Mr. Reagan, purely as a concerned citizen of our Union, I would like to repeat Mr. Mitchell's question to you: " Which regions have tried to attack us in the past and which remain hostile to us? And which regions would come to our defense militarily in the event of a raid?"
SG: Candidates, we have a new pair of questions for you. These have been made by spectators all around Europe, apart from the debate's managment and yourselves, but didn't get an answer. You have 2 minutes per question. (OOC: 300 words but you MUST separate these with 3 dashes.) You may continue to debate and call people out on erroneous claims with a 1 minute (OOC: 150 words)
Cocx:
Le Berre:
Leeson:
Birdane:
Winston:
Reagan:
Mitchell:
OCC: You have until 11th February 2021 at 22:30 GMT to answer
I will begin with the question about the dictator Areai. I was essentially enslaved by her, and was forced to give out various diktats from her as her "Minister of Propaganda and Censorship," a title which meant absolutely nothing and was designed to defame me in the case that her regime fell. Had I killed myself or allowed myself to be killed, she would have appointed another person to give out her diktats who would not have been so obstructive as I was.
She was responsible for torturing the country for sixteen years; 75% of those who were not of Haanean descent were put to death; all others were forced to work long hours without pay as to rebuild the country; anyone who dared to openly criticize her was killed horrifically. I am not ashamed that I and others within her cabinet conspired to drug her as to coerce her resignation and thus the end of her regime; she was psychotic and genocidal. It may have taken us sixteen years to plan and prepare for it, sixteen years of servitude and guilt, but we take solace in the fact that we did it. Europeans should in fact be more comfortable with this fact; I was willing to give my own life in service of liberty.
Ms. Roux, your first question does not exactly fall into the area in which a Commissioner is empowered to work; however, I will answer it. This is certainly a threat; however, primary responsibility for it should fall to member-states. If absolutely necessary, which I doubt it will be, a meeting can be held as to ensure that action is undertaken in all member-states independently - without influence or as little as is possible from the Union in the formulation of solutions - as to rectify the issue. This is not even something I am particularly willing to act on - again, it is better left to member-states.
I will be an active Commissioner. I have given to Europe all of my policy in detailed words, have campaigned across the whole of the Union, have been on the whole much more active as a campaigner than my opponents. At the same time, what I promise is great in scope; I will have to work from day to night as to accomplish it.
Nations are entitled to their own economic systems. If they do not actively threaten lives; if they do not infringe upon the basic rights of the individual; they are not rogue.
To answer the question that was asked by my opponent and repeated by Le Berre, I have not stated that we are under attack by anyone. But I want I mean is that we live in a era of technology where the old methods of warfare are being used less and less but high level tech is the way to attack a region. But if I were to say if there were any type of region that we should be concerned about is ones of the very far-right political spectrum with views that call for the genocide of other races and we know that they do exist for a fact. Although, they have not illustrated any will to attack yet, they are a force that the EU should be concerned about. In the event of a raid that the EU might experience, then it would regions that have been founded to fight against invaders like the Order of Grey Wardens.
Well, Ria Levon, to focus on the big crisis which is TSP's handling of TNP's statement(where I assume you are referring to the Quorum Raiding dispute). The situation is very concerning in gerneral esepcially with the strong and postive relations that the North and South Pacific had before the situation. I believe that the situation could have been handled better by both sides, but I feel that the South Pacific were fair on their statement that it was “dismayed and disappointed” by the “bombastic” statement by the North. Moving on to TITO's stance on Quorum Raiding, I believe that each region is entitled to their own beliefs. But I think quorum raiding is a toxic approach to blocking the vote of a resolution that is made with good intentions, which is something that I happened to agree with TITO on who stated that it was their "long-standing support for regional self-determination.” Now focusing on the new delegate of the Rejected Realms, I congratulate Purple Hyacinth for being elected to their position. Although, I wonder what he plans to do in his new position as he made no campaign promises in the race mentioned earlier but the EU will see soon imagine.
"I note that Ms Roux's question really consists of multiple, equally important parts. First of all, I think my record of being an active, involved candidate in this and past elections, and my track record in Inimicus, speaks for how active a Commissioner I would be. As for misinformation, I think you will all recall that I was subject to this by Sen. Kerstin during the last round of elections - the only thing one can do is to stay resolute, stick to the facts, and call out misinformation wherever possible. Now, the last part of your question seems most important to me, and let me be clear. Socialism does not equal terrorism. Socialism does not equal rogue-ness. To think I would consider all socialist nations rogue is folly, and is a notion you should not entertain, Ms Roux."
"My message to Europe was clear, and my definition of rogue states is not up to me, but up to member states. If two or more national governments lodge such an embargo request after, importantly, all diplomatic avenues have been explored, I think it should be possible to compel the entire region to embargo. What nations accomplish these prerequisites is not up to me, but up to member states - as Premier, I would facilitate their action. I'm unaware what the questioner is insinuating by asking what the "real purpose" of these measures is -- in my view, the only and real purpose of such a system is to topple rogue regimes however possible. There is no other purpose."
