Elected and Accountable Council Act, 2020

[Inquista]

ELECTED AND ACCOUNTABLE COUNCIL ACT (2020)

Proposed by Cllr. Edward Firoux (Inquista) :: December 31st, 2019

---

PREAMBLE

According to the values enshrined in the Preamble of our Constitution, the European Union is dedicated to promoting democracy and good governance. As the primary legislative branch of the European Union, the European Council is the greatest bastion and gatekeeper of democracy and democratic decision-making in Europe. In order to therefore legitimize itself as a fully democratic institution, and to make itself accountable to the European people, the European Council shall become a democratically-elected body chosen directly by the people of the European Union.

---

SECTION I. DEMOCRATIZATION OF THE EUROPEAN COUNCIL

I. All members of the European Council, also known as Councillors, shall be directly and democratically elected to office by the people of their member state of origin.
II. The governments of European Union member states may not appoint or dismiss their Councillor without following an official democratic process outlined in this Act.

---

SECTION II. COUNCILLOR ELECTION PROCESSES

I. Councillors may only (re)take their office within the European Council after satisfying a democratic processes in which all following conditions are met:
a) A state-wide election was held to specifically choose who would fill the position of Councillor;
b) The electorate directly voted for Councillor candidates on their ballot(s);
c) Suffrage was universal and equal to all citizens that were of the legal voting age;
d) The election process was generally seen as free and fair;
e) Candidates for Councillor were able to freely nominate themselves;
f) They successfully received the most votes at the end of the official voting process.
II. Member states shall be responsible for organizing, monitoring and fulfilling their own Councillor elections. Member states shall also be allowed to freely design and implement their own democratic procedures, rules and processes for electing their Councillor as long as all conditions for choosing a successful Councillor in Clause I of this Section are met.
III. Councillor elections must be regular and must occur at least once every four years
IV. It is encouraged that member states elect their Councillor one month after they elect either during the same time period in which members of their national legislatures are elected, or they elect their Councillor during the official European Council Election period.

---

SECTION III. EUROPEAN COUNCIL ELECTION PERIOD

I. An official European Council Election period will be held simultaneously with the first European Commission election of each calendar year. This period shall simply serve as a coordinated effort to harmonize Councillor elections simultaneously between European Union member states and does not require mandatory observance.

---

SECTION IV. TERM LIMITS, VACANCIES AND BY-ELECTIONS

I. Councillors shall not face any term limits and may run for re-election an unlimited amount of times.
II. Councillors may be dismissed or recalled by their government following a simple-majority vote in the highest-decision making body of that member state.
III. Should a Councillor resign, die, be dismissed, recalled or removed from office by any means, a by-election will automatically be triggered and must be held as quickly as feasibly possible to refill the vacant position.
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.

---

SECTION V. IMPLEMENTATION AND ENFORCEMENT

I. All incumbent Councillors who have currently been elected in a direct and democratic way shall be recognized as democratically elected to office.
II. All incumbent Councillors who have been appointed or indirectly selected by their government to office shall not be recognized as democratically elected, and an election for their position must be held within the next four years.
III. Any members state which violates any section of this Act, or any Councillor which continues to be unelected for four years, will be considered as having breached this Act and will have their Councillor suspended from the European Council by the European Court of Justice.

[Inquista]

Debate begins NOW and will last until 09:30 GMT January 2nd, 2020.

Edward Firoux
Council Speaker and Councillor for Inquista

[Vayinaod]

Mr. Speaker I would like to request an extension for debate period of at least 72 hours, we are in the aftermath of the busy holiday season. I have some notes I would like to present on the bill, but I have only partially examined the act so far.

Cllr. Carita Falk

[Inquista]

Upon Councillor Falk's request, the debate period will be EXTENDED until until 09:30 GMT January 5th, 2020.

Edward Firoux
Council Speaker and Councillor for Inquista

[Angleter]

Cllr Hrayr Cruthin stood to speak

Fellow Councillors will be surprised to learn that Angleter is every bit as opposed to this idea as it has been every other time it has been proposed.

It is our belief that the European Council should, and does, function as a representative body of the member states of the European Union. Each member state is entitled to one representative, and unless it decides otherwise according to its own internal processes, its government has the right to appoint that representative to speak and vote on its behalf.

