Act for the Creation of a Council Committee on Political Freedoms

Inquista

Debate on this legislation begins NOW and will last until 04:30 GMT on July 9th, 2020.

I have two main critiques of this legislation, both of which pertain to the organization of this proposed committee. If these can be remedied, then I will support this Act.

Section 1 needs to fleshed out more. The original version of this Act was actually better in this regard, and was much more explicit in how the committee would organize itself. I assume you're proposing that this become a Council Committee, such as those which can be instituted a la the Committee Reform Act? Considering that Council Committees may very well be repealed before this very legislation is passed, I think this is unwise. I also think it would be unwise, generally, that this institution be governed by councillors. As councillors, we represent our respective states, as well as our people, and we advocate on their behalf in the European Council. Of course we comment and give opinions on the affairs which take place in the Union, and we sometimes take actions to condemn certain member states and so on. However, I am very uncomfortable with the idea of councillors - who are completely partisan politicians - sitting on an official committee, with the ability to give EU-backed judgement on the democracies of certain countries. Councillors are neither experts nor are they particularly neutral on the matter.

I'd much prefer if this organization was under the charge of the Commissioner for Internal Affairs, who should head this group, and appoint other neutral experts to sit on this council with them. The Commissioner of Internal Affairs is supposed to act as a neutral arbiter of the EU, and the scope of this legislation falls much more appropriately under their charge than it does to the European Council.

Edward Firoux
Council Speaker and Councillor for Inquista

Leagio

I have to agree with Councilor Firoux on this issue on proposed legislation. Councilors should not have the power to give rating on a nation's government. If Councilors have this kind of power, then it could result in a biased rating where a nation is suffering under a false rating because certain Councilors do not like how their government works. There needs to be some changes to this proposed legislation.

Another issue that i have with this bill is on the issue of media. Leagio has over 3 main media companies with various ideologies, which ranged from Conservative to Liberal. One could theoretically argue that all media is biased at one point to another. The last time that the Leagioan Common Government tackled an issue like that was during the Presidency of Dylan Fidalgo from 1970-1973, where he had the government's Ministry of Justice & Equality charge the Leagioan Broadcasting Company (LBC) for it's Liberal bias. This case (known as Leagio v. LBC) went all the to the Supreme Court of Leagio in 1972, the Court stated that the Government's charge for Media Bias was unfounded and a false charge that infringed on the people's right to freedom of the press. The ruling of this case is still uphelded today with the Commonwealth's new Constitution.

So, the part that defines a nation by its media bias is vague and a big issue of infringing on a nation's right to have freedom of the press. So, i would like to process a couple of amendments that i think would make this bill more effective and acceptable for the other members of this Council:

Amendment 1
IV. Using all information available to it, the Commission is to, on a yearly basis and when needed - a condition to be decided ~~either by the European Council or the Commission itself~~ - by the Commisioner of Internal Affairs issue ratings based upon the following guidelines, although not strictly according to them, as well as upon all other information it receives:

Full democracy: There exist opposition parties well-represented in the legislature. Representation in the legislature corresponds to vote percentages, within 2 percent. Media outlets are ~~unbiased~~ not suprorted monetarily by the ruling government. There exist no allegations of election fraud, voter suppression, or undue influence on politics by a power.
Flawed democracy: Opposition parties are well-represented in the legislature. Representation in the legislature is within 5 percent of vote percentages. Media outlets are ~~somewhat biased.~~ monetarily supported by the ruling government. There exist less than two major allegations of election fraud, voter suppression, or undue influence on politics by a power; however, none of these allegations come from the council as a whole.
Anocracy: Opposition parties have little representation in the legislature. Representation in the legislature is within 20% of vote percentages. Media outlets are ~~biased, and somewhat skewed toward a certain political ideology~~ strongly monetarily supported by the ruling government, where the ruling government somewhat attacks anyone who opposes the opinions of others not supported by the government . There are more than two but less than five allegations of election fraud, voter suppression, or undue influence on politics by a power; however, none of these allegations come from the Council as a whole.
Autocracy: Opposition parties are not represented in the legislature. Representation is entirely of one party, or of several parties that are affiliated or influenced by one. Media is ~~extremely biased, leaning entirely toward a specific political ideology~~ heavily monetarily supported by the ruling government, where the ruling government attacks anyone who opposes the opinions of others not supported by the government. There are more than five allegations of election fraud, voter suppression, or undue influence on politics by a power, or an allegation from the Council as a whole.

Amendment 2
I. Member states of the European Union must submit, on a yearly basis and when deemed necessary by the European Council, a report on their respective political situations, in the following format:

      Parties represented in legislative branch:
      Number of seats held by each party:
      Number of opposition parties:
      Number of seats held by opposition parties:

      Electoral system:

      Number of polling places per square km:
      Turnout last election (percentage):
      Percentage of votes for all parties:

      List all major media outlets, as well as their political biases and are they supported by government funding:

However, this is some of the items that could make this work but i would like to hear what other Councilors think about this.