"If you'll allow me, Vicente, I will briefly question some of Mr Le Berre's points. Like him, I agree that the type of economic system a nation has does not define rogue-ness. However, I'm intrigued, given his experience in Eastern Haane, and the horrors he describes, would he have liked to see tougher action against Eastern Haane at the time this situation was ongoing? How about the USNR? During this campaign, he has advocated a lame head-in-the-sand policy towards rogue regimes, but given the experiences he has just described, would the same count for Eastern Haane?"
First off, calling socialist nations "rogue" is one of the biggest demonizations that right-wing politicians make to diminish the accomplishments of said nations. I will never do this buffoonery. In my work, there are no calling names. There is examining and researching. Of course, I'm talking about myself here, but I will also discourage the rest of the commission to make sure they refrain from using these terms. Secondly, you can trust me on being an active force in the Commission based on the eight, almost back to back rallies I've held. And finally, to combat disinformation, I am considering to add a fact-check section to European Commission app, which would check whether or not the most popular claims around the EU are actually correct.
I feel like my words are being taken out of context here. I said it's chaotic because of its diversity. Diversity of thoughts, cultures, views, languages, you name it. I was actually using the word "chaotic" in a rather positive way if I say so myself. Now, in order to fight Euroscepticism, as I've said in my rally in Hannkkara, we have to listen. The reason why this ideology is even on the rise is that repeated policies that aren't thought through are just pushed without thinking the effects in the long term. It's like we are spitting on our members' faces and it creates a disconnection between the EU and the member states because the EU tries to move in one direction, the states, in another. We need communication. We need diplomacy. We need respect, and we need vision.
Mr. Cocx, I have never lived in Eastern Haane, but I will answer your question anyways. As I have explained on a number of occasions, Areai's regime was only able to stay intact as a result of ultra-nationalism. If extreme sanctions were placed on the country; if there were an intervention - this nationalism would have been strengthened, and her regime would almost surely have lasted for much longer. It is not quite the same with the UNSR. Unlike the regime of Areai, it possesses weapons of mass destruction, which could very well launch us into a protracted and deadly war; on the other hand, it seems significantly more amenable to negotiation. It is authoritarian, and should be condemned as a rogue state; but we cannot hold on to the fantasy that the UDI can be restored through military action, lest we all die in the process.
VV: Candidates, the time for answering the questions is over. Despite not having all the answers, which is, with all my respect to all of you, disappointing and does not make a favour to the Europeans to show your stance on certain questions, we are moving to the closing statements. Sandra will explain everything, but before she does, I would like to thank the candidates for their presence. Sandra, all yours.
SG: So, candidates will have 3 minutes (OCC: 450 words) for their closing statement. Before we start, I would also like to thank the candidates for coming today and being civil to other candidates. May the best win the election, and I wish, along with Vicente and the team that made the debate possible, the best of luck to all of you.
"Thank you, Vicente, for conducting this debate in a civil, orderly manner. I expected nothing less from you. Europeans, friends, today's debate has illuminated the choice you face. You have heard from three candidates for Premier. You have heard from a hyper-integrationalist who nevertheless aims to appeal to Eurosceptics and thus proposes a non-specific, vague platform: Mr Leeson. You have heard from Mr Le Berre, whose proposals for a bloated, oversized, overregulated Europe would take money from your and your nations' pockets. And then, you heard from me. You heard calls for a sensible Europe, a strong Europe. A Europe where oppression and revolt doesn't run. A Europe where nations come together to work together, but where diktats from higher up do not have any sway.
You heard proposals for a reinvigorated Union, where peace, justice, and stability, are at the forefront of your happiness and wealth. You heard a centrist, sensible alternative. You heard what the Cocx Movement has to offer, and it is now up to you to show your support at the ballot box. Good night."
Europeans, I stand for dignity; the dignity of nations, of the many other constituent groups of our Union, and the individual - a dignity defined by respect, sovereignty, and representation for all. I stand for accountability; our money is ours alone; how it is spent should be accountable to trusted experts, not glorified performance artists, and to ourselves. Not a cent more will be spent; what is will be allocated transparently and rationally for the benefit of all. And, last but certainly not least, I stand for rationality; for policy informed not by sentiment or by performance but by concrete experience and data.
A choice lies ahead of you. You may vote for an invasion of Icholasen, for nuclear war and for death; for stagnation; or for peace and dignity.
The long night that our Union has been plunged into for so long will soon end. It is your choice whether you wish to see the dawn, or see it blotted out in the beginning of a new and endless night.
I would like to finish this debate with a simple proposition moderation. We don't have to choose anti-reform or pro-reform. You have heard tonight our stances and I ask you today to vote for courage. Its easy to say I will repeal EACA its much harder to say I will reform it and make it work. Its easy to oppose the NDA but true courage is proposing a replacement if you disagree with it.
We also have Cocx who's tough stances could increase conflict with all due respect. We won't solve the UNSR conflict militarily , our sanctions are working slowly. I believe we need reform and we need to respect the nationstate listening to their concerns especially of those wanting to leave and then find a way to do more cooperation but with sovreignty and local implementation strategies.A glocal approach is vital in this, I do not think it is brave to merely pull back , finding a way to make more EU work with sovreignty is, supporting increasing funds for development is and supporting more joint projects is. We will not solve our challenges by pulling back on co-operation if we want to solve climate change, security and our infrastructure problems we need more joint standards , more cooperation while respecting sovreignty. If you want this vote Leeson vote for reform not rolling back of Europe."
The Kingdom of Spain
