Code of Conduct of the Council of the European Union
-
Hrayr Cruthin stood to speak
I’d first like to thank Cllrs de Berlanga and Firoux for introducing this bill.
I certainly believe that we should seek to add more of a framework or structure to processes in the Council, and I welcome the fact that we are as a body considering these issues. However, I have a number of concerns about this legislation that lead me, unfortunately, to be unable to offer it my support.
The first is that Angleter firmly believes in the absolute right of the member state to appoint whoever it wishes to represent it in the Council, and to choose that person however it wishes. This bill seeks, in my view, to impose an unacceptable amount of oversight from Europolis on that process.
I believe, for example, that an oath or affirmation is entirely unnecessary. What’s more, by dint of existing, no matter how uncontroversial its wording might appear to us, it imposes a barrier between appointment by a member state and taking one’s seat in the Council.
And, to be perfectly frank, I do take issue with the wording of the oath and of Section III more broadly. Councillors are appointed to represent their member state. They are certainly not called to bear true allegiance to the European Union, nor should they consider themselves to have a duty to act in the interests of the EU as a whole. This section is more appropriate for members of a national parliament, which the European Council is not.
I'd also note that subsection III.II potentially conflicts with the concept of diplomatic immunity, and with the bill itself in subsection II.I, which draws a distinction between representative duties and private and personal lives, and presumably leaves it up to the ECoJ to decide where, exactly, that distinction lies.
My second issue with this legislation is that, in large swathes, it flagrantly violates subsection I.III of Article II of the Constitution, that all views can be voiced in the European Council. The Council is intended to include the honest views of all the diverse nations of the European Union, and as such it cannot be anything other than a body of pure free speech.
While, of course, we have some rules to preserve order in this chamber, such as when we can and cannot debate, we absolutely should not restrict the content of our speech. Especially not in such vague terms of 'would cause significant damage to the reputation and integrity of the Council as a whole, or of its Councillors generally', or 'failure' to 'treat their fellow Councillors and Commissioners with dignity, courtesy and respect'.
I believe that this legislation can be rewritten and improved, and I would be happy to work on that process; but I shall not seek to gut it with amendments. I believe that many of the good aspects of the legislation, such as rules on expenses, bribery – might I also suggest bullying and sexual harassment of staff – should be fleshed out further, and the aspects I have criticised removed.
For the meantime, however, I believe the best course of action would be to vote this bill down and revisit it at a later date.
-
Marion Rousselot approached her microphone and stood in the Council for the first time.
"Firstly, I would like to thank the Baschet Government in Gallorum for sending me to this crucial post. I am honoured to stand in the same chamber that has brought Europolis some of its key champions: Maleeka Licszkoszi, Livia Arcturus, Rushanara Ali and others who championed reform for the benefit of all of us.
"I come from a very spiritual nation; whether you follow the Gallic Orthodox faith or another, Gallorum is very concerned with what happens to them spiritually as much as they believe in the concerns of the material. This Code of Conduct is a step in the right direction for us uniting these beliefs among this house and making sure that we live in relative harmony with our spiritual selves and our professional selves."'
Ms. Rousselot turned on one of her pink Himalayan sea salt lamps on her desk.
"Ironically, I agree with my Angleteric colleague. This legislation could have more to do with the harassment, bullying. It also could do more to ensure that we do not denigrate the thoughts of others. Though, as stated by the other members of the council...this place has needed a code of conduct. As I am new, I will offer my assistance to writing any amendments but I personally have not had enough experience in the European Council to suggest anything. I merely have seen it from the outside. I look forward to working with you all to enhance the work we do for our European citizens."
-
Given the recent flurry of contributions from multiple councillors, I feel it would be inappropriate for debate to be stopped at this juncture. I'd like to ask the Speaker for debate to be extended, once more, for 48 hours or more.
-
We second this request.
-
I will be extending the period of debate for a further 48 hours, until 02:00 GMT August 16, 2019.
I would like to begin by welcoming Councillor Rousselot to the European Council. Namaste. I can already feel the energy balance within the Council Chamber becoming lighter and warmer. Your presence, as well as your comments, are most appreciated.
Thank you Councillor Cruthin for your candid response. I appreciate that you are hesitant to propose amendments to this bill, in fear of gutting too much of it, but I would honestly welcome at least discussing any amendments that you would have that would satisfy both your own reservations and the intended purpose of this bill. I'm personally always inclined to making suitable comprises, and if this bill is to be withdrawn and then re-proposed as a new version, then we might as well ensure that we come to a common understanding sooner rather than later.
