Commission Debate, Jan/Feb 2021
-
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."
-
Mr Leeson:I support the NDA because the NDA is a civil rights act. Gay marriage has alternatives I say that as a gay man myself we can allow for civil unions for those who believe marriage is one man and one woman. However disability rights is about equality and human rights and dignity for disabled and neurodivergent people which should be non-negotiable as much as having blacks and asians be treated as equal. In short the NDA is civil rights act as oppose to a social issues act , because it ensures protection for a vulnerable group and that all societies including those who have no other option. To see disability rights as a social issue rather than civil rights is quite frankly a privilege only an neurotypical or non-disabled person can have I say this as friends of the Roscoes who have 2 fantastic autistic sons, why is their equality seen as optional?
-
Taking advantage of this period of free debate, I would like to ask Dr. Cocx this question: at what point is the Union responsible for intervening in favor of the rights of individuals? Let us take the example of interracial marriage or union. Our Union has had at least one state in which it was widely condemned and banned In such situations, does it become the responsibility of the EU to intervene?
-
VV: Candidates, we are now moving to the Questions round. You have 2 minutes per question. (OOC: 300 words but you MUST separate these with 3 dashes.) You may continue to debate and call people out on erroneous claims with a 1 minute (OOC: 150 word) statement. Our fact checkers will be keeping track of everything you say, just in case you lie, so be careful!
Additionally, Mr. Cocx has exceeded the time limit, which means he will just get a minute and 30 seconds (OCC: 222 words) to answer each question. Mr. Mitchell, you also exceeded the time limit, which means you'll just get a minute and 50 seconds (OCC: 283 words) to answer each question.
Cocx:
- You have answered you think the European Union should intervene in the UNSR. How would that intervention work? How is the European Union dealing with countries not wishing to intevene? What will we do to avoid any nuke launch from the UNSR?
- You have also answered you support Copala City independence. Why do you?
Le Berre:
- You have been very neutral when it came to 1-10 scale questions, preferring to answer by saying "Leave it to member states". Why didn't you want to take a side on many of the questions?
- In the questionaire, you have said the European Union doesn't need a Green Deal. Could you tell us why the EU doesn't need it? What would you do with it if you were elected?
Leeson:
- You have shown support towards the European Maritime Standarts Act, an opposed view from your EPA counterparts. Why do you support this act? Is there something of the original proposal you don't like?
- You have also answered that the infrastructure projects shouldn't be agreed on a bi or trilateral basis. What is your stance on agreeing this kind of projects then?
Birdane:
- You have also answered that the infrastructure projects shouldn't be agreed on a bi or trilateral basis. What is your stance on agreeing this kind of projects then?
- Some countries, like Spain for example, are affected by drug trafficking routes, for example. Do you think the legalization of cannabis across the EU would make this issue come to a stop? What would happen with the people that get some money from that to feed their families?
Winston:
- You were the one that pushed forward the Unified Curriculum for European Schools' idea. Why are you against it now? What has changed since 4 months ago to make you change your stance on this topic?
- You are the only who thinks the firing of Elon Musk was not needed. Could you explain us why do you consider it wasn't needed?
Reagan:
- You are the only candidate that proposed the European Space Agency's budget to decrease. Why would you like it to go down? Is it related with Mr. Musk's firing?
- You support the Condemnation of the Coup in Inquista. Do you then consider that what happened in Inquista was a coup?
Mitchell:
- You are not supportive of the European Union Anti-Racism plan. Why do you think we doesn't need an anti-racism plan? Is racism an important matter in your opinion?
- You are the only candidate along with Mr. Leeson who supports the possible entrance of the Holy See into the European Union. What would be the conditions for the Holy See entrance in the Union?
OCC: You have 26h to answer (until 20 GMT, 9th February 2021)
-
The sovereignty of member-states must always be first, unless if said sovereignty infringes upon the dignity and equality of individuals. The questions which I did not take a side on, in my question, regarded responsibilities that had little if anything to do with the protection of dignity and equality; thus, they are better left to member-states, to manage collectively if they concern all, and to individual ones if they concern only one. However, I do support the inclusion of other interests in these matters, for the most part - vocations and cultures, for example - as to ensure that not a single interest is passed over in the name of some mercurial justice.
The various "Green Deals" that have been proposed have either been far too centralizing or little more than virtue-signaling. The issues of climate change and environmental degradation do have to be addressed; but they must be addressed cooperatively and on the basis of consensus, with all nations and all groups affected, from subsistence farmers to miners, included in discussing and finding a just solution to an issue - a solution which must ensure a just transition, in which all remain employed in stable and growing industries, their wishes, their dignity, respected; a solution which must take into account different views toward conservation, as well as existing cultures, material conditions, and general ways of life. At the same time, this address should not focus on the usage of Union resources as to rectify the issue; as with all my proposals, they should emphasize local and national efforts, as well as existing structures. This is not a Green Deal; perhaps it would be better described as a "Green Course."
