François Le Berre for Premier Commissioner | February 2021

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.

My apologies to Mr. Leeson and to all those I have demeaned.

I sincerely apologize to Mr. Leeson. In anger and distress, I essentially engaged in childish name-calling - something entirely unbecoming of any and all adults. To call him delusional, to call him insane - it was demeaning, not simply to him but to all those who are neurodivergent, who themselves are faced with such insults on a daily basis; who would have been reminded of the hatred of those who hate them; who would have been angered and saddened.

To all those I have insulted, to all those I have demeaned - I apologize. I don't know what I can do to make up for it, but know that I will never do it again; that I will, in my personal life, try to ensure that no one does such things again.

With sincerity and humility,
François Le Berre.

Regarding Copala City and other Secessionist Movements

Copala City must be governed as according to the treaties governing its governance. Anything further must be decided by Reitzmag, Icholasen, and the citizens of Copala City collectively, cooperatively, in recognition of their different interests and wants, and with what is as close to consensus as possible. The final decision, however, must rest with the people of Copala City.

That is all I have to say. Candidates for Commission demanding independence, I find, are odd, given that there has been no indication from even the citizens of Copala City that they wish for such a thing. Yes, there is a separatist mayor - but elected without even a majority.

Other secessionist movements should move forward in a similar way. Compromise should be sought before drastic action; however, if absolutely necessary, secession should move forward. This must only happen in the circumstance that a government is actively suppressing a minority or a region, is not representative of that minority entirely, or in other conditions in which said minority remains without proper political representation or determination.

They should be only the concern of Europe when they do, in fact, concern all Europe. Secessionist movements should not, otherwise, be dealt with, unless, of course, requested, as has happened before.

However, Europe should certainly provide guidelines regarding this, perhaps drafted with both nations, minorities, and even representatives of non-violent secessionist movements attending - violent secessionists, of course, should not, for they are terrorists.

Again, I want a Europe which respects autonomy and dignity for all; which works for rather than atop its constituents; the Europe of Tomorrow.

That is all.

Policy Highlights

I would like to take some time as to review parts of my platform which I have ignored.

The first, the encouragement of the exchange of ideas throughout all Europe. The vocational chambers would serve as conferences of a sort, allowing those of all nations - the scientists of Europe, for example - to share their ideas, their innovations, and their problems. With history showing that such communication leads to greater innovation and prosperity, my hope is that these will come; that innovation will be spurred for all; that this innovation may benefit all.

The second, anti-trust laws. These must not be imposed on European nations; rather, European nations would be asked to impose them for the common benefit. If they are opposed to a culture or to the state of an economy, there is no reason for their imposition; for said imposition is simply meant to increase competition, remove stagnating monopolism, and thus increase innovation.

Thirdly, support for the arts. Primarily, the arts would be encouraged through the vocational chambers, which would work with existing artist groups as to promote the arts throughout Europe. At the same time, they would again allow for discussion, perhaps causing a potential increase in artistic output. With such increases correlated with innovation in history, the hope is again to allow for innovation and prosperity for all without trampling on existing structures or the sovereignty of member-states.

Fourthly, support for smallholder and urban agriculture. Protection of these, backbones of many economies and creators of food security, will be advised through discussion with member-states regarding them, through which, perhaps, all may agree to protect them to a greater extent. Cultural and material differences will continue to be recognized; if they do not exist, for example, then there is little need for protection. Vocational chambers will also be created as to allow smallholder farmers to communicate with each other on an international basis, as with others, as well as to give them a greater voice in Europe - again, still working with rather than supplanting existing structures, ensuring that they remain entirely intact.

Fifthly, economic stimulus. This will be limited, only used when absolutely necessary. The primary goal of a Le Berre premiership would be to foster economic independence in poorer nations. As a result, rather than simply throwing money at them and leaving it there, the primary focus would simply be to give them the organization necessary to further develop - for example, the sharing of ideas through the vocational chambers may allow for innovation in poorer nations to foster inexpensive development which said nations can afford themselves. At the same time, through their encouraging of existing structures, they would be able to further encourage development without costing Europe a single penny. Imagine it this way: small associations - a neighborhood association, a local chamber of commerce - are often responsible for self-dependent development. By helping nations encourage their strength, Europe would be contributing to development without cost, again.

