Premier Commissioner Debate Aug/Sep 2020

Inimicus

"And here we go, ladies and gentlemen. Here we go. The infighting begins. On the one hand, a reactionary nationalist like Trympov is advocating a return to tribalism and 19th-century jingoism, and on the other hand, Senator Kirstin has absolutely no sense of concrete plans, no specific proposals. This is what I am tired of - and I'm sure you all are, too.

My answers to the pre-debate questions were based on facts, figures, and a healthy dose of common sense. One thing that does strike me, however, is Ms Čikarová's blatant and shameful refusal to support the Condemnation of the Coup in Icholasen. I ask - nay, demand - that she explain herself. A Cocx Premiership is tough on rogue states, and would never - ever - refuse to condemn an illegitimate government threatening to destabilise our region."

Czech Slavia

"Because, Mr. Cocx, unlike you I truly support the right to self-determination. And I am also the only one here who supports this right. Even Mr. Trympov tells us that his EU would be violating national sovereignty just as much as the current EU. Revolutions that are not dependent on foreign help and succeed are legitimate and EU can't force its member states to a common diplomacy. Member states must act as sovereign, not as colonies of the EU.

And a candidate, that is known for getting so hurt by one fake edit of campaign poster being shared by his opponent that he couldn't stop talking about it during his campaign? It appears as if you think that you should be a Premier Commissioner because you were hurt, well I think Europe deserves better."

Czech Slavia

"Now, I would like to explain some of my views in a bit more depth. I do think that EU should be a financial contributor to a infrastructure projects. If a country already has a factory, but lacks a proper road toward that factory, EU should subside new road, thus further developing said country, but only as a part of my economic plan. Same goes for the stimulus packages, the member states need to use the funds for developing their productive forces or essential services. But we must know what the money are used for. And developed countries should not be excluded from this plan.

I oppose banning of nuclear weapons and gay marriage guaranteed by the EU. But I am fully in support of denuclearization and gay marriage! EU however, has once no place telling its member states and their people, for example, who they can or can't marry. Not only is that an enormous breach of national sovereignty, but I also think it in turn may actually worsen some people's opinion on gay marriage, exactly because it is a violation of national sovereignty, and something that is seen as foreign.

I notice that Mrs. Merkel and Mrs. Kerstin support the Condemnation of the Coup in Icholasen, but also support banning of nuclear weapons. Well the current regime of Icholasen has nuclear weapons, so I'm left wondering what is the plan of Mrs. Merkel and Mrs. Kerstin. Do they want the recognized EU member states to denuclearize, while allowing the UNSR to keep their nuclear weapons and while worsening relations with them? Or are they ready to guarantee them safety to convince them to denuclearize? Or are they, perhaps, supportive of denuclearization only with their words, but not with their actions? I think the people deserve to know."

Icholasen

Mr. Cocx has another 1 minute (150 words) to retort, and, if candidates feel they have been mentioned in this period of free debate they may have 1 extra minute to speak without my permission.

Pravoslaviya

Kerstin, I don't need tax breaks, OK, because I actually have very good accountants.

And they’d tell you that your idea doesn’t work, and it certainly doesn’t work straight away. These things take time. They take time, and in that time, you have a big hole in your budget, which you’ll have to fill with more contributions from the big member states.

And also, Cikarova is so wrong. I am the national sovereignty candidate, and I am the candidate for consistency against coups. If a country has a coup, the EU can recognise that or not. That’s the EU’s decision, and I say not, because I want to end the violence. And by the way, I’m against the embargo, I don’t want embargos. But Cikarova says she’s against globalism, and then she doesn’t condemn the globalist coup in Inquista, where they literally tore Craticus apart – give me a break!

Czech Slavia

"Mr. Trympov, I won't condemn the coup in Inquista precisely because I respect their national sovereignty. Nobody has the right to govern Inquista, but the Inquistans themselves! No foreigner should instruct them how to govern their country. I may disagree with their current government, but that is all, I won't intervene in their internal affairs.

I have no problem admitting that you are a consistent candidate when it comes to coups. Unlike some others, like Mrs. Merkel, who do not care for principles and oppose only those who they do not agree with. But you are very clearly not a national sovereignty candidate."

