EEC Open Economic Summit
Laois-Offaly last edited by
_As I have discussed on the sidelines of the summit with the Duxburian Representative we need to keep bureaucracy down in the EEC. We have agreed that we must establish an advisory council in the EEC comprising of member states that actively discusses the requirements needed by member states to boost competition and growth.
I am in full agreement that we must establish a equal playing field for workers in the EEC. The idea of a minimum wage across the EEC is a major step forward in ensuring that the ideals of the EEC are realised. The proposal from Occoron to firmly establish the grounds for acceptable working environments is very important for the EEC. I agree that it must be brought to the table in the European Council and discussed there as we cannot have a Europe operating under double standards.
I will present my Parliament with the following proposals at its agreement and will strongly urge the European Council to implement a blanket set of guidelines on acceptable worker rights across Europe and equal competition for employment laws.
Guest last edited by
I find the Occoronian and Offalian proposal for the ensuring of quality work conditions to be not only fantastic but necessary so that all workers in the EEC feel the benefit of a modern trade agreement. It will, inevitably, help us all control population movement by not only making the agreement but our own countries attractive to work in, so that a "grass is always greener" attitude doesn't cause a mass movement of people.
As we continue this discussion, let us work on putting the ideas discussed and our own personal proposals into formats that could be added into the treaty. Essentially, write our proposed additions to the Community, and we should, by the end of the day, take an informal vote. Then, after going to our respective legislatures, confirm that we have approved these proposals.
Brecon last edited by
Breconian Minister of Industry, Otto Brunfels
"First of all I would like to thank our British hosts for issuing an open invitation to representatives of EU nations to attend this summit. By inviting representatives from the EU, instead of only the EEC, a broader range of views can be considered and those nations that are not involved in the EEC can express their reasons for non-participation and suggest possible reforms to expand EEC membership by addressing the concerns of nations that are interested in membership but not yet in the EEC.
In some ways I agree with my Pax Aurean colleagues about the possibility of the EEC serving as the leading institution in creating a European unified market. From Brecon's perspective it would be far better for the EEC to attempt implementation of these ideas. Trying to implement a unified market through EU legislation would undermine national sovereignty and would force integration of nations with radically different economies and economic systems. It should be obvious that a path of top-down EU control would lead to chaos. The alternative of developing the EEC is relatively promising. The EEC can define what rules its members will follow and the criteria for membership. If the EEC is successful it could attract new members and progress on the path to regional economic integration.
Although Brecon does not participate in the EEC we still trade with EEC members and desire cooperation over competition. There are stories of nations that have economies that in some way, perhaps a very low GDP per capita, do not fit in well with existing EEC members. To the citizens of those nations I would like to say that there are alternatives, both to the EEC and to capitalism itself.
I wish my colleagues the best of luck in discussing their dreams for the future of the EEC."
Pax Aurea last edited by
President Glorius wore a broad smile and nodded a lot as she listened to the speeches of the other summit participants.
"I can agree wholeheartedly with the ideas raised by Britain, Occoron, and Laois-Offaly. Reforming the EEC treaty with these significant changes -- minimum wage standards, safer and more healthy working conditions, the abolishment of child labour -- would be a major step for the Community. It would change the essence of the EEC quite dramatically, from a mere free trade zone to a community that is several steps closer to a market area of unified standards. There's bound to be resistance to these changes, I am sure, probably even murmuring about how the reforms will ultimately trespass the boundaries of national sovereignty. But I strongly believe these steps must be taken if the EEC wants to grow, evolve, and prosper.
Nevertheless, this will without doubt be an easier way to implement reforms of this magnitude than via Union-wide Council legislation -- though I hope to see a day when all European countries would be bound by these noble principles brought up here today.
Laois-Offaly has proposed an advisory council for the EEC. This council -- or a similar body -- should also have the authority to dismiss a member from the Community for severe or repeated treaty rule violations, should these new reforms become accepted. This kind of a drastic verdict would of course be the very last, ultimate punishment for a "nation gone rogue", and I do hope it would never have to come to that... But, despite the call for as little bureaucratic morasses as possible, the new EEC does need a supervising body of some sort. With a representative from all EEC member nations, perhaps?
Also, we'd need to decide whether any EEC rule violations -- and the EEC itself as an organization -- should fall ultimately under the supreme jurisdiction of the European Court of Justice, or be a separate legal entity.
And finally, as Mr Brunfels of Brecon pointed out, there are a number of European nations that trade with EEC members, though they are not members themselves and have more diverse economic systems. The more appealing the EEC can shine as a trade partner, the greater the benefits for the entire Union."
Laois-Offaly last edited by
_I am glad that the Pax Aurean representative agrees with our proposal for the advisory council. I initially proposed a stronger voice to monitor states in the EEC and whilst I agree the council should have a collective authority over the EEC myself and the Duxburian representative would like to keep bureaucracy down in the EEC and too much regulation can depress economic growth and flexibility.
