By Gianna Kwok
Debate flourished in the EU Council quickly in the morning, riding on the coattails of the intense debate surrounding yesterday’s topic of evaluating the EU's approach to committing to the European Green Deal. Passing friendly amendments was the first order of matter in council, and a tide of unfriendly amendments arose.
It was first led by the delegate of Italy, hoping to strike a sub-clause in reference to restructuring and reframing the Emissions Trading System to fund EREC, claiming that this would provide a way for countries to purchase their way out of achieving lower emissions. Followed up by the delegate of Poland on striking a sub-clause on implementing higher tax on plane tickets, several arguments of cutting off access to remote areas and increasing unemployment rate were made. However, it was intercepted by the issue that the resolution had previously stated that the collected tax would be diverted to researching and developing eco-friendly transportation options, which would in fact create more job opportunities. After the discussion, the resolution main-submitted by the delegate of Germany was thankfully passed, and clapping was in order. This marked the end of the discussion regarding Topic 1, and with a wave of relieved sighs, the council moved onto Topic 2, on the abolishment of the veto vote in the CFSP in the Council of the EU.
Opening speeches began with Belgium rallying efforts for more efficient decision making in the CFSP, and many delegations also took matters of efficiency and inclusion of smaller countries into account, and debated upon which factor should be of more importance when resolving world issues. The General Speakers’ List also quickly commenced, with delegates discussing a crucial area of contention, namely whether or not it was justified for countries to compromise the vulnerable rights of smaller countries for timeliness despite EU’s primary principle of upholding peace and equality between nations.
“We created democracy so listen!” In particular, the Delegate of Greece took the podium with a strong remark, in an attempt to sway and persuade fellow delegates in supporting their notion of prioritizing national interests, when met with opposing claims from the audience such as possibly jeopardizing the stability of the global sphere for countries’ own personal objectives.
Another point of contention was also the objective categorization of world issues. Many delegations proposed utilizing QMV in the context of “dire” issues, and using SQMV instead in the context of less “dire” issues, which prompted delegates to question which issues would fall under this label and what criteria should be used to assess an issue’s severity. Will delegates be able to strike a balance between considering all countries’ opinions while expediting the decision-making process? Only time will tell.
Opmerkingen