The Kingdom of Spain
Thank you very much to the organizers of this debate for allowing us to tell Europe the truth they deserve. Europe does not need too much bureaucracies that even gets very large shares from the European budget. Of course, this is ironic to what I mentioned in my campaigns for some people. But I'd like to stress out that the EU has enough budget for these initiatives and will have more if we save a lot by removing unnecessary bureaucracies like the European Biotechnology Advisory Board. Apart from this, one of my main goals in my campaigns is to organize sets of diplomatic meetings around Europe to begin on the resolution of these crises happening. We will also conduct visits to European member-states to engage with their governments in establishing the projects I have mentioned in my campaigns. Europe needs change that will truly develop Europe into a global region with continuously developing nations and cities. We are enough of broken promises and it is time we witness the reality of what we can and must do. People, join us in the ELDR to combat corrupt politicians and a bloated European Union. Together, we can make a difference as a union of people who can make everything possible. A smart European citizen votes for the betterment of his community and of Europe. Thank you very much!
Internal Affairs Debate Aug/Sep 2020
-
Darienne Lake: Hi y'all and welcome to the the Aug/Sep 2020 Internal Affairs Commissioner debate. I am here in the Europolis transport museum, standing in from of one of our Jumbo Jets so gracefully donated to the EU. Our 4 candidates are lined up here ready to tell you why you should vote for them. I'm now going to explain a bit about the rules and format for this debate.
For the first 8 minutes we will be doing opening statements. These can be 2 minutes long (OOC: 300 words).
For the next part, candidates will have 2 minutes (OOC: 300 words) to address the stances that they declared in the pre-debate questionnaire after these are displayed graphically on the wall here in the Europolis Transport Museum. There will then be a free debate during this (OOC: 24 hour) period, with any candidate able to ask any other about their stance on these issues and why they think the way they do and any candidate can respond to another. (OOC: You can ask your question to another candidate in the same post as you write your statement)
Then, there will be personalised questions for the candidates and then general questions for all of the candidates. These will be submitted by Europeans and also thought up by myself as the debate evolves.
The candidates will then have the opportunity for a closing statement. Additionally, if a candidate is mentioned at any point in the debate, they will be allowed a 1 minute (OOC: 150 word) retort, which can be delivered after I say so. You cannot, however, retort a retort. That'd be crazy, folks!
So, I would now like to ask the candidates to give us their 2 minutes (OOC: 300 word) opening statements. (OOC: You have until 12:45 PM BST on the 28th of August)
-
Good afternoon to all the Europeans watching this debate live and also to my rivals, as to Darienne.
Today it’s a good day for the European Elections. We, the candidates will be able to explain our proposals for Europe. But I’m not focusing on that since the very first minute of the debate, but starting of what the European Commission is for me. In the Commission, you have the chance of being part of the EU’s history by doing great or bad things. In these months of term, I’ve enjoyed, I tried my best for being one of the best commissioners in the European History. My proposals, along with the European Assembly meeting, the development of a greener Europe, the Commission’s app, Europe day or the mediation in the Eastern Haane’s conflict. This term I’ve also been able to check how important is it to not overload the European budget, to listen the European’s opinions and most importantly, to accomplish every single task you get as an Internal Affairs Commissioner.
But we need to focus on the future, on the upcoming elections in which Europe is once again deciding its future. If you look properly to my campaign, I have been the only one that has travelled to every single member state in the European Union, defending my proposals and taking them to the Europeans by campaigning in their countries. I have been able to know many people that didn’t believe on the European project, and we have been able to convince them about the European Union being the best thing Europe can have. But we need responsible persons to be leading us, the Europeans, to a brighter future.
This debate will be the one that proofs who’s the best for us, and I hope I’m your choice. Thanks.