Francis Plessis
EU Councilor for the Commonwealth of Leagio

Inimicus

Sir Augustus Barrington considered how to respond to this proposal, his nation - and, importantly, his family - having thrived on some of the worst anti-democratic tactics in the handbook. He swiftly texted Emperor Artabanos, the architect of the grossest offences to Inimician democracy since 1801. "Welp. We have like 0.0001 polling places per km and a 145% turnout. Good luck! xxx Artie", Barrington quietly read. This would no doubt be an interesting afternoon.

"Councillors, thank you. And thanks, especially, to Cllr Bourgaize, for proposing such a vital piece of legislation. Democratic accountability is at the very heart of the principles our Union is constituted on, and we in Inimicus have always sought, through tough and easy times, to advance the fair and equal representation of all peoples, both domestically and aboard. We therefore fully support the intent and purpose of this act, and welcome the discussion arising from Cllr Bourgaize's proposal.

That being said, Inimicus sees multiple problems with the implementation of the current proposal, some of which have already been addressed by some of the excellent speeches we heard from colleagues. Although I agree with Cllr Firoux's point that a Council committee may not be the best way forward with this proposal, I do not concur with his suggestion of an independent, supra-national panel of completely unknown experts being instituted to lead this committee. By principle, the Inimician government is of the opinion that it should be representatives from national administrations, working in tandem, to achieve the goals we all hold dear. Whether this means Councillors are part of this body, or other delegated representatives working on a rota basis, I will leave to your better judgement. Inimicus does not welcome more distant 'expert' committees, with no knowledge of local affairs and peculiarities.

We must also be mindful of issuing future Commissioners for Internal Affairs, principled politicians undoubtedly, but still single, individidual politicians, with such sweeping powers as to constitute an extremely critical committee like this. Inimicus will not support the Internal Affairs office obtaining such powers.

A final point, Councillors, before I end my address. What, exactly, is the actual purpose of this Act. If, say, Eastern Haane, by some miraculous intervention, was graded an Autocracy by this newly created untransparent Internal Affairs-led body, what would the implications be? Does the Council then act and intervene in said autocracies? Or, as it appears from the proposal, do we simply establish that Eastern Haane is an autocracy and, say, head off for a coffee, go about our daily lives, as though nothing has happened? The lack of consequentiality, the lack of a 'what happens then' sense, is a critical deficit in the current proposal.

As it stands, then, the Inimician government cannot support this Act. We will of course listen intently to other Cllrs' proposals and consider our position carefully."

Sir Augustus Barrington
European Councillor for the Imperial Government of Inimicus

I thank all of the Councillors who have made statements on this legislation. I had little to work on previously due to the relatively little feedback given on the subject of the previous version of this Act.

I agree with what the majority has said; however, I must here answer several questions that have been raised. The purpose of this legislation is to provide a basis for the making of condemnations in the Council as well as for the placing of sanctions by individual nations, as both I and my predecessor feel and felt that both of these at this time should have a better basis.

Based on has been said, I believe that many aspects of the original legislation would be better placed here. I thus propose the following amendments:

Amendment III

Section 1: The ~~Council~~ Committee on Political Freedom

I. A ~~Council~~ Committee on Political Freedom shall be established.

II. This committee shall have the responsibility of rating political freedom in the constituent states of the Union.

III. It shall have four members, chosen by the Commissioner of Internal Affairs. Such a thing will occur on a yearly basis, or when either the Commissioner of Internal Affairs or the European Council deem it necessary.

IV. If the Council feels that the choices of the IAC are not appropriate, it may force them to simply choose again.

Amendment IV

Section III - Accountability of the Committee

Not all of the attributes listed need to be in place for a regime to be classified as such, however. Because political conditions can change from year to year, it will be the Committee who will decide the extent to which each of the listed criteria will be considered, in addition to additional information provided through the ways previously described.
An organization, to be named the 'Council for the Regulation of the Committee on Political Freedoms,' shall be created.
This organization is to be made up of members nominated from five member-states of the European Union, chosen by sortition.
This organization's members must be qualified to do their work.
Member-states that have been rated as autocracies will not be allowed to nominate candidates to the Committee until they are no longer rated as such.
The Committee must provide a plan on how it is to weight the information it receives in making its future ratings to the regulatory Council for approval on a yearly basis before it begins work on ratings.
Before ratings become official, they must be presented to the regulatory Council. If any member-state has an objection, they too will present it to the regulatory Council for debate.
If the regulatory Council approves an objection, the Committee must again rate whatever has been objected to, using a new formula that must be submitted to the regulatory Council for approval.
At any time, the European Council, the Commissioner of Internal Affairs, or the regulatory Council may recall members from the Committee. It may also dissolve the Committee as a whole. Such cases would call new nominations for the vacant positions.
At any time, the European Council or the Commissioner of Internal affairs may recall members from the regulatory Council, or dissolve it as a whole. Such cases would call new nominations for the vacant positions.
The European Council may overrule decisions made by the regulatory Council.
The Committee is to publish its findings.

