a nonbinding legislative body (sensibly) proportional to population who may review legislation passed by the Council of Ministers.
Cllr. Carita Falk
-
I find myself in agreement with Councillor Falk on most of the things she has said.
Councillor Van Allen's proposed system would result in an extraordinarily bloated and ineffective European Council and a just as useless European Assembly that hasn't addressed any of the core issues which have been brought up against it. Furthermore, as Councillor Falk pointed out, we don't need an "upper" and "lower house", and we certainly don't need to turn the European Assembly into a legislature. As much as I would like for Inquista to have 1,625 seats on the European Council, this is a no from me.
I also second the idea that the European Council shouldn't be modified too much. In my opinion, the Council basically operates fine. The primary issue and criticism of the Council is that each country only gets one councillor, and because that councillor is elected separately from their government, they could have diverging beliefs or a different agenda than their government does.
There is also a secondary criticism of the Council, which is that all states have an equal voice and that all states only get one councillor. This is more of an ideological debate, rather than an inherent problem, in my opinion. I am actually in favour of keeping the 'one country, one councillor' system, but I'm open to hearing some ideas around proportionality and I could be swayed on the matter.
I disagree very strongly with Councillor Falk's alternative version of the European Council. If it's to be non-binding, then we might as well get rid of the Council altogether. However, I believe that the Council should remain in tact, and it should remain as the primary institution of European decision-making.
As for the European Assembly, I will forever remain skeptical that it could ever be "fixed", because it has never ever worked, and it's never worked because I can never imagine all or most member states actually getting around the table to discuss something like... er, agricultural or fishing policy, for example, then all agreeing on a piece of legislation. Nor do I think it is particularly effective. Even if the European Assembly could work effectively, I still imagine it would be so much more time-saving to just have a councillor write a piece of legislation themselves and submit it to the European Council - which, would have to be done anyway - and just go through normal Council procedures.
With that said, if we are going to have a European Assembly, then I'd like to see it as a "Council of Ministers" as Councillor Falk has suggested. Again, I remain skeptical about how useful or efficient this Assembly would be, but at least it's something, I suppose.
Edward Firoux
Council Speaker and Councillor for Inquista -
If it is alright that i focus on the Council then, if we decide change representation in the Council. Then maybe instead of doing it to where Nation A has this amount while Nation B has this Amount, I would like to think that maybe we some way that we either increase the number of Councilor each nation equally has or draft some formula to ensure that one nation does not have total control of the Council as Councilor Firoux explained. But if any changes does come in terms of presentation to the Council, it should be something that i think that the nations of Europe will find acceptable and comfortable for them.
Councilor Francis Plessis
-
'I think a more representative Council can be achieved without much modification to the Council itself and how it works. Perhaps nations could have, say, 1-10 Councillors who vote on their nation's position on one bill/amendment. I think that small change would go a long way to increase involvement in the EU Council.'
- E. Whiteford
-
No no, Mr. van Allen, I think it's you who doesn't understand. Your project was dimissed, which makes it simply, as Cllr. Falk said, broken. And your system just makes a huge issue for the European Budget that we have to do. A Bicameral System will make the European Union less-interested on Institutions, as they would have to vote again if this gets passed.
The Assembly, as it is, it's fine. It just needs some amendments to make its functions to be clear, but that's all. Calling all the member states to a meeting on the 6th July, date in which the Summit will start, it's one of the preferences. And the law says that the European Assembly, which it's, at the moment, the Internal Affairs Commissioner and the Heads of Government / State, has to meet twice a year. Now, imagine a full parliament: Where would we put Duxburian Union deputees? The Parliamentary building should be as the size of Europolis, obviusly this is a metaphore, to get all the deputees from the European Union.
About the European Summit, I understand that you don't want the Internal Affairs Commissioner to do nothing but look, which makes me think of something: Let's dismantle Internal Affairs Commissioner seat! The rolecthat you've given it's good, but still cut the IAC functions. What we, Europeans, need to get with this proposal it's to try a system where the Internal Affairs Commissioner seat does not get as a stupid place to cover, which it's the way of the Mr, van Allen broken system. A chairman it's also a bad idea. If you choose a chairman in the European Summit to host it in their country, you'll lose some of the needed neutrality for the summit.