-
Thank you very much to the organizers of this debate for allowing us to tell Europe the truth they deserve. Europe does not need too much bureaucracies that even gets very large shares from the European budget. Of course, this is ironic to what I mentioned in my campaigns for some people. But I'd like to stress out that the EU has enough budget for these initiatives and will have more if we save a lot by removing unnecessary bureaucracies like the European Biotechnology Advisory Board. Apart from this, one of my main goals in my campaigns is to organize sets of diplomatic meetings around Europe to begin on the resolution of these crises happening. We will also conduct visits to European member-states to engage with their governments in establishing the projects I have mentioned in my campaigns. Europe needs change that will truly develop Europe into a global region with continuously developing nations and cities. We are enough of broken promises and it is time we witness the reality of what we can and must do. People, join us in the ELDR to combat corrupt politicians and a bloated European Union. Together, we can make a difference as a union of people who can make everything possible. A smart European citizen votes for the betterment of his community and of Europe. Thank you very much! -
Good afternoon.
I'll get straight to the point. What Europe needs is democracy; not just as the power to nominate people to the aristocracy but as the ability of regular people - anyone and everyone - to actively participate in governance, equipped with the undistorted knowledge on political issues that is needed to do so.
It needs to give rather than take autonomy from its constituent groups, whether they be national, ethnic, linguistic, cultural, or professional, so that all facets of European society, without exception, are represented and able to be truly free.
Yet at the same time, it needs to be united; united in its protection of the future, united in its protection of the rights of its citizens, united in its help for the poor and the weak.
Europe, however, does not need endless, useless vanity projects meant only to showcase the power and intelligence of those in power, nor populist proposals that would in the end rob the people of their rights.
It does not need a structure which creates and satiates a desire for power; it does not need a leadership drunk on that power, either.
Most of all, it does not need the sacrifice of everything under the sun to serve these drunks, these addicts.
With that, I implore you, people of Europe, to vote for democracy; democracy above all else, no matter how tempting it may be to not, for we must stop the sacrifice, the addiction, and the drunkenness in its tracks, and in its place install a system of dignity and equality, of democracy, self-determination, and solidarity, in which all can thrive.
-
Good evening everyone.
My mission here tonight, is the same as my goals for the Union. To be clear in my intentions for Europe, to be precise in how I intend to accomplish them, and to make it known my message is consistent.
My intentions is to keep the Union the forum for greater regional incentives, but not the lead. The future must be lead by citizens at the lowest levels possible, and should be kept at a maximum at the national level. Europe should set the standards and rules to 'play the game' but it should not be the an active player.
The reality is that this is a union of nations...not people, and once that reality is understood we can work towards an EU that will work. Not one whose bloated bureaucracy intrudes on the lives of the everyday citizen. Europe should not have access to your data, Europe should not be intruding on local issues that your local government should be handling. Europe should focus on establishing the rules of conduct and on issues that are relevant to every nation.
I support a Green deal, I support reforming the ECoJ, I think governments should have a voice in the European Council once again. I don't support promising not to increase the scope of the EU but saying the very opposite.
However your nation conducts its voting, I hope anyone watching this gets involved in the process and helps me in establishing an olive branch between Europe and all member states. Thank you.
John Oliver
-
Darienne Lake: Now if you'll look at the screens we can see where our candidates here stand on the key issues. They will be given a chance, now to explain their ideas about them. Obviously, there is a time limit, so candidates will have to choose the issues that are most important to them.
Juncker: Left/right: 5 EU: 10
Winston: Left/right: 5 EU: 9
Weber: Left/right: 3 EU: 5
Oliver: Left/right: 7 EU: 10
Candidates now have 2 minutes (OOC: 300 words) to give a speech about why their stance on the issues is the best. Candidates can also ask one other candidate a question about their answers to the questions, but candidates are not obligated to respond. If I believe that an important question was avoided by a candidate, however, I might pick them up on it in the next round where I will be asking individual questions. Candidates are free to debate freely, but not going over 1 minute (OOC: 150 words) per statement.
OOC: You have until 12:41 PM on the 29th of August to make your statement - you can reply to someone's question to your candidate after the time has elapsed as I imagine some will be asked in the middle of the night. If there are mistakes in the chart let me know.
Correction issued: John Oliver does not support the condemnation of the coup in Inquista
-
Some thought I am less Europeist than them and look, now I’m the most pro-EU on the room, that’s simply hilarious.
About my ideas, I think we shall not leave anyone behind, we shall agree the infrastructure projects on a bi or trilateral bases but we need to give subsides instead of overweighting the budget. About economies integration, I’m also the most liberal around, which is lovely even thinking that a party running got the word “Liberal” on it name, but they agree with a Conservative spectre candidate! Also, I’m the main supporter of immigration on the room, so EU workers, you can count on me.
