Amendment to Article 2 proposition
-
Debate starts NOW and will last until 01:30 GMT on October 19th, 2020.
This is certainly a very interesting proposal, one in which I am very open-minded to and keen to hear what my fellow colleagues have to say.
Each member state having three councillors could potentially add to the plurality of opinions in the European Council. I suppose, however, the question would be if such plurality is necessary, and it calls into question if a councillor can accurately be a representative of their whole people. There is currently some debate on whether the European Council is in fact a parliament, and I suppose with these amendments, such debate would be over, because it very obviously would become one.
My second question would be if whether having a mixed method of electing and potentially appointing Councillors is a good idea. On one hand, having representatives of the people but also representatives of the governments could provide more wholistic perspectives, but to have them together, in the same Council, could create a clashing dynamic between the two. I imagine these councillors would have fundamentally very different motivations and reasons for making their decisions. I'm not sure how I feel about such councillors being together in one assembly.
These are just my thoughts at the moment, and the things that I'm questioning. But again, this is something that I'm open-minded to and happy to compromise on.
Edward Firoux
Council Speaker and Councillor for Inquista -
I must agree with the Speaker on this, it is very interesting and I personally am of the same opinions that he had on this. I think that members of this Council were appointed by their governments, then it should be mainly for an upper house. However, this would mean the need for the creation of a second house to make the EU Council a Bicameral one; which is a strong debate that I will no doubt one bit that my fellow councilors have different feelings about at this point. I personally think that each member-state should only have two councilors if we decide to increase the size of the Council, which I would support. However, If there is a clause that allows a government to appoint a Councilor, i think that it should be optional as some member-states may feel that it would be better for both of them to be elected.
Francis Plessis
EU Councilor for Leagio -
Colleagues, I see that this proposal will garner my full support. Eurofederalism had continually been my ideology since I assumed office as councilor since the death of Coun. Hufton, in which I was his ELECTED deputy councilor. I have campaigned continually for proportional representation in the council. We need a new parliament, a better legislature without only 1 dominating Eurogroup. Europe needs the voice of the people not the voice of just one person. Our country had continually been committed to be an active member-state but this image had been destroyed by the antipathy of the only dominating Eurogroup in this disproportional council. We need change and this would be one step in the change that I envision that Europe wants.
Friedrich van Allen
Councilor, Kingdom of Reitzmag -
I am pleased there is so much support from other countries for a more representative council.We think while two per nation would achieve this it would achieve the the goal less than three. We are not against it being three proportionally or directly elected councillours and we'd likely introduce this system in the Duchies anyway as it would automatically put governmening party members on the council anyway under our system but we added the appointed system for nations in which that may not work so well , but we are not opposed to any motion to change that aspect of this ammendment but neither will we vote for it as we want the majority of nations to decide. Our concern with 2 councillours per nation is it could mean only government coalition members get on the council with no voice for the party in third even if it justifies it. This is particularly an issue in a proportional representation system such as our additional member system. It would also mean only a maximum of two parties per nation stopping any 3rd party representation. If we want more diversity I feel 3 minimum is the ideal number.
Tobias Farage Johnson
-
Now that I am resigning, I will speak freely about my own opinions on this bill.
I do not support a member appointed by the government directly under any circumstances. EU Councilors are to be elected by the people of their respective country to represent their interests. Full stop. Because in a democracy, the people are sovereign. I do not like the implications of this amendment. That the government's interests might be different from the people's interests to be sets a bas taste in the European Constitution. It might be true that the government and people are at odds, but I do not this should be legitimized in the Constitution.
Adding a second or even third elected Councilor might be well and give a more proportionate representation of the member states. However even with 2 councilors, I fear that the Council would still not represent the European people well. And thus we would run into similar problems.
I don't have much else to say about this, no Councilor should be appointed. Because in Europe, we support democracy and putting member governments in check. In fact, I would support an amendment that would only allow a Councilor recall via a popular referendum.
Helhuan Ziharuthstukur
EU Councilor, Ruthund -
I am glad that we can see eye-to-eye before your resignation, Councillor Helhuan. I'd be far more inclined to support this legislation should all three councillors be democratically elected.