I hear you, particularly in regards to your comments concerning for free speech. As stated in the legislation, the aim of this code is not to detract from the liveliness of Council debates or to undermine members’ freedom of speech. Perhaps some parts of Section V are too stringent, as you have pointed out. I'll propose some amendments on that.
On the point of Section II.I, concerning the distinction between the private and professional lives of Councillors, I agree that this point opens up too much grey territory and it should be removed.
The main things I disagree with you on, or at least want a better understanding of, are the points of diplomatic immunity and the proposed oath taken by Councillors.
I believe an oath or affirmation of office is a fair way of having Councillors proclaiming their duties, responsibilities and expectations for the sake of accountability. I see no reason why a Council position should not be treated like any other major decision-making public office within our own countries, and it should therefore be taken with the same seriousness and integrity. While the oath, in its current state, requires Councillors to swear to abide by and protect the Constitution of the European Union, it principally calls for them to serve their own state, so I disagree with the notion that the oath or affirmation forces Councillors to swear allegiance to the European Union in spite of their own countries. I share the common belief with you, that the duties of Councillors are first-and-foremost always to their own people and country, and I feel like this fact is represented fairly in the current form of the oath. Nevertheless, I would gladly discuss revising the oath. I find it untrue that any version of an oath or affirmation, regardless of how uncontroversial it is, would put the European Union before the member state. If the current form of the oath gives that impression, then, again, I would happily see that I be revised, but I definitely think it’s possible without imposing the barrier that you suggested.
I also need to understand more broadly what your concerns are regarding Section III.II and how it effects diplomatic immunity. I mean, as it currently is, a Councillor could already be dragged to the ECoJ for violating European Constitution and or Universal Declaration of Human Rights. For instance, I think we have had one or two incidents in the past where certain member states took Councillors before the ECoJ for holding both a Councillor position and for being elected to the European Commission. Besides this fact, I also think it is a very reasonable expectation that Councillors themselves should be held to laws of the European Constitution, which they themselves govern. I understand the impression that, because the European Constitution is an international agreement, it would therefore makes Councillors party to international laws and not the laws of their own state, but this isn’t really true. Our countries are already party to the European Constitution. These laws of the European Constitution apply to all our member states as it is. These are all laws that we, as Councillors, have all – at least mostly – agreed upon and worked together, as Councillors, to create. Councillors are only being held to the European Constitution, not to the Constitution of Derecta, the Fundamental Laws of the Inquistan Orthodox Church, or any other member states’ laws. I don’t believe this requirement threatens the diplomatic immunity of Councillors in any new way.
I hereby propose the following THREE amendments:
Amendment I
II. Scope of the Code
I. The Code applies to Councillors in all aspects of theirrepresentativeduties.It does not seek to regulate what Councillors do in their purely private and personal lives.Amendment II
III. Duties of Members
III. Councillors have a general duty to act in the interests of the European Union as a whole; and a special duty to their Nations of origin.Amendment III
V. Rules of Conduct
VIII. Councillors shall never undertake any action which would cause significant damage to the reputation and integrity of the Council as a whole, or of its Councillors generally.
