Iskiris Koline for Premier - Towards a Union with Purpose
The European Union has no purpose; no reason to exist. No tangible benefits; nothing. It is simply there to exist. To leave it would have no negative impact; to join it, however, would leave one that is negative.
I stand here against this. The EU should and must have a purpose and benefits if it wishes to exist for much longer.
I am not one who likes to speak in vague platitudes, vague proposals. Nor am I a person who is fond of pomp and circumstance. No.
So I thus, perhaps abruptly, bring you the policies I propose.
The Political Structure of the Union
Repeal the European Elected and Accountable Council Act. Already gutted, the reasons for its existence are few and nonsensical. Any dictatorship could very well get away by holding very realistic-looking sham elections; there is no reason why they should be given any more justification to try to claim themselves as anything other than what they are. The law is a simple infringement on the rights of member-states at this point, nothing more, nothing less.
Abolish the European Assembly. This institution was but useless before the passage of the EACA. Now, of course, it has a use; but even then, what can it do? It has failed even at being a forum. Upon the repeal of the EACA, its sole purpose for existence will have died away, and then it can finally be given the peaceful death it deserves.
Regulate the uses of the European Court of Justice. As Angleteric Chief Justice of the ECoJ Sir Ken Frobisher stated in 2016, the ECoJ should not be a criminal court. Breaches of the UDoHR made by individuals should be tried solely on a national level; if a country does not do so, then it should be brought to the ECoJ by another member-state. In essence: the ECoJ for member-states and member-states alone.
Give the ECoJ a functioning system of justice. The European Court of Justice should have some way of meting out punishment, up to imprisonment, for members of a government implicated in severe breaches of the UDoHR. It should be made a priority to define this system of punishment by law, in a way agreeable to all member states.
By treaty, establish a separate European Criminal Court. At times, it is impossible to avoid trying individuals. Under the proposed changes to the European Court of Justice, it would be impossible to try warlords, leaders of terrorist groups, or individual members of a government for crimes against humanity and so on and so forth. It should thus be the priority of the Commission to call the leaders of member-states as to draft a treaty - to define crimes against humanity, war crimes, and so on and so forth, as well as to establish a European Criminal Court to try them.
Create a treaty defining sovereignty. Again, as former Angleteric Chief Justice Sir Ken Frobisher stated, sovereignty is ill defined. A European treaty, defining sovereignty, thus must be created, as to ensure that the European Union is no longer able to infringe, whether purposefully or unintentionally, on the sovereignty of individual nations.
Institutions and Regulations of the Union’s Powers
Temporarily suspend the Neurodivergent Rights Act. This act has brought economic centers of the Union into freefall, and thus must be temporarily repealed. Its replacement should be made on a basis closer to consensus; the Commission will have the priority of opening a discussion on the issue in the Council, and should prefer that it be made as an amendment to the UDoHR.
Implement the Condemnation of the Coup in Icholasen. Talks with the UNSR will be held as according to the Condemnation; it will be supported and upheld by my potential administration.
Standardization of Telecommunications and Postal Policies. As with monetary policies, telecommunications and postal policies remain essentially unregulated. In order to maintain the radio spectrum as a commons, forms of communication through similar mediums, as well as coordination in terms of telecommunication satellite orbits, a European Telecommunication Union must be established. At the same time, as to ensure that international mailing remains simple and streamlined for Europeans, a European Postal Union must be established, as to ensure that citizens of all member-states may send mail directly to all other member-states, using the protocols of the sender’s country to the extent that it does not endanger safety. States outside of the Union will be outside of the Union; those which leave will no longer be under its protection. They will thus be forced to re-negotiate individual “postal treaties” with individual member-states.
Creation of a European Labor Organization. Many, many European policies have negatively impacted workers; at the same time, the Union lacks any cohesive charter of workers’ rights, especially regarding the right to unionize and to strike. As such, a European Labor Organization, as to develop such a charter, to be adapted as time progresses, to issue recommendations to individual countries as for their implementation, as well as for the ensurance of such things as employment, especially in regards to the coming “green transition,” and to advise the European Council on the effects of potential legislation.
The introduction of agricultural, industrial, and education/science/culture related communication. Communication regarding advances in these spaces is severely lacking in our Union. The Commission should thus see it as its responsibility the creation of institutions for the three of these, primarily to facilitate communication in these three areas, but also as to collect statistics regarding them and compile recommendations for member-states, and, to an extent, extend low-interest loans to nations meeting specific criteria and willing to carry out certain conditions as to ensure that they are paid back. The education/science/culture related institution will likely be merged with the presently existing EACB, as to ensure streamlining of bureaucracy. Provisionally, these can be titled the European Agricultural Institution (EAI), the European Industrial Institution (EII), and the European Institution of Education, Science, and Culture (EIESC).