Stimulus, when given (rarely), would be given solely for material development - training or construction - allocated by a vocational chamber, of experts elected by experts which would take on the funds of a previously existing agency - a medical chamber elected by doctors, nurses, and so on and so forth taking over the EHO, for example. It is certainly possible that allocations may be made without regard for the budget; however, because organizations like the EHO do have responsibilities, it is likely that whatever is left for such allocations will not be enough to fund lavish spending - thus serving as a natural balance against overspending. At the same time, because vocational chambers would be elected by experts on a one-country one vote basis, a high decree of accountability would be added - experts are not often fooled by bogus or useless projects.

On Vocational Chambers

In creating policy, the vocational chambers shall only do so within bounds set by member-states. Within an individual country, their very structure shall be defined by member-states as well.

I have no intention of allowing these chambers to take any form of control over national economies; it is the nation which should have the final say in these things.

A Europe Without Peace

A Europe without peace is soon to come. My opponents threaten war; threaten our collective destructions with emotional responses to a grave threat.

The UNSR, to which many of them respond, s a danger; but no one on this continent, these continents, should be threatening war with them. The effects that such a thing would have on Europe, on the Nicoleizian people, and on essentially the entire world would be devastating.

The highest priority of the Union at this time, as such, is to protect its own people as well as those of Icholasen.

Extreme sanctions cannot, and will not, be a tolerable situation. Such a thing would make the people of Icholasen suffer. Those who will inevitably die under such a circumstance will become "martyrs" for some mercurial movement; the sanctions will be posed as a threat to the Nicoleizian nation or to the "movement" - in the end, as a threat to the existence of the people of Icholasen posed by foreign powers which wish to be rid of them. The people of Icholasen will be angered, and they may very well rally to the UNSR as their sole protector against foreign power, even their previous government which will likely have seemed to have abandoned them.

All of this will give the UNSR the support it needs to conduct further internal purges; the support it needs to further increase foreign aggression. Of course, they will have no or very few physical materials; but people by themselves, if angered and united, can do a terrifying amount of damage.

In my own country, people, with very little other than their bare hands and improvised explosives, drove most of the country out while killing millions, destroying the country's housing, industry, sanitation systems, telephone lines, electricity, schools, agricultural capacity, agricultural stores, and essentially every other aspect of civilization in what has been described as the most brutal and violent war in recent history - all of it in less than two weeks. They processed the bones of their, of our, politicians into bone-meal with only kitchen knives. They held mass crucifixions, burnings, and torture sessions. With only their teeth and their hands, they tore apart the bodies of living people and ate them. Others went out to the countryside and killed themselves, tens if not hundreds at a time, pooling what little medication they had in order to do so. Every square meter of our country's countryside was devoid of crops, devoid of any life - all of it had been taken away, first by the manic destroyers and then by those who committed suicide. All that covered it was an endless expanse of rotting bodies. What was left of the country quickly went insane. The record of it remains.

This may not occur in the UNSR; but again, it is a testament to what the anger of a body of individuals can bring - mass death and suffering. Extreme sanctions and intervention, fostering ultra-nationalist spirit and fanatical support for the UNSR could very well result in a similar wave of fanatical insanity, although perhaps of less intensity, being brought upon Europe by the people of Icholasen.

Negotiation should be the center of Europe's policy with rogue-states. Rather than seeking to severely pressure action, it should instead try to seek reform peacefully. Sanctions , of course, should be applied; however, they should not be extreme; the current level on the UNSR, I believe, is enough.

Some may argue that the primary focus of Europe should be the restoration of the UDI. I doubt that this is possible; the UNSR is well-entrenched, and to see otherwise would be simple delusion.

By at the very least recognizing the UNSR as an existing government and negotiating rather than severely threatening it, we thus ensure a more peaceful Union, one that is not in constant fear but at the same time one that is free. We prevent the possibility of violent war; we prevent the possibility of suffering.

Qualifications

Here are the following list of qualifications I may say I have for the position of Premier Commissioner.

