Commission Debate, July 2022

[Inimicus]

"Thank you, Candidates. I believe I was very clear on the rules of this debate, which state rebuttals may not exceed 90 seconds ((OOC: 200 words)). Mr Kühnert, please adhere to this rule, and to all candidates, please keep this debate civil.

"We move on to the second round of questions. Our third question of the evening is from María Consuelo Carrillo, who has described herself as a fan of the former Spanish dictator, Francisco Franco, to Calvin Kühnert -- however, I will expand the question to all candidates for both positions: should the European Union give member states the right to allow or ban gay marriage? What's your personal stance on gay marriage?

"Fourth, a question by none other than His Imperial Majesty Emperor Artabanos Himself, who asks to all candidates for both positions: What, if anything, do you think can be done about member states' nautical claims, given we have seen fairly inflammatory situations arising from nations' responses to these claims?

"Again, candidates have two minutes ((OOC: 300 words)) for answers per question, and 90 seconds ((OOC 200 words)) for rebuttals, before we move on to the next round of questioning."

[BrumBrum]

Calvin Kühnert:I believe there is zero reason to open up the constitution on gay marriage while if opened up the Duchies position is it is a social issue and up to the Duchies in our nation its not any priority now. What is is making sure any remaining social issues are left up to the nation-state not the EU. My personal stance regardless is love is love and it is as simple as that, who cares if it is two men , two women or a man and woman in a relationship or more than two partners as long as its consensual.

On nautical claims I'd prefer there was a standard that all can agree on but it might not happen and if I have to choose between keeping peace or having a consistent standard I will choose the former. However if a bill setting standards can be agreed on fantastic but I'd leave it to the councillors to do their work. Currently an agreement between Spain and ECON has been reached so perhaps it is best to leave things as they are at the moment though if further tensions spark over nautical claims from anywhere I think it is appropiate that a meeting of EU nations occurs to set a series of standards for nautical claims, the most important thing is peace reigns supreme if we can achieve that with an act in the council on nautical rights and territorial standards I would back that if that can be achieved by letting nations deal with it themselves I back that and if the EU needs to intervene then I would also back that but I wouldn't prioritise EU intervention on an issue such as this. In general EU should stay out of nations foreign policy unless necessary.

[Istkalen]

There are men devoted, body and soul, to other men; and women to other women. Who am I, who is anyone, to force them apart? Their bonds are noble; they should be respected and seen as being as important and as beautiful as all others.

---

Issues on nautical claims must be solved by consensus. That does not mean that we should simply give up. Ignoring them, particularly in regards to the effects they have on civilians across Europe, is the surest path towards mass death and destruction. Tensions, as of now, are low enough that something of an agreement is possible without provoking violence - hope for lasting peace is the highest it has been for a long, long time. I thus intend to discuss, with the Mediterranean and then Caspian states, where tensions have erupted and seem likely to interrupt, the possibility of a reduction of military presence, especially around international trade routes, a respect for the transit of passenger ships in the open ocean, and then perhaps, if necessary, limtations on these claims.

Nothing will be imposed, nothing can be imposed, if we truly value peace - but all the same we must work for at least something, even the smallest thing, so that life is protected.

[Spain]

I would like to subscribe the words Commissioner Kalessed has just said. The answer to the first question María Consuelo has asked is no, I won’t unprotect LGTBIQA+ people all around the Union by risking their right to marriage. On the second, who am I to tell someone to love a woman when that he likes men, or vice-versa? It is not my job or anyone’s job to do that, it is their decision and only theirs. To all the LGTBIQA+ people watching us tonight, and especially those going through hard times, you are loved, you are appreciated, you are beautiful, you are amazing. I love you, and we must all, no matter our ideologies, end with ‘having to come out of a closet’. You are people like you or my colleagues, and being a member of said community shouldn’t shock anyone. We shall work to achieve that, together.

---

On the second question, I would like to send a hug to Emperor Artabanos and thank him for watching this debate with the interest for European affairs that always has characterised him.

