Internal Affairs Debate Aug/Sep 2020
-
Thank you for your questions Darienne. In the first one, the Coup of Icholasen was a military coup while the “Coup” of Inquista was not. Secondly, the wording of that act was not exact and even exaggerated the situation in Inquista and thirdly, the country has gone under free elections in which the Inquistans chose a new archbishop.
But that does not stop right there. The pre-Mikaela Klienberg Archbishop Government was actually democratic until the Inquistans found out some of their members were crusaders, when Councillor Firoux was called back as a move by the old Archbishop Craticus, who was a mass murderer, to get other opinions that differed from him not to be heard. The people found out what was going on in their government, and they revolted against those persons that were breaking the law systematically.
In Icholasen, this was not the case. The self-called Union of Nicoleizian Soviet Republics took power by military actions which are still happening in a guerrilla way, in the Nicoleizian mountains. What happened in Icholasen was, is and will be cruel. That’s why we need to stop it as soon as possible, because the actions taken by the undemocratic government of an unrecognised country such as the UNSR, which in my opinion, does not exist, are like a dictator would take in order to keep control of his country. That is a shame, and I think we all need to agree on here. We, as the European Union, not as individuals, need to let the Nicoleizians return to their lands freely, and that is what the European Union’s common answer shall be. And I need to mention that no country is going to solve this alone. We need to solve this together.
Now moving on to the second question. Trympov is running for Premier Commissioner, I am running for Internal Affairs. I have lots of respect for him, but I can’t just take his comments seriously, I know someone here who endorsed him back in the past and now he has taken the same message but in a slightly different way.
The 5G plan will go through mobile plan, but we are not planning to do it a European plan or something like that. Subsides are going to be given to those enterprises which would like to install their 5G network, and they should use that money for that. There will be some perquisites to get those subsides given. For those countries with less resources, we would like to have a shared development along with the European Union, private sector and the member states. I know that Trympov hates everything that he doesn’t own or run, but what could you expect of a populist candidate like him?
Now, let’s talk about the money. Subsides will always return to the European Union and the member states at some point. But if the Council opposes to these subsides, and there is a majority to give loans to the private sector, I invite them to vote against the subsides and go for the loan, but I need to advise them about something: A loan is worse than a subside, and if the enterprise goes bankrupt, you are not getting the money back in years. The member states, the Europeans can relax about the money management by my side. I’m not going to expend the European money on stupid things. I didn’t do it on my first term, and I won’t do it on my second one if that happens, I hope it does. Thank you.
-
Thank you yet again.
The aid that I propose is meant to be paid from a system developed through deliberation between national, ethnic, cultural, and professional groups throughout Europe, possibly through the reformed European Assembly that I have proposed.
However, I do not know the details of this system because it has not been developed yet. There has been no meeting, there has been no deliberation; how could it have? The little that I can tell you; that it will likely be separate from the EU budget, that it will function on the principles of good governance; is from my own inferences. What promises I have made, however, will be kept, for my promises are not solutions; they are goals to be met.
As for EU-wide referendums, there are a number of instances in which I would support them:
- in the case that I am asked to, by petition, by national governments, by societal groups, or by mass organizations
- in cases where it is unclear as to whether a proposal would cause harm, considering scientific evidence
- in cases where the autonomy of member states or societal groups, on a massive scale, must be sacrificed for individual autonomy, or vice versa.
However, specific decisions will be made on a case-by-case basis, using the advice of experts, except in those cases falling in the first category.
-
Many of the fantastic workers involved with the EU are highly talented and determined, I am sure regardless of the status of the EU budget they would be sought after for employment. There is just a simply reality that most people who work for governments in some way, shape or form that it is not guaranteed.
There's few EU programs that offer direct support to people in terms of supporting their livelihood, the ERF being an example. Those are not the kinds of programs I am seeking to cut, I am more focused on firstly cutting down on the ESA until it can be decided as to the kind of space administration it should be. The ESA's own founding act implies it is simply a sort of regulatory and small research body meant to foster inter-agency relations between EU members; meanwhile its own director is intent on making it some full-fledged space agency which is not what the EU needs. Member-states who want investments in the space industry are doing amazing on their own, and the EU has no business getting involved.