Master of Arts from Kiel University, 1982, in the Liberal Arts.
Columnist for newspaper L'Humanité from 1985 to 1994
Editor for L'Humanité from 1991 to 1994 and again from 2010 to the present day.
Elected to Workers' Congress in 1993
Elected to Constitutional Convention of 1994
Negotiated with dictator Josephine Areai - she planned to kill me, a person she viewed as being the "linchpin" of the "stranglehold the inferior European race has upon the glorious and supreme Haanean nation," by submersion in bath of acid, if I did not join her cabinet - and even then, she would still personally kill me in ten years. In the end I did, but with the assurance that I would be less likely to die, as I would be "useful for the purposes of the Haanean Nation."
Served, under extreme duress, as "Minister of Propaganda and Censorship" for Areai, a position in which I attempted to serve as poorly as possible while still pleasing genocidal Areai, who wished to kill all those of "European" race. I was not responsible for censoring or creating propaganda; this was Areai's responsibility, as is clearly attested; however, I managed to greatly slow communication. However, I still feel guilt for what I may have done; for this I have apologized and apologize, for this I have tried to make amends, but never feel as though I can.
Negotiated with military generals as to organize coup against Areai, or at the very least support in the case that a resignation was coerced from her between 1994 and 2009.
Helped Minister of Labor facilitate mass escapes from several "death factories" (a literal translation from Haanean) run by Areai by helping smuggle material regarding said escapes to inmates in 2004 by inserting hidden meanings into diktats from Areai.
Convinced Areai, through negotiation between the years 1994 and 2006, to replace bloodthirsty Tsaiu-t Ueliohen, leader of her secret police and Minister of Resource Allocation (responsible for overseeing "death factories', among other functions) and known for drinking the blood of those he had killed, primarily through brutal ways (castration followed by untreated infection leading to death, feeding of castor oil, impaling, crucifixion are examples), and eventually exile him in 2008. (A note: as Premier Commissioner, I will work with Copalan and Synunist governments as to allow for his extradition as to stand trial for crimes against humanity. The fact that he is involved in its political organs is highly shocking.).
Convinced Areai to stop pleasuring herself in public and before the administration as she watched torture and mass executions through negotiation between 1994 and 2008 (or, for that matter, pleasuring herself to such things entirely.) Nearly faced death in 2000 for such actions.
Convinced Areai to lighten censorship, propaganda, other restrictions through negotiation between 1994 and 2007.
Conspired with other cabinet members to drug Areai on the 8th of August, 2010, as to coerce a resignation from her, which we received.
Aided the organization of free elections throughout 2010, sitting as a member of a new National Assembly.
Wrote against severely authoritarian policies of terrorist "local militias," People's Assemblies, which sought to kill all those disagreeing with them.
Admitted as an honorary member of the Union of Dissidents in 2015.

Final Statement

It has been a busy nineteen days. I have met so many people; written so much; found out so much more about the nature both of our Union and of its many cultures.

Yet before us lies great danger. A simple choice lies ahead of us: death, integration, or sanity.

The first, of course, is Dr. Cocx. He misrepresented and outright lied about both Mr. Leeson and I; he then proposed an outright intervention - read: invasion - in the UNSR, which would be suicide for quite literally everyone in our Union. We evidently neither need nor want someone who supports what would essentially be nuclear war.

The second is Mr. Leeson. He is not as integrationist as Dr. Cocx would like you to believe; yet he remains at least somewhat so. He supports, for example, EU-led construction of supergrids - that is, electricity grids meant to span a whole continent or continent rather than a single locale or country. This would be extremely expensive and done without very much regard, although perhaps a little, for the goals of individual countries - energy independence, for example - nor even their material conditions. I may of course be wrong on this, as many others have; but Mr. Leeson has been rather unclear regarding this.

The third is me. It is greater accountability; it stands not for buzzwords or for glorified performance artists but rather for expert input. Its policy is fiscally balanced - no member state will pay a single penny more, nor will the surplus be eaten into - and will remain so in the future; at the same time, it is based off of hundreds of years of historical evidence and data. Yet it also stands for cultural integrity. It is not Europe's mandate to force its own moral compass and ideology upon individual cultures; rather Europe should recognize and in fact be composed of these cultures, working together but remaining themselves whole, their ideas influencing and included into all legislation. On top of this, it stands for better representation. Many groups that make up our union - vocations, non-national cultures - are often ignored, passed over. They thus suffer when legislation is passed without their input. No more to this; all should be heard and included. It finally stands for the dignity of all - a right present in all cultures, in one way or another.

