Premier Commissioner Debate Aug/Sep 2020
-
"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!"
-
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.
-
"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."
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
We are now coming to the end of this lively debate. Candidates can now make a 3 minute closing statement.
-
"Thank you, Stephanie, for hosting this important debate, and thanks to all the viewers who tuned in to hear all of us candidates ask for your vote. I think tonight's debate has cleared up an awful lot. You've seen candidates with no specific policy points or completely unrealistic aims, like Ms Merkel and Ms Kirstin. You saw the reactionary candidates, Trympov's hyper-nationalist, archaic zeal; Cikarova's apologism for violent, murderous coup criminals. And then, you heard what a Cocx Premiership would look like. You heard plans for a sensible, pragmatic Premiership. For a Premiership that is tough on rogue states, but compassionate towards those with the fewest means.
I trust the peoples of Europe to come together, in their own unique forms, to build solutions for this union, but I also value the EU as a place where common fists can be made to rogue regimes, where discussions can be started to achieve projects that benefit us all. I ask you, peoples of Europe, to stand with me. Let us build a Europe that is open. social. phenomenal. Thank you."
-
"Thank you Mrs. DeVey for hosting this debate and for your important questions. The entirety of the European Union is endangered by a vicious European hydra. This hydra is eating away the rights of the member states and the rights of you workers, and the apetite of this beast is infinite. My many opponents here, while trying to appear as diametrically opposed to each other are just the heads of this hydra, with the same body and the same stomach.People of Europe, I won't pretend to be a hero in a shiny armour that has come to protect you from the hydra, I am not. It is a job for all of us to do our part to slay this vicious beast. Do not trust head of the hydra when it speaks to you about compassion, for its aim is to eat you. Do not focus on cutting one of the hydra's many heads, for every head that you cut off, two more will appear. The only possibility is to deliver fatal blow to the heart of this European monster. Then we can finally together build a better Europe. Europe based on cooperation, rather then on exploitation.
I wish to thank everybody that has been part of my campaign, and to everyone that is following these elections. Brothers and sisters, let's put some class into the Commission! Proletariat class! Thank you!"
-
First I’d like to take a message to extend my very heartfelt, special message: thanks. Thanks, Stephanie.
Folks, It’s time to Make Europe One Again. Our region is being torn apart by coups, Communism, and globalism. Europolis has got to respect the member states, it needs to be legitimate; right now a lot of people are saying ‘why should we listen to Europolis’, and if that continues, then, maybe we won’t have an EU. And that would be so sad. So we have to make the Council fair, we have to empower the Assembly, and we have to get consensus.
We have also got to Make Europe Safe Again, OK? Right now we’re not safe, there’s coups and violence everywhere, and it’s so bad. The globalists can’t stand up to the violence because they’re weak and they’re hypocrites. The radical left are on the side of the coups. They’re the surrender option, OK? I am the only candidate who will be consistent against coups, the only candidate who will stop the flow of money to coups, and the only candidate who will win and restore law and order to our beautiful region.
The other thing we have to do is Make Europe Prosperous Again. Really prosperous. We need to keep the rebate for all nations, we can’t touch that. We need to stop crazy spending projects that’ll waste your money, and we need to stop unfair trade practices that destroy jobs, farmers, and small businesses. And I will stand with the millions of people who are employed in our great energy industries – jobs that the other candidates will shut down in their Green New Deal. That deal will be the worst deal in human history, and believe me, I know a lot about deals.
On the one hand, folks, you have the globalist losers. EPA and ELDR and, it seems, Cocx too. You’ve seen their policies, you’ve seen them fail. And they’re going to keep on failing until we vote them out. It’s so important we put the globalists – especially Kerstin and Merkel – last on the ballot.
On the other hand, you’ve got the radical left. Cikarova, what a bad night she’s had. Beasts with many heads, oh, boy. Weird! But folks, you can’t beat the coups by voting for the people behind most of them. They’ll just keep going, and then they’ll take your money, because they’re socialists, OK? It’s what they do.
Pretty bad choices, folks, but there’s an alternative. Me. And my friend John Oliver. He’s a good guy. Our agenda is the only agenda that will bring back law and order, jobs, and unity in our region. Together, folks, it’s time to Make Europe Great Again!
-
Like everyone here said, thank you for hosting the debate and providing very challenging questions, Stephanie.
People of Europe, in this election, there will be many questions that you will ask yourself as you cast your vote in the ballot. Many of these candidates will give you an answer to those questions, but there is one that i think that you need to also think about. Did you feel more economically stable now then you did four months? Do you feel that you have been treated as an equal citizen by the previous Premiership? Do you think that you think that your voice has been heard by the current premier, even if it is an unpopular voice? If the answer has been no, then i would ask you to vote for somebody that is willing to hear those voices.
A Kerstin Premiership will give realistic values to the people of Europe and provide an equal voice to all the nations of this community. Europe needs to have a leader that will listen to their wishes, their voices. The Premier Commissioner is supposed to represent the needs of all Europe, not the needs of the nations that voted for them. That is what makes a Premier Commissioner the best to this community of nations.