I’m surprised by seeing Winston saying he doesn’t support the Refugee Protection Act, now I understand why did he lead a campaign against me and the EPA. Because he is the same than a MEGA candidate. Trympov would be proud of him. The ESA budget shall stay the same, but of course, Atty. Winston who thinks he would be better than me, only wants to benefit his country’s enterprises and institutions led by Reitzmic people, the ESA, so there you have it.
The European Assembly is not useful and we can do its functions in other ways, so abolishing it is the best we can do. And ending with the Council Bills and social issues, we agree on one thing and mostly everything with a single exception in some cases. And I wanted to keep some words for the unified curriculum idea. Ridiculous, horrible and the worst thing I’ve ever seen on a campaign. Oliver not supporting the gay marriage is also concerning, but no surprise to me. Space Weaponry Act is stupid if you want to stop the UNSR threats and attacks.
Edmund, do you support Trympov? Would you kill refugees? Thanks.
-
Winston may now retort with 1 minute speaking time (OOC: 150 Words)
-
My belief is that the EU must operate on the principles of solidarity; its member states must not simply keep to themselves but must also unite against the various forces that threaten the dignity and equality of the people both in the present and in the future, regardless of whether these people are their citizens or not.
We must help not just the impoverished nations, but any nation where people have been robbed of their rightful dignity. This help's form shall not be fixed; it shall instead be specialized, determined through dialogue with the country's government and its various societal groups; it shall be done on their own terms.
At the same time, however, we must protect the dignity of future citizens. By poisoning the air, the seas, and the land, by littering space, we are making for our progeny a dystopia. It is for this reason that I support a Green New Deal, developed with the assent of all member states as well as the various societal groups of Europe.
As for the Schengen Area and the Refugee Protection Act, I view these as simple enablers for the autonomy of individuals; specifically, their autonomy in movement. It is for similar reasons that I support both infrastructure projects being decided on a trilateral basis, a European Assembly, and Cllr. Kohout's amendment - the three of these contribute, or will contribute, to the greater autonomy of nations and other societal groups, an autonomy I view as being sacrosanct.
-
I am very baffled about why all of my opponents here do not support the Anti-Space Weaponry Act. I will quote from the preamble of the act.
"We, the European Union member-states represented in the European Council
Dedicated to establish a safe European populace and protect the lives of the European peoples
Do promulgate this act that would preserve the civilization from extinction and prevent war"Europe, from the words you can see the true motive of the bill. It wants to protect space for the common heritage of everyone, and I am very worried about the future of the European people with this bill not being passed into law nor these other candidates here not support it. And I want to ask why? Why do you not support such bill that would establish space as a place for peaceful activities and not warfare?
Moving on, I also noticed that I am the only person here to support a unified curriculum. And many ask me why I support this and what are the benefits. First of all, a unified curriculum would make it much more easier for students around Europe when they move to another member-state to study there. This would also allow all students around Europe an equal quality of education. And knowing the other candidates here do not support this is very confusing. I do not know now if they are really pro-EU integration, based on the chart, or not. My goal in my campaigns is very clear, a smart Europe and a unified Europe.
Now, for Mr. Juncker's questions. He asked why I do not support the refugee protection act. Very simple answer, the act did nothing. Refugees are protected around Europe, especially in Reitzmag with millions of refugees being housed in the leased areas called New Saint Regina and Copala City. The act was repealed already because it was very clear that it had no sense. I support refugees Mr. Juncker and I want to protect them. If you haven't heard in one of my campaigns, I admitted that I was the one who suggested leasing lands to Nicolezian Refugees to HM The King George I. So, it is very not possible that I am a refugee killer in this way if I did something that helped refugees have a place to live in this trying times. Thank you very much!
-
.jpg)
My position is clear and historically consistent with my own messages. Europe must operate on the condition of respecting the diversity of the nations within it and not trying to find the lowest common denominator. For example, gay marriage is something that should be decided by states to reflect cultural values among other things, should states be allowed to declare homosexuals subhuman, no. That's the kind of Europe we should be supporting, set the ground rules for basic humanity and basic cooperation but let nations do as they feel is right for the betterment of their society.
