Ronald Reagan: "First, I would like to say thank you to Sandra and Vicente as well for hosting this debate. Like the gentle from Inimicus said, you have a choice for this election. Luckily, the race for Foreign Affairs Commisioner is not as tense or devisive as the other two races. The candidates for the race have beliefs and standards that do not classify as extreme on either end and have not attacked each other for their beliefs. "
"One of the many things that I believe in is having a deeper connection with the many regions outside of the European Union and building strong as well as postive relations that will benefit the well-being of the European Union without having to institue any policy of intergration. I want to build a foreign policy with the many governments in this Union that they believe will benefit their peoples. This foreign policy will focus on many topics that range from defense all the way to trade. I believe that drafting that policy with the member-states will ensure that the opinions and concerns are heard, where they can know that their interests that require the work of the EU are heard and being implemented to the best of the ability of this Commission."
"Having a foreign policy that is developed by all of the members of this Union will ensure that the stability of the Union is seen as strong and proud without any insanity or chaos that constantly bring the world in fear if the end is coming with the rain of missiles coming down from above. The Union requires stability and sanity that can be done through the representation of their foreign affairs by principles that they convey to the Foreign Affairs Commisioner that they want."
Greetings to all those watching and the hosts Vicente and Sandra, as well as other candidates. I am running for the position of Internal Affairs Commissioner as a competent and hard-working politician. For years, my Alkharyan colleagues, friends and family have admired my work etiquette, how I'm always on time and how I can get through most struggles with no pressure. I am running to bring Europe my qualities. Sharing, caring, one who understands what the citizens want. One who can put Europe together after division after division.
I have always followed the European politics from the side, way, way before Alkharya joined the European Union. I feel like there is, once again, a disconnect between the people and the union. Almost all countries are disappointed and tired of general laws that are enforced upon them, with little to no moving room. Member states want Europe to listen to them, but this doesn't happen at this current time. I'm afraid that the Union is affected by slacktivist politicians and the policies they bring in bring chaos at worst, like what happened in Azrekko.
I am running because I believe that I can work for the people and listen to them. I am running to bring competence. Activity. Change, and I mean it. I'm not afraid of anything, My reputation was at its lowest in the 2000s because I supported religious freedom laws in Alkharya, a country where anything religious is still shunned to this day. If I survived those days, I can survive anything. Let's bring change, diversity and harmony. Let's move forward.
Edmund began his speech after the other candidates have finished.
"Gracias Vicente y Sandra! Good day ladies and gentlemen, it's an honor to be here again to ask you to vote for me on the coming January 2021 Commission Elections. It's nearly been a year since I took the risk and stood up for you my fellow Europeans. During the past few days, we've been campaigning all over Europe to show that my priorities for this term are you all the people and what your concerns are. The issues we will tackle for this term if I win are more about the relations between our member-states that we need to and we will fix. Of course, that would also include the anti-EU movements like Anglexit, Krexit, Mennrexit, and so on. That being said, we will open up dialogue on each of our member-states to listen to their concerns so we can ensure that integration in the EU will remain solid. This is vital if we want to keep the EU that we loved, that we formed out of unity, that we made with respect. So I'd like to reach out to you my fellow Europeans, I'm not here to cancel the recent projects that have been done. Our project initiatives will remain part of our programs during our term, but the main thing we will take focus on is to return Europe to the time it was at its greatest. The time where there's no war, no violence, no poverty, no disputes, no crisis, and no strains in our internal relations. And as a man that believes we Europeans are one big family, I believe that if we work together, we will achieve the reality of what the EU was really made to be. We will achieve everything for the sake of the European Peoples! Thank you and God Bless!"
Edmund's mic then turns off immediately as he ends his speech.
I also agree on running a civil race for Foreign Affairs Commissioner, without attacks on character, thus my focus will be on debating the issues. Ronald Reagan and I have two very different visions for the future of EU Foreign Affairs and I am hope to convince you to support my platform.
I do not intend to touch relations between EU memberstates, their intra-regional trade policies, or even their foreign policies, as that is the job of the Internal Affairs Commissioner. Foreign Affairs is about relations between the EU itself and external regions - this job is region to region, not nation to nation. I also don't intend to seek trade deals with our foreign partners, as they won't sign any (OOC: They don't roleplay, there is no trade!).
What I will do if you choose to elect me, is showcase our region on the world stage to the best of my ability, utilizing a variety of methods that we have let fall by the wayside in the past. I will make sure that we are being seen and heard, using my experience and personal connections to command attention from even the largest and most powerful regions in the world. I will also seek to strengthen our friendship with our partners through treatied relationships, again a process that takes experience given how significant some of our partners are. I'll also push hard to get Eurocorps operational and seek to get us involved in international cultural events.
We have so much potential just waiting to be explored and I hope to be the one to bring us into the international spotlight. Let's do it!
