Councilor Tusk, not only do I find it disappointing that you uncritically voted for a poorly written bill just because of your government's feud with New Hampton, your assertions that Reitzmag is trying to colonize Istkalen is utterly unfounded. My government and I myself had truly hoped that this petty bickering that has long degraded this council would have ended by now, but apparently my expectations of a national government with nukes and influence to constrain their personal feelings when deciding policy that will affect millions of people was too high. I am not the first to say this in the Council, but this is shameful behavior that is beneath the dignity of the people of Europe.

Secondly Councilor Tusk, this is a repeal, is it not? There is nothing within the provisions of the law passed that required an unanimous vote by this council to repeal. The specific provision that required an unanimous vote was for the Forces, within the prevue of the law, to be withdrawn. Since the law did not specify any standards for the repeal of the law itself, it is reasonable to assume that this law can be repealed by the normal threshold. Of course, who knows? Because now we are stuck with a law that was poorly written and vague in its meaning.

Tony Odhinazen
EU Councilor, Ruthund

You have my support as well.

Tony Odhinazen
EU Councilor, Ruthund

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

The Realm of Great Ruthund votes AGAINST this motion. Ruthund favors the European Union taking an observer role in the establishment of a transition government, but will not support any attempt to remove J-TAI under the guidance Reitzmag and Vayinaod until a legal government of Istkalen is established.

Tony Odhinazen
EU Councilor, Ruthund

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. Upon passage the 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

I vote for AGAINST amendments I and III and FOR amendment II.

Tony Odhinazen
EU Councilor, Ruthund

Thuidwethon: National Legislature for Ruthund

The Thuidwethon (Ruthenish: the People's/National Assembly) is the the highest legislative body in Ruthund comprising of delegations from each of the Riklondoz. The Thuidwethon was once a Congress of the 3 most influential classes in Ruthund where they would advise the King on major policy making and the interests of each class. For most of its history, it was a body that was summoned periodically whenever a crisis took place in Ruthund. However starting in the 18th century, the body began to be summoned on a more permanent basis and served as the central body for the inner Royal Court in Ruthund. Though the institution later in the Ontharlikaz Period had signifficant power, arguably more than the Monarch, most of the power was concentrated into the hands of the Nobility within the court as they were assign the most important functions within the Legislature.

During the reign of King Nuimentonaz, the Parliament underwent structural reforms where each class would elect members of the Thuidwethon based on the principles of Universal Suffrage and each class would have proportionally equal responsibilities within the duties of the legislature. Although the later reform would be reversed after the Second Kinstrife, suffrage of members of the Thuidwethon was retained. However elections were so infrequent that the practice of elections were rare in Ruthund between the 19th and 20th centuries.

After the Kelontaz Uprising of 1994, the Republicans managed to secure key concessions from the Ruthenish establishment, such as the abolition of the class system. This made the Thuidwethon effectively into a modern Parliament that is typical within Europe. The three major parties in Ruthund however are successors to the previous class-based factions as they were never formally abolished-- although they do still resemble modern political parties today in practice.

Type: Unicameral
Seats: 75
Last Election: 6 August, 2018
Next Election: 9 August, 2021
Term: 3 years
Electoral Method: Single Transferable Vote

Government (38)
Gilthoro 27
Mutual Workers' 11

Opposition (25)
Thuidawoko 16
Fyrharjo 9

Other Parties (12)
New Republican 12

The garments the King was wearing during the speech, which were typical of much of the Clergy present.

As the curtain revealed the Thuidon, something did not seem right. Many within both the foreign delegation and the clergy expected the Thuidon to be wearing the traditional garb worn by the Head of the Temple. However today, the King decided to wear the robes of one of the clergy. Was the Thuidon trying to send a message to the clergy?

"Hark!" he exclaimed. "Fellow siblings of Ruthak, I thank ye for a timely arrival this day. As for our most esteemed guests, I shall not tarry you overlong. For this Lekornmeiluz hath revealed not a trying judgement for the Omeihiz on how Ruthens shall precede."

