Ruthenish Neutrality Motion
-
Proposed by Cllr. Helhuan Zihuruthstukur (Ruthund)
The Realm of Great Ruthund having,
- Not committed hostile acts against other nation-states since 1921
- Been Constitutionally bound as a non-belligerent in foreign affairs, except in the Realm's own defense for its sovereignty as per the Act of Basic Law of 1994 (and before, the Edict of 1893)
- Been admitted to the European Union as a Member-State, entitled to certain rights outlined in the Constitution of the European Union
Evokes Article VI Section II of the Constitution of the European Union to call upon the European Council to vote on the granting of Neutrality Status of the Realm of Great Ruthund.
Councilors, my government has instructed me to propose a motion to grant my country the status of a Neutral State, as outlined in the Constitution of the European Union. My government has been in accordance with many of the duties of a Neutral State, but without legal protection that official Neutral States enjoy. Since Ruthund is now a member state of the European Union, I and my government asks this council to grant the Realm of Great Ruthund the rights of Neutrality. Thank you.
Helhuan Zihuruthstukur
EU Councilor, Ruthund -
Debate on this starts NOW and will last until 16:15 GMT on October 8th, 2020.
Ruthund is neither a neutral state, nor is it a law-abiding state which deserves the privileges that come with EU-recognized neutrality.
Ruthund has flagrantly ignored the European Council's Condemnation of the Coup in Icholasen, and has gone on to recognise the UNSR. This is a total breach of European law, and it is actually an offense that can be, and ought to be, punished by the European Court of justice - as we've just seen with the ECoJ fining the government and King of Reitzmag.
You cannot claim ignorance on the matter, because when your government recognised the UNSR, your country's very own opposition stated, and I quote, "this is not a not a move of a neutral nation". I concur with this assessment, made in your very own country, that this is not a neutral move. A state cannot be ignoring EU Council resolutions, break EU law, and still be considered neutral a entity. Again, if we're to be consistent here and treat your country like Reitzmag, then your government ought to be standing before the ECoJ as we speak. This is something that happens to rogue states, not neutral ones.
A neutral state is awarded certain rights and privileges by the European Union. We, as a Union, cannot in good faith award such privileges to a rogue state such as your own.
Edward Firoux
Council Speaker and Councillor for Inquista -
I agree with Councillor Firoux.
Councillor Zihuruthstukur, we are near neighbors in the north, but @Ruthund cannot be ignoring EU Council resolutions, break EU law, and still be considered neutral a entity. Montenbourg believes in the respect of the rule of law, and aproving this would be a breach of our rule. As a neutral country speaking in this Council we do not endorse this motion.
Emma Granger
Councillor for Montenbourg -
I'm deeply sorry but I have to agree with Speaker Firoux on this, but with different words and definitions. I don't think Ruthund is a rogue state in most of the matters, just in the UNSR recognition, because it hasn't entered any conflict on its own, but just recognised the Union of Nicoleizian Soviet Republics, which I would like to suggest to Cllr. Zihuruthstukur and his government to retire that recognition, because the European Court of Justice could fine you if someone would petition your government for doing such actions.
Then I think taking sides in conflict is also not neutral, which is another reason why we could not guarantee Ruthund is a neutral nation. I hope Ruthund takes the good path, the good way and if it makes the proper steps towards being completely neutral on everything and not just on the Eastern Haane's conflict, you could definetely submit this motion again and maybe it could be passed. But we need to see those steps towards being neutral. I trust on you and your government to move towards that path.
Donald D. Tusk
Councillor for Spain -
I must agree with Councilor Tusk and the Council Speaker. The fact that Ruthund has ignored the European Council's Condemnation of the Coup in Icholasen is concerning. To me, the Ruthund has shown through the recognition of the UNSR that it has no care towards the laws and resolutions of the EU Council. This is not the move of a neutral nation. A neutral nation would respect the laws of the EU Council; not go willy nilly and tossing a finger to that. The Kingdom of Reitzmag tried and got hit with a heavy fine. In addition, the recent trial involving the mentioned nation shows that the law of Council is supreme as long as it does not produce tyranny on the nations of the EU community.