Fremet

First, I will address comments made by Ms Čikarová regarding my simultaneous support of the Condemnation of the Coup in Icholasen and that of denuclearisation. I do not expect any EU memberstate to disarm if such a threat remains. I cannot, in good conscience, push forward such an agenda. If anything, the consequences of this rogue state controlling the arsenal of Icholasen and threatening other nations should be cause in itself to call for legislative action towards denuclearisation. All the major projects I propose I do not expect to complete in my 4 months. These projects cannot be done RIGHT in just four months. What I will do is get the ball rolling on long-needed reforms establishing a climate where nations have time to adapt to the new norm.

If we have any expectation of implementing long-lasting reform, we must take a slow and steady pace. For disarmament, we will slowly reduce the stockpile allowances phasing into an outright ban.

In lieu of a stimulus programme that would only serve to create added strain on the European Budget and massively increase the size of the European bureaucracy, I instead will introduce a special loan programme to be administered by the ECB that will offer low and no interest long-term loans to memberstates to facilitate long-term development and provide a stable access to credit to provide a buffer to national budgets in times of need.

As far as the European Space Agency is concerned, I will seek to freeze the ESA's budget at its current level until a formal review can be conducted into the actual needs of the agency. I am greatly concerned about apparent conflicts of interest regarding its current agency director and the risk of misappropriation of funds.

Yes, I do support a more cohesive immigration scheme for the EU, but I know that such a program cannot be rolled out overnight. I have said time and again that the European Union must be used as the vehicle that helps to facilitate deeper connections between memberstates. In time, those connections can be expanded to the larger union. Projects on such a grandiose scale must be meticulously planned to the letter or we risk losing and and all support for these efforts in the future.

Leagio

"I will go into my stances. First, i would like to tackle on my stance on Gay marriage. One of the things that UDOHR does not cover a lot is the equal protection of people of different sexual orientations. In Leagio, I pushed in the recently adopted constitution for the equality of people of various sexual orientations and that includes gay marriage. Every human being has the right to be treated as a human and not an object of hate. I will push for the protection and legalization of gay marriage."

"Furthermore, focusing on the issue of Abortions and cannabis. I think that this is an issue that should be left to the people in the nations of Europe. The European Union cannot, in my opinion, take a stance on these issues because that is a way trample upon the sovereignty of the nations of this community in Europe. Especially the issues of cannabis, the issue of it falls under the commerce of the European Nations. overeignty shall not be an issue should be stripped by the EU Council."

"Now, i must agree with Miss. Merkel on her stance to Denuclearization. Nuclear weapons, whether they are in the UNSR, Icholsan, or any other nation, have, as a General in the Leagioan Army said, only one short-term goal of permanently destroying the land with radiation with no long-term goal when the fighting stops. However, the problem is seen that there thousands of nukes in the EU, and destroying them all properly in four or even eight months is like seeing Leagio First President come back from the dead. It cannot be done."

"The Nations of Europe have the right to work with other nations to build up infrastructure, but it should not be something that the EU should have to get involved with by using EU budget money. The budget for the ESA is at a high number that in my opinion should not be increased at all. The rest of the budget that the Director of the ESA wanted was too much as he failed to even convince the EU Council properly with a report on the necessity of such an increase; which would have hurt Europe economically as what if a global crash happens in Europe and many countries, as well as companies, need a bailout, then we would be in trouble."

Inimicus

"It's immensely interesting to see that rather than engage with the content of my proposals and answer the question I put to her, Ms Čikarová instead resorts straight to the ad hominem. I also question her slightly awkward definition of self-determination. If self-determination means a small clique of communists taking over full, total control of a major EU nation, before banning all democratic process and shutting said country down from the world stage, then sure. She's right. But as far as I'm aware, self-determination involves democracy. Involves dialogue. Don't fall for it, people."

Czech Slavia

"Mr. Cocx, I did answer your question. Your claims that I didn't do that are false. The current government of the UNSR did not shut the country down from the world stage, they were isolated by the EU. Self-determination means nothing less then the nation decides its own form of government. It doesn't require dialogue with foreing powers, Nicoleizians are equal with all the other nationalities. You are not their master, Mr. Cocx, to tell them how they should live their lives, they are perfectly capable to decide that themselves!"