But before we even discuss direct cuts to the EU budget, I want to cut contributions across the board to .06 of a nation's GDP. The EU only uses about 50% of the total allotment given by member-states, and that has been historically consistent so why must nation's send money to the EU only to get a fairly decent sized portion back. Any jobs lost at the European level can be applied by at the local and national levels by making sure more money stays with member-states before the EU even touches it.
Cutting contributions will lessen the strain on smaller nations, and insure that larger member-states aren't paying more than they should into the EU's coffers.
Mr. Trympov is not wrong, I just have different views on how coups and more specifically revolutions can be handled. Having different opinions on what is clearly a grey area, does not invalidate either or.
Calling the situation in Inquista a coup is illogical in my opinion, unfortunately the common discourse in politics has turned into such a soundbite I should say. Paul Craticus was exposed as being involved in a terrorist group, among many other horrible things that in my opinion invalidates the status of his elections and position as Archbishop. It was a populist move towards removing him, I just wish it did not turn violent. I do not wish death upon anyone.
Meanwhile the situation in Icholasen was not a popular movement, as much as certain Czechs may try to convince you. People are afraid for their lives there under that authoritative dictatorship, who is connected to a terrible history. These aren't brand new communists, it is the same old regime that cause thousands of deaths, and that can not be allowed to remain.
There is in my opinion a difference between both events, where one group becomes an illegitimate government through military juntas, while another removes an illegitimate government through the people.
There has to be a direct line to democracy that is honestly reliant on how other states view potentially rogue ones, Inquista met the bar through the context of the situation surrounding Mr. Craticus. It was just in removing a murderer, unlike the communists purging a peaceful government.
John Oliver
-
Thank you for those questions Ms. Lake. Of course for the first question, I commonly mentioned in my campaigns that Reitzmic companies will be the ones to carry the works on the projects I propose. But to clarify, I only said these Reitzmic companies will be the ones to carry the work to ensure that at the projects would be possible and there would be a solidly established contractor. Work on every single project I mentioned would be done by companies around the EU. There would, of course, be bidding and whoever wins to give the cheapest price possible will be the final contractor. The work on such projects have to be collaborative as I always stress out in my campaigns that "everything is possible if we work together".
As a lawyer, I have practiced my career for years and I have never encountered a law that bans private enterprises of a country from doing the job for a multi-national government institution. Governments commonly contract private enterprises to do the work on projects instead of the government itself finding its own manpower.
Moving on to the next question, I have already prepared for this and many people really ask me about this. My explanation is very simple but I'd like to give a detailed answer. Europe can do all of this on its own, we don't need subsides for this. If we remove the unnecessary bureaucracies that get their own unnecessary shares from the European Budget then we will have more money to use for these projects. I have estimated the cost of all projects I have planned for the administration in case I won and I saw there is still a big portion left for future initiatives. The EU can survive without getting additional money from private corporations. And some even ask me, Mr. Winston launching satellites to space are expensive, how will you fund those projects with the ESA still not capable of sending rockets to space at this time? Well, simple answer, there are existing facilities already and existing rockets in the member-states. And the ESA can just borrow these rockets and these facilities to launch these satellites until the ESA can launch these satellites on its own. For the Green New Deal, we can do this too without increasing the EU Budget. We can all do everything without spending more from our constituents. Thank you very much!
-
Individual Questions:
You have 2 minutes per question. (OOC: 300 words, separate these with 3 dashes.) If you feel you have been mentioned, please feel free to take 1 minute (OOC: 150 words) to respond to your fellow candidates.
Juncker:
You support a Schengen Area, would this be optional or compulsory?
Do you support your government's taxing of the straights? If you do support this, in your pre-debate answer that the economies of the EU should be much more integrated - surely this is a barrier?
Winston:
Why do you think the unified standard curriculum idea for EU schools has been so widely condemned, even by Senator Kerstin?
Will you accept the support of dictatorships, such as the one in Noctoria?
Oliver:
You're the only candidate for IAC who doesn't believe the EU should guarantee marriage, saying it should be decided by the states. But, you agree that other rights should be guaranteed by the EU. What's different about this right?
