Amendment to the European Commission (Sanctioning Powers) Act
-
Debate on this begins NOW and ends 29 March 2021 at 23h30 GMT.
Charles Michel
Council Speaker and Councilor for Fremet -
Thank you Premier Commissioner for bringing this topic to the Council, because I was really expecting to have a proper debate on the power boundaries the European Commission has at the moment and will always have. Before I get into the whole matter, I need to clarify something: I'm supportive of this act at the moment, and I think it would be useful to apply it to some member states that recently have taken very bad choices.
But, this doesn't change the main point I'm going to explain right now. The European Commission, and it is very important to remark the word 'European', it's the governing organism of the European Union. I think we all know how it works: European Union member states deliver a vote for the candidates running for 3 different positions, Premier Commissioner, Internal Affairs Commissioner and Foreign Affairs Commissioner. But non-European Union member states like the Holy See, Copala City or the Union of Nicoleizian Soviet Republics, if it can be recognised as a member state, don't deliver a vote. This fact actually has a very important role on where the European Commission can reach within its power boundaries.
And now, I'm going back to the word 'European', which literally means "from Europe". If the Premier Commissioner considers the European Commission and the EU laws should apply to non-member states, then they should be allowed to vote in our elections aswell, to take part in the European Union's development and law making process. That's why, Mr. Cocx, this amendment cannot pass, because the European Commission hasn't got the power, nor the competences to apply European Union's acts to non-member states. And if we were going to do that, we would set a very bad precedent for the future, something I'm not up for.
Mr. Cocx, this is not a vote against your platform or this act, nor it is against you. This is a vote against trespassing the European Commission's power boundaries. The UNSR should be gone, peacefully, but should be gone; and this will just make them angry, something we shouldn't do, as they have been calm during the past months, we haven't got news nor threads from them, and I'd rather have them as they are now than angry. Thank you.
Donald Tusk
Deputy Speaker and Councillor for Spain -
"Cllr Tusk, I thank you for contributing to this debate with your ever-thorough, well thought-out opinion. I agree that this Act has caused significant argument about the power of the Commission, which, I agree with you, should never trump the power of the Council or of Member States. It is with this in mind that I ran for Premier Commissioner on an explicit platform of standing up for member states' rights. Adhering to national sovereignty, and cutting down on areas of useless European interference into member states' affairs, is at the very centre of my beliefs.
"What is also at the very centre of my beliefs, however -- and what was possibly the most important point of my campaign -- is standing up to regimes that threaten the very fibre of our continental values. Regimes which have come about by force, by demagoguery, by revolution, or all three. What is a better, or should I say, sadder example of such a regime than the USNR? A state which has completely withdrawn from the democratic and legitimate decision-making process in Europe, a state in possession of a sizable nuclear arsenal, yet which does not engage in dialogue with any of us. A regime which, I agree with you, must fall.
"In a wider sense, what use is a united European block if we can only be united against each other, or against one of us? A Europe United should also be a Europe united against outside influences. And no, this does not mean that the Commission's mandate, or European law, extends beyond member states -- what this Act does, and where I am confident any European Justice would agree with me, is compel European Union states to take action against other states. There is no way, no way at all, that this Act forces non-member states to take any legal action, Mr Tusk, you must understand.
"I further want to address these so-called 'power boundaries' of the Commission of which you speak. I agreed, and not reluctantly, to significant amendments to this Act when it was first passed. As a matter of fact, I had hoped for such amendments on first proposing it, as I believe an Act such as this would not work unless the Council acted constructively, in good faith - which I am pleased to say it has. Consequently, it is the Council -- not the Commission -- which has the final say in whether Sanctions are ever adopted against states. A clear example of this mechanism at work is the significant criticism I received from Councillors when proposing the USNR Sanction Motion to them last week. This act is not just empowering the European Commission, Mr Tusk -- it is empowering the Council."
