François Le Berre for Premier Commissioner | February 2021

The Deranged Shrieks of Leeson Continue to Haunt Europe

Mr. Peter Leeson continues to demonstrate his evident disconnection from reality with his latest batch of tweets.

He accuses me of all number of things, the vast majority of which I have repeatedly denounced. He firstly accuses me of being extremist and far left. As I stated on the 28th of January, nothing could be further from the truth, unless, of course, Mr. Leeson believes that the year is 1875.

He then claims that my policies will lead to a failed transition to a greener economy. If anything, they would not, given that I, unlike him, have focused on ensuring that said transition will be just - that is, able to employ workers who would otherwise be unemployed in strong and growing industries that would be able to maintain the economy, based upon input from those transitioning, from those in other industries, from experts in the matter, and from member-state governments.

He also makes the very strange assertion that large business leads to more efficiency. However, large companies generally denote an oligopoly or a monopoly. In both conditions, technological stagnation prevails due to the lack of competition; at the same time, those in control have the power to gouge prices. There is no need for industry to be efficient, either, for similar reasons.

He then proceeded to repeat what was almost exactly the same argument yet again, arguing that monopolism leads to employment and stability. I have no idea what alternate reality he must be living in to believe such a thing. The failure of a large business is much more catastrophic than that of a small business; in the first, power is concentrated in a small few but affects tens of thousands; in the second, power, while nominally in one person, is shared, to an extent, with those below; if there is failure, it will only affect a few.

It was then that he appeared to become trapped in the world of his twisted imagination. He first asserted that I would increase taxes. I will do nothing of the sort; the budget will remain the same - that, I promise.

As for his claim that we will be thrust into class warfare, it is simple insanity, to which I have no response but shock. I have no idea where or how he managed to manufacture this idea; I advise him to seek help.

Then came his assertion that I would place everything under the control of some "government." I have never, even in the days of my youth, been in support of such a thing. This, too, appears to have come from the same mysterious and terrifying part of his mind as that of the class warfare insanity.

He then went as low as to blame a genocide - which I lived through - on the policies I have proposed. This is obviously an awful assertion to make. I saw my wife and many of my friends killed in that genocide in horrific ways that terrify me and haunt every waking second of my existence to this day. His apparent derision towards such a horrific series of events was callous and morally bankrupt.

He then returned from this filthy and awful assertion to continue to manufacture bizarre accusations. He claimed first that "Berrism," which does not exist, will result in unemployment and poverty. Given everything that I have said, everything I have written, every part of my platform, and the fact that my plan is simply to return power to those who make up and give strength to our Union - the member-states, the linguistic and cultural groups, the vocations, and the people as a whole, this makes absolutely no sense.

Finally, he made the assertion that I would oversee a Europe of apathy in terms of work. Given that everything that he has described are phenomena that can very easily be found in the nearest local office of whatever generic monopolistic or oligopolistic corporation you choose; that I have repeatedly called for a Europe of creativity and innovation and have provided detailed plans on how to achieve such a thing, I simply have nothing to say.

It is clear that Mr. Peter Leeson lives in an entirely different reality from the one we live in. I realize, again, that many people may not be willing to vote for me. But I beg of you, please do not vest control of the European Union to a morally bankrupt man who has invented his own world to live in.

Rally No. 6: Nyetthem, Vayinaod

The Rally

Hello, Nyetthem! Hello, Vayinaod!

I'm here and not with those representing you for one reason - I'd simply like to talk with you, those who I hopefully will be working for. I'm not even entirely sure what I'm supposed to say anymore - I feel exhausted. But I think I can use this time to go over my policy. No more shouting for today.

At the heart of my platform is the idea of governance by and for the people. This is not something that the European Union's political institutions have achieved. None of its supposedly representative institutions from the Council to the Assembly, capture the full range of interests that exist.

Minority groups, linguistic, ethnic, and cultural are ignored in many cases; the same goes for vocations, which often have massive differences in interest. The oil field worker will not have the same interests as the nurse, for example. In recent years, individual governments have also gone ignored in the shaping of policy, which has been problematic to say the least.