Perhaps there is a fourth - to vote no. But to vote "no" would be giving a vote to whomsoever wins. If a whole country were to vote no, they would reduce the number of votes needed to obtain an absolute majority, thus essentially helping whoever would have had the most number of votes in the first round. This could very well mean that a country votes against their interests. It is better to vote for whoever represents one's interest or is closest to doing so than to simply throw away it, voting for "whoever wins," regardless of what horrors they may bring about.

The decision is yours, Europe, and yours alone. I ask you simply to choose wisely.

Compilation of All Policy

A note: all policy is subject to the approval of member states. Centralized interference into their affairs cannot and will not be tolerated.

Platform

ON THE UNION

Curtail the powers of the European Council - a majority-vote based organization that too often ignores the voices of member-states both large and small.

Reform the European Assembly to become what the Council what was - an organization for the representation of governments. On the principle of consensus, give it power to influence and create legislation outright, although only in specific and defined areas.

(Policies above may be adjusted in recognition of feasibility and efficiency)

2a) To the European Assembly, add representation for vocational, ethnic, and cultural groups, as to ensure that the voices of those who even within their own nations are oppressed are heard on a European level.

Create new, specialized institutions for the review and creation of legislation in specific areas - political (relating to the political institutions of member states or the union), cultural and social (relating to the cultural and social institutions of member states or the Union), and economic (relating to the economic policy and institutions of member-states and the Union). These institutions will also serve as "forums" between nations as for the creation of multilateral treaties, as well as for communication between the Union and the Commission.

ON POLITICS:

Consultation with the Political Council to be formed, or directly with a forum with the governments of member-states, on the following issues:

Elected and Accountable Council Act
A Path towards Europe-wide Democracy
Suffrage
Business Influence over Politics
Eurogroup reform
National Sovereignty and the Powers of the European Union
Creation of a "United Front" with major political parties in all member-states as to discuss and create political policy that benefits as many as is possible
ON SOCIETY

Establish special interest groups for marginalized or minority groups of non-political nature. Allow these groups representation in the institutions of the Union, as well as an audience with the Commission and with member-states.

1a) With information from and the consent of these groups, in addition to economic and national bodies, create social policy, on the basis of consensus, that is able to benefit all, or if not, most.

to be discussed immediately:

Repression of Cultural and Ethnic Groups
Concerns regarding Current Union Social and Cultural Policy
Immigration and Migrants

ON THE ECONOMY

Establish vocational groups in all sectors of the economy for the representation of economic groups. Allow these groups representation in the institutions of the Union, as well as an audience with the Commission and with member-states

In the new "Economic Council" of the vocational groups to be formed, discuss and create economic policy that is able to benefit as many people as possible.
2a) To Be Discussed Immediately:

Decline of Resource Extraction and Industrial Sectors
Employment
Collective Bargaining and Unionization
The Status of Independent Workers
Welfare
Ecological Concerns and Economic Issues relating to "Green" solutions

Establish an audience with existing employer and labor unions as to discuss and create policy.
3a) Involve professional and artisan associations in the formation of said policy.

Involve associations and unions in the creation of policy relevant to their areas of work.

OTHER

Discuss and develop policy, using the institutions described above, on the following issues:

Pandemics and Outbreaks
Natural Disasters as a Result of Climate Change
Terrorism
Transportation
Housing
Communication and Connectivity
Other Concerning Issues to be brought up by member-states or involved groups
1a). Consult with relevant associations and unions, as above, in discussing these issues.

Addendum I
I. The European Council will be limited to passing legislation that upholds the spirit of the Constitution - that is, of the republican ideals of liberty, equality, justice, and solidarity. It also will have the responsibility of enforcing the spirit of laws passed by other chambers.