You believe the UDoHR should only count for EU citizens - will this not lead to human rights breaches that are unpunishable by the EU?
Weber:
Which particular structures ' allow and support' the 'addictions' of EU leaders?
You said that you would like to see 'tripartite discussion between experts, the European Assembly, and the IAC' in order to 'develop a plan for the creation of a more egalitarian EU.' Obviously you will take on board the advice of experts and member-states, but what would you propose at this event?
You have until 2pm on the 1st of September
-
I support a Schengen Area, but this wouldn’t be compulsory for member states. We need to get a huge cooperation to achieve this Schengen area, but I highly doubt that we get any agreement concerning the proposed area, and I will tell the Europeans why this is not possible as of now.
The Schengen Area would be optional, but it would also mean the end of borders between member states. These borders would be controlled by member states but they won’t have as much freedom as they have at the moment. I included the Schengen proposal at the European Heads of Government or State meeting, but the feedback I received about it was really pessimistic. I kind of understand the opinions of member states, and I want to say that I had a better feedback on the Free Trade topic. For sure, if we get a baseline agreement for free trade in the European Union that again, it would be optional, this would create a path which could lead to the creation of a Schengen area in our Union.
But of course, this is not a matter of individuals like others have said during their whole campaign and now they say “that is not accurate”. Mr Winston, I haven’t needed an enterprise from anywhere in Europe to get transparent and fair bids for my projects or my appointments. Europe is formed by 31 nations plus Europolis and the Holy See, is not only formed by Reitzmag. I don’t have anything against Reitzmag, but if you are turning the Commission on a place to do illegal things and split Europe in 31 pieces, which would represent the 31 nations that form Europe, this is going to be the last term of a European Commission. And I don’t want that.
Moving on to your next question Darriene, again thanks for all of them. Concerning my government taxing of the Straits of Gibraltar and Adventuranza, I would like to say that I’m a European Commissioner for Internal Affairs and not a Spanish Politician in the Congress, so I won’t focus on my government but on the European Union.
With that said, I proposed the creation of the European Oceans and Waters Agency, which would regulate the European Union’s see traffic, make legislation on the International Waters and water management in general as giving a common answer from the European Union in coordination with the member states on how to protect and manage our waters, including the Internal Affairs Commissioner as another mediator in this matter. That will for sure end with some disputes that there could be around many European Nations about these sound taxes.
Again, this has to be done in a common way instead of an individual way. If we want the European Oceans and Waters Agency to work, to set new regulations about the European waters and more exactly, to be agreed between member states, we will need to cooperate between all the member states despite their relation with other nations or myself. The European Union shall be over a relationship between 2 nations, 2 leaders or the people from some member states. The project only works with cooperation, solidarity, empathy and many other European values that we have taken as ours.
That’s why I want to tell every single spectator today to let our differences aside in some matters. I know sometimes it’s difficult, but we need to protect the European Union. Don’t let the populisms to convince you, as they want the worst for the EU. We need to get this done together. Thank you.
-
For the first question, it is the structure of the current EU. We have no system in place to ensure that those in elected office actually represent and work for all their constituents.
As the old adage goes, "Power tends to corrupt and absolute power corrupts absolutely." In the institutions of the European Union, despite the existence of a democratic veneer, members hold almost absolute power over their constituents, meaning, that of course, they have become corrupt. This is already evident from a number of Council discussions, as an example, where it appears that a number of Councillors no longer believe that people are deserving of life itself, believing that it is perfectly fine to practice what is essentially human sacrifice in the name of ideology.
What we must do, as such, is forge a connection with the constituents of the EU. We must, all of us, must not govern for ourselves but for them. Through mass organizations, other representatory bodies, and referendums, we will we be in contact with them constantly, forming policy not on our own but through deliberation with them.
Another contributing factor is our separation from experts. We ourselves proclaim to be them, but in reality we are not. We must create advisory bodies which we shall ask, question, and deliberate with.
As for the tripartite discussion, I must clarify - it will be a meeting not just with member states but with ethnic, professional, and cultural groups as well.
However, as for the proposals made, they will largely be focused on wider issues. My goal is not to impose solutions on member states but instead to have them create them.
