Commission Debate, Jan/Feb 2021
-
Peter Leeson:If your model excludes legitimate for profit businesses regardless of their size not owned by workers that is far left. So I can only conclude you are at least personally an that's a concern for Europe.
-
"I think my answers to this questionnaire speak for themselves. They reflect a pragmatic, centrist, reasonable approach to the EU, which leaves the foundations of our Union, of freedom, democracy, peace, untouched, but also leaves member states free to multilaterally decide on greater projects -- with, notably, Commission mediation and encouragement. My platform stands for more money in member states' pockets, a common fist towards potential destabilising influences, and an effective internal policy. I have nothing further to add about my platform: if candidates wish to attack me with baseless and unreasonable arguments, they can do so."
"Indeed, Mr Le Berre offers a good example of such an argument, claiming that the only way to solve poverty problems in our Union is by stimulus packages from the EU, which I vehemently oppose. Stimulus packages put money in the hands of only certain administrations in the Union, whereas my proposals put money in the hands of all member states -- and it is ultimately member states' prerogatives to improve the average wealth of their citizens. I will say that the stimulus packages proposed by Mr Le Berre are potentially even more problematic than those of a more traditional form: allowing vocational groups of uncertain composition to allocate funds is an exceptionally dangerous precedent and would no doubt lead to never-before-seen issues. I say, no.
"Now, I also have a follow-up question for Mr Leeson, whose fanatical pro-Europeanism is definitely coming out of the woodwork today, and whose traditional sense of vagueness and non-specificity truly shines once more. "Global targets and schemes", but also "local approaches", all fancy terms with no clout. Nothing specific. I have a direct question about his proposed "two Schengens", though -- you say that even under a Schengen zone people would need to have a job before arriving into another member state. How does this make your Schengen 1 - or was it Schengen 2? I get confused - different from member states' systems we already have? Surely movement conditional on having a job offer is not free movement at all? The wastefulness and uselessness of your proposed policies have once more been demonstrated."
[[EDITED 5/2/2021 10:41am: spelling/phrasing]]
-
VV: Mr. Leeson, I would like to remind you about the rules: You aren't allowed, nor is any of the candidates, to retort a retort. Please let's have a fair debate, thank you.
-
Leeson:In response to Cocx Glocalist is not a buzz word its about setting an agreed target or aim then letting nations choose how to reach it within their system. My proposed Schengen rules are no different to how traditional agreements are done except at an EU level so simpler for all.Different naming of the two proposed Schengen schemes might work.
-
Ma'am, sir, may I ask a question - actually, two - of both Mr. Leeson and Mr. Cocx?
-
VV: Mr. Le Berre, you already ansked one question, so there's no right to ask another until you are mentioned on an opening statement and you use your retort to ask.
-
Personally, I believe there should be a sweet balance between the EU and the member states. This applies to all policies. I run my campaign according to this principle. Mutual communication and diplomacy will all unite us firmly. The EU should try not to interrupt on nations' affairs unless they threaten the peace, harmony and unity of the Union. I answered the questionary based on my ideals, but diplomacy and discussion are key and always will be. Every nation-state has its own ideals and their way of doing things. We have to respect that. The lack of respect is why the Union is as heated as it is. We have had several countries on the verge of total demolition that has been ruined due to civil unrest and strong differences of opinion. The EU seems to be in a rush to get all countries to do this, to do that, without giving them room to adapt or have their say. It is ridiculous and does not fit in this professional environment. If I am elected, I will bring equal conditions to all member states and try to solve this problem as much as possible. Thank you.
-
“My stances on the issues that are strong within the European Union are based on my idea that the Member-States should have more freedoms to them when it comes to economics and politics. There are areas where the Union can institute some integration, but I strongly oppose a move to make the EU into one nation, where the member-states are provinces. I do think that the EU should negotiate on the matter of large-scale projects with-its members, but it must be the sole contributor to those projects for not every government can afford the expense to provide the needed money for said projects”
“Immigration is something that I think should be resolved by the member-state when related to non-EU immigrants, while travel within the should be easier depending the situation occurring within a nation. If a member-state feels that it is not safe for EU immigrants not be allowed at the moment, then that is their decision but they should discriminate just because of who they are. For non-EU immigrants, there should be some measures to ensure that they are able to work in the EU.”