"When I became the Thuidon in 2001 in the Southern accounting of time, Ruthund was still emerging out of a most trying time for the Realm. The house of Ruthak was still ever divided against itself and many were still recovering from Runhoithaz Descent. We lived together through a time where the future of Ruthund remained uncertain. We lived together through a time where the assurance that our Realm would worry not to live through another civil couldn't have been assured to her people. And most importantly, we lived through a time where the Constitutional order of this Realm, as established by the people in 1994, stood on a knife's edge. I have sat silent within the Halls of this Temple, silently watching for 20 years. And while some in this room may know my thoughts of the matters of state in Ruthund, I have remained silent to many.

Some say that I should retake the fir mantle of this Realm and to breathe life once more upon the old regime, yea, to this very day we still hear its voice echo down the streets of the city. To once more rouse my children as Ruthak did with the Ruthens over a thousand years ago. And to what cause should I take the throne once more and end the Stewardship, I must ask. Any learned person of our history knows that the King was merely a string in the puppetry of the various factions and classes that have long dominated this Realm. We had first the Christians, then our Nobility, then the Nowugaz. The legacy of the throne remains weak and yet there are those that feign it strong. Now, Ruthund has joined a league called the European Union-- out of character of what my ancestors intended Ruthund to be: a sacred place of peace and quiet, a garden for Ruthak’s children. But we must also mind a time when Ruthund had a different policy, a policy of proving our righteousness and might across the North. We have garnered the reputation among the other Realms and of ourselves that we are a people destined to work and die alone-- that we need only each other. But my siblings, I ask all of you to think on this well: Who exactly made the policy that many of us so dearly treasure today as a part of our own soul? Was it Queen Palhanuz when she expelled the Christians? Was it King Airnojuz when he planted the runestone at Rangentazav? Or was it really the Restoration that brought about this policy? If this be a sacred charge by those who succeed Ruthak, then where is the Librihaz making it part of the divine doctrines of our Temple?

I have poured over this Temple’s library, and I found none. This policy is sacred as our imaginations will it and no more. Indeed, it is written into our Basic Law that our Old Policy must be guarded, but did this Temple give it its seal? Did I, as the successor of Ruthak, give it my blessing? None of this has happened. Think well on it...

In this time of great change for Ruthund, I have been charged with the task of seeing that the Temple’s relationship with the Realm remains with the ever-changing times for these people. Much has happened in the last 20 years, but this year alone will be pivotal to the future of these people. I have always believed in our true religion, I love this Realm as my own, our people as my siblings, and our heritage our forefathers have given us as blessings. I, as a Ruthen, intend to guard them in whatever way I can from those who mean it harm.

But for long now, it was always understood the enemies were the Christians and those who would deign to collaborate with them. But in my search for the proper Spirit to inhabit the vessel of time, I have come to the realization that the true enemies of our religion are at times those who have sworn to protect it. What strikes at my heart more is they use me, a person they have never encountered, as their rallying banner. Of all things I have spoken with the Omeihiz the most, it is this. The Omeihuz that shall fill the vessel of this year’s life has indicated to me what must be done after the New-Year Flame is kindled. The Omeihuz for this year shall be Wesjaruz, the Omeihuz of the stirring dreams.

Ruthund has long been in slumber since our defeat and our age old humiliations, though it is one more dangerous: one of which we think we are conscious. This year, I see we are stirring from slumber and soon we will feel the last tendrils of sleep depart from us. It is time for Ruthund to reawaken and to experience the world and to shake off the drowsiness of the past. We must, for our own sake, build a new Ruthund off of the foundations of our forefathers and give our hands out to the world. I, of all Ruthens, shall take this first step and I have indicated my intentions to the Lord of State about my plans: I shall be abdicating as King after this midsummer without an heir. I intend for the position of Thuidon to be abolished and its office to be reform by this Temple.

A new light will shine across Ruthund, one that will be alien to all of our siblings. It will be strange to all of you. I will no longer be there to continue this path I have set the Temple for, it will be up to all of you to tend the flame that I will have kindled. Of all things I have asked this Temple to do, this will be by far the greatest task to undertake. But should you succeed in guiding our fellow Ruthens towards walking freely in the light, I wager history will see you all as the true heroes of the Ruthund and its people."

The King bowed as a bell signaled the curtains to close.

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

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