Repeal the Elected and Accountable Council Act 2020
-
Debate starts NOW and will continue until 20:45 GMT on October 22nd, 2020.
You disapprove of the way the European Council is portrayed in the Act? One of the core values of the European Union is democracy, as stated by the Preamble of the Constitution, and it is a value that the EU promotes. Why shouldn't the European Council, the greatest democratic decision-making body of the European Union's institutions, be an example of a democratically-elected body? To suggest otherwise not only weakens the European Union's promotion of democracy, but it would also make the European Union hypocritical on the matter. Your point on the ECoJ doesn't make any sense, precisely because it is not a legislature, and we are discussing who has legitimacy to legislate.
For the most part, I disagree with your second point. Many of the so-called restrictions laid out in the Act are quite general, and don't even prohibit that example that you gave. There is nothing in the Act that states that people outside of the Kurultay can nominate themselves. It only states that "candidates for Councillor were able to freely nominate themselves", which of course can only be limited to the members of your Kurultay. It never states that any and all people are allowed to nominate themselves. There are restriction that could be put into place, and almost always do exist, to limit and define what an eligible 'candidate' is. For example, certain age restrictions or certain status, as you described with the Kurultay, could be put into place. Presumably, the restrictions have to be reasonable, otherwise it could be argued that the elections wasn't free or fair, but that's a completely different battle than the one you suggested.
For your third point, this is something I actually agree with, I am not a fan of unlimited term limits. That clause exists, because when I was originally proposing the legislation, I consulted several of my colleagues on the matter, and the majority of them all wanted to see it in place. If you wanted to propose an amendment to remedy this specific clause, then I'd support such an amendment.
As for your fourth point, I hear you. I don't think that anyone who supports a democratically-elected Council would suggest that it's better than a government-appointed one in each and every single measure, but rather, it's just the best of all options. Here's why:
It is perfectly valid and legitimate for the people to elect a certain government for their member state, but select someone else not from the government to represent them in the European Council. We've seen this time and time again within the European Union, and for a long time, I myself was an example of this. The duties of a member state's government and the European Council, while they sometimes may overlap, are fundamentally very different things. You realise, as a Councillor, while you represent Alkharya, you make decisions and vote on things which directly change and impact the laws in all member states, including Inquista, Spain, Ruthund and so on? Your government and the Kurultay do not have any legal jurisdiction over these countries, and no matter how hard the Kurultay may try, it cannot pass laws that change laws in Inquista. It simply isn't Inquista's legislature. Thus, the jurisdiction of your Councillor and the Kurultay are completely different, and are concerned with very different things. Thus, we can see also how European Council is intertwined with shaping the direction of all of the European Union. Furthermore, while it is common that countries also hold elections on the matter, it is actually up to Councillors to vote in European Commission and European Court of Justice elections. Again, this has to do with European-wide affairs which escape the legal jurisdiction of your national government or legislature, as these bodies directly impact other member states and their own jurisdictions.
There are also many further points to make in the case for the EACA. The European Council can, as I already explained, make decisions which are far-reaching across all of Europe. Councillors are actually very powerful legislators. It is irresponsible, and quite frankly, extremely illiberal, to make these powerful legislators unaccountable to the public. A frequent criticism of the European Council and of the European Union prior to the EACA was that the EU had a major democratic deficit, in which unelected bureaucrats were hiding in the shadows of Europolis, making powerful decisions, and members of the public got no say in this whatsoever. Eurosceptics and nationalists chastised the European Council, calling it undemocratic, they questioned its legitimacy, since nobody had chosen these legislators, or even heard of them, and some even wanted to abolish the European Council altogether. Well, now the power rests in the hands of the people. Now they're upset that the people get to actually choose, and not their government.
