Premier Commissioner Debate Aug/Sep 2020

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."

Pravoslaviya

You'd choose yourself, I know. What an endorsement, folks. Maybe he's so proud of that because he can't get any endorsements from anyone else; I don't know. But I'd also choose myself to lead the EU, and I think so would the other candidates, right? Except maybe Merkel, she'd probably choose Whiteford, or Juncker, or Firoux, but that's OK.

But actually, Cocx is the biggest liar on this stage. I have always stood for the forgotten men and women of our region against the globalist elites. I’m supporting citizens, I’m supporting small businesses, I’m supporting farmers, I’m supporting ordinary people, OK? Now you look at Cocx, and he says he’s fiscally responsible, but he’s for the Green New Deal, and he says he’s against Schengen, but he’s as pro-open borders as Merkel, I mean, how does that work? It's so clear, folks, you can't trust Cocx to hold strong.

Everybody’s saying they’re for the Green New Deal, but nobody’s saying what they want that to include. And I’m pro-environment. I want to preserve our beautiful trees, our oceans, everything. And that’s great. But what these folks are talking about, and they’d never admit to it, except maybe Cikarova, is a radical socialist crazy spending project.

They’re going to take your money, and shut down your jobs, and probably give massive subsidies to global corporations that they say are part of making everything green, and if you complain they’re going to turn around and say ‘oh, it’s for the environment, if you don’t like it, you must hate the environment’. They’ll exclude their train projects, and all their other crazy spending projects that produce emissions, and they’ll make you pay for everything.

I want to protect the environment, yes, but I also want to protect the millions and millions of jobs – blue-collar, white-collar – in manufacturing, in oil and gas, in coal, in mining, in nuclear energy. Member states know best about their own countries, their own economies, their own climate, their own environment, so they need to take the lead on this issue.

What I will be doing is promoting innovation and technology, and talking to the member states to find out what they’re doing, and talk about whether they should be doing more, can be doing more, and how they can achieve that without cutting jobs, OK? We’re not going to go in and dictate to them. We’re not going to come up with some crazy spending project that says you have to close these factories, you have to spend this, you have to give this much to a so-called green corporation.

This Commission has achieved so little, it’s ridiculous.

Folks, we still have Communist regimes in Neo-Venetia and, of course, in Icholasen. Whiteford was in charge for four months and she hasn’t got her country back, in fact, she’s just moved it to Reitzmag, so now we have to pretend that Icholasen is in Reitzmag. It’s crazy, folks, but it is what it is, because this last Commission hasn’t got a grip. They haven’t got a grip on Communism, they haven’t got a grip on coups.

If you ask the Commission what have they done, all they can say is ‘oh, Juncker had a meeting’. And that’s true, folks. Juncker had a meeting with all the heads of government, where he talked about giving himself more time in power, and building a huge new office for himself, probably because he’s jealous of Trympov Tower, am I right? The member states, thankfully, were having none of it, but that’s why they don’t want the member states to have a say in the Council.

Oh, and they did an app. That’s it, folks. Four months, loads of violence, the region falling apart, and we get an app. Which actually has backfired so much, because people get the app, they have a look, they see this very small list of what the Commission has done, and they think ‘that’s it?’

Folks, it’s so obvious. We can’t risk putting the EPA back in charge of our region. We certainly can’t risk the ELDR, who are like the EPA, but frankly, they’re even worse. We can’t trust Cocx or the radical left. I alone, with John Oliver, will Make Europe Great Again.

Fremet

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

The ELDR seek to make broad, grandiose reforms that have no basis in the reality of such a broad continent. The EPA does stand for European Integration, but we seek it in a much more sensible way. We are not the same.

