Kalessed for Internal Affairs | For Justice and Dignity
We live in a broken Europe, held hostage by populists. Some want to tear it apart; others want to make it one country, one culture, one mass of people all thinking in the same way. Still others seek only to use it as a base to fulfill their own desire for power, throwing out random, disconnected promises in order to achieve this.
I will seek to undo this; to break the grasp of the politicians and the demagogues on our Union, and to, in place of the monstrosity that they have created, build something new, something which will ensure justice and dignity for every nation and every European.
The bureaucracy will be the first to go. The Union does not require the large, unaccountable institutions it has created, which have gradually stolen power from the member-states. Not at all. As my first act in office, I will seek to radically reduce and decentralize the bureaucracy. Every European "institution" will become a federation of the institutions of member-states - health ministries forming the EHO, for example - with only a light European presence binding them together. Rather than what they are at present - distant masses who regulate without accountability or knowledge - they will become institutions of cooperation between member-states, intimately linked with the situation in the nations of the Union, as well as, to a much greater extent, responsible to them. I will also seek to encourage a more direct and grassroots democracy within the functioning institutions; in consenting member-states. With the involvment of individual ministries, the Office of Internal Affairs will endeavor to set up democratic and decentralized organizations of mutual aid, operating as confederations on the European level and corresponding to individual European institutions, which will be given a portion of funds in order to further development and co-operation within and throughout Europe.
I will also seek to further sovereignty. I will call upon representatives of member-states to develop a Sovereignty Charter, which will delinate the powers of the Union and of member-states. Let it be clear, I do not expect the development of the Sovereignty Charter to be finished within my term - that would be unrealistic, a promise akin to those made by the demagogues - my intention is only to start it, and lay the foundations for a new, regenerated Union. In the end, however long into the future it may be, the Sovereignty Charter will be submitted to the European Council for ratification as a part of the Constitution, finally granting upon the nations of Europe protection from the whims of the populists.
But sovereignty is not merely political; it is also economic. This is ignored by many, particularly the demagogues who claim to be fighting for sovereignty, but it remains highly important. Until the day that all nations view each other as equal in matters of commerce and trade, and until the day this view is genuinely acted upon, we cannot say that we are protecting sovereignty. We can say that we are fighting for it, if we act for this future goal, but we cannot say that we are protecting it, for it simply does not exist. How can a nation be sovereign when its minerals are being carted away without its consent, how can a nation be sovereign when it is wholly - wholly, not merely partially, and do not take my words out of context - dependent on other countries for its livelihood? We cannot say that this is a state of affairs that does not exist; virtually all of the member-states of the EU have trade surpluses; for some of these, the surplus is abnormally high. The world of trade is a zero-sum game; if some have surpluses, others must have deficits. This deficit most likely falls upon a very small collection of nations - the poorest. Why is this bad? Deficit is a sign of dependence; that a nation, in order to keep afloat, must trade its own wealth - perhaps more than is necessary - to others, who may not have its best intentions in mind. The poorest are thus robbed by the richest, and denied any right to true independence in perpetuity. We have taken many steps to rectify this, but not enough. I intend to place a fine of sorts on those nations with abnormally high surpluses - not just nations with surpluses, but those that are unusually high - and use the proceeds to stimulate production for those with abnormally high deficits. The demagogues may scream all they like about their imagined sovereignty, but the protection of political sovereignty without the protection of economic sovereignty is not the protection of sovereignty at all - it is merely the protection of the continued hegemony of some.
There then is the issue of the reform of our political institutions. Firstly, and perhaps most importantly, is the state of the commission. We have seen, particularly in 2020, commissioners force through reforms, often bizarre in nature, by decree. I cannot find any clause in our Constitution permitting this, and yet it still happened, with the decrees still upheld as European law. This was and is unacceptable. If elected, every decree of this nature issued by the Office of Internal Affairs will be declared void. What is necessary and useful among these decrees - and there is some, how very little it might be - will be presented as genuine legislation to the European Council - but will, as well, be declared void until they are actually passed. It is the responsibility of the Commission to uphold the principles of the Constitution and democracy, not to act as two-bit dictators. The Council is also an issue. As of now, the odious EACA, which has robbed member-states of their right to representation, remains relatively intact. It was changed, yes - but only to prevent discontent, and not because of its unconstitutionality. The present justification for its existence is what these demagogues always call upon when chased into a corner - democracy - but it has accomplished nothing of the sort. It expects dictatorships to just change to uphold the law - but what stops them from holding sham elections in the way that most have always done? What the EACA, even its present state, would do is effectively call the sham elections and "democracy" of dictatorships genuine democracy, endorsed by the European Union. Combined with its illegality by the European Constitution itself, there is more than enough justification to repeal it and return the Council to order. There is finally the question of the ECoJ. Its role should primarily be one of acting as a court of final appeal. Cases should only be taken to it if they regard the Union, occurred on a Union-wide level, or are a result of the inability of a national-level court to uphold European law in the opinion of a petitionee. It should not, however, be abolished, or made completely useless, as many of the demagogues suggest, for reasons that are obvious to us all.
