Amendment to the European Commission (Sanctioning Powers) Act

[Inimicus]

"Councillors, following the withdrawal of the Sanction Motion against the USNR for reasons of legal doubt, I present to you the following amendment to the Sanctioning Act, in the hope that Europe can stand united, stand strong, and stand together, in the face of destabilising regimes and rogue states.

"Whatever Councillors' opinions on the initial Act, I think we can all agree that the phrasing used in the original leaves much to be desired - for which I am, of course, at fault - these amendments make the Act stronger, more decisive, and allows for tough action against any rogue regime, whether they be a member of the EU or not."

Premier Commissioner Walter Cocx

---

EUROPEAN COMMISSION (SANCTIONING POWERS) ACT

Written by Premier Commissioner Dr Walter Cocx
Presented by Cllr Sir Augustus Barrington & Premier Commissioner Dr Walter Cocx

PREAMBLE

An Act to Enable the European Commission to Act Decisively against Destabilising and Rogue Regimes by the Promulgation of Region-Wide Economic, Diplomatic, and Military Sanctions

DEFINITIONS

I. Sanction Request: formal, written notice on behalf of one Member State appealing for the institution of region-wide sanctions against another Member State.
II. Sanction Sponsor: the national authority responsible for a Sanction Request.
III. Sanction Enforcer: the responsible authority for region-wide sanctions.
IV. Sanction Subject: the Member State against which region-wide Sanctions are made.

SECTION I - SANCTION REQUESTS

I. Member States may apply to the European Commission with a Sanction Request.
II. Member States must, as Sanction Sponsors, justify their Sanction Request(s) in full, in writing, within two calendar days of submitting a Sanction Request.
III. Four separate Sanction Sponsors must submit a Sanction Request against the same Member State in order for the Sanction Request to be considered.
IV. The European Commission will deliberate and come to a unanimous decision on whether to grant or deny a Sanction Request within five calendar days from the submission of the second Sanction Request against the same Member State.
V. The European Commission may deny a Sanction Request; this does not affect the rights of Member States individually to impose Sanctions against another Member State.

SECTION II - SANCTION IMPLEMENTATION

I. Should the European Commission decide to grant a Sanction Request, the 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;
(i.) The Internal Affairs Commissioner may assume the role of Sanction Enforcer if the Premier so wishes.
II. The Sanction Enforcer shall, within two calendar days of the granting of a Sanction Request, publish a list of region-wide Sanctions to be enforced against the Sanction Subject.
III. Region-wide Sanctions which can be promulgated by the Sanction Enforcer against the Sanction Subject are limited to Sanctions described in Section III. The Sanction Enforcer shall take reasonable precaution in proclaiming Sanctions and shall consider the economic, geopolitical, and diplomatic implications of region-wide Sanctions in the proclamation.
IV. Member States must harmonise their national regulations with the promulgation by the Sanction Enforcer as soon as practical, but certainly no later than fourteen days following the same promulgation.

SECTION III - SANCTION TYPES

Sanctions which may be enacted by the Sanction Enforcer against the Sanction Subject include:
I. Economic Sanctions
(i.) Full and total suspension of any and all trade with the Sanction Subject;
(ii.) Targeted suspension of trade in certain goods or commodities, to be determined by the Sanction Enforcer;
(iii.) Suspension of the Sanction Subject's access to financial markets based in other Member States;
(iv.) Suspension of the supply of electricity, natural gas, and/or other natural or financial resources to the Sanction Subject from other Member States;
(v.) Levying of increased tariffs and taxes on goods imported to or exported to/from the Sanction Subject to/from other Member States;
II. Diplomatic Sanctions
(i.) Suspension of diplomatic representation of the Sanction Subject on European institutions, including the European Council and European Court of Justice;
(ii.) Cancellation and suspension of official visits by representatives of the Sanction Subject to other Member States;
(iii.) Expelling of diplomatic staff from the Sanction Subject from embassies and consulates in other Member States;
(iv.) Restrictions on travel by citizens of the Sanction Subject to other Member States;
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;
IV. Individual Sanctions
(i.) Travel restrictions against individuals representing or belonging to the government of the Sanction Subject;
(ii.) Seizing of economic assets in other Member States belonging to individuals representing or belonging to the government of the Sanction Subject;
(iii.) Taking into custody and bringing to trial of individuals representing or belonging to the government of the Sanction Subject, who are suspected to have committed an offence against European law or the Universal Declaration of Human Rights;