Legislators, especially ones of great importance, such as those in the European Council, ought to be elected. While I'm sure your country may have an extraordinarily enlightened and technocratic government - and I don't mean that facetiously - but you don't need to be a regular observer of politics to understand how the inner working of politics works. Members of a government will ultimately choose someone who is a reliable mouthpiece for them and their party, who probably has the most friends and influence in the government, as their Councillor, and all qualifications and expertise are often secondary consideration for appointment. I am sure you and other supporters of appointed Councillors will get very angry with me for suggesting this, but let us not pull the wool over the public's eyes and suggest that’s not how politics often works. People aren't fools. That's precisely why the people ought to elect their councillors, as they are far more likely to be a better judge of what would actually make a good councillor based on the public's own measure of merit and qualifications.
I will limit myself to one final point for the sake of brevity. The European Union has, and has had, many member states which proudly and openly describe themselves as non-democratic. I'm not a fan of this, but fine, so be it. However, if these self-described non-democratic states were also able to appoint un-elected councillors to our chamber, then that would be a slap in the face, and in which case, the European Council would truly be a cabal of illiberal bureaucrats who dictated EU law without any accountability, and that would be a great shame.
I hope that the power of the European Council continues to lie in the hands of the European people. I am proud to be a representative of the Inquistan people, who I am honoured to serve.
Edward Firoux
Council Speaker and Councillor for Inquista -
I do not agree with this proposal. As our Council Speaker had said "There is nothing in the Act that states that people outside of the Kurultay can nominate themselves. It only states that "candidates for Councillor were able to freely nominate themselves", which of course can only be limited to the members of your Kurultay. It never states that any and all people are allowed to nominate themselves." At the end the European people have a say in this, and yes we represent them each councillor nominated or proportionally represented as their own country laws specify.
We have to be very careful what you want to imply Councillor Gökçen, we are talking about the right of Self-determination on how every coundillor gets elected.
We surely can call a summit on European heads of government or state to propose a "superact" or something, then approved by the Council. But repealing this act will bring disunionship.
Emma Granger
Councillor of Montenbourg -
Well, there's nothing more I can say than Councillor Firoux has said, because I'm very supportive of the Elected and Accountable Council Act, but I will try to get something more than he did and go further, so I can have a similar reasoning but with different words and getting more statements on it.
Councillor Gökçen, I find concerning the fact you want to abolish one of the proposals that has made our Union more democratic, because it makes me think what can we expect from your policies. I know here many Councillors support democracy, but removing this act might be dangerous for the European Union, because of reasons I'll explain later. As a person who was elected by the Spanish people, I would like to give you my view on the matter: The Spanish Government chose a Councillor with no political affiliation, who didn't care about the European affairs,I cannot remember any intervention on this Council from him, and the Spanish people decided to remove him from office and they chose me instead. Since then, I've been in around a 95% of the Sessions the Council has hosted, maybe more than 95% but that's not the main matter. Now, if the Government appoints someone who doesn't care about European Affairs, and the citizens are not happy, shall they wait until a new party rules their country to have a different Councillor? It would be 2, 3, 4 or 5 lost years where they could have fought for their rights as a nation, where non-benefitial laws for them could have been passed in this Council.
You have brought here the case of Angleter, and I want to say something about the matter: That have made me discover what some people think about our Union, about democracy, about hearing their citizens. When someone is scared about losing powers, they try their best to avoid anyone taking a seat they wish giving to another person. Imagine a dictatorship like Noctoria, which dissapeared, appointing a Councillor. This act forces dictatorships to make elections for something at least! Are we letting those oppresed people behind or wiat, let me guess: Let's get daddy Europe to solve it, because they do nothing at the end! This Council shall condemn Dictatorships, of course it should, but shall not be in charge of solving the conflicts in member states, that's why we have a Commission. And Councillor, this act represents the Alkharyans voice, maybe you don't want this place, then resign and let an election happen, they'll vote for other politician or independent candidate who wishes this job more than you do.
Councillor, if you didn't know, one of the European Union's principles is democracy. When a nation joins the European Union, they are supposed to know about our values and about our laws and regulations. If you didn't know about this, don't worry, here we are to tell you that democracy shall be protected by the EU. Of course, we have the European Court of Justice to make individuals, collectives or nations accomplish the law, but this Council, the Commission and the ECoJ shall protect a basic human right as democracy. I would like to thank you for explaining us your political system, which is very useful for myself, but I'm sure regulations exist to allow nations to rule who can run for what place, and if you read the regulations properly, I think this "invented problem" about the Kurultay being unable to dictate who can run and who cannot on Alkharya could have been avoided. In fact, all of this could have been avoided if we just read the legislation passed by this council.
