Amendment to the European Heritage Site Act 2010
-
Debate on this amendment begins NOW and will last until 20:45 GMT on July 6th, 2020.
Oh man, this might be a little complicated, due to the European Common Culture and Education Act that was passed in 2018. I'll begin with what I like and hope to see amended.
I really like the aim of the latter part of this legislation, since I do believe it should be up to the member states themselves to maintain and fund their heritage sites, rather than the European Union and its budget. However, saying that these sites will be "maintained with European Union and national funds" is a bit vague. How much will the EU cover? It'll be very complicated when the time comes to create an EU budget. Instead of dipping our toes half into the water, I suggest that we should go the full way, and that we should just make the sites maintained with funds provided by the member states of origin and not by the EU.
I'm also fine with only updating the list every 6 months and only having one new site added per nation per year. However, we shouldn't use the term "monument", because that might otherwise not apply to the natural heritage sites or some of the other cultural sites. I recommend that you amend that clause and use the term "site" instead.
Now for the complicated part. Since we passed the European Common Culture and Education Act in 2018, it supercedes this one. In that act, the Heritage Site program is under the direction of the European Institute of Culture and Education. Amending this act to say that the Commission is in charge unfortunately won't change that. Personally, I actually want to see the European Common Culture and Education Act repealed, which could fix this situation, but until that happens, this part of the amendment won't mean anything. I also think you should be more specific when saying that it should be under the charge of the Commission. I.e. it should probably be under the supervision and charge of the Commissioner of Internal Affairs. Conversely, you could just remove this part and leave it under the direction of the European Institute of Culture and Education as it is.
Edward Firoux
Council Speaker and Councillor for Inquista -
As you said, this might be a little complicated, but not impossible at all. The European Common Culture and Education Act is something I've not ended to like at all, and it has been proved that all the words on there were for nothing, so I sum up to that wish of repealing that act.
About the common founding of the European Union and the Nation where the site is something I wanted to clarify. The member-state would carry with the 85% of the budget, while the EU would just assume the 15%, which is not much but we would need an EU Budget to see the real impact on the European Union's economy. And as someone is probably going to ask for repealing the European Common Culture and Education Act, I will let the Commission power to decide as it is.
I will make amendments after listening to other councillors, so we can get as many opinions as possible and get them into the amendments. Thank you for your comments onto my proposal Mr. Firoux, and I look forward to listen other councillors' opinions.
Donald D. Tusk
Councillor for Spain -
I'm proposing the following amendment to my proposal, as a correction of mistakes and adding the suggestions from Councillor Firoux:
Amendment I
SECTION II
3. The European Heritage Site List will be updated every year.six months.
4. Only one sitemonumentfrom each nation could enter on the list per year.six months.SECTION III
- Every and each site included in the Heritage Site List will receive special protection status and will be maintained with European Union and national funds. The 85% of the funds would come from the state that has been awarded to enter the list with their candidature and the other 15% of the funds would be given by the European Union.
Donald D. Tusk
Councillor for Spain -
I'm going to propose the following amendment:
Amendment II
SECTION IIThe European Commission is in charge of theThe Heritage Site Program shall be overseen by the Commissioner of Internal Affairs, who shall either approve or reject proposals to include new sites, or remove existing sites, from the European Heritage Site List.
Edward Firoux
Council Speaker and Councillor for Inquista -
It is now time to vote on amendmnets. Voting on amendmnets begins NOW and will last until 22:45 GMT on July 10th, 2020.
There are TWO proposed amdenments:
Amendment I - Authored by Cllr. Tusk
SECTION II
3. The European Heritage Site List will be updated every year.six months.
4. Only one sitemonumentfrom each nation could enter on the list per year. six months.SECTION III
- Every and each site included in the Heritage Site List will receive special protection status and will be maintained with European Union and national funds. The 85% of the funds would come from the state that has been awarded to enter the list with their candidature and the other 15% of the funds would be given by the European Union.
Amendment II - Authored by Cllr. Firoux
SECTION IIThe European Commission is in charge of theThe Heritage Site Program shall be overseen by the Commissioner of Internal Affairs, who shall either approve or reject proposals to include new sites, or remove existing sites, from the European Heritage Site List.
I vote FOR Amendment I and Amendment II.
Edward Firoux
Council Speaker and Councillor for Inquista -
I vote FOR both amendments.
Donald D. Tusk
Councillor for Spain -
I vote AGAINST Amendment I and FOR Amendment II.
Wesley Greene
Councillor of the Duxburian Union -
The Sublime Ottoman State votes AGAINST both Amendments.
Su Tefvik
EU Councillor, Court of Osman -
On behalf of the United Dominions of Icholasen, I vote FOR BOTH amendments.
- Councillor Duchess Poppy Carlton-Romanov
-
On behalf of the Archrepublic of Vayinaod, I vote FOR both amendments.
Carita Falk
Archrepublic of Vayinaod -
On behalf of the Commonwealth of Leagio, I vote FOR both amendments.
Francis Plessis
EU Councilor of Leagio -
On behalf of the Kingdom of Pravoslaviya, I vote FOR both amendments
Cllr Tupac Shakur
-
On behalf of the Kingdom of Reitzmag, I vote FOR Amendment I and AGAINST Amendment II.
Friedrich van Allen
Councilor, Kingdom of Reitzmag -
With 6 votes for and 2 votes against both Amendment I and Amendment II, both Amendments have PASSED.
The legislation has been updated to reflect the passed amendments.
Before I vote, I want to preface this with saying that I think there are still some amendments that need to be made to the European Heritage Site Act, and while I appreciate the changes to Section III - which are a positive - I do think that the wording and language needs some fixing. However, these changes, as a whole, are much better than nothing. Thus:
On behalf of the Most Blessed State of Inquista, I vote FOR this amendment to the European Heritage Site Act.
Edward Firoux
Council Speaker and Councillor for Inquista -
On behalf of the Union of Duxburian Dominions, I vote AGAINST the amendment to the Act.
Wesley Greene
Councillor of the Duxburian Union -
On behalf of the Kingdom of Reitzmag, I vote AGAINST this amendment.
Friedrich van Allen
Councilor, Kingdom of Reitzmag -
On behalf of the Kingdom of Spain, I vote FOR this amendment.
Donald D. Tusk
Councillor for Spain -
On behalf of the Archrepublic of Vayinaod , I vote FOR this amendment to the European Heritage Site Act.
Carita Falk
Archrepublic of Vayinaod -
With 3 votes for and 2 votes against, this amendment to the European Heritage Site Act has PASSED.
Edward Firoux
Councillor for Inquista and Council Speaker
The Kingdom of Spain