In order to fix this major issue, as such, the first step would be to establish representation for all of these ignored groups. Nations will remain, of course, the backbone of the Union; but now, for the first time in its history, other perfectly valid and existing interests now may be involved.

An audience must also be established with individuals, with political parties, with unions, and with the many other organizations that make up a great part of our Union. Currently, it is somewhat difficult for these to petition any part of the European Union's institutions; however, I will be open. I will, in fact, set up a direct audience with them all!

Secondly is the problem of autonomy. Nations must retain their sovereignty - the purpose of the Union simply should be to uphold the basic rights of democracy, to coordinate efforts between different nations in certain and necessary areas, to be decided by the nations, and to work with nations and the many diverse interests and groups of the Union, not dictate, to uphold the principle of human dignity.

At the same time, however, we must ensure some level of autonomy or at least decision making for other interests. Those in a vocation, for example, are most likely to know it best - they should at the very least be involved in the making of regulations regarding their vocation. The same goes with cultural, linguistic, and ethnic minorities.

Thirdly is the issue of inefficiency. European bureaucracy is prone to this; at the same time, it is very much possible that someone incompetent could be appointed to the head of a given agency. What I wish to do is to integrate these bureaucracies into vocational chambers elected by all those in the vocation represented. These vocational chambers would provide better and generally more experienced candidates to lead bureaucracy; the experience of those within it may further increase efficiency. Finally, because of the form of accountability provided through the form of elections I plan these vocational chambers to have - detailed in my platform - individuals will have direct control over a large portion of European spending.

Moving on, these vocational chambers will have many more responsibilities. Decentralized as to ensure that local communities have more power, they are meant to coordinate workers' unions, professional associations, businesses, and governments in developing policy that works for everyone. More interestingly, they are also meant to provide a place for the free exchange of ideas across Europe - facilitated by inexpensive projects to expand workplaces and construct "third places." The hope is that this, coupled with anti-trust laws developed with the consent of European nations and other important interests that I have previously mentioned, will contribute to European innovation and creativity.

Fifthly is the issue of the transition to a green economy. It is necessary; but we must ensure that it is just. Everyone who risks being unemployed should be guaranteed a new, equivalent job in a stable and growing industry; the transition itself should be agreed upon by all groups involved.

The promotion of technologies and innovations that may contribute to a transition - permaculture, agroforestry, smallholder agriculture, urban agriculture, 3D printing technologies with bioplastics - must also occur. Of interest to me is possible funding to research - however, this will need to go through a cost-benefit analysis and be discussed thouroughly by nations and the many other interest groups I plan to involve.

Sixthly, Europe must work with existing associations, unions, and so on and so forth to promote such things as art, as research, as independent innovation as comes from the open source community. The sharing and creation of these two are almost inextricably linked to innovation; by encouraging both through existing and organically formed structures, Europe will itself advance.

Thank you for listening.

The Dinner

"Welcome, welcome," said Le Berre, "to the table. It'll be a small meal today, unfortunately, but filling. Native food from my home country. Of course, I am of French descent; but this is made of what best grows in the country, so generally what we eat."

He paused.; in f

"The appetizer is small - a salad of sorts, called "ūmjan." It is a bit minty, so be aware."

The politicians before him began to eat; he followed suit, before stopping to speak again.

"Now, I'm very much aware that my policy has been criticized by many. Yet some of those criticisms are false; others are simply misguided. I can assure you that I am not some extremist who wishes to steal Vayinaod's treasury. In fact, I believe in financial stability, frugality, and balance. Everything that I propose I have weighed to make sure it does not take a toll on the budget; everything I have weighed to make sure that you nor anyone else pays a penny more. At the same time, I have tried to support policies for greater accountability and efficiency in European bureaucracy; in fact, to partially de-bureaucratify European agencies as to make them more effective."

He paused again to eat; they were soon finished.

"Next, the main course. Flatbread, very light and a bit crunchy - our famous kusjur. There is a root vegetable paste - spiced and quite savory - kūshajur that you should eat it with. Take small pieces of the flatbread, pinch it around a bit of the paste, and eat. I'd advise you not to pour the paste on the bread - that is usually quite hard to eat."

He again paused, and began to eat, before stopping again to speak.