Finally, there must be a discussion over the role of the Union in the defense of rights. We have seen very many attempt to claim that the abolition of guaranteed rights by the Union is somehow protecting sovereignty; but this is but inhumane. National sovereignty is not above the dignity of individuals, otherwise there would be nothing wrong with anything up to and including genocide so long as it did not spill over into other countries. There does need to be greater flexibility in the grantng of rights, to allow for differing interpretations and adaptations for different cultures - but we cannot merely allow for violations of human rights simply because of some nonsense excuse of "national sovereignty." I intend to do two things - introduce the greater flexibility I have mentioned by convening representatives of member-states to form a convention of sorts on the issue of the UDoHR and how it might be adapted to the different cultures of our nations - but also expand it, introducing, in particular, greater rights for workers, particularly in regards to their ability to form unions and their safety. The demagogues who scream about the Union and about sovereignty will again object to this - for again, they do not care about genuine sovereignty and the dignity of individuals, but rather either about their own power (those who make random and piecemeal reforms and positions in the vague direction of sovereignty, who call themselves "Euroupists," or about maintaining the hegemony of certain countries and individuals - those who seek the abolition of almost everything that makes up the Union.
In short - if I am elected to the Commission, I will fight for decentralization, sovereignty, and the dignity of all nations and peoples.
It's that simple.
The decentralization and democratization of European bureaucracy. Place responsibility in the hands of nations and the people, rather than in unaccountable and distant bureaucrats.
The creation of a Sovereignty Charter, presenting a codified and binding definition of sovereignty.
The defense of economic sovereignty - end neo-imperialism and neo-colonialism through radical new legislation.
Uphold the separation of European powers. Declare an end to the age of Commission-issued decrees,
Repeal the EACA, and return the Council to its true glory.
Reform the ECoJ into a court for Europe-wide affairs and of last appeal.
Defend human rights alongside the integrity of cultures.
Defend and codify workers' rights.
Fight unncessary partisanship and demagoguery in European politics.
Ensure the defense and representation of the people of Europe.
It's been, well, been quite a while since I've spoken to such a crowd! But I'm happy to be here; happy to finally be out again, speaking to all of you. I don't want to take up too much of your time, so I'll try to keep this as short as possible.
The Union needs to be radically democratized. As of now, it is composed of various, virtually unaccountable bureaucracies. Look, for example, at the European Central Bank. Do any of you know who the President of the European Central Bank? No. No one knows who that is, no one even knows whether anyone even occupies that position. Even more shrouded in mystery are the shareholders. Do private companies hold shares in the ECB? Do member-states? What is the proportion of shares by owner? Who are the shareholders? Are there even shareholders? No one knows the answer to any of these questions. Yet the ECB is extremely powerful. It has the power to define all European monetary policy. They could force us to devalue the Ketsel, they could force the Bank of Europe to devalue the EMU, they could do all manner of things and it would all be legal.
In essence, a mysterious clique, who are entirely separated from the people, have virtually total control over the European economy. This state of affairs repeated in many other agencies. We know nothing about the representatives on the EHO's own Council; we only know of the agency's head, and yet it has made a number of controversial endorsements of legislation, as well as issued statistics coming from who-knows-where. The same for the EACB, the same even for the Offices which the Commission heads. It's all out of control!
It is the result of the way Europe works. European politicians have constructed massive, unnecessary, and faceless bureaucracies in Europolis, which do jobs which national-level ministries, and even mutual aid groups in certain cases, would be far better at doing. I do not deny the need for cooperation - in many cases, Europe-wide cooperation is necessary - but facilitating cooperation doesn't require the size of the presently existing European-level agencies, organizations, and what-have-you. If I am elected, I promise to cut the fat -to get rid of these wasteful institutions, and devolve their power to individual ministries, with decentralized and democratic communal workers' organizations creating alongside them. The work of the remaining, necessary Europe-level organizations will be merely to coordinate the work ministries and communal organizations, which will require far fewer resources.