Icholasen

alt text
Stephanie in her mid-debate outfit change

Stephanie: Well that was entertaining! You have 2 minutes per question. (OOC: 300 words but you MUST separate these with 3 dashes.) You may continue to debate and call people out on erroneous claims with a 1 minute (OOC: 150 word) statement. May the debate continue as I live for this drama!

Merkel:

You support the EU banning nuclear weapons. Do you think that that is realistic? And do you think that the EU should pay for the cleanup?

You are the only premier candidate to have a different policy over the Coups in Inquista/Icholasen. You support the condemnation of the coup in Icholasen but not the Condemnation of the coup in Inquista. How is this coherent?

Kerstin:

You have said the EU budget should not rise. If this is so, how do you propose to pay for stimulus packages to poorer EU nations?

There are a few areas where you disagree with your ELDR Colleague Jasper Winston. For example, he supports increasing the ESA budget, the Anti-Space Weaponry Act, and he wants a unified standard curriculum for European schools and you oppose all of these. Is he wrong? And if he is wrong, why do you endorse him?

Cikarova:

You do not think gay marriage should be guaranteed by the EU, you oppose making immigration easier and expansion of the UDoHR, how exactly are you different from the so-called reactionary Trympov?

You are the only candidate here to not support either coup condemnations (Icholasen and Inquista). If there was a coup in Czech Slavia, would you or would you not want similar legislation condemning the insurgents in your country?

Cocx:

You support a Green New Deal, which you describe as ‘where nations come together to strengthen their environmental standards’. Do you think this project would also need money and investment? Or can it function just through, seemingly, voluntary changes?

Wouldn’t a large EU rail project help your green new deal?

Trympov:

You propose decreasing the EU budget and ‘returning the money to the nations’. What would you say to someone whose job is tied to EU funding and is worried about their livelihood being lost?

You think pro LGBTQ legislation has gone too far. But do you think LGBTQ rights need to be scaled back?

You have until 14:00 PM BST on the 30th of August.

Inimicus

"Just to return to the point Ms Cikarova made: Yes! Self-determination means that nations determine their own faith. Nations, Ms Cikarova. Not small political cliques. Nations determine by democracy their government, not by coup or armed force. And while tanks roamed the streets of Icholasen's ancient and beautiful cities, you sat there and supported it all. Shame on your for supporting this kind of regime, for shame."

"Thank you for your question, Stephanie. A Green New Deal is indeed one of the cornerstones of any Cocx Premiership. We want a world where every European can live in safety, security, and in a clean environment. Too often governments and administrations consider the environment second, and politics first. This must change. However I am also clear about how this must change, and this is where I differ from many other pro-Green Deal candidates for Premier and Internal. A Green New Deal can only succeed when governments themselves make this deal. We cannot, must not, force a Green New Deal on nations, and therefore it is important that such an agreement is a deal between governments, on a multilateral basis. The Premier Commisssioner is not a dictator, or someone who orders governments to do his or her bidding. As Premier, I will aim to organise a multilateral Green Deal Conference, where the foundations for this agreement can - and will - be made."

"I'm not opposed to high-speed rail, far from it. During my time as Duke of my Inimician Terra, I sponsored the current internal Inimician high-speed rail network and worked with three other Ducal administrations - multilaterally, mind you - to pool our resources and get these railways going. This is, as you quite rightly say, Stephanie, something that could definitely help a Green New Deal take shape and reach its aims. My opposition to Commissioner Juncker's proposed Eurostar project was simple: he threatened to take billions upon billions of Euros from member states' contributions to arrange this project from scratch. My version of Eurostar, as part of this Green New Deal, would be the multilateral pooling of funds, as I arranged in Inimicus, improving and building on already present cross-border infrastructure where possible. And where it isn't, or is too old, yes, we will build new railways. But not as a part of the contributions of member states. That would contradict the Cocx Principle of Putting Member States First."

Czech Slavia

"I'm sorry Mrs. DeVey, but I must answer to Cocx demagoguery. The people of Icholasen don't seem to support the old regime and are not in opposition to the new government. The revolution in Icholasen was not supported from a foreign powers and succeed, meanwhile the pre-revolutionary government is completely dependent on foreign support and can hardly be called Nicolezian anymore. You have no place deciding for Nicoleizians with regime they support, you have no evidence stating they would support the return of the old regime. Let the Nicoleizians decide, no regime can survive without the support of its populace, unless it is kept in power by foreigners. Everything I said so far can also applies to the coup in Inquista. And true adherents of the right to self-determination must oppose any attempts to make Nicoleizians and Inquistans the slaves of few European bureaucrats."