That system, by and large, works. This chamber is a forum for our countries to get together and discuss issues. Our words and our votes are backed up by the real power of the states we represent.

But I know that there are some countries where the government has decided to make the European Councillor an independent office-holder, directly elected, who can and does disagree with their government.

This is not Angleter’s way of doing things, and we do not believe it is the best way of doing things, but by and large we have respected the right of other countries to operate that way.

But we cannot and will not tolerate our approach to selecting our Councillor being insulted any longer, and we certainly won’t accept our approach being the collateral damage of any other member state’s well-publicised internal disputes.

If an elected Councillor, who profoundly disagrees with their national government, wanted to secure their position and prevent that government from removing them or embracing the appointed Councillor approach, then, well, I have to say this bill would be a very smart move.

And would the national government of that member state have a voice or a vote? Of course not. Their only option if this bill were to pass would be to leave the European Union.

The remarkable lengths that this bill goes to in preventing national governments from restricting elected Councillors only goes to strengthen my suspicions about the motives behind this bill.

Could the government restrict ballot access to ensure at least some degree of harmony between their Councillor and themselves? No.

Could the government dismiss or withdraw its Councillor? Well, yes, but then there has to be a by-election, and the previous Councillor specifically has the right to stand in that election “with the same rights and privileges as all other Councillor candidates.” The author of this bill, for some reason, goes to great lengths to ensure that an elected Councillor’s rights are preserved in that scenario.

Could the government impose term limits on a particularly long-serving Councillor? No, they can’t do that either.

It seems to me that this bill was specifically designed for the interests of long-serving elected Councillors who are at odds with their national government and are insecure about that government potentially removing them or limiting their powers.

My government will not allow its voice to be a casualty of these games. We will not support this bill in any form. We will not be producing amendments as, quite simply, the underlying principles of the bill are the problem.

This chamber is the representative body of the member states. If it were to be transformed into something else, then a representative body of the member states would have to be created separately. I suspect we would end up transforming the European Assembly, an entity which has never been convened, into something that very closely resembles the European Council of today.

And if this chamber were transformed into a sort of pan-European parliament, Angleter would not accept the injustice of its 145 million citizens being represented by the same number of elected Councillors as a nation of, say, 10 million. That would be the most bizarrely unrepresentative elected legislature in the region. If Cllr Firoux wants to create a pan-European parliament, he should at least try going the whole hog with it.

So no, we will not be supporting this bill, no matter how it is amended.

What we are considering doing, however, is bringing forward a bill to prohibit the election of Councillors.

We have, as I said earlier, generally respected member states’ freedom to put their European Council seat up for direct election if they so wish, but today it’s clear that, as a direct consequence of that practice, national politics is being fought out here in this chamber, here in Europolis.

And what’s more, for too long, some national governments have been voiceless in this chamber.

We regret that it has come to this, and we mean no disrespect to the many diligent and responsible elected Councillors in this chamber. But this has gone too far.

[Inquista]

"Ok, boomer," Councillor Firoux whispered under his breath as he raised himself from his seat.

"Thank you Councillor Cruthin for raising your concerns. I do see where your point of view is coming from, and I appreciate that you've outlined your concerns fully instead of just giving a blanket no response. With that said, just as you fundamentally disagree with the core premises of this Act, I also fundamentally disagree with the core premises of your arguments.

"Let me begin by addressing the elephant in the room: the assertion that this Act is some sort of powerplay by Councillors to sidestep the internal politics of their home country. I have no doubt that you were aiming that comment directly at me. I don't think that is a fair comment to make, because I have been an ardent supporter for a directly elected Council the moment I became Councillor myself, which was long before I was involved with any certain national disagreements. I've written both previous iterations of this Act, which are the previous ones you have referenced. Just as I did then, I do now: I support the core principles of democracy, accountability and people-oriented leadership that underline this Act, which are principles that I put above my own political career or my own ambitions. This is much more about the European Union than it could ever be about me.

"I do not mean to offend or insult how member states select their councillor. If I have ever made anyone feel less than because of the way they were selected, I apologize. I don't want to insult anyone. As you say, there are many diligent and responsible elected Councillors in this chamber, and I am proud to serve as your Speaker. However, I believe it is time that we, as Councillors, are all directly accountable to our own people, and that we give our own people the choice of how we operate in Europolis.