Reformation of the Sanction Powers Act. The presently established mechanism through which sanctions can be made under this act is cumbersome; however, the definitions and regulations it creates are valuable. The Commission should and must be cut out of it; apart from that, however, it is generally better.
Treaties and Agreements
A treaty regarding clean air. As of now, not a single regulation exists for the protection of clean air. Of special concern is the fact that cluorofluorocarbons appear to remain legal. A treaty, organized by the Commission, should thus be made as to move towards clean air, as well as the prohibition of genuinely damaging substances such as CFCs.
A treaty regarding the protection of biodiversity. Severe declines in biodiversity, whether as a result of logging or pollution, have been observed across the European Union. In order for it to be protected, a treaty, to be drafted ideally by member-states with the Commission as a contributing figure, should be made.
A treaty regarding the usage of space. In order to preserve space as the commons of mankind, as well as to ensure that it is preserved for both research and prosperity, the Commission should lead efforts as to draft a treaty regarding the usage of space.
A treaty regarding standards of diplomacy. Presently, no treaties exist regarding standards of diplomacy, including diplomatic immunity. It is thus perhaps necessary to introduce these standards, as stated before, through a multilateral treaty.
Monetary and Trade Policy
Establish regulations on trade. Again, I borrow here from the Angleteric Chief Justice Sir Ken Frobisher. Regulations should and must be placed on international trade as to ensure competitiveness. For example, nations should not be permitted to, for example, devalue or manipulate their own currency as to gain an economic edge. This is to be accomplished with the creation of a general treaty regarding trade.
Establish a European Monetary Fund. While likely an unpopular idea, such a fund is primarily meant to ensure economic stability. When a country is at risk of defaulting on loans, or if it is in deficit and thus dependent on investments likely soon to stop, the European Monetary Fund will extend a low-interest loan as to allow it to pay off the loans or maintain its economy, increasing economic confidence and ensuring that large banks, on which much of Europe is dependent, are saved from bankruptcy.
Establish the euro as reserve currency. Presently, reserve currencies dominant in Europe suffer the issue of being national currency. Whether the EMU or the Kael, they are constrained at least in part by domestic policy. In order for reserve currency to be stable, it must be international in nature, its purpose solely to be a reserve currency. The euro, presently seemingly dormant, provides the perfect basis for this. The European Central Bank thus should have the responsibility of attempting to establish it as a reserve currency.
Separate unrelated institutions from the European Central Bank. Unrelated institutions like the Labor Exchange and the Loan Exchange should be separated from the European Central Bank and be made their own, independent institutions.
Establish an International Trade Organization as to facilitate trade between nations. It will act as a market of sorts, allowing nations to exchange products easily in a relatively free manner, regulating itself. The purpose of such an organization primarily is meant to make trade significantly easier for all, giving further strength to the poorer nations of the Union and allowing for greater prosperity.
Establish a European Court of Commerce, as to negotiate and create final settlements for trade disputes.
- The Struggle for a New Union - Līresz, Istkalen
- An Analysis of the Institutions of the Union and their Uses - Europolis, Europolis
- The Legal System of the Union regarding Crimes against Humanity - Location TBD
- The Definition of Sovereignty; Diplomatic Relations - Location TBD
- On the Global Commons - Location TBD
- Communication in Europe - Location TBD
- Labor Rights and their Impact on Health and the Economy - Prague, Czech Slavia
- On the Political Economy of Rogue Regimes - Nordhavn, Fremet
- Cooperation in Innovation and Development - Rangentazav, Ruthund
- The Monetary Policy of Europe and Its Flaws - Location TBD
- Why Solidarity? Explaining the Need for the Maintenance of European Economic Stability and Development - Madrid, Spain
- Competent Monetary Policy
- Towards a Green Europe
- Policies, not Platitudes
Koline stands in an auditorium, slides projected on a screen behind her. Holding a remote, she smiles.
Thank you all, of course, for coming. Now, of course, I don't want to delay -thus, no music, no strange announcers, no junky things, no infantilization. I treat you as the citizens and adults you are.
I pose a single question, to get us started off, the question that is at the core of my platform. What is the point of our Union?
It's a struggle to find one! There are so many countries, nations, states in it, which seem to share nary a thing. All have different, often wildly different, interests, cultures, and many more. The Union, on the other hand, rarely brings them all anything. Perhaps it on occasion legislates some things of small benefit to the general population - the EAA comes to mind - but usually it doesn't. Fortunately, this is usually neutral - without effect - but sometimes it is negative.
So then, with few benefits and perhaps too many negatives, what reason does a nation have to stay in this Union? None at all.
The immediate reaction to this, of course, has been to propose exit. Exit, in fact, given the circumstances, is a reasonable, if not the only sane, course of action to take. But it isn't entirely necessary. We do not have to send ourselves adrift into the world.
