Challenge over decisions of EDA
-
The pedestrianization of streets contributes to revenue, we know that, we have seen it in our own cities. But it is not enough to justify the spending of five billion euros of the Union's money. The benefits are nowhere near proportionate.
We are also, as my colleague, the Speaker, said, not debating the Cycle Superhighway. The time for that has long since passed, and the Commission's decision is now final.
Merte Maksile
Deputy Councillor for the Republic of Istkalen -
Pinned by
Istkalen
-
We are debating both though and I would ask for your evidence that it is not proportionate on a nationwide scale given they were for the whole nation to create pedestrianised districts. I would ask for your evidence a toll highway is a positive development and a sustainable one? If anything that is a more ecologically unsound and unsustainable use of the EDA funding. We do know cycling super highways cost up to 3 million Euros per sq km especially in Duchies with our higher labour costs we were only proposing covering just under a 1/3rd of the cost of the scheme with EU funding and less if you count the addition km's planned elsewhere. Pedestrianisation is also estimated to cost upwards of 5,000,000 Euros per km of streets pedestrianised and that excludes the park and ride schemes and purchase of buses for each park and ride scheme and set up of depots ,so once again your assumptions are proven wrong, this is the price of schemes like that. The EDA is supposed to support sustainable development it has approved a toll highway which is in the region of 50 million Euros per sq kmto construct for less capacity in many cases minimum on average yet rejected cycle and pedestrianisation schemes that cost a fraction of the cost. Are you sure you wish to claim the "wise custodian of money" moniker at the EDA basic maths and physics would seem to disprove the theory. Now I love my electric cars but I have to acknowledge that they are more inefficient and more congesting of roads than cycles and public transit and people just walking down a street. You cannot claim a highway is an efficient use of money while pedestrianisation schemes and cycle schemes are "pointless" and a "waste of money". That has been proven false time and time again , I'd love to see your reaction when a highway expansion is needed in Svarna Surya in 4 years time when that highway gets congested which evidence has shown reguarly happens on highways due to induced demand.
James Mizrachi-Roscoe, Councillour for United Duchies
-
Debate will be extended to 23:59 GMT on 2 July 2023.
Iras Tilkanas
Council Speaker and Councillor for the Republic of Istkalen -
If the United Duchies really wanted this, they're so wealthy that a project entirely self contained shouldn't need a subsidy. The EDA should subsidise projects that clearly benefit the Union, not one nation's citizens. Now, I fully concede it might just be my interpretation.
Councillor Ed Miliband
The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland
William V Rex
Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer
Councillor Caroline LucasThe Commonwealth of California
Prime Minister Kamala Harris
Councilor Snoop Dogg -
The policies would benefit the Union in reduced emissions and increased share of green modes of transport and I'd like to point out by your argument that we can afford to fund it ourselves so therefore shouldn't claim neither should UK, DU , Inquista, Yosai , Leagio and half the EU at this point. The EU has took the money yet doesn't want to spend the money or wants to put their vision of development on member states.Yes we can afford it and likely will fund it but this would be like a turbocharger that boosts the development and transition planes.The EDA quite clearly says its for infrastructure and sustainable development. The Duchies was not even asking the EU to cover the full cost of the projects just literally part of the cost of the whole network plans or pedestrianisation plans.
I would also argue that research into technology to produce hybrid and electric plane solutions was clearly in the interests of all European citizens but that was also rejected. There is barely anything covered with the apparently very limited definition the EDA uses or criteria they use.There is supposed to be an allowance for national cultures and economic conditions but this is not apparently being followed. United Duchies cannot claim for high speed rail projects, or development of buses and highways most of that work is done , as is most of the development of our bus stops and industrial base. The only projects left are adapting what we have for better use and to be more sustainable into the future but thats what we are being told the EDA is apparently not now for. THe EDA needs to say what types of projects it actually would like to see with criteria that can be compared against or it needs to actually look properly at data provided and evidence from past projects of those types in the country the bids from where they'd see previous lanes resulted in massive increases in cycling rather than assuming it won't work because they have a pro-car agenda or an agenda towards one type of transport method being blind to anything else.
James Mizrachi-Roscoe , Councillour for United Duchies
-
This challenge is solely for the decision on the National Pedistrian Priority Areas - the Cycle Super Highway System was not voted on, for which the government of the United Duchies may sue, while the research funding was not mentioned in the original challenge.
Merte Maksile
Deputy Councillor for the Republic of Istkalen -
The challenge was for both decisions if you look at the original challenge and I bring others up because its relevent to the point of the previous person who spoke. They are saying it should be for projects that benefit the Union and I am explaining how the projects proposed by the UD have benefit to all Europeans and that a project that definitely met their aim was rejected as well. The point is the EDA needs to either a:set guidelines and clear goals and definitions on what it will fund if its so set on strict conditions like it seems it is or actually trust local data and look at project through the lens of appropiateness to the local culture and environment in a nation rather than through a ideological lens or what works in their country just denying a project because it "wouldn't work in my country". The EDA is too fond of rejecting projects without giving clear reasons why and when asked to do so just ignores the request for what nations can do to improve bids or fit the criteria.