"Of course, I have other issues that I would like to discuss. As you may very well know, I am quite strongly in favor of unionization and small business. I am, however, willing to moderate if necessary - that is, regarding business, not unionization. I will, however, be very open to dialogue.

I understand that much of your economy is dependent quite heavily on oil and natural gas. I'd assume that there is likely a state or state-supported monopoly in the industry - which, of course, per my platform, I am not against. However, a transition is necessary - oil and natural gas will become very expensive in the future, unprofitable. If we wait until then to prepare, we will be facing a crisis. Yet unlike other candidates, I will be offering you a better deal regarding this. A just transition, as I have said many times. Members of the Vardic government, representatives of its oil and natural gas business, workers in the industry, economic experts regarding this sort of transition, representatives for possible industries to diversify into will be invited to a pan-European meeting on the topic. For all countries, of course, there will be specialization; a special meeting will be held with your country in that case. Europe will, I promise you, help in this."

They continued to eat, talking occasionally, until finally they had finished.

"Last course - very, very small. It is our native "yogurt"-type food, so to speak - ōljūsjol. Flavored with something familiar to us all - mango. Enjoy!"

They again ate; Le Berre began to speak when there were finished.

"Just a bit more, I'm afraid. Part of my platform involves working extensively with existing structure - professional organizations, artisans' guilds, creative unions, and so on and so forth. You get the gist. As I have said ad nauseum, I want to encourage discussion with workers, exchange of ideas, creativity, so that Europe may become more innovative. And that is it, now. Thank you for listening; thank you for eating with me. Have a very nice night!"

He shook hands with all those he had invited, speaking with some who had questions.

Rally No. 7: Kazmurbirha, Ruthund

Hello, Kazmurbirha; hello, Ruthund!

I stand for the common person. Wherever you work; whatever you do; I stand for you.

If you are a farmer - I stand for you. My commission will work to make sure that your interests are represented in European institutions; it will, working with you, give you the social infrastructure needed to improve if you so desire.

It will also provide a source of advice to you. With your input, as well as those of those establishing new technologies in the industry of agriculture, it will provide advice on how to improve yields; advice on much more, if you request it.

Do not worry about your traditional structures being uprooted; my commission will work tirelessly with them, respecting their existence and autonomy, as to create better policy for us all.

If you are a worker in a factory - I stand with you as well. My commission will work to make sure that your rights remain protected; that your unions are strong and respected, playing a role in the formation of policy regarding you. You, too, will be represented in all European institutions; you too shall have access to the same social infrastructure - again, within constraints.

In fact, I will say this for all professions, farmer, factory-worker, laborer, artist, artisan, member of the intelligentia, of the liberal professions - my commission will stand with you, give you representation in Europe, listen to you, help you, but also respect your society, the structures and organizations you have already created; respect their integrity, working with them. Your labor will be protected; my commission, working with you, will ensure that Ruthund's domestic industry remains protected; that foreign companies may not buy it off for their own profit.

You likely already know how, if you are here. Through the vocational bodies, which will be elected and accountable to you - actually, that is poor phrasing, the EACA is nowhere near what I propose - the vocational bodies, directly accountable to you, which will work with you, with your unions, your professional associations, your guilds, and many others as to create better policy.

Also important to me, however, is national sovereignty. The Union is not a single country; it is a union of nations, and should be treated as such. The sovereignty of each nation will be respected and defended; never will my commission allow any nation to infringe upon it.

I work, in essence, for a Europe for you; for everyone; a Europe which is able to aid those in need, but also one which understands nations, respects their culture, and respects their ultimate sovereignty.

Thank you for listening.

Congratulations to the Protestors in Azrekko

This has come very late; I should have said it in Verington. In any case, it is better late than never.

I congratulate the protestors in Azrekko, who achieved their aims; who pushed for reform and may now finally receive it, after such a prolonged period of suffering.

I celebrate their victory; I wish them happier times, and hope that I may one day be able to aid them in their gradual reconstruction of their city.

Final Pre-Debate Statement: Europolis

I stand for dignity in Europe. Dignity for nations, dignity for cultures, dignity for ethnicities, dignity for vocations, dignity for everyone.

