Amendment to the Constitution for the Neutralization of the Council Speaker and Deputy Speaker
-
Mr. Tusk, do you really support the idea of depriving my country of representation? And now this forces me to think that if we did not help elections in such duration, you would propose things that would be against the interests of my nation and then pass it without our opinions and votes. That wouldn't have happened it Coun. Firoux did not do that. He did not let me explain myself. So, which is not democratic there?
This is the main reason why I supported to keep the European Assembly and to Reform the European Council in a voluntary poll in one of our discussions. Because it would not deprive any nation with a representative in the European Union's legislative body.
Friedrich van Allen
Councilor, Kingdom of Reitzmag -
Oh wait, now going against Reitzmag and its Councillor is depriving your country of representation? C'mon Cllr. van Allen, you are much better than this. Elections need to have a debate, need to have a campaign. If you don't allow candidates to campaign and tell their ideas in public media, I can't guarantee that those elections were democratic. And again, this kind of victimhood because "oh you go against my country everyday", "EPA is really bad, they don't let Reitzmic Councillor explain himself" and "you would propose things that would be against the interests of my nation and then pass it without our opinions and votes"; believe me I've never seen as much crying as you have done in my whole political career.
And again, reforming the Council just because of your constant victimhood is an horrible idea, and in the discussion, we all have said the same. Abolish the European Assembly, Keep the European Council as it is.
Donald D. Tusk
Councillor for Spain -
Before we get too far down the garden path, it is best we steer this debate to the proposal of the Councillor from Reitzmag.
Mr Van Allen, I find it highly concerning that you did not even consider the possible ramifications and timing of such an amendment being proposed to this Council, and, as such, I am forced to conclude that your motives are somewhat ulterior.
I have served on this council for over four years through several Speakers, and, in that time, I have never felt as though the partisan interests of that Speaker or the nation they represent influenced their duties as Speaker. Speaker Firoux is no exception. He has served this Council with distinction, and his efforts deserve to be commended.
This Council is largely regulated by its members. The Speaker simply does not have enough power to necessitate the requirement that they be nonpartisan. Not only that, but in requiring the Speaker to remain non-partisan, you are hampering that Councillor's ability to represent their nation as they should. If this Amendment were to pass, we would very likely be hard-pressed to find viable candidates for the Speakership, as who would want to sacrifice their nation's voice on the Council simply for the sake of maintaining decorum on the Council floor?
It is possible, after all, to serve in multiple capacities and balance the interests and duties of each, especially when the duties of Speaker are largely constant and really do not conflict with those of the Councillor. In addition to that, we have a framework to lodge complaints against a Speaker and act accordingly, should the need arise. We have yet to see such a need.
You compare with the European Council to that of national legislative bodies. This comparison is a moot point that ignores the immense differences and implications of those differences between two such bodies. Not only that, but I'd go so far as to argue that essentially taking a duly elected representative and confiscating their ability to represent their constituents in the interest of finding an enforcer of sorts is undemocratic. The High Commissioner of the Fremetian Staatsrat, what you might call a Speaker, is appointed by the Staatsrat from a list of present and former judges that have served with the Ministry of Justice and cannot be a sitting member of the Staatsrat. I am not saying that every country should change their national policy, or that a policy change in the Council is necessary. I am saying that denying a constituency their vote in a representative body (regional or otherwise), is wholly undemocratic.
Don't even get me started on the term limits.
How can you talk about European integration and remain so combative with duly elected representatives of Europeans? This is a clear and premeditated move against your perceived political rivals.
I am strongly opposed to this Amendment.
-
Dear Mr. Van Allen. Despite the fact that we are part of the ELDR together, I urge you to have some sense of reality. This amendment coincides with the many recoveries of amendments tabled which are already in the voting procedure. If it don't get your way, you withdraw.
When someone tells you the truth, you bite back hard, without any deliberate arguments or style. I am against this amendment to be clear.
Mrs. Azaya Dubecq
EU Councilor for the Republic of Nofoaga -
I must agree with Councilor Azaya Dubecq, Councilor Van Allen. I must urge you to keep your sense of sanity and reality.
Although, i understand the purpose of this amendment to avoid bias partisanship, I do not think that such an amendment is necessary. I think that many members of this Council would say that their nation's legislative branch that contains a speaker that is of a political group. There are many issues with this amendment that i feel that i must address.
First and this is something that i should mention as i believe other members in this body, including the Speaker himself, have mentioned. This amendment is something that I feel is just an attack against Speaker Firoux. I understand that you have, as the younger generations say, a beef with the Councilor from Inquista but this amendment is not the way to go at all.
Second, I do not know a legislative body on this plane of reality that places term limits on a position that a legislative body elects that ensures that it is sailing smoothly. I know some Territories and States in Leagio that place term limits on legislative members, but not on the title of Speaker; mainly because that they are already an elected official that might have term limits. None of the legislative branches that i witnessed or read about prevent an individual from being affiliated with a friendly political group.
I must at this point state that i am against the Amendment for i find it to be unnecessary, redundant, and aggressive towards one individual.