A new union can be created, even if we must struggle for it. So many have tried in the past, and perhaps failed; but now we have a unique chance. Finally is the power that once gripped Europolis fading away; finally is the road away from integrationist dogma and towards simple cooperation now clear, for us all to take.
There are still some remnants, and we must of course fight these. But we can, I am sure.
You know, from my many years of public service, that I am not one to speak lies. What I say is true, and will be concrete. You do not have to ask, "What does this mean? What is this beyond a plastic sheet hiding a total lack of any plan?" No. I have a concrete plan for everything that I promise, and I will lay it out now.
Our Union must be transformed, completely, into a union of states and no more. Not a union of people, not a union of politicians hidden away in some faraway land, but a union of sovereign states, as it was intended to be.
The European Council must no longer be a parliament, but rather as it is supposed to be - a body to which states send delegates to as to represent them in European affairs.
The European Court of Justice must no longer be a criminal court, but rather a court for states to try other states for, perhaps, such things as arbitrarily killing people - perhaps an extreme example, but an example no less.
The Union as a whole must no longer be some vaguely federal body, but rather a body of supranational cooperation - a body limited by the innate sovereignty of states, a sovereignty that should be defined well, by consensus of all states in the Union, and both enforced and upheld by it.
Nor should it be, however, destroyed to a bare inch of its life. It should and must become an instrument of cooperation. For example, it can provide a base for, for example, engineers from across the Union to discuss advances that can be made in agriculture as to make it ever more eco-friendly. The same goes for much else, regardless of industry. More importantly, it can also serve to defend various important rights. The right of diplomats, for example, to diplomatic immunity, the right to use international waters in certain ways, perhaps more frivolously the right of individuals to be able to send mail directly to any other country in the Union without extreme hassle or mess, and so much more. Things that do not trample on the sovereignty of member-states as though they were an inflatable funhouse, but rather help them to function.
There are of course many other things further that the Union can do. Ensure that space remains usable, that the air remains breathable, and that biodiversity is preserved for posterity and for research. That communication can occur unhampered, through any medium. That workers do not have to work in noxious conditions; that they are entitled, at the very least, to safety and to health. That in times of widespread depression, the Union as a whole is left not with nothing but something to draw on, to stabilize their finances and their economies, to generate confidence in them among investors, even, perhaps, to invest in infrastructure as to further create jobs and general prosperity. That trade remains without distortion or attempts at manipulation - in essence, fair to all.
This all sounds very good, but how? I will be answering that in the next few days. Unlike others, I do not simply praise some ill-defined ideal or concept endlessly and blindly. I have thought through every single one of my policies, have pondered over their negatives and their positives, and have fleshed them - or will flesh them - out as best as I can. I have looked at the complaints of European, and have tried to answer them with my platform.
Don't listen to my word, of course; read it for yourself. And watch, of course, in the coming days. I will be saying much, much more.
Goodbye, and thank you for taking your time to come here!
I stand here.
My view of the Union is that, again, it is a supranational union of states defined by a treaty - the European Constitution.
Its institutions thus cannot be viewed as federal bodies - the European Council not as a legislative body above those of the member-states of the Union, the European Commission not as a grand executive - but rather as institutions of cooperation - that is, institutions which allow member-states to collaborate, on projects that are mutually beneficial.
The present functioning of these institutions, as such, is a deviation from what I view as constitutional principles. The European Council was not and is not supposed to a federal legislature; it is only functioning in that way because it has been hijacked. Similarly, the European Commission should not be functioning vaguely as a legislature that does things of its own accord, as Commissioner Juncker seemed so fond of doing in his last few days - Europol being, of course, the most egregious example. It should play an active role, but that is overstretching it.
What then, should they be? To say that they are institutions of cooperation is too vague - it clears nothing up and is little more than a small collection of empty words that sound good. I will describe them one by one.
The European Council, one can say, is the representation of governments. Each sends a delegate to it as to act on their behalf; what they vote in favor of can be considered as the assent of their government to a specific piece of legislation. We can consider pieces of legislation created by it, as such, as falling into two categories:
- amendments to the "treaty" that is the European Constitution and the Acquis Communautaire, made as per the sections of the "treaty" regarding "amendments"
- delegation of power to separate institutions
In an ideal world, the second would be more dominant, the first limited, perhaps, only to specific matters - such things as, for example, the Ocean Protection Act, and so on and so forth. The purpose of the Union is to act in the interests of all - the Council may not always be able to do so, so specialization in many cases does make sense, but legislating through endless regulations, without care for the material conditions in individual countries, certainly does not.
There is no true violation of constitutional principles here, not exactly, but the Council certainly has morphed into something far from the original vision that it was birthed from, often at the expense of member-states. While times do change, and institutions with them, this transformation is too far, and must be reversed, although not undone - we cannot return to the past, we must always forge ahead. A new Council, then, instead of an old one, a new Council that is better in many ways.
