Challenge over decisions of EDA

[BrumBrum]

Challenge over Decisions on National Pedestrian Priority areas and Subsidy Request for United Duchies Cycle Super Highway System

We the United Duchies seek to challenge the decisions above as such decisions make it clear the fund is only for very limited projects essentially precluding nations like United Duchies that have completed lower order development projects. The EDA is supposed to be for sustainable development and these funds would have helped turbocharge the green transition for Duchies aligning with our culture and the way people travel in United Duchies. This seems to be putting a particular anti-sustainable development agenda into the EDA with cycle projects and pedestrianising and general car reducing projects at a disadvantage which will slow the green transition. It is clear these projects were well within sustainable development project guidelines. It is true Duchies could fund these projects fully itself but thats not the the point. We were told Duchies would be able to access funds for projects relevant to it , but it seems with such a limited scope for projects accepted that there is little projects to bid for. The EDA needs to either expand its criteria to allow for locally relevent projects or clearly define the types of projects it will accept for bidding to stop the waste and delay in projects going to the EDA only to be denied. We need to know what types of projects the EDA would support and what the guidelines are.

James Mizrachi-Roscoe , Councillour for United Duchies

[Istkalen]

Debate begins NOW and continues until 23:59 GMT on 29 June 2023. Be aware that this challenge is only for the proposal for the National Pedestrian Priority Areas, as the Council may only challenge Commission decisions 120 hours after they are made.

Iras Tilkanas
Council Speaker and Councillor for the Republic of Istkalen

---

The Republic of Istkalen is opposed to this challenge. The purpose of the EDA is, as is written clearly in the European Development Act, to fund national development. We simply do not see how the construction of pedestrian pathways or of a cycle superhighway aids this, as they do not contribute in any obvious way to GDP or any other metric of economic or social improvement.

Merte Maksile
Deputy Councillor for the Republic of Istkalen

[Spain]

Thank you, Speaker Tilkannas, for letting me attend this Council challenge from the Duchian Councillor to the recent European Commission decision not to grant European Development Agency funds to his country for the construction of pedestrian pathways. Before I begin, I must confess I am saddened by the fact that you are retiring, and as a good friend of mine, and also a nice person to work alongside with, I wish you the best retirement ever. You know that my house's door is always open for you.

Now, into business. I will be very brief: Councillor Roscoe, stop the paranoia. The construction of pedestrian pathways is not within the reasonable use of European Development Agency funds, moreover when Svarna Surya is building a huge high speed railway netowrk with the same amount of money that the United Duchies is asking for to build pathways. I also want to emphasize the argument given by the Deputy Councillor for Istkalen, as it is not going to help Duchian GDP or social development in the United Duchies.

In addition, you have, on your own and without any arguments needed, killed the challenge when submitting it; confessing the United Duchies can pay for these projects on its own. Therefore, the Commission does not only believe the cost is exagerated, and that this will not have a significant impact on your nation; but also wants to protect EU funds from being lost on pointless projects that the applicant nation can pay for on their own. And if you or anyone from the United Duchies does not understand that, then simply allow me to suggest you to go back to school and study the laws, the proceedings and everything EU-related.

Thank you very much.

Jean-Claude Juncker
Premier Commissioner

---

I underline every single argument given by the Speaker and the Premier Commissioner and oppose to this challenge.

Donald Tusk
Councillor for Spain

[BrumBrum]

I would suggest the Istkalen representitive get out and read literature on good practise in state development. It has been proven many times when streets are pedestrianised consumer spending from passing trade rises on those streets. This is shown in the fact that the most income generating real estate per sq metre is in pedestrianised areas. Its also been proven cyclists spend more on their journeys in local stores enroute since its far easier to stop and lock up a bike for a few minutes than get a parking space. This would thus increase GDP and make the income more evenly spread out. Even if it didn't affect GDP massively in a positive way which it does it would basically pay for itself through eliminating carbon which means less money needed for levees and flood protection and protection against extreme weather in the future .

They also increase social improvement by allowing far safer and easier transport for bike riders which children and elderly and disabled can ride without licenses and having to spend thousands or 10's of thousands of euros a year on a car and its running costs, this is a net benefit for the poorest eliminating cars being the only options which sadly even in the Duchies today there are areas where a car is needed still , this is the type of situation the projects adress. By defining projects by direct income and return on investment like you are proposing many projects of high social benefit or with external benefits beyond a profit motive will essentially be locked out of the fund. This will eliminate the chance for those projects for sustainable development from bidding essentially if there is a high chance of rejection. The fact your nations do not see the benefit of such projects is sad and shows you are pushing your national transport and development agendas on the EU deciding because a project won't work in your country it can't work in other countries. Imagine we decided a project won't work in Spain or Istkalen just because it wouldn't succeed in Duchies your nations would not be happy , I hope you can see with above the solid reasons for the projects to receive funding , they will work in the Duchies as we have tested projects around Brummagem and Goudadam , spending went up as did the cycling share significantly , this shows that clearly this type of project works in a Duchian context.You need to respect the fact solutions in your country and development in your country will not look the same in other countries and look at evidence rather than having a rabid pro-car agenda in the EDA.I would also point out Svarna Surya is not building a high speed rail or toll highway for 5 billion euros they are building then for 10-15 billion Euros each much of which is coming from compensation funds from the United Duchies so your claim they are building a high speed rail system for same price as our projects which fund significantly more cycle super highway mileage a nationwide scheme is false. The Cycle super highway is more efficient at moving traffic the fact is in two lane cycle super highway we can move more bikes than that part funded toll highway scheme. It takes 6 lanes that are wide to move the same amount of traffic as our cycle superhighway scheme.By your argument Duchies and rich nations should not apply for any funding whatsoever since we can always fund the development ourselves yet when it was proposed limiting the amount richer nations can claim you were against it saying all should be able to apply equally and receive equally so which is it do you think UD, DU, Leagio, Yosai and Inquista should pay for all their own projects and never receive EU funding or should it be access for all , you totally lack consistency in your arguments.

James Mizrachi-Roscoe , Councillour for United Duchies

[Istkalen]

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

[BrumBrum]

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

[Istkalen]

Debate will be extended to 23:59 GMT on 2 July 2023.

Iras Tilkanas
Council Speaker and Councillor for the Republic of Istkalen

[California]

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

[BrumBrum]

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

[Istkalen]

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

[BrumBrum]

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

[Spain]

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

[BrumBrum]

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

[Czech Slavia]

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

[BrumBrum]

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

[Istkalen]

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

[Istkalen]

On behalf of the Republic of Istkalen, I vote against this challenge.

Iras Tilkanas
Council Speaker and Councillor for the Republic of Istkalen

[California]

On behalf of the United Kingdom, I affirm the decision.

[Spain]

On behalf of the Kingdom of Spain, I vote AGAINST this challenge.

Donald Tusk
Candidate for Speaker and Councillor for Spain

[BrumBrum]

On behalf of United Duchies I vote FOR this challenge, James Mizrachi-Roscoe , Councillour for United Duchies