Europe should work to set a series of goals for the betterment of our environment, but not set out in major specifics how it should be accomplished. The economies of Europe are vastly different and should be handled by people who know the minute details of them. That is why I support a form of the European Green deal, it should literally be a deal between member-states to figure out a series of goals and meet them in an agreeable fashion.
I find it odd that some of my opponents think that most of the time that infrastructure projects are best left to smaller multilateral agreements rather than some EU decree, but yet think that the EU should be the sole or major financier of major ones? Infrastructure is expensive, if it isn't then it certainly wasn't worth the money you put into it. It can never be cheap and high quality, unless you are trying to mislead voters.
I agree that children around Europe all deserve a quality education, but that does not mean we should violate the rights of parents, cities, and nations and instill some 'European curriculum', it will only hurt students in the long run.
I believe that Mr. Winston asked a question to the rest of us who did not support the Anti-Space Weaponry Act...its quite easy to understand sir that I love the idea of peace in space, I just don't like illogical, poorly written, and overbearing acts to reach that. I admit Europe probably does need an act on the subject, but it needs to be far more concise about the use of Anti-ICBM weapons, nuclear testing, and a variety of other topics. Just because I do not support a specific act, does not mean I do not support the concept: considering the way you just outlined your stance on the Refugee act I hope you would be able to understand such a method of thought. Make a proper written bill and I will make another assessment on the individual merits of the idea in the scope of the practicality it has.
John Oliver
-
I’ll tell you why: It’s not going to stop anything. I would like to see peace on space, but that will do nothing. You can’t stop rogue states by saying: Here’s an act, you can’t do it! That’s not how things work, but you don’t seem to understand even a half of it.
But the best thing I’ve seen is the Reitzmag that, Reitzmag this… Gentleman, this is not the Reitzmic Presidential debate, we aren’t Reitzmic politicians. This is a Commission Elections debate, and you are focusing on everything what your country have done. My opponent manifesto is simple: I’ll give my country everything they want and all the EU resources, the others are getting nothing. He doesn’t believe in the European Union and you can proof that by listening to his retorts.
Summing up, I believe on a stronger Europe, not in benefiting certain nations like you. Thank you.
-
Individual Questions:
You have 2 minutes per question. (OOC: 300 words but you MUST separate these with 3 dashes.) If you feel you have been mentioned, please feel free to take 1 minute (OOC: 150 words) to respond to your fellow candidates.
Juncker:
You support the condemnation of the coup in Icholasen but not in Inquista. How is this coherent?
Trympov has criticised you for your 5G financing plan. He says that you are just giving away money to large, globalist corporations. You’ve said you’ll get the money back in taxes, but does a loan with interest not make more sense?
Winston:
You have said you want to contract Reitzmic companies to carry our European Union works. As an Attorney, are you aware this is illegal?
You’ve said the EU budget should stay the same, but have argued for the EU being the sole financier of large infrastructure projects, stimulus grants to poorer nations, increasing the ESA’s funding, and a European Green New Deal. How will you pay for all that on the existing EU budget levels, without dipping into the rebate?
Oliver:
You have proposed decreasing the EU budget. Many livelihoods depend on its funding, what would you say to someone who is worried about losing their job?
You support the condemnation of the coup in Icholasen but not in Inquista. Trympov supports both - is he wrong? And is your stance coherent / logical?
Weber:
You’ve said the EU budget should stay the same, but are proposing stimulus packages to poorer nations. How will this work?
You’ve said you want citizens to have more direct control over EU issues. Are there any instances you would support an EU-wide referendum?
You have until 14:00 PM BST on the 30th of August.
-
Thank you for your questions Darienne. In the first one, the Coup of Icholasen was a military coup while the “Coup” of Inquista was not. Secondly, the wording of that act was not exact and even exaggerated the situation in Inquista and thirdly, the country has gone under free elections in which the Inquistans chose a new archbishop.