About the European Council, the way you are desinging it makes it completely unfair for those newcomers or lowly-populated countries, as the Ottoman Empire for example. The 1 vote, 1 Councillor System makes it fairer, but we could keep that 1 vote per nation, but with more councillors, because we are getting back to the over-representation of some countries that in the proportionl system, would get like 1,000 seats at least, if I'm not wrong.
And finally, I wanted to give my point of view of the Council of Ministers. In my opinion, the "Council of Ministers" has to be as Commissioner Whiteford proposed. There should be different areas for the member states to treat with their Ministers, getting just the European Assembly, which needs some amendments but not to make it look like a parliament, to have a meeting with the Heads of Government or State.
Jean-Claude Juncker
Internal Affairs Commissioner -
Dear collègue,
I stand with Mr. Juncker from Spain when he tells your proposal is beneficial only for the bigger member states of the EU. I'm asking myself if there is still a place for small countries in the council. I do propose to refine and use what we already have and that we are concerned with what matters... And that is not creating more bureaucracy and offices, but the well-being of the citizens.
Thank you.
Mrs. Azaya Dubecq
EU Councilor for Nofoaga -
Thank you for opening this important discussion, Premier Whiteford.
As you'll know, Dragan Trympov energised millions of the forgotten people of Europe in his Commission campaign by pointing out that the Europolis system is broken and, in many ways, rigged. I'm glad that the Commission is aware of the need for reform.
Europe is falling apart because the European Council is demanding more and more of the member states, acting like a Parliament with democratic legitimacy, to the point where it now wants all councillors to be directly elected, but its composition is totally unfair. Larger countries contribute the lion's share of the EU budget and all they get in return is other countries turning the apparatus they've paid for against them and slamming a load of rules on them.
175 million Duxburians are represented by one councillor, and so are 700,000 Noctorians. Where's the fairness in that? Angleter has stopped bothering sending a councillor here. The previous Duxburian councillor had some kind of breakdown and fled Europolis. Inquista openly refused to comply with some EU law before the coup.
One councillor per country only worked when the Council was appointed and showed some self-restraint. If those days are over, fine, but let's have a truly representative Council. My proposal is that each member state is entitled to one councillor, plus one extra councillor for every 10 million people. So the Duxburian Union, with a population of 175 million, would be entitled to 18 councillors in total. To give a few more examples, Vayinaod would have 8, Pravoslaviya would have 4, and Noctoria, of course, would still have one. Simple, proportional, fair.
Requiring that each country elect its councillors by some form of proportional representation would ensure a diverse and representative range of opinion within each country's delegation, prevent the development of monolithic national 'blocs' – although I should point out that even the Duxburian Union would only have 11% of all councillors under my proposal – and allow for runners-up to be co-opted into the Council when an incumbent councillor resigns or when a country's entitlement increases, without the need for constant by-elections.
The question of what to do with the European Assembly is another good one. I believe this institution can be revived into a modernised version of what the Council originally used to do. Instead of having heads of state or government attending, it should suffice for the Assembly to consist of appointed government representatives. And it should have a say in passing EU law, like an upper chamber in a bicameral system, restoring the voice of the member states in how their own region is run.
I'm glad we're finally having this discussion; and hopefully we can start taking real steps forward on the road to Make Europe Great Again.
Cllr Tupac Shakur
-
Thank you, Councillor Shakur. By the way, I love your song Thug 4 Lyf, I really resonate with the message. Why haven't you released music since 1996? I'd love to hear more!
But back to the point of this discussion. I would like a more proportional system with the system that you advise but I am open to the idea of 1 seat per 20 million instead of 10 as others have proposed. I agree with the fundamentals of your proposal and I hope that it can become reality -- it is high time there was more representation of more people in the European Council.
I am also very much in favour of your idea for the European Assembly, Ministers in a government need to have a say in the running of the European Union to make the EU more democratic, and also giving elected governments' representatives a chance to liaise with their counterparts to forge a common path forward for the European Union.
