EUROPEAN COMMISSION (SANCTIONING POWERS) ACT
-
Debate on this will continue until 24 February 2021 at 20h00 GMT.
Charles Michel
Council Speaker and Councilor for Fremet -
I must say that I agree with the spirit of this bill. We thank Commissioner Cox for this piece of legislation. Althought we have to make some observations and amendments for this to be fruitfull. I agree with a qualified majority of 55% of member states who activelly are in the Council vote in favour, under the prerrogatives of the extension of the debate or voting. Meaning that we need more than four member states in favor of the proposal, and it can be extended the voting process by the Council Speaker, as long as it is necessary because this is no light decision.
Emma Granger
Councillor for Montenbourg -
Dear Premier Commissioner this proposition is totally unacceptable to Czech Slavia and I expect it to be unacceptable to many other member states and the councilors representing them. It is clear that this act aims at walking around the European Council and the member states and centering more power around the European Commission and the European Court of Justice, it doesn't only gravely violate national sovereignty, as councilor Mizrachi-Roscoe correctly pointed out, but also upsets the separation of powers in the EU. This can result only in the citizens in the member states feeling even more disconnected from the European Union.
It would further damage the relations and trust between the member states creating an atmosphere of uncertainty and high tensions. For it makes any country more vulnerable to foreign plundering of its resources as threatening with imposing region-wide sanctions could be used to force member states into unjust trade deals. It is also a way how this act would restrict the free trade, outside of the obvious sanctions themselves.
I agree with you, Premier Commissioner Cocx, that "our Union is the subject of massive, destructive, destabilising influences" but not from the member states, but rather from the elites seeking to centralize more and more power among themselves.
Václav Kohout
Councilor for Czech Slavia -
This is a huge power grab against this body on the part of the European Commission. Pravoslaviya firmly opposes it.
Cllr Tupac Shakur
-
"Councillors, I see there is much resentment against the so-called "power grab" by the Commission that I propose with this Act. Note that this is anything but a power grab, there are tight checks and controls on embargos and sanctions enforced by the Commission and any nation can appeal to various European institutions at any point.
Nevertheless, I hear Cllr Granger's words and agree with her that an initial decision by the Council might be within the best interests of the Act, if it wants to pass. However, I do not agree with Cllr Mizrachi-Roscoe's proposal for this to be a supermajority -- these are immensely rare under our Constitution and, when lives are at stake, we should not waste time with petty politics. I have nothing much to say in response to Cllr Kohout's slur, I think his judgements should concern the wording of the Act rather than me personally.
It is with this in mind that I am happy to concede some of the strengths of this Act with the following amendments:
Amendment I
SECTION I - SANCTION REQUESTS
III.TwoFour separate Sanction Sponsors must submit a Sanction Request against the same Member State in order for the Sanction Request to be considered.Amendment II
SECTION II - SANCTION IMPLEMENTATIONI. Should the European Commission decide to grant a Sanction Request,
it will notify the European Council accordingly.the Premier Commissioner shall propose a Sanction motion to the European Council. Upon passage of this motion, the Premier Commissioner shallthenassume the role of Sanction Enforcer;Amendment III
SECTION III - SANCTION TYPES
III. Military Sanctions
(i.) Suspension of trade in arms and/or military equipment between Member States and the Sanction Subject;
(ii.) Suspension of military agreements between the Sanction Subject and other Member States;
(iii.) Infiltration and degradation of military installations belonging to the Sanction Subject either by cyberwarfare or direct military means;
Renumber Section III.IV as Section III.IIIDr Walter Cocx
Premier Commissioner -
Excellent amendments Premier Cocx.
Montenbourg stands with these new amendments and exhorts all Councillors to find a way to path this legislation into an Act.
This is a must needed Act.
Emma Granger
Councillor for Montenbourg -
First of all I would like to welcome Dr. Cocx to the chamber as Premier Commissioner, and thank him for his immediate action at the front of the European Commission. I do agree with you, Premier Commissioner, when you say we need to act "as a final guardian against injustice, violence, and terror across Member States". But, at the same time, I disagree when you say "European Institutions must be granted the powers to act against destabilising forces and violent regimes." That's not how things should be done, and we should give freedom to member states.
The many articles and sections this act has might be a great basis for another act, maybe on Council Condemnations, which are more effective and could be more flexible. Everybody could propose a condemnation while the Council could accept it or else, repeal it. It is much easier for us, Councillors, to continue with our work and we also get Commission a bit far from sanctions and a possible lose of neutrality when it comes to enforcing these sanctions, and Section I gives you the answer. I also don't like Article IV.I when it comes to the Premier Commissioner, as he could perfectly avoid sanctions for his country just because he is the Premier Commissioner, something pretty unfair.
It also worries me when it comes to the Council role. When sanctions are passed on a member state by the Commission, the Council is just "notified", which in my opinion is a kind of bad joke and makes the Council seem like a stupid institution. And even if we, the European Council, need to vote on renewals, I won't tolerate just a single notification to this chamber and giving full power to the Commission for a month, a 25% of their complete term without any supervision from the Council when it comes to sanctions. At least, the Premier has realised about his mistake and proposed an amendment on that, which I welcome. And even if I agree with some things said in Section IV, the European Union can't afford a petitioned Premier Commissioner, so I would rather pass a Constitutional Amendment to impeach the Premier instead of having a petitioned Premier, as Spain is not paying money to countries which managed to have their sanctions lifted even if they didn't deserve it, a feeling that I think I share with many others in this room.