SECTION IV - APPEALS

I. Member States which are the Sanction Subject may appeal to the European Court of Justice for Sanctions to be lifted;
II. The Premier Commissioner shall always testify as or on behalf of the Sanction Enforcer in such cases;
III. Sanctions promulgated by the Sanction Enforcer shall be declared null and void immediately upon a European Court of Justice judgement in favour of the Sanction Subject;
IV. Other Member States may also appeal to end region-wide Sanctions by petitioning the Premier Commissioner;
V. The Premier Commissioner shall then meet with representatives from the appealing Member State. 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;

SECTION V - RENEWALS

I. Region-wide Sanctions shall be subject to renewal by majority vote in the European Council every calendar month;
II. The Sanction Enforcer shall declare region-wide Sanctions null and void immediately upon a European Council vote to refuse renewal;

SECTION VI - IMPLEMENTATION AND ENFORCEMENT

I. Member States must implement economic and diplomatic Sanctions as defined by the Sanction Enforcer under Section III within two weeks or fourteen days of the proclamation of such sanctions.
II. Any Member State which violates any section of this Act by refusing or failing to implement Sanctions promulgated by the Sanction Enforcer, or in any other way whatsoever, shall commit a punishable offence and may be tried in the European Court of Justice.
III. Further, any Member State found to have acted contrary to the region-wide Sanctions imposed by the Sanction Enforcer shall commit a punishable offence and may be tried by the European Court of Justice;
IV. Region-wide Sanctions promulgated by the Sanction Enforcer do not prevent Member States from proclaiming additional Sanctions against the Sanction Subject.

[Fremet]

Debate on this begins NOW and ends 29 March 2021 at 23h30 GMT.

Charles Michel
Council Speaker and Councilor for Fremet

[Spain]

Thank you Premier Commissioner for bringing this topic to the Council, because I was really expecting to have a proper debate on the power boundaries the European Commission has at the moment and will always have. Before I get into the whole matter, I need to clarify something: I'm supportive of this act at the moment, and I think it would be useful to apply it to some member states that recently have taken very bad choices.

But, this doesn't change the main point I'm going to explain right now. The European Commission, and it is very important to remark the word 'European', it's the governing organism of the European Union. I think we all know how it works: European Union member states deliver a vote for the candidates running for 3 different positions, Premier Commissioner, Internal Affairs Commissioner and Foreign Affairs Commissioner. But non-European Union member states like the Holy See, Copala City or the Union of Nicoleizian Soviet Republics, if it can be recognised as a member state, don't deliver a vote. This fact actually has a very important role on where the European Commission can reach within its power boundaries.

And now, I'm going back to the word 'European', which literally means "from Europe". If the Premier Commissioner considers the European Commission and the EU laws should apply to non-member states, then they should be allowed to vote in our elections aswell, to take part in the European Union's development and law making process. That's why, Mr. Cocx, this amendment cannot pass, because the European Commission hasn't got the power, nor the competences to apply European Union's acts to non-member states. And if we were going to do that, we would set a very bad precedent for the future, something I'm not up for.

Mr. Cocx, this is not a vote against your platform or this act, nor it is against you. This is a vote against trespassing the European Commission's power boundaries. The UNSR should be gone, peacefully, but should be gone; and this will just make them angry, something we shouldn't do, as they have been calm during the past months, we haven't got news nor threads from them, and I'd rather have them as they are now than angry. Thank you.

Donald Tusk
Deputy Speaker and Councillor for Spain

[Inimicus]

"Cllr Tusk, I thank you for contributing to this debate with your ever-thorough, well thought-out opinion. I agree that this Act has caused significant argument about the power of the Commission, which, I agree with you, should never trump the power of the Council or of Member States. It is with this in mind that I ran for Premier Commissioner on an explicit platform of standing up for member states' rights. Adhering to national sovereignty, and cutting down on areas of useless European interference into member states' affairs, is at the very centre of my beliefs.

"What is also at the very centre of my beliefs, however -- and what was possibly the most important point of my campaign -- is standing up to regimes that threaten the very fibre of our continental values. Regimes which have come about by force, by demagoguery, by revolution, or all three. What is a better, or should I say, sadder example of such a regime than the USNR? A state which has completely withdrawn from the democratic and legitimate decision-making process in Europe, a state in possession of a sizable nuclear arsenal, yet which does not engage in dialogue with any of us. A regime which, I agree with you, must fall.

"In a wider sense, what use is a united European block if we can only be united against each other, or against one of us? A Europe United should also be a Europe united against outside influences. And no, this does not mean that the Commission's mandate, or European law, extends beyond member states -- what this Act does, and where I am confident any European Justice would agree with me, is compel European Union states to take action against other states. There is no way, no way at all, that this Act forces non-member states to take any legal action, Mr Tusk, you must understand.