“A Schengen area over the EU is something that I support as it ensures that there is no discrimination on EU immigrants. However, I do think that it should allow member-states to institute an emergency clause that will ensure that in case of situations of emergency, member-states can be able to suspend all immigrants into their country. My reasoning for supporting the Schengen Area is that it is beneficial to the expansion of business, which would then boost the economy of the member-states of the EU.”
“I do have a question for my opponent for the Foreign Affairs Position, what exactly is his position or standing towards the Schengen Area?”
-
VV: Candidates, the time to comment on the first part of the questionaire's answers has finished. We are now moving to the 2nd part of the questionaire's answers' debate, concerning the European Council Bills and the European Commission. These are the answers:
Apart from this answers, you have all rated the European Commission as a whole, the Premier Commissioner, Angela Merkel; the Internal Affairs Commissioner, Jean-Claude Juncker and the Foreign Affairs Commissioner, Antoni Reynels, along with the current Speaker of the European Council, Edward Firoux.
- Concerning Edward Firoux, Ms. Birdane has given him a 3; Mr. Le Berre a 4; Mr. Winston a 6; Mr. Reagan a 7; Mr. Am Lind an 8 and finally, Mr. Cocx and Mr. Leeson both have given him a 9 over 10. That means the Speaker's average rating is a 6.57 over 10.
- Regarding the European Commission as a whole, both Ms. Birdane and Mr. Le Berre have rated it with a 5; Mr. Cocx and Mr. Reagan with a 6; Mr. Winston with a 7 and both Mr. Am Lind and Mr. Leeson have rated it with an 8 over 10. That makes the European Commission's average mark be a 6.43 over 10.
- About Angela Merkel, Mr. Coxc has given her a 1; Mr. Winston a 4; Mr. Le Berre and Mr. Reagan both have given her a 5; Ms. Birdane a 6 and finally, both Mr. Am Lind and Mr. Leeson have given her a 7 over 10. That means her average note is a 5 over 10.
- Regarding Jean-Claude Juncker, both Ms. Birdane and Mr. Le Berre have rated him with a 4; Mr. Cocx with a 6; Mr. Winston, Mr. Reagan and Mr. Am Lind have rated him with an 8 and finally, Mr. Leeson has rated the Internal Affairs Commissioner with a 10 over 10. That means Juncker's average note is a 6.86 over 10.
- Finally, concerning Antoni Reynels, Mr. Cocx has given him a 3; Ms. Birdane a 5; Mr. Le Berre a 6; Mr. Leeson and Mr. Reagan a 7 and finally, both Mr. Winston and Mr. Mitchell have given him a 9 over 10. That means, Reynels' average rating is a 6.57 over 10.
This makes the Internal Affairs Commissioner the best rated by candidates, while the Premier Commissioner has been the worst Commissioner, according to these candidates. SG: Candidates now have 2 minutes (OOC: 300 words) to give a speech about why their stance on the issues is the best. Candidates can also ask one other candidate a question about their answers to the questions, but candidates are not obligated to respond. If I believe that an important question was avoided by a candidate, however, I might pick them up on it in the next round where I will be asking individual questions. Candidates are free to debate freely, but not going over 1 minute (OOC: 150 words) per statement. I'd would like to remember you cannot retort a retort.
OCC: You have until tomorrow at 22:30 GMT
-
Leeson:I would like to the outgoing commission for their great work if feel from this key issues are EACA and Neurodivergent and Disability Act. I am obviously for the NDA and the reason is simple its about values, it shows that we support disability rights and neurodivergent rights in Europe. Why should these people have any less rights to exist as they are , than the LGBT community? Maybe some things could be improved but scrapping is not the answer.
On EACA I agree its not perfect but that does not mean we just scrap it Europe needs democracy. Its just a question of how?
Now I feel it should be reformed or replaced to allow for multiple councillours per nation but still all nations equal and how we elect or select councillors changed , this should be de decided by the member states with the act reformed or replaced to reflect that. Governments should be allowed to appoint at least 1 councillour and choose how they elect the others either by what public voting system or let parliament elect them.I feel this is the way forward.I think Maritime standards are a key issue, just look at the Reitzmag situation as to why , we had no act they built islands and technically it was legal but it was wrong as it affected all the neighbours of Reitzmag. This is all because the EU didn't have defined limits we need an act to define can or cannot be done in international waters and EEZ's and how far territorial waters and EEZ's extend to once and for all end the threat of conflict over water territory.
