Commission Debate, Feb/March 2022

BrumBrum

Sara Porter:I would like to thank you for this great question. While I do not normally have a policy nations have decided they want an European Development Agency. The only problem? Its so unfundeded it might as well be a chocolate teapot. The DU asked for a few billion Euros to do a solar project just the sort of thing the EDA should be able to support m what did they offer a pathetic 600 million Euros. So the GEF funded it all in the end. I would set a budget of over at least 15-20 billion euros per year or support that. I think this is the necessary amount if we are to meet the green transition goals and to level up development of nations so poorer nations in this union can become more prosperous and quickly transition. This is all currently in the budget already and this should be priority. I will also seek to make sure that at least 40% is reserved for nations with below 25,000 euros per capita GDP. This should help turbocharge the LEDC's to become middle income and rich countries. We must do more to support our poorer members and quicken a green transition to save the planet and beat poverty.

Istkalen

I am in favor of expanding the EDA budget alongside the provision of "startup" funds for the related democratized research and development institutions I propose the EU sponsor, which may be pursued under the same umbrella, and will seek to cooperate with the Premier Commissioner to accomplish this. All of this in total will come up to roughly 20 billion, all of which will be used not on bureaucracies but instead completely returned to the people in the form of infrastructure. I am in support of allocating 5 billion from the future legislative allotment as of now for all of these projects in total, as the budget will be proposed in the term after this one, although not more due to a fear of excluding other potential projects from receiving funding.

Ms. Porter, I cannot comprehend why some must be shut out of using 40% of such a fund. Everyone should be able to access the development funds if their project is within and meets the requirements of the act itself, especially when just transition is so necessary. I also ask whether you are in support of Cllr. Mizrachi-Roscoe's cuts to the surplus, which make expansion of the EDA difficult at best. I also ask how you will fund an increase to 15 billion.

I finally ask you how significant of a role should the EDA play in development? I believe funds from the EDA should be used primarily but not solely to help build the infrastructure needed to begin development and transition - electrification, transportation, and the like, as well as education, complemented by the other half of my development plan, the creation of independent research and development institutions, building the social infrastructure needed to continue development independently of international institutions, and ensuring continued economic sovereignty, preventing exploitation. But, again, what is your opinion?

Spain

Thank you, Silly Moose, for this amazing question! First things first, I have to make clear that whoever is elected on this election to become your Premier Commissioner won’t be able to change or pass a new budget. I wish I could, because the European Development Agency needs more money and that has been proven with the time. The current Future Initiative Allotment is set on 11 billion Euros, so the Commission would be able to allocate up to 5 billion Euros to said institution. If I am lucky enough to be elected twice and have the budget done my way, I swear I will give the EDA more funds and resources.

I now would like to ask Ms. Porter, the unofficial Biden’s spokesperson and I believe, a friend of her country’s Councillor, Mr. Roscoe, if she is supportive of the amendment the European Council passed and that her country’s Councillor proposed. He did not only gut the budget, not allowing the European Union to progress in the foreseeable future, but also trying to reduce the amount of money that comes to Europe. Sovereignty, is the only excuse we heard. We need to bring back the original contributions, because the Europeans need more money to be sent to the several institutions and organisms we have within the European Union. And to those thinking that the non-spent money is kept in Europe, let me tell you all guys those are blatant lies. Europe gives the surplus back to member states per law. If anybody tries to ever convince you about that, tell them they are lying and show them the proofs!

BrumBrum

Sara Porter: If the money wasn't being spent on a regular basis it wasn't needed . Even with the cut the EU still gets 49 billion euros projected and could fund a 15 billion euro EDA and still have 2 billion euros left over. So why would there be a need to increase the contribution. I'm not against the contribution being raised but if it is then it should be spent not just held for while then passed back to the member state , by the time the state gets it back they may have budgeted already for the next financial year and if they had to borrow that money they have paid unnecessary interest. I do think if contributions are raised then it should mostly be spent a 10% or 20% FIA that can be returned at the end of the year is fine but when you have a 60 billion euro surplus spending 33 billion euros only out of 93 billion euros either the spending was too low as was argued at the time or the money is not needed especially when those types of surpluses are regular.

