Amendment to the Constitution on Strengthening the European Assembly of 2020
-
I'm sorry but the uselessness of the European Assembly shall not be resolved through this amendment. It still lacks any powers to actually change anything. "Responsible to fix conflicts" will automatically be violated without any ability to hold whatever is discussed accountable. Not to mention if the EA can be called up by any member-state no doubt it will be called up for trivial matters that honestly are just two nations bickering for the sake of bickering at this point.
I know personally at least why that section was introduced, the Cllr. is from a nation who would get another soap box to preach against the tyranny of other nations where no such tyranny exists. I can't support this amendment because I know for a fact Archkonsul Nylund would kill me if this passed for the sole reason that they have to go to its meetings, and can not leave until said conflict is resolved. That itself is a non-starter.
Much like what the speaker already said, commissioners represent the Union and not their member-states and have been able to perform their duties to the best of their abilities for years in the name of resolving conflicts. Once again this is clearly an underhanded atttempt to make up for a lost election in my opinion.
There's much better ways to fix the EA and I would prefer a council discussion first on everyone's feelings on that first before proposing any hard concrete proposals it is a much better use of our time and the time of our nations.
Cllr. Carita Falk
Archrepublic of Vayinaod -
Good evening all.
I see this amendment to the Constitution as nonsense. Mr. van Allen, I'd like to figure you out one single question, in front of the other European Councillors but also in front of Commissioner Juncker. Does Mr. Winston know how to lose fairly? Or, using another words, if Mr. Winston can't win, you need to make our fairly elected Internal Affairs Commissioner have no functions? I hope you can answer to that question because it would be so good to know the answer.
The approval of this admendment would mean removing the Internal Affairs Commisioner, as it's unuseful according to this act. Anyway, I'm going to talk about every section. In Section I, the Assembly should meet once a year and also meet if it's necessary. For example, an economical crisis situation that affects all of us and the Heads of Governments can discuss what's better for us all. Also, I have to note that it's supposed to be the "European Assembly", where the Commissioner gets to moderate the debate, not a Parliament.
Section 2 it's another thing that I'm interested on. Many nations here have prooved that they can't fix their problems without mediation from a Commissioner or a Head of Goverment or State between them. Do you really think that all of them should meet for a problem that involves only 2, 3 or 4 nations? I think no.
And Section 3, agree with Clause II, because as I said, it shall meet once a year instead of twice as it does now, but I can't agree with Clause I, because that would make every Head of State or Government to come here every single day. Thank you.
Tusk sat down as Juncker stood up and started to talk
Thank you Mr. Speaker and good evening everyone. It's a pleasure for me to take part in this debate.
Firstly I would like to answer the accusations that I have recieved from Mr. van Allen about my supposed "lack of neutrality." You've said: "I want to point out that he did not directly say my exact words but he is condemning his opponent Atty. Winston for his goal of removing the sanctions against Reitzmag. This proves that he is not interested in fixing those conflicts Mr. Speaker." I'll enter once again in that campaign to explain what Atty. Winston wanted. Winston wanted to intervene in the Spanish Government which violates the national sovereignty of a nation; to remove those sanctions. That's something completely illegal. As an Internal Affairs Commissioner, I can't force a member state to do anything, but I can mediate with them, I can suggest what to do. But I can't force them or even take control of the member-states just to do what I want.
Moreover, you added this: "You said that the Internal Affairs Commissioner can act as a neutral arbiter, but how can you prove this in our current state Mr. Speaker?" Mr. van Allen, in all the things I have done during my short period in the office, I haven't done anything against anyone. We have setted up a mobile phone app, I have met with Czech Slavia's Prime Minister and I'm setting up the European Assembly meeting that will take place in Europolis in 3 weeks. But really Mr. van Allen, I don't want to make this a bloobath, so let's move on to what it really matters.
This amendment removes me from the functions I assumed when I got into the Internal Affairs Commissioner. I would like to think that your purpose it's to make a better European Union, and I think it is, but with this admendments I could think your purpose it's to remove every single fuction from my office in order to make this an useless high office, but at the moment, I don't.
Anyway, I surprisingly agree with meeting once a year instead of 2 times a year, because as we can be able to hear here, member-states want that. The rest of the amendment it's not something I like, but I can't vote here, so that's up to councillors who always do a great job representing their nations, so I must congratulate you all for that. I'm able to answer any questions you could have. Thank you.
Donald D. Tusk
Councillor for SpainJean-Claude Juncker
Commissioner for Internal Afairs -
While I do believe that the powers of the European Assembly should be strengthened, I do not think that this is the best way to go about it.
Few of my concerns are original; most have already have been addressed by Cllrs. Tusk and Falk. However, I truly must bring to attention the havoc this would wreak on national governments. By making it so simple to summon the European Assembly; by giving it these powers; one would essentially force heads of state or government to deal almost perpetually with matters of the Union rather than their own nations.
Many member states would not be prepared to deal with this. Take my own, Eastern Haane, as an example. Local governments refuse to cooperate with the central government, attempting to pursue their own, highly radical agendas. You can see this very clearly in the news - Kiel is making up evidence in order to prosecute former members of government, Nancy is trying to abolish currency, and so and so forth. Our head of state - the State Elder - has the work of unifying the nation, of stopping these conflicts and encouraging cooperation. If these amendments were passed, and she were so incapacitated as I have described, her role would pass to the Premier, who is already burdened with the work of promulgating and executing laws, at the same time managing day to day governance.
This would result in disaster, as the Premier would be unable to tend to national integrity at all times, as the State Elder is.
While other countries likely have different systems, I am quite sure that those in the line of succession of their heads of state or government would, like the Premier, not be as competent as those who are currently in the position.
To get to the point: these amendments would force heads of state or government to participate in work entirely different to that they were elected or appointed to do, while at the same time incapacitating them to the extent that another, most likely less qualified, would have to perform their work for them, resulting in the possible destabilization of several nations.
However, it is not as though the entire proposal is unsalvageable. Giving the EA a voice in internal affairs - albeit as an advisory body and not exactly as stated - would, I feel, greatly help the Union, giving the Internal Affairs Commissioner a source of diverse opinion and suggestions.
Martin Bourgaize
Councillor for the People's Confederation of Eastern Haane -
The debate period has closed. Final voting begins NOW and will last until 05:00 GMT on June 17th, 2020.
On behalf of the Most Blessed State of Inquista, I vote AGAINST this constitutional amendment.
Edward Firoux
Council Speaker and Councillor for Inquista -
Mr. Speaker, I request that the debate period be extended for the last minute.
Friedrich van Allen
Councilor, Kingdom of Reitzmag -
On behalf of the Archrepublic of Vayinaod, I vote AGAINST this constitutional amendment.
Carita Falk
Cllr. for the Archrepublic of Vayinaod. -
On behalf of the Kingdom of Fremet, I submit my vote AGAINST this amendment to the constitution.
Charles Michel
Councillor for the Kingdom of Fremet -
On behalf of the People's Confederation of Eastern Haane, I vote AGAINST this constitutional amendment.
Martin Bourgaize
Councillor for the People's Confederation of Eastern Haane -
For which I believe that this amendment could not help after my consultation to my advisers, I formally withdraw this bill.
Friedrich van Allen
Councilor, Kingdom of Reitzmag -
Per the request of the author, this bill has been withdraw. This council session is officially over, as further voting is now unnecessary.
Edward Firoux
Council Speaker and Councillor for Inquista
The Kingdom of Spain