"Thank you for the very good and important questions Mrs. DeVey. Regarding the first question, me and my opponent Trympov are very different candidates. We both of course both stand for the rights of countries to defend their borders, have their own marriage laws and so on and so on. But once you look past these patriotic policies, you will see that there is very little left of Trympov policies. Yes there is the Council Seats reform, which will needlessly take the money out of the EU Budget and in turn we will get a system where countries are not equal. I am of course opposed to this reform.

My plan on spending money from the EU budget on the other hand go into productive projects, aiming at developing the member states, resulting in an increasement of quality of life all over Europe. Improving the lives of common Europeans is my goal, improving the lives of the elites is the goal of Trympov. But my policies go even beyond that, ensuring and expanding the right of workers across Europe, which is something Mr. Trympov opposes. Trympov has nothing to offer besides the opposition to the globalists, I do."

"If there hypothetically was a coup in my country I would of course stay true to my principles. If such a coup is dependent on foreign support, then such a coup would of course deserve a condemnation and it does not matter if such a coup would take a place in Czech Slavia or any other country. No country should however be forced to such a condemnation, but I would certainly condemn any such coup.

If the coup is however not dependent on foreign support, that means that such a coup has at least certain support among the populace. I would fight against those who would attempt such a coup, but I would never sell my country and the people living there to the foreigners in exchange for their support! I will always be on the side of our people and fight for their independence from all foreign powers."

Pravoslaviya

alt text

I say return the money to the nations, and to the people. That bit’s very important, OK, because when you return the money to the nations, you also return it to the people.

But I do not want to go round saying ‘you’re fired, you’re fired’, OK? Except, maybe, Juncker. I’ll make an exception there. But I would try and make savings without cutting jobs where possible – I’m a businessman, I can do that – and if we have to cut jobs based on EU funding, I would say we’ll actually create more jobs all over Europe by giving the money back to the nations, giving it back to the people, so they can spend it how they know best. Over time – and that’s the bit Kerstin misses, by the way, over time – that lifts up the economy, and there’s more jobs for everyone.

But folks, it’s time we focussed less on the jobs of EU bureaucrats, and more on the jobs that have been lost, all over Europe, due to globalism, over so many years. The forgotten people of Europe, the ordinary citizens, have been getting screwed so badly for so long, and it’s really sad. And that’s the fault of the EPA globalists, and the ELDR globalists just want to speed that up even more.

We return the money to the people, put citizens first, and Make Europe Great Again; and then we’ll have so many jobs, not just for the bureaucrats, but also for the millions of ordinary people who’ve lost their jobs to globalism. I will be the single greatest Premier Commissioner in the history of this region, for jobs, and for a lot of other things, also.

Look, I love the gays, and actually, they happen to love me too. So much. There are so many gay people, bisexual, whatever, who are supporting me, and that’s wonderful.

I do not believe that Europolis should be telling member states what is and is not marriage, OK? And I also do not believe that Europolis should be telling gay people, trans people, and so on – consenting adults, of sound mind – that they can’t go for a conversion therapy, if that’s what they want. If someone freely goes for some crazy treatment that, I’m told, doesn’t work, then, within reason, I think that’s their business. Maybe it’s their country’s business, but it’s not the EU’s business, in my opinion. That’s all, OK? I certainly do not want anti-LGBTQ laws in the Council, that's for sure.

Where I think we can do better is protecting our LGBTQ communities from hateful ideologies that come from outside our region. The globalists passed a law, and you all saw they want to bring it back, that basically destroyed our borders and told us to accept so-called ‘refugees’ from outside this region. And they want to extend the UDoHR to people who aren’t EU citizens too. Even if they hate gay people and want them to die. How crazy is that, folks? Can you believe that?

The globalists all wrap themselves up in the rainbow flag and they say ‘oh, we support the gays, we’re pro-gay’, and they say ‘oh, bad member states’, but they throw the door open to people who, some of them, we don’t know, might want to kill the gays. And folks, you’re not allowed to even ask.