Kingdom of Reitzmag

"If elected, some of the key goals I want to achieve are reform of the budget contribution system, redistribution of the budget, and the enhancement of the EU's loan systems. On Budget System Reform, we have and will continue to seek the advice of financial experts as well as member-states on what budget system they see as fair. Some ideas that we have come up was a population-based budget, return to the 0.1% system, and a few other ideas we could implement. I do not support the current 0.05% of GDP contribution system and would rather support returning the former system of 0.1%."

"For redistribution of the budget, yes I do believe that the EDA needs more funds. We will prioritize and divert funds into more useful institutions, such as the European Development Agency. Currently, we are looking at reducing the spending of the European Commission and other institutions that had big surpluses and divert these funds to institutions like the EDA as I said."

"Finally, the enhancement of the EU loan system. We are looking at merging all loan agencies of the EU into one big loan agency. This will allow for centralization of loan funds and affairs. This will also allow for flexibility of the funds and easier auditing when necessary. We will also look into a better interest rate system to that based on the inflation rates which will be measured by the European Central Bank."

"With all these in mind, how much of the FIA should be transferred to the EDA? The answer is not simple, because the FIA is not the only part of the budget where we can take funds to replenish the EDA. But we can estimate, about 5 Billion Euros or more if we follow the 0.1% system we support."

Istkalen

Ms. Porter, please answer the questions I asked. Where will you get your proposed 15 billion from, why should 40% of the fund be reserved for only the poorest member-states, and what do you think the aim of EDA loans should be?

BrumBrum

Sara Porter:I will look at working with amenable councillors in the Council to introduce an emergancy request for extra money for the EU to go to the EDA so we can keep some of the FIA just in case working with the premier who controls this aspect. As for why 40% should go to the poorest member states only is they need the most simply put UD don't need as much per capita for example and neither do richer countries like Spain and Leagio but if we want to help all transition to a green sustainable economy poorer nations like Nofoaga , like Galland and Aspern need alot of extra help garunteeing 40% goes to nations like them and North Diessan and Pravoslaviya ensures this happens. It directs money to where it is most needed not the one with the best ability to write bids and hire people to put bids for money in.

Vayinaod

"Do you support a 'European Green Deal', and if so what does that mean exactly for you? How will you help countries whose current industries would be devastated potentially by rapid transition across Europe such as Vayinaod and the Duxburian Union?"

You have two minutes to answer, as well as rebuttals for 90 seconds. (((300 words: 200 words).

((OOC: you have 24 hours to submit answers. So until 2100 GMT March 04))

BrumBrum

Sara Porter:I support the European Green New Deal. Is it enough on its own ? No and certainly nations need to look how to go further in a way that fits their society and economy. Also I believe funds from the EU should be available particuarly to poorer nations to make sure they can also go carbon neutral before 2040 , this shouldn't be a luxury only rich nations can afford and rich nations should step up and provide the funds to help poorer nations who may I remind them are often poor because of exploitation in the past by these big nations like the Duchies , Spain and Reitzmag among others fomerly are the reason they cannot afford to do things on their own today. I want to be clear I am in no way singling out those nations since its the way things were back then, but we must provide more aid to develop the poorer economies in a sustainable way from the richer nations of the union using European brotherhood and sisterhood.

Spain

Yes, I support a European Green Deal, yet that means everyone should be compromised with them and that no nation should be left behind. When the talks were held in Bergen, many nations did not attend the summit, for example Vayinaod, the Duxburian Union, Angleter… The Green Deal summit began as a failure and ended up as a failure, due to a lack of agreement and participation. To me, the EGD should be something we all commit to, and that is not an imposition but rather a compromise with the European society and our citizens. Every nation must have its different rhythm and we just need to set 2 goals: when the whole region is transitioning to non-polluting vehicles and when are we achieving zero emissions. The rest should be decided and managed by the nations and not by the European Union, we cannot pretend that everyone acts at the same time.

