"Mr. Juncker you completely ignored the issue of your constant changes in position, but regardless the expanses have seen a very slight increase since the revenue has increased greatly. Furthermore, in my original proposition the expanses were lower then in the final budget, they were increased by the Councilors and one of the propositions to raise the budget came from Mr. Tusk, so if that increase seems too high to you, you should scold Mr. Tusk. The proposed raise of the Council expanses would see increased spending on individual Councilors, since the number of Councilors has decreased since 2020. That means the EPA Councilors tried to increase the amount of money going directly towards them.
On a side note, you said that the people are relaxed to see you in the Commission. An interesting conviction considering that last election the people decided that you shouldn't be in the Commission. "
"I see Ms. Barker nodding to my question so I will turn to Mr. Desai. Mr. Desai, let's momentarily ignore your obsession with Mr. Juncker and the EPA and focus on a different issue. A former candidate for the position of Premier Commissioner, a well respected Dr. Koline has said that the EU needs a reason to exist, otherwise it is not good for anything. You seem to think that almost all of the EU institutions should be replaced by bilateral agreements among individual states, what reason to exist does the EU have in your vision, what role should it play?
I would also like to know where do you think the current Commission is trying to control the social policies of the member states? I have not noticed we would try to do that, so I want to know what it is specifically that you aim to fight against."
Harish Desai:Sofie Čikarová I thank you for your question and would answer that by saying the EU would still be beneficial under my proposed system. Now it would act as a discussion chamber for big picture issues and a common organisation to talk over treaties and solutions to problems sponsoring talks on coming up with treaties. It would essentially act as a mediator bringing together ideas which then nations can choose to accept the treaty proposal or not. Essentially it would be tallking shop of Europe , where issues get discussed and co-operation through treaties co-ordinated but with maximum nationstate power.This way you get benefits of co-operation while countries that would otherwise leave due to sovereignty issues will maybe consider staying in and the Green European Fund proves treaty based solutions can work.
Rosemary Barker: Thank you all. We have our first questions from Kieran from Saint Dominico. Kieran's first question is for the Premier candidates, and he asks, "what, in your opinion, are the boundaries of national sovereignty that the EU shouldn't touch, and conversely, what are areas that the EU should have a strong role in?"
Kieran's second question is for our Foreign Affairs candidate. Kieran asks, "what would you do to further strengthen and solidify our relations with allied regions?"
((OOC: You'll have ~36 hours to respond, and as always, you can also comment on someone else's answer. If there's an active debate going I will extend the time.))
Ms. Premier, even if Mr. Tusk amendment had failed, the budget would still have increased because there’re other amendments, then don’t just blame an Eurogroup for this budget raise. Moreover, you are once giving the Europeans a misleading argument by saying “the EPA Councillors tried to increase the amount of money going directly towards them”. Firstly, if the Council salaries rise, they rise for everyone and secondly; the budget would have been the same than in 2020, then no changes would have happened concerning salaries.
Now, it’s funny you mock about my defeat four months ago, when you also lost against Angela Merkel on your first run for Premier, or have you already forgotten about that? But losing is fine and needed, because it’s a direct message from the people that are telling “your policies need a change”. And that’s why my team and I’ve changed some of our policies.
Thanks, Kieran, for your question.
The current EU distribution of power areas are correct with the Constitution we have now, but if we start the Constitutional review procedures, something I’m carrying on my agenda; we will surely have to negotiate and write down in the Constitution what competences we want the European Union to have. There are some areas it shouldn’t touch, like education or the industrial planification, while we need to cooperate on others like environment and pan-European transports and others that are exclusive, such as External defence and external EU borders.
There is one thing we should point out in this debate too, and that’s the ECoJ current functioning, as I believe a reform should be submitted to the European Council after a discussion period and make the European Court of Justice more useful and interesting at the same time. I think it’s possible, we just need some compromise from the European Union leaders and Councillors, as well as from the European Commission, to make it real. Of course, some people in this room like Mr. Desai would love this to never take place, just look at how he is selling you his country agenda and initiatives instead of bringing good proposals for the union like the “European Green Fund”, which by the way, is not sponsored by the European Union.
I also want to keep speaking about my agenda, now I have some time to do so, about the Digital Services Act, for which I’ll accept suggestions: With this act, I want to guarantee 2 things: a safer digital space where the Europeans basic rights are protected and foster innovation, growth, and competitiveness within the European Union. We need to adapt to the new times, and this act would mean a very important step towards that direction.
Mr. Juncker, one of the amendments that passed was made by Mr. Tusk and I didn't blame the Councillors for the increase, I don't blame anybody, the increase is minimal compared to the much larger revenue from 2020, I don't have a problem with it. You seemed to be upset by it so I told you that your party colleagues played their role in it.
It seems you struggle to grasp the obvious. The number of Councillors has decreased since 2020, if you divide the same amount of money as in 2020 among less Councillors, the individual Councillors would get more money in 2021 then in 2020. That is an increase, simple. I hope we all understand now and can move forward.