Francis Plessis
Eu Councilor for Leagio -
Councillor Helhuan stands up, and opens up a folder. She spends one split moment to peer over notes and then sighs
This might be an unpopular opinion in the Council, considering most of you are EPA members-- surprise, surprise, by the way, that this legislation is not well received. But anyways, I do actually think that Councillor Van Allen's Amendment does have some merit and touches on some problems that the EU Council is plagued by. That being said, there is one thing in this piece of legislation that I do not think is necessary. For example, this Amendment reduces a Speaker's term to 6 months. Why? I do not see the need to reducing the office's term if we are already weakening the position to begin with. And more importantly, isn't 18 months a short term to begin with? Council meetings do not need to be cluttered up by constant Speaker elections.
Similarly, term limits may sound like a good idea at first, but I ask the Councillor from Reitzmag what that will truly accomplish. Even if the current Speaker is removed, it is likely that an EPA candidate will take his place. And to the eye of an ELDR Councillor, I assume that this change will bear little distinction. No, term limits are simply not practical for this Council.
Next I would also like to address some of Councillor Firoux's points. The speaker claims that we are all equals in this Council, but is that really true Mr. Speaker? Because the Speaker has obligations and responsibilities that not every Councillor has. If I remember correctly, the Speaker has the power to remove people from the chamber. Now if I am having a bad day in the chamber, I will confess that I wish I had that power, but I don't. Because I am not the Speaker, but Mr. Firoux is. So no, we are not all equal. It is crucial that the Speaker act with impartiality and fairness. And if being in a Eurogroup gets in the way, I cannot help but say that Mr. Van Allen has a point.
Perhaps the strongest argument the Speaker brings forth is concerning the constituencies going unrepresented. Political Groups are not the sole factor in electing a Councillor-- we should keep this in mind. Correct me if I am wrong but as far as I can tell, the Speaker still can vote on behalf of its constituency. I am not in a Political Group, Mr. Speaker. And I am doing quite fine representing the Ruthenish people. The only agenda I see being hindered is the maintenance of EPA hegemony in the Council.
Overall however, I am in support of this Amendment. Should the 18 month term with no term limits be reinstated, you will have my full support.
Helhuan Zihuruthstukur
EU Councillor, Ruthund -
I am happy to see that someone in this chamber understands my point. And I am glad if the honorable gentleman from Ruthund will submit an amendment for this.
Friedrich van Allen
Councilor, Kingdom of Reitzmag -
Amendment I-- Authored by Cllr. Helhuan
Section IV. Speaker of the European Council
IV. The Speaker is elected for a period of eighteen months with unlimited terms
6 months with a limit of 3 terms. There is a seven day period for nominations and debate, followed by a seven day period for voting. Voting shall follow the Alternative Vote system. -
Debate has now closed. It is time to vote on amendments. Voting on amendments begins NOW and will last until 09:15 GMT on August 16th, 2020.
There is one amendment, proposed by Councillor Helhuan:
Amendment I
Section IV. Speaker of the European Council
IV. The Speaker is elected for a period of eighteen months with unlimited terms6 months with a limit of 3 terms. There is a seven day period for nominations and debate, followed by a seven day period for voting. Voting shall follow the Alternative Vote system.
I vote FOR the amendment.
Edward Firoux
Council Speaker and Councillor for Inquista -
I vote FOR the amendment.
Friedrich van Allen
Councilor, Kingdom of Reitzmag -
On behalf of the Kingdom of Spain, I vote FOR the amendment proposed by Cllr. Helhuan.
Donald D. Tusk
Councillor for Spain -
On behalf of the Kingdom of Montenbourg, I vote FOR the amendment proposed by Cllr. Helhuan.
Emma Granger
Councillor for Montenbourg -
On behalf of the Kingdom of Fremet, I vote FOR the Amendment.
Charles Michel
Councillor for the Kingdom of Fremet -
On behalf of the Realm of Great Ruthund, I vote FOR all amendments
Helhuan Zihuruthstukur
EU Councillor, Ruthund -
On behalf of the Archrepublic of Vayinaod, I vote FOR the amendment.
-
On behalf of the Republic Nofoaga I vote FOR this amendment.
Mrs. Azaya Dubecq
EU Councilor for the Republic of Nofoaga -
On behalf of the United Kingdoms of Mennrimiak i vote AGANIST the amendment
Adam Karlssen
Councillor for Mennrimiak -
With 8 votes for and 1 vote against, Councillor Helhuan's amendment has passed. The legislation has been updated to reflect the passed amendment.
Final voting begins NOW and will last until 21:00 GMT on August 19th, 2020.
On behalf of the Microstate of Inquista, I vote AGAINST this amendment.
Edward Firoux
Council Speaker and Councillor for Inquista -
On behalf of the Kingdom of Spain, I vote AGAINST this amendment.
Donald D. Tusk
Councillor for Spain -
On behalf of the Kingdom of Fremet, I vote AGAINST this amendment.
Charles Michel
Councillor for the Kingdom of Fremet
The Kingdom of Spain
