(OOC: Edit as to make signature more accurate)
CONDEMNATION OF THE COUP OF THE LEGITIMATE GOVERNMENT OF ICHOLASEN
PREAMBLE
The European Union has committed to the Principles of Democracy, Rule of Law, and Human Rights. The recent actions taken by a cabal of communist sympathizing officers in the Nicoleizian Armed Forces are an affront to those principles. The European Union will attempt to support peaceful and diplomatic solutions to this crisis to the best of its ability
SECTION 1: DEFINITIONS
1. The Union of Nicoleizian Socialist Republics - the entity known as, on the 3rd of May 2021, the "Union of Nicoleizian Socialist Republics," successors of said entity, and derivatives of it.
2. Icholasen - the entity known as the "United Dominions of Icholasen," or alternatively "Free Icholasen," as of the 3rd of May 2021, under Queen Anastasia II and Korojaunu Eilidh Whiteford
SECTION 1: DECLARATIONS SECTION 2: DECLARATIONS
SECTION 2: SANCTIONS IMPOSED ON THE ILLEGITIMATE GOVERNMENT SECTION 3: SANCTIONS IMPOSED ON THE ILLEGITIMATE GOVERNMENT
I propose this amendment solely for peace. It is a necessity that this Union, rather than endlessly engaging in dangerous argument, attempts reconciliation, for the safety of all in it. The European Union does not exist to protect ourselves against ideology; it exists to safeguard the interests and the safety of its members. This amendment, I believe, accomplishes these aims far better than any attempt at warmongering ever could. I invite amendments; it is a necessity that peace be established.
My legitimacy here, of course, may be in question. Let it be known - I am not sent by any state sanctioned by this Council. I am sent by a state which came into being from nothing; a state which, while appearing the same as one which is sanctioned, is one that is new and entirely unrelated. I did stand in elections regarding that state, but in protest against its existence. It subjugated my people; I as much as everyone else who lives in our new state hated it, and wanted its removal.
Iras Tilkanas
Interim Councillor for the Republic of Istkalen
Debate on this starts NOW and ends 6 May 2021 at 12h00 GMT.
Charles Michel
Council Speaker and Councilor for Fremet
I have a number of amendments to propose, as to rectify issues I have found within this amendment - that I myself wrote, of course, but that is of no matter.
AMENDMENT I
AMENDMENT II
Iras Tilkanas
Interim Councillor for the Republic of Istkalen
I think this is an overall fine amendment to the condemnation. Though I would have liked to see a more seperate detailed bill on the process of reintegration of the UNSR into the EU, I can still get behind this bill provided further legislation is passed as the UNSR continues to show signs of progress in its good will to make peace with Europe. Though I do have one nitpick with this bill.
I think any talks of denuclearization is off the table for the time being. Right now, it is the only thing the UNSR has to keep itself from being invaded and they wouldn't be so foolish to give them up no matter what guarantees Europe gives them. This is especially so when we see how unpopular they are on the continent. If we are serious about reintegrating the UNSR, denuclearization-- at least total denuclearization-- is not something this council should realistically think is going to happen. This will probably make some Councilors upset, but this tells me that they are really that interested in bringing our region and are more concerned about legalist dogma about the UNSR not entitled to those nukes. But do we want a Europe that gets things done, or a Europe that virtue signals? So I would redact the provision on denuclearization-- at least until we are closer to a diplomatic breakthrough with the UNSR.
Long story short, I principally in support of this bill and will likely vote for it.
Tony Odhinazen
EU Councilor, Ruthund
Personally, Councillor Zatoni, I believe that denuclearization is the only way that neighboring countries like, for example, Fremet can feel truly safe with a UNSR that is a member of this Union. However, I do realize that without nuclear arms, the UNSR would feel unsafe; this is why this legislation would grant it neutrality in exchange, which would hopefully protect it from invasion. Obviously a supermajority would have to agree with this legislation as a result of it; and it is very possible that the UNSR would dislike neutrality; but if it is able to enter the Union under these amendments, then of course it would be able to withdraw neutrality and perhaps even apply, through the ENAA, for a license for nuclear weapons.
To all others: regardless of our feelings regarding the UNSR, it must be said that its existence has become entrenched. There is no realistic way to remove it, as I know many of the Councillors here wish to, without causing death on a never-before seen scale.
It is, again, the responsibility of this Union not to 'protect' its people from ideologies it deems subversive, but rather to ensure their freedom, their prosperity, and above all their welfare. We cannot sacrifice the lives of millions for a folly of a regime-change war; that would be the worst, most blatant violation of these rights on the behalf of the Union in its history.
No, we must strive for peace and for safety. The only way forward, in my opinion, is an attempt at re-integration.
Iras Tilkanas
Interim Councillor for the Republic of Istkalen
Well, Councilor, any nation will be threatened to some degree by virtue of their neighbors having nukes. The question is if whether Fremet's or that of any other nation's insecurity is significant enough to even consider dying on the hill of insisting denuclearization from the starting line. Fremet has dealt with the UNSR with and without nukes and Fremet is capable of defending itself against UNSR aggression-- may I add , even though its become clear the UNSR means not to attack Fremet in the first place. Fremet does not need the symbolic and meaningless protection of the EU, they are a strong nation with allies standing by their side.
