Amendment to the European Commission Sanctioning Powers Act of 2021
-
SECTION I - SANCTION REQUESTS
I. Member States may apply to the European Commission with a Sanction Request.
II. Member States must, as Sanction Sponsors, justify their Sanction Request(s) in full, in writing, within two calendar days of submitting a Sanction Request.
III. Four separate Sanction Sponsors must submit a Sanction Request against the same Member State in order for the Sanction Request to be considered.
IV. The European Commission will deliberate and come to a unanimous decision on whether to grant or deny a Sanction Request within five calendar days from the submission of the second Sanction Request against the same State.
V. The European Commission may deny a Sanction Request; this does not affect the rights of Member States individually to impose Sanctions against another State.
VI. The European Commission shall, in cases of approving a Sanction Request and in approving the finalized proposal of a Sanction Motion, shall be present for an internal vote to either deny or approve the proposal.
(i.) Should one or more member fail to be present within five calendar days, the vote shall be postponed to a later date until all Commissioners have either voted for or against the proposal.SECTION II - SANCTION IMPLEMENTATION
I. Should the European Commission decide to grant a Sanction Request, the Premier Commissioner shall propose a Sanction motion to the European Council. Uponpassagethe ratification of this motion, the Premier Commissioner shall then assume the role of Sanction Enforcer;
(i.) The Internal Affairs Commissioner may assume the role of Sanction Enforcer if the Premier so wishes.
(ii.) A Sanction Motion must receive a supermajority vote by present members of the European Council to be approved for ratification.
II. The Sanction Enforcer shall, within two calendar days of the granting of a Sanction Request, publish a list of region-wide Sanctions to be enforced against the Sanction Subject.
III. Region-wide Sanctions which can be promulgated by the Sanction Enforcer against the Sanction Subject are limited to Sanctions described in Section III. The Sanction Enforcer shall take reasonable precaution in proclaiming Sanctions and shall consider the economic, geopolitical, and diplomatic implications of region-wide Sanctions in the proclamation.
IV. Member States must harmonise their national regulations with the promulgation by the Sanction Enforcer as soon as practical, but certainly no later than fourteen days following the same promulgation.DEFINITIONS
I. Sanction Request: formal, written notice on behalf of one Member State appealing for the institution of region-wide sanctions against another Member State.
II. Sanction Sponsor: the national authority responsible for a Sanction Request.
III. Sanction Enforcer: the responsible authority for region-wide sanctions.
IV. Sanction Subject: the State against which region-wide Sanctions are made.
V. Sanction Motion: a European Council motion containing the finalized sanction provisions as agreed upon within the European Commission.
Today Councilors, I propose an amendment to the ECA. Though I am opposed to this act in its current form, my hopes are that I can amend this new law so that this act is less controversial both in Ruthund and throughout Europe. I think Premier Commissioner Cocx, though we have strong disagreements on how to solve the problems we face today, made an important contribution for establishing a formalized process for creating region-wide sanctions and he deserves some credit for his idea. With that said, this law didn't come without issues that I was disappointed to see were not addressed when this law passed. Though the discourse in this chamber has been either to dismantle this law entirely or to ignore its more flagrant issues to those who favor more sovereign rights for their nations. I wish to provide this Council with a middle path that perhaps most of us can tolerate. Now allow me to explain why I have proposed these amendments:
Let's start with the amendment I made in section one. Previously, a motion was brought up to impeach the Premier Commissioner on the basis of a multitude of charges. Though we can all agree that this motion was provocative and improper, there were grievances within the motion that do have at least some merit. As I have stated before while I believe Councilor Cocx did not violated any law, the fact that one sanction motion was presented to the European Council without any discussion I feel did break the spirit of the process laid out in section one. Therefore, I am proposing we clarify that Commissioners must have at least an internal vote in order for any decision to be reached regarding sanctions. This amendment hopes to ensure that Sanction Motions, from hereon out, are approved by all Commissioners within the European Commission instead of just one ambitious Commissioner thereby ensuring all voices were heard and noted.
The next amendment I laid out will establish the threshold required for a Sanction Motion to pass to a supermajority. My hopes are that by adding this amendment, people will be discouraged to use region-wide sanctions for ideological reasons or just for a regime being unpopular. By changing this threshold, sanctions will be limited to purposes of weakening regimes that are actively threatening peace in Europe. In addition, I also believe that requiring that there is near consensus throughout the Union on the necessity of sanctions will create a more cooperative Europe.
Lastly I added one definition to this law: Sanction Motion, since it has been used a lot in discourse. It might be absolutely necessary, but I thought it would be nice to add a definition into this law.
Thank you.
Tony Odhinazen
EU Councilor, Ruthund -
Debate on this will start NOW and end 16 May 2021 at 12h00 GMT.