Through the communal organizations themselves, genuine democracy - not the facade that the demagogues maintain with their useless legislation - will be created. Workers will be empowered to create and build for themselves, to become self-reliant, and to directly participate in European affairs, far more than they would be electing a Councillor in an election that is more often than not strongly influenced by elites through advertising and donations.
With this, we will be left with a better Europe. Bureaucracies will be made more accountable, as well as more flexible, and important powers will be returned to the member-states. Democracy will be genuinely expanded, and not at the expense of the representation of member-states.The budget, too, will finally go to the genuine use of member-states, rather than being consumed in the back office of some three-letter agency. And all without having to, as many of my opponents suggest is the only way forwards, dismantling half of the Union and leaving it a dying wreck on the side of the proverbial road.
But, of course, there is a question that many of you, I'm sure, are asking. Why me? Why would I be the only one to do this? Biden has proposed something vaguely similar, and surely, the EPA candidate, with all the fanfare coming from them, will also take the same path. None of them, of course, have actually made anything as clear as I have; but still, for them to do what I propose is not unlikely, perhaps it is even very likely, almost certain, in the cases of some.
I assure you that this will not be the case. Biden, for all that he talks about Europe, does not want a European Union. He talks about making legislation "treaty-based;" about making the whole of the EU and its institutions "treaty-based," which would mean that laws, regulations, and institutions would only operate in states which ratify them. What would be the point of the Union, in that case? The existence of the Union implies cooperation - the cooperation of member-states on important issues. To recast the Union so that member-states can merely do completely as they wish - choose to cooperate on certain matters, and choose not to on others, or choose not to cooperate at all - is to leave it useless. Yes, the Union does presently go far beyond merely allowing for cooperation, (and this must be rectified, so that all nations and cultures are genuinely respected as independnent equals); but we should not act as to fully defeat its purpose.
The EPA, on the other hand - what have they done? Since 2020, and particularly after the rise of Juncker, they have not had any coherent vision, or policy for that matter. Why should we expect them to change now? Yes, they are releasing a platform - but it will be, unless if I am pleasantly surprised, the same old, same old - a hodgepodge of piecemeal reforms and nearly-useless policies without any specific vision or theme behind them, a document which abounds in virtue-signaling and in which actual, helpful policy is near-absent. Oh, they'll go around and scream about their shiny new student exchange program, or what-have-you, but they won't propose any concrete solutions to the genuine issues Europe faces - the dormancy of half of its institutions, the opaque way in which most of them operate, and the constant violations of sovereignty both political and economic, among many, many others., When anyone says this to them, they'll say that they are multi-tracked or whatever other excuse they have on call - but being "multi-tracked" does not excuse lacking any actual vision apart from some vague idea of how great the Union is, it does not excuse lacking any actual solutions.
What about Thatcher? I don't know very much about her, and I don't want to criticize her as of now - she might be preparing a very good platform - so I will not.
But as of now, I am the only one willing to address the pressing issues Europe faces in a coherent and sensible manner; the only one willing to address them without turning to demagoguery or to the technique of vomiting up as many random policies and so-called solutions as possible in the hope that one will gain support.
I do understand that there are a great number of other issues I need to address - sanctions, details about the communal organizations, my proposed Sovereignty Charter, and my ideas on such things as ECB reform, for example. I indeed have a plan for all of these, and will unveil them in short time; but I'd like to keep each of my rallies focused and short. I'll keep you all informed, however.
And with that, goodbye! Thank you for coming, thank you for listening; may you all remain in good spirits and health!
While I prepare my next "rally," whose location will be announced in a short time, I would like to elaborate on some of my policies which I feel I have not described in enough detail, as well as to discuss the platforms of other candidates.
The first issue will attract ire from the Eurogroup I am affiliated with; but we are not a party, we are a caucus. I am sure we can tolerate some disagreements; we are not, like some others, bound to some vapid joint platform. In cooperation with the Premier, I intend to divert some funds from the EDA to confederations of communal organizations, also organized on a sectoral basis, that will distribute funds to national-level communal organizations to aid development. Only the contributions of states that have opted into the communal organization program will fund these. The purpose of this is to encourage democracy and self-development, while preventing bureaucraticization - these, again, will be confederations of extremely democratic organizations, the structure of which will inherently prevent bureaucracies from forming around them. The EDA will remain in place, albeit with a lower level of funding, to provide funding for those who have opted out of the communal organizations, and for a small scattering of general projects for those with communal organizations.