We now move on to the European Commission.
The European Commission is an executive - that is clear. But it is not a federal executive - it does not and should not have that power. Its sole purpose should be to simply ensure that, as I stated before, the Union is running smoothly. It should organize the budget, promulgate and enforce the "legislation" that the European Council passes, and perhaps help organize and facilitate projects outside of the purview of the Council, if member-states wish.
And yet, again, we see that it has long since jumped far beyond this purpose. It has become a body through which one can legislate far too much without the approval of the Council. Standards for appliance efficiency? Done! Enforcing cooperation between police agencies? Done! All without a shred of input from any member-state or even expert!
Perhaps more concerning was the Commission's apparent ability to sell assets of the European Union to external agents without any oversight - although, of course, we don't know that the Commission did do this. Nevertheless, it seems the only reasonable explanation, although hopefully another soon emerges, for this is perhaps too shocking.
In essence, the purpose of the Commission has diverged far from its present actual function, and, to an extent, even from its constitutional powers, which is evidently a poor state of affairs. The Commission must be returned to a normal state of affairs, and that is final.
Perhaps now, for an interlude, with the European Court of Justice. We are fortunate indeed that it has not become a weapon for those who wish to trample on sovereignty, fortunate in that its justices remain with integrity. Yet there remain many issues with it. I have little to say about it, in fact, because of this integrity. Its judges have been quite good at rejecting vexatious cases, as well as cases that simply do not fall into its brief. However, we should not have to rely on the integrity of judges to ensure this. Rather, its brief should be better defined - limiting it, perhaps, solely to issues regarding the failure of states to guarantee and enforce European law, clearly, as to ensure that judges in the future, regardless of their integrity, are forced away from cases that they simply should not be taking under any circumstance.
To the European Assembly. The European Assembly only gained use last year, with the passage of the EACA, when it became the sole institution in Europe to actually represent governments.
It did, of course, have some constitutional powers; but these remained vague and nonsensical, at times - in certain cases, better left to other institutions. Passed with only two votes, it is doubtful whether, in this era, it would ever have come into existence.
It has never really managed to accomplish anything, as well. It remains, even with its new, albeit minimal, purpose, a waste of money and of time. If the EACA is scrapped and the Council restored, then the European Assembly's last use will perish, and it will be a husk, to be thrown away with great speed.
The conclusion: many of our European institutions have been distorted and stretched. They must be restored, returned to order, as to create the new Union which, hopefully, will prosper.
My Premiership is not one that will be distant from the people. It is certainly not one that will lie to you and constantly use platitudes to keep you docile. It is one that will make informed decisions for the benefit of all.
My platform, I know, seems as though it is distant, difficult to understand. Thus, let me list what it will accomplish, not simply what they are, for your benefit:
Stable currency, stable wages. With guided and coherent Europe-wide monetary policy, not imposed but rather developed through a conference of all European nations, it is almost certain that currencies - and thus wages - will be significantly more stable. Without the worry of sudden inflation, and with a Europe willing to cushion depressions, no longer will you have to worry about your savings disappearing in an economic collapse, that may very well be on the horizon.
The end of "one-size-fits-all" brings the beginning of prosperity. I will work to ensure that dogma is not imposed on European countries, and instead to preserve nations' sovereignty while pursuing economically sound policy, defined by data rather than ideology. With countries managed by those who know them best - themselves - united in a cross-European general trade and monetary policy, Europe will prosper, and all of its citizens as well.
Investment into infrastructure brings jobs and expansion. Many of our European countries are underdeveloped; in times of depression, all will suffer. The construction of infrastructure brings with it jobs and income, spending and thus economic development, alongside the benefits of infrastructure itself. I will work as to re-direct money being spent on purposes beyond frivolous - the ESA, for example, which has long ago overstepped its bounds - into investment into infrastructure for the people across Europe, taking the form not of stimulus packages but rather of low-interest loans, offered with, perhaps, certain conditions, tailored to each country.
Decentralization of the economy leads to innovation. My premiership will not be overzealous in terms of opposition towards large businesses, but it will work to support, and, to an extent, prioritize small businesses and entrepreneurs as much as it can through the loan-based investment program, in the hands of the proposed EAI, EII, and EIESC, primarily as to further encourage innovation in key industries, especially those related to the necessary green transition, as well as competition, increasing economic efficiency in general, as well as encouraging a more equitable distribution of wealth.
Regulations on trade mean a fair deal for all. My premiership will work as to establish a general charter of trade, to ensure that smaller nations are not manipulated by those that are larger, whether by restrictive tariffs or currency manipulation, and that trade remains fair for all, allowing for the end of neo-imperialism and a new era of economic independence and prosperity.