About term limits, you can listen to the Speaker's suggestion maybe and just propose an amendment in order to allow member states to put term limits in place, something I will vote for as I think the European Union shall not restrict what members can and cannot do too much, and if they do, they should do it with the main goal of protecting the values we, as citizens, and our nations, represented by their Government and their Head of State, are supposed to follow, respect and accomplish. If it made the European Union to enter a division, then I guess: A) We have some anti-democrats around and we haven't seen them; B) There are some countries that call theirselves democratic but they don't know what democracy is and never used it or C) They make an election in 4 days without letting candidates a chance to explain their proposals. What is your Councillor?
And again, I disagree with your fourth point. Why shouldn't be a separate entity, because the Government would lose control? Oh, how democratic then it is to control what your Councillor says in this Council. Councillor Gökçen, despite my political affilation to the current ruling party in Spain, the Partido Popular, I represent the 41 million Spaniards which can and cannot vote. In my case, I meet with the Spanish President every week, might be a videocall or a presential meeting, depends on the amount of pending work I have left to do and how many Council sessions we get. We, as Councillors, are responsible of making laws for every European Union State, we shall respect the values and enforce them with our laws and regulations. If a dictatorship wants to have their voice heard in this Council, they will need to take it into an election, with enough guarantees to ensure democracy exists. And if you don't support this statement, I would then need to start doubting about your democratical skills.
Thank you very much for bringing up this debate, but my answer to this is a no. I will stand with those protecting democracy, and this Council is responsible of guaranteing such values and rights to the people, whether you like it or not. I know somes anti-European Union who might be celebrating this proposal: I guess you just want to give them wings. Thak you very much.
Donald D. Tusk
Councillor for Spain -
"The Union of Duxburian Dominions strongly supports repealing the Act, which probably comes as no surprise. I'm likely the last appointed Councillor left in the European Council. It's important to note that my support for repeal has nothing to do with desire to keep the seat or fear of facing the people in an election. I'm more than happy to initiate a councillor election if the repeal fails.
As the last appointed Councillor, I am also the last representative of an actual member-state itself, and thus the last one upholding the actual European Constitution as written. I must respectively disagree with Speaker Firoux's interpretation of the Constitution and role of the Council. The purpose of the Council is to give each member-state formal representation in the European Union, not to further overall democracy or champion ideological goals.
If you don't believe me about the intent of this part of the Constitution, then maybe you will believe one of the greatest statesmen in the European Union, an original author of the current European Constitution, framer of the modern European Council, two time Speaker, Senior Councillor of the Duxburian Union, Master Acwellan Devoy."
<OOC: Drop mic here>
Wes gestured toward the door, which was flung open on cue by none other than Acwellan Devoy himself. Acwellan paused for a few seconds, enough to light Duxburian social media on fire, then proceeded to the Council floor, strolling in with the confidence and aura of an OG.
Amateur hour is over, he thought to himself as he examined the room. He had no idea who many of these member states and councillors were, this was truly a different era. He was proud of Wes standing up for the country and finally finding his voice, but Wes could only do so much on this one.
Acwellan knew who was attacking his precious Constitution and reserved his icy death stare for the Speaker.
"I'd like to thank Councillor Greene for inviting me today. What he says is true and how the Constitution should be interpreted by the Council. I wrote most of the Article in question and consider myself the most authoritative source for what it means, at least this side of the ECoJ..."
Acwellan's booming voice filled the room.
"Article two, section one, clause two says..."
He kept a chilly stare directly into the eyes of Speaker Firoux. There was no need to look down, Acwellan knew the Constitution by heart.
"...Each member state has the right to one councillor, each councillor is equal and has the same rights, each councillor has one vote and can only represent one member state, each Councillor must be a citizen or legal resident of the member state they represent, and no councillor may serve concurrently as a commissioner or justice.
