Amendment to the European Budget Act 2012

[Spain]

SECTION II. FINANCING THE BUDGET

1. Each nation is expected to contribute a membership fee of one-tenth of one percent 0.05% of their Gross Domestic Product towards funding the European Union's Budget.

---

Councillors, the gutting of the way that the European Union's Budget is financed has been proven to be ineffective and pointless. The ambition to reduce a surplus that is given back to member states has blinded those who, by filling their mouths with the word "sovereignty", justified this manoeuvre. Nobody in ten years complained about the surplus as hard as the complaints have got. I believe that this change was highly unnecessary and that damaged the state of the European Union, therefore I am proposing this amendment to go back to the original text on Section II, Article I.

I hope to gather your support to stop this sabotage to our Union.

Donald Tusk
Councillor for Spain

[Istkalen]

The proposal is quite clear, so a summary will not be provided. Full support. Debate begins NOW and will continue until 05:05 GMT on 6 March 2022.

Iras Tilkanas
Council Speaker and Councillor for the Republic of Istkalen

[The United Kingdom]

Good, Australia will support this.

Chris Hemsworth
Councillor for the Federal Republic of Australia

[Inimicus]

The Empire of Inimicus is not necessarily opposed to an increase in member state contributions. However, I would point Councillors to the latest Commission budget, presented to this Council in October of last year. What we find in this budget is a total surplus of sixty billion Euros. Not a deficit. A surplus.

Had the EU's budget been running a deficit, and had there been a battle royale, let's say, among different EU institutions for funding, the Empire would gladly contribute more to the maintenance of those institutions. This is clearly not the case. Although I admire Cllr Tusk's tenacity, the evidence is not on his side.

Nicholas Benfield
Deputy Speaker

[Nofoaga]

Dear colleagues,

An increase in national contributions is essentially a good proposal. I would nevertheless like to point out that for countries with limited budgets due to a limited population, stagnating economy or any other factor this can be a challenge. Under no circumstances should such an increase in Member States' contributions lead to a double loss: on the one hand, a decrease in national budgets leading to savings at the domestic level that could jeopardize services. On the other hand, not seeing an increase in European resources for these countries. I would have liked to see this clarified before moving on to a vote..

Thank you.

Mrs. Paul-Gabrielle Muzhare
EU-Councillor for the Republic of Nofoaga

[BrumBrum]

I am not fundementally opposed to be contribution increase the only reason I proposed the cut to 0.05% is there had been consistent 30-60 billion Euro surpluses for years. Yes no big deal if your state runs a surplus and can quickly reallocate funds upon return but if your budget happens to be set before money is released from the commitment to send it to the EU or you are borrowing money to fund the contribution its an issue as its harder to reallocate and possibly has just incurred a state at least a years worth of interest in a loan agreement. If I am to vote for an increase I would propose the folllowing ammendment to allow for flexibility yet also make sure a significant amound of money sent in is actually used.

SECTION II. FINANCING THE BUDGET
III. At least 80% of the contributions must be allocated to departments of the EU in any given year with up to 20% allocated to Future Initiative Allotment which will be returned at the end of the year if it is not spent.

This is so premiers have to use most of the money they are given and institutions get the money they are owned out of the budget. If this amendment passes then I'll consider voting for a rise to 0.1% as at least the money is being used constructively rather than just sitting in an account just in case the EU need it until they tell us "oh no we don't plan to use that money so you can spend it wherever" far too late when many nations will have set budgets in motion already.

James Mizrachi-Roscoe, Councillor for United Duchies

[BrumBrum]

I also propose ammendment of Each nation is expected to contribute a membership fee of one-tenth of one percent 0.1% 0.05% of their Gross Domestic Product towards funding the European Union's Budget.

Making it a mostly universal number an symbol as opposed to words in english makes it easier and clear for nations people to understand.We must understand not every nation in Europe has a wide understanding of English in their population and nor should they have to.

James Mizrachi-Roscoe , Councillor for United Duchies

[Spain]

Concerning the concerns of the Deputy Speaker, the surplus is not really relevant as member states just pay Europe the necessary amount of money that the budget requires. However, we are finding that the European budget might be increased soon and therefore we need to act towards protecting the Union. It is important to point out institutions like the EDA have a very reduced budget and that is not the fault of the Premier Commissioner but rather a lack of prevision made by all of us in this chamber. I really hope that the surplus goes down but we really can't do anything about it right now.

On the comments made by my colleague and friend, Cllr. Muzhare, there is nothing to worry about. This amendment proposes to go back to the previous contributions we had before Cllr. Mizrachi-Roscoe submitted his amendment, which passed. Nothing further than that, and it does not intend to integrate other amendments that could condition how the budget is done. I would like a confirmation from Ms. Muzhare, but I believe that the Nofoagan Government is able to contribute with a 0.1% of their GDP to Europe as it did before, but I prefer to confirm that rather than making while assumptions.