Councilor Zihuruthstukur, I do think that your country should be brought to the European Court of Justice over your recognition of the UNSR. And I am sure pretty that if it did that, the European Court of Justice would rule against you as there is now a legal precedent that upholds the Condemnation of the Coup in Icholasen. I seriously question how neutral that Ruthund really is. With that reason, I will not support the motion at all and urged your government to retract its recognition of the UNSR as well.
Francis Plessis
EU Councilor for Leagio -
I stand against the opinion of the Speaker and Councillors before me. The Condemnation of the Coup in Icholasen specifically outline the European Union and its member-states as separate entities multiple times, it made no distinction that the EU member-states must follow the lead of the European Union in not recognizing the UNSR. I think I would know the intentions of the motion, I wrote it after all.
In fact the recent court case against the Kingdom of Reitzmag, made no determination that recognition or even conducting basic diplomacy with the UNSR was illegal, only when part of a larger military trade agreement was recognition rendered illegal. If you are going to use the court as an example Speaker, I hope you look at the specifics of the case's final ruling.
All that said, I'm inclined to support the motion for recognition of Ruthund as a neutral state.
Quoting the constitution here:
Section II. Duties of Neutral States I. Neutral states may not permit belligerent states to move troops, or convoys of military supplies, across their territory. II. Neutral states may resist attempts to violate its neutrality, even by force. III. Neutral states may not permit belligerent states to establish and use, or use already established, communications facilities in their territory for military purposes. IV. Neutral states may not establish, or allow belligerent states to establish, recruiting agencies for belligerent states’ militaries. V. Neutral states are not responsible for its residents travelling abroad to enlist in a belligerent military. VI. Neutral states which receive on their territory troops belonging to belligerent militaries shall intern them at a distance from the theatre of war. VII. Neutral states which receive on their territory escaped prisoners of war shall leave them at liberty. VIII. Though a neutral state is not called upon to prevent the export or transport of arms or other military supplies to belligerent states, nor to restrict or forbid the use by belligerent states of telecommunications apparatus owned by them or by the private sector, any such restrictions must be applied impartially to all belligerent parties. IX. Neutral states must ensure that private companies and individuals hold to the same standards of impartiality.Ruthund as far as publicly known, as yet to violate any of the duties set forth in the constitution that is required of a neutral state. If we are to consider Ruthund illegible for its support of the UNSR in its conflict, then Mountenbourg itself should be invalidated over its actions against the UNSR with actions such as declaring the Community Party of Icholasen a foreign terrorist organization. That is not say I wish that to happen, I am simply point out the hypocrisy in the stance.
I despise the UNSR, let me make that clear for all, but based on the current definition of the requirements to be a neutral state in the constitution, Ruthund has achieved the criteria and should be afforded the protection. Noting if they break their neutrality it is automatically absolved anyways. Nothing in the constitution explicitly states that the nation must adhere to a bizarre form of absolute neutrality that the Speaker wishes to place in this specific situation, otherwise neutral states would be unable to conduct foreign policy or make decisions to protect their own interests internally.
Is the Speaker to say that a neutral state should not commit to any diplomacy with Reitzmag, Inimicus, and Spain due to the various diplomatic squabbles within the group?
Cllr. Carita Falk
Archrepublic of Vayinaod -
I can admit when I am wrong, and I stand corrected about the ECoJ case. The Kingdom of Reitzmag was not fined for its recognition of the UNSR. I withdraw those specific claims.
However, the latter claim made by Councillor Falk is false. Section 1 of the Condemnation simply only refers to the European Union as a whole. The European Union includes both institutions and member states. Both entities have to adhere to the law. Article 1 of the Constitution defines the European Union quite clearly, and it even states that the European Union encompasses the representatives of our states. It's laid out right in the Constitution. If the intent was that only the Council does not recognise the UNSR, then that should have been written in the bill. However, it was not. It simply says the European Union, which again, encompasses both institutions and member states.
How Councillor Falk leap frogged to her final point, I'll never know. Quite frankly, I'm not even sure what she's on about. I'm also not sure how or why she characterized my own comments and reasoning as biazarre, considering it received agreement from three separate councillors. I suppose we're all crazy.
