[Discussion] A Red-Green Vision for Europe

[BrumBrum]

Quite frankly the EU should not be regulating deficits or surpluses unless part they are part of a currency union. Who is to say what is excessive it all depends on how long too or in what areas the couuntry has trade deficits or surpluses and for how long. A country may have a surplus for a long time in goods but not in services like in Duchies where we have alot of foreign contractors in the country likewise a nation in a trade deficit may have alot of service exports. Does your balance of trade proposals account for this.

I also challenge the notion trade is zero sum it is not it brings in necessary goods where countries cannot make them for example we cannot make tablets and low end electronics and low value goods as effectively. We could make them sure but they would cost 3-4 times as much even if manufactaured in a fair trade way in other countries likewise we are more efficient at cars and capital intensive goods , those types of goods a small nation may not have the market for a local manufactaurer whereas nations like DU , Inquista and UD do so with trade we can all specialise in goods that the environment and economic size of our country makes us good at. The idea countries can be self sufficient is a pie in the sky fantasy sure its possib.e if we make goods cost 4 times as much or more due to inefficiencies. Quite frankly maybe you need to study business and economics properly before coming up with such insane policies or consult real economists and not loony far lefties on economics matters.

Your policy makes no mention of high frequency transfers merely transfers which could happen for many reasons for example would Roscoes be considered bad for importing alot of bananas even if its uneconomic and not green to make them in Duchies and likewise would exporting potatoes in quantity be bad in your eyes even if it makes cheaper wholesome veg available for both consumers in both countries. I would also ask how this policy would affect countries like Inquista who don't have low value land for factories for low end goods and don't have land to grow food so depend on massive food imports and imports of basic goods to function. This proposal takes no account of the different roles of economies in the global economy and instead seeks some sort of wishful thinking autarky that would only impoverish everyone in Europe."

James Mizrachi-Roscoe , Councillor for United Duchies

[Istkalen]

There is no communism to be found in this proposal. If it were truly a communist proposal it would not encourage the trading of securities on the part of the European Central Bank. What is most objectionable would be the system of employment guarantees established by the GDWA; the choice was made primarily to promote stability and higher wages, both of which have positive effects on economic stability and growth.

With the revisions I proposed a few moments ago, it is not even a particularly radical proposal. It establishes an institution which ensures that international payments are cleared - that transactions are fully made - and then monitors the surpluses and deficits by means of a unit of account - the Euro. I have already stated that I did not see it as imperative to penalize either surpluses or deficits, and have mere minutes ago made revisions to the proposal which do not cause direct penalization for either.

Determination of what exactly constitutes excessive surplus and deficits, as I have stated ad absurdium, will be dependent on "the existing industrial base, existing human resources, and existing natural resources;" to this we may also add 'current share of world trade,' although I saw this as unnecessary as the other factors heavily imply it anyways.

To give clarity to the way in which the GDWA will function exactly, I will further propose a tenth point:

"In its mandate for diversification, the GDWA will work with national governments to determine sectors in which the nation in question may or does have a comparative advantage, to which investment and development will be targeted."

I continue to hold that it is necessary to prevent capital flight. There is not an economist in the world who will disagree with me on this. The proposal states that only high frequency transfers will be penalized.

Ilmaras Kalessed
Internal Affairs Commissioner

[BrumBrum]

I quite frankly do not trust the EU or any international beaurocrat to decide what a "High" frequency transfers are and interfere in business in such a way or decide what an acceptable amount of capital movement is. As someone from a business background in Roscoes every day we send capital into Euro accounts in other countries to then centrally process Euro payments to the Euro nations for imports to simplify matters. Like wise we send high frequency payments out through third nations that specialise in them for similar reasons. Would this count as too "High". Investment firms will often send money in and out frequently to banking centres like Inquista and DU from Duchies will this be too "High" frequency. I don't trust a distant agency with no idea of local economic conditions run by EU beaurocrats to decide on issues like this or support extra red tape on international fund transfers or giving authority to the EU over such transactions as you propose. "

[Istkalen]

With all due respect, you misunderstand me. The prohibition is related to capital flight. The implication is that if an amount of net capital exceeding a certain percentage of GDP flows out of a country within a certain period of time - and I do not feel it is for me to place an exact definition for this - the European Union should intervene to slow the flight of capital.

Ilmaras Kalessed
Internal Affairs Commissioner

[BrumBrum]

I do not believe that is the EU's Domain respectively. A nation will know how to stop its capital outflows better and have understanding of it better. It is up to the nation to solve such a problem. It is not the EU's job to over regulate and control the market frankly. I would also ask what is a certain amount of time we talking in a year, months , hours , minutes or seconds.

Roscoes as an example regularly puts money into short term investments in Inquista so might have 10's of billions in capital flow out of a nation in a period of hours after all expenses are paid for the month but then may have 10's of billions go out of Inquista to pay wages , this may be money put into funds to put into very short term loans for example or just put into savings accounts. Would that count as a certain amount of time. I certainly do not see value in trades where shares are bought and sold in mere seconds but there is value in holding assets for a month or so and getting payment back in afterwards. This is why its best left to nations in my oppinion as this could affect many businesses including state owned ones."