Jon Mitchell
Candidate for Foreign Affairs Commissioner
SG: Thank you candidates. And now, it's time to release the first part of your answers on the Questionary you have filled before coming here. The Europeans will be able to recognise you as your photos will appear next to the answer you have chosen. Let's see:
Economies Question: Cocx & Reagan - 5; Am Lind - 6; Winston & Birdane - 7; Leeson - 9
Emmigration Question: Cocx & Leeson - 5; Am Lind - 6; Birdane & Reagan - 7; Winston - 8
Immigration Question: Winston & Birdane - 4; Cocx, Leeson, Reagan - 5; Am Lind - 8
SG: Candidates now have 2 minutes (OOC: 300 words) to give a speech about why their stance on the issues is the best. Candidates can also ask one other candidate a question about their answers to the questions, but candidates are not obligated to respond. If I believe that an important question was avoided by a candidate, however, I might pick them up on it in the next round where I will be asking individual questions. Candidates are free to debate freely, but not going over 1 minute (OOC: 150 words) per statement.
OCC: You have until tomorrow at 20:40 GMT to answer. Sorry for the delay!
OCC2: Winston forgotten answer in the Budget category is: Save it for future expenses
Peter Leeson:I believe in Europe. The EU is at its best when it helps members rich and poor co-ordinate on big picture issues and develop. I believe big challenges like telecoms, green international transport , water management and development should be done with the EU co-ordinating not running projects, though this does not necessarily have to be directly EU. We could use the EU in order to set up regional organisations or issue organisations that are voluntary to join. We should also work together on infrastructure affecting multiple nations , for example a series of hydro dams to benefit a region to ensure no nation is negatively affected down river.
I now move onto immigration. I think yes a Schengen should be founded but it should be entirely voluntary. It is essential countries have sovereignty over their border policy and immigration policy . We should also have free movement of workers as part of the scheme but only if nations want this. It would be best to have two Schengens, Schengen I for tourists and Schengen II for work migration. Each free movement should come with requirement to have a job before arrival or otherwise you have to apply through other national led schemes. This is part of Glocalist approach.
We can find a balance and this balance is my Glocalist approach, We should have global targets and schemes but local approaches in implementation to make sure it works within any system. This way we integrate further without eroding sovereignty of the nation and encouraging co-operation through opt-in organisations with separate funding from EU though I believe a development agency should be compulsory to join to help our less well off members and even impoverished regions or projects for the poor in wealthy countries so as to reduce inequality in the EU.
I have a question for Le Berre: "Do you support the Union of Syndicates system where most business is banned and if so how can you call yourself a social democrat? If your answer is that you do , then would you support autonomy in approaches for European nations in how they choose to reperesent their people on the EU stage or engage economically with the EU? Surely if the answer is you do , then it is accurate to describe you as socialist or far left."
My answers reflect my commitment to my principles. I do not see myself as possessing a moral compass better than those of nations; as a result, issues that affect all member-states - migration, for example - should be solved not by me, or by any other Premier Commissioner alone, but by the member-states, and the many other groups that make up our Union, in coordination on those issues that may affect all - again, migration - and separately on those that affect only individual nations - for example, economic integration.
My support for stimulus packages may appear to conflict with this. However, the stimulus packages I propose are different in many ways. I will need to digress a bit to explain this; please excuse me. As watchers will very well know, I support the creation of self-managing and elected vocational chambers which will gain representation on the legislative institutions of the Union while at the same time taking on the roles of existing bureaucracies. For example, a vocational chamber of medical workers could take on the role of the EHO, and so on and so forth. More importantly, they would be allocated the part of the budget needed for these roles. It would be their own decision on how to spend it; I expect that some of it will be invested in individual nations as for development. That is my stimulus; the stimulus I support. Not one that is imposed, but one that is decided by experts in an inclusive way.
I would, however, like to ask a question. Dr. Cocx, you say that you want to make the lives of the poor "more bearable." How does this align with your opposition to economic stimuli?
Mr. Leeson, I do not like the system in the Union. I support the restoration of an economy based around cooperatives and independent workers, but at the same time one that remains well-coordinated. Given historical context - that this economic system existed until the conquest of the country, that the country has never experienced anything approaching modern capitalism - this makes quite a bit of sense. I am not entirely sure what the second question has to do with the first; I will still answer it. Nations should be able to choose how they represent their people as a whole; however, the other diverging interests that will exist in a nation should be represented as well, for they would be ignored entirely otherwise. However this is "far-left" I do not know; may you explain?
VV: Mr. Leeson, you exceeded the time limit, which means you will have only 40 seconds (OCC: 62 words) to retort any candidate or a minute 20 seconds (OCC: 212 words) for your opening statement on the next round.
