Internal Affairs Debate, June 2021
-
EMMA GRANGER: Look, nations policies should always be respected under the guidance of what we as Union have agreed upon. Because we are a community of nations, not of little individualistic islands.
When we see situations like Istkalen, Copala City and the dispute in the Caspian Sea I say we need to held accountable those who bring disunion to our union, and act together. Repealing the Sanctioning Powers Act would be a huge mistake and, moreover, it could risk the whole European Union range of action. And that’s dangerous because anarchy is not the way, unity is.
Amendments, yes! It takes all the Councillors to propose, but not when a crisis happens, that is my big critic on this issue.
Because we say "ok we agree" and then we put the Act into action and we later say "well I will repeal"; that's not the way.
-
I think I am entitled to discuss a thing that has such a damaging effect on peoples' lives.
You are seem to be implying that I only care about this issue because I am Nicoleizian, or left wing, but even if there were sanctions put on Inquista, or on Fremet, on the European level, I would not be in favour of that Act.
The EU dictating sanctions and trade policy is an assault on sovereignty, among many others committed recently. The likely outcome of a repeal would still mean nations would be sanctioning the UNSR - but only the ones who choose to themselves.
Far from being obsessed about sanctions, I have been incredibly vocal about my other policies to improve our Union, such as investment in nations' economies, worker representation on boards, and an effort from the Internal Affairs department to mitigate some of the negative effects of globalisation.
-
Peter Leeson:Granger you are lying and twisting my words. I'm not telling Conservatives to shut up its you and your party with their hyper-liberal policies that are killing the EU.Also I ask you what gives the EPA and Europe the right to dictate nations social policies in Europe? Surely the best placed to create their own social policies is the nationstate itself and the people of that nation?
And to AREAI and all the others who have called the referendum policy mad or crazy or insane, are we saying sovereignty and democracy are crazy now? What is crazy about people having a say over the laws and constitutional changes that affect their nation with the political class and Eurocrat Elites dictating them? Are you scared that the people may actually say something you don't like or do you think the European people are idiots who don't know about politics Which is it?
-
EMMA GRANGER: Piane, my friend, Yes! you are entitled to your opinion.
You’re say is that globalization is the big opium; I don’t agree with you, and that’s ok.
And look, we know they are challenges but that doesn’t mean is bad. It means we need to do better on what we have. And tackle it together, by going forward.
-
EMMA GRANGER: Leeson, there was a little girl in Montenbourg who had a brother whom she loved so much. He was gay, and some bullies ones said that loving a guy was and is the most disgusting thing. And every day he cried, until depression came in and took him. That was my brother, Drake Granger.
There are moments in history where we as member states fail to preserve the civil rights of all people. And promote a culture based on hate and not love. I do not agree with that vision.
That’s not promoting any “hyper-liberal” policies, they are human rights. And as a human is common sense.
Surely the best placed to create their own social policies is the nationstate itself and the people of that nation; again based on what we as Union have always agreed upon and defended always.
-
Peter Leeson:So you are telling countries people what they should define as marriage? Why is civil unions with equivalent rights not enough? You have only proved you don't care about Conservatives and the views of many religious people and want to tell them what to do. I certainly hope they don't vote you!
-
Thank you, Emma. I hope that whoever wins we can work together, despite fundamental differences.
-
Ms. Daggot, I myself am concerned with sanctions, and believe that you are in the right for discussing this issue in this way. I am simply asking you, why, for example, whenever you speak about sovereignty, it is only about sanctions - especially concerning as almost immediately after you generally jump to speak about the various ways you plan to violate sovereignty. Yes, workers should be guaranteed a voice - but it is not for the EU to legislate the method that voice should take. Only to ensure that they have that voice.
-
This is not true, I have spoken about economic sovereignty and sovereignty in other economic issues, like the ECB, as well as on other areas of policy.
My plans would increase nations' own self reliance in this globalised world, in the way they see fit. This will increase their national strength.
And as for worker representation on boards, it is nowhere near as big as deciding the minutiae of the foreign policy of individual nation states. My workers' rights policy is in the same vein as human rights laws and the like. It is necessary to ensure the dignity of all people. I am obviously not opposed to every international law.