Your question is really interesting, because it has been one of the most frequent topics throughout the first half of 2022. I believe the European Union has no right to tell member states how far their waters go, that should be up to member states themselves, acting responsibly and trying to avoid conflict. If conflict appeared, one of the duties the Internal Affairs Commissioner has is mediating in them, and therefore if nations are unable to solve the dispute on their own, the EU should intervene no matter what. Our region cannot afford being on constant tensions or on the brink of a war due to nautical claims, and the Commission should play a big role in avoiding conflicts, as it is expected to do.

Some months ago, the Inelandic Councillor submitted an act to limit nautical claims, and even if there was good faith in his attempt, which I commend; the debate heated up and ended being tense, which wasn’t his fault by the way. Some very important nations felt displeased by it, the Duxburian Union for example, while others were happy. The conclusion that I extract from this attempt to regulate this is the following: whatever we try to do, someone will feel displeased about it. Therefore, we cannot do nothing but offer the Commission mediation and wait for the dispute to be fixed sooner or later. This is not about supporting one side or the other on this exact point, it is about supporting Europe’s survival, peace and diplomacy. Regulation would lead to tensions and unknown consequences that it’s better not to get to know.

[Leagio]

I would like to agree with Candidate Juncker;s stance on LGTBIQA+. Combating to protect all is a task impossible to complete. But my personal feelings on them is that if their love is true and pure, then who I am to tell them that they cannot get married and be happy. Marriage is bond of true happiness and that happiness is the best thing for the world.

---

On to His Majesty's question on the claims, my opinion is that now since times has passed since the Navigation Act Fiasco where we might be possible to reopen dialogue on the issues through a soft of method of diplomacy but the issue is that it just reopens tensions. But I personally do not think that a heavy dialogue on it is needed as the position of the Internal Affairs Commission is to mediate with all the governments on the issues and conflicts that they have with each other as the Constitution does not have a strong emphasis on an intervention that on paper should provoke conflict.

[Inimicus]

Thank you, candidates. We move to the next round of questioning.

To both candidates for Premier Commissioner, Penelope Graham from Dublin asks: I am concerned we sacrificed the Union for select nations; what can we realistically accomplish?

From an anonymous citizen of Elthize, a question to all candidates: Do you think the EU should be more centralised or decentralised when it comes to government structure, and why?

[BrumBrum]

Calvin Kühnert:I answer both questions as they are quite similar. I don't think we have sacrificed Union for a few nations. The European Union is made of many nations as they say "United in Diversity" , this means inevitably compromise will be needed. I think we can achieve a climate change solution that is better than not having a European wide agreement and we can create closer trade ties by potentially adding a voluntary free trade zone and possibly freedom of movement zone but keeping it entirely voluntary and funded by only the member states that join.

I do think we need a Glocal policy, global policy objectives on key issues but nations choose how to meet those goals for example to get to net zero by 2050 at the latest but how you achieve that is up to you so you can get more to agree to , would 2030 or 2040 be more ideal yes , but frankly that might not be realistically achievable. I would seek to set targets but nations choose how to reach said targets not a one size suits all solution and look at repealing or changing legislation to reflect this and allow nations more flexibility in finding their own solutions.What we cannot afford is more centralisation and losing key nations like the DU who may be on the verge of leaving due to not liking the EU telling them how to do things.

Overall what I think is needed is to basically have EU dialogue with all nations ask them what they want to achieve , not have a vision force it on nations and force them to have laws a certain way or have legislators force their nations ways on others nations ways as it won't work if that happens.

[Istkalen]

We don't have to choose one or the other. We have institutions like the ECB and ECoJ which are completely ineffective because of their more decentralized or democratic nature, which encourages derelection of duty - there is a need, there, for centralization, if our Union is to actually function. On the other hand we have such institutions as the EHO or the ESA, who, while legally decentralized, have had past directors who have attempted to take on much more power than they need to be. Decentralization of function needs to be very strictly enforced there - we otherwise end up with expensive, unnecessary, and bloated bureaucracies which are little more than the pet projects of a few.

In essence - do what is necessary! Centralize when needed, and decentralize when needed - don't apply one dogmatic approach to everything!

[Spain]

Thanks for your question, Ms. Graham.

In opposition to my rival for the Premier race, I do indeed believe this Union has been sacrificed for some nations, and it has been a planned, slow destruction of the EU pushed by these pro-sovereignty candidates like our current Premier, that has done absolutely nothing for you or any European citizen. Some nations are already preparing to leave if Mr. Kühnert doesn’t win, which is quite a childish behaviour; but that’s cause they know that the era of giving them what they want and ignoring the rest is over if I win.