"It's not that I don't trust national governments. I do. I will even say that I trust the Inquistan government, even if they have very little liking of me. The fact remains, however, that the European Union is supposed to be a bastion for democracy and good governance. These aren't just my own politically-laden ideas, these are values entrenched in the Preamble of our European Constitution. How could the European Union uphold these values, if the very own legislative arm of the EU itself - which has legislative jurisdiction over the entirety of Europe - isn't democratically elected?

"I hear about this often. Europeans don't trust the European Council. They don't know us. They have no clue who we are - we're some sort of mystical bureaucratic institution to them. Yet, we possess the power to pass any sort of law over them. We're a supreme legislature in many ways. Not only are Europeans all over the region concerned about this, but funnily enough, I myself have been targeted and attacked explicitly because of this, because I have somehow become the avatar for the Europolis elite. The thing is, I understand the concerns of these Europeans and I hear them. We need to put power in the hands of the European people themselves, because we are ultimately making decisions about and for them.

"This brings me to the next point about good governance. Not only does democratizing Council positions make councillors more accountable directly to the European people, but I believe it promotes a good way of allowing the Council to actually tackle more cross-border problems and to become more effective. I also often hear from people that the European Council doesn't do enough or that we've abandoned the most vulnerable people behind. In fact, this was a sentiment echoed by a worker from Gallorum who took some shots at the European Progressive Alliance in the last Commission debate. This is yet another irony to me, because I actually yet again agree with this sentiment that is meant to be an attack against me. There’s no real sense of collaboration in the Council, and Councillors are not being chosen based on actual ideas or visions that they hope to bring to Europolis. Unless a national government has an invested interest in what happens in Europolis – which surely isn’t the case in Inquista and several other countries – then it probably won’t push for much to happen... which means nothing happens at all and our institutions are wasted. This is a shame, because we as Councillors know that the European Union exists as a very effective tool to address many cross border issues, like one example being climate change.

"So if a European is passionate about seeing climate change tackled across the region, what are they to do? First they need to get national politics on their side, hope a party that is dedicated to climate change will form government, then hope that government sends a councillor who is equally passionate about combating climate change is sent to the council and that the councillor will bring about legislation? Of course, this is the current expectation of how things should go, and as Councillor Cruthin states, this might actually be perfectly a-ok with them. However, this sort of trickle down democracy doesn’t, and often, doesn’t happen. We know that European-level and national politics can be separate beasts. A European might want a councillor dedicated to climate change, but that there are so many topics and issues at hand in national politics, they might have to sacrifice that wish at their ballot. Conversely, they could still vote for a party that is concerned about climate change, but that doesn’t mean the eventual councillor who is appointed is especially concerned about it. National politics isn’t always European politics, and I am the epitome of that. Inquistans themselves have chosen that they want a certain direction for their national government, but they also want and expect other things from their representative in Europolis. This is a logical type of separation and also a more effective way of allowing Councillors to put a vision or an idea on the table for their people to directly choose, and to foster real European-level decision making to make actual progress in regional issues.

"I hope that my arguments that I laid out make it clear that this Act is not only the best way of democratizing the European Union, but it also the most effective way of promoting good governance too. If you largely agree with me - though I don't expect anyone to agree with my fully - then I invite you to support the passage of this Act.

"I will say, however, I am very open to making amendments on specifics, including some mentioned by Councillor Cruthin. I am not married to the idea of unlimited term limits. I’d happily allow the member states to regulate that themselves. I also personally think it is actually fair for Councillors removed from office to be allowed to run in the ensuing by-election and defend their position, which is why I included it, but I am not going to die on that hill and I am open to changes."

[Spain]

Cllr Alfonso Rodríguez, after checking his papers, starts talking

Good afternoon everyone. Well, it seems not everyone is in favour of this act, and, I don't know it is because of being scared to let people choose the person they want to represent them, or else, because the government wants to have control about the person they send here, as it is the state's representant in one of the most important organisms in the European Union.

Let's be clear. Some time ago, Spain showed its intention to let the Spanish people choose their councillor. And even me, that, I was elected by the goverment exclusively to be the Spanish representant on the council, I want to have elections. Mr. Firoux said something very important. "Many people don't believe in the European Council" And that's true, very true.

