Motion for the Impeachment of Premier Commissioner Walter Cocx
-
Preamble
A motion to impeach Premier Commissioner Walter Cocx on the charge of gross negligence.
Pertinent Evidence for the Gross Negligence of Commissioner Cocx
-
On the 19th of March, 2021, Premier Commissioner Walter Cocx proposed a sanction motion against the Union of Nicoleizian Socialist Republics, in contradiction with the European Commission (Sanctioning Powers) Act. Said sanction motion would directly endanger the lives of citizens of member-states of the European Union; it would later be revised as to prevent this.
-
On the 25th of March, 2021, Premier Commissioner Walter Cocx presented said illegal sanction motion to the Council without the express approval of any other Commissioner, in contradiction with the European Commission (Sanctioning Powers) Act, which demands that the Commission approve sanction motions unanimously.
-
On the 6th of April, 2021, Premier Commissioner Walter Cocx presented the illegal sanction motion to the Council again, without any form of debate or re-approval. While in theory legal, the negotiations and approval took place before the motion was legal, thus placing the sanctions into legal jeopardy. Previous objections from the presentation of the sanction motion continue to stand.
-
On the 21st of April, 2021, Premier Commissioner Cocx would again propose a Sanction Motion, now against the already-defunct Federation of Istkalen, to the Commission. No Commissioner would ever comment on the legislation or give their approval of it; it was then presented to the European Council, in violation of the European Commission (Sanctioning Powers) Act, which demands that the Commission approves sanction motions unanimously.
Regardless of one's opinions on the UNSR or Istkalen, Premier Commissioner Cocx has clearly acted in negligence, possibly intentional. He has refused to carry out his duties in a legal way; he has instead acted recklessly and without respect for laws that he himself wrote. He has violated it a number of times as to push forwards his own agenda, going as far as to attempt to endanger the lives of citizens of member-states of this Union in what would likely have amounted to a genocidal act, although he was forced to stop in these machinations by Commissioner Birdane, who would regardless never give her explicit approval of any motion Commissioner Cocx ever proposed. Of importance are his previous comments regarding the UNSR, in which he proposed launching an armed invasion of the state - which would likely result in a nuclear exchange that could very well result in the deaths of a large sector of the European population, in addition to infrastructure. While these do not fall into the context of this motion for impeachment, they give insight into his character and aims.
Such a person cannot and should not be allowed to occupy the office of Premier Commissioner, for they challenge the principle of law and the right to life for all - principles that this Union has attempted to uphold for the entirety of its existence.
Gertrude Echteran
Councillor for Istkalen -
-
Debate on this starts NOW and ends 4 May 2021 at 12h00 GMT.
I have allotted additional time for debate given the seriousness of this motion and the charges presented.
Charles Michel
Council Speaker and Councilor for Fremet -
"I don't know what grudge Cllr Echteran has against Premier Cocx, or indeed against any Inimician, but this motion is clearly out of bounds and serves no purpose other than seeming vengeance against Premier Cocx for issuing a sanction motion against Istkalen. I further hold that discussing Premier Cocx's impeachment cannot be properly done at the same time as the Istkalen government's petitioning the European Court of Justice on exactly the same matters. Istkalen must decide what measure it thinks appropriate, and it clearly cannot be both simultaneously.
"That said, I will nevertheless treat this motion by its content rather than by its proponents - which, if we were to go by the latter, I would have to cast the most resolute No vote in the history of this Council. I find your conduct and that of your compatriot predecessors, Cllr Echteran, completely unworthy of this Council, and you ought to be ashamed of yourself. Well, now that this is out of the way, your motion. Commissioner Cocx followed proper legal procedure along the lines of the European Commission (Sanctioning Powers Act) 2021. He alloted five calendar days for Commission discussion on all Sanction Motions hirtherto presented. It is up to individual Commissioners themselves whether they wish to object to the proposed sanctions, Cllr Echteran. In the case of the first Sanction Motion, that against the UNSR, input from Commissioner Birdane, who initially objected to sanctions at all, resulted in an arguably better Sanction Motion than initially presented. Now, the Istkalen councillor in the debate on that motion thought it proper to disgrace this Council with pointless filibuster rather than engage with the substance of the bill, but that is their choice and does not affect the conduct of the Premier.
"The USNR Sanction Motion further showed that Premier Cocx is very much aware of the legal constraints and procedure of the Sanctioning Act. When Councillors pointed out, in the first debate on the Sanction Motion against the UNSR, that there was a potential issue with the legality of the motion as presented, Premier Cocx preferred withdrawing said motion, revising the Sanctioning Act, and then presenting a new motion without legal ambiguity, rather than pushing forward with the initial motion and just seeing what the consequences would be. Cllr Echteran's allegation of intentional negligence on Premier Cocx's behalf is, therefore, completely baseless and entirely contradicting of the evidence."