But that does not stop right there. The pre-Mikaela Klienberg Archbishop Government was actually democratic until the Inquistans found out some of their members were crusaders, when Councillor Firoux was called back as a move by the old Archbishop Craticus, who was a mass murderer, to get other opinions that differed from him not to be heard. The people found out what was going on in their government, and they revolted against those persons that were breaking the law systematically.
In Icholasen, this was not the case. The self-called Union of Nicoleizian Soviet Republics took power by military actions which are still happening in a guerrilla way, in the Nicoleizian mountains. What happened in Icholasen was, is and will be cruel. That’s why we need to stop it as soon as possible, because the actions taken by the undemocratic government of an unrecognised country such as the UNSR, which in my opinion, does not exist, are like a dictator would take in order to keep control of his country. That is a shame, and I think we all need to agree on here. We, as the European Union, not as individuals, need to let the Nicoleizians return to their lands freely, and that is what the European Union’s common answer shall be. And I need to mention that no country is going to solve this alone. We need to solve this together.
Now moving on to the second question. Trympov is running for Premier Commissioner, I am running for Internal Affairs. I have lots of respect for him, but I can’t just take his comments seriously, I know someone here who endorsed him back in the past and now he has taken the same message but in a slightly different way.
The 5G plan will go through mobile plan, but we are not planning to do it a European plan or something like that. Subsides are going to be given to those enterprises which would like to install their 5G network, and they should use that money for that. There will be some perquisites to get those subsides given. For those countries with less resources, we would like to have a shared development along with the European Union, private sector and the member states. I know that Trympov hates everything that he doesn’t own or run, but what could you expect of a populist candidate like him?
Now, let’s talk about the money. Subsides will always return to the European Union and the member states at some point. But if the Council opposes to these subsides, and there is a majority to give loans to the private sector, I invite them to vote against the subsides and go for the loan, but I need to advise them about something: A loan is worse than a subside, and if the enterprise goes bankrupt, you are not getting the money back in years. The member states, the Europeans can relax about the money management by my side. I’m not going to expend the European money on stupid things. I didn’t do it on my first term, and I won’t do it on my second one if that happens, I hope it does. Thank you.
-
Thank you yet again.
The aid that I propose is meant to be paid from a system developed through deliberation between national, ethnic, cultural, and professional groups throughout Europe, possibly through the reformed European Assembly that I have proposed.
However, I do not know the details of this system because it has not been developed yet. There has been no meeting, there has been no deliberation; how could it have? The little that I can tell you; that it will likely be separate from the EU budget, that it will function on the principles of good governance; is from my own inferences. What promises I have made, however, will be kept, for my promises are not solutions; they are goals to be met.
As for EU-wide referendums, there are a number of instances in which I would support them:
- in the case that I am asked to, by petition, by national governments, by societal groups, or by mass organizations
- in cases where it is unclear as to whether a proposal would cause harm, considering scientific evidence
- in cases where the autonomy of member states or societal groups, on a massive scale, must be sacrificed for individual autonomy, or vice versa.
However, specific decisions will be made on a case-by-case basis, using the advice of experts, except in those cases falling in the first category.
-
Many of the fantastic workers involved with the EU are highly talented and determined, I am sure regardless of the status of the EU budget they would be sought after for employment. There is just a simply reality that most people who work for governments in some way, shape or form that it is not guaranteed.
There's few EU programs that offer direct support to people in terms of supporting their livelihood, the ERF being an example. Those are not the kinds of programs I am seeking to cut, I am more focused on firstly cutting down on the ESA until it can be decided as to the kind of space administration it should be. The ESA's own founding act implies it is simply a sort of regulatory and small research body meant to foster inter-agency relations between EU members; meanwhile its own director is intent on making it some full-fledged space agency which is not what the EU needs. Member-states who want investments in the space industry are doing amazing on their own, and the EU has no business getting involved.
But before we even discuss direct cuts to the EU budget, I want to cut contributions across the board to .06 of a nation's GDP. The EU only uses about 50% of the total allotment given by member-states, and that has been historically consistent so why must nation's send money to the EU only to get a fairly decent sized portion back. Any jobs lost at the European level can be applied by at the local and national levels by making sure more money stays with member-states before the EU even touches it.
Cutting contributions will lessen the strain on smaller nations, and insure that larger member-states aren't paying more than they should into the EU's coffers.