You also do a second question, what is realistically accomplishable for us, the Premier Commissioner candidates. I want to tell you that if your nation’s vote goes to me, I will commit and deliver every single point in my agenda, no exceptions. There are no excuses to ignore the agenda I designed for this election, and if I don’t manage to deliver a single point for my inaction, I swear to all of you watching us tonight that I won’t ever run again for Commission. I’m not in politics to earn money or to seat on a comfy chair in a luxurious office in the European Union’s capital; I became a politician to work for the citizens of my country. And when I entered European politics, my only purpose was to help the people, like you and like many others watching us tonight.

We will obviously need the Council to pass our legislation proposals, but it’s pretty much achievable. Consensus, dialogue, negotiation and listening to European Councillors is key to continue our way towards the European Union we want in the future. But the journey begins in a few days, and only the Europeans’ vote will allow me to start it.

---

I thank that anonymous person from Elthize for his question.

The European Union needs to work towards finding the perfect balance. We can neither go for a full centralised model, in which the European Union has power over the most critical issues our member states Government handle, such as immigration; nor for a fully decentralised model in which we make the EU mean absolutely nothing, if that was the case we could just declare this project as dead. I want the Union to mean something, to do something else than being an irrelevant institution like some others wanted. We need to act as a centralised Union when it’s needed, and as a decentralised one when it’s needed too. The Green Deal, for example, can be either used as guidelines for states or as a treaty between several members. Both options are on the table.

However, now a second question might appear in your mind, and that is: ‘how will you find that perfect balance you are speaking about?’ Surprisingly, that is not the biggest issue we have, because the European Union has the means to directly communicate with member states, we used to do that when I was the Internal Affairs Commissioner and mostly everyone showed up at the time. Of course, this is a matter for the IAC, but I would love to join a new possible summit if it happened. The European Union can also conduct a survey in which states would express their concerns and could let us know what they want.

I have said it before, we ought to take everyone into account. Nations like the DU have been ignored, not to mention the Caribbean nations, always forgotten. We are all equal in this Union when it comes to citizenship, that’s why all your opinions matter.

[BrumBrum]

Calvin Kühnert: Can we just acknowledge the DU is unhappy and that if we continue on the path of increasing powers of the EU we could face a critical loss of budget which benefits no one. Equally they will never want to meet a 2040 deadline for carbon neutrality, so we need to do stuff like listen to them and aim for less optimistic deadlines on environment. Its not ideal but if its the only way to keep nations like DU in we must compromise. I don't want this to be a irrelevant institution but one that trusts nations to handle implementation of common goals within their culture and systems. We cannot have a one size fits all policy that many have done, for example Spain didn't adopt Bergen because of mistakes insisting on a carbon tax, which sadly the UD government were partially responsible for. More centralisation in most areas will upset nations and cause them to leave, so anyone calling for centralisation I hope you are happy when a load of nations leave destroying your precious budget and unity.How do you Mr Juncker plan to centralise on key things when DU will leave if you do?

[Leagio]

I believe that the EU should maintain a balance on both sides, where the EU is centralized in areas that the national governments feel is acceptable for example many of governments have accepted the idea of standardizing Hospital Ships. This area is something that can be built on for the EU to continue to function as a faithful organization to all its member states. However, we should avoid having to entangle the governments in topics that revive childish behavior and result in further destabilization within the region for the sake of peace and prosperity. It is the duty of the EU to represent the internests of the people and nation states within the EU, where the Commission is an organ that works with the EU Council that too properly functions in a legal and active manner where nationalistic tendencies do not dictate every whim of the powers of the EU in how it treats other members.

[Spain]

Mr. Kühnert, you’re misleading the Europeans once again. I haven’t said I only want to centralise, but rather what other candidates have: we must find a balance.

About the DU, the ones who want to leave are its people, not the DU Government as of today. According to the same poll you’ve mentioned and are trying to use in your advantage, a 63.9% want us to take action on Climate Change, so again, let’s not mislead the people watching us tonight. You’ve also claimed you ‘don’t want an irrelevant institution’ but you aim for it, getting rid of the budget system and giving the money to states; which would null the Council legislative powers as there’s a lack of budget; making the Union a ‘broken toy’. If that’s the European Union you want and that you’ve indeed proposed tonight, then you really want to disband and destroy this Union.