IX. A Councillor must treat their fellow Councillors and Commissioners with professionaldignity, courtesy andrespect. Failure to do so may result in a temporary suspension from their duties as Councillor imposed by the Speaker of the Council, of a minimum duration of 7 days and not exceeding 14 days. The Speaker of the Council’s decision to temporarily suspend a Councillor may be contested by at least five Councillors in order to revoke it.Edward Firoux
Council Speaker and Councillor for Inquista -
I'd like to propose the following amendments:
Amendment 1
Subsection I.I
The purpose of this Code of Conduct is to assist all Councillors in the discharge of their obligations to the Council of theEuropean UnionEuropean Council…Amendment 2
Subsection II.I
The Code applies to Councillors in all aspects of their representative duties.It does not seek to regulate what Councillors do in their purely private and personal lives.Amendment 3
Subsection III.I
Delete entire subsection.Amendment 4
Clause IV.I.b
Integrity: Holders of the office of Councillor should not place themselves under any financial or other obligation toexteriorthird-party individuals or organisations…Amendment 5
Clause IV.I.e
Openness: Holders of the office of Councillor should be as open aspossiblecan reasonably be expected about all decisions and actions that they take. They should give reasons for their decisions.and restrict information only when absolutely necessary or if genuine discretion is required.Amendment 6
Clause IV.I.f
Honesty: Holders of the office of Councillor have a duty to declare any private interests relating to their public duties.and to take steps to resolve any conflicts arising in a way that protects the public interest.Amendment 7
Subsection V.IV
The acceptance by a Councillor of a bribe to influence their conduct as a Councillor, including any fee, compensation or reward in connection with the promotion of, or opposition to, anyAct,Bill, Motion, or other matter submitted, or intended to be submitted to the Council is contrary to this Code.and is a prosecutable offense, resulting in the complete suspension of the convicted Councillor if found guilty through a hearing conducted by the Speakerof the Council. If found criminally guilty by the Speaker of the Council, the suspended Councillor’s nation of origin and its competent authorities may pursue criminal action on a national level.Amendment 8
Subsection V.IX
Delete entire subsection.Amendment 9
Subsection VI.III
The Speaker of the Council will consider any report of a breach of this Code to them and report its conclusions and recommendations to the Council. The Council, throughan absolute majoritya supermajority vote, may impose a sanction on the Councillor where it considers it necessary, which will involve a temporary suspension from their duties as Councillor of a minimum duration of 7 days and not exceeding 14 days.and the payment of 500,000€ per day of suspension by the suspended-Councillor’s nation of origin .Amendment 10
NEW SUBSECTION V.()
().Councillors must treat their staff, and all Council employees, with respect; and refrain from harassment or bullying in any form. The Speaker of the Council shall establish reporting and victim support services for instances of harassment or bullying in the Council or its offices. No aspect of this subsection, or this Bill, may be used to undermine the precept that all views can be voiced in the Council itself.Amendment 11
NEW SUBSECTION VI.()
(). In the event that an investigation relating to the Code has, in the view of the Speaker, produced evidence that a crime has been committed by a Councillor, then the Speaker shall inform the police and any other relevant authorities in the Councillor’s nation of origin.
To briefly explain these:
Amendment 1 is a matter of housekeeping and terminology;
Amendment 2 at least curbs the distinction between 'representative duties' and 'private and personal lives'. Quite clearly, there are things that could be described as 'private and personal' which are elsewhere covered in this bill, such as the requirement to follow the law. Is a drunk driving offence, for instance, actionable under this code? I believe my amendment would eliminate this inconsistency which could potentially prove to be a loophole.
Amendment 3 removes the oath requirement. I would at the very least like this to remain an option since I do not believe that Councillors should have to swear an oath to take a seat which belongs to their nation, and will revisit the oath issue more closely later on.
Amendment 4 rewords the clause to, in my belief, clarify that 'exterior' organisations do not include the government of a Councillor's nation of origin.
Amendment 5 rephrases the clause to prevent it becoming a sort of extremely expansive and unregulated Freedom of Information Act by the backdoor. Under the current wording, private citizens could in theory ask for Councillors' emails, for instance, and the Councillor would have to either turn the information over or prove that it is 'absolutely necessary' that they not do so. This would make it more difficult for us to do our jobs, not least since our offices' workloads could be increased exponentially by frivolous requests for information.
Amendment 6 removes what I believe is a well-intentioned, but underdeveloped proposal. The current text does not define what a 'conflict' is, does not set a baseline that would exclude trivial or tangential so-called 'conflicts', and does not explain what sort of steps would be necessary in what circumstances. I believe this could be revisited at a later date, but for now declaration of interests should suffice.
Amendment 7 removes some unfortunate language - the Speaker is not a judge in a criminal court and therefore cannot find anybody 'criminally guilty' of anything - and removes provisions that should be and are dealt with in Section VI.
Amendment 8 removes the wording about conduct towards other Councillors, which I believe undermines the Constitutional protection of free speech in this Council. I have proposed a broader provision against bullying and harassment in a later amendment.
Amendment 9 jacks up the requirement for sanctioning a Councillor to a supermajority, which ensures that there is more or less consensus that sanctions are appropriate, and reduces the chance of these proceedings being turned into a popularity contest. They also remove the objectionable and trivial financial punishment of Councillor's nations of origin.
Amendment 10 introduces protection for all Council employees, not just Councillors, against bullying and harassment, and institutes some rudimentary procedures for dealing with allegations of such. I have also introduced a line to protect free speech in this chamber.