Finally I would like to ask all opposed to EACA and NDA what would you propose in their place to protect democracy and equality for all?
-
When looking at these many acts, we must keep in mind the context they were proposed in, as well as their content. Very few of them were proposed with good motives and with good content; with many, it is one or the other, if not lacking both entirely.
However, I do agree that there must be discussion and action on many of the issues that these acts do bring. But again, the legislation proposed to fix these problems and many others is highly suspect.
Solutions to these issues must take into account the differences between member-states, as well as the the interests and groups that may be affected. They cannot take on a one-size fits all approach. My plan would be, again, to hold discussion with all pertinent groups regarding these issues as to reach a final solution that is acceptable to all, with, perhaps, specialization for individual nations if needed.
I have a number of questions for Mr. Leeson. First, to what extent do you recognize differing cultures and material conditions in member-states? Are you willing to adjust or change "glocalist" goals and timelines in recognition of a minority that may have extreme differences in these two areas? And finally, somewhat unrelated, are you willing to tolerate the presence of their cultures in European politics? For example, do you believe that it is dangerous for a politician who supports state-atheism in their own country to be elected to a high position in the European Union if their nation has historically been state-atheist?
Mr. Leeson, it must be made clear that the EACA does not protect democracy. Under it, councillors for the most part continue to agree with those in power as they did before; however, in the case that they refuse or are unable to represent their nations, they can no longer be recalled as easily - in order to do so, nations must commit to holding costly elections. In essence, there is little change in what democracy there is; at the same time, accountability is decreased. Adding more councillors will not solve this issue; on the other hand, the other reforms you propose are near equivalent to total repeal.
Secondly, the NDA has led to economic collapse and violence. The act at the very least must be reformed, if not replaced entirely with an alternative that would not have such horrifying effects.
-
Leeson:In response to Mr Berre of course we must recognise different cultures but if those cultures clash with religious rights, womens rights, animal rights , human rights and neurodivergent and disability rights they must find a way to include those in their laws. In that case the right of the minorities or groups human rights override the cultural views. However where possible culture should be considered and understood different solutions may be needed. I would work with states and te IAC on issues such as these to find the best balance between their cultures and responsibility towards human rights or EU common goals such as environment protection. I don't think we can just abolish human rights to protect culture which some proposed approaches risk a good example of this is we had to adapt laws in the northern duchies to allow gay marriage and bring marriage to the interduchy level.
-
Firstly, The Elected and Accountable Council Act is nothing but forced re-education from the EU telling member states to re-adjust their democracy, values which they've upheld for centuries. It is ridiculous, possibly against the constitution of the European Union itself and has caused conflict in my homeland. I sincerely applaud the efforts of Councillor Gökçen regarding the repeal of this act.
I do not support the Maritime Standards act because if you cannot defend your waters, you cannot place a claim. It's that simple.
I seem to be one of two candidates here for the legalization of cannabis across the EU, so I'll explain my stance there as well: If we have cigarettes and alcohol legal, then I do not see any reason for cannabis to be legalized across the EU. Granted, again, I've answered the questionnaire with my opinions in mind, but obviously, I will not have my term based on my opinions only. But I genuinely do not see a reason why cannabis wouldn't be legalized, really.
There are many acts where I support their existence and their general message, but I do not support their contents. The European Neurodivergent and Disability Rights Act, for instance. While I know that it genuinely comes from a good place, it is not studied enough and has resulted in instability in some countries, particularly Duxburian Union, which had protests and strikes in cities which it did not have in thousands of years. It desperately needs a revamp.
-
"I would particularly like to address the outgoing Commission in this statement, as I think my stances on other issues are well documented and explained. Angela Merkel, pleasant though I'm sure she is, has failed the peoples of Europe completely. She had made true on literally zero of her pre-election promises. We have heard nothing, not a single word, from her since her victory speech last August. This is worse than electing a bad yet active candidate. A Premier Commissioner who does not act and avoids any scrutiny and criticism, is far, far worse than a Premier Commissioner who blatantly acts in error. A Premier must be visible. A Cocx Premiership will be visible and approachable.
