Ammendment to EUROPEAN DEVELOPMENT AGENCY ACT
-
SECTION III. - PROCESS OF GRANTING AND DENYING SUBSIDY REQUESTS
I. Anymember stateOrganisations registered in EU member states may issue a subsidy request to the European Commission.
II.Member StatesOrganisations registered in EU member states requesting for a subsidy must provide the information about the intended use of the subsidy, what form of subsidy is requested, the amount of money requested, justification for the request and in the case of requesting a subsidy in a form of a interest-free loan or a low-interest loan, the timeframe in which the loan will be paid back.
III. Each member state shall have a National Development Board(NDB) set up to assess grants or loan applications which can then be applied to and sub-comittees may be created in these as needed to cope with demand.
IV.Each National Development Board will be given a allocation based on population share and development needs including criteria such as the national level of poverty.
V.Each National Development Boards use of funds shall be audited on a 6 monthly basis to prevent waste and corruption
VI. National Development boards shall have 12 seats each with 6 appointed by the member state and 6 appointed by the EU comission.All serving on the board must show a understanding of local development needs.
VII.National Development Boards may have an emergency board imposed if corruption is found to be prevalent with clear evidence
VIII. Any citizen of the EU may put in a complaint about a grant or report alledged misuse of funds to the EU for investigation
IX.Any grants found to be fraudulent in nature or have broken the criteria may be reclaimed by the EDA at any point through national court proceedings if necessary
X.If any government is found to be misusing money or using money in a fraudulant manner the EDA and Commissioners may take them to the European Court of Justice which may then impose a fine of up to 1.5 times the amount of the funds misused as well as block any access to any financial support for any schemes from the EU until appropiate anti-corruption reforms are instituted.III. The European Commission will deliberate and vote on whether to grant or deny the subsidy request or propose a counter-offer to the subsidy request. An absolute majority is needed for granting the subsidy request or proposing a counter-offer to the subsidy request. The European Commission has 240 hours after the subsidy request was issued to make a decision.
IV. The European Commission may propose a counter-offer to the subsidy request. The member state that requested the subsidy may fully accept, partly accept or fully refuse the counter-offer.
V. In a case where the member state fully accepts the counter-offer, the amended subsidy request is granted by the European Commission.
VI. In a case where the member state partly accepts or fully refuses the counter-offer, the Commission will deliberate and vote on whether to grant or deny the subsidy request in its amended or original form without the right to make another counter-offer to the subsidy request. The European Commission has 168 hours after the member state partly accepted or fully refused the counter-offer to make a decision.
VII. After the European Commission has either granted or denied the subsidy request, the European Council has 120 hours to start a review process.
VIII. The European Council may either approve or overrule the decision of the European Commission. Overruling the decision of the European Commission requires a simple majority in the European Council.
IX. If the European Council has not started a review process in 120 hours after the European Commission has made a decision, the decision of the European Commission is approved by the European Council.
X. A subsidy request is granted by the European Development Agency if the European Council approves the decision of the European Commission to grant the subsidy request or if the European Council overrules the decision of the European Commission to deny the subsidy request.
XI. A subsidy request is denied by the European Development Agency if the European Council approves the decision of the European Commission to deny the subsidy request or if the European Council overrules the decision of the European Commission to grant the subsidy request.We keep hearing in Duchies complaints of how slow applications are to process and how beaurocratic it is and with commissioners asking stupid questions lacking understanding of local economies or culture and society.It is clear we do not have a functioning system in place and as far as I am aware despite applying for funds virtually no projects have been granted funds so far. I believe the process is far too centralised and removed from the local needs. I propose this reform to make it so funds can actually start moving and the EDA can do its job. I understand the need for checks against corruption and waste of funds and believe this reform would protect that while ensuring those giving grants can do it quickly and efficiently.
-
No.
Debate begins NOW and will continue until 23:59 GMT on 13 May 2023.
Iras Tilkanas
Council Speaker and Councillor for the Republic of Istkalen -
Pinned by
Istkalen
-
No, gracias.
Donald Tusk
Councillor for Spain
The Kingdom of Spain
His Majesty the King, Felipe VI
President Alberto Núñez-Feijóo
Councillor and Council Speaker Donald Tusk -
I do challenge those opposing this as to why? The system we have right now is far too centralised and inflexible. We expect three commissioners to vote on potentially 1,000's of applications after having read them and expect companies and organisations to go to Europolis if they need a face to face meeting about the application. This is inefficient and also expensive making smaller applications for funding unviable. With this we would actually have a chance to get all the money out to actual development , as of now the commission has approve 0 Euros of development funds and this is pretty common and will always be an issue as long as it is so centralised. No other multi-billion euro grant agency centres all decision making on a central 3 commissioners , it is normal to delegate granting of funding to more local offices basically in any other multi-billion Euro organisation, by voting against this you are voting to never get funding out and continue the attrocious record of the EDA in getting any grant money or loans out to where it is needed.You are holding back the unleashing of the power of the EU, we need change and we need people giving funding to be local and understand local conditions and culture something a centralised office in Europolis will never be able to do as efficiently.