Mr. Trympov is not wrong, I just have different views on how coups and more specifically revolutions can be handled. Having different opinions on what is clearly a grey area, does not invalidate either or.
Calling the situation in Inquista a coup is illogical in my opinion, unfortunately the common discourse in politics has turned into such a soundbite I should say. Paul Craticus was exposed as being involved in a terrorist group, among many other horrible things that in my opinion invalidates the status of his elections and position as Archbishop. It was a populist move towards removing him, I just wish it did not turn violent. I do not wish death upon anyone.
Meanwhile the situation in Icholasen was not a popular movement, as much as certain Czechs may try to convince you. People are afraid for their lives there under that authoritative dictatorship, who is connected to a terrible history. These aren't brand new communists, it is the same old regime that cause thousands of deaths, and that can not be allowed to remain.
There is in my opinion a difference between both events, where one group becomes an illegitimate government through military juntas, while another removes an illegitimate government through the people.
There has to be a direct line to democracy that is honestly reliant on how other states view potentially rogue ones, Inquista met the bar through the context of the situation surrounding Mr. Craticus. It was just in removing a murderer, unlike the communists purging a peaceful government.
John Oliver
-
Thank you for those questions Ms. Lake. Of course for the first question, I commonly mentioned in my campaigns that Reitzmic companies will be the ones to carry the works on the projects I propose. But to clarify, I only said these Reitzmic companies will be the ones to carry the work to ensure that at the projects would be possible and there would be a solidly established contractor. Work on every single project I mentioned would be done by companies around the EU. There would, of course, be bidding and whoever wins to give the cheapest price possible will be the final contractor. The work on such projects have to be collaborative as I always stress out in my campaigns that "everything is possible if we work together".
As a lawyer, I have practiced my career for years and I have never encountered a law that bans private enterprises of a country from doing the job for a multi-national government institution. Governments commonly contract private enterprises to do the work on projects instead of the government itself finding its own manpower.
Moving on to the next question, I have already prepared for this and many people really ask me about this. My explanation is very simple but I'd like to give a detailed answer. Europe can do all of this on its own, we don't need subsides for this. If we remove the unnecessary bureaucracies that get their own unnecessary shares from the European Budget then we will have more money to use for these projects. I have estimated the cost of all projects I have planned for the administration in case I won and I saw there is still a big portion left for future initiatives. The EU can survive without getting additional money from private corporations. And some even ask me, Mr. Winston launching satellites to space are expensive, how will you fund those projects with the ESA still not capable of sending rockets to space at this time? Well, simple answer, there are existing facilities already and existing rockets in the member-states. And the ESA can just borrow these rockets and these facilities to launch these satellites until the ESA can launch these satellites on its own. For the Green New Deal, we can do this too without increasing the EU Budget. We can all do everything without spending more from our constituents. Thank you very much!
-
Individual Questions:
You have 2 minutes per question. (OOC: 300 words, separate these with 3 dashes.) If you feel you have been mentioned, please feel free to take 1 minute (OOC: 150 words) to respond to your fellow candidates.
Juncker:
You support a Schengen Area, would this be optional or compulsory?
Do you support your government's taxing of the straights? If you do support this, in your pre-debate answer that the economies of the EU should be much more integrated - surely this is a barrier?
Winston:
Why do you think the unified standard curriculum idea for EU schools has been so widely condemned, even by Senator Kerstin?
Will you accept the support of dictatorships, such as the one in Noctoria?
Oliver:
You're the only candidate for IAC who doesn't believe the EU should guarantee marriage, saying it should be decided by the states. But, you agree that other rights should be guaranteed by the EU. What's different about this right?
You believe the UDoHR should only count for EU citizens - will this not lead to human rights breaches that are unpunishable by the EU?
Weber:
Which particular structures ' allow and support' the 'addictions' of EU leaders?
You said that you would like to see 'tripartite discussion between experts, the European Assembly, and the IAC' in order to 'develop a plan for the creation of a more egalitarian EU.' Obviously you will take on board the advice of experts and member-states, but what would you propose at this event?