Charles Michel
Council Speaker and Councilor for Fremet -
"I appreciate Cllr Odhinazen engaging constructively with the Sanction Act. Rather than throw it out at first glance, he is showing a practical, constructive attitude, which I think we can all appreciate. Nevertheless, the Empire of Inimicus opposes much of this amendment, purely for the reason that large parts are unnecessary.
"Adding the definition of the Sanction Motion into the Act is, as far as I'm concerned, worthwhile, and Inimicus would support such an amendment. Similarly, we would support replacing "passage" with "ratification" in Section II (I).
"The other two major changes, however, are not within the Emperor's grace. The Sanctioning process has already been demonstrated to be highly elaborate, requiring approval from multiple bodies and institutions. It would be unwise to extend the process even more with a separate Commission vote. The Section I part of this amendment further directly contradicts Section I (IV), calling for a unanimous decision by the Commission. Further, there are always reasons why Commissioners may be indisposed or unable to contribute to the discussion surrounding Sanction requests - this is why I was wholly in favour of the Council being included in these proceedings. Nevertheless, bogging down any Sanction request by waiting for all Commissioners to vote after they have agreed on a sanctions package would, in my opinion, be superfluous.
"Similarly, the addition of Section II.I (ii.) seems to me unnecessary. All Sanction Motions presented thus far have, as Cllr Odhinazen will know since he voted against them, failed. The Council has demonstrated, for better or for worse and in ways I cannot agree with, that it is capable of deciding whether to grant Sanction Motions with a simple, 55% majority. I see no reason why this ought to change, especially since the aim of the Sanction Act was, is, and will remain, the swift sanctioning of rogue states."
Cllr Nicholas Benfield
-
Firstly, Councilor thank you for telling me your thoughts on this amendments. Though I must correct you on a common mistake that many Europeans make when addressing Ruthenish people. The proper way to address me is Councillor Tony since Odhinazen is not a family name, or if that's too weird you may just call me plainly Tony. Formalities are not something I highly value afterall. Now, to address your criticism.
Firstly, we have to remember what we are asking of our member-states when we impose region-wide sanctions. It places what normally would be their decision into the hands of the European Union-- a diminishment of a nation's sovereign rights. I therefore think that any addition of complexity to ensure that the sanctions are being used properly and the processes are being properly followed. But with that said, my amendments do little to add to the complexity of the process itself. And I see little reason to claim otherwise.
You made the claim that the amendment in Section one comes into conflict of other provisions of the law. I am surprised to hear that you made this claim, for the purpose of the amendment is to clarify and support Section I of this law. All that this amendment does is it requires Commissioners to be put on the record that they approve the provisions of the sanctions, which I believe will help make the commission more accountable. I also suspected that some Councilors might raise concern that other Commissioners might be indisposed during the preposition of the sanctions proposal. However my main problem with this line of thinking is this is part of their basic duties as Commissioners. If they cannot be present to discuss sanctions or at least show support of disapproval, then I honestly don't think they are doing their job adequately. Besides, this amendment allows for time for Commissioners to voice their opinion if they are indeed busy with more important matters. This isn't just an extra step, this is to ensure that there is actually a consensus in the Commission before the sanctions move on to this Council. It is not my wish to have another Istkalen Sanction bill made entirely by one Commissioner with nobody besides the author giving any indication to this European Union that they supported it. Because if I am being honest with you Councilor, it does look shadey. But if you wish for me to clarify the amendment so that its more clear about its intention, I am happy to do so.
As for the second major amendment, I have to correct you Councilor on one thing: not only did I vote for the Istkalen Sanctions, my government sponsored the sanctions that your government proposed. I am honestly surprised that you were not aware of this. This is because Istkalen was a regime that presented a direct and overt threat to Europe and its member-states. This is in contrast to the UNSR, which has shown that they have no intentions (at least at the moment) of attacking Europe's member states. You can make the argument that the government in exile were attacked, but Ruthund recognized the establishment of the UNSR as an internal matter. That is why I would still vote against the UNSR sanctions if it were brought before this chamber today.
It may be true, Councilor that both sanctions failed because they failed to reach 55%, with the Istkalen sanctions narrowly failing. But I find this point irrelevant to what this amendment is trying to achieve. The point of establishing a supermajority threshold is to ensure that the sanctions are passed with the principles of consensus building in mind and to safeguard future attempts, however distant they might be, of sanctioning unpopular regimes. I want to ensure that should we impose sanction wide sanctions, there is a very good and universal reason to do it. I felt that a supermajority was a good compromise position to take since I understand that consensus is not always possible. As for swift action, the idea of sanctioning a state is anything but swift. It relies on time being on your side, there is certainty quicker ways of taking out a regime councilor. So if swift action is what you desire, then sanctions seem like a strange path to take.
The foundations of this amendment is the only way I can see this law being saved. As we speak, there are certain members of this chamber who are working to repeal this law altogether. This amendment will address the concerns that I have heard in this chamber so that we can move on with the task of serving the people of Europe.
