Ruthenish Neutrality Motion
-
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 -
Debate will be extended until 07:45 GMT on October 11th, 2020.
Edward Firoux
Council Speaker and Councillor for Inquista -
I have taken great care examining the relevant documents and have come to the same conclusion as Councillors Falk and Michel - that a member-state recognizing the UNSR does not violate the Condemnation of the Coup in Icholasen and that recognition in general does not violate neutrality.
Since the Condemnation chooses to differentiate between "The European Union" and "EU Member-states", I have no choice but to follow the intent of the author in that Section 1, Clause 1 of the Condemnation is intended to apply to the organization as a whole and not to individual member-states.
This also means rejecting the Speaker's interpretation of Article 1, Section 1, Clause 1 of the European Constitution. Member-states are "the European Union" collectively, not individually. Ruthund is not the European Union and cannot recognize the UNSR on behalf of the entire organization, as only the Council can do that. The Council makes decisions for the European Union as an entity, national governments do not, and thus, cannot violate the Condemnation in that way.
Moving on to the Right of Neutrality, I see nothing in that Article that Ruthund has violated. The Article makes no mention of recognizing governments, which by itself shouldn't violate neutrality anyway - recognition does not create or even imply cooperation or alliance. Ruthund isn't working with the UNSR, just recognizing its sovereignty.
Therefore, the Union of Duxburian Dominions is inclined to support Ruthund's status as a neutral state.
Wesley Greene
Councillor of the Duxburian Union -
Illegal do you say Mr. Freund? Are you even losing you own mind? The ECoJ case on the Kingdom of Reitzmag has proven that the ECoJ has a wrong justice system. Those justices at the time of the case gave a verdict of guilty. That is contrary to your beliefs that my country did not violate the condemnation act when HM George I recognized the UNSR publicly. But now you're telling me that what we've done was illegal and what Ruthund, Inquista, and Gallorum has done aren't? You must be insane Mr. Freund and Mr. Michel.
I am an advocate of my country joining the EU but with such words I am forced to ask this institution. What is wrong with you? We give you millions of Euros for a budget and you're asking us for more using an ECoJ case with a wrong decision due to misinterpretation of the law. I am telling you all right now, withdraw your decision or we will leave the EU.
Friedrich van Allen
Councilor, Kingdom of Reitzmag -
I am sorry to be so blunt, but why exactly are we discussing this here? This has absolutely nothing to do with the neutrality motion, truly nothing. Please stay on topic; ask the Court of Justice for an appeal if you are so inclined. The European Council has absolutely no jurisdiction over these matters. We cannot in any way "withdraw our decision," nor can we force the ECoJ to.
As for my beliefs - and those of the ECoJ - they are not in any way contradictory. One can recognize the UNSR as much as one wants to - but one cannot engage in military trade agreements with it, as Reitzmag did. Those of us who agree with this interpretation, a group which include the very author of the condemnation, are, as such, consistent, logical, and not in any way insane.
I must once again ask you to stop.
Eugen Freund
Councillor for the Federal Republic of Austria -
I echo the statements made by Councilor Freund. I have no opinion on this issue, however I find it somewhat self-serving that Councilor Van Allen is redirecting the conversation to his own country. If he truly wants a proper discussion on this matter, I suggest he picks another time and not this meeting.
Helhuan Ziharuthstukur
EU Councilor, Ruthund -
I kindly direct Councillor van Allen to the European Constitution:
I. The European Court of Justice is the supreme judicial authority of and in the European Union.
Supreme - the Court's interpretations of European law overrule whatever opinions the rest of us may have. The Council has no judicial power anyway and yes it's totally irrelevant to the topic at hand.
Wesley Greene
Councillor of the Duxburian Union -
Therefore Mr. Greene, the ECoJ has decided that the interpretation of the Condemnation act shall require all member-states to not recognize the UNSR or they may be taken to the ECoJ. Well then, it seems I have I think 3 countries to take to the ECoJ.
Friedrich van Allen
Councilor, Kingdom of Reitzmag -
You are ranting, Councillor van Allen. Your country made a military trade agreement with the UNSR, and for that it was fined. Ruthund has not done so; it has only recognized the UNSR, and thus is free of crime.
Please pay closer attention to the rulings of the ECoJ, as well as to what we have been repeating endlessly to you for the past few days.
Eugen Freund
Councillor for the Federal Republic of Austria -
Voting on this motion begins NOW and end at 06:45 GMT on October 15th, 2020.
Edward Firoux
Council Speaker and Councillor for Inquista
The Kingdom of Spain