On the Amendments proposed by Dr. Cocx, I'm not a fan of Amendment III, but the others are quite fine to me.
That's why I'm proposing the following Amendments:
Amendment I
SECTION I - SANCTION REQUESTS
(i.) A two-thirds majority of the European Commission may grant a Sanction Request only if the Premier Commissioner is not the dissenting party.
Amendment II
SECTION IV - APPEALS
IV. Other Member States may also appeal to end region-wide Sanctionsby petitioning the Premier Commissioner;by a joint appeal along with the Sanction Subject;
V. The Premier Commissioner shallthenmeet with representatives from the appealing Member State if the European Court of Justice lifts Sanctions in order to seek for a compensation to the Sanction Subject..The Premier Commissioner may offer financial incentives to appealing Member States to compensate economic damage as a result of the region-wide sanctions imposed by the Sanction Enforcer;
VI. The proposed compensation shall be proposed to the European Council as a Compensation motion, which shall be passed by majority vote.
Donald Tusk
Deputy Speaker and Councillor for Spain -
In light of newly proposed amendments, I will be extending the debate period until Monday, 1 March 2021 at 12h00 GMT.
Charles Michel
Council Speaker and Councilor for the Kingdom of Fremet -
The debate period has ended. We will now vote on amendments.
The proposed amendments are as follows:
Amendment I: (Proposed by PC Cocx)
SECTION I - SANCTION REQUESTS
III.
TwoFour separate Sanction Sponsors must submit a Sanction Request against the same Member State in order for the Sanction Request to be considered.
Amendment II: (Proposed by PC Cocx)
SECTION II - SANCTION IMPLEMENTATION
I. Should the European Commission decide to grant a Sanction Request,
it will notify the European Council accordinglythe Premier Commissioner shall propose a Sanction motion to the European Council. Upon passage of this motion, the Premier Commissioner shall then assume the role of Sanction Enforcer;
Amendment III: (Proposed by PC Cocx)
SECTION III - SANCTION TYPES
III. Military Sanctions
(i.) Suspension of trade in arms and/or military equipment between Member States and the Sanction Subject;
(ii.) Suspension of military agreements between the Sanction Subject and other Member States;
(iii.) Infiltration and degradation of military installations belonging to the Sanction Subject either by cyberwarfare or direct military means;Renumber Section III.IV as Section III.III
Amendment IV: (Proposed by Councilor Tusk)
SECTION I - SANCTION REQUESTS
(i.) A two-thirds majority of the European Commission may grant a Sanction Request only if the Premier Commissioner is not the dissenting party.
Amendment V: (Proposed by Councilor Tusk)
SECTION IV - APPEALS
IV. Other Member States may also appeal to end region-wide Sanctions
by petitioning the Premier Commissioner;by a joint appeal along with the Sanction Subject;
V. The Premier Commissioner shall then meet with representatives from the appealing Member State if the European Court of Justice lifts Sanctions in order to seek for a compensation to the Sanction Subject.The Premier Commissioner may offer financial incentives to appealing Member States to compensate economic damage as a result of the region-wide sanctions imposed by the Sanction Enforcer;
VI. The proposed compensation shall be proposed to the European Council as a Compensation motion, which shall be passed by majority vote.
Voting starts NOW and ends 7 March 2020 at 20h00 GMT.
I vote FOR Amendments I, II, and IV.
I vote AGAINST Amendments III and V.Charles Michel
Council Speaker and Councilor for the Kingdom of Fremet -
I Vote AGAINST all the Amendments.
Francis Plessis
EU Councilor for Leagio -
The Empire of Inimicus votes FOR Amendments I, II, III, and IV, and AGAINST Amendment V.
Nicholas Benfield
Interim Councillor for Inimicus -
United Duchies votes for ammendments I, II. , IV and V and against Ammendment II
Sky Hooke , Deputy Councillour for United Duchies -
On behalf of the Alkharyan Republic, I vote FOR Amendment I and II, and vote AGAINST Amendment III, IV and V.
Metin Fazlı
European Councillor of the Alkharyan Republic -
I vote FOR Amendments I, II, IV and V and AGAINST Amendment III.
Donald Tusk
Deputy Speaker and Councillor for Spain -
Voting on amendments has now concluded.
With 5 votes FOR and 1 vote AGAINST, Amendments I and II have PASSED. With 1 vote FOR and 5 votes AGAINST, Amendment III has FAILED. With 4 votes FOR and 2 votes AGAINST, Amendment IV has PASSED. With 2 votes FOR and 4 votes AGAINST, Amendment V has FAILED.
Final voting begins NOW and will last until 22:05 GMT on March 11th, 2021.
On behalf of the Kingdom of Spain, I vote FOR this act.
Donald Tusk
Deputy Speaker and Councillor for Spain -
On behalf of United Duchies I vote for Skye Hook , Deputy Councillour for United Duchies
-
On behalf of the Realm of Great Ruthund, I vote AGAINST this act.
Tony Odhinazen
EU Councilor, Ruthund -
On behalf of the Alkharyan Republic, I vote FOR this act.
Metin Fazlı
European Councillor of the Alkharyan Republic -
The Empire of Inimicus votes FOR this Act.
Interim Cllr Nicholas Benfield
-
On behalf of the Kingdom of Montenbourg, I vote FOR this act.
Emma Granger
Councillor for Montenbourg
The Kingdom of Spain