James Mizrachi-Roscoe, Councillor for United Duchies

[Istkalen]

The fixation on specific times is bizarre. In discussion of crises, it is probably better to avoid specific definitions.

Given the criticism, however, I will propose the following, in place of the disputed point 3:

"The European Central Bank, in the case of the imposition of currency controls by a given nation, will continue to purchase bonds issued by said nation at regular or elevated rates, except if other extenuating circumstances prevail."

I would also like to very generally discuss the possibility of implementing a general tax on currency exchange that would be in effect only during speculative attacks.

Ilmaras Kalessed
Internal Affairs COmmissioner

[BrumBrum]

I would suggest the best approach is a tax on short term transactions so maybe a tax on short term trades if a share position is sold within 1 day of purchase for example to encourage stability in markets if that is your intended effect. That way funds transferred to savings accounts for a month and then returned are not taxed where as highly short term investing is. On capital outflows I'd suggest leaving the power to the council so at least a democratic leader is voting on it or having the nations be required to request help for an intervention unless they are defaulting on EU load payments.I believe it should be up to the nations democratically elected government to request the help from ECB and then get a short term stabilisation package and negotiate a long term package once that is in effect."

James Mizrachi-Roscoe , Councillor for United Duchies

[Czech Slavia]

First I would like to say that I welcome the proposal of the Internal Affairs Commissioner directed at solving such an important issue. Second I would like to point out that I agree with concerns of some of my colleagues over state sovereignty, in this manner I propose the following Amendment:

10. In its mandate for diversification, the GDWA will work as an advisory body assisting the national governments with the determination of sectors in which the nation in question may or does have a comparative advantage, to which investment and development will be targeted

Lasty I would like to ask the Council Speaker to demand an apology form the honorable Councillor of the State of Elthize Zachary for his words about the capital of the Democratic Republic with the connections to, and I quote, "clownery". Thank you.

Václav Kohout
Councillor for Czech Slavia

[Istkalen]

I am in agreement with the proposal of Cllr. Kohout, in that investment policy should in the end be decided by the nation, although the GDWA must operate in all nations if it is to have any actual effect.

Cllr. Mizrachi-Roscoe, the policy of the ECB in terms of purchasing bonds should indeed be according to the wishes of member-states; it should work, in doing so, to maintain the exchange rates as maintained by national central-banks; but when these exchange rates are threatened by outside speculation, it should intervene independently, through bond and security trade, to maintain the exchange rate in the given nation - and only do so otherwise if the nation's central bank itself makes known that it intends to carry out a significant revaluation of its currency.

The issue with the taxation proposal is that I don't feel it does nearly enough to combat capital flight. Perhaps a tax on the speculative exchange of currency - occuring at rates outside of the normal exchange-rate band - and then the ability of the ECB to impose taxes, not exceeding 1%, on all currency exchange with the authorization of the Council?

Ilmaras Kalessed
Internal Affairs Commissioner

---

I will simply generally remind Councillors and others to refrain from deriding entire countries or groups of people as clownish in some way. While I believe that Cllr. Zachary's comment was directed at communism rather than Czech Slavia, I see how it can be construed to imply that the city of Prague and its inhabitants have clownish attitudes.

Iras Tilkanas
Council Speaker and Councillor for the Republic of Istkalen

[BrumBrum]

We would definitely agree with the possibility of a tax with a vote on the council. The only thing the United Duchies wants is any measure to be in line with nations wishes and the power to lie with the democratically elected either directly or indirectly representatives in the EU. At least having a council vote would give the peoples voice say too. I get capital flight is a concern but the issue I have there is ultimately its up to a government to combat it though if they want help with the issue then there should also be help available. We already have laws on the books in Duchies that can limit capital outflow in an emergency by limiting withdrawals or transfers from Duchies bank accounts within a certain period though we are reticent to use them in general to avoid manipulating the market.

James Mizrachi-Roscoe Councillor for United Duchies

[Duxburian Union]

The Duxburian financial system is completely and irreconcilably incompatible with this level of centralized command and control. The Duxburian government cannot prevent its individuals and entities from trading with whomever they please, wherever they please, whenever they please, and in whatever unit of account they desire. It is simply a technological impossibility in a world with RippleNet, cross-chain bridges, unhosted wallets, and crypto in general. Duxburians enjoy a level of monetary freedom riding on cutting-edge technology that is probably unfathomable in other countries. As mentioned in the past, any Duxburian could up and decide to transfer K:1 billion in or out of the country across RippleNet, broadcasting from a private node on a "Web3" network with a 2-10 second clearing time and no entity on earth could censor or prevent the transaction. We live in a world where different types of money are globally fungible in real-time, 24 hours a day / 365 days a year, and can be coin-joined in cross-chain mixers thoroughly enough that identification of owners is not even physically possible. The era when a national government, central bank, or the EU itself can just top-down dictate how people use their money is ancient history. The capability itself no longer exists in a hyper-modern country. Duxburian Civilization has chosen to embrace this reality rather than engage in a hopeless game of regulatory whack-a-mole for the rest of eternity. These technologies and networks can't be banned, they can't be shut down. There is no stopping the power of decentralization and what amounts to "financial democracy".