What, then, does dignity mean? First and foremost, representation - the right to be heard. In this day and age, the institutions of Europe should represent the people of Europe in their multifaceted diversity - national, linguistic, ethnic, vocational, and much more.

None should be ignored; European institutions should be open to the petitions of all, responding to as many as they can.

But dignity is not simply representation; dignity is also autonomy. No nation should be forced to bend to a decree forced upon it; rather, all nations should be free, thriving in a European community of equals, deciding for themselves their policy. The same should go for all others.

Yet even then, dignity cannot be dignity without respect. No nation, no vocation, no culture, no ethnicity, and no person should be considered lower or higher; all contribute, and all should be valued. One should not look down on others, saying, "oh, poor, poor people, how filthy they are;" one should treat everyone, every nation, every group, with respect.

No person should be looked down upon simply because they work in the "wrong" vocation, belong to the "wrong" nation, the "wrong" culture.

If it is wrong to believe this, then I would rather be wrong than right. If it is somehow extreme to believe this, I would rather be extreme than moderate. For a Europe of dignity would be a prosperous Europe; a better Europe.

SEVENTH POLICY ADDENDUM

I. Regarding businesses in the mineral extraction industry, there will be compromise regarding anti-trust laws, if desired by the countries in which they operate.

II. All are equal - strong support for the UDoHR.

Questions for Le Berre

Questions for Le Berre may be directed to the following form:

https://forms.gle/ACch63BEZ5JYUctr7

(OOCly, I would like to assure everyone that these plans will not make you invent new characters or RP elections. There will be an attempt to maintain current systems in terms of their OOC function. For example, the IAC will continue to appoint agency heads when needed; however, these heads will now, ICly, be only responsible for "conveying" the opinion of the actual member states. OOCly, they will continue to do as they do now - drawing up the reports, but with the added caveat that a member can now object to them if they really wish to. The new forms of representation will, unfortunately, require the creation of new groups - however, vocational representatives will be elected similarly to how, for example, elected ENAA members are, so it should not be so terrible. ICly, elections for all other new posts will be through a system of nested councils or an equivalent system created by member-states, which would mean that no RP would be needed for their elections, nor even names for those in the councils. However, this new system, altogether, should allow for more accountability and even more RP both IC and OOC.)

This post is deleted!

Why do people believe that I am an extremist

Many, many, have called me an extremist. I am not, if you have even skimmed over my platform.

I have become increasingly irate at this. My platform and my words are crystal clear. I am not in favor of imposing taxes on Europe, I am not in favor of extreme bureaucracy, I am not in favor of nationalization.

I will again tell those reading to read my platform, read my platform, read my platform! No one seems to have even attempted to do so. They appear to have listened selectively, latching themselves on to a specific word!

I must repeat again, I am not in favor of higher taxes, not in favor of government control, not in favor of bureaucracy, not nationalization, not anything that anyone has accused me of! Read my platform! Read it! Just take the time to go through it and you will see! Read it!

In reality, I am in favor of cooperation, of sovereignty. I will impose nothing, nothing at all! But perhaps none of you will read this; you will selectively forget the word "not!" Why can't you read my platform!

Just read it! Read my platform!

Read it, oh read it, oh read it! Simply read it! It's so simple, all you need to do is to look at the words and read! Read!

Why you have latched on to what other people say, things that are not based in reality, I do not know! Read my platform! Read it! For the sake of anything, anything, truly anything. read my platform!

Read my platform! Read it! Read it!

These accusations have consumed my time; I cannot spend any more time answering them! Why can't you simply read my platform! Just read it, read it!

I don't understand why you must keep doing this. I have said over and over, tried to make everything as clear as possible, but still you do not listen! Read my platform, read it, read it!

Just read it, why can't you? Read it, and just stop!

The Issues with Our Politics

The lying that has become seemingly endemic to our politics must stop. We deserve better.

I have been, as I recently brought up, accused of many things. None of them are true, and that is an issue.

Not a single one of my opponents has now abstained from this form of lying. They have brazenly, even after the correction of a fact-checker, continued to do this. They think that the people of Europe are fools - that we are totally and completely under their thumbs.

We cannot let these people ever come to power again. My plan is not to vest power in me, to center everything around me, but instead to give power back to all the people, all the nations, of Europe, so that they may again rule themselves rather than being manipulated by a small clique.