Now when it comes to countries like the Duxburian Union or Vayinaod for example, Europe needs to be there and we need to guarantee funding for the projects to foster development towards this area. We can’t allow that a states-made fund is able to give money to projects while the European Union isn’t. And that takes me to the point that we were discussing before, not only contributions should go back to their previous level, something Mr. Biden’s friends in the Council gutted; but also we should raise the budget so the European Union can afford funding projects like the one proposed in Azrekko. The EDA will play a big, crucial role in the future of the EU and we must protect it at all costs, encourage its use and more importantly, convince every single country that investing in the EDA is investing in their citizen’s future.

BrumBrum

Sara Porter:So okay if you don't want a state fund to overtake the EDA then why not allow state donations to the EDA like the GEF does? Surely that is part of the solution.

Spain

Ms. Porter, did you know that until your friend, the Duchian Councillor gutted and sabotaged the budget, we had enough money to increase the European Development Agency’s budget? You just propose state donations to the EDA, but we already donate money to the European Union to pay for the budget! It’s extremely nonsensical to propose donations when, yearly, we pay for the budget! I am now starting to understand why the ELSS and similar groups want sovereignty to go back to nations, because they are not able to manage Europe as they should! Listen up taxpayers, this people want to make you pay double when you have the chance to only pay once. Does it have sense to you? To me it doesn’t.

In fact, it has the same sense than denying King Juan Carlos I of Spain did not use the Spanish Intelligence Services to spy on me, even if they deny it. He clearly did it! The same happens with your proposal Ms. Porter: it makes no sense and makes the European taxpayer pay double, because the donated money will come from the taxpayer, won’t it?

BrumBrum

Sara Porter:Then how do you propose the EDA gets equal ability to raise funds. We know from accounts the GEF gets 20 billion Euros per year from just United Duchies and Reitzmag alone. Unless you allow donations you will never match those amounts or get even close. If a nation wants to donate extra to the EDA or any other EU institution what exactly is the issue there? Some nations want to contribute to other nations development more yet are denied by stupid laws banning donations from nations above the 0.1% of GDP.

Spain

There's is no need for donations, Ms. Porter. Just use the budget surplus and stop your friend, Cllr. Mizrachi-Roscoe from fiercly resisting any attempts at restoration of the old budget. You are part of the group that decided to cut it, and we now understand why other nations supported it: the ELSS and similar groups want and keep wanting to use the European Union for their own profit. They proved it with the cut of the budget, they wanted to do the same with the European Enterprise Penalties Act.

By the way, Mr. Biden just defends the raise not because he agrees with it, but rather cause not supporting it would mean the end of his campaign and his chances to become Premier. Nothing further than that.

BrumBrum

Sara Porter:Once again you lie he is not fiercely resisting any attempt to raise it. He is saying he will vote yes if 80% of it is garunteed to be spent. In essence he is asking for assurance that EU will remain high for years to come and not be dependent on the whims of premiers. That is a good thing as it ensures the EU will actually spend what it gets, he is also requiring the main bit would be an FIA allocation only given back at the end of the year if not spent which would provide more flexibility. Presumably if you want EU flexibility you would support having that cash on hand for the whole year.He just wants an effective EU as do the whole of the ELSS and many others in Europe and one that is well run and provides nations with a say in how they are run and input into the laws of Europe. This should be something all nations support.

Kingdom of Reitzmag

"I do indeed support ways to protect the environment, this is even part of my 5 category-based intervention principle. However, I believe we need more actions instead of just plain treaties. The European Green Deal was a good idea, however there are better ways such that we could achieve our green goal quickly. Instead of a treaty that imposes the same policies on all nations, we could instead opt for a committment treaty where nations list their commitments and decide their courses of action for fighting climate change. This will serve as the EU's general mission and vision."

"We will consult member-states on their needs to achieve their plans through legislation or EU-wide programs. As part of our EDA reform, we'll also legislate that a separate reserve be created for Green Development Funds from which nations can borrow from. After the new EDA budgeting is fixed, it will be left on its own to grow its reserve from interests in loans. We will only provide funds to the EDA for its operations and if its reserves have depleted."

