Motion for the Recognition of the Union of Nicoleizian Socialist Republics
-
I do not care about the foibles of English. I am an Istkalener, and I will do as I please in this regard.
Regardless, Ms. Carlton-Romanov, you are not the Councillor for Icholasen. You are as legitimate as the woman who claimed to be the representative of the last king before the first revolution in your country, as legitimate as the people who claim to constitute a government in exile of the Czechoslovak government by means of being mediums, that is to say, not at all. At the present time, the government you represent has effectively no legitimacy; its term has expired.
I will let you remain in the chamber, but as a guest alone.
As for Councillor Mizrachi-Roscoe - what nation, what people, does the UDI represent? I cannot imagine any, unless if you believe nine or so people living in a resort in Ibiza or in Fremet constitute a sovereign nation. To give them separate membership would be illegal by the Constitution - they are not a sovereign state by any means, they are a group of delusional individuals who have proclaimed themselves the government of Icholasen. If we allow them representation, then we must also allow the group of mediums in my country which claim to be interpreters for a long-dead king of Icholasen representation to, because, again, their legitimacy is effectively equal.
Iras Tilkanas
Council Speaker and Councillor for the Republic of Istkalen -
"Okay, but we really need to get the spelling correct ! Thanks in advance Speaker !"
Professor Duchess Councillor Penelope "Poppy" Carlton-Romanov, the Third of her Name, Attorney at Law.
-
It is highly disputed as to whether the ending of their term was legitimate. It was essentially done by means of a coup. Now whether it is right or not is not relevant . If this is allowed to pass and a government can gain power by coup and replace the councillor position of the government couped , it will only encourage further coups and create instability. I believe the best course of action is to treat both sides as two sides of a dispute and not take a side in this issue , this should be dealt with by nationstates without a truly fair and agreed on election by all sides or a treaty handing over power through a transition there is no clear sense of the legality. We cannot take a side in a domestic dispute between two governments in a situation like this.
James Mizrachi-Roscoes, Councillor for United Duchies
-
Councillor Mizrachi-Roscoes, I must say I find your claims flawed. Does legalization of divorce encourage divorce? Of course it doesn't, just as recognition of the UNSR as the sole representative of Icholasen doesn't encourage coups.
The UDI controls no territory it claims, this affair was resolved internally by the Nicoleizian people, now it is up to us to finally recognize their decision and recognize the UNSR.
Václav Kohout
Councillor for Czech Slavia -
We will reconsider our position but if Icholasen is to lose its spot we should still have it as an observer state at least. That way we can facilitate negotiations if they take place , I believe it is important for the EU to make negotiations as easy and smooth as possible if they occur.
James Mizrachi-Roscoe, Councillor for United Duchies
-
The Empire of Inimicus stands against this as it has in the past. Not only, however, for principled reasons, but perhaps mainly for practical ones.
First off, the Council is currently debating an ENAA-related amendment which directly touches on this issue -- confounding the situation and moving the goalposts before that matter is settled would be unwise.
Second, before the European Union chooses to recognise the UNSR or not, the Empire believes it is up to Nicolezians themselves to resolve the sort of two-state situation we have going on here. The EU taking a stance on this while Icholasen itself is still divided is inflammatory at best, and disgraceful at worst.
Lastly, have we heard from UNSR representatives about their intention of joining the EU? This is not a rhetorical question, and I would welcome any Councillor whose nations have obvious ties to the UNSR to clarify.
Nicholas Benfield
Deputy Speaker -
Deputy Speaker, I direct you to this statement made by the government of the UNSR, clearly communicating a desire to join the EU.
The Nicoleizians have also quite clearly resolved the "two-state situation." Only one government controls the island of Icholasen; the other has shown itself not merely incapable of governing or regaining any part of the country it claims to hold sovereignty over, but also of protecting the Nicoleizian diaspora in any meaningful way. The claim that the UDI holds any power or support is not one based in reality, at this point.
In response to Cllr. Mizrachi-Roscoe, I propose the following amendment:
SECTION I. PROCLAMATIONS
I. The Union of Nicoleizian Socialist Republics is recognized as the sole sovereign government of Icholasen by the European Union. Individual member-states may continue to dissent from this policy.
II. The Union of Nicoleizian Socialist Republics shall assume the roles in the European Union allotted to the government of Icholasen.
III. This Union of Nicoleizian Socialist Republics is recognized as inheriting the membership in the European Union held by Icholasen.
IV. The United Dominions of Icholasen is to be permitted to send a non-voting representative to the European Council, but is to be officially recognized as an opposition group, and not as a sovereign state or government. It is not to participate in any organs of the European Union as a member-state or sovereign state.
Iras Tilkanas
Council Speaker and Councillor for the Republic of Istkalen -
I thank the Speaker for clarifying one of my points. I question, however, to what extent it it up to us as Councillors to judge whether a government exercises legitimacy or not, especially when there are many member states -- my own included, but think about, for instance, Angleter -- whose populations would feel deeply uncomfortable being in one political union with the UNSR. The UDI administration may not hold support in Istkalen, or Czech Slavia, but it certainly still holds sway in the Empire of Inimicus. So much so, in fact, that a majority of Inimicians now support settling the UDI inside their territory.
Nicholas Benfield
Deputy Speaker -
I fully support this motion. With Icholasen recently announcing its intent to join the European Union, this is a practical and logical next step forward.
I also thank the Speaker for maintaining order within this Chamber, and for dealing with guests and interlopers appropriately.
Bp. Karinn Lallana
Councillor for Inquista -
For the sake of peaceful coexistence in our region and normalised diplomatic relations with the de facto government of Icholasen, Ineland welcomes this motion and expresses its support for it. Even though we may hold our ideological differences with the UNSR, we believe it is in everyone's interest to welcome them back into the European family.