Amendment 11 deals with any criminal implications of investigations relating to this code, and, I believe, adequately signposts that criminal allegations against Councillors are not to be followed up by Europolis authorities, nor by the Council itself, but only by the member state's authorities. While I continue to have qualms about the provision in the Bill that "Councillors have a duty to uphold the law," I believe this amendment makes clear that Councillors are subject to diplomatic immunity, with the possible exception of Constitution violations, and that nations reserve the right to decide for themselves who to appoint or elect as their Councillor, irrespective of any legal troubles a candidate might have.
-
I would finally also like to table Amendment 12, an alternative form of oath or affirmation, which I believe removes some easily exploitable language, and makes more clear that the Councillor is there to serve their country:
Amendment 12
Subsection III.I
Councillors appointed or elected to office after the passage of this Bill will take either the following oath or affirmation:
a) Oath: “Assuming the office of Councillor for [nation of origin], I, [name of Councillor], do solemnly swear that I shall faithfully serve [nation of origin], and abide by the Constitution of the European Union.”
b) Affirmation: “Assuming the office of Councillor for [nation of origin], I, [name of Councillor], do solemnly affirm that I shall faithfully serve [nation of origin], and abide by the Constitution of the European Union.”I would also like to petition for a 24 hour extension of debate.
-
We would like to propose an amicable amendment to Amendment 12, proposed by the Angleteric Councillor:
Amendment 12
Subsection III.I
Councillors appointed or elected to office after the passage of this Bill will take either the following oath or affirmation:
a) Oath: “Assuming the office of Councillor for [nation of origin], I, [name of Councillor], do solemnly swear that I shall faithfully serve [nation of origin], and abide by the Constitution of the European Union.”
b) Affirmation: “Assuming the office of Councillor for [nation of origin], I, [name of Councillor], do solemnly affirm that I shallfaithfullydiligently serve [nation of origin], and abide by the Constitution of the European Union.”We would argue that the question of faith does not apply to an affirmation, thus explaining why we used the same wording in the current, unamended version of this bill.
-
I accept Cllr de Berlanga's amendment to my Amendment 12, and thank him for correcting what was an error on my part.
-
Since one of Councillor Cruthin's proposed amendments is very similar to one of my own, I'll formally withdraw my first proposed amendment.
The debate period has now ENDED. Voting on amendments begins NOW and will last until 03:30 GMT August 18, 2019.
There are 14 (FOURTEEN) amendments. The first two amendments are from myself the latter twelve are from Councillor Cruthin. The amendments are as follows:
Amendment 1
Section III
III.Councillors have a general duty to act in the interests of the European Union as a whole; and a special duty to their Nations of origin.Amendment 2
Subsection V.
VIII. Councillors shall never undertake any action which would cause significant damage to the reputation and integrity of the Council as a whole, or of its Councillors generally.
IX. A Councillor must treat their fellow Councillors and Commissioners with professionaldignity, courtesy andrespect. Failure to do so may result in a temporary suspension from their duties as Councillor imposed by the Speaker of the Council, of a minimum duration of 7 days and not exceeding 14 days. The Speaker of the Council’s decision to temporarily suspend a Councillor may be contested by at least five Councillors in order to revoke it.Amendment 3
Subsection I.I
The purpose of this Code of Conduct is to assist all Councillors in the discharge of their obligations to theCouncil of the European UnionEuropean Council…Amendment 4
Subsection II.I
The Code applies to Councillors in all aspects of their representative duties.It does not seek to regulate what Councillors do in their purely private and personal lives.Amendment 5
Subsection III.I
Delete entire subsection.Amendment 6
Clause IV.I.b
Integrity: Holders of the office of Councillor should not place themselves under any financial or other obligation toexterior third-party individuals or organisations…Amendment 7
Clause IV.I.e
Openness: Holders of the office of Councillor should be as open aspossiblecan reasonably be expected about all decisions and actions that they take. They should give reasons for their decisions.and restrict information only when absolutely necessary or if genuine discretion is required.Amendment 8
Clause IV.I.f