Last, but not least, thanks to centralization we’ve the EDA, the one that you’re defending so much, but also beneficial acts like the Nuclear Test Regulations, the Nuclear Proliferation Act or the Ocean Protection Act; and how many nations have left? One, and not because of them. Don’t be an alarmist.

[BrumBrum]

Mr Juncker you mention the poll that 63% support European Union action on climate change in the DU but how many will be willing to back the actual actions needed unless the EU gives them more money than the average nation to reflect their greater challenges?

I do not aim to make the EU irrelevent , that is a lie. What I do wish to do is give it the right powers and make nations be more in control on the conditions of spending money. Giving allocations will show trust in the nations as well as make it more effective since only nations know the best way to spend money locally and the biggest challenges. I do not wish to get rid of the budget system but I do wish for the EDA to get 35-60 Billion and decentralise more by having allocations given to local boards run by nations rather than some distant eurocrat. This would make the projects more effective since they would be designed by locals and conditions set by locals. It would enhance the capability not diminish it.

[Spain]

None of us know what the Duxburian people that were asked think about the measures you proposed to stop climate change. Money isn’t the solution to every single problem this Union has, let’s see if you can manage to get that right.

It’s no lie that you want this Union to disband, Mr. Kühnert, you’ve just admitted it! You want to turn the EU into a bank that its unique function is giving money, just that. And once again, you bring back that Duchian, pro-sovereignty candidate terminology, the ‘distant Eurocrat’. You have taken a long time to say it, but you finally uncovered your real you: you are another pro-sovereignty candidate that only guarantees inactivity. I wonder how long will it take you to call me an ‘euro-dictator’ or an ‘euro-fanatic’; that’s what usually all of you do with EPA candidates.

Ladies and gentlemen, the decision is very easy to take: if you want the same we’ve had until this election, Mr. Kühnert is your choice. If you want progress, stability, balance, good judgement and action, I am your choice. I’ll improve this Union, my rival will just blow it up and turn it into a bank for member states.

[BrumBrum]

Calvin Kühnert: I think what Europe has just heard is you admitting you do not trust the nations to handle projects and money. You just want to tell them how to develop by setting conditions on the money from a European level, that is not an EU I want.You only need to look at the current Cycle Superhighway Network bid from the Duchies. Its still not approved and stupidly the EU asked why Duchies couldn't make it a car centric white line on a road style bike-lane for the country side which would have completely undermined said project by making it less safe for bicycles. Is that what nations want when applying for funding , paperwork, bureaucracy on a per project basis and an EU with no understanding of local context or culture setting conditions. Only the locals know their nation and what works so why not leave it to national experts on local EDA boards to make relevent decisions on how funding gets spent on local and national development, let an accountable locally selected or elected board set conditions on funding applications.The truth is Juncker doesn't trust you and thinks you need big daddy to tell you how to develop.

[Inimicus]

Candidates, I'm afraid we've come to the end of what has been a lively and informative debate. Each candidate will now have 2 minutes ((OOC: 300 words)) for their closing statements. Thank you.

[Spain]

Europeans, I’d like to thank you for listening and staying with us until the end of the debate. As someone experienced on Commission elections and the work you get if you win them, I hope that my proposals have been the most appealing to you.

During this debate, you’ve seen how there’re two different alternatives to choose from in this election: the first one, represented by myself, in which activity, commitment, good judgement and bringing change to the European Union; the other, represented by my rival, will only keep providing what Mr. Biden and his pro-sovereignty ‘gang’ have: absolutely nothing but disinterest and inaction. Europe needs stability, not someone who gambles with your money, goes over there using the same language other pro-sovereignty candidates, and offers a lot, but then delivers nothing but unaccomplished promises.

The European Union I wish to achieve with my measures is the one we should all aim for: a Union that fixes its problems with the European Court of Justice, puts an end to the Council’s inactivity, protects your cultural and economic sovereignty, increases the European Development Agency’s budget, cares about our nature and Climate Change, pursuing an agreement or helps our farmers and fishers. And most importantly, a Commission led by someone with experience, that you all know and that is actually committed with you and that is going to work for this Union until the end of the term.