I repeat, each Councillor can only represent one member state. This has two meanings, that a Councillor cannot represent more than one member state, but also that a Councillor must represent a member state. CAN ONLY REPRESENT ONE MEMBER STATE.
So, what is a member state? It's the recognized government of that state, not the people of that state. When you do business with a state, you don't meet with its whole population, you meet an authorized representative of its government, or the head of such itself. Nowhere does the European Constitution grant a Councillor the power to represent the people of a member state instead of its government.
The act in question is totally unconstitutional and Councillor Greene is correct in supporting the supreme law of the European Union over it. If you don't represent a member state, you aren't a legal Councillor. The clause is firm with the use of "only" and is meant to be that way, this is why the European Council exists. If you don't like it, amend what I wrote. If opponents of repeal are truly proponents of democracy, surely they can secure a supermajority to prove that member states actually want it? I yield the floor back to Councillor Greene."
"Thank you, Master Devoy," Wes said. "I have additional concerns, but I need to compare with the transcript from the original debate on this Act, so I can avoid just repeating what was already said, and thus also yield the floor."
Wesley Greene
Councillor of the Duxburian Union -
Councillor Firoux, your first and last words contradict each other. If democracy is valued by the European Union, then why doesn't it take a strong stance against the non-democratic countries even coming close to entering the Union? How come that a nation like Noctoria, which Councillor Tusk gave as an example, a dictatorship which didn't even have control over half its territory, has had EU membership until it was purged off months later? You two seem to be living in this fantasy world where dictatorships suddenly become totally democratic just for the sake of joining the European Union. They won't. It is utterly ridiculous and appalling to cripple other democracies' free choices just to make every country please the Union by being democratic on paper. I'll give another example: The UNSR has no intention of being democratic whatsoever, oppresses its citizens, so the council condemned the nation, did not recognize it and did not give it a seat on the European Council. If you really want to keep the democracy in check, then do not give seats to those who cannot even put the most basic sentences of the Constitution of the EU to practice. That's more likely to solve the problem than forcing every country to elect their councillors in a specific way.
It's not the European Council who knows it better than the member states when it comes to choosing who will represent them the best in the council. I am here, acting as the voice of Alkharya in the European Union. Yes, I do affect the vote on laws that will be enforced throughout the European Union. Yes, I vote on the European Commission and in the European Court of Justice. And if there is any governmental body that knows which person should represent Alkharya and will make the most accurate votes for Alkharya, then it's the "enlightened and technocratic" government of Alkharya that you seem to enjoy making fun of, which is a pathetic attempt at humour, considering the political situation in your country and how it took massive protests which spanned months to take down your previous Archbishop, Craticus.
You also mention how the EACA reduces corruption. Do you know what else reduces corruption? Have a vote to kick the corrupt politicians out of the council and making sure they do not come near Europolis again. An alternative that won't cripple the way countries function. Also, If this job is so serious, why in the world do you think that a person who casually reads onto politics from time to time can be a great councillor? You say it yourself, Councillor. A seat here decides what laws will be enacted all over the European Union. This is no normal person's job. People are no fools, I agree, they can choose a government that they trust will choose a great councillor. They can also choose a government that promises them to elect the nation's councillor. They can choose a government that just appoints one, too. It's irrational how we treat governments like they are these holier-than-thou institutions that are not controlled by the people. That's not the case, and we already condemn and ignore nations if that's the case already. The incompetence of a member state is not the fault of other member states.
Aylin Gökçen
Councillor of Alkharya -
I suppose I will begin with Mr. Devoy.
For starters, I'm quite surprised you didn't walk in with your own boom box, playing music as you walked in. That was quite the self-aggrandizing display. I need to take notes for when I have to arrive at Christmas dinner at my in-laws, who will probably be discussing Anglexit, and they will be keen to give me an earful.