Greater democracy for a greater voice in the affairs of the Union. I am opposed to such things as the EACA; but I am very strongly for democracy. My premiership will be focused on building relationships with mass organizations, whether they are political parties, trade unions, or even cultural associations, in member-states, as to receive the greatest input possible on the affairs of the Union.
Coordination in communication allows for a freer future. With the nations of the Union coordinating as to ensure that telecommunications, whether by radio or by satellite, and post, remain unhindered by interference, it will become significantly easier for existing as well as new services and providers to establish themselves, now and in the future. A new era of unhindered communication will begin.
The development of labor rights in the Union will lead to greater happiness. At the core of my platform is the development of labor rights. Workers must have the right to work in safe conditions, to form unions, to strike, and to bargain collectively, at the very least. Newly empowered, workers in Europe will be able to secure for themselves health and joy.
The preservation of the commons allows for the preservation of the future. The air, the skies, and international waters must be recognized as the commons of all humanity, and should be treated with care. My premiership will spearhead and facilitate a treaty as to protect and define usage of all three, as to ensure that they are usable and remain pristine for posterity.
This is what I will bring you. Not will try, but will. The policies I propose have sound data and history behind them, data and history pointing to overwhelming success. Can you say the same for some other candidates?
Will those who simply talk about how great our Union is without saying why or what they will do help you in this way?
Will those who drone on endlessly about amazing they are, without ever saying why, help you in this way?
Will those who infantilize you at every turn help you in this way?
No. Their policies are nothing; they barely exist. They call themselves "Euroupists," and that is all they are - puppets who say endlessly that "the Union is good, the Union is good, the Union is good." They have no substance; they are shoddy plastic buildings, without any discernable use, built on sand, without a foundation. Avoid these people like the plague; for, just like it, they will surely lead to misery.
Why Solidarity? Explaining the Need for the Maintenance of European Economic Stability and Development
Madrilenians, Spaniards, our Union, if it is to be a Union, must not and cannot be without a use. It is slowly developing one; but too slowly. Under your fellow countryman, Mr. Juncker, I feel that this development would be far too slow, and, at the same time, combined with a violation of the separation of powers. Does he not openly say that he will work as to make his office as powerful as it can be - in fact, "more powerful than it actually is?"
Think about it. What would this flagrant violation of constitutional principles do to the integrity of our Union? It already is falling apart; if he, even with all his talents, comes to power, its collapse will be but accelerated. No country, no person, wants to live as a citizen of an institution without respect for the law.
I propose, of course, the opposite. Strict adherence to the law; the creation, in fact, of more laws, to better define certain concepts - sovereignty for example - and to more clearly define the exact powers and purposes of every institution of our Union.
But that is not why we are here. We are here to discuss the solidarity of the Union, the solidarity of the Union as concerns economic stability and development.
We speak first, of course, of surpluses and deficits. To have a surplus is simply to export more than one imports; to have a deficit is to import more than one exports. Now, of course, it may seem rational to pursue the surplus at all costs - and it does seem that some of our member-states are doing exactly that - but I must tell you that that is wrong.
The surplus is not good; it is a negative externality. What does that mean? When one has a surplus, that necessarily means that those that one is trading with receive more of your exports than they import to you. Then, of course, they are placed into a deficit - or at least have their own surplus reduced - which is generally bad for the economy, causing, for example, deflation. Now, of course, if every European country has a surplus, then that means one of two things:
- some naughty people are falsifying data
- European countries are enacting neo-mercantilist policies as regarding non-European nations
Neither of these two are good, the second far worse than the first, and perhaps less fortunately the more likely.
So then, we can say that surpluses - large surpluses, really - are not particularly good when we speak about global prosperity as a whole. They rob most for the wealth of a minority.
What, then, do we seek? It is impossible, of course, to force every nation into a deficit, and at the same time to force total parity. The only reasonable conclusion, is to maintain a looser parity, allowing for reasonable surpluses and reasonable deficits, varying throughout the years, but certainly not massive surpluses, nor the opposite - massive deficits.
What can we do? Those countries affected most negatively by trade surpluses are those least able to overcome them. Maintaining them, in that state, however, only further solidifies the inequality of sorts I have described.
The best way forward, as such, is to encourage green industrial and infrastructural development in countries with large trade deficits, as to increase or re-direct their production, allow them to export more or simply more valuable products, and thus reduce their trade deficit, while at the same time decreasing dependence on other nations and thus decreasing, allowing for a greater equality in terms of relations between nations and thus greater prosperity for their citizens. These would take the form, perhaps, of low-interest loans, with certain conditions - fighting corruption, for example, or increasing investment into such things as health to a reasonable extent, although not, for example, imposing shock therapy or other such destructive nonsense, requested by the recipient upon meeting the conditions needed for such a request.