So, as you can predict, Spain is voting for this act. European Union is not scared about elections, Spain is not scared about elections, and of course, we need to start listening our people even more than we do at the moment.

Thank you

[Duxburian Union]

The Union of Duxburian Dominions also remains opposed to this idea, as we have in the past. Since the position of councillor provides representation for member states in the Council and member states are represented by governments, it is the Duxburian government's preogative to decide how it should be represented.

In this vein, we would also oppose a bill aimed at outlawing the election of councillors as threatened by Councillor Cruthin. We respect the right of national governments to decide how they will choose a councillor. Elected? Appointed? Not our business.

While an appointed councillor lacks a direct electoral mandate, they may represent a government that does have one, making the need for a mandate moot.

We also can't give officials who are removed from office the same electoral rights as other candidates, what rights they have under Duxburian law depend on why they were removed and by what method. That could be anything from simple resignation to being convicted of major criminal charges, with consequences ranging from basically nothing to being barred from the office for life. Amending this out still wouldn't address our base objection, however.

Ultimately, we don't think making the position of councillor an elected, independent office is even a healthy flavor of democracy, there is too much potential for tyranny by minority. In the scenario of a councillor opposing a national government and pursuing a different agenda, that indicates their ideas didn't have enough backing to become a government priority, or perhaps didn't convince enough people to even change their government at election. What right do they have to force their platform upon their country regardless?

A true democratic mandate shows widespread, majority support - if they don't have it, they need to knock on more doors and convince more electors that their ideas are better than others. If European issues are getting buried by domestic ones, it is their responsibility to convince people that the European issues are also important. If they fail, then those issues didn't deserve to be implemented, but it's not like they can't keep trying. People can be educated, they can change their minds.

This is how democracy actually works..to subvert that process, even in the name of the greatest good...is inherently tyrannical.

Wesley Greene
Councillor of the Duxburian Union

[Inquista]

"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.

[Malborya]

I, Ms. Ectsi Ioneli, European councillor of The Malboryan Republic, oppose this act.

Countries and territories in the European Union should have a right to choose their way of choosing councillors. Unnecessarily regulating something this impactful will result in negative effects for the European economy, raised tax levels, and other things.

If a government is elected into power by the people, that means they trust in the government to make good decisions for them. This is no big surprise, considering we have many fair and transparent elections in the EU. If the people trust the government for making other decisions, like lowering tax rates for corporations to help boost the Malboryan economy, this means they trust the government for appointing the best people as councillors, such as yours truly!

So no, this act is completely unnecessary and will lead to confusion among Europeans all around. Dare I say, we talk about more important things? I've heard Malbory is at it's finest at this time of the year.

[California]

I think that we could make this work for everyone involved. I do agree with Councillor Greene that perhaps it would be unwise to invite people who cannot convey the will of both the people and the national government. I do not think Councillors should be that removed from public policy of their homeland. Imagine if, for example, Francois Fillon had won the Gaulois election and I would still be Councillor?? I would heavily consider leaving my post as I would not be reflecting the will of the Gaulois people as demonstrated by their vote in the general election.

Perhaps we could, then, mandate that a councillor election occur at a set time OR one month after a national election?

Marion Rousselot
Councillor for the Kingdom of Gallorum
Deputy Speaker

[Inquista]

"I mean, nothing stops member states from mandating or fixing their councillor elections on dates which are one month after their national elections. Remember, the proposal only requires that member states have a councillor election at least every 4 years, but they may do so at their own discretion. With that said, the proposal officially encourages to either hold the election simultaneously with national elections or during the official European Council Election Period.

"We can amend the proposal to encourage what you suggest Councillor Rousselot, rather than encourage holding national and councillor elections simultaneously. I therefore propose the following amendment..."

Amendment II
Section II
IV. It is encouraged that member states elect their Councillor one month after they elect either during the same time period in which members of their national legislatures are elected, or they elect their Councillor during the official European Council Election period.