Because of the EACA, all Councillors are already legally obliged to be elected. Thus, we can simplify the amendment. I hereby propose the following amendment to the proposal:
Amendment
II. Each member state has the right to three Councillors
two of which must be elected directly with the third selected by a method decided by the government and parliament of each memberstate. Each Councillor is equal and has the same rights. Each Councillor has one vote and can only represent one member state. Each Councillor must be a citizen or legal resident of the member state they represent. No Councillor may serve concurrently as a Commissioner or Justice.Edward Firoux
Council Speaker and Councillor for Inquista -
As the Councillor of Alkharya, I will not support this proposition. I do not see a reason why there should be more than one councillor in the Council, nor a reason why it is forced for every member state to have elections. Those who support the cause for a democratic election are free to do so inside their borders if their definition of democracy fits it. Alkharya has its own way of democracy that has guided us for more than one and a half-century. And let me be clear: Alkharya will not stoop low to learn what "real democracy" is from any other country, especially one who is an Orthodox nutjob of a country that got out of civil war almost a decade ago.
Propositions like this, as well as EACA, make the European Council more complex than it should be. Being a councillor is serious business. Quite serious, in fact, that it should not be the population's choice to elect it. As is customary, Alkharya did hold an election for this seat before participating in the Union. I merely won... against who? A garbage populist who was clearly inexperienced in his field only got this far because of two things: EACA letting literally everyone to nominate themselves and the fact that he fooled some Alkharyans, making them think that he was "the one for the people". Classic populist stuff, they groom your people to gain votes, and then they do whatever they please once they're in the seat.
A councillor should be representing all of your country. If you cannot even manage to do that, then it's not my, nor any other member state's fault that you have failed to clearly represent your nation here. Increasing the number of councillors won't fix your issue. It's also nonsense that this proposal increases "the political diversity and say for each nation", each nation already has an equal say here in the Council and adding "political diversity" will make the Council more partisan than it should ever be... or does that say "politicial"? Does Councillor Johnsen want more bills to be submitted to the Council? Well, if that's the case, he should definitely work on his grammar because I won't be voting for any bill that is written that looks fresh out of elementary school. "Ammendment"? With two M's? "Ammendendment"? How are you even a councillor? Did they just took you to a literature exam for 2nd graders and, when you barely passed it, they went "yep, you're good to go"? You wouldn't even be able to come close to a province's parliament here in Alkharya. It is indeed quite disturbing that a body of the union that is responsible for writing laws that are enforced in more than twenty states are filled with unqualified people. Gotta thank Firoux for that one. Enhancing debates? Well, I think you need thick glasses for that one to see your typos, not this bill.
So, yes, this amendment is indeed a no-go from me.
Aylin Gökçen
Councillor of Alkharya -
Councillor Gökçen, that is quite the personal attack against Councillor Farage Johnsen. I ask that you please refrain from making such personal digs at another esteemed member of this Council, and instead, save and channel all your contempt towards me. I am quite used to being the boogeyman, and so I will happily take on the role as your punching bag. However, all other Councillors are off-limits, and I ask that you withdraw your comments about Councillor Farage Johnsen.
Considering the level of your scorn, Councillor, I'm not even sure if I want to debate you, in part because I don't want to provoke another tirade, but also because I don't think you're even faintly interested in what others will have to say, and so therefore a discussion would be pointless. So I will only address you this one time and leave it at this.
Government appointees are not inherently more more qualified than elected candidates. Typically election are held with the exact premise that the most qualified person gets elected, rather than gets chosen by a single or group of politicos. Of course, the term qualified is a completely loaded term, but if anyone is to decide what counts as 'qualified', then it ought to be the people themselves, rather than their political friends and buddies in government.
As Councillor Helhuan pointed out, not only is the Council a democratic institution, but democracy is a core tenant of the European Union, and it is a value enshrined in our Constitution. Your problem with democracy seems to have a highly personal element to it. From what you've said, I seem to get the impression you didn't like the fact that other people were able to nominate themselves and run against you for election? Yikes.