Now the question will go, of course, what about those developed countries with a deficit, or those developed countries with great levels of inequality, or perhaps the opposite, undeveloped countries with a great deal of disparity between regions - a rich capital and a poor countryside, for example.
For the first, developed countries with a deficit have some undeveloped area. Limited economic help, if the deficit is severe, will be offered as to fund development in the sectors affected. If absolutely necessary, a temporary devaluation of currency will be suggested.
For the second, my potential commission would conduct checks regarding regional production and export. An area particularly "blighted," so to speak, would receive a "rebate" - or a return of sorts - roughly equivalent to what it initially gave to the Union, given primarily in two ways - primarily directly, and, in some cases, in the form of investment. Why not a loan? Return is more dignified; in a developed area, it can make up for what was lost easily; at the same time, it is not so much, for a single city, as to severely affect the whole of the budget.
The same would be true for the opposite - richer areas would not be the areas towards which development is "targeted," so to speak, but rather those that are poorer.
What about monetary policies? Why do they need to be synchronized?
Our Europe is ever-more interconnected with every day. What occurs in one nation will almost certainly affect all others; if there is severe instability in said nation, then that instability itself will be present, albeit on a much smaller scale, in most other nations.
Monetary policies have much to do with this. A sudden devaluation or appreciation of currency will certainly deeply affect most of Europe negatively - sudden appreciation forcing Europe to find other sources of needed imports, and sudden devaluation, if the currency is of some importance, causing reserve stores in banks to "collapse," so to speak, as well as possibly, although it is not certain, inspiring capital flight.
A general framework, as such, to stabilize monetary policy is necessary. The exact framework is not, of course, for me to decide, but rather for the nations of Europe, in a general conference - still, as to prevent disaster, it is absolutely necessary.
All this, of course, is an oversimplification, but it is a generally good outline of the proposed policies I have.
This is the solidarity that is necessary in order to rebuild our Union. We cannot fight to make ourselves ever greater at the expense of others; we must recognize each other as equals and treat each other accordingly - with respect, with dignity, and with the willingness to help in the knowledge that one oneself may need that help one day. The Union is thus empowered, and made to have benefits. No longer, in the name of some vague sovereignty, is it stripped of every useful institution; it is instead given new institutions, in respect of a true sovereignty, not the shibboleth of demagogues, not at all.
Our Europe, as of now, has, again exactly zero reason to exist. It does not give any comfort to lenders or banks lending to individual nations; what few financial institutions it has are dormant entirely; in fact, it doesn't really do anything except guarantee certain rights to people - which is good in itself, but not good enough for a Union. When it does do anything major, it usually does so in ignorance of sovereignty - not purposeful, I would say, but rather stemming from disagreement over what sovereignty is - which is why I propose that, among other things, such as defining rights afforded to diplomats, as well as international maritime law, sovereignty itself be defined by a conference of member-states.
Some, of course, that this is perfect. That this dormant state of the Union, where it leeches off of the people to produce almost nothing of benefit to the majority, is perfect - that it needs only to be changed in a patchwork, in a piecemeal way. Even those reforms are vague, described at a caliber barely above that of saying that one will do "things."
Even children would not elect someone who promises, vaguely, "good things," stemming from a system which people do not really like but which said person just says is "good," without any explanation as to why it is good.
Imagine, some hypothetical person, coming before the children and giving a speech like this:
"Hello children! I am your new principal! I know you do not like school, but school is good. Why? Because it is good. Don't question me; millions of children will protest for their school to be kept! Whomever of you tries to propose change to the education wants to destroy the school, and then the millions will come for you! You will also be a liar if you try that; and liars must shut up!"
"But I know you love me, of course you do! And for that, I will treat you like the children you are, waving flashy and shiny things before you, so that you love me! Because children only like those things, right? They can't think, of course! You see, I have the greatest understanding of you!"
"But too many of you are unhappy in school. So I will defy the curriculum and the Ministry of Education and instate one that I have developed myself without any help - because as a principal you aren't supposed to listen to anyone else, you have to act all by yourself - doesn't that sound hard, I am such a good person for taking on this task, for being the only person capable of taking on this task! Now love me! Love me!"
No one would like such a principal; why would people like such a Premier?
I am a flexible person; even today, I have realized what I said in Spain was wrong. While we must pursue a general monetary framework, developed through consensus rather than by simple majority - as to, for example, prevent unfair manipulation of the international market through devaluation and appreciation (ex. Framptonia) - we cannot go so far as to forcibly penalize surplus and reward deficit - this would create abnormalities of an unwanted and unforseen level.
However, I remain true to the reality that low-interest loans, on the meeting of certain conditions, must and should be given out, primarily as to "bridge" temporarily inability to pay loans on the behalf of member-states, as well as, secondarily, to encourage infrastructural development - and thus employment - in areas with high unemployment; as well as the necessity of allowing for rebate to depressed areas in more developed countries.