Lastly, I didn't mock your defeat. Not in the slightest. I said your conviction of how the people perceive you is intriguing.
Mr. Desai you said that you would turn the EU into a "discussion chamber", ignoring how highly improbable that is to occur, the individual states are capable of holding discussions without any supranational organization, I don't see how that organization would provide the benefits of co-operation.
You propose stripping almost all the capabilities from the Union, Yet it would still require funding for the administration. I don't see a reason why the people of Europe should pay the remaining army of bureaucrats who would administer an organization that is not beneficial, since it lacks almost any power and performs only task that the individual states are able of performing themselves. I think the people expect some benefits form the Union they pay for and that is what PEL aims to deliver.
Could you please also answer my second question now?
Thanks for the question Kieran and warm greetings to Saint Dominico, the EU shouldn't concern itself with the internal affairs of its member states apart from guaranteeing the basic human rights, such as the right to life, the freedom of religion etc., the EU should also not aim to establish a unified foreign policy. It is unacceptable for the EU to put up barriers against free trade, such as sanctions, hurting everybody in the process. On the other hand it is unacceptable for the EU to fight against economic independence of states that choose to pursue it. I will continue standing for the rights of states to choose their own path.
The EU should play a role in assisting the member states. It should assist them in their development, it should mediate between two sides of a conflict if requested and sponsor all such talks, it should support research, culture and health and I also think that it should protect some basic rights of the workers.
I think the current Commission was able to set a good standart for the respect of the national sovereignty. We have stayed out of the Reitzmic internal affairs and the existing issues were solved almost instantly without the EU trying to intervene. We have abandoned the aggressive stance towards the UNSR and now we were able to sponsor talks between the two sides of the Nicoleizian conflict, eliminating almost any threat of a destructive nuclear war. Even Mr. Biden has recognized the success of our policy in that matter and Mr. Juncker proves us right too, when he altered his stance on those issues to be closer to our policies. That is a great success of this Commission and by electing PEL candidates, you have a guarantee that this successful approach will continue.
Harris Desai:I will gladly say in response to the discussion chamber the EU can play a more effective role there than bi-lateral negotiations so it would be of great use. My view is simple any project should be assessed by the following: 1. is the project pan-european ? 2:Does it benefit all European nations? If the answer to both of those is no the EU should not have power over it. This would need to be done on a case by case basis.
I would like to speak about the Green European Fund yes it's not EU endorsed but it's also why it's more effective as it is a focused fund on one issue which by the way has more than enough money to fund the Azrekko project for solar of 2.9 billion Euros which I've heard from sources the EDA cannot because it does not allow donations or encourage going above minimum funding like the Green European Fund does. Overall treaties just allow far more flexibility and allow nations to choose what they do and do not want to be involved in , at the moment EU is a take all or take none and this offputs many nations or makes them consider leaving this will only get worse as centralisation continues such as give EU control over borders and immigration as has been proposed ,nations should administer that.With these reforms we can downsize EU funding and reducing bureaucrats while allowing nations to choose their level of financial involvement.
Let’s please not try to change what we say just a few minutes ago in front of the Europeans, after putting the focus on certain people or Eurogroups. By the way, when the budget stays the same for an institution, that doesn’t imply their salaries rise, the budget can be destinated for different things.
Anyway, I think it is best for the European Union to leave this topic and move on to new ones, and I would like to bring up my Constitutional reform proposal, which would need to be agreed with member states and it would need to count with as much support as possible. And I want to ask all the candidates here what section would they change, because it would be a good start and a demonstration of responsibility if we could all agree about a section we would like to reform from our current constitution?
Rosemary Barker: Moving on to our next question. Premier candidates, Marcus from Copala City asks, "if you could propose one piece of legislation to the European Council tomorrow, what would it be and why?"
((OOC: You'll have ~36 hours to respond.))
Harrish Desai:I think we all are by now especially in Duchies aware of the plight of our Councillours son is fighting for life having suffered a shocking attack just based on his neurotype. I would support any efforts to make a law to make Autistic Pride, Disability Pride and any other major days for the Neurodivergent as official awareness and acceptance days in EU law to celebrate the great neurodiversity and disabled in our great continent. I feel things like this are areas the EU can do a lot of good without affecting sovereignty. It would help solve hate and promote awareness and acceptance of difference something which is definitely needed in these dark times of often great division among the people.
"Thank you for the question Marcus. What I consider one of the most important issues, at the present time are the rights and the protection of workers, as working people create the vast majority of all human societies. Sadly the rights of the workers were ignored by the previous Commissions and it seems that in some cases, sadly the EU was endangering the employment of workers in certain fields and it still could endanger them if we do not stand up for them. For that reason I would try to pass a legislation protecting their rights. But I can't yet speak about the details of such legislation as I would like to consult it with other Commissioners and Councillors to arrive at hopefully satisfactory legislation for all. I would also like to point out that some Councillors, like Councillors Tilkanas or Lallana, already started this important process.
