Amendment to the Condemnation of the Coup in Icholasen
-
Poppy listened to Tusk and said: 'Tea.'
'I think the Councillor has honourable intentions and I will be voting for his bill, but he does need a clearer standpoint. You either agree with the ECoJ decision, or you disagree with this act as a whole.'
-
Councillor Van Allen, please clear your position. I also don't understand. Again I'll use the words of my dear Cllr. Tusk " ECoJ bad, UNSR good, Icholasen good; ECoJ bad, UNSR bad, Icholasen good or ECoJ good, UNSR bad and Icholasen good?"
Please clear us all.
Emma Granger
Councillor for Montenbourg -
Councillors, I would like to do a clarification on my position. After reading the Amendment again, I've realized of something really concerning which is that this could set a bad precedent over the actions the European Union can force its members to do, and that's what we don't need to do, but security concerns need to be upkept. Councillors, I'm not a traitor or recognising the UNSR by voting against, but avoiding an European scale crisis with my vote. Thank you, and I hope you understand this decision.
Donald D. Tusk
Councillor for Spain -
Much like earlier proposals I stand against this proposal on principal.
The Archrepublic currently enforces a large assortment of various embargoes against the UNSR, but wishes to not force upon any foreign policy directives to various EU members outside of ones that specifically and directly pertain to peace and security. This is why the original condemnation I drafted specifically outlined military trade agreements, and luxury goods which can be used as laundering devices on the black market and really only impacted the leadership of the UNSR.
I would in general support an amendment first to the condemnation fixing and clarifying some technicalities before we delve into a much more hotly debated topic of whether the EU should require member-states to submit more embargoes.
The European Union should also not make massive foreign policy changes and force them upon member-states, it should be up to the member-states to decide which side to take, history will be the judgement upon them for their actions. The principals of the idea of sovereign nations demand this, without it the EU has taken a massive step towards complete Eurofederalism, and it is not a direction the Archrepublic will support.
Cllr. Firoux seems very intent on poking a beast which has in general remained content in its own space provided it was left alone, for example the Kingdom of Reitzmag proded the beast with their illegal military sales agreement, and nearly lost a few fingers so the speak. Then again it is not Inquista at risk here is it? Its the variety of nations in directly invested interests in Icholasen, namely Fremet, Ruthund, and Montenbourg who are. Not to mention the thousands of Vardic uniformed service members in Fremet and its waters to protect our ally. Cllr. Firoux seems to playing a game of trying to force the UNSR into a cornered state and benefitting from the aftermath, while notably not risking anything.
I shouldn't have to mention why Icholasen should not be granted its nuclear license again under the current circumstances, but here we are. One of the definitions of a state which is granted nuclear weapons is stability, and the ability to control the assets. While legally the UNSR has no land, and is not recognized, the literal situation is that it does by virtue of commiting a coup against the legitimate government. Until the legitimate government is in a place to control those weapons again it should not be granted a license. Especially a government who that is no longer of a position of power may be exploited by powers who are 'helping' them. I would prefer it if Copala city did not have nuclear silos hidden around it, nor be in a position that the Kingdom of Reitzmag may seek to influence those weapons.
Since apparently it seems I tend to 'destroy' Cllr. Van Allen's own proposals with amendments that 'poison' them, I will refrain from any amendments this session, and will not vote for the final version unless it is drastically altered to be an amendment to the technicalities of the condemnation and situation without major policy changes.
Cllr. Carita Falk
Archrepublic of Vayinaod -
Colleagues, I have a clear standpoint. ECoJ bad, UNSR bad, Icholasen good. Simple, I have no more to say for now.
Friedrich van Allen
Councilor, Kingdom of Reitzmag -
I'd like to request for a debate extension on this matter.
Friedrich van Allen
Councilor, Kingdom of Reitzmag -
Councillor Van Allen, you just stated that you "have no more to say for now", but then you've gone on to request for a debate extension literally right after? I will grant you a debate extension of 24 hours, so that you can hopefully give us more great takes like "ECoJ bad, UNSR bad, Icholasen good".
Debate will be extended until 08:45 GMT on October 26th, 2020.