"As for Mr Leeson's vague and strange question, answering this requires accepting that the EACA promotes democracy and equality and is a universally good move. This I do not agree with in the slightest. The European Council is a body that represents, uniquely, national governments. And thus, it is up to national governments that ought to determine what shape that representation takes. The Council is not, and was never intended to be, the popular representation of European voters. Thus, the EACA is a completely undesirable and restrictive piece of legislation."
-
“The Union should be always looking to expand its foreign relations past its own borders, while representing the interests of all the member-states that are part of it. We have strong relations with the UK and other regions that should be continued as well as strengthened. I am against any forum of isolation as it would not be something that the European Union can afford to implement under the times that we live in as a community of nations. Isolation bring nothing but recession and rollbacks of progress in nations.”
“The Union should continue to be a confederation that allows the member-states to make their won choice of policy. The Green New Deal, made with the best intentions, is something that I do not support for some member-states will be deeply affected in a negative light. Many of the acts that the European Council has passed like the Martine Standard Acts is something that I support but believe needs serious modifications as it did provide guidelines or exceptions for nations that depend on manners that it bans. This issue was seen from my opponent’s nation, the DU, where a community is essentially on the verge of economic ruin and the blame solely lies on the Council for not providing them an exception or ability to modify to the act. I believe that the Council should always be looking to allowing its members to certain rights that give them the liberty that they deserve.”
“The current Commission that we have at the moment tried to resolve the issues occurring but had absolutely dropped the ball with out any questions to it. Juncker did what he could to resolve the issues in Eastern Haane but unfortunately it failed as the tensions rose to a new level from outside actions.”
-
SG: Candidates, we are now moving to part 3 of your stance in some questions. Now, we will see what you and your opponents have answered. The answers from left to right are from Mr. Cocx, Mr. Le Berre, Mr. Leeson, Ms. Birdane, Mr. Winston, Mr. Reagan and Mr. Am Lind. These are the answers:
We need to make 2 comments on 2 different answers from Mr. Winston. When in the question "Who, in your own opinion, made everything worse in Eastern Haane during the war?", he answered "All of them". This means Mr. Winston considers the Eastern Haaneans, the European Union, the Reitzmic Soldiers and the 4 Assembled Powers as the ones that made everything word in the mentioned conflict.
The same answer also applies for the question "What's your opinion on the Caspian Crisis?", in which answer he means that it's both Reitzmag and the Caspian Countries' fault. With that said, candidates now have 2 minutes (OOC: 300 words) to give a speech about why their stance on the issues is the best. Candidates can also ask one other candidate a question about their answers to the questions, but candidates are not obligated to respond. If I believe that an important question was avoided by a candidate, however, I might pick them up on it in the next round where I will be asking individual questions. Candidates are free to debate freely, but not going over 1 minute (OOC: 150 words) per statement.
OCC: You have until tomorrow at 22:50 GMT to answer
-
Leeson:It will come as no surprise here I back the Duchies in the Caspian crises and its not just because I am Duchian. A state can't expect to go rogue and build islands well outside of what any reasonable nation would consider its territorial waters and even EEZ's an expect other nations to be happy. I am happy with the response from most commissioner candidates here and the EU in its handling of the crises. It came down in favour of common sense and finding a solution that works for the whole Caspian in setting up a joint Caspian Authority and defining boundaries between nations and rights of what one can do where.
The EU must continue to discourage rogue actions and going alone from states on issues of importance otherwise you get the mess we had in the Caspian or far worse Eastern Haahne where many innocent people died and Reitzmag actions undermined trust in all powers going there to help. They rushed in when they should have worked with nations in a coordinated manner and were quite rightly condemned for it. I'm sure intentions were noble but they didn't help.
Now on to issues of gay marriage and drugs I don't think this is an areas for the EU, this should be decided at national level and in the Duchies at Duchy level to be specific. I think overreach in these areas is causing tensions and issues with nations that shouldn't exist. I also believe in Copala City independence should be decided by the Copalans its their city after all if they want it I support it if not then I don't but there's a simple way to solve it, a referendum! On social issues that aren't human rights it should be simple let countries decide!