Anyway, let's keep the discussion to the proposal at hand.
Edward Firoux
Council Speaker and Councillor for Inquista -
No, no and a thousand times no. This proposal will not have my support because of some reasons I'll explain right now, but firstly I need to say this bill is pretty confusing to me as the text is always on the same style and finding the Articles and the Amendments in bold, which is an easier task when an amendment is, in my opinion, "well-organised", but that's no problem to me as of now as I could find it. If I couldn't, then we would have some problems with it. With that said, I'm going to enter the "sea of words" and explain the reasons why I will be against this bill. And please Cllr. Farage, as a suggestion, just for the sanity of my eyes and others' eyes too, try to organise the Amendment
So, in the first amendment I spotted that it would be illegal to pass that. The Elected and Accountable Council Act 2020 makes it illegal, moreover the Government appointed one councillor could make the Council a political tool for European Governments to get a majority of Councillors which they like. If we had several complains about the Eurogroup I'm affiliated to, this amendment would make it worse even if its intention is the opposite. What's the sense o this proposal then? For much I try to search for a reason to say "it could be a good idea", I can't find it. So I can't think of many governments appointing their councillors when they are not allowed to.
Secondly, I want to point out about some nations that complain about how we use the money they pay to the European Union. More Councillors means more money, another House means more money. If Councillor Farage and Councillor van Allen like to implode the European Union from the Council, then you are going the right way. If the Council passes this act, I'm sure that some nations will complain and Europe shall look at what they are worried of and help them instead of making them angry or disturbed with this amendments. And about the bicameral system, it would fail as it failed before because it would be left behind.
Councillors, this amendment is pointless and will get us nowhere. We can be the most Europeists, but with amendments like these we are just destroying the European Union, which some here may like to see sometimes, one of them even complains about the show he offered us some months ago with a, in my most sincere opinion, undemocratic election which only lasted 4 days, with no debate or a minor campaign. But I also have to congrat the Reitzmic Government, as they made an election possible in a week, a process that takes around 3 months. I want to keep a strong Europe, and this won't make it stronger, but weaker.
Donald D. Tusk
Councillor for Spain -
The United Duchies is supportive of the Inquistan amendment being put to vote.If nations feel all should be elected we are perfectly content with that as it is how we intend to implement it ourselves should the amendment overall pass. Tobias Farage Johnson
-
Discussion is now over. Voting on amendments to the amendment begins NOW and ends at 13:00 GMT on October 24th, 2020. There is one amendment, proposed my myself:
Amendment
II. Each member state has the right to three Councillorstwo of which must be elected directly with the third selected by a method decided by the government and parliament of each memberstate. Each Councillor is equal and has the same rights. Each Councillor has one vote and can only represent one member state. Each Councillor must be a citizen or legal resident of the member state they represent. No Councillor may serve concurrently as a Commissioner or Justice.I vote FOR the amendment.
Edward Firoux
Council Speaker and Councillor for Inquista -
The Kingdom of Montenbourg, ABSTAINS from this amendment.
Emma Granger
Councillor for Montenbourg -
On behalf of the Kingdom of Spain, I vote FOR the amendment.
Donald D. Tusk
Councillor for Spain -
On behalf of the Kingdom of Reitzmag, I vote FOR the amendment.
Friedrich van Allen
Councilor, Kingdom of Reitzmag -
On behalf of United Duchies, I vote FOR the amendment.
Tobias Farage Johnson
Councillour for United Duchies -
On behalf of Alkharya, I vote AGAINST the amendment.
Aylin Gökçen
Councillor of Alkharya -
On Behalf of the United Kingdoms of Mennrimiak, i vote FOR this amendment
-
On behalf of the Kingdom of Fremet, I vote FOR the amendment.
Charles Michel
Councilor for the Kingdom of Fremet -
On behalf of the Commonwealth of Leagio, I vote FOR this amendment
Francis Plessis
EU Councilor for Leagio -
The Empire of Inimicus votes AGAINST Cllr Firoux' amendment.
Hetty Tilki
The Kingdom of Spain