This whole method of funding for the communal organizations will only be temporary. I will say it again - temporary. You will not have to worry about money, allegedly for development, being flushed down the toilet again and again. The intention is for them to become autonomous of the EU, entirely self-managed and self-funded - and this will be pursued more aggressively, by slowly removing funding for them, accounting for possible difficulties that some member-states may face. The EU, of course, if this all succeeds, will continue to facilitate coordination between them - but very little else.
Now, I will be asked, "is this not violating sovereignty? Is this not hypocrisy?" It is neither. The communal organizations are established only in member-states which have permitted their establishment; they are meant to promote self-organization and self-development, rather than dependence on aid and on the organization of the "center" - the exploiting nations which I have mentioned, the opposite of the "periphery." If successful, they will allow for the significant reduction of the EU budget by helping the poorest develop themselves, both institutions and economy, particularly alongside my ideas to radically reduced EU bureaucracy by I have indeed voiced opposition to legislation which would cause EU laws to only be adopted by those nations which desire them - but this is because this is too broad. For something that may be detrimental to the development of EU nations, but extremely helpful for others -and development, particularly self-development, is something very, very important to me -it may be necessary. Yes, I want the organizations to exist in as many countries as possible; but I do not want to establish them in countries which they would not succeed in.
The second issue regards the structure of the communal organizations. I will make it clear - no exact structure for them will be imposed, so long as they are decentralized and democratic in nature. They will be formed only according to a sparing set of regulations by member-states, according to local conditions and culture. To have it any way else is but another form of imperialism - cultural imperialism. I have stressed my commitment to self-development; in this, too, I desire as much as possible to be the work of the nation rather than of the EU, for anything else necessarily inspires dependence and continued imperialization.
The third regards my position on the foreign policy of the EU, particularly sanctions and the UNSR. I do not believe many of the EU-levied sanctions against the UNSR should continue; they violate sovereignty, and also may be hurting the Nicoleizian people. However, sanctions placed against military trade may be wiser. We have had little time to really gauge the UNSR; while it has not shown itself to be unstable, we cannot be entirely sure that this will not change. As of now, relaxing this policy could lead to rash actions by a variety of actors, including the UNSR. I intend to advocate for a policy of tentative reconciliation. As of now, many seem to think that we are almost at war; already we have candidates calling for "peace in Icholasen." This type of thinking must end. We must put aside our romanticism with conflict, and continue talks with the UNSR to allow for detente. Once the UNSR has lasted longer, and proven itself completely, through its actions, that it will remain stable and itself seeks detente and the normalization of relations, the danger of sudden rash actions will have passed, and it may be possible to begin, very slowly, relaxing some of the sanctions against officials and military trade. My intention, unlike many other candidates, is not to plunge the EU into a long-lasting cold war by proposing so-called "peace" that is obviously unacceptable to virtually all actors involved, including both the UNSR and the UDI, or by taking a hard-line stance, whether for the UDI or the UNSR, but to gradually integrate the UNSR, in a way that is at least partially acceptable to the UDI, and prevent an outbreak of hostilities.
The fourth regards the "fine" I have proposed, to be implemented with the help of the Premier Commissioner. I assure all Europeans that I do not intend to actually levy an additional fine; the Union does not need any more, it already has far more than it needs, it appears. I do not even fully support what I propose - if there were another policy coming anywhere near being close to a solution, I would take it in a heartbeat. But the intention is merely to "redistribute" part of the surplus - to redirect a portion of the rebate that would normally go to an exploiting nation to one that is exploited. Nor will the "fine" apply to all nations with a trade surplus; it is intended only for those with an abnormally high surplus gained through the exploitation of the "periphery" - nations which provide inexpensive labor and resources to them, which may be both rich and poor. Above all, I will ensure that the "fine" will not apply nations which have surpluses through means which do not involve exploitation, and particularly not on nations which are in reality suffering economically. Those who have committed no wrong should not be punished for the actions of others. I am, again, also extremely willing to reconsider this policy, which I see, again, as extremely far from ideal, if another method, less likely to punish the innocent, for discouraging neo-imperialist policies is found or suggested.