Lastly, Councillor Falk, you can save all your platitudes about despising the UNSR. At every turn, you've not only come to the defense of nations which recognize it, as we've seen now, but you often go to purposeful and painful lengths to do so. Moreover, time and time again you've attempted to ensure that the current status quo regarding the tolerance of that dangerous regime remains. The UNSR has even gone as far as to publicly praise you on your work for them.
Anyway, this debate is about Ruthenish neutrality, so I will not derail this conversation any further. This conversation needs to stay at hand. As long as Ruthund violates the Condemnation, then Ruthund is not neutral.
I actually think the Councillor from Spain made a very good recommendation, which I echo. These are my final thoughts and comments on the matter.
Edward Firoux
Council Speaker and Councillor for Inquista -
Councillors, my colleague from Austria has just proposed a new bill that I feel is of interest on this matter. As a result, I would like to put this debate on hold until a decision is made on the Freund's bill, if possible.
Helhuan Zihuruthstukur
EU Councillor, Ruthund -
Colleagues, I am saddened that the Speaker supports the ECoJ case against my country and its government. But did you know Mr. Speaker that Gallorum also recognized the UNSR and we just followed them? Your own country also announced its recognition to former Archbishop Paul Craticus. So, how can you be speaking like so if your country and its friends also did the same?
Friedrich van Allen
Councilor, Kingdom of Reitzmag -
Councillor Van Allen, you do realise I condemned both Gallorum and Inquista's recognition of the UNSR? I was especially vocal about my condemnation of Archbishop Paul Craticus and his government's actions regarding the recognition of the UNSR, which then resulted in them attempting to recall me from my office. Your comment suggests that I am both a hypocrite and somehow uniformed about the matter, but I think you've completely forgotten about this period of recent history.
Edward Firoux
Council Speaker and Councillor for Inquista -
I would like to clarify my position towards the matter: Spain petitioned the Kingdom of Reitzmag to the ECoJ for recognising the Union of Nicoleizian Soviet Republics, so in my opinion it would be really hypocrite that I would vote for recognising a neutral status to a nation that recognises the UNSR. Still, I haven't decided if I'll just abstain or vote Against, so I'll listen to this debate with lots of attention.
Donald D. Tusk
Councillor for Spain -
Helhuan glances over the members in the chamber and then sighs
Councillors, is this a Southern thing? Because to me, I am clearly a woman-- not a man. An old one at that, but still a woman. I understand Ruthund is still new to the European Union, so I would like to briefly go over naming conventions for Ruthens. Two things mainly: 1) Do not call a Ruthen by their second name-- it isn't a family name, and it sounds really weird when you refer to us by it-- except maybe in religious ceremonies. It is a patronym for boys and a matronym for girls. For example, my second name for example means 'Daughter of Ziharuth', which is my mother's name. Instead, just refer to me by my first name in all situations-- even if I have a title. So for me, Councilor Helhuan is how you are supposed to refer to me. Secondly, when you are in doubt about one's gender and know their full name (I know kids these days in my country today make this more useful than it used to), -zen indicates a patronym (meaning they are a man) and -tukur indicates and matronym (meaning they are a woman). That ends that cultural crash course.
Anyways now to the matter at hand. Firstly I have to say I am not particularly surprised that Firioux and a rather large portion of the EPA have came out against this, for it has been their agenda to strip nations of their rights when it does not benefit them and grant rights to nations when it bolsters their own nations. None the matter, I am heartened to see our neighbors in support of this-- perhaps because they understand what it is like to stand near the UNSR-- which we also share no love for. Compare this to the Far South Country of Inquista, which is oh so ever fearful of Nicoleizian plans flying over Saint Diminico. I think I can speak confidently for the country in that we much prefer if the Old Regime in Icholasen was our neighbor to the south. However, Ruthenish mead perhaps is not as intoxicating your bitter southern spirits, because we are sober enough to realize that the Old Regime is not returning anytime soon enough for our consideration. Our priority is to keep Ruthund out of war and to have good working relationships with our neighbors, and if that means we have to recognize an unsavory regime-- so be it.