Amendment V

IV. Using all information available to it, the Committee is to, on a yearly basis and when needed - a condition to be decided either by the European Council or the Committee itself - issue ratings based upon the following guidelines, although not strictly according to them, as well as upon all other information it receives:

Full democracy: There exist opposition parties well-represented in the legislature. Representation in the legislature corresponds to vote percentages, within 2 percent. Media outlets are unbiased or are diverse in ideology. There exist no allegations of election fraud, voter suppression, or undue influence on politics by a power.

Flawed democracy: Opposition parties are well-represented in the legislature. Representation in the legislature is within 5 percent of vote percentages. Media outlets are ~~somewhat biased,~~ somewhat skewed toward the ideology of the ruling government. There exist less than two major allegations of election fraud, voter suppression, or undue influence on politics by a power; however, none of these allegations come from the council as a whole.

Anocracy: Opposition parties have little representation in the legislature. Representation in the legislature is within 20% of vote percentages. Media outlets ~~are biased~~, noticeably ~~somewhat~~ skewed toward a certain political ideology. There are more than two but less than five allegations of election fraud, voter suppression, or undue influence on politics by a power; however, none of these allegations come from the Council as a whole.

Autocracy: Opposition parties are not represented in the legislature. Representation is entirely of one party, or of several parties that are affiliated or influenced by one. Media is extremely biased, leaning entirely toward ~~a specific~~ the political ideology of the ruling government. There are more than five allegations of election fraud, voter suppression, or undue influence on politics by a power, or an allegation from the Council as a whole.

Martin Bourgaize
Councillor for the People's Confederation of Eastern Haane

Inquista

Voting on amendments begins now and will last until 22:45 GMT on July 10th, 2020.

There are a total of five amendments, which you should be able to reference above. Amendment I and Amendment V contradict one another, so Councilors ought to only pick one of those two.

I vote FOR Amendments II, III, IV and V. I vote AGAINST Amendment I.

Edward Firoux
Council Speaker and Councillor for Inquista

Leagio

Mr Speaker, i would like to withdraw Amendment 1 as I personally find Amendment V to be acceptable.

I vote FOR Amendments 2, 3, 4, and 5.

Francis Plessis
Councilor for the Commonwealth of Leagio

Duxburian Union

I vote FOR Amendment V and AGAINST all others.

Wesley Greene
Councillor of the Duxburian Union

Inquista

Amendment I has been withdrawn. All votes for or against it will not be counted.

Edward Firoux
Council Speaker and Councillor for Inquista

Fayrrendel

The Sublime Ottoman State votes AGAINST Admendements I and II and FOR III, IV, and V

Su Tevfik
EU Councillor, Court of Osman

Spain

I vote FOR all amendments as Amendment I has been withdrown.

Donald D. Tusk
Councillor for Spain

Inimicus

On behalf of the Empire of Inimicus, I vote FOR all amendments presented.

Sir Augustus Barrington

Vayinaod

On behalf of the Archrepublic of Vayinaod, I vote FOR all the amendments.

Carita Falk
Archrepublic of Vayinaod

Pravoslaviya

On behalf of the Kingdom of Pravoslaviya, I vote FOR Amendment V and AGAINST all others.

Cllr Tupac Shakur

Inquista

With 5 votes for and 2 against, Amendment II has PASSED. With 6 votes for and 2 against, Amendments III and IV have PASSED. With 8 votes for, Amendment V has PASSED.

The original piece of legislation has been updated accordingly.

Final voting begins NOW and will last until 07:45 GMT on July 14, 2020.

Edward Firoux
Council Speaker and Councillor for Inquista

Inimicus

On behalf of the government of the Empire of Inimicus, I vote AGAINST this motion.

Cllr Sir Augustus Barrington
Empire of Inimicus

Spain

Before voting, I want to clarify the reason of my vote: I support democracy, but ranking democracies won't get any benefit but more paperwork, and I doubt nations will do all the paperwork.

On behalf of the Kingdom of Spain, I vote AGAINST this act.

Donald D. Tusk
Councillor for Spain

Pravoslaviya

On behalf of the Kingdom of Pravoslaviya, I vote AGAINST this Bill

Cllr Tupac Shakur

Vayinaod

On behalf of the Archrepublic of Vayinaod, I vote FOR this act.

Carita Falk
Archrepublic of Vayinaod

Duxburian Union

On behalf of the Union of Duxburian Dominions, I vote AGAINST the Act.

Wesley Greene
Councillor of the Duxburian Union

Leagio

On behalf of the Commonwealth of Leagio, I vote FOR this Act.

Francis Plessis
Councilor of the Commonwealth of Leagio