The fifth regards my stance on bureaucracy and how it connects to the rest of my platform. As I stated earlier, we have faceless elites, out of touch, ruling many of our institutions. They seek to impose certain ideas an values on all of Europe. I am quite obviously strongly for matters being dealt with by nations in cooperation, not by additional, extraneous bodies and actors, and have been strongly opposed to a one-size fits all approach to anything, because this is at the core of my ideas - to create a community of equal nations, rather than a system in which certain nations are subjugated by a center which seeks to impose.
So, then, what about the platforms of others? I will first discuss the EPA platform. I don't see any clear vision in it, or for that matter anything. In Biden's, you can see a clear Euroscepticism; in mine, a clear anti-imperialism and decentralization; but in theirs, what? It seems to merely be a disorganized hodgepodge, as I predicted, of various vague policies that are difficult to interpret. Let us first begin with the statement made by Chairman Donald Tusk, which he makes with his usual spite and anger, previously demonstrated when, for example, he stated that he would support an act well-known to all of us if others did, and oppose it if others did, when he went on a deranged and possibly misogynistic rant during the debate on the budget during which he held the Commission to a standard which has virtually never been met, or when he told, in an indirect way, Duxburians that they should "learn to use Google" as a result of issues over the usage of different calendars.
Regardless, let us move on. In this statement, he claims that the PEL, in power, did nothing. Let us examine the facts. Only two weeks into office, the Premier proposed the EDA, which then, perhaps due to personal matters, perhaps due to incompetence, perhaps due to malice, spent over two months in voting alone, despite virtually everyone present having submitted their votes quickly after the closing of debate. This came after Tusk proposed nonsense amendments to the act on pretexts that were equally nonsensical, which were thankfully defeated.
It was a short while after the ending of voting that the budget was proposed; obviously the Premier could not propose it before the passing of the EDA. It was at this juncture the Chairman began to rant against the Premier. Given that it was him who was responsible, for whatever reason, for holding up voting on the EDA, and thus virtually everything else the Commission could have done, for two months, this is somewhat rich. The Commission then opened talks with the UNSR, I believe, an important step. Yes, some of their promises were left unaccomplished by them - but members of the PEL proposed them, or legislation approaching them, separately. It is exceedingly clear that this is the exact opposite of "nothing," and far exceeds anything that the post-Stuart Commission has done, not to belittle the accomplishments of those commissions.
This is then followed by a series of vague proposals, which mean nothing. They propose the proposal of a "Digital Services Act to protect consumers, establish a powerful transparency and foster innovation, growth and competitiveness." What is the content of this act? How would such an act accomplish this? Have the ramifications of this act on countries of radically different cultures surrounding the goals of the act been considered? None of these questions are answered, even as outline. There is much worse: they want to propose "a new scheme for the European Green Deal, to integrate both common and state policy, giving more sovereignty to member-states and allowing the EU to play a role on the region’s fight against this matter." I have no idea whether the European Green Deal is legal, or whether it is binding, given that it appears to have been made by decree of Juncker, unless if they are referring to the Bergen Agreement, in which case I stand corrected. Regardless, what does any of this mean? How are you going to give "more sovereignty" to member-states, while allowing the EU to play a role? In concrete terms, what does it mean for the people of Europe? How does one "integrate common and state policy?" This is literally just a collection of words that sound good, that when put together convey no actual meaning. Reading this whole platform, I have gained virtually no knowledge of what the candidates of the EPA want for Europe. Again, when you look at Biden, when you look at Desai, you know what they want. When you look at me, you know what I want. When you look at Juncker and Muzhare, you have absolutely no idea what they want or what they are even going to do in office.
It can always be worse, and at a certain point, the manifesto begins to propose policy that is either illegal or would set an extremely bad precedent. In particular, they want to "[integrate] the proposed European Climate Fund on the Bergen Conference into the European Development Act." The Bergen Agreement is a treaty, not legislation. The legality of it is already somewhat questionable, but can be excused, by arguing that it creates a fund managed by the Union that is presumably independent of it - to create a fund that is part of the Union by treaty would in all likelihood not be legal. Any toying with this area, I feel, would be stepping on already unsteady ground; it would perhaps be better to separate the ECF from the Union entirely, by convening a meeting of ratifying nations and seeking to amend the original treaty.
Then there are some more proposals which mean nothing, and that really concludes their platform. A nothing-burger with a side of poison is all it is.