There will also be the freedom to choose in certain aspects. What is missing from this discussion is the fact that many EU nations already have this policy invoked, and it is creating a level playing field for them.
-
EMMA GRANGER: Lesson, I care and respect the views of those who think different than me. That’s tolerance.
What I do not support is suppressing others rights. That’s intolerable.
These matters, involving the most intimate and personal choices a person may make in a lifetime, choices central to personal dignity and autonomy, are central to the liberty protected by the UDoHR and our Constitution.
Everyone has the right to marry or be in a marriage in accordance with the law without distinction as to their sex or sexual orientation. That’s section XXIII of the UDoHR.
Proposing to restrict civil marriage is an attempt against human rights.
This is not a religious, liberal, conservative, left, right or anti-religious agenda is a human rights issue. We are not mandating churches, we are working with nations.
-
I do not think you have mentioned this, Ms. Daggot, on nearly the same level that you have mentioned sanctions; regardless, let us move on. How exactly do you intend to increase nations' self reliance? Simply throwing money at them is not enough; there needs to be a pattern to investment. For example, under my commission, the focus would primarily be on social services and infrastructure; could you give, perhaps, slightly more detail regarding this?
As for Ms. Granger, I have a simple question. Your devotion to social causes is admirable; but what exactly are your plans regarding, for example, cooperation between nations?
-
I have been quite clear the investment is meant for infrastructure and the production of goods, whether investment-based or otherwise, so that the nations of the EU can be sovereign in their economies.
It is down the states to choose how exactly to use the money, but it is aimed at helping the communities most at risk from globalisation.
-
During my campaign, I have repeatedly dismissed a lot of what my opponents' agenda as well as some of the current entities that make up European Union, and called them malarkey. I stand by my statement, these malarkey must end. All these other candidates fight for their ideologies, while I am here fighting for you the people of Europe. I stood away from party politics during my campaign and aimed to end them because I myself have seen the negative effects it had brought to our union.
In my administration, my main focus is to end these malarkey and give true freedom that the European people deserve. They who pay for the budget shall be free from the oppression brought by this group of politicians that do not even represent their interests.
Finally, I'd like to end by criticizing my opponents policies and actions throughout their campaigns. With Ms. Granger, do you believe that the EU is oppressing its member-states or no? Why are your policies mainly focusing on women and children rather than equality amongst all people? For Mr. Leeson, do you think that the solution to europartisanship is by calling people and organizations as hypocrite? Do you think it is helpful for the EU if you make memes about other candidates and people you don't like? For Ms. Daggot, do you think that calling me sleepy would stop me from fighting for the European populace? I've been on 3 different parties during my political career in Reitzmag, and yet you criticize my anti-europartisanship policy because you believe that the EU is an instrument for your ideology to take over Europe? Finally for Ms. Aerai, could you tell me how we would trust someone like you who came from a nation who randomly declared war against all European nations?
-
Mr Leeson: I don't take criticising people lightly but where hypocrisy is seen it must be tackled , you cannot claim to be a green politician like many do and yet use yachts and private jets never mind the debt it leaves you in to donors or those who "lend" the "gadgets". On thing I can say at least Koline and even my rival Daggott here are authentic not hypocritical , have a plan and consider the European people first in their policy
And to Granger , I feel sad about your brother I do as a gay man myself who personally supports gay marriage, but as long as there is a civil and equal alternative with equal rights then that should be enough. Conservatives areas should be able to decide their own marriage policy without this hyper so called progressive forcing of gay marriage laws onto them.
-
I find it mildly strange that you've asked about this, given that, well, even I know I have a dark history, which I must atone for, but no matter. At the time of this incident, Mr. Biden, I was in your lovely country, trekking through the woods as I fled Copala City, alongside a small group of others, unfortunately only children. I would arrive in Istkalen a little later, when the Republic was still there. I wasn't involved, of course, in the Bomballey incident; that was the fraud who took my name; but the whole situation was so dangerous that we had to flee.
In any case, I am not the only one who has been asked bizarre questions like this, so I really have to put into question your mental health, Mr. Biden.