Cikarova is wrong again. She’s not having a good night, but that’s OK. We are both against globalism, yes, and I agree we are different candidates – with her, you get radical leftism, she’s pro-coup, and everybody knows that, and also, she wants to take your money, and spend it on crazy projects.

But with me, we’re going to have laws to stop unfair trade policies, like huge subsidies for big corporations, so we stop globalism ruining ordinary people and small businesses. We’re going to stop the flow of money behind coups, so we have law and order, and prosperity, in the region.

Folks, the globalists want to take your money and give it to big multinational companies. The radical left, and maybe the ELDR too, want keep your money for themselves. I alone will return the money to you, and stand with you against both big business and big government.

Leagio

"Thank you for your questions, Stephanie. In my plan to keep to the budget of the European Union, where i would provide a stimulus to the poorer EU nations the answer is really not that difficult to provide. In the recently passed bdget for the 2020-2021 fiscal year, the treasury within the EU is exactly €41,533,986,797.15. The total revenue made was €73,267,821,908.85 with only about 31 Trillion Euro's being used. That is enough money for emergency spending for the EU in a scenario that requires immediate spending like a pandemic for example or an EU-wide economic crash. That amount of surplus is that the budget provides is enough to where we could use about 35% of it in a stimulus to the poorer nations of this community. In addition, it is enough to where we can make cuts to the budget to where we can have the poorer nations not pay this year's contribution and use to build up their own economic development, which in theory would bring a higher contribution from them in the next years budget. "

"On your second question, i will provide a short answer with a long explanation. I do not think that Winston is wrong but there are some things that I disagree with him about. In Leagio, being in a Party does not automatically mean that you stay loyal to the party because in Leagio being a politician means that you put the country above party. At times, you have to vote for something that will help your constituents even if it benefits them and is against your beliefs. And there have been times that i disagreed with even the President of the Commonwealth (which we both are of the Civil Populist Party) and think that what he does is not enough or wrong. The status of me being in ELDR is only a symbol because if I am elected as Premier Commissioner, in this race for PC, I place the well-being of the EU over Eurogroup. Something that I believe think that many of the candidates understand as one of the things that the Premier Commissioner must do, as stated by the Constitution of the EU, is sign legislation without the power to veto, even legislation that they will hate or disagree with because it will be legislation made and represented by the needs of the people of the European Union."

Fremet

You support the EU banning nuclear weapons. Do you think that that is realistic? And do you think that the EU should pay for the cleanup?

Yes, I think that banning nuclear weapons is a realistic long-term goal, but it is not one I see happening over a short four month term. Introducing the idea, getting the ball rolling so to speak, is my goal for this Premiership. Any disarmament effort would have to be agreed upon by ENAA-licensed memberstates. Nuclear disarmament is impossible without the support of nuclear-armed states. The EU is not equipped to force the disarmament of nuclear-armed states, and the amount of power required to do so is a level in which I am not comfortable granting the Union. In my Premiership, I will open a dialogue with ENAA-licensed memberstates and begin exploring real world solutions to this very real threat to our future prosperity.

'Cleanup' is such a relative term. Due the variance of technologies, storage techniques, and local environmental legislation, the 'cleanup' in each memberstate will have to be a solution tailored on a case-by-case basis to ensure that disarmament is carried out in a complete and safe manner. While at first one might think that memberstates individually should clean up their own mess, as this would be a broader legislative action by the European Union, support from the region as a whole would be prudent. The safety and stability of the continent effects all memberstates— nuclear armed and otherwise— thus a region-wide funding effort to at least partially cover the costs of such an endeavour would eliminate barriers to disarmament and increase its likelihood of success.

You are the only premier candidate to have a different policy over the Coups in Inquista/Icholasen. You support the condemnation of the coup in Icholasen but not the Condemnation of the coup in Inquista. How is this coherent?

The Coup in Icholasen was just that: a concerted effort taken by the Nicoleizian Armed Forces to supplant the duly-elected democratic government. The Coup in Icholasen replaced a democracy with an authoritarian regime that mocks the nations of Europe with single-party elections and mass disappearances.