Honesty: Holders of the office of Councillor have a duty to declare any private interests relating to their public duties.and to take steps to resolve any conflicts arising in a way that protects the public interest.Amendment 9
Subsection V.IV
The acceptance by a Councillor of a bribe to influence their conduct as a Councillor, including any fee, compensation or reward in connection with the promotion of, or opposition to, any Act, Bill, Motion, or other matter submitted, or intended to be submitted to the Council is contrary to this Code.and is a prosecutable offense, resulting in the complete suspension of the convicted Councillor if found guilty through a hearing conducted by the Speakerof the Council. If found criminally guilty by the Speaker of the Council, the suspended Councillor’s nation of origin and its competent authorities may pursue criminal action on a national level.Amendment 10
Subsection V.IX
Delete entire subsection.Amendment 11
Subsection VI.III
The Speaker of the Council will consider any report of a breach of this Code to them and report its conclusions and recommendations to the Council. The Council, throughan absolute majoritya supermajority vote, may impose a sanction on the Councillor where it considers it necessary, which will involve a temporary suspension from their duties as Councillor of a minimum duration of 7 days and not exceeding 14 days.and the payment of 500,000€ per day of suspension by the suspended-Councillor’s nation of origin .Amendment 12
NEW SUBSECTION V.()
().Councillors must treat their staff, and all Council employees, with respect; and refrain from harassment or bullying in any form. The Speaker of the Council shall establish reporting and victim support services for instances of harassment or bullying in the Council or its offices. No aspect of this subsection, or this Bill, may be used to undermine the precept that all views can be voiced in the Council itself.Amendment 13
NEW SUBSECTION VI.()
(). In the event that an investigation relating to the Code has, in the view of the Speaker, produced evidence that a crime has been committed by a Councillor, then the Speaker shall inform the police and any other relevant authorities in the Councillor’s nation of origin.Amendment 14
Subsection III.I
Councillors appointed or elected to office after the passage of this Bill will take either the following oath or affirmation:
a) Oath: “Assuming the office of Councillor for [nation of origin], I, [name of Councillor], do solemnly swear that I shall faithfully serve [nation of origin], and abide by the Constitution of the European Union.”
b) Affirmation: “Assuming the office of Councillor for [nation of origin], I, [name of Councillor], do solemnly affirm that I shall faithfully diligently serve [nation of origin], and abide by the Constitution of the European Union.”Edward Firoux
Council Speaker and Councillor for Inquista -
On behalf of the Microstate of Inquista, I vote FOR all fourteen proposed amendments.
Edward Firoux
Council Speaker and Councillor for Inquista -
On behalf of the Kingdom of Gallorum and the benefit of this house's energy, I, Marion Rousselot vote FOR the proposed amendments.
-
On behalf of the Apostolic Kingdom of Angleter, I, Hrayr Cruthin, ABSTAIN on amendments 2 and 14, and vote FOR all other amendments.
-
On behalf of the Archrepublic of Vayinaod, I, Carita Falk, vote AGAINST Amendment 2 and 5, and vote FOR all other amendments
-
On behalf of the Republic of Derecta, I vote FOR Amendments 1,3,4,6,7,12 and 13 and vote AGAINST Amendments 2,5,8,9,10,11 and 14.
HE Guillermo de Berlanga y Prieto,
Councillor of the Republic of Derecta -
The time allotted for voting on amendments has passed.
All amendments have PASSED.
Amendment 1 passed with 5 votes for.
Amendments 2 passed with 2 votes for, 2 against and 1 abstention.
Amendments 3 and 4 passed with 5 votes for.
Amendment 5 passed with 3 votes for and 2 against.
Amendments 6 and 7 passed with 5 votes for.
Amendments 8 to 11 passed with 4 votes for and 1 against.
Amendments 12 and 13 passed with 5 votes for.
Amendment 14 passes with 3 votes for, 1 against and 1 abstention.Since amendments 2 and 10, as well as 5 and 14, contradict one another, I shall give precedent to the amendments with fewer votes against. Thus, amendment 10 shall supersede amendment 2, and amendment 14 shall supersede amendment 5.
The legislation has been updated to reflect the amendments. Final voting begins NOW and closes at 02:30 GMT August 23rd, 2019.
Edward Firoux
Speaker and Councillor for Inquista -
On behalf of the Most Blessed State of Inquista, I vote FOR this bill.
Edward Firoux
Speaker and Councillor for Inquista -
On behalf of the Apostolic Kingdom of Angleter, I, Hrayr Cruthin, vote FOR this Bill.
-
On behalf of the Archrepublic of Vayinaod, I, Carita Falk, vote FOR this act.
-
On behalf of the Republic of Derecta, I ABSTAIN.
HE Guillermo de Berlanga y Prieto,
Councillor for the Republic of Derecta