"I further want to address these so-called 'power boundaries' of the Commission of which you speak. I agreed, and not reluctantly, to significant amendments to this Act when it was first passed. As a matter of fact, I had hoped for such amendments on first proposing it, as I believe an Act such as this would not work unless the Council acted constructively, in good faith - which I am pleased to say it has. Consequently, it is the Council -- not the Commission -- which has the final say in whether Sanctions are ever adopted against states. A clear example of this mechanism at work is the significant criticism I received from Councillors when proposing the USNR Sanction Motion to them last week. This act is not just empowering the European Commission, Mr Tusk -- it is empowering the Council."

Premier Commissioner Dr Walter Cocx

[Mennrimiak]

The whole act seems good to me, i dont really know what tusk is complaining about, as mister cocx said this act empowers the council and not the commission, also i would like to remark that you use the word "European" as a synonym of a Member state of the EU but you need to remember that European refers to any thing that belongs to the European Continent and yes that includes places like the UNSR, Dromund Kaas and Neo Venetia, although there is a thing that bothers me
How are non EU member states sanctioned going to apeal on an institution that has no authority on their state? The ECoJ is the highest judicial institution within the EU member states but has no authority out side of them, how is this going to work?

The Guy (i forgot his name lol)
Interim Councillor for Mennrimiak

[Istkalen]

As may surprise many of my fellow Councillors, I am entirely apathetic towards this act. Yes, I am opposed to the further sanctioning of the UNSR out of concern for the remaining liberties, as well as the general wellbeing of the Nicoleizian people; however, even if this is the justification of this amendment, I feel as though it is a necessity to view all legislation in a vacuum - that is, by their potential effects rather than the intention of their passage.

You can, I'm sure, from that easily deduce that I do not believe that this act will have particularly much of an effect. There already exists the condemnation, through which the Council may impose sanctions, as it already has on the UNSR. This new method of sanctioning is perfectly fine; it serves to be simply an equivalent process to the Condemnation.

Yes, nations will push forward another sanction motion again with this new provision rather than simply amending the existing Condemnation, which, I may remind the chamber, bans military trade, as well as the trade of luxury goods, with the UNSR; but it would happen anyways, so I doubt it matters particularly much.

I plan to abstain on the passage of this act, and that is final.

Anja Mauer
Councillor for the Federation of Istkalen

[Spain]

Mr. Cocx, I'm not complaining about the act and the Council role on it, that area has already been commented in this room and in fact, I'm pretty satisfied with the role the European Council has on it, but the so called 'power boundaries' refer to the range of countries these laws can reach. Non-European Union member states cannot be under the rule of the European Commission, nor under the rule of the Council, and that's where I do agree with the Councillor for Mennrimiak, who has explained my thoughts really well: 'How are non EU member states sanctioned going to apeal on an institution that has no authority on their state? The ECoJ is the highest judicial institution within the EU member states but has no authority out side of them, how is this going to work?' This question already has a backing Constitutional article, because Article IV, Section I, Article I says: 'I. The European Court of Justice is the supreme judicial authority of and in the European Union.'

Also Mr. Cocx, we already have a condemnation, which is the best thing we could have done in this Council. Since then, the Union of Nicoleizian Soviet Republics has been quiet, they haven't given us any problem since then and I'm very happy about that. So please, and I summon the Council to do the same, let's stop a new crisis in the EU by not allowing this amendment to pass.

Donald Tusk
Deputy Speaker and Councillor for Spain

[Fremet]

Debate on this amendment has ended. As no changes have been proposed, we will move to the final vote.

Final voting begins NOW and ends 2 April 2021 at 12h00 GMT.

---

On behalf of the Kingdom of Fremet, I vote FOR the amendment.

Charles Michel
Council Speaker and Councilor for the Kingdom of Fremet

[Spain]

On behalf of the Kingdom of Spain, I vote AGAINST the amendment.

Donald Tusk
Deputy Speaker and Councillor for Spain

[Kingdom of Reitzmag]

On behalf of the Kingdom of Reitzmag, I vote AGAINST the amendment.

Yuridiana Yahontov
Interim Deputy Councilor, Kingdom of Reitzmag

[Inimicus]

The Empire of Inimicus votes FOR this Amendment.

Nicholas Benfield

[BrumBrum]

On behalf of United Duchies I vote for this ammendment
Skyee Hook, Deputy Councillor for United Duchies

[Montenbourg]

The Kingdom of Montenbourg votes FOR this Amendment.

Emma Granger
Councillor for Montenbourg

[Istkalen]

The Federation of Istkalen ABSTAINS on this amendment.

Anja Mauer
Councillor for the Federation of Istkalen

[Fremet]

With 4 votes FOR, 2 votes AGAINST, and 1 ABSTENTION, the Amendment to the European Commission (Sanctioning Powers) Act has PASSED.

Charles Michel
Council Speaker and Councilor for the Kingdom of Fremet