I ask this would you have a hospital director or national health service manager approve every medicine and treatment individually in a hospital or would you rather set guidelines and policy and then have doctors and nurses who know each individual patient decide on the course of treatment. You'd do the the latter because otherwise everyone would have to wait months or years for treatment killing many patients just as the current system kills many grants and applications by being far too slow.
James Mizrachi-Roscoe, Councillor for United Duchies
-
We cannot give carte blanche to corruption. I recognize, however, the need for reform, and would like to tentatively propose delegating the approval of projects that request, say, less than 5 or so percent of the fund to a more bureaucratic administration better able to manage.
Iras Tilkanas
Council Speaker and Councillor for the Republic of Istkalen -
I agree when you spend billions on a project you want to get good oversight. I would argue this bill protects against corruption in the form of the EU appointing half the national board, allowing citizens to report not only corruption but wasteful spending and allowing an imposition of an emergency board if corruption is found as well as allowing reclaiming of funds. This is not by any means a carte blanche on corruption I will however in spirit of this concern add an additional amendment
X.If any government is found to be misusing money or using money in a fraudulant manner the EDA and Commissioners may take them to the European Court of Justice which may then impose a fine of up to 1.5 times the amount of the funds misused as well as block any access to any financial support for any schemes from the EU until appropiate anti-corruption reforms are instituted.
Whatever your concerns are around corruption it is clear three already busy commissioners cannot handle applications and this has been demonstrated by the lack of EDA funds given out. I would also be happy for the EDA head to be elected or selected by all nations governments and parliaments in a manner of the countries choosing for their vote to seperated out the grant deciding freeing up the other commissioners to do their main jobs of talking to nations and coming up with big picture solutions. What is clear is the current system doesn't work , as 0 Euros has been given out in 6 months so far. We have 47 billion Euros sitting there just not being spent that is 47 billion euros that needs to be spent and that could have otherwise if its not going to be spent be currently being spent by governments in their own nation states rather than paying an EU membership fee for the money to be sitting in an EU agency account for a year before being returned. Frankly if I gave a department or worker a task and it wasn't done or money and it was just sitting there for 6 months in business without even being processed I would be firing that department or worker yet we are letting incompetence happen here in the EU that is actively harming the European people.
James Mizrachi-Roscoe, Councillor for United Duchies
-
Debate will be extended to 23:59 GMT on 27 May 2023.
Iras Tilkanas
Council Speaker and Councillor for the Republic of Istkalen -
Debate has ended. Final voting begins now and will continue until 23:59 GMT on 8th June 2023.
Iras Tilkanas
Council Speaker and Councillor for the Republic of Istkalen -
On behalf of the Kingdom of Spain, I vote AGAINST this act.
Donald Tusk
Councillor for Spain -
Many apologies, as I have missed an amendment. One amendment has been proposed, as follows;
AMENDMENT I
X.If any government is found to be misusing money or using money in a fraudulant manner the EDA and Commissioners may take them to the European Court of Justice which may then impose a fine of up to 1.5 times the amount of the funds misused as well as block any access to any financial support for any schemes from the EU until appropiate anti-corruption reforms are instituted.
Amendment voting begins now and will continue until 23:59 GMT on 8th June 2023.
-
On behalf of United Duchies I vote for the ammendment
James Mizrachi-Roscoe Councillor for United Duchies
-
On behalf of the Republic of Istkalen, I vote FOR the amendment.
Iras Tilkanas
Council Speaker and Councillor for the Republic of Istkalen -
On behalf of the Mishar Republic, I vote FOR the amendment.
Mrs. Susie Dakota
-
I vote FOR the amendment.
Donald Tusk
Councillor for Spain -
With four votes for, the amendment has passed.
Final voting begins now and will continue until 23:59 GMT on 16 June 2023.
Iras Tilkanas
Council Speaker and Councillor for the Republic of Istkalen -
On behalf of the Republic of Istkalen, I vote AGAINST this act.
Iras Tilkanas
Council Speaker and Councillor for the Republic of Istkalen -
On behalf of United Duchies I vote FOR this amendment
James Mizrachi-Roscoe, Councillour for United Duchies -
Representing The State of Elthize, I vote AGAINST this amendment.
May Hobbes
Councillor for Elthize -
On behalf of the Federal Republic of Yosai I vote FOR this amendment
Izumi Miwako
Councillor for the Federal Republic of Yosai -
On behalf of the Kingdom of Spain, I vote AGAINST this amendment.
Donald Tusk
Councillor for Spain
