Speaker Debate, Jan/Feb 2021
-
This is the European Council's debate for the Council Speaker election of 2021.
Councillor Gökçen of Alkharya, Councillor Michel of Fremet, and Councillor Tilki of Inimicus all stand as candidates for Speaker of the European Council.
The candidates will begin by making opening statements, before then being cross-examined and asked questions by ANY of their colleagues in the European Council. Questions should be asked by Councillors one-at-a-time, and answered by the candidates, before the next Councillor asks their question(s). Naturally, candidates are encourage to debate one another, but they are not permitted to ask each other questions. Once the allotted debate time has been exhausted, the debate will conclude.
The debate shall start NOW and last until 23:59 on February 5th, 2021.
The debate will begin with opening statements from the candidates, who will outline why they are most suitable for the role as Council Speaker. Candidates may make statements as long as they please.
-
"Councillors, friends, colleagues. Thank you. I know I am not the most likely candidate to be standing on this stage. After all, I have been a Councillor for little over 5 months, while some of our colleagues have had track records dating back many, many years. Although novelty is not a substitute for experience, I believe passion and drive are. Over the past few months, you have all witnessed me sponsoring and drafting legislation and motions, engaging actively in debate, while always maintaing civility and order within the chamber.
"I will not tell you why you should not vote for the other candidates on this stage - both are excellent choices, and I enjoy working with both Cllr Gökçen and Cllr Michel on a daily basis. What I am asking you is to vote with your conscience and your heart. A fresh face to lead this Council is exactly what the EU needs after such a glorious, wonderful term with Cllr Firoux at the helm. Let positivity guide this Council, as he once did. I promise you, you will not be disappointed."
Cllr Tilki
-
Thank you so much for your opening statement, Councillor Tilki. I'm glad that we got at least one opening statement. The Council Speaker is definitely one of the busier bureaucratic roles in the European Union, and so engagement, participation and activity in debates and procedures like this are definitely a good measure of what makes a good Council Speaker. For that, Councillor Tilki, you deserve special commendation and appreciation.
We'll now move on to questions from the Councillors. Since I already have the floor, I suppose I'll start with the first round of questions.
Councillors Tilki and Michel, how do plan on supporting a Council atmosphere that is both collegial and a proper, but also allows for comprehensive and thorough debate?
Councillor Gökçen, do you believe that you have a suitable temperament for the role of Council Speaker? In your response, could you please address some of your inflammatory comments which seemed very personal in nature, or your wider criticisms of your Council colleagues at large? For example, when you told a Council member that his bill looked like it was "written that looks fresh out of elementary school", or when you once asked "how are you even a Councillor? Did they just took [sic] you to a literature exam for 2nd graders and, when you barely passed it, they went 'yep, you're good to go'?", or when you commented that it was "quite disturbing that a body of the Union that is responsible for writing laws that are enforced in more than twenty states are filled with unqualified people."
Edward Firoux
Council Speaker and Councillor for Inquista -
"Thank you again, Cllr Firoux, for your excellent question. Indeed, I think what you have asked me is at the very core of what makes a good speaker. The Council is no place for amical banter, inimical insults, or improper slurs and shouts. Without sounding too much like I'm bragging, I think I'm not facetious in saying I have always upheld these standards during my tenure as councillor for Inimicus. I have watched insults being traded back and forth between members; I have seen councillors at each other's throats. On the other hand, I have engaged in what you rightly call "thorough and comprehensive debate", without resorting to any of these actions.
"Inimicians have a reputation for being stubborn and rule-obsessed. In this case, I submit, that isn't necessarily a bad thing. I have demonstrated that I abide by the rules as Councillor, and you can trust that, if elected, I will maintain the Council rules with the required authority. The Council is perhaps the most valuable European institution we have, and we all as colleagues must maintain civility and proper discourse at all times. If members cannot commit to that, I would, as Speaker, have no issue pointing this principle out time and time again. You can trust me."
-
I stand by all my comments that are mentioned and will not back down. If I see incompetence, I call it out. Simple. I, or literally any other European, has any time to waste with useless people in an institution this high. Being nice gets you nowhere- mostly. Honestly, I can't believe I'm getting called out by a man who calls neutral states rogue and insulted the political system of Alkharya over this, the hypocrisy is truly unreal. Even if I don't get the job, I'll still be glad it's gonna be anyone else than this guy.
Councillor of Alkharya - Aylin Gökçen
-
Thank you for your question, Councilor Firoux. We have indeed seen a troubling pattern as of late that leads me to believe that the council has indeed turned down a path of increased antagonism and loss of focus upon the primary focus of this body: to serve the member nations and citizens of the Union.