Thanks for you contribution Councillor Shakur.
E. Whiteford
Premier Commissioner -
I am open to compromising on the European Council and I am open to the suggestion that Councillor Shakaur has made in this regard. However, I find myself in agreement with the Premier Commissioner, and I believe that member states should have 1 Council seat per 20 million people instead of 10 million people. Not only is a smaller Council more effective, but it is also more fair and balanced for smaller member states, who risk having their voices being drowned out by larger member states.
If we are to make the European Council more proportionate, then we ought to also make the European budget more proportionate. Instead of each member state contributing 0.1% of the total GDP, the EU should collect 0.1% of the total GDP of the entire EU, and each member states should individually contribute to this total 0.1% of the EU GDP amount based on the proportion of their seats.
Edward Firoux
Council Speaker and Councillor for Inquista -
Dear collègues,
I can understand why there's a feeling of unfairness amongst certains when we talk about the scale of representation Councilor-population.
I have many reasons why I can support this change. It's more democratic and logic. For example, when country A has a population of 70 million and country B has a population of 5 million... Both are equal to one. It's everything beside logic.
But when we make the calculus in the opposite direction, collègues. When these both aren't equal we will get an overruling by the bigger nations of the smaller ones. This proposal is restricting the representation of some Member States, Nofoaga for example. If we do follow this logic of representation based on population there is a restriction of democracy and smaller Member States hasn't the same voice anymore and will be overruled... Than you have to tell me why smaller nations should remain in the EU because I don't see it.
Thank you very much.
Mrs. Azaya Dubecq
EU Councilor for Nofoaga -
Colleagues, it has been a while since we have been discussing this. And I'd like to reopen this discussion due to our business by the past few days due to the high number of proposals we had to debate. And in the past few days, I also had the time to compile all our possible systems for our proposed parliament. You may see them in this spreadsheet. The data shown there such as the population is based on the latest available information and may have not been updated yet. And I'd like to apologize for the proposal I said at the beginning for I was reading a draft and it was not my final proposal in which I have left in my office when we first discussed on this matter.
Friedrich van Allen
Councilor, Kingdom of Reitzmag -
With the first ever session of the European Assembly completed, I believe we can now properly pass judgement on the institution. As far as I'm concerned, the meeting of the European Assembly was as successful as it could have possibly been. Much to my surprise, almost all the leaders from the EU showed up. However, I don't think that the meeting was that productive or accomplished that much in the end, despite it's success... and I perfectly understand why. There is no reason to believe that the region's leaders would ever come to a consensus, and quite frankly, I don't think many would care to. From what I was told by the Inquistan Archbishop - who herself was reluctant to go - it sounded as if the majority of leaders did not want to be there. So whether we reform the Assembly to be an assembly of leaders, or ministers, or whatever, I don't think that changes much. The bottom line is, there's no way it would meaningfully achieve things, and I don't believe we will ever see it meet again, ever, if I'm to be honest. Speaking purely on behalf of Inquista, the Archbishop, the entire Secretariat, and pretty much the entire College of Bishops, there is no appetite for any Inquistan to attend any sort of iteration of the Assembly in the future.
It's clear to me that the issues raised at the Assembly really ought to be addressed by the European Council, or through smaller summits held between countries. There is simply no need to try and "fix" something that doesn't work and nobody has the energy for.
It's sort of ridiculous how we even have a whole discussion dedicated to "fixing" this institution that literally none of us wanted in this first place. The European Assembly exists purely because it was stealthed into existence by the Councillors of Derecta and Montenbourg, who passed it 2-0. The Council Speaker at the time - who was not me, by the way - allowed it to pass without any scrutiny or participation.
In order to move this discussion forward, I feel like we need to vote on whether we want to KEEP or ABOLISH the European Assembly, and whether we want to MAINTAIN or REFORM the European Council.
This is just a discussion, so we can keep talking as we vote, and it's worth mentioning that this vote is NOT binding. We are merely collecting opinions.