James Mizrachi-Roscoe, Councillour for United Duchies
-
Councillor Roscoe, it is up to the Speaker to decide what is debated in this Chamber, not you. The Speaker has only accepted one of the challenges as the other is out of time.
Donald Tusk
Candidate for Speaker and Councillor for Spain
The Kingdom of Spain
His Majesty the King, Felipe VI
President Alberto Núñez-Feijóo
Councillor and Council Speaker Donald Tusk -
Its the pattern thats the problem though. In none of the circumstances ha s the EDA come up with detailed assessments of why its come to decisions , set out a criteria of what is and what is not acceptable for funding. The EDA is leaving the member states to essentially guess as to what the interpretation will be , and therefore waste time of member states in applying. Luckilly the UD can divert funds from other projects to the projects or reduce its surplus to fund the projects but not all are in this fortunate position but it shouldn't have to do that given we are one of the largest contributors due to be the largest contributor by this year.
On specifically the National Pedestrianisation project the council have been misinformed on what the project is its not simply paving a few streets its designing pedestrian focused and pedestrian only areas in all city centres and many high streets throughout the country and construction of park and ride schemes and transport into those areas specifically in order for the areas to work for all.You can't do this for millions on a nationwide scale.I fail to see how thats somehow a bad use of funds but a toll highway which will inevitably increase pollution and get congested through induced demand is. If the cost was the concern then the commission should come back with a counter offer they think is reasonable if their objection is not ideological pro-car bias yet they did not such thing and gave no such guidance on how to improve the bid to be accepted we are now left guessing as to how to improve the bid and in a position where a bid cannot be put in for a lower amount of funding because we are not mind readers and do not know what the commission would feel is appropiate for such a project.
James Mizrachi-Roscoe, Councillour for United Duchies
-
A technical correction. the EDA has not made a decision on the National Pedestrian Priority Areas, the Commission did. Both the Commission and the Council are part of the Agency's decision-making and a decision will only be made after the Council adopts a decision.
Deputy Councillor Maksile is quite correct, please Mr Mizrachi-Roscoe, make yourself familiar with the Agency. This is a clear attempt to misuse the finances of the EDA.
Sofie Čikarová
Councillor for Czech Slavia -
The technical difference makes no effective difference. I am familiar with how it works, its effectively the representatives of the EDA making a decision. There is no attempt to misuse the finances of the EDA but to use them in a way that makes sense in a Duchian context. It would make no sense for Duchies to prioritise funds for pro-car projects or other major projects like that when its trying to actively get away from car dependence especially in its major cities. That is why projects like the National Pedestrian Priority Areas around the country are being proposed.
The 5 billion Euros would significantly boost spending at cafes and shops and increase the passing trade in the area from walking and cycling, would save on key emissions meaning less expense in the future on climate adaptation being required by all nations, yes we can spend money in the future on this as a union but isn't it better to fund schemes that cut down on those emissions in the first place rather than spend more later dealing with consequences of lack of action? It's also contrary to what some here have said more than 5 billion Euros for a "bit of pavement" by that logic the Highways proposal that passed was "5 billion Euros for a bit of road" and the Svarnan High Speed Rail project is "5 billion Euros for a bit of Steel" . The 5 billion Euros yes covers making more pavement in those areas which by the way would be replacing 1,000's of km's of roads in cities in cumulative effect which would require less maintenance everywhere by virtue of reducing road wear but is also a project to develop park and rides , increase transportation to replace cars by giving different modes money to implement park and ride stations or stops and the ensure welcoming shaded areas that are comfortable to walk also reducing need for air conditioning usage once again cutting carbon. How does this not fit the EDA's brief of sustainable development while a toll highway primarily for cars which are the most polluting method of travel per capita even in electric form due to tyre pollution is considered good stewardship of the funds.Its pretty obvious which is them more sustainable form of development and better use of EDA funds for the future of the climate.
James Mizrachi-Roscoe , Councillour for United Duchies
-
Debate has ended. Voting on this challenge begins NOW and will continue until 23:59 GMT on 14 July 2023.
Iras Tilkanas
Council Speaker and Councillor for the Republic of Istkalen -
On behalf of the Republic of Istkalen, I vote against this challenge.
Iras Tilkanas
Council Speaker and Councillor for the Republic of Istkalen -
On behalf of the United Kingdom, I affirm the decision.
-
On behalf of the Kingdom of Spain, I vote AGAINST this challenge.
Donald Tusk
Candidate for Speaker and Councillor for SpainThe Kingdom of Spain
His Majesty the King, Felipe VI
President Alberto Núñez-Feijóo
Councillor and Council Speaker Donald Tusk -
On behalf of United Duchies I vote FOR this challenge, James Mizrachi-Roscoe , Councillour for United Duchies
-
Cllr. Miliband, just to be sure - you are opposed to overturning the Commission's decision to deny funding for the National Pedestrian Priority Areas in the United Duchies?
Iras Tilkanas
Council Speaker and Councillor for the Republic of Istkalen -
I affirm the initial decision.
-
With three votes against and one for, this challenge has failed.
Iras Tilkanas
Council Speaker and Councillor for the Republic of Istkalen -
Unpinned by Istkalen