[Duxburian Union]

I would be inclined to agree with Councillor Firoux that the EU had serious transparency, accountability, and legitimacy problems in years past. However, I disagree that the European Council is still this mysterious chamber of elites that isn't accessible to the public. Maybe with 910's level of technology, but in 920 we have an unprecedented ability to keep our people informed and engaged in our governing institutions. The Duxburian government has DirectLink, where you can live chat with government officials and representatives or their teams. They can also host AMAs or broadcast news updates, live update physical informational bulletins, or send out mobile push notifications and email blasts. Legislative/judicial/council proceedings from Channels 3-5 can be streamed for free on the internet. We have our Channel 8-9 mixed reality/news documentary shows like The Councillor which are both fun and educational windows into what it's really like to be a European councillor (or member of other bodies). There's one super intriguing show called 101 to Win that really gets into what it takes to pass the latest bills in the Sovereign Assembly, the hearts and minds of it. None of these things count against any provider's data limits. We didn't have any of this in Acwellan Devoy's era, so it may have been difficult to stay informed. Now, I'm memed daily (and many of you are, too). It's safe to say the average Duxburian is very familiar with what the Council is, what it does, and what it could do.

However, none of that progress in transparency and engagement is dependent on election to an office - it's about the effort you put into communication and outreach. There were people like Ria Levion who weren't being reached and pointed out that what we were doing just plain sucked. The Duxburian government listened and made major adjustments. It didn't take elections to change the meta, it took a willingness to improve communication and outreach. You can elect someone and still have them fail to listen to you, fail to keep you informed, fail to connect with you. You can appoint someone and have them be super into how to better represent you, including changing their views as they receive feedback. It's nice to empower the people to make the choice themselves, but democracy itself does not automatically guarantee a positive outcome, nor does lack of it guarantee a negative one. The method of how they come to power isn't the real issue here.

Historically-speaking, one of the main issues the Duxburian Union has had in the Council is arguably unnecessary erosion of cultural sovereignty. Little things like forcing us to observe "months" or arbitrary ages like 16 or arbitrary term lengths like 4 years, that don't mesh with how our civilization is setup, are grating to the Duxburian psyche. Some surrender of cultural sovereignty is necessary to make a union work, but arbitrary things should be avoided if possible and haven't been. Electing councillors is not going to fix that. If a councillor is truly concerned with big countries walking out of the EU, they could start by listening instead of running roughshod over our cultures for no actual reason. It gets to the point where I spend more time examining what stupid sacrifices we have to make over the merits of the bill themselves. I then have to take debates off on tangents about how 16 year olds aren't minor children and everyone's thinking "shut up you know what a month is, get over it". A lot of people are sitting at home watching this wondering why we can't at least keep our method of selecting a councillor among all the things we've lost. Is it narrow? Sure. Is it directly democratic? Nope. But, it's ours.

Of course, I say this representing one of the backer countries that forced legal weed upon the EU. We certainly aren't perfect and haven't listened to other countries' concerns at times, but making mistakes is part of the learning process as we try to make a better union. Again, we need to have standards and give some things up for smooth operational sake. However, the Duxburian government believes it gives too many things up that don't need to be surrendered and aren't actual parts of the problem. We have to remain opposed.

Wesley Greene
Councillor of the Duxburian Union

[Inquista]

The debate period has ended. The time for voting on AMENDMENTS has begun. Voting on amendments will begin NOW and will last until 06:30 GMT January 14th 2020.

There are TWO amendments, both proposed by myself.

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.

Amendment II
Section II
IV. It is encouraged that member states elect their Councillor one month after they elect either during the same time period in which members of their national legislatures are elected, or they elect their Councillor during the official European Council Election period.

Edward Firoux
Council Speaker and Councillor for Inquitsa

[Inquista]

On behalf of the Most Blessed State of Inquista, I vote for BOTH amendments.

Edward Firoux
Council Speaker and Councillor for Inquitsa

[Duxburian Union]

On behalf of the Union of Duxburian Dominions, I vote for both amendments.

Wesley Greene
Councillor of the Duxburian Union

[Spain]

On behalf of Spain, I vote FOR BOTH amendments.

Alfonso Rodríguez
Councillor of Spain

[Malborya]

On behalf of the Malboryan Republic, I, Ectsi Ioneli vote AGAINST both amendments.

[California]

On behalf of the Kingdom of Gallorum, I, Marion Rousselot, vote FOR the two amendments.

[Inquista]

With 4 votes for and 1 vote against each amendment, BOTH amendments have PASSED. The Act has been updated accordingly.

Final voting on the legislation has begun NOW and will last until 22:30 GMT January 19th 2020.

Edward Firoux
Council Speaker and Councillor for Inquitsa