You've gone on this whole speech insinuating you've written the Constitution yourself, which is quite the claim. The vast majority of the Constitution we have now was either re-written, re-worded or basically re-phrased by the Constitutional Committee back in 2011-2012, which included several members, such as yourself, but particularly also the esteemed Councillors of Angleter, Os Corelia, and also Inquista, among others. Believe it or not, but the late hero Alexander Kligenberg, who was our Councillor at the time, is not lost upon my memory, nor was his work or contributions.
I am also not sure why you've insinuated in your speech, and you've given me this stare, as you if you don't know who I am. Mr. Devoy you do realise that I used to be a colleague of yours? You seem like you don't remember me. I have been serving in the European Council for almost 8 years, sometime of which had been alongside you.
I guess I will just address your argument, which I fundamentally disagree with. The Constitution does state that the EU promotes democracy. That is there is the Constitution. However, you are right in that it doesn't assign any specific institution or office to this task, except perhaps the Internal Affairs Commissioner, to a degree. That's why I wrote the EACA. As I wrote in the EACA, and as I argued in one of my earlier points - which you perhaps missed because you were not yet in the chamber -that I believe that the European Council is highest decision-making body in Europe, and thus should and ought to be an example and bastion of democracy. If the EU wants to be democratic, and actually aims to advance democracy, then it truly has to begin with this assembly.
As for your point about it being unconstitutional, it simply isn't. You can keep repeating the term 'member state' over and over, as if you've done something, for as long as you like, and I will patiently wait. A member state is a country, councillor. I have no doubt you'll break out a dictionary and fight me on this, so I'll skip right to it. A state is a politically organized body of people usually occupying a definite territory and is usually sovereign. In my case, that organized body is Inquista. The Most Blessed State of Inquista. Furthermore, if we're to get real nitpicky, sovereignty in Inquista is only guaranteed by the will of the people, in the form of legitimacy, who elect their representatives and give recognition to the offices of government that uphold the state so that it can be sovereign. So, in my case at least, the Councillor of Inquista includes one of those government offices, and the ultimately sovereignty of my country lies within my people. Elected Councillors can very well represent their state, and thus their election is not unconstitutional, and is in fact far from it.
Mr. Devoy, I appreciate though that Councillor Green got you in here to verify his own claim, and I hope that we continue to see you again in the future. You are always a welcome guests in these halls.
As for Councillor Gökçen, your entire first point is a massive whataboutism. It's perfectly reasonable for the European Council to establish norms, values and rules in place for representatives to this institution. However, obviously setting standards for how the governments of member states ought to run their own national legislatures, and also make their national legislatures democratic, is one reach further, and perhaps one reach too far. I also had no idea about Noctoria being purged off, that sounds rather gruesome and Haanean. From what I last heard, they left the European Union.
Now, to your other points. I am not making fun of your government, and I even stated that I wasn't being facetious. I certainly wasn't making a joke. I'm commending your government, which seems to be rather good, and I was exactly making the point that you are rather lucky, and that it isn't always the case that governments are so free from shady politics. Not sure how it has to do with Inquistasn exercising their right to protest, but here we are. As I stated in the previous Council discussion, I am more than happy to be your punching bag. However, it seems that we fundamentally disagree on who makes better decisions, between governments and the people, and I don't think we'll change each other's minds on the matter, so I'm leaving it there.
Edward Firoux
Council Speaker and Councillor for Inquista -
Excuse me Councillor Gökçen, just a minor mistake you have made when you have used my example: Noctoria has ceased to exist. dissapeared, left the European Union. It has never been purged from the European Union, they just left, dissapeared. Let's say the truth on this chamber please. Thank you.
Donald D. Tusk
Councillor for Spain -
First of all, I am completely shocked by the fact that one of the most well-respected pioneers of the European Council has come to address our issue in the council's structure. I admire the clarification made by Mr. Devoy and I have come to my final assessment. I agree on the points made by Mr. Devoy in his statement, I support democracy but I don't think the EACA is the way to make a more democratic Europe.
First of all, the wordings of the act deprives the member-states nearly all of their sovereignty with this act given that most of us here in the council aren't involved with the government of our countries of origin.
