Amendment to the European Constitution 2021
-
Debate on this shall CONTINUE until 14:59 GMT on September 6th, 2021.
Donald Tusk
Deputy Speaker and Councillor for Spain -
I shall be opposing this ammendent. I do believe the countries of the EU need more sovereignty but the way this is written has me concerned. This would allow companies , charities and organisazed groups to get away with abuses as long as the government is okay with it leaving no recourse for potential victims of of discrimination. I believe we need to look elsewhere for reform rather than essentially gutting any act protecting equality and human rights from abuse by corporations.
James Mizrachi-Roscoe, Councillour for United Duchies
-
I understand the concerns from my fellow members of this council. However, I would like you to note that this amendment is not meant to allow individuals and institutions from getting away from what they do, this instead prevents and frees the ECoJ from handling small cases. I have added a phrase requiring the ECoJ to refer cases to lower national courts with jurisdiction over the petitionee as you can see. Moving on, I do not believe that the EU reserves the right to imprison anyone or dictate any country to imprison their own citizen and that only member-states shall have the right to give heavier sentences over their own citizens.
Yuridiana Yahontov
Councilor, Kingdom of Reitzmag -
I would also like to thank Cllr Yahontov for these thoughtful amendments. I am supportive of such changes.
However, my support is conditional because it is possible, even probable that some states' judicial systems do not comply with standard international practise regarding human rights. Perhaps there should be a solidly set legal guidance for nations who must handle cases remanded from the European Court of Justice. I understand this may seem odd, but any case appealed to ECoJ should then be under some authority of the EU, not the state deciding the case.I fear those proposed changes alone would make it easier for basic human rights to be infringed upon.
Though there have probably been cases in some nations in which human rights have surely been violated, I feel some of those are sadly out of our control. We must focus on those cases we can make fair, and perhaps this guidance would do so.
It is not necessary for such guidance to be overreaching or to make changes to nations' judicial systems. Our main concern is that of human rights and those nations that have been so inclined to breach them. I feel that this is a bit of a compromise: we must keep the universal nature of ECoJ, and compliance thereof, as a body of the EU whilst also having consideration for a nation's sovereignty.
Edutitalle Dina
European Councillor
Gadalland and Aspern -
I would like to thank Councillor Yahontov for bringing up this proposal to the chamber. However, I think this proposal isn't done to achieve higher sovereignty, but undermining the European Court of Justice, an European Union institution which the Kingdom of Reitzmag and, more exactly, their last two Councillors; former Councillor van Allen and current Councillor Yahontov seem to have a problem with. Before I get to comment the amendment, I would like to remember Councillors that any Constitutional amendment requires a super-majority, meaning a 75% of positive votes, to pass.
Now, moving onto the content of the proposal; it has come to my attention that the amendment wants to eliminate the capacity of the European Court of Justice to judge individuals or nations, as well as removing prison sentences from their powers and finally, turning it into an advisory court. These three points, Councillors, are the ones which you can read in the "how to undermine the ECoJ" webpage. Undermine, put some obstacles on the way; call it however you want, but it will mean the same.
When someone sees this kind of amendments, which have been trendy during the week, he cannot avoid questions to appear in his mind, and I've got a few for Councillor Yahontov: why do you want to abolish some of the functions of the European Court of Justice? Has your country done something bad and you are scared of being taken to Court? Is this a personal or a state revenge towards the ECoJ? And last, but not least: Why do you want to turn the European Court of Justice into an advisory court as well as removing their capacity to impose any kind of prison sentences? I cannot find any reason, so I hope someone can answer these questions.
Thank you very much.
Donald Tusk
Deputy Speaker and Councillor for Spain -
Even as someone who believes that the powers of the European Union and its institutions should be better defined and limited, I do not support these amendments. The European Court of Justice should serve as a court of final appeal, as well as an arbiter for disputes of an international nature, given that these are the only obvious purposes as a supranational court, in my opinion; these amendments, however, would prevent it from doing virtually anything of importance apart from interpreting the European Constitution. The defense of sovereignty should not come at the expense of making a mockery of justice.
Iras Tilkanas
Councillor for the Republic of Istkalen -
Debate is now over. Voting begins NOW and will last until 21:42 GMT on September 16th, 2021.
On behalf of the Kingdom of Spain, I vote AGAINST this amendment.
Donald Tusk
Deputy Speaker and Councillor for Spain -
On behalf of the Most Blessed State of Inquista, I vote AGAINST this constitutional amendment.
Bp. Karinn Lallana
Councillor for Inquista -
On behalf of United Duchies I vote AGAINST this consitutional ammendment, James Mizrachi-Roscoe Councillour for United Duchies
-
Voting has now concluded. With no votes FOR and 3 votes AGAINST, this amendment to the European Constitution has FAILED.
Donald Tusk
Deputy Speaker and Councillor for Spain
The Kingdom of Spain