II. The European Assembly will be composed of representatives for the governments of member-states and of linguistic, ethnic, cultural, and vocational groups. It shall have the responsibility of proposing legislation to the smaller chambers to be created, as well as of approving it. It is freer in creating legislation than the European Council; however, it may only do so on political, cultural/social, and economic issues that affect all nations, and on the basis of consensus. If consensus cannot be reached, to be determined by the Premier Commissioner if discussion has already lasted for over two weeks, legislation may be passed by majority. At the same time, it will have the responsibility of creating basic guidelines for the work of the European Council.

III. The Political, Cultural, and Economic Councils will have the responsibility of drafting and reviewing legislation in their specific areas. They are not required to do so; however, what legislation they propose will be approved by either the European Council or the European Assembly dependent on which is relevant to the subject of the proposed material.

IV. Vocational groups will be constituted on a federal basis, with each having one autonomous "branch" in each member-state. They shall have the responsibility of acting to influence and create legislation on the behalf of and in the interests of those they represent. Each group shall be given an allocation of the European budget if they wish to, which it may re-allocate to other agencies or spend for itself. They are encouraged to facilitate the sharing of resources and ideas, as well as the further development of "third-place"/"second place" hybrid facilities on a basis which benefits all equally and which does not further penalize struggling nations, to be developed by a joint meeting of the Political and Economic Councils.

V. Separate groups of representation shall be created for workers, independent workers, managers, entrepreneurs, cooperatives, small businesses, medium-sized businesses, and large businesses. These will be represented on the Economic Council.

VI. Opposition to an all-European single market. Europe is in a state of transition; the creation of a single market would disrupt this, possibly funneling the resources of developing or liberalizing economies towards the richest. A single market can only be created when all nations agree and are on some level of developmental parity, having well established domestic enterprise. Nations may voluntarily join such a thing if they are willing to.

VII. Support for individual liberties. All people should have the right to bodily autonomy; to do as they wish so long as they harm no one, including themselves. Discussion shall be done with the reformed European Assembly in order to further expand and possibly modify this concept to the liking of all member-states.

VIII. Openness to petitions. It should be simple for all in Europe to petition the Commission or any other institution of the Union; as many as is possible should be answered in some way.

IX. Opposition to European bureaucracy. As much as is possible should be put into the hands of individual nations and of the people. (ie, to specialized vocational groups in place of established appointed councils).

X. Earthquake preparedness. The events that took place in Granada are worrying; I sympathize for all affected, and hope that they will be able to recover with great speed. In order to prepare for possible future incidents, Europe must prepare disaster plans in the case of damaging earthquakes. Discussion will be held with the European Assembly on this issue.

Second Addendum

I. Strong support for unionization. Encourage the creation of collective bargaining agreements, especially of a sectoral nature, in individual member-states; propose legislation banning forms of "union-busting." Campaign to increase unionization across Europe, especially in the technology and "gig" industries.

II. Strong support for creative unions, professional associations, and artisan guilds. Allow these to be allocated spending in place of wasteful bureaucracy or through vocational groups if more cost effective; encourage and aid them in improving and constructing infrastructure as to facilitate the sharing of ideas and possibly resources.

III. Encouragement of the formation of mutual-aid societies, especially in cooperation with vocational groups, unions, associations, and artisan guilds. Included is the creation of "third-place" institutions for the purpose of the exchange of information, socialization, and supplements to existing welfare throughout Europe.

IV. Strong support for the open source movement. Encourage adoption of open-source alternatives in place of currently existing and expensive products; attempt to expand their usage in existing European institutions.

V. Strong opposition towards the creation of monopolies without regulations. An exception is made for dirigist/etatist economic policies. Discuss expansion and creation of anti-trust legislation with the European Assembly.

VI. Encourage grassroots support for the modernization of failing industry, so that it may continue in a more environmentally friendly one while still serving as a source of employment. Involve vocational groups, unions, associations, and guilds in this effort.

VII. Move Europe away from dependence on appointed bureaucracies towards advisory councils elected by experts.

Addendum III (Please read with knowledge of final addendum)

I. In their encouragement of the sharing of resources and ideas, as well as the development of "third place" facilities, vocational bodies are asked to work with existing unions, professional assemblies, and guilds. If these are not in existence, they are encouraged to attempt to form them while temporarily taking on what roles they would normally play.