The ELDR are, functionally, European Federalists. They may deny it, they may engage in policy initiatives to seem more 'appealing' to the masses, but they are here for integration and they are here for it now. The ELDR don't even have an officially published charter. All we can judge them by is through their actions, and their actions tell me that their way is the Union's way or no way at all. Their drive to develop these complex European programmes to supplant initiatives already present in memberstates not only compromises the specially-tailoured programmes and entities that national governments work so hard to establish, but also makes no effort to cooperate with these national entities to achieve their goals.

The European Union is not an organisation to replace the governments of memberstates. The European Union exists to compliment them. The integration that I and the EPA call for is for deeper cooperation between regional and national entities to best serve European citizens. By taking advantage of the Union's vast economies of scale and the advantages of local administration, we can build more cohesive and efficient programmes that better serve the local needs of citizens in lieu of some broad stroke. If we are to take on these broad pan-European programmes, we must take into account the broad diversity in the region or we risk alienating memberstates.

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?

I do not oppose the notion of 5G or education initiatives on the European level, I just do not believe that such things are the responsibility of the European Union. How could we possibly hope to accommodate the needs of an entire continent with these initiatives? I respect Mr Juncker and his policies, but that does not mean that we are each blind automatons toeing the party line. There is room for debate. Juncker and I are allied in the EPA because we want what we believe is best for Europe: common sense reform, workable legislation, and allowing for memberstates to prosper. In order for that to be accomplished, we mustn'y get bogged down in things that memberstates already do well in on their own.

The European Union is here to compliment the national governments of memberstates. Be it through ensuring the natural rights of citizens or by standardising maritime law, the EU has an amazing potential— a potential we have already seen unleashed through towering institutions like the ENAA and ECB— to help memberstates prosper. Juncker and I disagree because Juncker wants that much more from this Union, and frankly, I do not believe that we are ready yet.

Icholasen

Thank you all for your responses. We now have a general question for all candidates. What one problem with the EU is the most important to you to fix and how do you intend on fixing it? You have 2 minutes (OOC: 300 words).

You have until 19:15 BST on the 1st of September.

Pravoslaviya

The biggest problem we have in the EU, really, is keeping it together. We have so many problems as a region – violence, immigration, unfair trade – but at the end of the day, we have to have an EU. So that’s our biggest problem by far. And I’m the only one who can solve it, and Make Europe One Again.

So already, right now, Icholasen has left the EU, OK? Basically speaking, Icholasen is no longer in the EU. We have a little country in the middle of Reitzmag that calls itself Icholasen, and that’s fine, but I’m talking about the island, OK? The actual island is not in the EU. And you have Angleter talking about leaving, and protests against almost everyone else on this stage in the DU. The situation we’re in right now is so bad.

What we need to do is let the member states breathe. We will go over the EU’s laws, and repeal or amend to take the burden off the member states. We won’t touch the rebate and we won’t be launching any crazy spending projects. We can’t keep imposing new restrictions, new requirements on the member states – the only place for those, I think, most of the time, is when it affects other countries.

And we need to get buy-in, from everyone, for what we do. We need consensus, OK? You can’t have an all-elected Council that passes things on a 55% majority, with one councillor per nation no matter what the population is, you can’t do that, it has to be fair; and you have to get the member states on board too, and that’s why I will give real power to the European Assembly. Folks, this is how we stop the globalists tearing our region apart, and Make Europe One Again.

Czech Slavia

The biggest problem we are facing are the rising tensions in the region. Just as the establishment figures gloat about their successes, there are people dying in Eastern Haane. This country was completely overlooked by Mrs. Whiteford and Mr. Juncker took the responsibility for calming the situation entirely on his shoulders, that is something the next Premier Commissioner should simply not allow.

There are of course ever rising tensions between the UNSR and the rest of European Union. Mrs. Whiteford again failed to do anything about this situation either, and I fear that my opponents don't have a plan how to decrease these tensions, or have plans that would instead increase the tensions even more.