Mr. Cocx might now get a retort. (OCC: 150 words)
Peter Leeson:If your model excludes legitimate for profit businesses regardless of their size not owned by workers that is far left. So I can only conclude you are at least personally an that's a concern for Europe.
"I think my answers to this questionnaire speak for themselves. They reflect a pragmatic, centrist, reasonable approach to the EU, which leaves the foundations of our Union, of freedom, democracy, peace, untouched, but also leaves member states free to multilaterally decide on greater projects -- with, notably, Commission mediation and encouragement. My platform stands for more money in member states' pockets, a common fist towards potential destabilising influences, and an effective internal policy. I have nothing further to add about my platform: if candidates wish to attack me with baseless and unreasonable arguments, they can do so."
"Indeed, Mr Le Berre offers a good example of such an argument, claiming that the only way to solve poverty problems in our Union is by stimulus packages from the EU, which I vehemently oppose. Stimulus packages put money in the hands of only certain administrations in the Union, whereas my proposals put money in the hands of all member states -- and it is ultimately member states' prerogatives to improve the average wealth of their citizens. I will say that the stimulus packages proposed by Mr Le Berre are potentially even more problematic than those of a more traditional form: allowing vocational groups of uncertain composition to allocate funds is an exceptionally dangerous precedent and would no doubt lead to never-before-seen issues. I say, no.
"Now, I also have a follow-up question for Mr Leeson, whose fanatical pro-Europeanism is definitely coming out of the woodwork today, and whose traditional sense of vagueness and non-specificity truly shines once more. "Global targets and schemes", but also "local approaches", all fancy terms with no clout. Nothing specific. I have a direct question about his proposed "two Schengens", though -- you say that even under a Schengen zone people would need to have a job before arriving into another member state. How does this make your Schengen 1 - or was it Schengen 2? I get confused - different from member states' systems we already have? Surely movement conditional on having a job offer is not free movement at all? The wastefulness and uselessness of your proposed policies have once more been demonstrated."
[[EDITED 5/2/2021 10:41am: spelling/phrasing]]
VV: Mr. Leeson, I would like to remind you about the rules: You aren't allowed, nor is any of the candidates, to retort a retort. Please let's have a fair debate, thank you.
Leeson:In response to Cocx Glocalist is not a buzz word its about setting an agreed target or aim then letting nations choose how to reach it within their system. My proposed Schengen rules are no different to how traditional agreements are done except at an EU level so simpler for all.Different naming of the two proposed Schengen schemes might work.
Ma'am, sir, may I ask a question - actually, two - of both Mr. Leeson and Mr. Cocx?
VV: Mr. Le Berre, you already ansked one question, so there's no right to ask another until you are mentioned on an opening statement and you use your retort to ask.
Personally, I believe there should be a sweet balance between the EU and the member states. This applies to all policies. I run my campaign according to this principle. Mutual communication and diplomacy will all unite us firmly. The EU should try not to interrupt on nations' affairs unless they threaten the peace, harmony and unity of the Union. I answered the questionary based on my ideals, but diplomacy and discussion are key and always will be. Every nation-state has its own ideals and their way of doing things. We have to respect that. The lack of respect is why the Union is as heated as it is. We have had several countries on the verge of total demolition that has been ruined due to civil unrest and strong differences of opinion. The EU seems to be in a rush to get all countries to do this, to do that, without giving them room to adapt or have their say. It is ridiculous and does not fit in this professional environment. If I am elected, I will bring equal conditions to all member states and try to solve this problem as much as possible. Thank you.
“My stances on the issues that are strong within the European Union are based on my idea that the Member-States should have more freedoms to them when it comes to economics and politics. There are areas where the Union can institute some integration, but I strongly oppose a move to make the EU into one nation, where the member-states are provinces. I do think that the EU should negotiate on the matter of large-scale projects with-its members, but it must be the sole contributor to those projects for not every government can afford the expense to provide the needed money for said projects”
“Immigration is something that I think should be resolved by the member-state when related to non-EU immigrants, while travel within the should be easier depending the situation occurring within a nation. If a member-state feels that it is not safe for EU immigrants not be allowed at the moment, then that is their decision but they should discriminate just because of who they are. For non-EU immigrants, there should be some measures to ensure that they are able to work in the EU.”
“A Schengen area over the EU is something that I support as it ensures that there is no discrimination on EU immigrants. However, I do think that it should allow member-states to institute an emergency clause that will ensure that in case of situations of emergency, member-states can be able to suspend all immigrants into their country. My reasoning for supporting the Schengen Area is that it is beneficial to the expansion of business, which would then boost the economy of the member-states of the EU.”
“I do have a question for my opponent for the Foreign Affairs Position, what exactly is his position or standing towards the Schengen Area?”
