Condemnation of the Coup in Inquista
-
I obviously have several things to say about this matter.
The faith that Inquistans have had in the validity and legitimacy of our Church leadership has been absolutely shattered and broken. Even beyond our faith in our Church leadership, faith in our very nationhood has been shaken. Old wounds have opened up, and we’re reeling and hurting from learning about the atrocities that the former Archbishop had undertaken, including the murder of our country’s very unifier - Archbishop Alexander Kligenberg. Archbishop Kligenberg was a fighter for democracy and an unyielding champion for Inquistan unity. His assassination was a tragic loss for our country, as was the assassination of his successor, Archbishop Donwick. Inquistans have absolutely no faith in a man who plotted to take their lives.
The previous Archbishop’s government was democratic, but it lost all legitimacy after we learned the truth that he and several members of his circle were Crusaders. The Crusade Against Corruption is a terrorist organization. They have no legitimacy and I think I speak for all Inquistans when I say that we reject them and rebuke them entirely.
According to my colleagues over here, as long as something is apparently based on democratic legitimacy, then anything is allowed. Democracy is a blank cheque. Assassinations, murder, terrorism, oppression… all well and good, apparently. Don’t get this twisted. Democracy is one of the most important tenants of our Union. It allows for the people to express their will and have their voices heard. However, it is not something that should be weaponized in order to cause serious and irreparable harm onto others. Democracy is an important and sacred tenant, but so is so having a free society, one where all men are equal, people are free from persecution, etc. There are many tenants which lay the foundation of a legitimate democratic society, and apart from being elected, the previous leadership of our Church lacked all other forms of legitimacy.
No one is pretending that the provisional government of Inquista is democratic. However, it is clearly the most legitimate and valid one at the moment, and I feel strongly that Inquistans are desperately clinging onto hope that we can have a newly elected College of Bishops soon. Most Bishops that I know feel pretty certain that El Caudillo will be holding elections at the end of April. El Caudillo has met with the College on the matter, and I have also spoken to him about it several times. I’m in Europolis so I can’t confirm, but I’m pretty certain the election is being organized logistically as we speak.
This condemnation would have it so that Inquista wouldn't even be able to elect a new College. It quite literally states in Section I that the EU “will not recognise nor support any purported government or legislature that results from the junta's actions.” This is an attempt to suppress Inquistans from having a chance to express their democratic will on how they want to move on with their future. The Councillors from Pravoslaviya and Gallorum clearly don’t believe Inquistans deserve to have their say, and instead want a terrorist organization in charge of Inquista. Disgusting.
It goes without saying that I am voting against this, and I am appalled that I even need to explain myself for it.
Edward Firoux
Council Speaker and Councillor for Inquista -
Su Tefvik rises to speak to the Chamber:
"My government made it quite clear that political violence should and will not be tolerated. The same would apply to Inquista. However I must confess that this bill will further perpetuate the tension that is not needed in our great Union. It will further isolate Inquista and will lower our chances of having a negotiate settlement of retaining the democratic institutions of this country. By supporting this bill, we are guaranteeing not the capitulation of the government, but the consolidation of power that this Council seeks to irradicate.
Before any discussion concerning the denormalization of relations between Inquista and the European Union, we need to make it clear to the the Inquistan people that this council means no harm and that we are willing to work with any government. Even if we dislike the cabinet. Hence, I urge that my fellow Councillors vote against this bill.
Su Tefvik
European Councillor from the Court of Osman -
The Archrepublic of Vayinaod will stand with the people of Inquista. The legitimacy of the previous elections is now gone with the revelations of Craticus and his cartel of crusaders. Democracy is not legitimate if murder and manipulation were used to effectively usurp it.
I stand against the terminology used in this proposal as well as by other Councillors here that it was a military coup. It was a revolution of the people after revelations that betrayed their trust and ideals were set forth. The Archrepublic is very clear in its belief, if a nation has internal laws it should respect their internal laws. That is an internal matter, but when these laws are grossly violated, it can then evolve to be an international matter. That is what happened in Inquista.
