Repeal the Elected and Accountable Council Act 2020
-
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 -
Final voting begins NOW and will last until 05:45 GMT on October 30th, 2020.
On behalf of the Most Blessed State of Inquista, I vote AGAINST this repeal.
Edward Firoux
Council Speaker and Councillor for Inquista -
On behalf of the Commonwealth of Leagio, I vote AGAINSTt this repeal.
Francis Plessis
EU Councilor for Leagio -
On behalf of the United Duchies, I vote AGAINST this repeal.
Tobias Johnson Farage -
On behalf of Alkharya, I vote FOR this repeal.
Aylin Gökçen
Councillor of Alkharya -
On behalf of the Republic of Nofoaga, I vote AGAINST this repeal.
Mrs. Paul-Gabrielle Muzhare
EU Councilor for the Republic of Nofoaga -
On behalf of the Kingdom of Fremet, I vote FOR this repeal.
Charles Michel
Councilor for the Kingdom of Fremet -
On behalf of the Kingdom of Montenbourg, I vote AGAINST this repeal.
Emma Granger
Councillor for Montenbourg -
On behalf of the Kingdom of Spain, I vote AGAINST this repeal.
Donald D. Tusk
Councillor for Spain
The Kingdom of Spain