VV: Candidates, the time to comment on the first part of the questionaire's answers has finished. We are now moving to the 2nd part of the questionaire's answers' debate, concerning the European Council Bills and the European Commission. These are the answers:
Apart from this answers, you have all rated the European Commission as a whole, the Premier Commissioner, Angela Merkel; the Internal Affairs Commissioner, Jean-Claude Juncker and the Foreign Affairs Commissioner, Antoni Reynels, along with the current Speaker of the European Council, Edward Firoux.
This makes the Internal Affairs Commissioner the best rated by candidates, while the Premier Commissioner has been the worst Commissioner, according to these candidates. SG: Candidates now have 2 minutes (OOC: 300 words) to give a speech about why their stance on the issues is the best. Candidates can also ask one other candidate a question about their answers to the questions, but candidates are not obligated to respond. If I believe that an important question was avoided by a candidate, however, I might pick them up on it in the next round where I will be asking individual questions. Candidates are free to debate freely, but not going over 1 minute (OOC: 150 words) per statement. I'd would like to remember you cannot retort a retort.
OCC: You have until tomorrow at 22:30 GMT
Leeson:I would like to the outgoing commission for their great work if feel from this key issues are EACA and Neurodivergent and Disability Act. I am obviously for the NDA and the reason is simple its about values, it shows that we support disability rights and neurodivergent rights in Europe. Why should these people have any less rights to exist as they are , than the LGBT community? Maybe some things could be improved but scrapping is not the answer.
On EACA I agree its not perfect but that does not mean we just scrap it Europe needs democracy. Its just a question of how?
Now I feel it should be reformed or replaced to allow for multiple councillours per nation but still all nations equal and how we elect or select councillors changed , this should be de decided by the member states with the act reformed or replaced to reflect that. Governments should be allowed to appoint at least 1 councillour and choose how they elect the others either by what public voting system or let parliament elect them.I feel this is the way forward.
I think Maritime standards are a key issue, just look at the Reitzmag situation as to why , we had no act they built islands and technically it was legal but it was wrong as it affected all the neighbours of Reitzmag. This is all because the EU didn't have defined limits we need an act to define can or cannot be done in international waters and EEZ's and how far territorial waters and EEZ's extend to once and for all end the threat of conflict over water territory.
Finally I would like to ask all opposed to EACA and NDA what would you propose in their place to protect democracy and equality for all?
When looking at these many acts, we must keep in mind the context they were proposed in, as well as their content. Very few of them were proposed with good motives and with good content; with many, it is one or the other, if not lacking both entirely.
However, I do agree that there must be discussion and action on many of the issues that these acts do bring. But again, the legislation proposed to fix these problems and many others is highly suspect.
Solutions to these issues must take into account the differences between member-states, as well as the the interests and groups that may be affected. They cannot take on a one-size fits all approach. My plan would be, again, to hold discussion with all pertinent groups regarding these issues as to reach a final solution that is acceptable to all, with, perhaps, specialization for individual nations if needed.
I have a number of questions for Mr. Leeson. First, to what extent do you recognize differing cultures and material conditions in member-states? Are you willing to adjust or change "glocalist" goals and timelines in recognition of a minority that may have extreme differences in these two areas? And finally, somewhat unrelated, are you willing to tolerate the presence of their cultures in European politics? For example, do you believe that it is dangerous for a politician who supports state-atheism in their own country to be elected to a high position in the European Union if their nation has historically been state-atheist?
Mr. Leeson, it must be made clear that the EACA does not protect democracy. Under it, councillors for the most part continue to agree with those in power as they did before; however, in the case that they refuse or are unable to represent their nations, they can no longer be recalled as easily - in order to do so, nations must commit to holding costly elections. In essence, there is little change in what democracy there is; at the same time, accountability is decreased. Adding more councillors will not solve this issue; on the other hand, the other reforms you propose are near equivalent to total repeal.
Secondly, the NDA has led to economic collapse and violence. The act at the very least must be reformed, if not replaced entirely with an alternative that would not have such horrifying effects.
Leeson:In response to Mr Berre of course we must recognise different cultures but if those cultures clash with religious rights, womens rights, animal rights , human rights and neurodivergent and disability rights they must find a way to include those in their laws. In that case the right of the minorities or groups human rights override the cultural views. However where possible culture should be considered and understood different solutions may be needed. I would work with states and te IAC on issues such as these to find the best balance between their cultures and responsibility towards human rights or EU common goals such as environment protection. I don't think we can just abolish human rights to protect culture which some proposed approaches risk a good example of this is we had to adapt laws in the northern duchies to allow gay marriage and bring marriage to the interduchy level.
VV: Mr. Leeson, you exceeded the time limit, which means you will have only 40 seconds (OCC: 62 words) to retort any candidate or a minute 20 seconds (OCC: 212 words) for your opening statement on the next round.
Mr. Cocx might now get a retort. (OCC: 150 words)
The Kingdom of Spain