II. Groups of representation for workers, independent workers, managers, entrepreneurs, cooperatives, small businesses, medium-sized businesses, and large businesses will play a similar role to vocational assemblies.

III. Strong support for national self-determination. The European Union is not a state of its own; it is a union of states. Its purpose is to foster agreeable relations between member-states while protecting basic democratic norms and improving prosperity for all. It is not meant to be used as a political structure for the proposal of major infrastructural projects. Individual member-states should be able to conduct their own affairs as they wish so long as they do not infringe without consent on the principles of the autonomy and freedom of individuals as well as the affairs of other member-states.

IV. Strong support for minority cultures. In many places across Europe, minority languages and cultures are marginalized, sometimes even actively persecuted. These violations of human rights should not be tolerated; all cultural and linguistic groups should be valued and represented. If possible, they should be given autonomy as to manage their own affairs as according to their cultural norms.

V. Strong support for vocational autonomy. Those in a vocation know it best; at the very least, they should have influence over regulations regarding it.

Addendum IV

I. Strong support for smallholder agriculture. While larger farms may be able to do better in terms of yield, smallholder agriculture serves as the basis for several economies in Europe. A special vocational chamber shall be created to defend smallholder interests and directly aid smallholders, through previously set out methods; discussion with Economic Council, vocational chambers, and other economic groups regarding research into ways to further protect and improve existing smallholder agriculture.

II. Strong support for urban agriculture. In many place, urban agriculture has been neglected or even obstructed, despite its role in community building as well as in providing sustainable produce to food deserts. Discuss, with the European Assembly, the possible creation of laws protecting and potentially encouraging community urban agriculture efforts. Investigate creating a special vocational chamber for those who engage in the activity as to protect their interests.

III. Strong opposition to rogue states. States that make no attempt to follow democratic norms, or in the case of unrest, do not plan to return to them, must be condemned by all Europe. Discuss the creation, with the European Assembly, of a "treaty of solidarity" in which nations collectively agree to take action against states which are defined by the Union to be rogue or totalitarian.

IV. Strong support for a united Commission. The Commission should be one institution, not three entirely separate offices as it currently is. There should be an attempt to unify its aims for the streamlining of governance.

Addendum V

I. Strong support for the modernization of industry and agriculture. The Union should encourage modernization in all sectors of the economy in order to allow for a green and more efficient economy that remains able to maintain full employment.

II. Strong support for the expansion of "organic" agriculture. Forms of agriculture that may be able to expand yields while maintaining soil integrity (ie, agroforestry, permaculture) should be promoted by the Union as a whole, through agreements with existing agricultural institutions and related vocational chambers.

III. Strong support for just transition. Workers who work in sectors and industries that are unsustainable should be involved in the process of transition; they should be guaranteed equivalent jobs in stable industries.

Addendum VI

I. Vocational chambers should be composed of instantly recallable delegates. With an equal delegation from each country, vocational chambers should operate on the principle of consensus. Both of these measures are meant to ensure greater accountability as well as control by ordinary citizens over the internal workings of the European Union, as well as on how budgets are allocated.

II. Vocational chambers should be decentralized; a great deal of power should be given to more local branches. These, which will operate in as democratic a way as possible, as to be defined by agreements to be made with member-states, will carry the primary burden of improving and expanding existing working facilities.

III. Vocational chambers should work with business, government, whether local or national, and government agencies in their attempt to develop unifying policy through discussion.

IV. Vocational chambers should not overrule the policies of the member-states they are operating in.

V. There should be an attempt made to merge as many European bureaucracies with vocational chambers as to increase efficiency and accountability while ensuring that experts remain in control, regardless of the state of a given Commission.

VI. National sovereignty is sacrosanct.

Addendum VII

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.

Addendum VIII

On Vocational Chambers

In creating policy, the vocational chambers shall only do so within bounds set by member-states. Within an individual country, their very structure shall be defined by member-states as well. They may not even have function or power within member-states if said member-state desires.

I have no intention of allowing these chambers to take any form of control over national economies; it is the nation which should have the final say in these things.