You have until 2pm on the 1st of September
-
I support a Schengen Area, but this wouldn’t be compulsory for member states. We need to get a huge cooperation to achieve this Schengen area, but I highly doubt that we get any agreement concerning the proposed area, and I will tell the Europeans why this is not possible as of now.
The Schengen Area would be optional, but it would also mean the end of borders between member states. These borders would be controlled by member states but they won’t have as much freedom as they have at the moment. I included the Schengen proposal at the European Heads of Government or State meeting, but the feedback I received about it was really pessimistic. I kind of understand the opinions of member states, and I want to say that I had a better feedback on the Free Trade topic. For sure, if we get a baseline agreement for free trade in the European Union that again, it would be optional, this would create a path which could lead to the creation of a Schengen area in our Union.
But of course, this is not a matter of individuals like others have said during their whole campaign and now they say “that is not accurate”. Mr Winston, I haven’t needed an enterprise from anywhere in Europe to get transparent and fair bids for my projects or my appointments. Europe is formed by 31 nations plus Europolis and the Holy See, is not only formed by Reitzmag. I don’t have anything against Reitzmag, but if you are turning the Commission on a place to do illegal things and split Europe in 31 pieces, which would represent the 31 nations that form Europe, this is going to be the last term of a European Commission. And I don’t want that.
Moving on to your next question Darriene, again thanks for all of them. Concerning my government taxing of the Straits of Gibraltar and Adventuranza, I would like to say that I’m a European Commissioner for Internal Affairs and not a Spanish Politician in the Congress, so I won’t focus on my government but on the European Union.
With that said, I proposed the creation of the European Oceans and Waters Agency, which would regulate the European Union’s see traffic, make legislation on the International Waters and water management in general as giving a common answer from the European Union in coordination with the member states on how to protect and manage our waters, including the Internal Affairs Commissioner as another mediator in this matter. That will for sure end with some disputes that there could be around many European Nations about these sound taxes.
Again, this has to be done in a common way instead of an individual way. If we want the European Oceans and Waters Agency to work, to set new regulations about the European waters and more exactly, to be agreed between member states, we will need to cooperate between all the member states despite their relation with other nations or myself. The European Union shall be over a relationship between 2 nations, 2 leaders or the people from some member states. The project only works with cooperation, solidarity, empathy and many other European values that we have taken as ours.
That’s why I want to tell every single spectator today to let our differences aside in some matters. I know sometimes it’s difficult, but we need to protect the European Union. Don’t let the populisms to convince you, as they want the worst for the EU. We need to get this done together. Thank you.
-
For the first question, it is the structure of the current EU. We have no system in place to ensure that those in elected office actually represent and work for all their constituents.
As the old adage goes, "Power tends to corrupt and absolute power corrupts absolutely." In the institutions of the European Union, despite the existence of a democratic veneer, members hold almost absolute power over their constituents, meaning, that of course, they have become corrupt. This is already evident from a number of Council discussions, as an example, where it appears that a number of Councillors no longer believe that people are deserving of life itself, believing that it is perfectly fine to practice what is essentially human sacrifice in the name of ideology.
What we must do, as such, is forge a connection with the constituents of the EU. We must, all of us, must not govern for ourselves but for them. Through mass organizations, other representatory bodies, and referendums, we will we be in contact with them constantly, forming policy not on our own but through deliberation with them.
Another contributing factor is our separation from experts. We ourselves proclaim to be them, but in reality we are not. We must create advisory bodies which we shall ask, question, and deliberate with.
As for the tripartite discussion, I must clarify - it will be a meeting not just with member states but with ethnic, professional, and cultural groups as well.
However, as for the proposals made, they will largely be focused on wider issues. My goal is not to impose solutions on member states but instead to have them create them.
These issues will include:
- limitations on resource extraction
- transition to green energy
- unified plan to foster economic independence both individual and national and to mitigate negative effects caused by possible transition and limitation
- expansion of representation and autonomy for ethnic, cultural, and professional groups.
- possible creation of a 'social partnership' between unions, professional organizations, and governments.
- possible creation of social corporatist charters in individual member states
Nothing concrete will be imposed; these will act as discussion topics meant to develop what could be a more coherent and better solution to the problems that they address - namely, inequality and the dire state of the current natural environment.