No longer will demagoguery or falsehood prevail; in its place shall be rationality and truth.

Many, of course, will tell me that I myself have lied and manipulated. I have taken every effort not to; tried to present my arguments without bias. If I have failed in that, then I have failed. But I have not done so intentionally. These people, on the other hand, even when told that what they are saying is false, persist; they are lying intentionally.

Do we want to give our Europe up to such pathological liars? Do we want our lives to be in the hands of these people?

They have very nearly driven me, a person who has survived the deaths of his wife, his children, of his colleagues, of horrific scenes that I never wish upon anyone else, to insanity with this. If you continue to give them power, one day they will do the same to you. Do not think that they are not capable of such things; again, they have lied to you for the past week.

We must stand up to these gaslighting ghouls and say no more. No more to their lies, no more to their treachery. We must fight for autonomy for our nations and for ourselves; we must fight for our own futures.

Europe, do you see the dawn?

alt text

On the Union of Syndicates

I am overjoyed that, after so lengthy a period of terror, we, the citizens of the Union of Syndicates, are free from tyranny. At the hands of those thugs, I saw my family, my friends - all those I knew - torn away from me, ripped into pieces by the bloodthirsty mobs that then roamed the nation freely.

I saw myself forced to hide away simply because I dared to speak out against their de facto reign of terror; forced to stay locked in a cellar, then in a broom closet, simply to stay away from these horrible people.

I cannot even refer to them as human anymore; they lost their humanity on the 28th of September, when they turned against us and began to eat their own countrymen.

The blood stained their jaws; their teeth were unnaturally sharp. Their hair was wild; they were animals, ripping off the flesh of screaming infants, biting apart the elderly, the innocent, without any remorse - nay, even any emotion, whatsoever.

They were crazed. When they were given authority by Areai, what atrocities they wrought about were horrible. They enacted such atrocities upon us, with such terrifying intelligence, that we could not believe it.

I escaped; that haunts me day after day, for so many were unable to do so. I once was taken, by that horrible woman, to one of the factories of death they maintained. There was a great hall where blood and excrement covered the floor. The limbs and eyes and genitals of those who had been killed there were left scattered about the floor. Their bodies still lied against the blood-streaked wall, covered in their own blood and excrement. They had been fed castor oil, said Areai; their feces had been stuffed into their mouths and eye sockets.

Behind the wall was a burning pit, kept aflame by the flesh of those who had been pushed into it. Behind those pits, dips in the ground, bits of bone almost floating on the surface. Then the fields in which these poor people had to work for so long. Beyond those fields, a forest of true horror. The body parts of those "unfit for work" hung from every tree, slowly rotting, slowly blackening. Hands, arms, heads, torsos, all bobbing from the outstretched branches of the dark trees..

The smell of death was everywhere.

After the fall of Areai, it continued. At a hospital - the sick were taken out and beaten mercilessly, until they were but lumps. Their bodies were cooked and eaten. A nursery, where infants and children were massacred, blood everywhere, the heads of the innocent rolling about the floor, their bodies consumed as well by those monsters.

Senseless murder; I do not know why they did it. I do not want to know; the acts themselves were so horrifying, so awful. One could not believe that people could commit such atrocities.

But they are gone now, gone forever. No longer may they continue their perversions, torturing the innocent. They are gone, and we are free, finally!

The Third Message: An Article

It is almost over; we are near the end. Europe's fight for its representation, for its dignity, and for truth itself is soon to reach its conclusion.

The present European political "elite" continues to have failed to even mentioned the crisis that will come when the "transition" - that towards a green economy - comes about. It is unfortunately certain that it will - in twenty years, every projection is showing that the cost of extraction of fossil fuels will be unsustainably high. If we do not prepare, we will be left with shortage and massive unemployment never before seen.

It continues, in fact, to have mentioned a plethora of other crises, from the slowing of European innovation to increasing belligerence and authoritarianism. When it does mention them, it does so poorly, using sentiment and ideology instead of reason in formulating policies "against" them.

It has almost entirely ignored the complaints of unions, parties, and the people themselves against their policies; instead forging forward; in fact, wanting to accelerate it all!