What I think that should be implemented is to have member-states decide on how they will pick their representatives to the European Council through a process with at least some level of democracy in it. Nation-wide elections for just one seat are pointless and just a waste of government funds unless the EU funds the hosting of these elections on behalf of the member-states.
I am deeply saddened at how the region's pioneers are devastated by this one act. Anglexit is now being voted on by the people of Angleter, which very much would be a big loss to us. Colleagues, I hope that my suggestion would be considered so that there would be balance between democracy and authority in Europe. Thank you and that is all I can say for now.
Friedrich van Allen
Councilor, Kingdom of Reitzmag#Centrist
-
Cllr Tupac Shakur stood to speak
I'm grateful for former Cllr Devoy's comments earlier; I think it's right that, if the Act survives this repeal attempt, we test its constitutionality in the ECoJ. To be honest, I wish I'd come up with that idea.
Pravoslaviya has always opposed the idea of mandatory election of Councillors. We have, as part of the Make Europe Great Again agenda, been willing to compromise with the idea, provided that the elected Councillors are proportional to population, and complemented by an appointed upper chamber, but we have always stood ready to repeal this Act.
This is especially the case for as long as we have one elected Councillor per member state. The people who want this Act say it makes the Council more democratic, but there's nothing democratic about having 179 million Duxburians and 23 million Austrians electing one Councillor each. We've created the worst of all worlds; a Council which thinks it has democratic legitimacy, acts as though it has democratic legitimacy, but doesn't actually have democratic legitimacy.
And without labouring too hard a point I've made here before, the Council is intended to be a representative body for the member states. As Mr Devoy pointed out, it's right there in the Constitution. As Cllr Firoux pointed out, a member state is a politically organised body of people occupying a definite territory - unless you're Icholasen, but that's OK - and is usually sovereign - again, unless you're Icholasen, but there we go. We can apply a simple logic to this - who has the right to sign a country up to the European Union in the first place; or the right to take it out? What organisation represents the country on the regional, or world, stage?
The answer is, of course, its legitimate, internationally recognised government. Hrayr Cruthin could not have taken Angleter out of the EU by himself - if he could, he'd probably have done it about 20 times when he was here. If some separately elected official came here saying they wanted to bring their country into the EU, we wouldn't listen to them unless they represented the legitimate government.
That's what we mean by 'member state'. And that's what being a Councillor should mean - being a representative, a delegate, sent by that legitimate government. Instead, we've got separately elected Councillors who don't represent their legitimate government and, in fact, get to vote on a 55% majority to impose all sorts of rules on their legitimate government, and, for that matter, decide whether their government is legitimate or not.
A member state's government has the right to have its Councillor separately elected if it's mad enough to want to do that; but they shouldn't ram their madness down everyone's throats. So yes, I support this repeal.
-
It's quite common for legitimate government to have multiple offices that make up their government. For instance, a government might consist of a Prime Minister or a President - or both - as well as Ministers or Secretaries, not to also mention their parliament or national assembly and so on. A Councillor, whether elected or not, is just another of those offices. Even though I was elected, and from a different political affiliation of the previous Archbishop of Inquista, I was definitely still a part of Inquistan government, as I was elected to a government position in which I would represent my member state. Did I get along with all my colleagues in government? No, but that's not what this is about. A Prime Minister might not like a certain elected President either, but they're in government together. The entire pretext of this argument being made is that somehow an elected Councillor isn't a member of government, and that their office isn't an institution of government for some reason. Simply put, a councillorship is an intuitions of the member state's government, and the people are allowed to choose someone to represent their member state just like they can for any other government offices that may represent their member state.
Edward Firoux
Council Speaker and Councillor for Inquista -
Mr. Firoux, that is the problem. You are using your position on your personal antipathies to other member-states or their councilors. For example, you initiated a blockade on the agreement between Prime Minister Bridges and Archbishop Kligenberg because of my vote in the EU Council. But isn't that an exercise of democracy and an act of sovereignty which you violated?