Tony Odhinazen
EU Councilor, Ruthund -
"My apologies to Cllr Odhinazen and the Ruthenish government, who of course co-sponsored the Sanction Request against Istkalen and voted in favour of the Motion this month. The Imperial Government will respond to Cllr Odhinazen's points in due course, but I simply wanted to state my regret about my mistake."
Cllr Nicholas Benfield
-
Debate has been extended to 18 May 2021 at 12h00 GMT.
Charles Michel
Council Speaker and Councilor for Fremet -
Mr. Speaker, I ask you to extend the debating period for this amendment so that other Councilors may have another opportunity to comment and so that I or any other councilor may make amendments accordingly. Thank you.
Tony Odhinazen
EU Councilor, Ruthund -
"Cllr Tony, thank you for bearing with me, and I apologise again to you for my earlier mishap. Thank you, too, for your detailed response to my objections. Nevertheless, I remain opposed to this Amendment.
I fully agree with you that Commissioners should be there to serve the peoples of Europe, including in Sanction Motions. Indeed, Premier Cocx has been a highly active Commissioner and has initiated debates and made statements in this chamber and the Commission buildings since his election. However, reality is often disappointing. During the last Commission term, Premier Merkel's office was a beacon of silence and tranquility, and not in a positive sense. The Foreign Affairs Commission has been completely and utterly quiet for nearly a year now. And, although he got off to a good start, I think we can all agree Commissioner Birdane's priorities recently have been with other things. This is the way of the world, unfortunately, and no matter how much we claim to want to change it, we won't. Tying real-world legislation into idealistic wishes is, in the Imperial Government's view, never prudent.
Consensus is built into the Sanction Act as it stands, Cllr Tony, and it does not require a supermajority rule to enforce. The Commission is to deliberate and construct a Sanction Motion in a balanced yet efficient way. There is then a full debate process in the Council, with Councillors free to propose amendments to the Sanction Motion as they see fit. Is this not consensus? I submit it is entirely within the boundaries of modern-day rule-of-law politics. Past experiences with the Sanction Act have shown that a supermajority is completely unnecessary to achieve a Sanction Motion that works for the nations of this Union - they have shown they are not afraid to shoot down proposals they see unfit.
Cllr Nicholas Benfield
Empire of Inimicus -
Thank you Councillor Tony for submitting this bill to the European Council, as I have been contacted by you to support the motion. I have gone through the amendments proposals and I find them correct and very appropiate for a bill which I'm also repentant of allowing it to pass. But don't forget, Councillor Tony, that the Council main purpose concerning this bill must be repealing it as soon as the next Commission is elected, because I think Premier Cocx deserves respect but also to see that one of his main measures stays until he departs from the office.
The European Commission Sanctioning Powers Act 2021 is a law which somehow breaches some sovereignty principles, but even if we now amend this law, that's not the main problem the European Union has right now. Nobody on this Commission or this Council is giving full solutions to the deterioration of our Union, but just patching it. We get nothing from patching it, Councillor Tony, and I hope the Councillors and the next Commission candidates take notes of what should be done in our Union.
I wish you the best of luck, Cllr. Tony, because I think these amendments should pass and, to help them to be on our legislation, I'll vote for the amendment. Thank you.
Donald Tusk
Deputy Speaker and Councillor for Spain -
As per the request of Councilor Tony, I am extending the debate until 25 May 2021 at 17h00 GMT.
Charles Michel
Council Speaker and Councilor for Fremet -
Debate is now over. Voting begins NOW and will last until 17:01 GMT on June 1st, 2021.
On behalf of the Kingdom of Spain, I vote FOR this amendment.
Donald Tusk
Deputy Speaker and Councillor for Spain -
On behalf of the Republic of Nofoaga, I vote FOR this Amendment.
Mrs. Paul-Gabrielle Muzhare
EU Councilor for the Republic of Nofoaga -
On behalf of the Democratic Republic of Czech Slavia, I ABSTAIN from voting.
Václav Kohout
Councillor for Czech Slavia -
On behalf of the Republic of Fremet, I vote FOR this Amendment.
Charles Michel
Council Speaker and Councilor for Fremet -
The Imperial Government resolutely votes AGAINST this amendment and encourages others to do the same.
Cllr Nicolas Benfield
-
On behalf of the Six Unions of Gadalland and Aspern, I vote FOR this amendment.
Ms. Édulitalle Dina
European Councillor -
On behalf of the Commonwealth of Leagio, I vote FOR the Amendment.
Francis Plessis
EU Councilor for Leagio -
On behalf of the Kingdom of Montenbourg, I vote FOR the Amendment.
Emma Granger
Councillor for Montenbourg -
On behalf of United Duchies I vote FOR this amendment
James Mizrachi-Roscoe, Councillour for United Duchies -
On behalf of the Realm of Great Ruthund, I vote FOR this amendment.
Tony Odhinazen
EU Councilor, Ruthund
The Kingdom of Spain