The Fall of Craticus in Inquista was by no means a coup d'etat. Details have been made public about his dealings that no doubt compromised the legitimacy of his office. The popular uprising that saw a new Archbishop in Inquista was no coup and resulted in the restoration of a true democratic state in the country.

There is no 'lack of coherence' as the fall of Craticus in Inquista and the Coup in Icholasen were two wholly different events and therefore should be treated as such. Even in looking at the behaviour of each state after their respective changes of governance speaks to the vast difference between the two: Inquista quickly and carefully held free, fair elections to establish a mandate for their existence. The UNSR murdered countless people and put countless more into forced labour camps and gulags. They THEN held an election wherein the candidates were heavily regulated and were all from different wings of the same party— the illusion of choice.

Even in these wrought times, it is important not to paint with too wide a brush. If we are to truly meet the challenges that Europe faces head on, we must learn to pick our battles and focus on immediate threats. The government in Inquista today is a stable, free, and democratic state that participates and contributes to the European Union. Their recently-held election was free and fair. The government in Icholasen is a belligerent, unpredictable, nuclear-armed authoritarian state that threatens a delicate peace every single day.

Icholasen

alt text
Stephanie in her new outfit change

Stephanie: You now have 2 minutes per question. (OOC: 300 words, separate these with 3 dashes.) You may also continue to debate and call people out on erroneous claims with a 1 minute (OOC: 150 word) statement and/or retort.

Merkel:

Trympov has said that the EPA and ELDR are the same party - what differentiates you from Kerstin?

You have implied there should be no 5G, no sweeping education reform, and no ‘overly complicated’ transportation infrastructure that ’would only serve to divide us on the minutia.’ Juncker agrees with 2 of these. Why do you disagree with your own colister?

Kerstin:

Trympov has said that the EPA and ELDR are the same party - what differentiates you from Merkel?

Do you not accept that using the money the EU currently gives back to its members is in fact increasing the budget?

Cikarova:

In what way is EPA rule ‘decadent’?

You said the EU is becoming a ‘prison of states’ - what if those states are into that and want to enter that ELDR dungeon consensually? Stephanie winks

Cocx:

Small Cocx spending will be a key part of your Premiership. You have said there will be no increase in member contributions from from the current 0.1% GDP level. Kerstin plans to increase spending by reducing the EU's budget rebate - crucially not taxing members more than the 0.1% rate. Do you not think, then, your spending plans are unambitious? Wouldn’t Kerstin’s plan make a more unified Union?

Cocx lovers everywhere think you’re a stable candidate who will keep the EU stable. But Trympov has accused you of being an unknown quantity who might flip flop. What do you say to this?

Trympov:

You don’t think the EU should have a green new deal - the only candidate in both elections who doesn’t support it in one shape or form. Do you believe in climate change? If not, why not?

You said ‘our current globalist Commission has done such a terrible job.’ In what way or ways?

You have until 16:00 PM BST on the 31th of August.

Czech Slavia

"Thank you for the questions once again. I've indeed called the EPA establishment decadent and I stand by my words. Their decadency can be seen on how they decide to spend our money, just look how much money they waste on ESA. I would, on the other hand, focus on the real problems that people are facing; spend the money productively, to improve the lives of normal Europeans.

But that isn't the only outcome of their decadence. Internal affairs candidate, Mrs. Weber had an interesting comparison of alcoholism and being drunk on power. I may not agree with everything Mrs. Weber says, but I think this comparison is pretty accurate. The establishment is so drunk on power, that they try to decide everything instead of the member states.

The last thing I would like to mention is, that they ran a candidate last election who is from a country that doesn't have control of its own land, and even now the representatives of this government will have a say in who gets elected.

All of this shows their decadence, they are basically laughing directly into the faces of common Europeans. They are saying that they will take our money and waste it, they will tell us what is right and what is wrong without any respects towards different cultures, because they hate everything that dares to be different, and if you do not support it, it won't matter, because a former elite without any real authority supports it, and his one vote, in the eyes of the establishment, equals the votes of millions of Europeans. And this is something that we, Europeans, need to stop, and we have the chance to stop it in these elections. I will do everything I can for it, that is my promise to you."