-
My answers to this questionnaire may seem contradictory. I have continuously campaigned in favor of the European Assembly; the rights of member-states, for coordination. Yet according to this questionnaire, I support none. This is false. Yes, I do not support the Assembly in its current form; however, for symbolic reasons, I do not want it to be abolished - I wish for it to become a Council-like successor to the current Council. If it is better, then I am perfectly content in abolishing the Assembly and applying my reforms to the Council itself.
As for gay marriage, I support it; however, I am very willing to allow for alternatives - civil unions, for example - in the case that a member-state objects to it.
Regarding straits: I only oppose the implementation of taxes when they take place unilaterally in regions which would have been agreed to have been shared maritime space, or the territory of another country.
Natural disasters - yes, there should be a fund to prepare - but the member-states, rather than the Union, should decide its structure.
Finally, turning to Eastern Haane - I believe that everyone here has forgotten entirely about the pure psychosis of Josephine Areai. The woman's insanity led to the deaths of tens of thousands; had she been even slightly more stable, the wars there would not have been so severe.
-
First, I want to note that "Lind" is the tribal part of my name and Mitchell is my actual surname. "Am" is not even part of a name, it means "of", as in "of the House of Lind".
The reason I don't have an opinion on a Shengen Area is that it isn't an actual foreign affairs issue. The FA Commissioner covers foreign affairs between the EU and other regions, not foreign affairs between EU memberstates - these are really internal affairs of the EU for the IA Commissioner to handle. The EU Constitution and the work of all past FA Commissioners support this view. My body of work would be outside the region, which isn't at all relevant to a Shengen Area inside the region. Likewise, I have many opinions on various pieces of Council legislation that are just opinions, not policy topics. It's not my job to act on any of them.
Rather than talk vaguely about strengthening relations with other regions and avoiding isolation, I have outlined very specific things in my platform that I'm able to do in those regards. I also believe in establishing new relationships, and have the experience in my background to do so. Anyone can accept a new embassy from any region that comes offering, but it takes someone with real experience to ensure that region is a good match for the globally unique way our region operates. We also have enemies in the world, enemies who could take advantage of Reagan's inexperience on the international stage and try to subvert our institutions.
I leave the mic with a question set for my opponent, an easy one an FA Commissioner definitely needs to know the answer to - Which regions have tried to attack us in the past and which remain hostile to us? And which regions would come to our defense militarily in the event of a raid?
-
"I would echo Mr Mitchell's statement that many of these questions are simply not part of the Premier's prerogative to decide. And, perhaps, I feel this even more strongly as I am determined to fight for member states' rights to decide their own interests. Take same-sex marriage. When I served as provincial administrator in Inimicus I was responsible for the full legalisation of same-sex unions and same-sex adoptions, during a time when Pride marches were facing police action and pro-LGBTQI protestors faced rubber bullets on the streets of the Inimician capital. Some of my opponents even decried me as selfish, given that I took advantage of my province's legalisation of same-sex marriage myself. However, I would still not favour the Union-wide legalisation of gay unions.
"As for the Eastern Haanean and Caspian crises, Mr Winston's answers are frankly astounding, even for a Reitzmic subject. I know he is not my opponent in this race, but I simply want to have it said that the Four Assembled Powers would not have had to intervene if not for Reitzmag's blatantly illegal and criminal actions in Eastern Haane -- moreover, Reitzmag's actions in the Caspian directly led to the crisis we saw, and no one else's did. No one else in the region covertly built islands in the middle of international waters only to avoid scrutiny when asked about their purpose. I can't even remember the list of possible reasons we were all given for these islands - from tourism, to fishing, to ACT towers, to military bases. The entire episode is a shining example of rogue behaviour. A Cocx Premiership will be tough on rogue states, and tough on states engaged in rogue actions. This should never have been allowed to happen.
"I will direct my question to Mr Leeson, with whom I oddly find myself in agreement on same-sex marriage and drug legalisation, but whose statement that social issues should be member states' rights to decide flat-out contradicts just about everything he has proclaimed in this debate so far. Isn't the Neurodivergent Act a shining example of a set of EU-wide social policy rules? Why do you support the Act, but not the principle of member states' rights? Your platform is as filled with holes as an Inimician cheese."
The Kingdom of Spain