If this is to be stopped, there must be change. No longer can the current system of representation, which has systematically denied a great number of people a voice in European politics, stand alone. It must be reformed to give a voice to all. No minority, no majority, no vocation, no nation, no culture, should be silenced in our modern and democratic age.

No longer can the current denial of dignity to the people of Europe remain in place. The sovereignty of every nation should be respected, as should the culture and norms of every culture, every vocation. None should be treated as being above or below; all should be recognized as contributing to the greater European community, and thus, in dignity and rights, equal.

Policies, when needed, must take into account the views and needs of all. They must not be forced on people by a tricking elite that believes itself more enlightened than "the filthy masses" below it.

In place of our "way of life," a disgusting and trickery-ridden politics under which many suffer, we must create for ourselves a better system which guarantees all representation, dignity, and the right to truth and rational governance.

Can we truly stand for the continuation of the current system? For silence, for lies, and for contempt?

Democracy, the Sacrificial Lamb of the Europe of Today

True democracy has seemingly become the sacrifice of today's Europe; what we must all give up for some tenuous prosperity soon ahead. It distances the people from their government, say those who wish to sacrifice it; it is corrupt and inefficient, useless bureaucracy.

But what is the alternative? Decisions being made by a small few who care more about their re-election rather than about those they are supposed to represent? The gradual concentration of power into all-European institutions? In short, the Europe of today, a Europe without just representation or accountability?

Evidently, this is far from ideal; in fact, I doubt anyone would like living under such a system - our system, our "way of life."

Everyone deserves better. Everyone deserves true representation - not a choice between two or three corrupt candidates who will immediately refuse to deliver on their promises upon coming to office. This is a tall order; but it can be achieved.

My opposition to the Elected and Accountable Act may appear to be contradictory to this; but in fact, I argue that it would be opposite. By allowing governments to instantly recall and replace Councillors - or, under my reforms, Assemblymembers - Councillors or Assemblymembers would be under greater pressure to represent their constituents. The same would go for the representatives of cultural and vocational groups, which would be able to be recalled and replaced in a similar manner, and thus be under the same pressure.

Under my system, interests often ignored would finally have a voice in European politics; no longer would they be silenced. The majority would no longer be able to truly suppress the minority; true democracy, in which all are represented but independent, would be achieved.

The Europe of Today, that horrible system, would perish; the Europe of Tomorrow would be born.

Europe, I will say it again - the long night is soon to end; the dawn is fast approaching.

Clarifying the Structure of the Europe of Tomorrow

The Europe of tomorrow is predicated upon nations, cultural groups, and vocational chambers.

Nations shall send delegates to the Political Council as for the purposes described in my platform; the same shall go for the cultural groups and the vocational chambers, but to the Cultural and Economic Councils respectively.

Each Council shall function on the basis of one-nation, or one group, one vote, as well as on that of consensus.

Delegates to the council will also be delegates to the Assembly; which shall function in the way described in my platform.

Coordination, not Integration

Coordination is not centralization; coordination is not integration. It is not "glocalism;" it does not seek to develop and impose a single defined goal on the Union. Rather, it recognizes a problem and allows the independent nations and other constituents of our Union to themselves develop a solution - a solution that does not infringe upon culture, does not scream at nations trying to force them to change their very roots, but instead one that in fact takes it into account.

Let us take migration as an example. It affects everyone; no matter where you live, it is present. Someone you know may have emigrated; may be an immigrant. I do not wish, in fact could not even think of, trying to impose a single law regarding immigration on all Europe. Rather, in recognition of the effects, both positive and negative, that emigration and immigration may have on a member-state, member-states should cooperate as to form coherency - for example, collaborating as to make national laws on immigration clear to all who plan to immigrate, or, together, creating new policy regarding the status of refugees - for example, what rights they possess across all Europe -
without changing national policy towards them - unless, of course, it is murderous in nature - that is, supports the mass killing or harming of refugees.

A second example would be climate change. With all nations contributing, the European Union could contribute to just transition, providing information to those transitioning, perhaps even supporting - for example, aiding individual nations in the process of transitioning as according to a general framework for this aid set by all in recognition of the need for frugality and the right of sovereignty.