The Union of Duxburian Dominions is so confident in our model of finance and respect for peoples' money that we don't attempt to have capital controls. If you want to pull everything out of our country, it's your right to do that, and you may do it at any time. It's your money, not ours. We do actually impose fees on high-frequency transfers, but that is done by node operators to protect networks from dust attacks and DDOS. They decide the fees, the government has no control over that. Some networks choose to have a staking model to allocate system resources, in which case there is no actual fee, but the sender must possess enough staked funds that their transactions get processed. We can't force nodes to implement fees or taxes above and beyond those necessary to operate and protect their networks. Node operators are widely-dispersed throughout the country, they can be anyone and their mother.

Since the Union of Duxburian Dominions cannot possibly hope to comply with this, we'd be forced to exit the European Union.

Additionly, I would like to call out the Speaker of the European Council for hypocrisy and lack of impartiality - you cannot take offense at countries you like being called "clownish" while allowing countries you don't like to be called "barbaric" or "uncivilized" as mine has. You also do not have the right to deprive councillors of our Article II, Section I, Clause III constitutional rights, a second time. "All views can be voiced in the European Council." That means ALL views, including ones you don't agree with or ones that make you uncomfortable. The old Constitution had an even stronger clause in protection of free speech, showing that it's been a core doctrinal priority for the entirety of the EU's existence. If you can't be impartial and can't abide by the European Constitution, you're unfit to continue in the role of Speaker.

Wesley Greene
Councillor of the Duxburian Union

[Elthize]

Cllr Kohout, I would like to clarify that my words were not directed at any country or city specifically, they were directed at Cllr Kalessed and their proposals. I apologize for the misunderstanding. Regardless, I remain opposed to this proposal and assert my beliefs that investors have a right to damage control in case things go badly.

---

Liam Zachary, Councillor for Elthize

[Lusitanovetonia]

While the measures serve a purpose that we support and share, our country cannot afford the added tariffs to the oil sector. It would be a shot in the foot to a fundamental pillar of our economy at this time.

---

Federal Republic of Lusitania and Vettonia
President of the Republic: Elisa Ubrique
Governor General: José Miguel Orato
European Councillor: Luis Castro

[Kingdom of Reitzmag]

Dear Ms. Commissioner,

Spoiler

No.

Dame Yuridiana Yahontova GCC
Councilor, Kingdom of Reitzmag

[Brickston]

The Republic of Brickston and I myself acknowledge and appreciate that a green vision is being introduced.

Although this vision is something that could allow for a smooth green transition, we highly resent the EU dictating how our country runs. This transition seems to be very abrupt and radical. Brickston, and the EU, if this is passed, will, with no doubt, be economically weakened and we believe that Brickston's relationship with the EU will also weaken.

We believe in free-market policies with appropriate governance and this would obviously be opposed to that ideology, as this radical plan would seem similar to the policies implemented in leftist communist states.

It is also important to note that Brickston is already drafting a Sustainable Development Plan, and it would be better if every country had its own, rather than creating a universal one for all European Nations. We believe that if we can tackle the problem ourselves, we can produce even greater results as opposed to a radical plan like this one, which will destabilise trade connections between European nations as well as the world.

Therefore, we entirely oppose this vision.

Swenstee Ceshawan
Councillor for the Republic of Brickston

[Istkalen]

Firstly, clearing unions are not radical concepts, and in all likelihood would only involve payments in central-bank issued currency due to the impossibility of doing otherwise. As you will note, I have proposed revisions to this proposal, which I have actually read out to you, which remove the original restrictions placed on non-Euro international trade. Regardless, as the sole point of the clearing union with the revisions is to track deficits and surpluses, it is not entirely necessary, as those can be estimated by other authorities. It will therefore be dropped completely from the proposal, without replacement.

I must reiterate that unless if Councillors believe that the purchase of bonds or employment programs, both of which have their basis in very liberal economics, are communist in nature, this proposal is not at all communist.

Given the objection to the tax, I will drop it, and propose the following in its place:

"The European Central Bank will issue a 'carbon unit' to companies and organizations which work to mitigate climate change, at a rate of 1 unit per 1000 kg of CO2e (estimated) mitigated over a period of 100 years. Carbon units will be traded on in an open market. Individual central banks will expand their bank reserves at rates agreed upon mutually between them and the European Central Bank, to limit inflation and to ensure that it is equal across all nations, in order to purchase carbon units so as to regulate the market price of the carbon unit and therefore to change the demand for it. This will create a market incentive to turn towards more green technology.

Ilmaras Kalessed
Internal Affairs Commissioner

---

Councillor Greene, yes, I was not impartial. But here non-intervention risked the debate being repeatedly interrupted by someone demanding an apology, a situation in which I would not be able to do anything about. In the future, however, I will consider impartiality as being far more important and use alternative methods to control such possibilities.

Iras Tilkanas
Council Speaker and Councillor for the Republic of Istkalen