Unlike my oponent, Mr. Desai I don't think that the major issues of our Union are about symbolism. I of course take no issue with days dedicated to symbolic matters such as raising awareness or celebrating something, but I take Issue with symbolism taking a precedence over concrete politics. And I want the EU to be a meaningful organization that has something to offer to its member states and their citizens rather than a symbolic organization with no real capabilities. Words don't bring bread and meat on the table, work does. And people of Europe first and foremost need jobs, they need peace, they need sustainable development , they need solidarity and equal treatment and their need their independence and autonomy. That is what I and what PEL, continues to stand for."
Hamish Desai:Ms Čikarová the allegation I want the union to be symbolic is false . I want it to be a union of sovereign nations there's a difference. Further more Marcus asked what would you introduce tomorrow , complex deep acts are not possible in that timeframe so saying anything other than simple laws would be a lie.I would also argue awareness days and months are not symbolic they have real social impacts and change attitudes which is the start of major change later on.
Thank you, Marcus for your question, I have to admit it is quite good. Now, getting into the topic of the question, if I had the chance to submit a bill to the Council tomorrow, I would submit a bill to protect the fauna and flora of the several European Union member states, as well as to protect our most precious and beautiful landscapes, like huge forests in many European Union countries. That has been already done with our oceans, and we have, all together, compromised to protect them and it’s working amazingly. Who says the European Union countries cannot compromise to this?
Of course, this bill requires quite a lot of preparation, but I trust the European Council and I trust the Councillors and the current member states of our Union enough to believe they would support such an important bill for our Union. However, this is not the only area I would focus on if I am elected by the whole of the European Union to be their next Premier Commissioner, as this union requires professional action in many areas, for instance its constitution, how we handle sovereignty and integration or defining the European Union we want to have in the future.
A Juncker premiership would not focus on irrelevant matters, but prioritize those which are important and that many citizens depend on. Many say I am an Eurofederalist, but I have not proposed to create a Federation of European states, nor I want to. Europe needs a reform that changes how people see it, how they think about it. We have to admit many have lost their hope in Europe, nonetheless their proposals would mean the end of this Union forever and ever, to divide the region using lies. I want the opposite, an EU with sense.
Rosemary Barker: Thank you, candidates. It is now time for closing statements. You now have 2 minutes ((OOC: 300 words)) to provide Europe with your final words and thoughts.
Dear Europeans, soon you will have the option to decide which way will our Union embarg on. There is an option to continue forward, a road of development, national sovereignty, co-operation, peace and equality. Or there is an option to turn around and go back in the past, return of an old order of clientelism, endless violations of sovereignty, empty words and tensions. Together we have made an incredible progress in the past four months to reach our destination of Just Europe and I'd like to invite you to continue on this road with me, to not allow our achievements to be destroyed and to bring about new victories for the worker. If we remain united there is nobody that will be able to stop us, we have won in the past despite all odds and we can win again and keep the flag of freedom flying over Europolis!
Lastly I urge all of you to take part in these election, to show support to your preferred candidates and go vote if you have the option or contact your representatives, thank you.
Harris Desai: Fellow Europeans you have heard tonight your choices and it is a simple choice. Do you want an ever federalising Europe or do you like I believe in a Europe where sovereign states reign supreme with treaty based politics instead of euro-wide council laws where just a few more votes than 50% can force countries to change cultures,laws and economic approaches. I ask you to vote for sovereignty ,for freedom and for the ELSS and mainly anyone but the EPA we have only a few elections to save the EU and a wrong vote here in favour of the federalists puts the EU danger. Don't let them destroy our beloved continent , thank you.
Europeans, first of all I would like to thank you for staying awake with us until the end of the debate, as well as for hearing our proposals and asking us some questions of your interest. I hope that, as a veteran candidate, I have been able to provide reasonable and interesting ideas and proposals for this common project that some wish to destroy and others won’t do a thing for.
Although some of these speeches we have heard so far might look tempting, even trustworthy, that is not their real purpose. One of them says the EPA is the representation of the demon and that states should “reign supreme with treaties”. The other, who has done barely something during a four months term, says we should “continue forward, a road of development, national sovereignty, co-operation, peace and equality”. She does not know the road doesn’t exist, because she has not done anything for this region, not even bothered to build an imaginary road.
As someone who knows what Commission is about, I want to send a very different message compared to those my opponents said. I want a better Europe, that has an active Commission and whoever wins this race, works hard for the union and its people. I want a Union that heads towards change, that is able to reach huge agreements about its Constitution, Climate Change or crucial acts that will change the future of the European Union.
Although, to achieve this, I need the help of many Europeans, like you. If you want a different Union, if you want your country to be heard in the whole of the region, if you want honesty, transparency and activity to be the principles of the next Premier Commissioner, then I promise you that I am your candidate.
Thanks.
Rosemary Barker: Moving on to our next question. Premier candidates, Marcus from Copala City asks, "if you could propose one piece of legislation to the European Council tomorrow, what would it be and why?"
((OOC: You'll have ~36 hours to respond.))
The Kingdom of Spain