Even so, let's just assume that you are correct about Fremet-- that it is important that guarantees be made to surrender their nuclear arsenal. As I have said before, at this moment in time, this is not going anywhere. If the UNSR really was willing to put the nukes on the negotiation table, I don't think we would have been in this stalemate in the first place. We may be able to push for some minor concessions in this regard, but nothing meaningful. And at the same time we might jeopardize the entire process of trying to reintegrate the UNSR, which by the way, would mean they would still have nukes. I know this isn't ideal councilor, but we have to know what will work and what won't. And the nukes are the last thing the UNSR will give up in this climate. So what will it be Councilors, a chance to bring reintegrate the UNSR with their nukes, so there is room for discussion later on for them giving up their nukes, or a failed negotiation with their nuclear arsenal assured?
Tony Odhinazen
EU Councilor, Ruthund
"There is no way the Imperial Government will ever support yet another attempt by Istkalen to make friends with communist revolutionaries in the USNR. I can further confirm that there is no agreement that could make the Imperial Government give up its nuclear arsenal in the present tumultuous time."
Nicholas Benfield
I do feel it is important we get the most practical path back to democracy. However while this helps I do believe it is not enough. That is why I will present this addition to the ammendment for what would be section 3:
7. In return for membership of the EU and lifting of sanctions the Union of Nicoleizian Socialist Republics is to recognise as legal all parties that existed before the coup in Icholsen and allow them to run in free fair democratic elections monitored by international observers from throughout the EU. The Union of Nicoleizian Socialist Republics is also to allow freedom to campaign to all said parties and allow all Icholsen media to operate within the Union of Nicoleizian Socialist Republics freely and without censorship.
Councillor Benfield, we are speaking solely about the denuclearization of the UNSR, not about that of the European Union.
As for Councillor Mizrachi-Roscoe, this is made clear in clause 4 of the amendments, which states that the UNSR must be in accordance with the UDoHR. How the UNSR goes about this is their own decision. There are many countries, Istkalen included, with alternative systems of democracy - non-partisan ones, for example, and so on and so forth. A democracy could even, in theory, be based on a single-party, as existed in Istkalen between 1983 and 2002.
This amendment is not one that aims for regime change. This amendment is one for peace, and for the staving off of nuclear conflict. We stand here not to guarantee capitalism or liberal democracy to the people of Icholasen; no, we stand here solely to guarantee them and us safety and the right to a truly free life.
Iras Tilkanas
Councillor for the Republic of Istkalen
I of course would like to request a debate extension as of now, as this amendment is controversial and yet has not received particularly much discussion, especially from those who would be most affected.
Iras Tilkanas
Councillor for the Republic of Istkalen
I would challenge the idea that single party "democracy" is a democracy. If other voices are banned and only socialist voices allowed then it is by definition not a demos or of the people but only of some of the people. I am not expecting forcing cappitalism onto Icholsen or the UNSR as it is defacto now but it must at least abide by democracy and freedom of speech protected in the constitution if it is to be a member. We should not allow it membership without free and fair democratic elections and basic civil liberties. Thats all my ammendment seeks to achieve.
James Mizrachi-Roscoe, Councillour for United Duchies
What, then, of the United Duchies, where it seems that the government is all to willing to suppress socialist voices as much as it can? It appears that it only bent at least partially because of international worry.
Iras Tilkanas
Councillor for the Republic of Istkalen
While I personally find the idea of a one-party state undesirable, it is theoretically possible to have a one-party state alongside a democracy. But factions within the party will have to be freely allowed and the party mechanisms open to the people. Democracies ban parties all the time, including your own country Councilor Roscoe. So freely allowing parties is not a sole criteria for democracy.
Tony Odhinazen
EU Councilor, Ruthund
I was fortunately able to change the government policy in the Duchies.I agree it went too far but it was a rash response to a crisis of national security , over 3,000 had just died.However we were able to ammend and fix the laws, thankfully the Duchies is now aware of how fast liberty can be lost.
James Mizrachi-Roscoe, Councillour for United Duchies
The debate has ended. We will now begin voting on Amendments, listed below:
Amendment I: (Proposed by Interim Cllr Iras Tilkanas)
Amendment II: (Proposed by Interim Cllr Iras Tilkanas)
Amendment III: (Proposed by Cllr Mizrachi-Roscoe)
Voting on Amendments begins NOW and ends 14 May 2021 at 12h00 GMT.
On behalf of the Republic of Fremet, I vote FOR Amendments I and II and AGAINST Amendment III.
Charles Michel
Council Speaker and Councilor for Fremet
On behalf of the people of Istkalen, their will expressed through the Republic of Istkalen, I vote FOR Amendments I and II and AGAINST Amendment III.
Iras Tilkanas
Councillor for the Republic of Istkalen
I vote AGAINST all amendments.
Donald Tusk
Deputy Speaker and Councillor for Spain
On behalf of United Duchies I vote FOR tall ammendments
James Mizrachi-Roscoe, Councillor for United Duchies
The Empire of Inimicus votes AGAINST Amendments I and II and FOR Amendment III.
Cllr Nicholas Benfield
I vote for AGAINST amendments I and III and FOR amendment II.
Tony Odhinazen
EU Councilor, Ruthund
"There is no way the Imperial Government will ever support yet another attempt by Istkalen to make friends with communist revolutionaries in the USNR. I can further confirm that there is no agreement that could make the Imperial Government give up its nuclear arsenal in the present tumultuous time."
Nicholas Benfield
The Kingdom of Spain