Cllr Nicholas Benfield
Empire of Inimicus -
Ruthund's position on Sanctions of the UNSR have been known loud and clear throughout Europe. Though in defense of the Premier Commissioner, your assertion that applying sanctions (even in its initial form) on the UNSR would directly threaten Europe is not only debatable, but purely hypothetical. I would like the Councilor from Istkalen to explain herself on this point since the nature of her assertion is vague to begin with.
Your other complaints I think are definitely worth looking into, concerning the procedures around sanctions. I can see why the Councilor saw this as a breach of the law because of how the law is written. From my reading of the law, it does seem to imply that the Commission was supposed to come to an agreement on the provisions of the Sanctions. However the law does not state what happens when other Commissioners do not show up to come to an agreement within the 5 calendar days as stated within the law. I would agree with the Councilor that this is certainly bending the spirit of the law and she is right to bring this to the attention of the European Council. However, I do think its a little bit of a stretch to say what the Premier Commissioner did was illegal.
As for the third Sanction Motion, I find this interesting. Again, you are right to point out that no debate was held, as far as this Council is aware of. If the Commission was not even summoned to come to an agreement on the provisions of the Sanctions, this could very well be in violation of the Sanction Powers Act. This could have been an oversight on the Premier Commissioners' part, but in either case this behavior should not be encouraged by the European Council. So perhaps a reprimand of some sort is in order, but this is no grounds for impeachment.
I just dont understand how the Councilor for Istkalen can come to the conclusion that Commissioner Cocx from the actions that were laid out can be a serious threat to the Principle of Law--- and errr.... life itself. I am no fan of how Cocx has saber-rattled against certain regimes in the past, but this is a little much for me. So yes, I do invite the Councilor to explain herself, if she may.
Tony Odhinazen
EU Councilor, Ruthund -
I would like to add something to this Council discussion after reviewing my notes that I was technically incorrect in saying that Commission wasnt summoned to discuss sanction provisions against the Federation of Istkalen. Nobody showed up to discuss provisions, but the Premier did bring it forth the rest of the Commission. Again, I see this as a legally gray area by putting forth a motion without any word without the rest of the councilors. To me, silence is not approval and this alone is a concern I have.
Tony Odhinazen
EU Councillor, Ruthund -
Unlike the Council, the Commission is a body with a fixed number of seats. It is not a legislative body, but rather one that we can say is composed of three offices.
If two of these offices, represented by their corresponding commissioner, do not agree with a motion, or simply do not respond to one, then only a third of the Commission is in definite favor - certainly not a consensus.
As a result, the past four - four - sanction motions have been presented illegally, as they did not take place with a consensus of the Commission - a clear violation of the law, whose repeated occurrence demonstrates that Commissioner Cocx has acted in repeated ignorance of laws that he himself wrote, as well as the Constitution that in theory bounds him, in addition to this chamber.
Regarding Councillor Zatoni's objection regarding life itself, this is addressed quite clearly in the motion. Commissioner Cocx, on the 19th of March, 2021, proposed a sanction motion against the Union of Nicoleizian Republics that would have been tantamount to a genocidal act against the Nicoleizian people, who remain, legally, in the territory of the European Union, as the member state of the United Dominions of Icholasen is recognized as having sovereignty over the island of Icholasen.
I am also not responsible for the acts of Councillor Mauer, Councillor Arkalis, or Councillor Ikoszer, who I all detest, thank you very much, and do not see how I have disturbed this Council.
Gertrude Echteran
Councillor for Istkalen -
The Government of Istkalen has motioned to me that I am not to continue with this impeachment, and that I am removed, temporarily, from my office, as a result; I thus withdraw this motion.
My objections continue to stand.
Gertrude Echteran
Former Councillor for Istkalen -
"This tendency of the Istkalen government to lodge an extremely controversial and slightly disturbing motion, only to find that other Councillors do not support it, and then rather than await the decision of this body, to simply withdraw the motion for some internal political reason, is highly notable. I'm sure Mr Speaker will correct me if I'm wrong, but as far as I know there are unfortunately no measures we could introduce to stop this reprehensible behaviour. The Imperial Government, however, has become immensely distrusting of any contribution from Istkalen, and is unlikely to support its proposals in the future."
Cllr Nicholas Benfield
Empire of Inimicus -
The motion is withdrawn.
Councilor Benfield is correct in that there is little I can do other than file a motion to censure individuals in the chamber. As such, I issue this verbal warning to all those who have an established history of taking or plan to take a similar course of action: such patters of behaviour are disrespectful to this entire body and those serving within it and is conduct unbecoming of a representative of the European People.
Charles Michel
Council Speaker and Councilor for Fremet