Unless this Council wants to recognize a mass murderer as the rightful leader of Inquista, and his accomplices in control of its legislature; then I'm sorry but this Council must be deeply flawed. Not to mention that Craticus is now dead, and his former accomplices now scattered to the wind across the Union,
I believe that we should remain weary of the actions that 'El Caudillo' may take, and I hope he will allow international monitoring of the elections later this month to ensure their validity.
I am not opposed on some limited sanctions, but I will completely stand against this proposal as is without the removal of any language recognizing only the government of Craticus and his murderers.
We should look to work with the provisional government, and highlight areas of concern rather than be concerned with applying a one size fits all proposal across the Union where varying levels of complexity exist in each situation.
Cllr. Carita Falk
Archrepublic of Vayinaod -
I would like to express my opposition to this Condemnation.
These coups happening are symbols of protest and forcible implementation of reforms in which people are enough of what's happening. I can say that it is wrong to use violence in such matter, but it is considerable if the leader in a country is acting like a dictator.
The acts of the people are what's right for their country unless it would promote communism such as those in my country and in UNSR which I can't believe are recognized by our king.
Friedrich van Allen
Councilor, United Reichs of Reitzmag -
Good afternoon everyone.
First of all, I'd like to welcome back Councillor Firoux, it's great news that you are back, and it's also good news for the European Union and for every country that it's in our union. At least, something good happened during the darkest times Spain, and I think the whole Europe have seen since the Drommund Kaas war. We're seeing revolutions everywhere, Inquista, Icholasen or Reitzmag. But I'm surprised that Cllr. van Allen says that "it is wrong to use violence in such matter" when it was exactly in the URR where a civil war started due to a Communist uprise.
Secondly, General Juan Bernardo Fernández-Velasquez has declared himself as "Caudillo of Inquista", which is the same title that Franco had when he ruled Spain. This shows just one thing, and I hope we see the opposite to what it pretends to mean. Inquista has a very advanced democracy and losing it would be a complete disaster for Inquista, the Inquistans, and for the European Union. We've to remain weary to the actions Mr. Fernández - Velázquez might take, as Cllr. Falk said.
So, I'd like to announce that I'll ve voting against this proposal. Anyway, I'd like to remember all councillors here a single and simple thing. Violence is never the way to solve problems. Problems must be solved with talks, with negociations and with diplomacy.
Cllr. Donald D. Tusk
Councillor for Spain -
Final voting begins NOW and will last until 23:15 GMT on April 8th, 2020.
On hehalf of the Most Blessed State of Inquista, I vote AGAINST this condemnation.
Edward Firoux
Council Speaker and Councillor for Inquista -
On behalf of the Kingdom of Gallorum, I ABSTAIN from this vote.
Marion Rousselot
Deputy Speaker, Councillor for the Kingdom of Gallorum -
On behalf of the Kingdom of Fremet, I vote AGAINST this condemnation.
Charles Michel
Councillor for the Kingdom of Fremet -
The Ottoman State votes AGAINST this condemnation.
Su Tevfik
European Councillor from the Court of Osman -
On behalf of the Kingdom of Reitzmag, I vote AGAINST this condemnation.
Friedrich van Allen
Councilor, Kingdom of Reitzmag -
On behalf of the Archrepublic of Vayinaod, I vote AGAINST this condemnation.
Carita Falk
Archrepublic of Vayinaod -
On behalf of the United Dominions of Icholasen, I vote AGAINST this condamnation.
Councillor (Duchess) Poppy Carlton-Romanov
The United Dominions of Icholasen -
On behalf of the Kingdom of Spain, I vote AGAINST this act.
Cllr. Donald D. Tusk
Councillor for Spain -
On behalf of the Kingdom of Pravoslaviya, I vote FOR this condemnation.
-
On behalf of the Confederation of Eastern Haane, I ABSTAIN from this vote.
Mathilde Comtois
Councillor for the Confederation of Eastern Haane -
With 1 vote FOR, 7 votes AGAINST and 2 votes ABSTAINING, this motion has FAILED.
Edward Firoux
Council Speaker and Councillor for Inquista
The Kingdom of Spain