And yet I hear people in this chamber that insinuate that Ruthund somehow supports the Nicoleizian Communist government and vaguely, Communism. To those people, it is clear you do not know Ruthenish history either. For it was the Communists of the Red School back in the 1850's that sent us into the bloodiest (civil) war that our nation has ever whitnessed. As far as the spirited yeoman Ruthen is concerned, they are fallen spirits and traitors to our nation and the only reason why the sit in the Feinkusomnring and not in prison is because they helped established the Republic. Or perhaps you are among some in the chamber that thinks that Ruthund is not neutral because we 'undermined' an EU Resolution. It is amusing that Ruthund is considered acting in bias when clearly, it was the resolution itself that in the strongest sense of belligerence, sided with a government in exile-- a resolution that Ruthund had no part in. Yet Ruthund has had a long foreign policy tradition dating back to Queen Palhanu where we have left the internal affairs of nations to our own devices. And as I and my government mentioned before, we are Constitutionally bound to this tradition in the Ruthenish Basic Law. Meaning the EU's bias in Nicoleizian leaves us with no choice but to 'violate' an EU resolution in order to preserve our traditions. We very much have a respect for the rule of law, but we also have a love for Ruthenish convention and tradition which has kept our nation free for nearly 1,000 years. A tradition of neutrality, which the EU has apparently hostility towards when it doesn't work their way. A truly unbiased and balanced institution indeed.
Lastly Councilors, I also hear from certain voices in the Chamber that Ruthund cannot become a neutral nation because of our rejection of the Condemnation of the UNSR. Before I spoke today, Councillors, I have read the EU Constitution and I cannot find a provision that reinforces this point of view. My vision is failing me nowadays, so perhaps I am mistaken. If so, I ask you point to me one provision in the EU Constitution that makes Ruthund ineligible for Neutrality specifically because of our rejection of condemnation. One is all that is required. Or perhaps you may be some of the school of thought that say that Ruthund becoming a Neutral State is a 'privilege'. If it is privilege Councilors, why does the title of Article VI of the EU Constitution read 'RIGHT OF NEUTRALITY'? Sure, Neutrality is granted at the discretion of the EU Council. But Ruthund, as I mentioned, has not shown one act of aggression against another in nearly 100 years, after the Zdertry Square Incident. Neither has it permitted any nation to operate militarily in their borders. I could go on but it would be more fitting on a written list than a speech, a list that perhaps the Speaker would like to see to witness the actions of our 'rogue state'. And despite our adherence to most EU regulations, except the one that have directly came into conflict with our Constitution, you are to reject the protection the EU guartentees to a neutral state, because you feel that Ruthund somehow needs to be punished. I would think carefully decision Councilors, because this sets a bad precedence. Because of the purpose of the Council approving Neutrality is to ensure an aggressive or hostile nation does not abuse the protections given. Ruthund is not such a nation. Ruthund is a nation that a few Councillor deem 'unworthy' because they dislike our nation's actions. What is to become of this? I tell you, it will end with Nations being denied their rights as outlined in the Constitution because a Nation says a politically incorrect statement in this chamber, or even perhaps because the Council does like the Head of State's mustache.
So I encourage you, Councilors, to think with reason and allow Ruthund to honor it time-honored tradition within the bounds of the EU Constitution.
Helhuan Zihuruthstukur
EU Councilor, Ruthund
#NordicBros -
Our goal here is to ascertain the validity and merit of the request from Ruthund for this council to grant them status as a Neutral State.
I disagree with the EPA's interpretation of the Condemnation of the Coup in Icholasen Act, and I've seen no evidence to demonstrate that Ruthund was acting in contempt of this Council or European Law. If my colleagues truly take offence to the actions taken by Ruthund, by Gallorum, and by Czech Slavia, I highly recommend that either they themselves submit a petition to the European Court of Justice or find someone who will. It is not the duty of this Council to punish nations who interpreted the laws of this union differently than we.
Also, just so that we are abundantly clear with this, I strongly recommend that everyone here go back and review the case Spain v. Reitzmag and pay very special attention to the opinion written by Chief Justice Ekka. A lot of the confusion in the initial part of this debate could have been avoided had my colleagues here on the Council done their due diligence in their arguments.