-
Leeson: I support the act because we need standards and the Caspian Crisis has only shown what happens when we don't have them. A state will go rogue and create islands causing a crisis. If theres one thing I don't like its the opposition to allowing nations to decide taxes in their own waters but other than that I think the idea of standardising to a standard EEZ and territorial water minimum is a sound idea. I believe unless we have a strong maritime standards act we will continue to have problems and conflict in the EU over waters , the certainty would be good for trade and for all countries big and small.
While I do believe there is a place to bi and tri-lateral projects projects like Eurorail, regional grids , power and gas infrastructure do better the bigger they are that is why EU led innitiatives on super-grids , Eurorail and projects like it or on things like river management schemes is important by working together we can make bigger infrastrucure projects far more efficient and standardised. For example we can have one 5g standard instead of many incompatible ones we can also achieve savings through economies of scale for bigger projects.
-
"With your permission, Vicente, I'll first answer the question Mr Le Berre posed to me before you asked us all our questions. Mr Le Berre, we have a gold standard of human rights in this Union: the UDoHR. Now, it is not the prerogative of the Premier, currently, to announce sanctions or measures against states, it is the Council's, but I would pose that contravention of the UDoHR is the one true measure of rogueness and villainy. I know this answer may not satisfy you, given your past history in your own country, but I am obliged to my opinion."
"Now, as for the other questions. It's true, I want the EU to intervene in the USNR. I want the EU to be tough on rogue states and rogue regimes. What individual member states decide to do is, of course, up to them. But an intervention must, in my opinion, consist first and foremostly of humanitarian aid, of a toppling of the USNR regime, and the restoration of the true Nicolezian state. My answer would be the same if you asked me about Eastern Haane or Neo-Venetia: these dangers must be contained. In Inimicus, we know all too well what a rogue regime can cause -- we experienced it ourselves. I wish this on no other people in this Union."
"I support Copala City independence for purely practical reasons. It is clear to me that the current situation is untenable. Clearly, the citizens of Copala City have their own identity, separate from that of Reitzmag. The best course for them to take is, of course, up to them, but it is my belief that they would be best served by independence - they cannot be the lackeys of the Reitzmic government any longer, nor can they integrate fully into Reitzmic life. They will have to make that choice, soon."
-
It should be agreed upon any country that is affected by it. Here's an example: Juncker hasn't asked two or three Caspian countries on their opinion on man-made Reitzmic islands; he made a summit where any Caspian country could express their opinion on the islands. It should be the same for any project that the EU participates in.
I definitely believe that legalization will put relief on illegal drug trafficking, but correct me if I'm wrong, isn't drug trafficking is mostly done with opiates and cocaine, not marijuana? I obviously have plans to put drug trafficking regarding hard drugs down. As for the second question there, legalization would create more jobs and stimulate the economy even more, so yes, it does have the chance to feed more families.
-
My opinion on decreasing the budget of the ESA is based on the idea that I do not think that space exploration should not be a focus of the European Union. The Union still has made issues that it needs to fully address down on the ground. These issues like the question of Euro Federalism and ideological disputes have made the EU an area of disunity and hatred towards each other. Plus Not every member-state in the EU supports the idea of space exploration from the EU and are not in favor of their money being used for that purpose. It has nothing to do with the firing of former director Musk.
I support the condemnation of the Coup because I felt that the nature of the coup was that it had not been one supporting the ideas of democracy and freedom. A coup is where the leaders of a fight do not wish to hear the issues of the people, the opposite of that is a Revolution where the people rise up to have a voice in general in the government.
-
In all honesty, I don't support an anti-"racism" plan because I don't fundamentally understand what "racism" is or what "races" are or why they need to be opposed. English is not my first language and we have no word for this concept in High Aelirian. In my limited understanding, it has something to do with judging people based on their skin complexion, which doesn't make a shred of sense to a Duxburian. Having lighter or darker skin than another person is totally irrelevant for judging anything about what they do, so I'm at a loss for why anyone would do that or why the European Union would need to tell anyone what is already plainly obvious. Likewise, it's non-sensical that people would actually be allied together by their skin complexion...they are allied together by what they do. Bankers are an alliance, fisherpeople are an alliance. Nobody cares what they look like.
I always support increasing the number of EU memberstates, although the Holy See would need to be found to possess the qualities of a true state in order to be admitted. I don't actually know how close it is to a true state, as I have spent much of my career abroad and am not terribly familiar with the details of how it is administered. For entities that fall short, but still possess some characteristics of a state, there is a case to be made for the possibility of some kind of symbolic membership at least. Although, that would be something for the Council to discuss, not an FA Commissioner.
The Kingdom of Spain