These issues will include:
- limitations on resource extraction
- transition to green energy
- unified plan to foster economic independence both individual and national and to mitigate negative effects caused by possible transition and limitation
- expansion of representation and autonomy for ethnic, cultural, and professional groups.
- possible creation of a 'social partnership' between unions, professional organizations, and governments.
- possible creation of social corporatist charters in individual member states
Nothing concrete will be imposed; these will act as discussion topics meant to develop what could be a more coherent and better solution to the problems that they address - namely, inequality and the dire state of the current natural environment.
-
Our fact checkers have concluded the claims of Winston WOULD be illegal. It's illegal because he's not allowed to be a representative of his own government. He’s basically not only saying that his country will already do these things for the EU, but he's promising them as if he's literally the entire country of Reitzmag. But he's also using it as reasons that we should elect him, which also basically insinuates he will enrich Reitzmag.
Therefore, it would be illegal, and also definitely immoral. Winston can have 1 minute to respond to these facts.
-
To myself at least, I don't know how certain legal scholars may agree with this assessment, the right to love is universal through the UDoHR's right to freedom of conscience. Marriage while a commonly accepted form of government contract, since I don't think you can or should force religions to apply marriages they don't believe in, is just a form of government contract. Nations have the right to organize contracts how they see fit.
The application of any specific benefits to that contract should apply equally to everyone, so there must be an alternative. Regardless however, what this means is that at the end of the day its a local or national issue, not a European one.
Provided people under the LGBT or potential extended umbrellas are given an alternative, and not facing more heinous forms of discrimination forbidden in the UHoDR the EU should stay out of the conversation and let local cultures figure it out themselves.
The EU is a compact between member-states seeking common goals, any protections afforded by law should apply to those only within the confines of the EU. I believe if some sort of human rights violations against some unknown group outside legal protections of the EU were to occur, ethical pressure upon the guilty state would be more than enough to stop it.
I fully trust our members to not commit human rights violations, just because the EU's UDoHR should only apply to the UDoHR. It applies only for our region, and should only apply to protect out citizens.
John Oliver
-
Despite not having all the answers, we are running out of time so I am going to ask all of the candidates for their 3 minute closing statements.
-
First of all, I would like to thank Darriene for hosting the debate really good. Thank you for all your effort on organizing this debate.
Europeans, today you’ve been able to see who will lead Europe through the right path and who will sink us. While we have a candidate that has lied to you in this debate, I have always said the truth and I’ve put an effort to answer all the questions and every time it was needed. He didn’t, and now he is here, silent, with nothing to say. That’s not the Europe we need.
Then we have Mr. Oliver, who’s Dragan Trympov running mate and collaborated to murder a girl. He is trying to protect countries as the UNSR by saying that UDoHR shall only apply to EU citizens, he is willing to make immigration harder, because his running mate hates them and he wants to leaveyour nations aside if you are poor. This isn't the Europe that we want.
And the other candidate is Ms. Webber, which needed my mediation to control her own country. How will she manage the European Union if she couldn’t manage her own country? But moreover, I’m sure she would support the USNR as many other PEL members, which by the way, has UNSR members on it. But she is running as independent so we can vote her by indirectly voting the PEL. Intelligent move, but the Europeans aren’t silly. This isn't also the Europe that we need.
What does Europe need? It needs to be open-minded, equal, solidary, united, empathic and needs to get a good leader to take us through the right path. A new European Deal, equal Union where no one is left behind, protecting the future generations, creating new programmes to push forward tourism, protecting and regulating the European Waters by the creation of the EOWA, giving freedom to schools instead of making a unified standard curriculum, having a transparent Commission which does not give preference to certain countries and does not make illegal things.
Europe, we can make great things together, we just need to choose the right person to represent us, because despite being a candidate, I’m European too. These elections we need to leave populists like Trympov and Oliver aside, Communists that have done nothing for Europe aside and smoke sellers like Winston aside. The European Progressive Alliance is the only party to have proven it does great things in Europe. And together, we are making a better Europe. Working for the EU, for all the European countries, for democracy every day of my second term if I’m re-elected.
We are going to make this possible, together, with your votes. Good night.
The Kingdom of Spain