Premier Commissioner Dr Walter Cocx
-
The whole act seems good to me, i dont really know what tusk is complaining about, as mister cocx said this act empowers the council and not the commission, also i would like to remark that you use the word "European" as a synonym of a Member state of the EU but you need to remember that European refers to any thing that belongs to the European Continent and yes that includes places like the UNSR, Dromund Kaas and Neo Venetia, although there is a thing that bothers me
How are non EU member states sanctioned going to apeal on an institution that has no authority on their state? The ECoJ is the highest judicial institution within the EU member states but has no authority out side of them, how is this going to work?The Guy (i forgot his name lol)
Interim Councillor for Mennrimiak -
As may surprise many of my fellow Councillors, I am entirely apathetic towards this act. Yes, I am opposed to the further sanctioning of the UNSR out of concern for the remaining liberties, as well as the general wellbeing of the Nicoleizian people; however, even if this is the justification of this amendment, I feel as though it is a necessity to view all legislation in a vacuum - that is, by their potential effects rather than the intention of their passage.
You can, I'm sure, from that easily deduce that I do not believe that this act will have particularly much of an effect. There already exists the condemnation, through which the Council may impose sanctions, as it already has on the UNSR. This new method of sanctioning is perfectly fine; it serves to be simply an equivalent process to the Condemnation.
Yes, nations will push forward another sanction motion again with this new provision rather than simply amending the existing Condemnation, which, I may remind the chamber, bans military trade, as well as the trade of luxury goods, with the UNSR; but it would happen anyways, so I doubt it matters particularly much.
I plan to abstain on the passage of this act, and that is final.
Anja Mauer
Councillor for the Federation of Istkalen -
Mr. Cocx, I'm not complaining about the act and the Council role on it, that area has already been commented in this room and in fact, I'm pretty satisfied with the role the European Council has on it, but the so called 'power boundaries' refer to the range of countries these laws can reach. Non-European Union member states cannot be under the rule of the European Commission, nor under the rule of the Council, and that's where I do agree with the Councillor for Mennrimiak, who has explained my thoughts really well: 'How are non EU member states sanctioned going to apeal on an institution that has no authority on their state? The ECoJ is the highest judicial institution within the EU member states but has no authority out side of them, how is this going to work?' This question already has a backing Constitutional article, because Article IV, Section I, Article I says: 'I. The European Court of Justice is the supreme judicial authority of and in the European Union.'
Also Mr. Cocx, we already have a condemnation, which is the best thing we could have done in this Council. Since then, the Union of Nicoleizian Soviet Republics has been quiet, they haven't given us any problem since then and I'm very happy about that. So please, and I summon the Council to do the same, let's stop a new crisis in the EU by not allowing this amendment to pass.
Donald Tusk
Deputy Speaker and Councillor for Spain -
Debate on this amendment has ended. As no changes have been proposed, we will move to the final vote.
Final voting begins NOW and ends 2 April 2021 at 12h00 GMT.
On behalf of the Kingdom of Fremet, I vote FOR the amendment.
Charles Michel
Council Speaker and Councilor for the Kingdom of Fremet -
On behalf of the Kingdom of Spain, I vote AGAINST the amendment.
Donald Tusk
Deputy Speaker and Councillor for Spain -
On behalf of the Kingdom of Reitzmag, I vote AGAINST the amendment.
Yuridiana Yahontov
Interim Deputy Councilor, Kingdom of Reitzmag -
The Empire of Inimicus votes FOR this Amendment.
Nicholas Benfield
-
On behalf of United Duchies I vote for this ammendment
Skyee Hook, Deputy Councillor for United Duchies -
The Kingdom of Montenbourg votes FOR this Amendment.
Emma Granger
Councillor for Montenbourg -
The Federation of Istkalen ABSTAINS on this amendment.
Anja Mauer
Councillor for the Federation of Istkalen -
With 4 votes FOR, 2 votes AGAINST, and 1 ABSTENTION, the Amendment to the European Commission (Sanctioning Powers) Act has PASSED.
Charles Michel
Council Speaker and Councilor for the Kingdom of Fremet
The Kingdom of Spain