Nothing should be imposed; it is vital that nothing is. Everything must be, as according to the very foundational purpose of this Union, done for coordination nd the welfare of all - all, not simply some, whether poor or rich - nations.

On Marriage and other Opinions

The definition of marriage is for individual cultures and nations to decide, not me. Personally, I believe that it is a union between two individuals; however, I have no wish to impose this belief on other nations, for I understand that they may have different beliefs regarding this.

However, the definition should not be inhumane. I, nor the rest of Europe, would tolerate a definition of marriage that would, for example, excuse marital rape, or worse, murder. Marriage must, at the very least, not violate basic human rights and the dignity of every person.

Regarding members of the LGBT community, they should still have, have access to the same rights, as a couple, that a same-sex and married couple would have - for example, the right to jointly hold property, jointly receive benefits, and so on and so forth.

In essence, marriage can be defined differently; however, there must be an equivalent to those participating in consensual relationships that would otherwise be excluded from it.

Tangentially related to this, there have been many worries relating to my views regarding my own nation. These are not views I have any desire to export; they are shaped entirely by the thousands-year old culture of my own country. Just as anyone would not want to export the specific, localized quirks and all, political, economic, and social systems of their own countries to the rest of the world, neither do I. I have respect for the cultures and traditions of others; I do not wish to trample on them as so many others so desperately want to.

Reform, not Stagnation

I am saddened to say this, but I remain the sole candidate who stands for true reform. Dr. Cocx makes a great deal of fuss about how he wishes to change Europe for the better, but in reality, when one looks at his platform, he plans to do essentially nothing. Representation would remain exactly the same; acts like the NDA in result would continue to be passed by the Council. Unrepresented and underrepresented interests would continue to be unrepresented and underrepresented; integral parts of our Europe would continue to spiral into decline.

What little he plans to do is perhaps even worse. Having lived and worked in a totalitarian, irredentist, revanchist, and genocidal dictatorship for sixteen years of my life, between 1994 and 2010, I have the firsthand knowledge to know that his proposed package of sanctions and interventions will simply not work. He claims to want, of course, dialogue before sanctions - but his wish to apparently intervene in the UNSR, which the Union has not engaged with, shows this not to be true. I do not excuse the atrocities; however, engaging in such behavior will not work. In my own country, under Areai, sanctions allowed her an excuse to keep the country in a "state of emergency," and to purge "foreign opponents of the people." At the same time, they gained her more support with the population that she was not actively trying to murder, by convincing many of them that she was the sole defender of them against foreign powers.

Evidently, this is not the approach to go down. The UNSR, which Dr. Cocx wants to intervene in, offers its people at least some choice, regardless of how limited it is. Under strong sanctions, ultra-authoritarian extremists, far beyond where the UNSR lies politically as of now, could very well seize power using international opposition to, perhaps, "the people of Icholasen," in what may be their own words soon, and, using the same justification, violently remove internal opposition to far greater of an extent. Working in the opposite direction - continuing the current, lighter sanctions but at the same time using negotiation as to move the regime towards gaining an actual democratic mandate - would be significantly better. The UNSR, given its apparent moderation, especially when compared to, again, its predecessors and other authoritarian states - Noctoria comes to mind - may be at the very least partially open to this.

Dr. Cocx also has the unfortunate habits of cherrypicking, willfully misunderstanding others, and lying, but back to the topic.

What Dr. Cocx proposes requires him to do almost nothing; what he would do, however limited it may be, would largely be disastrous.

Turning to Mr. Leeson, he does plan reform - but it would be of little consequence at best.

His plans are certainly vague. I still do not know how exactly the goals he plans to set as part of his "glocalism" would be developed, for example. He says that he would be working with the IAC and the leaders of countries, but to what extent these opinions would be weighted, to what extent minorities would be considered, and so on and so forth, is not mentioned. The same goes, for example, for how exactly stimulus packages would be distributed. Dr. Cocx is opposed to them - he has a perfectly good substitute, which he has described very well. I am for them, but on a very limited and accountable scale and generally not in monetary form, in a way that I have described several times. Mr. Leeson, however, while supporting them, does not exactly describe how he plans to fund or distribute them. As for political reforms to represent more people, he proposes exactly none, just like Dr. Cocx. The only things of substance he wishes to do is to introduce a Business and Trade Union Council, which appears to be purely consultative and thus easily ignored, and to add even more Councillors, for reasons I still do not fully understand, to the Council to represent the same nation. Yes, according to him they are supposed to diversify opinion, but given that they are being elected or appointed by the same people, I do not see how they would.