I am able to change, if the evidence shows it; as I have said, I am a person who acts not on impulse but rather on evidence and reasoning alone.
I do not chant nonsense over and over again in the hopes that the people take up that nonsense; nor do I treat my fellow citizens as mere children, waving shiny things with my name and face on them in the hope that they will become attracted to me.
I lay down my ideas, and the evidence and reasoning behind them, clearly. I plan to act, to give this Union the purpose it so desperately needs to survive. People are willing to pay as to ensure the financial stability of the central banks which, in all seriousness, play a large role in ensuring their economic safety; people are willing to pay as to allow for freer trade between nations, and thus, perhaps, greater prosperity. They are not willing to give their hard-earned money as to maintain a near-useless scholarship that benefits less than 1% of the population.
If I am rejected, then so be it! But I hope that the ideas I bring will be discussed for some time afterwards; that I will leave some legacy.
Ms. Čikarová, one of my opponents in this election, has made several accusations regarding my policies. Not a single one of them is true.
I do not propose the destruction of the ESA or the ECB, and recognize both as needed institutions. Both, however, remain relatively bloated while at the same time largely dormant. Both, as such, must be empowered rather than robbed of all that they have - made to have a genuine purpose that serves the people of Europe well. They can certainly be reduced in size, and the surplus given to development - but not totally destroyed.
As for the so-called subsidies, I laugh at them. I have never proposed subsidizing "productive forces;" rather, I have proposed creating institutions as to allow for coordination of innovation, while secondarily giving loans - the intelligent choice - as opposed to wasteful subsidies - and even then primarily as a proactive solution towards balance of payment issues.
Unlike Ms. Čikarová, I do not propose this for the sake of proposing it, for ideology, but rather for concrete reasons based in fact. Imbalance of payment is extremely dangerous; if no intervention will made, what will happen, if the situation becomes too severe, is:
- withdrawal of investment from the affected country
- inflation as currency loses confidence
- an inability to pay off loans, resulting in default, and thus bankruptcy
- partial collapse of financial system, resulting in poverty
- decreased demand for imports result in reduction of imports
- reduction in exports leads to a degree of inflation in trade partners
It could, of course, become worse. Far worse; banks abroad could collapse if the situation is severe enough that the institutions affected are entirely unable to pay, regardless of re-organization or liquidation; this would result in further crisis throughout Europe.
This is not an exaggeration; nor some sort of "slippery slope." The threat of this is very, very real, and very, very dangerous.
So, Ms. Čikarová, before you make these wild accusations, look at your own policy. You speak of some form of equality, but solely in ideological terms, in stark contrast to my policies - a synthesis of ideas that have existed since the 1940s - this particular one, in fact, important to the subject of my doctoral dissertation published in 1975 - adapted for the condition of Europe as of now.
Mine are based on credible financial and economic analysis; yours are based on the sand of ideology.
I apologize for misrepresenting your aims; I believed, unfortunately, that you were in fact for the dismantling of the ESA and the ECB. It is now clear, of course, from your own words, that this is not true.
However, I would like to make several things clear yet again. To develop what you term as "productive forces" is a noble task; but to simply throw money at them is unwise and certainly not financially sound. Europe can give; but it needs to make up for what it gives without further burdening its members, many of which are already financially stressed - Alkharya, for example, which should and must be able to dedicate itself to reconstruction, or even the Duxburian Union.
But I again do not believe my policies bear similarity to yours - mine are, again, meant primarily as a proactive and cost-effective policy towards severe imbalances of payments, while yours appear to made in ideological in nature, an attempt to create some equality, I believe. If I am wrong then I admit that in advance.
Alkharya is presently recovering from a terrible war, which has left immense physical and psychological damage on the country.
It is the Union's responsibility to help it, both for its and the rest of the world's benefit. If Alkharya becomes unable, for example, to pay loans - the world financial system would not benefit, if anything it would become weaker, if not partially collapse. Negative for both them and for all else.
Vague promises of mediation will not help Alkharya if something like this comes to pass, nor anyone else.
Why is this necessary? We live in an international world, not in little bubbles; if we want all of us to be safe and comfortable, then we will have to be shoulder-to-shoulder in solidarity.
Here, then, is the relatively simple plan to help Alkharya stabilize and reconstruct after this terrible conflict:
Listen to Alkharyans. Alkharya understands its affairs far better than anyone else; the most important part of reconstruction, as such, would be to listen to Alkharyans on Alkharyan issues as to see how the Union can help it.