"Now, on the topic of nations that will be heavily affected by too quick transition. We will focus on nations that need more help, especially bigger nations like DU and Vayinaod. I believe that if these nations are able to catch up without hurting their economies, we would be able to quickly help other smaller nations that also need help. However, if we can through enough funds help everyone at the same time to also successfully transition at the same time, we will do so as much as possible."

"Time doesn't matter much here, what's more important is we are able to achieve things together. With the right deadline, and goals, our mission and vision for a better Europe will come true."

Istkalen

I am in support of a European Green Deal. What does this mean to me? Funding and coordinating at a European level, through contacts with research organizations, the development of technology to decrease emissions, especially in technology and agriculture. Development associations will also be encouraged to promote and implement green practices and construct green industry.

I will also hold a second meeting with as many member-states, in addition to labor unions, as possible to renew and expand the Bergen Agreement to develop a united front to control desertification and sea level rise, to prepare for major climate disasters, and to reduce emissions through further industrial investment and renovation across the EU, to be funded at least partially through the fund established by the Agreement, as well as possibly by the EDA. I will also seek to negotiate supply agreements in order to maintain a constant flow of the goods needed for these projects. The intention is to develop a cheaper alternative to fossil fuels in non-supplier nations, making oil and gas production economically nonsensical, while driving significant construction of alternative green industry in those supplier nations in particular in order to replace mineral exports. While it will be to the member-states to determine what form this will take, the progress of both will follow a rough timeline agreed upon by consensus, in order to ensure that the number of new jobs in supplier nations and new exports are roughly equal to the number of jobs and goods exported lost by "greening" in other nations. It will be member-states and to a lesser extent labor unions which determine everything beyond this framework at this meeting. Perhaps this will seem like overreach; but in a globalized world, to maintain economic stability during a transition, an international approach is necessary.

Ms. Porter says that, in order to correct the past, the former exploiting states must heap aid on the developing world. What a shame that this is so much of the time merely further exploitation. The way in which aid is given denies these states any chance to develop their own innovation, their own industry; it leaves them continuously dependent on copious amounts of exports from the outside world, while themselves exporting much less. The countries which they import from may then demand from them all manner of things. The goal should be to help the developing world construct economic sovereignty, rather than to maintain the current state of things.

BrumBrum

Sara Porter:I disagree aid is exploitative. Without aid Nofoaga would have had to take a great deal of debt on instead they got roughly 100,000 Euros per citizen to help with rebuilding from the Duchies and were able to spend it on projects as they saw fit generally. Aid is a useful things, the Green European Fund is helping the green transition throughout Europe yes it does have conditions to ensure its not wasted and doesn't fund something stupid like a gadgetbahn ensuring that any technology chosen is proven but that's important right now. We cannot afford for green funds to be wasted on unproven or unlikely to succeed technologies , we need to move forward to cut carbon as quickly as possible with proven technologies. WE don't need stupid stuff like hyperloops being funded when they are likely just to fail or proprietary transport systems like monorails with limited manufacturers for example.Its not a time for experimentation but instead action.

Vayinaod

To Biden from Silly Clues: "During the last campaign you promised carrying out a constitutional reform, which was not carried out. What has been done to fulfill this promise, why has it not yet been carried out and what will you do to fullfil it if elected."

To Larsen from Silly Blues: "Do you agree with how your opponent, the current internal affairs commissioner, handled crises that arose during his term? Will you seek to maintain the status quo of the Red Strait question or will you seek to reopen this issue?"

To Porter from Silly Spruce: "What are the main benefits of paying for a Commissioner without any concrete plan?"

To Kalessed from Serious Sirius: "In the past you spoke about adopting a Sovereignty Charter which would clearly outline the powers of the member states and the European Union, is this still your goal?"

You have two minutes to answer, as well as rebuttals for 90 seconds. (((300 words: 200 words).

((OOC: you have 24 hours to submit answers. So until 0400 GMT March 05))

BrumBrum

Sara Porter:I have got a concrete plan and thats consult the nations but the benefit of this is simple you the nations set the agenda. I'm not going to force some grand agenda on you but instead visit your parliaments reguarly like I already have , visit your governments and have a big meeting of all heads of state or government. Your nations will be involved all the way unlike now. So the benefit is you'll get an EU that consults , gets a concensus then act.