But then, let us look at Biden's platform. It is more concrete, with genuine proposals - but I do not see how they would help anything. Allowing legislation to become treaty-based is again nonsensical - there is absolutely no point to the Union in that case. He also speaks of constitutional reviews and reviews of the Acquis Communautaire to protect sovereignty, and perhaps there is some merit to this, but in the end, without a definition of sovereignty, as I seek to establish with my Sovereignty Charter, to be drafted by representatives of the member-states and to become a part of the Constitution, it will be for naught. We will end up with politicians scribbling over what could very well be useful legislation, claiming that it is against sovereignty because they disagree with it. Biden also does not address the issue of economic sovereignty, which is concerning, but again, not unexpected. Most worryingly of all, however, is his policy on the UNSR. He wants to see an end to tensions between the UNSR and the UDI, a noble goal, but also believes reunification is a possible goal. I don't even think we should be framing the issue of Icholasen on these lines; the UDI is a government-in-exile. But regardless, "reunification" is a proposal unpalatable to both sides - it implies either subjugation or compromise, and neither side seems willing to give up very much. I don't think very much would be resolved in the end; we should instead be focusing on smaller steps, towards such things as ending certain sanctions and normalizing the general environment, instead of even thinking of such things as these.
Also pertinent is the platform of Desai. I understand that he is a candidate for Premier, but he, as of now, is defining the general policy of ELSS, which Biden is affiliated with. Desai is one of those types who cares very much about sovereignty, but conveniently ignores economic sovereignty, and in many cases works to undermine it. He talks about creating an environment in the EU amenable to business; what does this mean? Imposition of neoliberal policies, perhaps being forced in exchange for a loan? He also talks about running the EU like a business; this would result in very poor results. The EU is a government; if it were a business, it would behave significantly more unethically, all for the purpose of breaking even or lowering the budget. Predatory loans being extended to member-states; the budget being cut far below what is necessary for needed agencies - the EHO, the EAA - resulting in possibly deadly results. That is what businesses do, cut budgets below what is necessary and expect workers to keep going. We might, under him, and any ELSS-affiliated commission, see the EU becoming an active participant in neo-imperialization and the expansion of inequality rather than merely ignoring it. I hope that I am wrong about him, and the ELSS and affiliates as a whole, but unfortunately we have not seen a good track record from politicians using the same rhetoric.
The choice is yours, Europeans - I implore you to think deeply, and choose well. Thank you for coming, thank you for listening; may you be healthy and in good spirits! Goodbye!
I have found myself disgusted with rallies. I find them manipulative, too manipulative, a grandiose monstrosity which serves only to whip up the masses into a frenzy. That is not what I want, that is not what anyone wants, from politics. What everyone wants is a politics that is sensible and rational, not one defined by emotion. I am thus abandoning rallies as a form of campaign; they have become events of lies and ridiculous pomposity.
In this first episode of my new podcast, I want to discuss the problems that the youth of our Europe are facing. It is difficult to discuss them as one group; we are not one nation, but a collection of them in solidarity, each with different interests but united to serve them all. But they share many worries, many desires, because of the terrible situation that we have put them into.
We have heard some say that all they desire is to meet others, to have fun, to joke around. But we are not speaking of children when we speak of youth; we are not speaking of babes, the completely innocent. We are not speaking of adults, either, but we are speaking of living, breathing individuals who are capable of thinking deeply and rationally of the issues of today; individuals who have genuine opinions of their own, individuals and people who have lives ahead of them and are worried about those lives. Some are idealistic, some are cynical, but they have real worries that are deeply connected with the worries we have; real hopes, real dreams, real desires. They are not frivolous people, as some suggest, and the important issues they bring up must not be dismissed as frivolous. We must acknowledge them and try to rectify them.
Our youth, above all, are afraid. They live in an age where the selfish actions of their predecessors now may kill them. They feel as though they have little to look forwards to, except an Earth that has become hell. When our leaders suggest inaction, or mere platitudes and empty statements in place of action, when they turn around, after saying this things, and address the youth as though they are infants, what else can they believe, what else can they look forwards to?
They are also, many, many of them, distrustful of our present system. The politicians lie to them constantly, and treat them, again, as though they are infants; they are ignored, sometimes told to shut up. But they are given too much responsibility; they are told that they must solve all the issues that plague the world, without help from anyone else.