The solutions to these problems is that the elected commissioners should focus on diplomatically easing the tensions, but of course there is only so much that can be done with the term limits lasting for only four months, that is why I support extending the length of the terms. If we want more stable Europe, extending those terms is an absolute necessity. The other solution is to stop the EU from involving itself in the affairs of the member states. Removing their ability to protect their borders, dictating a common foreign policy or overtly interfering in their internal affairs creates tensions both between the individual member states, and even inside of them. Again, there is only so much the Premier Commissioner can do, as much of the decision making lies in the hands of the councilors. That is why Europe needs a fierce Premier Commissioner, who will not be afraid of the council and will do anything in their power to curtail the eurocratic dreams of some councilors.

Inimicus

For once, I actually agree with Ms Cikarova about her assessment of the Union's problems. Rogue states are our current biggest problem. Our Union functions well, but it is vulnerable to states taken down by impulse, by nationalism. Unlike Ms Cikarova, however, I do not endorse, support, or make apologies for, such rogue regimes. As far as I see it, the Premier Commissioner's main task over the last four months is to restore order. To finalise an all-Union approach to tackling the communists in Icholasen and Neo-Venetia, to bring Reitzmag and Spain to the table, and to fight, with tooth and nail, those politicians who wish to destroy Europe from within by siding with the anti-democratic, anti-rational, and anti-modern world we hold so dear.

Leagio

The biggest problem, and this is similar to what the other candidates have argued, that the European Union is the fact that Europe nows needs a moderate leader that bridge the divide that many nations within this community of European Nation have. They need someone that can understand the differences that they have and work with them to find a middle ground to resolve said issues. Many nations in this community feel that the current leadership within the EU has done nothing for them at all, where she has done nothing for them and just sat on a new shiny desk in Europolis to enjoy. She has not pushed out any kind of agenda that has been meaningful to the people of the European Union. Europe needs an active leader in the Premier Commissioner that is willing to work with all parts of the EU Commission as well as the other bodies within the EU. The current Premier Commissioner, in terms of meaningful active actions, only worked with the wonderful Speaker of the EU Council but that is it. She has not been as active as the Current Internal Affairs Commissioner, who has worked day and night to meet with the nations of Europe tom resolve their deep divides or issues. Europe needs an active leader that is willing to days of sleep for the needs of this community.

The rising tensions of Europe and the UNSR is something that pretty every candidate here needs to address and lose hair as well as sleep if either one of us is elected. A Kerstin Premiership would look to make progress in this situation by maintaining a tough stance against the push of illegitimate regimes like the UNSR. If the leadership of the European Union does not tackle a fight against illigemate regimes that were not democratically made or developed then the overall existence of the European Union will be questioned by all the leaders of the nations in this community. Diplomacy is not done by seating around and doing nothing, it is done by getting off the desk and looking for solutions that are meaningful that is something the nations of this Union will support.

The threat that the UNSR posses to Europe with its undemocratic and tyrannical government that allows only one party is something that cannot be ignored. Simply pretending that it will go away will not help, the President of the Commonwealth of Leagio tried that but it failed when the Romain incident occurred which showed Leagio that the UNSR is an active threat to Europe that needs to be addressed and I promise that a Kerstin Premiership will do that.

Czech Slavia

Mr. Cocx is once again wrong. Firstly, I would like to ask him, what he means by nationalism? From his positions, and since he called Trympov positions nationalist, it seems that he simply labels those who are proud of their culture, and want to preserve it by defending their borders as nationalists. Everywhere I went, I saw amazing people with amazing cultures. The people of Europe have nothing to be ashamed of, and they should all be proud. Mr. Cocx so far said nothing he can be proud of, so perhaps he just doesn't understand this, but those proud people with their own cultures are what makes this Union, they don't weaken it.

Cocx's solutions would only increase the tensions in Europe. The Premier Commissioner should focus on tackling the military-industrial complex and the war haws, not people that were dissatisfied with their government and overthrew it.

Icholasen

We are now coming to the end of this lively debate. Candidates can now make a 3 minute closing statement.