Edward Firoux
Council Speaker and Councillor for Inquista -
Tusk laughed with discrection while the Speaker granted the debate extension as he couldn't believe what Councillor van Allen had just said. When the Speaker ended, and he has had enough fun, he decided to stand up and speak:
Well, ladies and gentlemen, especially the Nicoleizian Councillor who I consider a close friend like many other Councillors in this room, we have got it. It seems that the European Court of Justice is bad for Reitzmag, because they made a sentence against them. What a smart move! Councillor van Allen, if it had been the opposite, I'm sure you'll come here saying: "I love the ECoJ, it's the best court of Europe, with the best justices!" And how hypocrite that you say the UNSR it's bad, when your nation made business with them, also proposing an amendment to a Condemnation that made the ECoJ state that sentence and you still say it's unfair. Don't you see that you are not right on these statements calling the ECoJ "unfair"? Please, Councillor van Allen, for the sanity of this Council and just to avoid more sessions where you say the ECoJ is unfair with Reitzmag, read the unamended Condemnation, that you shall have read, and think about it. Let's see if your reading comprehension works.
Donald D. Tusk
Councillor for Spain -
Debate has now closed. There are 3 amendments, all proposed by myself:
Amendment I
Section 1- The European Union and its member-states shall only recognize the democratically elected government of the United Dominions of Icholasen under Queen Anastasia II and
Prime MinisterKorojaunu Eilidh Whiteford as the legitimate government of Icholasen.
The wording of Section 1, Clause 2 is somewhat open-ended. For instance the statement that the EU will not support "any illegitimate government other than the democratically elected government of the United Dominions of Icholasen" is quite broad, and it could mean any illegitimate government anywhere in the EU. Thus, my second amendment:
Amendment II
Section 1
2. The European Union and its member-states shall officially condemn the illegitimate regime known asactions by the cabal of military officers ofthe Union of Nicoleizian Socialist Republics, and will not supporttheirany illegitimate government of Icholasenknown as the United Nicoleizian Socialist Republics in any capacity.other than the democratically elected government of the United Dominions of Icholasen.My only other comment is that Icholasen shouldn't have had its ENAA license revoked, even temporarily, in the original condemnation. Any nukes possessed by an illegitimate government would not be handed over to the European Union anyway, and Icholasen should be able to defend itself, and so the whole matter regarding their ENAA license should just be removed in my opinion. Thus, I propose this third amendment:
Amendment III
Section 2
2. The ENAA license for limited nuclear warheads is hereby revoked until such time as the legitimate government of Icholasen holds proper authority and stability over its nation. There will be a one month period to turn over the nuclear weapons and shut down of all nuclear weapons production.Voting on amendments begins NOW and will last until 05:45 GMT on October 30th, 2020.
I vote FOR ALL amendments.
Edward Firoux
Council Speaker and Councillor for Inquista - The European Union and its member-states shall only recognize the democratically elected government of the United Dominions of Icholasen under Queen Anastasia II and
-
I vote FOR all amendments.
Charles Michel
Councilor for the Kingdom of Fremet -
I vote FOR all amendments.
Donald D. Tusk
Councillor for Spain -
On behalf of the Kingdom of Pravoslaviya, I vote AGAINST all amendments.
Cllr Tupac Shakur
-
I vote FOR all amendments.
Emma Granger
Councillor for Montenbourg -
On behalf of the Realm of Great Ruthund, I vote AGAINST Amendments I and II and ABSTAIN from Amendment III.
Vintufrida Luzrogizen
Acting EU Councillor, Ruthund -
On behalf of the Federal Republic of Austria, I vote AGAINST amendments I and II, and FOR Amendment III.
Eugen Freund
Councillor for the Federal Republic of Austria -
On behalf of the Union of Duxburian Dominions, I vote AGAINST Amendments I and II and FOR Amendment III.
Wesley Greene
Councillor of the Duxburian Union -
I vote FOR all amendments.
Friedrich van Allen
Councilor, Kingdom of Reitzmag -
On behalf of the Archrepublic of Vayinaod, I vote AGAINST all amendments.
Cllr Carita Falk
-
On behalf of the Republic of Nofoaga, I vote FOR all amendments.
Mrs. Paul-Gabrielle Muzhare
EU Councilor for the Republic of Nofoaga -
On behalf of Alkharya, I vote AGAINST all amendments.
Aylin Gökçen
Councillor for Alkharya
The Kingdom of Spain