What work will be available to them is drone-like work; they will have no true independence in their life to come.
What a joke!
We must first afford to every person, every nation, economic independence; we must afford to every person respect and dignity, without encroaching on sovereignty. My intention is to promote the creation of democratic and decentralized communal organizations on the part of member-states, which will be adapted, by their own decision, to national circumstances and cultures. The point of these organizations will be to coordinate development in a democratic way between workers, on a self-organized and self-reliant basis. While completely constructed on an opt-in basis by the European Union, they will be encouraged through non-financial means. What will this do? It will give workers more options, more educations, and thus greater freedom for themselves; it will also, for nations, allow for auto-development, reducing dependence on the First World and encouraging new, greener industry, alongside the shortening of supply chains, which will, as the present IAC stated, significantly reduce carbon emissions as well. Even in nations which decide to opt out, similar benefits will continue to be made available through the EDA.
This will free the youth from one of its main fears - that of losing independence and creativity in the workforce - as well as, to a significant extent, from the issues of the climate. It will give to them an assurance a genuine voice, when they are older and more mature, in the affairs of the EU as well, through these organizations which will, if widely adopted, take a leading role in many EU institutions, allowing them away to actually be heard, to actually act to rectify their worries, to be given self-agency.
In essence - if I am elected Commissioner, I will seek to give independence, true independence, agency, respect, and a voice to all, not merely some.
Our Union is home to a great many peoples and cultures who do not conform to those of the rest of Europe; Yosaians, Sertians, Duxburians, even my own people, Istkaleners, and many more. At first, to us all, the Union seemed an inviting place. To many of you, it may seem still to be inviting.
The deadly, terrifying truth is hidden behind a thin veneer of acceptance. The official motto of the Union is "United in Diversity," and indeed, from a cursory view, this seems to be largely practiced; but look any closer, and it seems as though we are more about conformity than anything. Many of those in our Union only accept that diversity which they can understand, and reject all others. They were thankfully thrust from power by the protest of the ignored; but now they threaten to crawl back and reimpose their rule.
To them, we are "foreign;" we do not belong. Look at Councillor Tusk's words on issues with calendars, a symbolic point of contention:
"Since the creation of this chamber, I think nobody, or barely someone has got any problem with acts interpretations because of the Gregorian calendar. Every Councillor here works with it, even in the debates when we set deadlines or we mention several dates. Changing this is simply stupid, because I doubt somebody will have 'significant problems'. And if someone does, I encourage them to use the Internet, which has very useful tools."
If he, and by extension his Eurogroup, cannot give any ground on this issue, so simple and yet so symbolic in its meaning, a representation of differing interpretations of the same thing, can we really trust them to give any ground on anything else? They have spoken the language of sovereignty, yes, but they have not recognized this most important of issues - cultural integrity. We will merely be getting more of the same, of acts and institutions that do not care about our cultures or the way things work in our nations, because, again, to them we are merely a "foreign" minority who shouldn't be here in the first place. We will be forced to implement motions and legislation that makes no sense to us and that does not work in the context of our nations again and again, into eternity.
Not, of course, to speak of the complete ignorance of the different economic forces that might be driving the life of our countries. They assume that all countries are roughly the same; they do not account for any differences, apart from perhaps in levels of economic development. Istkalen and Ruthund are agrarian in part because of the unique paths they took; if I understand it correctly, the Duxburian Union has a significant weapons industry for somewhat similar reasons. They don't care; they think we're all the same, and that, again, those who are different are a tiny minority and shouldn't be in this union in the first place. They'll dismiss us in the same way they do when we bring up cultural issues, with indifference, telling us merely to make the necessary adaptations.
Of all the issues plaguing our Union, this is one of the least tenable, and yet it is the one which absolutely no one else has mentioned. It damages our dignity and our livelihoods, it damages, in fact, far more.
Yes, this time around, almost all the candidates are speaking the language of sovereignty. But sovereignty, in particular the political sovereignty they speak of, is different from the respect of diversity of cultures and histories; of the diversity of nations. Sovereignty does not afford to peoples true dignity, especially when no attempt is made to change general political cultures which are on the whole against dignity, respect, and accommodation for many; for those they see as "foreign."
For those who go further, for the most part they look at it in too abstract of a way. They see people demanding greater sovereignty, and never understand the reasons behind this demand; they only demand sovereignty themselves. They develop a solution, in essence, without actually knowing or understanding the underlying problem.