"Regarding the second question.... I... well I wouldn't call it a prison of states, if it was consensual. There is... no problem if these things are consensual. But this is not the case, the states are forced submit to rules that their people do not agree with, rules they can even detest. And to be honest I don't think that states, if they are truly independent can even be masochistic... sadistic perhaps, but not masochistic haha... That was just a little joke.

But anyways, the current EU behaves like an empire and a prison of states even in its current form. Dark chains are binding Europe, the establishment desires to tighten the chains up, while the moderate "opposition" wants to loosen them up a bit. But I, as a left-wing candidate, think that the people must, and will, shatter those chains! Shatter the empire!"

Leagio

Thank you for the questions, Stephanie. On the first question on what makes me different between me and Statsminister Merkel is that I also intend to make works on giving more judicial power to the European Court of Justice. Not power that makes it the Supreme Body that tramples on an EU nation's own sovereignty, but instead able to continue in interpreting laws and actions in whether they are unconstitutional to the European Union Constitution. Because right now, the supreme judicial body of this community has very few powers that in my opinion makes it a week. The body does not have the power to prosecute in crimes of humanity and war crimes in general. While my fellow party member, Councillor Plessis attempted to get an act of similar guidelines through, there were many understandable issues with it that many of his fellow councilors felt that it needed to be changed. Another trait that makes me different from the Statsminister is that I think that i want to provide stimulus to nations that desperately need it, but not nations that I say are doing well in terms of economics. Lastly, and I do apologize as this kind of relates to the second question, but my stimulus would also have requirements want determines what nations need stimulus from the surplus sector of the budget. These requirements would range from GDP number, national currency value to the Euro, and so forth. These requirements, I think would be one's that I think should be agreed upon with the other nations of Euro as it not my money but their money.

On the second question, i do not accept that using the money the EU currently gives back to its members is, in fact, increasing the budget. The reason why in say this is because that the recently passed Budget for 2020-2021 does not say that surplus of money is kept in like the Central Bank of Europe for example and excluded from use as part of the budget. Increasing the budget, in Leagioan terms, means that you intend the expand the overall size of the whole system by widening the surplus and spending at the same time. The budget in Leagio has a sector of where some of the collected tax money is put in a bank for stimulus or emergency use. The stimulus that I explained earlier is something that i think should go for only the poorest nations of Europe and the random number I gave earlier is an example. 35% is a way too high number and plus, in Europe right now, there are not many nations that need much stimulus. The only one that one could theoretically say that needs the stimulus would be Republic Nofaga, but that could change depending on how a nation's economy shift's each year. Any stimulus that would be provided if I am elected would have conditions, like that for example must be used on infrastructure or cleaner energy. This type of stimulus would not have any kind of political conditions as it would violate a nation's independence. However, I would like to put this out, this is different from my plan to give poorer nations cuts to how much they must contribute to the EU budget.

Inimicus

"Thank you again for some important questions, Stephanie. I think the answer to your first question, about how my frugal spending plans differ from those of Sen. Kirstin, who plans to use funds from member states' rebates, is quite a simple one. Kirstin's plans eventually mean less money comes back to member states from the EU budget. She is planning to cut states' rebates to fund her plans. That, to any Cocx Premiership at any time, is unacceptable. Effectively, this change is exactly the same as a contribution level increase, for which, as you rightly said in your question, I will not stand. Now, I know that Senator Kirstin needs, in some way or another, more money from member states if she plans to fund any of her projects: this is why I do not propose to call any such projects into life. Eurostar, a 5G network, these are things member states are perfectly capable of designing and funding among them, with a Premier Commissioner who brings them to the table and organises meetings. That, Stephanie, is why my plans are far from unambitious: they are practical and appreciative of member states' money."

"Well, Trympov is entirely entitled to say what he wants to, and if he wants to call me a weak flip-flopper, then so be it - that is a reflection of his character more so than mine. I haven't the slightest intention of seriously addressing an ad hominem point like this, except for one small point which you might allow me: Look at my record, Trympov, and compare it to yours. Your past is filled with exploitation, with a refusal to even look at anyone who is even slighly less well off than you are. Your politics are arrogant, archaic, and, quite frankly, completely out of line. My record is clear: I stood up for the poorest in my province time and time again. I was a builder. I balanced the books. And I managed this without resorting to the type of weak-minded, populist claptrap you constantly engage in. I know who I would choose to lead our Union."