Yes, I stand strongly against the UNSR. My nation is caught in a renewed struggle that has endured for generations. But this does not mean that Fremet will resort to controlling the actions of other nations. EU memberstates reserve the right to recognise governments of their choosing, and I disagree with the interpretation put forth by the Speaker and those so virulently opposed to this concept of Ruthenish neutrality.
Let me be clear— in a perfect world, this council legislation would have prohibited recognition of the UNSR. I abhor any attempt at diplomacy with a regime that has time and again threatened my country, threatened the peace and stability of Europe, and threatened the sanctity of democracy in Europe. This is a country that has mocked us with some of the most heavily restricted elections in European history. This is a country with dozens of nuclear missiles aimed at my home country's capital. However, we cannot change our interpretation of the law when it suits our immediate or political needs. Doing so sets a dangerous precedent and is no better than the actions of those we are trying to oppose.
If I had known that the Condemnation of the Coup in Icholasen Act would have resulted in such sweeping restrictions against the sovereignty of individual memberstates, I would not have voted for it. What is to say that if tomorrow, my government opens a dialogue with the UNSR, ending decades of contempt? Would the Council censure Fremet for engaging in diplomacy with a condemned state in contempt of European law? Would my government find itself as a defendant in the ECoJ? No no— we mustn't let ourselves be overcome with fear, with anger at what has happened in Icholasen. We must stand with our ideals or not stand at all. Yes I and my government both oppose recognition of the UNSR, but I concede that that is the government that has established itself on the island.
There comes a point where we have to accept the reality of this situation. There are going to be countries where it is in the best interest of said country and the best interest of regional stability that they recognise the UNSR. If we are not willing to take definitive action beyond these bullshit diplomatic censures, then we have to find a way to live with the UNSR. That will mean something different for every member of this union. If we want the UNSR to fall, if we want to really oppose them, we will not continue with this divisive mess.
Fremet is playing the long game, and rest assured, we won't forget the nations that tapped out. My people have a very long memory. However, it is their choice. We will not become our own enemy and force our will upon those nations with whom we work with in this Union. Our true allies— our true partners— will not have to be forced into supporting our efforts.
Gallorum, one of Fremet's closest allies, recognised the UNSR. They still very much support our efforts against the UNSR, but their circumstances necessitated that recognition. We do not have to agree on everything, but we know that they stand by us, and they have shown their support time and again.
We all have our reasons for what we do, and every case is different. My government knows that. My people know that. I know that. You will have made your bed and will have to lie on it.
Mr Firoux, if you want so badly to punish these nations for breaching your interpretation of European law, then I suggest you either propose an amendment that would satisfy your objections and clarify this legislation or take it to the ECoJ. This mindnumbing chest thumping is getting us nowhere.
I support the motion put forward by the Councilor from Ruthund.
Charles Michel
Councilor for the Kingdom of Fremet
#NordicBros -
Coun. Michel, I thank you for being on our support on this matter. The decision of the ECoJ in the last Spain vs Reitzmag case must be revoked. However, I see this being against the constitution. A while ago, I received a report that the ECoJ is being challenged for its decision which contradicts the European Constitution and that I am deeply saddened that the decision of the ECoJ may not be appealed.
Friedrich van Allen
Councilor, Kingdom of Reitzmag -
Michel audibly sighed.
Mr Van Allen, I ask that you do not twist my words. I think you are missing the point of my argument. I'm not supporting you. I'm supporting the proposal made by the Ruthenish delegation. I wholly support the decision made in the case Spain v. Reitzmag, one that was not reached because of Reitzmag's recognition of the UNSR. Again, I strongly encourage you to read the opinion of the court. Reitzmag broke the law. A piece of the act that has no bearing on this debate. No one here has alleged that Ruthund has violated the section of the Condemnation of the Coup in Icholasen Act for which Reitzmag was found in violation of.
As for the petition recently submitted to the court by your government, I will not comment on an ongoing judicial procedure in this chamber. This nonsensical bullshit needs to be set aside so that this Council can truly weigh the merits of Ruthund in gaining neutral status.
