"I shall EXTEND debate for a further 72 hours until 07:30 GMT January 9th, 2020. I am aware that Councillor Falk has said that she has more to add to this, and so I eagerly await her perspective in this ongoing debate."
Firoux shuffled a few papers on his desk before turning his head to smile as he looked at Councillor Greene.
"Thank you, Councillor Greene. I must admit, I'm very pleased that you could join us today, even if it is in disagreement. The Council has been lacking in the Duxburian perspective for too long, so we're glad to have you back with us.
"I don't disagree with some of the things you've pointed out, Councillor Greene. We need to acknowledge that no system is perfect, and we ultimately need to rely on a system that just simply works the best. What I am proposing is by no means perfect, but it is a better step forward than the current status quo. Based on some of the things you've mentioned, I am willing to table an amendment to remedy one of your concerns."
"Before I address some of the specifics mentioned by Councillor Greene, I want to again reiterate to all of us here that this isn't some philosophical or academic debate we're having. This debate is actually about a very real existential crisis which continues to question the entire existence of the European Union altogether, and that crisis is only deepening and becoming worse by the years. As I've said, people all across Europe are losing faith in the European Union and they are pointing their fingers directly at us. People don't know who we are; they feel that we are not accountable to them - that we're even above them, and they don't trust us. We're all broadly considered to be illiberal elites and bureaucrats who have either made life worse for people, or we've totally forgotten about people and have done nothing for them. We need to listen to these people and their concerns and we need to take a mirror to ourselves. Anti-EU sentiment has exploded and we need to take responsibility. Let's not even try to pretend that this is not an issue. In fact, several of the EU's most powerful states have governments that would love for the EU and for the Council to cease to exist. I'm not criticizing the will of the people that elected these governments. I'm not even criticizing these governments themselves. As I've said, I hear them and I actually see their point of view - they have very valid concerns. So, as our jobs as Councillors, are we going to sit on our hands and pretend that the European Council has nothing to do with this existential issue? We need to earn their confidence back because they deserve to have confidence in their European leaders. We need to get onto this immediately. We should begin by transferring power directly into the hands of the people. Let. The. People. Decide.
"I therefore cannot disagree more with the sentiment that it's 'none our business' if Councillors are elected or appointed. This directly concerns the affairs of the Council. How the member states run and govern themselves is fine. However, what we're discussing is more than especially relevant to the European Council itself and the Constitution of the European Union in general, which are both very, very pertinent to us our duties. Of course we should be concerned about how our own house is ran. We're supposed to be an institution which explicitly promotes democracy and good governance, as stated by our Constitution. How can we even begin to do that if we're not directly elected?
"I understand that the majority of our member states are democracies and therefore most governments themselves have acquired electoral mandates, which in turn gives councillors mandates. I don’t think the basic premise needs to be explained to anyone. We get it. Although, I could really go into the weeds here and point out that we actually have many, many – and I’m putting this as politely as possible – 'illiberal' democracies and absolute monarchies among our European ranks who also go on to appoint councillors. That’s a whole another story though.
"However, as I’ve previously described, this mandate is essentially trickled down and becomes less accountable and less democratic as we move along from a government which is chosen and accountable to the people, and then that government gets to select someone for an office which is supreme and may pass any type of law onto any type of European country - and that certain someone is only indirectly chosen and only accountable to that government and not to a broader electorate.
"I actually share your exact concerns about tyranny by minority, Councillor Greene, and that is exactly what I’m describing here. Each member state is entitled to just one councillor. It’s one voice that they get to choose. Yet that one single voice isn’t being directly chosen by the people, it’s being chosen by an incumbent government, and more likely than not, it’s actually really being chosen by a small group from within that government. I can’t actually think of a more narrow way of choosing a councillor. I’m not saying it’s undemocratic, it still is very much so, but it is very narrow and not as democratic or accountable as it could or ought to be. If a councillor is to be elected themselves, then they would need to garner the trust and confidence of the majority of voters themselves. Currently, to be an appointed councillor, you don’t necessarily need a majority backing, but in order to be an elected one, you definitely do.
"Councillor Greene couldn’t have summed up my feelings any better – ‘a true democratic mandate shows widespread, majority support’! Amen. Having a Councillor selected in such a narrow way ignores this need. The best part of this legislation is also the fact that it still gives the member states the ability to design the mechanisms in which they elect their councillors, as long as the adhere to some of the basic democratic tenants outlined in this Act. Councillors could be elected through simple majority votes, through run-off systems or even through a ranked-ballot systems, just to name a few. Member states can design the election mechanisms to be as majoritarian and grass-roots as they desire.
"What I was describing earlier about domestic and European-level politics isn’t about one political sphere having to supplant the other. I’m not recommending that we subvert democratic systems or that we forcefully try and make people care about European politics, or that we even need to coerce people that European politics is important. I agree with the premise that both domestic and European politics are important and both ought to be relevant in terms of choosing both a national government and a councillor. However, what I was trying to articulate is that a councillor’s office warrants an independent election in its own right, and that it is also perfectly reasonable for people to actually choose two very different things in terms of their domestic government and their councillor. Again, I am a personification of that. A majority of Inquistans supported me, and continue to support me while they have other ideas for how they select their own Church. Just because I disagree with the government in Inquista, doesn't mean I am some sort of rogue entity, which has been suggested. I have been chosen explicitly because of what I stand for, and this exactly what the Inquistan people expect of me. Furthermore, as this Act itself stipulates, national governments do still have the power to recall councillors if they so wished. Councillors would not be immune from national government oversight if this Act passed. Once again, I myself am evidence of that.
"Let’s face it, even if a domestic party ran a campaign which included several policies directly concerning wider European issues, and then went on to win that election, that still doesn’t mean that the eventual councillor that is chosen satisfies the premises of why people voted for that party or supported that specific campaign. The government could appoint anyone as a councillor. Anyone. It could be someone their base or even the wider electorate dislikes, and their policies could even be incongruent with the campaign that was put on the by the party that won government. Even in the best case scenario where the councillor is a perfect fit, their position might as well have been put to a direct public vote anyway. It’s simpler, more democratic and far more accountable to have the councillor chosen by the people.
"I hereby propose the following amendment..."
Amendment I
SECTION IV
IV. Councillors which have been dismissed or recalled from their office shall be permitted to re-seek their office in the ensuing by-election with the same rights and privileges as all other Councillor candidates.
VIV. By-elections must follow the exact same procedures, rules and processes as the original election that was previously held.
The Kingdom of Spain