-
I think it's time we move on, but since they've been mentioned, Ms Daggot and Ms Granger are entitled to an additional minute in their response to this question to rebut Mr Biden ((OOC: 150 words / 450 words in total)). My next questions are directed at each candidate individually:
JOE BIDEN: What would you actually do in office?
PETER LEESON: Same question to you. You've said a lot about what you oppose, but what would you do in office?
EMMA GRANGER: What do you have to say to the straight, male voters of the region? Why should they vote for you?
JOSEPHINE AREAI: You've been open about your dark past, but why should the voters trust you?
PIANE DAGGOT: You've been accused of being a puppet of the UNSR. As a proud Czech Slavian, will you uphold existing EU law against the UNSR?
As ever, you each have two minutes ((OOC: 300 words, unless stated otherwise)) to respond, followed by a free debate phase of turns of one minute ((OOC: 150 words)) each.
-
This is my penance - what I must do to repay for what was done through me. I let a military clique use me as a puppet. They drugged me, they did all sorts of things in my name, killing so many - how am I to be forgiven if I do not make penance?
In order to trust, one must make a leap of faith. I did many terrible things, in the name of stability; but I have realized, looking upon the death and suffering that began by it, whether directly or indirectly, that I was beyond wrong. The action that I took was evil, and I will and must spend every remaining moment of my life paying for it. If you do not trust it, then do not trust it. I understand why.
-
Peter Leesoon:II can't tell you exactly like some others because I would be led by the nations listening to each nation and crafting a plan acting as a servant of the nations. That is how the role should be done but as a basic guide I'd work with nations to remove red tape they identify as in the way and work every day to get them sovereignty in areas that nations express the EU has gone too far, I would as I have said introduce a bill of popular sovereignty outlining how citizens will engage with the EU including returning power to the people through a referendum law, and finally I would work to roll back a lot of the overreach on social issues or telling countries how to run their economy for example refocusing the EU on being a talking and co-operation union rather than one of Euro-Diktats from Euro Elites
I will also look at introducing new schemes to join and make all EU schemes based on funding only schemes they benefit from and are members of, I will look at introducing a joint euro-evisa programme, free trade area within the EU and other programmes that nations identify to me if enough do. The would all of course be opt-in.On budget I'll make the EU central budeget much smaller to cover only adminstration costs of the council , ECOJ and Commission as it should be and was before the EU decided to become a institution run Euro-dictators from the elites.
-
I don't need to be lectured by Mr. Biden. I honestly have no idea what he is trying to say, what his platform is, or anything. Shifty individual.
I will work with whatever the laws on the books are. However, I will certainly seek to change them.
Whoever is elected as Internal Affairs Commission has a responsibility to work towards peace in Europe. I will continue the work that Whoopi and Bernie have achieved in the Fremet talks, hosting, if necessary, supplementary talks that will lead to a lasting peace settlement between the UNSR and the nations in the region, so that sanctions can be removed, with assurances, and the region can become as prosperous and peaceful as possible.
The other candidates do not share this goal. The status quo suits them. But it doesn't suit the people of Fremet, or of Ruthund, or of Icholasen or of the ensemble of the nations in that region.
It is only when we work together that we will achieve a lasting peace in the region. Frankly, the other candidates on this stage do not have what it takes to achieve this.
Do we not all deserve to live in peace ?
-
Good question Touker! I don’t think that any woman or any man should be asked to vote for someone because she’s a woman. Vote for the ideas, and my message to you is this, we believe in the social, political and economic equality of the sexes, either you be straight or gay. You are a person and you should be respected for that. There is no privilege on that, just dignity.
———————————————————————————
Responding to the candidate of Istkalen, my plan on cooperation is simple but demanding: Dialogue, is the key to healing our relationships. Is not about forgiving, forgetting or excusing the other. Dialogue is about listening and learning why and how it was done. And taking action.
———————————————————————————
Mr. Biden drop the malarkey, and stop confusing the European people. The European Union is a community and do not oppress any European, it delivers on the basis of common ground and the umbrella of the dignity of each man and woman. We have to say no to conspiracy theories of oppression when we have witnessed the ones who oppress fueling fear. And as an answer to your other question, I believe in human rights and women's, children rights and gay's rights are human rights. Simple.