Mindless bantering over policies doomed to fail or pushing forward senseless motions for pure political gain are a major driver over continued Euroscepticism in my own country and across Europe. By adhering to the rule of the Constitution of the European Union and the practices that have been well-established during this Union's existence we can begin to bring the council into a new era of progress and debate. There is simply too much antagonism across this continent. There are individual instigators, sure, but the Council, if it is to address these crises, should not confront them from a point of passion, but from the point of detachment required to make steadfast and sensible decisions that effectively address ongoing crises.
Councilor Firoux, it is no secret that we are both very much at odds interpretations of the Coup Against Icholasen Act. In that, a lack of deference to the defined roles of the parts of this Union put the sanctity of this Council at risk. It is not the place of the European Council or the Speaker to interpret the law. By dictating to countries directives that can only truly be issued by the ECoJ, the stability of the Council as a forum for open debate ended.
Fremetians are known to be extremely blunt, so I will put this as such: The council has, for too long, allowed the emotions of members run rampant and dictate debate, policy, and votes. This must stop. By curbing the tide of this rising sensationalism, we can set forth on a path towards healing that serves all Europeans.
If a Councilor or memberstate so wishes to dog on another for breaches in EU law, the ECoJ exists for just such an eventuality. We cannot have councilors in these chambers going from one whim to the next, misrepresenting facts and moving from one policy proposal, one debate to the next like some sort of restless bundle of pent up anger. The danger of disturbing the free flow ideas and the general consensus of the Council by giving in to public passions and nationalistic squabbles merely sets this body up for failure, and if this council were to devolve into such a state, I have no doubt that there are many who would have no part in its makeup.
One of the core functions of government is to temper the influence on the passions of the people upon governing, and this, as a core tenant of representative democracy, is something we are failing to achieve.
As speaker, I will seek an open debate that respects all members, calling upon Councilors and memberstates to not simply deliver arguments, but deliver a debate and discussion upon how to take advantage of Europe's full potential.
-
Thank you Councilors for taking your time to be here on this meeting to decide next Speaker of this Council. Given the events that have taken place recently, I believe that the next couple of years will prove critical towards what role this Council decides to play in Europe.
I would also like to thank the Speaker for initiating this debate and wish him well in his break from the European Council. Though I and my people do not see eye to eye to you, it is a shame that we will not have an opportunity to come to a mutual understanding.
Onto my question, yes, I only have one to give. Councilor Michel has made his position sufficiently clear on this particular issue, so the Fremetian Councilor is under no expectation to tell me his thoughts on it, unless he wishes.
This question goes to Councilor Gökçen and Councillor Tilki:
Councillor Tilki, before I had taken office and my predecessor presented the Motion of Neutrality to the Council, I renember you voting against the Motion. As you may be aware, the main line of argument in the Council was that Ruthund violated European Law by establishing diplomatic relations with the UNSR, allegedly circumventing the Condemnation of the Coup in Icholasen. I am not here to interrogate you on you're reasoning for why you voted against this motion, but your vote against it does beg the question weather you believe Speaker's Firoux's assertions on this matter are valid-- assertions which were never made by the ECoJ, even if treated by some Councillors as so.
Councillor Tilki, can I and the peoples of Europe rely on you to respect the institutions of this Union and keep the roles of this Council strictly to the duties laid out in the Constitution?
I extend the same question to you, Councilor Gökçen. Since you are new to European Council, I am curious to hear your thoughts on this matter, as it is one that I feel needs special attention.
Tony Odhinazen
EU Councilor, Ruthund -
Ruthund has not violated any duties of being a neutral state by recognizing or having diplomatic relations with the UNSR. The interpretation of Firoux and the rest of EPA simply does not make any sense and it is obvious that this is political sabotage against the country. Recognizing governments is not a violation of neutrality, never has been, it just can't be. Neutrality, to my knowledge, is about abstention from war and international conflict. Ruthund has not participated in either of these in decades, and, again, recognition isn't endorsement, it's not support either. I support the Ruthenish Neutrality Motion and would vote for it if it were published for a second time.
Councillor of Alkharya - Aylin Gökçen
-
"Cllr Odhinazen, I voted against the Ruthenish Neutrality Motion because EU-backed neutrality is, by law, an exceptional status, requiring exceptional efforts to achieve. Ruthund, as well-intentioned as I'm sure its government is, simply was not a neutral state at the time this motion was proposed. It had, and I made this argument during the Neutrality Motion debate, blatantly violated EU law by its agreement with the USNR, a state which threatens the very existence of our region. I stand by my vote, and by my interpretation.
"The fact that you cannot recognise when a matter contradicts the rules made by the Council might, on the other hand, show that your bid for speakership is on very shaky grounds indeed."
Cllr Hetty Tilki
Empire of Inimicus -
Thank you candidates for participating in this debate, and thank you providing your honest answers. The debate period has officially come to an end.
Edward Firoux
Council Speaker and Councillor for Inquista