My dear Europeans, the choice is easy: progress or disbanding the Union. Action or inaction. Stability or chaos. To avoid yet another disaster in our region, I need you to vote for me, because with that vote, we are going to achieve big things that will benefit you and many other European citizens. Let’s unveil the power of Europe.

Thank you, and good night.

[BrumBrum]

Calvin Kühnert: People of Europe for too long you have been underserved and ignored by a Europe that does nothing for you. I promise if elected I will be active and trust your nations judgement and show trust in you the people of Europe. I will deliver a full budget with no money unspent so Europe can actually do something and have the resources it needs but I will also reorganise Europe so that is works. You will have an EDA with with national boards controlled by your nations that controls the funding in your nations allowing people who actually know your culture and economy to make key decisions on sustainable development. I will also deliver on a climate change agreement that respects where all nations are and where they can go, not one that forces EU conditions on countries and will back this with money being allocated based on how much resources one has and acknowledging extra challenges some have converting from high carbon Economies. Only by acknowledging the gaps between countries and helping close these by providing the resources necessary will we succeed in a green transition.

I will focus on partnering with you , not telling you how to spend and use resources from the European Union. You can choose between my concrete policy proposals and reforms that protect your sovereignty while ensuring you all have as much resources as you need to make the green transition or a candidate who has shown time and again they want to generally centralise to people who do not know about your nation and has only offered vague funding promises and has not even explained fully how his ideas will actually work and who does not care about detail. So choose wisely and make it count so you can Use The Budget.

[Leagio]

People of the European Union, in this race, we have a choice. A choice of their responsibility to respond to the needs of national governments that you elect or represents you or the choice of self interest in ideology that you feel has not worked to ensure your needs. We need a Internal Affairs Commissioner that is willing to hear the needs of change, actual change, that your governments need in order to respond to your wishes. My opponent throughout her tenure has failed in her duty to bring about a level of respect for the position of internal affairs Commissioner between all member nations and European Union itself, where throughout her tenure she has only been focused on policies and responses that have no focus of reform on the commission itself to ensure that it survives for all time. We need a candidate as willing to talk to all the member nations and governments within this European Union, where the governments feel that the European Union is here to represent their interests and not its own interests. Many of the national governments that are part of our union call for reform and not just reform focused on one aspect. Your governments wish for reform that makes the European Union more active in its role between itself and the member governments.

My interests are as the same as Mr. Juncker and we both want a European Union that is more stable and is willing to work for the progress of this union. Voting for me is a vote for the stability and lasting peace of the entire European Union. A vote for me is a vote for respect to your own nations ability to be respected with all members of this union and feel welcomed by all members of the European Commission. We can do meaningful change that you the voter wants because together we stand but divided we fall. We can continue on our current path of the vision and hurling this respect at our member nations or we can work together and build a better European Union in where everyone is truly equal.

Thank you and have a wonderful evening.

[Istkalen]

Dear Europeans, thank you for watching and listening.

I have paved new paths of communication between the Commission, the nations, and the people, worked to control the bureaucracy, enforced the law as written when it sought to overstep it, and engaged in democratic and equal dialogue with the Council, rather than imposing, illegally, proclamations and orders issued from above.

I have put an end to the era of extraconstitutionality; to the constant overstepping of legal boundaries, to bizarre personalist rule, and to the impunity enjoyed by those who engaged in these practices. Legality and openness, at last, prevail.

I seek to maintain the progress made during my first term, while at the same time pursuing peace, the democratization of aid and research, and the expansion of finance to all. We now , at last, have a Union that operates legally; it is now time for a Union with utility, a responsive Union which protects peace and independence while promoting tangible and sustainable development for all Europeans.

What is the alternative? More power to the Commission, in the name of protecting legal checks and balances. Complete legislative gridlock. The effective abolition of the right of Councillors to make the choice to refuse to vote. Nonsensical and useless reform to the ECB on premises completely divorced from reality. And for ordinary people? Nothing.

Let's work for a better Europe. Where the law is respected, where justice prevails, where a better future is in reach.

Dear friends, thank you! Have a good night!