To get us back to the actual point of debate here, Ruthund has demonstrated the qualities we should look for in a neutral state. If, Mr Speaker, you are so inclined to deny Ruthund's status as a neutral state on the grounds of violating the Condemnation of the Coup in Icholasen Act ((OOC: We need an acronym)), I would like to see some sort of effort made to bring this violation to the attention of the European Court of Justice or, alternatively, an amendment made to the legislation to clarify the sections in question.
Charles Michel
Councilor for the Kingdom of Fremet
#NordicBros -
Dear colleagues,
I am a great defendor of the sovereignty of every nation, also those within the European Union. Whether a state is neutral or not its up to them. So I understand the demand of Ruthund here.
Nevertheless, when a nation choses to join the EU, that nation isn't neutral anymore. Joining the EU is joining a friendship, a pact, a bound. We chose for each other to help and stand by. Of course like in every friendship there might be some troubles and some time of letting each other. But at the end when the friendship is a true friendship based on commitment and loyalty we do chose for each other. A nation within the EU can't be neutral.
Mrs. Paul-Gabrielle Muzhare
EU Councilor for the Republic of Nofoaga -
I am glad you have shown some consideration to our cause Councilor Muzhare, but I disagree with your interpretation on which the European Union stands. If the European Union were an alliance like you say it is, then why were there acts of aggression, interventions, and even wars on some occasions between Member States? It does not logically follow from face value. Nay, the European Union is an supranational body for which member states work together to preserve peace and promote economic as well as diplomatic cooperation. That is not the same as a binding alliance, even if the European Union does bestow obligations upon it member states. There is nothing (or almost nothing, for that matter) in the EU Constitution that requires a State to be anything other than being located in Europe. Its function is not charged by an agenda or a purpose to promote a particular interest or ideology. Rather, the goal of the European Union, as an institution, is to protect the interests of its member states to the best of its ability. So it upsets me when some Councilors in this room seem to think it is okay to promote interests of their own States or personal aspirations, at the expense of other Member States using the institution of the European Union.
Regardless even if we are to accept your interpretation of the European Union's function, there is nothing contradictory with what I am requesting. If you look at Article VI of the EU Constitution, you will find that nations who have shown that they are capable of caring out the duties of staying neutral during internal disputes can be granted certain protection by the European Union-- most notably the protections of it being illegal to declare War on the Neutral State. And since Councilor, you believe there is no such thing as a Neutral Member-State, then I am sure you will be happy in voting for this motion since me and my colleague have pretty thoroughly demonstrated that Ruthund merits these protections outlined in Article VI and is well-equipped to handle its obligations.
Helhuan Ziharuthstukur
EU Councilor, Ruthund
#NordicBros -
I support this motion, as I too, want to be recognised as nuetral
-
I would like to make a comment. Ruthund has in no ways violated the responsibilities of a neutral state. It has not made any acts of aggression toward a member state, nor has it declared any intention to support any such acts of aggression. This is all that should be said; this is all that needs to be said.
But in any case, I must continue. Councillor Falk, who is the author - the author! - of the Condemnation we seem to be so obsessed about - Councillor Falk has stated categorically that the Condemnation does not apply to member states. Until and unless the European Court of Justice rules otherwise, her word on the subject should be final. Councillor Firoux, Councillor Granger; all of you who claim this to be some sort of violation - you are deliberately trying to pervert the meaning of an Act, that has now been made explicit, as to meet your own perverted aims, centered around an irrational wish to restore the United Dominions of Icholasen as soon as possible. This will not happen. The UNSR has established itself firmly; we must now at the very least attempt to control it through reasoned diplomacy. We have dealt with an absolute monarchy that kills the overweight, a capitalist dictatorship, and perhaps worst of all a state whose monarch quite literally massacred his own government. We can deal directly with a communist state that at the very least has shown itself to possess a modicum more reason than these three.
Finally, I must point out the bizarre obsession of Councillor van Allen. This is not the place to go begging for other states to support your cause, a cause that has definitively shown itself to be illegal. Please stop.
I would also like to request a debate extension.
Eugen Freund
Councillor for the Federal Republic of Austria -
I second this request. It has come to my attention not everyone in the chamber has made up their mind yet on this matter.
Helhuan Ziharuthstukur
EU Councilor, Ruthund
The Kingdom of Spain