Friedrich van Allen
Councilor, Kingdom of Reitzmag#BeastMode
-
You're in the Government, OK. But the Government doesn't get to choose who you are. It doesn't even get to choose how you are chosen. And you can run a completely independent set of policies, foreign policies, votes, everything, to the rest of the Government. But you're still part of the Government. No, nobody believes that. You certainly don't represent the Government. You're no more part of the Government than any public office holder. I hope Cllr Firoux understands the difference between being part of the Government and holding public office.
What the EACA did was stop Councillors being representative delegates of their Governments, which is what they should be - perhaps what they must be, constitutionally - and turn them into members of a de facto European parliament, essentially. That's wrong, and that's why we have to go back.
Cllr Tupac Shakur
-
Councillor Van Allen, while I am the Councillor for Inquista, I am also a sitting and elected member of the College of Bishops, and I am also the Chief Bishop Secretary of the Inqusitan Orthodox Church, second only to the Archbishop herself. It is quite literally my job and duty of to vote upon all agreements and legislation in the College of Bishops, and it is my job to scrutinize those agreements. The agreement which you mentioned was defeated in a overwhelming majority vote of 13 to 217. So if you have gripes with that, you have 216 more bishops you can send angry e-mails to.
Councillor, I'd really like for us to get through one legislative session without you sidetracking or derailing the entire conversation to complain about the self-inflicted injuries of your country's foreign policy. #VictimMode
Councillor Shakur, your first comment insinuates that only the government gets to choose who makes up government, but this is false. The people, at least in a democracy, choose their government. and they give legitimacy to this government by selecting them. In a democracy, legitimacy ultimately lies in the hands of the people. As to your other point, yes, members of government can aim to push independent set of policies from one another. In our quagmire of a European Union, we see this happen all the time. I certainly don't agree that each and every public office is a member of government, and I understand the difference between 'the government' and holding public office. Not every holder of public office is elected to represent the entire member state. A backbencher MP, for instance, obviously cannot go on the world stage and proclaim themselves a representative of the government. In fact, most MPs probably can't do that, period. However, a Councillor is a specific public office with the duty and power invested into it to represent the member state. That's the office and the job description. While it might clash with other offices that represent the government, there's nothing that says the two have to be united.
Edward Firoux
Council Speaker and Councillor for Inquista -
I would like to request a debate extension as it's clear there's still much to be said on this subject.
Wesley Greene
Councillor of the Duxburian Union -
Debate will be extened by 48 hours until 20:45 GMT on October 24th, 2020.
Edward Firoux
Council Speaker and Councillor for Inquista -
Quite frankly we oppose this attempt to undermine democracy in the EU. There certainly is an argument to be had about numbers and proportionality and whether representation should be same for each nation or proportional to population. There is also argument over whether any particular election system should be favoured but just because it is not perfect then we do not need to throw the baby out with the bathwater so to speak. Just now we are discussing an increase in councillors per nation to make it more representitive, not necessarily a perfect deal but progress towards a more democratic and representative council but the answer is always more democracy not less , we should not let potentially unelected heads of state decide who sits here or a government elected on less than 50% of the population. The Elected and Accountable Council Act 2020 protects the role by keeping it democratic and decided for by the people not by an rich out of touch elite or metropolitan bubble.
Tobias Farage Johnson
-
I see the debate has turned up to be a debate between Councillor van Allen and the Speaker, because he has been mentioned by the Reitzmic Councillor about the Home Affairs of Inquista and the Diplomatic action of Reitzmag with Inquista. Mr. van Allen, do you think we care about if you angry about a Treaty being refused by the Inquistan College of Bishops? I don't care about it, let's focus onto the main matter now please. That's why I second the Speaker's proposal to end the constant derailing of the topics every day.
Donald D. Tusk
Councillor for Spain -
Councillor Van Allen, please, for the love of whatever entity you believe in, shut the hell up. I could not care less about your conflicts with Inquista, or with any other country for that matter, ESPECIALLY during this time when the topic is completely different than whatever you're trying to rail it to. Stop it. This is your last warning. The European Council not a place to cry and whine about your incompetence.