Personally, I vote to ABOLISH the European Assembly and I vote to MAINTAIN the European Council as it is.
Edward Firoux
Council Speaker and Councillor for Inquista -
I object Mr. Speaker that you call it the European Assembly. But I agree that it was successful. With that, I suppose that I have found a good model for the future of the European Assembly and I think these are what I could propose to be some changes:
European Assembly
Composition: heads of state or government of each member-state
Leadership: President (circulates between the heads of state or government of each member-state every year)
Convention: in Europolis at least annually or if necessary
Mediation: Commissioner of Internal Affairs
Powers:- President may propose council bills as agreed in the annual meeting
- Entire Assembly may veto one law in the Acquis Communautaire during the annual session if garnered a simple majority of those present.
And to the poll you called Mr. Speaker, I vote to KEEP the European Assembly and REFORM the European Council.
Finally, regarding the European Council. There are, as I recorded, 4 proposed systems for the future of the European Council. I would like to request a vote on which of these 4 systems I have recorded which can be seen in the spreadsheet I made. Thank you!
With that, I vote FOR the Penrose System.
Friedrich van Allen
Councilor, Kingdom of Reitzmag -
Councillor van Allen, once we decide if we want to reform the Council or not, then we can proceed to vote upon the system. I don't believe we've even reached the stage yet where we've heard all the proposals for a reformed European Council. We will cross that bridge when we get there.
Edward Firoux
Council Speaker and Councillor for Inquista -
Thank you Mr. Speaker, I appreciate it.
Friedrich van Allen
Councilor, Kingdom of Reitzmag -
Changing the European Institutions is a no, no, no and again, if I haven't been clear enough, no. I think we should look at any other important things just that "Let's make an European Assembly so I can get more of my ELDR friends into it and make a Council with an ELDR majority woo!" Note that this is the funny way to say it, and believe me I don't want to be very hard cause then I would be taken to the ECoJ for being too hard towards a Councillor, a very rude thing!
About the first European Assembly meeting, I need to say that it's been a success, but I think some Presidents didn't want to be there as you said Mr. Speaker. They were not much, just 2: Mr. Maximillian and Mr. Isla, or that's what many sources say now. I will say that if we get rid of the Assembly, we could still host this meetings with no need of calling it "European Assembly", so nothing will change. And again, as you said, Derecta and Monteseux proposed this. Those countries are now gone of the European Union and mostly all they made was repealed because no one liked it but them. The only reason I find why Cllr. van Allen would like to keep it is, as I said, because he wants to have lots of ELDR people in the Council and have more projects taking ahead even if some are just crazy for Europe.
With that said, I vote to ABOLISH the European Assembly and I vote to MANTAIN the European Council as it is.
Donald D. Tusk
Councillor for Spain -
I wholeheartedly agree with Cllr Firoux on this, and therefore I vote to ABOLISH the European Assembly and MAINTAIN the European Council as is. If it turns out the Assembly is not abolished by this vote, the Empire of Inimicus will move for a form repeal of the act establishing the Assembly by Council vote.
Sir Augustus Barrington
Empire of Inimicus -
Whoah ho!
What do you know?
The European Assembly needs to go!
Speaker Firoux has made an excellent point. The European Assembly, while a seemingly good idea unto itself, loses its appeal in its execution. I fail to see the drive behind adding additional complexity to the EU's legislative framework. My only reservation to the abolition of such a body would be to maintain it for use in emergency situations, but even still, summoning such a massive group of individuals to an impromptu meeting with the required haste would be next to impossible.
The Assembly will never be actually productive, instead serving as more of a forum for Europe's leaders to take the stage. This is not something that the EU or this Council should be responsible for. If the nations of Europe truly want to establish an 'Assembly' of their own, let them do it themselves. Dragging world leaders into such a gathering like schoolchildren to an administrator's office was never, I'm sure, the initial intent of the Assembly, but alas, that is what it has evolved to become.
As such, I move to ABOLISH the European Assembly and MAINTAIN the council as is.
Charles Michel
Councillor for the Kingdom of Fremet
The Kingdom of Spain