In essence, unlike Dr. Cocx, Mr. Leeson would at the very least do something - but that something at best would be useless, and at worst would be damaging - regressive, perhaps.

As for me - for every single piece of my policy, I plan to include all interests involved in policymaking. I refuse to impose my own beliefs upon policymaking; I work only with facts in respect of differing cultures and material conditions.

No one will go ignored; all will be represented and have a voice. No longer will legislation be proposed that tramples upon the wellbeing of individuals or the culture of members and the many other constituent groups of the Union; all legislation will recognize our diversity and work with it rather than forcing upon it its own moral compass. Accountability will be at the forefront of all decisions; your money and your time will not be wasted in theatrics and other nonsense.

In essence - I am the only candidate who stands for true reform - who actually wants to change our Union as to ensure that it works for everyone.

I would go into more detail, but I have already explained exactly what I believe in at length. Please read my platform if you want to know more!

With respect,
I sign off.

Defending my accusations of Dr. Cocx

I respect Dr. Cocx, but his continued lying has irritated and angered me for some time. Predicting his likely retort to what I stated in my previous statement, I make this defense:

Dr. Cocx, on the 27th of January, you claimed that I believed that the European Assembly, in its current state, had to be kept. If you have ever read my platform, you will know this not to be true - I explicitly state that I wish the Assembly to become like the Council.

On this date, you further claimed that Mr. Leeson wished to strengthen the EACA at the expense of member-states. As far as I can see, this is false - Mr. Leeson, from the beginning, claimed to want to ensure that the act respected the sovereignty of nations. He did, of course, say that he wanted to strengthen the act - but by omitting that crucial addition, you essentially lied. Perhaps it could also be classified as cherrypicking; yes, probably.

On the 4th of February, you claimed Mr. Leeson was a doomsayer, giving to the public two quotes of his. However, he was referring to the state of our Union. When he claimed that "there [was] no middle ground," he was saying that the Union, in its current state, could either remain a Union or simply dissolve, as is already beginning to happen. His second quote referred to the fact that the Union is in danger, which, given the strengthening of exit movements, appears to be relatively true

You then proceeded to use the quote "we need all countries on board" as to further attack him, omitting the fact that this came directly after his statement regarding the current state of the Union. With this context in mind, it is obvious he is referring, at least to me, to having all countries being on board with the continuation of the Union as to continue the Union - which is almost self-evident.

You then proceeded to attack me. You first claimed that I wanted to form new councils as to discuss "pertinent issues." You will find this phrasing in much of my platform, but never have I claimed that I want to form new institutions simply to discuss, vaguely, "pertinent issues." I quite clearly stated that a Political Council would discuss issues pertinent to the political system of the Union, and so on and so forth. This is evidently cherrypicking. You also present the phrase "those running Europe...are corrupt, caring only for their own interests," as though it was literal - as though I believed that the politicians of Europe were actually corrupt. What I mean is that they have shown little interest in actually attending to the affairs of those they were elected on the behalf of, instead making promises which are rarely delivered upon, being replaced, for the most part, either by virtue signaling or by nothing at all. From this, it is easy to extrapolate that many European politicians care only for their own interest - that is, their re-election. Perhaps contributing to this was your decision to completely omit the various examples I would give after saying this, and thus strip the statement of its context. This, as a result, can be considered to be both willful misunderstanding as well as cherrypicking.

You then claim that my proposal of new institutions is at odds with this, when in reality, I have explained on a number of occasions, that I believe that these new councils will be more accountable and less susceptible to the atrocious behavior I previously condemned simply because they are either more specialized, thus having less-easier to fool voting populations, easier to recall, or, for the most part, both. This is either willful misunderstanding or cherrypicking, or perhaps a mixture of both.\

I previously believed you to be honorable. Obviously, you are not.