Now, we have the example of how the ELSS changes its policy as the people change their ideas. A few months ago, Cllr. Mizrachi-Roscoe argued that "we could afford to cut down maximum contribution and keep EU purposeful and to the right size". Today, now that he has been proven wrong and that the European Development Agency has not enough funding, he claims he proposed it cause there was a massive surplus, but he did not know that the European Union would need the surplus! He also tries to protect the nations that are running a deficit, nonetheless I still do not know any nation that runs a deficit, and he stablishes a condition to vote for this act which is telling the Commission how much should they spend to make the budget. Mr. Roscoe, when on Earth are you and the ELSS going to learn that we don't need impositions? Telling the Commission how everything should be done is putting barriers into its acitvity, we are supposed to let the Commission run Europe, not running Europe for them when it comes to the budget. Also, putting conditions to support this amendment proves you aren't really for raising contributions.

Passing your amendment would be another mistake the European cannot and will not be able to afford. Councillors, think wisely before voting on Cllr. Roscoe's amendment.

Donald Tusk
Councillor for Spain

[BrumBrum]

Well maybe Mr Tusk should research before he says statements like he does not know any nation that runs a defecit. I know strathae is one and thats just one case in the EU. There are times when every nation needs to run a deficit especially during a recession. There needs to be a provision making sure money is spent if it is raised , there is no point in making nations raise money to hold just in case the EU needs it then the budget comes out and its suddenly not needed that is not how any sane organisation budgets you don't make funders reserve an amount just in case. You see how much you have and then base a budget on that spending it the best ways you can to meet the goals or see how much you need and only request that , you don't take a percent of the nations gdp as budget then only maybe spend it. The EU has had massive surpluses for many years and it is an unacceptable situation so either raise money and spend it or take only what you need right away its that simple don't get nations to reserve an amount "just in case" so you have flexibility.

James Mizrachi-Roscoe, Councillor for United Duchies

[Istkalen]

Debate will be extended until 12:00 GMT on 10 March 2022.

Since there has been some mild conclusions, there are a few comments I must make.

This legislation restores contributions to the level that they were at at the last collection; that is, at the time of the last budget. There is thus no actual increase in comparison with what was collected the year prior.

Deputy Speaker Benfield, you make a good point about the Commission budget, but the surplus that you mentioned would be reduced to roughly 19 billion with the passage of this act, lower if Angleter exits the Union, which is highly likely. Most of this will likely be consumed by the EDA due to significant expected increases, and without contributions from Angleter, we would in fact be very likely to end up with a deficit.

In order to prepare for this withdrawal and this expected increase of the budget of the EDA, we should thus return contributions to the level that they were at the collection of the last budget.

Iras Tilkanas
Council Speaker and Councillor for the Republic of Istkalen

[Inimicus]

I thank the Speaker for extending the debate and clarifying my objections to this Amendment. If this is indeed the case, and the €60bn surplus is to be reduced to "only" €19bn, perhaps even reduced to a deficit, then the Empire of Inimicus believes this is something we ought to remedy when it needs remedying. Spending billions and billions of Euros on hypotheticals, on "likely" withdrawals from member states, on the thought the budget "might" be increased soon, is not explicable to our electorates.

Nicholas Benfield
Deputy Speaker

[Istkalen]

Debate has ended. Voting starts NOW and will continue until 12:00 GMT on 25 March 2022.

On behalf of the Republic of Istkalen, I vote FOR this amendment.

Iras Tilkanas
Council Speaker and Councillor for the Republic of Istkalen

[Inquista]

On behalf of the Most Blessed State of Inquista, I vote FOR this amendment.

Bp. Karinn Lallana
Councillor for Inquista

[California]

On behalf of The Kingdom of Gallorum I vote FOR this amendment.

Ursula von der Leyen
Councillor of the Kingdom of Gallorum

[Leagio]

On behalf of the Commonwealth of Leagio, I vote FOR this amendment.

Lionel Morel
EU-Councilor for Leagio

[Inimicus]

The Empire of Inimicus votes AGAINST this Amendment.

Nicholas Benfield
Deputy Speaker

[BrumBrum]

I would like to raise to the speakers attention that she has missed amendments proposed to this amendment. I am sure it is an innocent mistake but I hope this can be corrected as it would affect the Duchies vote on this.

James Mizrachi-Roscoe , Councillor for United Duchies

[Istkalen]

I have indeed made a mistake.

There are two amendments for vote. Voting starts NOW and will continue to 24 March 2022 at 18:00 GMT.

AMENDMENT I

SECTION II. FINANCING THE BUDGET
III. At least 80% of the contributions must be allocated to departments of the EU in any given year with up to 20% allocated to Future Initiative Allotment which will be returned at the end of the year if it is not spent.

AMENDMENT II
Each nation is expected to contribute a membership fee of one-tenth of one percent 0.1% 0.05% of their Gross Domestic Product towards funding the European Union's Budget.

On behalf of the Republic of Istkalen I vote AGAINST both amendments.

Iras Tilkanas
Council Speaker and Councillor for the Republic of Istkalen

[BrumBrum]

On behalf of United Duchies I vote FOR both amendments

James Mizrachi-Roscoe, Councillor for United Duchies

[Vayinaod]

On behalf of the Archrepublic of Vayinaod, I, Carita Falk, vote AGAINST both amendments.