Prince Charles Évere-Dancourt
Councillor for the United Principalities of Ineland -
It shouldn't come as a surprise to this chamber that the Ruthenish government is in support of this motion. Considering that Ruthund has recognized the UNSR in 2020 and has normalized relations with them, it would make little sense to do otherwise. Ruthund does not see this as a loss or victory for any particular political movement, but rather a gain that is necessary for the stability of our region.
Prince-Councilor Tony Odhinazen
EU Councilor for Ruthund -
Councillors, I believe that the will of the Union of Nicoleizian Socialist Republics is clear, and their statement made it even clearer: they would like to join the European Union. Nonetheless, it is worth pointing out the arguments both by Cllr. Mizrachi-Roscoe and the Deputy Speaker of the European Council: the UNSR came back to life through a Coup d'Etat, this should be left up to the Nicoleizians instead of making the European Union and, consequently, all of its states to position with one side or another; and that this is being considered at the same time the ENAA amendment is catches my attention, in fact whatever resolution that comes out of here could condition what happens in the other debate. I must recognise to the Speaker of the European Council the smartness of his movement, and the precise timing, because I indeed doubt this was done unintentionally.
The Kingdom of Spain voted for the repeal of the Condemnation, as we believed it was time to leave that part of the Nicoleizian conflict history behind and to allow for more security and stability in the area where Fremet, Ineland and Poland-Lithuania co-exist together with the communist regime of Icholasen. However, I do not believe it is yet appropiate to open the European Union's doors to a country which still has a lot of work to do concerning the conflict they are in. I do support having diplomatic relationships with the UNSR, but we can't simply allow a country to condition what we do in the European Council. I would also like to remind Councillors that the Union of Nicoleizian Sovereign Republics should not make any bad move if they want to gain more trust within the Council, and so it would be a pretty, with all due respect, stupid move to start a conflict that would not obviously be regarded as positive by the international community.
I do also call the Party of the European Left and the European Commission for some common sense on the matter, as I am seeing some ideological and party-oriented policy making on here, something that the Council Speaker said he did not like. That, added to the inactivity coming from the Commission, which has done nothing to solve the problem during this term, makes it simply impossible for Spain to allow the entrance of a partly-recognised nation. I would like to clarify that the UNSR is going towards the good path, but they still have a lot of work to do.
Donald Tusk
Councillor for Spain -
Debate shall be extended until 00:00 GMT on 23 February 2022.
Firstly, I would again like to say that I am a woman.
Secondly, this is the least ideological path. The UNSR exists, the UDI does not. To support the UDI is ideological; it is recognizing a force that no longer holds significant power or support among its own people, a force so devoid of support and legitimacy that its queen has pledged loyalty to a foreign power and members of its government have been illegally appointed. As much as some like to deny it, the UNSR is in power, and the UDI is not.
I also do not know what you are saying, Councillor Tusk, when you say "we can't allow a country to condition what we do in the European Council," because the European Council is a Council of nations, and thus it is already "conditioned" by the member-states. The same goes when you speak of a "problem." There is quite literally no problem in Icholasen. The island is not, and has never been, in serious contention. It is under the control of the UNSR, and that is unlikely to change. By this definition of "problem," then probably every state is in contention. In your own country, for example, I imagine that there are random people everywhere who proclaim the independence of various territories, ranging in size from small plots of land to entire 'autonomies,' or perhaps even some people who go around pretending to be the government of some hypothetical Republican Spain, but this does not cause your country to be in contention. The same is true for Icholasen, where the UDI has been reduced to one of the governments of this type, people running around without legitimacy or any claim to power.
The UNSR has been in power for two years already, and has shown no ill will towards any state, except in one case where another state reneged on a treaty, which was indeed reasonable in nature. My own country has been far more aggressive towards the other states of the Union in the past, and its legitimacy was similarly contested, and yet here I stand before you, not merely a legitimate Councillor but also the Council Speaker. There is a very obvious double standard here, that we require a peaceful state to demonstrate that it is peaceful for decades on end, while we allow a much more unstable state - my state, my country - into the Union. In my opinion, we either recognize both or recognize neither.
Finally, this act gives member-states the right to refuse to recognize the UNSR. It simply allows the UNSR to participate in Union-wide institutions.
Iras Tilkanas
Council Speaker and Councillor for the Republic of Istkalen -
I will further extend debate to 12:00 GMT 25 February 2022, to allow Councillors to speak their final thoughts, but will not be giving any further extensions unless there is a significant change in the situation underlying the reasoning behind this proposal.
Iras TIlkanas
Council Speaker and Councillor for the Republic of Istkalen -
I have withdrawn my amendment. Voting begins NOW and will continue until 00:00 GMT on 5 March 2022.
On behalf of the Republic of Istkalen, I vote FOR this motion.
Iras Tilkanas
Council Speaker and Councillor for the Republic of Istkalen -
On behalf of the Kingdom of Spain, I vote AGAINST this motion.
Donald Tusk
Councillor for Spain -
The Empire of Inimicus votes AGAINST this Motion.
Nicholas Benfield
Deputy Speaker -
On behalf of the Federal Republic of Australia, I vote AGAINST this motion.
The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland
Queen Elizabeth II
Prime Minister Gordon Brown
Councillor David Miliband -
On behalf of United Duchies I vote FOR this motion
James Mizrachi-Roscoe , Councillor for United Duchies -
On behalf of the Most Blessed State of Inquista, I vote FOR this motion.
Bp. Karinn Lallana
Councillor for Inquista
The Kingdom of Spain