My plan is simple, and informed by this issue rather than any abstract political ideas. I intend to decentralize the powers of EU institutions to state-level ministries, to allow for greater flexibility; to modify EU laws to ensure that they genuinely accommodate different cultures, in particular by avoiding the usage of confusing terminology and by allowing member-states greater flexibility in their interpretation and enforcement of laws - in essence, their ability to adapt laws to national conditions. Even to give development directly to the people, to nations, rather than to unwieldly EU bureaucracies. To foster self-development, self-enforcement, within a framework of cooperation with dignity, respect, and equality.
Let us stand up for a genuine answer to our problems, instead of these hackneyed attempts. Let us stand up for what we deserve; true sovereignty, true respect, true dignity, and true cooperation!
Thank you for listening.
I would like to make a short statement, now. My proposal is simple - of a Union that is decentralized, of a Union whose institutions are participated in both by nations and by people, of a Union which protects and respects sovereignty of all kinds - one which respects the many different cultures and economic courses of our countries.
I seek to allow all nations to become self-reliant; I stand against dependence in all its forms. I also, however, want to give workers this independence, this choice, by encouraging self-reliant development, auto-development - not by regulating, not by banning, but through encouragement. In particular, this will be done by encouraging, but not requiring, the direct involvement of workers in development.
I stand strongly against the rigidity of this Union as well. Its institutions are large, centralized, and unnecessary.; many of their functions may be given to national-level ministries, and they may be transformed into confederations, of a sort, which would behave in a more decentralized way and thus be more adaptable to the needs and situations in member-states, preventing the oppression that we have seen in which regulations have been imposed on the people, robbing them of work and dignity. This will also ensure the ability of both nations and people to directly participate in even the bureaucracy of this Union.
To defend the interests, dignity, and independence of all nations and workers - that is my aim.
Mr. Biden, I understand, claims to want to defend "sovereignty;" but to him, sovereignty seems to be merely the ability of nations to do whatever they want, up to and including dictating the policies of others. One of his major policy proposals, in fact, entails allowing one nation to dictate what is and is not patented in other countries. This would cause chaos in the extreme, and he justifies it all with his screams of "sovereignty, sovereignty, sovereignty!" He lives in a world of forms, a world of ideology rather than reality, and his policy shows this. He does not understand why people demand greater sovereignty - because it is genuinely affecting their livelihoods, their dignity - only that they are. He has always lived in an ivory tower; he has never been among the peasants, among the miners, among the many others of this Union who are threatened by globalization and internationalizing, homogeneizing policies - who have suffered, who will suffer, because of them, and who want them to end now, no matter the cost. He has not shared in their misery and their hopes; he has never called any of them friends, never called any of them family. He only hears the word sovereignty, he thinks, "oh, what a wonderful thing to take advantage of," and proceeds to talk about "sovereignty, sovereignty, sovereignty" mindlessly, hoping to trick the most miserable, the most vulnerablem, into voting for him. He is nothing more than a political hack.
Mr. Pinera Echineque speaks about human rights; and yes, these are important. However, the application of human rights has been opprsesive; it has denied people food and wages. For an ordinary person, a full stomach and a roof over one's head is more important than mere words. Yes, it is important to defend human rights; but in the context of the many cultures of our Union, and in a flexible way that ensures that all people remain prosperous and independent; that ensures that nations themselves remain independent and prosperous, with dignity. There has been little consideration of this, however, and that is extremely concerning. We must always prioritize the well-being of those in our Union over these words; must prioritize their independence, their dignity above words. Words mean little when, as I said, a person is starving.
I know nothing about Ms. Thatcher or Ms. Muzhare; this is concerning in itself. We should at the very least know what our candidates are standing for, no matter how odious it might be. We may again be left with an inactive, unaccountable Commission.
Ms. Marin has many points I agree with. We should not be campaigning for parties, nor for Eurogroups; we should not be campaigning based on ideology alone. I am not campaigning for a party, an ideology; I seek to defend only the interests of the people of our Union, of their many different nations and cultures, not any ideology; I have sought, in fact, to counter ideology in my campaign. I act based on the actually existing conditions, not based on any abstract concepts; based on the fact that many are suffering because of regulations, that many will suffer if centralizing policies continue to be enacted. However, while this is all good, I do not know who she intends to accomplish this. While seeing her elected may be a good thing for this Union, her lack of an actual platform is concerning.