As for Councillor Farage Johnsen, not only your argument does not make any sense, you're putting the weight of undemocratic and unfunctional governments onto other governments by restricting their freedom of choice, just like Councillor Tusk and Councillor Firoux. To be frank, I don't believe that European Union is a bastion of democracy. If it really were, it would prohibit literal dictatorships from ever stepping foot on Europolis. Instead, it puts bills like the EACA to make it seem like a democratic bastion to silence the Eurosceptics and anti-EU nutjobs. Let's not fool ourselves with this hypocritical delusion that the EU does a great job at upholding democracy, we've had quite a lot of dictatorships come and go. And don't get it twisted, I always loved the idea of Alkharya being on an union with other countries and making greater relationships, but not like this. Never like this.
Like Acwellan Devoy said, these seats are for member states. A councillor is the connection between a member state and the rest of European Union. And there is no other entity that can choose its councillor better than the member state itself.
Aylin Gökçen
Councillor of Alkharya -
Mr. Gökçen, I am here as a representative of my country, and I in fact gave those statements to tell Coun. Firoux of such misconduct he had done in which has been a violation of my power on democracy and my country's sovereignty. You see, Coun. Firoux here is a good speaker but not a good councilor. I am not angry, instead I am questioning your motives for such. Whether you all my colleagues do care or not, this matter has something to do with us Councilors and our exercise of duty and office and also the way we are elected. I have already stated my suggestion on this matter and I do not side with any of the pro-EACA or anti-EACA. What I just wish is harmony in which the ideas of both the sides are mixed to create an idea much agreeable to all. Hence, what I suggested is that the highest decision making body will decide on how their Councilors will be chosen. However, I also suggested that the method must at least have some level of democracy. An example of which is appointment from the cabinet of the government which had been voted by all the ministries and departments.
Friedrich van Allen
Councilor, Kingdom of Reitzmag -
I don't think it would be within proper decorum of the Council to have an ex-councillor debate the active Speaker, so I will answer on Master Devoy's behalf. Any feedback or criticism for what he's said should be directed to me.
Speaker Firoux, I don't think Master Devoy claimed to have written the entire Constitution or intended to marginalize other Councillors' contributions to the document. If you were listening, he was referring to very specific parts. That's also why I introduced him as "an" author and not "the" author.
We continue to have constitutional debates with you, because the Constitution doesn't really support the way you're using it to elevate democracy to such a pedestal. Yes, I acknowledge that it's very important, but the level you want it is just not required. "Promoting democracy" is part of the Preample...that's not a judiciable part of the document. It's just a mission statement, you can't violate a Preample. The Right to Democratic Governence in the UDoHR is enforceable by a court of law and the part to examine. Even the powerful first and third clauses appear to be aimed at national governments and not really at councillors.
We also disagree on the validity of representation as democratic. You seem to think anything short of a full election isn't democratic. I see appointed representatives as an extension of trust that voters put into the government representatives they did elect. They still have democratic legitimacy, flowing through the previous level of representation. If the people aren't happy with who their government appoints to do whatever, they can vote that government out.
I agree with you that a member-state is a country and that the people comprise a country. But, the government of that country is the only entity that can represent it internationally. The people just aren't the government, unless it's one massive direct democracy with no representatives at all, which describes no current member-state. The government is its own separate entity and it alone has the power to act on behalf of the entire country. Thus, a councillor must represent it, as stated by the EU Constitution.
Unfortunately, I don't think we'll be able to see eye to eye on these issues. The way you extrapolate meaning from things that weren't said, and the loose way you use the European Constitution to grant legitimacy to your ideological goals are highly concerning. You aren't listening or reading. Your way or the highway helped cost us Angleter, who is next? Master Devoy's way or the highway cost several member-states, as well. Tyranny by majority in the name of whatever goals rips the EU apart.
At the end of the day, there is a sizeable contingent of councillors and member-states who simply want to retain the freedom to choose how they are represented in the Council. They want to follow the Constitution as written rather than having it warped to mean whatever you want it to. This act has got to go.
Wesley Greene
Councillor of the Duxburian Union
The Kingdom of Spain