I must also announce to the Summit that the results of a Labour Party vote of confidence are due any moment and I urge all members to check with their respective broadcasters or indeed ONC to catch up on the latest developments. Should the result prove negative for the current Premier, a new Prime Minister will take the helm and should be with the summit shortly. I would hope all members welcome the new Premier if there is one!_
Occoron last edited by
_President Mahanga: _
"I really don't think we need another advising institution in the European Union. This 'European Economic Community Control Institution' or whatever, will be rather expensive. So, we have to ask a question: Do we really need it? I don't think so. Why can't we do it ourselves? Every member of the EEC is obliged to make sure the EEC works, or their own economy will suffer! So, very member nation will make sure that every other nation respects the principles of the EEC, just to protect their own country. I think the members of the EEC is 'old' enough to care for itself and for its own interests, we don't need such an institution at all.
Because, who will do his job better? A member of again an EU institution, sitting at his desk in Europolis while he's smoking a cigar, or leaders of the member states, who know what their country need? There are other ways we can unify the EEC members for a common policy: meetings of the heads of state, meetings of the ministers of finance, you name it, and you can do it whenever you like! These men and women are elected and payed by the people to govern a country, why should we take away their responsabilities?
Of course, something can go wrong. There is always a small chance that something goes wrong. But we have already an European Court of Justice! I think they can, with some small amendments to the treaty of the EEC, take decisions in a proper way about naughty member states. We need to keep it simple, no unnecessary bureaucracy, less is more!"
_The Duxburian Union does not see a commodities deal as feasible. My government does not regulate the price of commodities, thus we can't set prices to favor EEC members.
The Duxburian Union does support an EEC Advisory Council composed of a representative from each member state. As stated before, we don't want this to become a burden of red tape. However, a representative body could act as the voice of the EEC to the EU and help member states strengthen their economies, so it is worth establishing.
My nation is also willing to support more standardized labor regulations, with caution. Consumers deserve high quality products, produced by ethical methods. We heavily favor abolishing child labor, depending on what the text says. Duxburians currently must be at least 15 years of age to be employed. I would imagine that a range of numbers are in use by EEC members and am wary of stepping on national cultures. Designations of what age is considered a child are certainly not trivial. Setting it too high can hurt a nation's economy by creating sudden unemployment. Setting it too low can actually create child labor in a nation that didn't have it before. Setting it the middle can create both problems. So, this idea must be explored with great caution.
Likewise, the Duxburian Union is willing to support an EEC minimum wage, with caution. Such a wage would have to be carefully crafted to take the varied cost of living into account. It could not be a single, simple figure. Duxburian workers are not paid highly compared to most other currencies, but a Kael also goes further here. In my country, the yearly salary at minimum wage is also the poverty line, but this might not be the case everywhere. Minimum wage might be well below the poverty line in some other countries.
We are unsure about raising safety standards. We have a lot of industries that are occupationally hazardous, such as mining, drilling, diving, construction, commercial deep sea fishing, and heavy manufacturing. We take strong measures to reduce accidents, but risk can only be reduced so far in these industries. Ultimately, we believe that hiring and training competent workers is far more effective than legislating from a chair. All the state of the art safety equipment in the world is only as good as the person using it. Additionally, increasing standards increases cost. Especially in hazardous occupations, this cost can skyrocket until a firm is no longer profitable. There is a careful balance between how much risk is ethically acceptable and how much regulation is financially feasible.
I consulted with Justice Ine Kelander about President Glorius' legal inquiry. He told me that the EEC is a treaty organization and is thus a separate entity from the European Union. The ECoJ would only have jurisdiction if something in the treaty violates the EU Constitution, since all members of the EEC must be members of the EU. The EEC must resolve other disputes internally.
Keep in mind that the ETC is supposed to cover rule violations and trade disputes. However, this body does not appear to have been created? At this point, however, I'd be in favor of simply moving its authority to the EEC advisory council rather than having two governing bodies. That would make the advisory council into more of a governing body, an EEC council._
Occoron last edited by
"As it seems that the ECoJ isn't authorized to judge about matters concerning violations against the EEC treaty, we will support a judicial council. As we have an extra European institution anyway, we agree to unify the judicial and advisory council into one EEC council. Of course, we're also willing to listen to other constructive ideas."
Guest last edited by
I think the idea of an overseeing council/judiciary may be too much bureaucracy in this treaty, but I think summits and meetings of representatives from our nations in the EEC will be able to come together on a consensus agreement to take action.
I would like to invite the Inquistan representative to give our closing speech, and for us to have another summit in a few weeks after our legislatures have had time to process, change, and approve the changes in the treaty, including the ability for us to set a reasonable minimum wage (preferably using exchange rates to come up with a reasonable minimum wage for all nations).
Thank you all for coming to London to address this most important matter.
Pax Aurea last edited by
With the closing of the summit, President Glorius was optimistic about the future engagement of Pax Aurea and the European Economic Community.
"This has been a very promising meeting indeed, and once again I wish to thank the government of Great Britain for taking time to organize this summit. During these days, several important reforms and improvements concerning the future shape of the EEC have been brought up, and with those, most of the matters that have caused concern among the Aurean Senators have been addressed. As I leave London for Pacifica, I can return home bearing good news. I will present the results of this summit to my government, the Senate, and its committee, and I remain optimistic that once the reforms have been voted for and approved by the EEC, the Aurean Senate will give its vote for joining the Economic Community."