Reduce Alkharya's contributions to the Union by at least half. Alkharya needs all that it has in order to reconstruct; the Union should not serve as a barrier to this. By temporarily reducing its contributions, Alkharya would have millions more as to redirect to the long process of psychological and physical reconstruction. What is collected, if anything, will be used as to indirectly invest in Alkharya, or on services directly benefiting it - the EHO, for example.
Invest in certain aspects of Alkharyan reconstruction. In order to restore itself, Alkharya must first and foremost have a stable business environment, regardless of what economic system may exist there, now or in the future. The European Union should thus set aside a certain sum of money as for low-interest loans to enterprises in Alkharya - albeit still continuing the general support for green development in terms of industry and agriculture to an extent - so that they may remain stable and continue to develop in these hard times. This creates financial stability and encourages eventual economic growth, allowing for greater economic stability in Alkharya. The result for the Union? Alkharya is less likely to suffer from sudden collapse, maintaining present levels of trade, allowing for worldwide economic stability.
Allow Alkharya monetary stability. If Alkharya were to default on loans, the consequences would be severe both for it and the Union. Alkharya thus should have access to low-interest loans from a "European Monetary Fund" in the case of such a scenario being likely, as to ensure that both it and Europe are not at risk of suffering economic collapse.
Mediation between the different regions of Alkharya, if requested. Northern Alkharya was unequivocally a rogue and near-totalitarian regime run by terrorists; yet it is clear that some degree of cultural conflict between the central regions of Alkharya, especially between the people of the North and of the South, continues to exist. Alkharya should have sovereignty over this issue - the Union will not force itself into it. However, if requested, I will set the Internal Affairs Commissioner as to mediate these issues in Alkharya.
Before I begin, I have a few remarks to make.
The regime I am to speak of is obvious to us all. To you, especially. You have lived in fear for so long - for a year, and before that, for almost a century.
You are, through the terror you faced at its hands, those who know it best - the most threatened, perhaps, is most intimately acquainted with the threat itself.
I do not wish to make light of your struggles. I could not, I cannot.
But it is Fremetians who are most threatened by the UNSR; Fremetians who suffered at its hands; Fremetians who carry the memory of the horrors they laid on this land. It is Fremetians who, thus, should be taken into account in policy towards the UNSR.
That is my simple pledge. To listen, above all, to those who are most threatened by a specific threat, a specific issue, and to take what I have heard seriously and incorporate it as well as I can into my agenda and that of the Commission as a whole.
Now, of course, onto the actual content.
The defining factor of the rogue regime can be defined as state control of the economy. State control of the economy does not itself mean that a country is itself rogue; but rogue regimes almost always pursue this policy.
This is less out of allegiance to any ideology than it is for preservation. The rogue regime, more often than not, is built on sand; it must fight as to survive, killing, plundering, so many atrocities. State control is necessary for the economy to be redirected towards this purpose of self-preservation - instituting those controlling the state as the sole controllers of the economy, directing the economy itself towards the sole purpose of the defense of the regime - of providing it with protection and with wealth.
Without protection, the rogue regime will fall by invasion; without wealth, it will lose what little popular support exists. These people, in order to stay living, create an institutionalized system of something like corruption, although one could better compare it to the feudal system. They give money to supporters - members of the party or of the army - so that they become the enforcers of the regime, entirely loyal. In an economy dedicated solely for defense and the siphoning of money to a terrified elite, people will be struggling for the scraps - if they have them, then they will be forever loyal to their benefactor.
It is thus safe, with the loyalty of enough as to keep it in place. The final step is simply to separate these loyalists into a nation of their own, apart from the rest.
How, then, to make such a regime fall. It is difficult to stop the second - the accumulation of wealth in the ruling class and the creation of a second class of ideological administrators. But it is simple to stop the first. In our modern day, no nation has the ability to maintain a modern military without anything from another nation. Even with the masses forcibly conscripted into it, it cannot, and will not, have the same power as a modern military.
Without the harshness of the regularized economic sanctions, the masses will not even be loyal, even within the military. The regime will have nothing to defend itself against if it is simply isolated; and quickly, its military broken apart and it imposing ever harsher regulations on its people, still not fooled by its propaganda, it will fall through simple rebellion. Even if it can continue to bribe its class of administrators, that class will no longer hold the power it once could have had with a true and loyal military.
What, of course, does this mean for European policy? Regionwide sanctions should continue to be an opportunity - but they must be focused against the regime concerned rather than the people. They must weaken its ability to wreak havoc on Europe and its own people; but not weaken the strength and resolve of its people.
They must be strong enough as to truly allow for a weakening of a regime; but not so strong so that they damage the sovereignty of states - something that must be concretely defined, an endeavor that will be the first of my priorities - and must always have some way out, whether through reform or revolution.
What, then, of the UNSR? The UNSR is a strange fish. It has some of the characteristics of a rogue regime, but not all. Why not all? There is one key aspect that the UNSR has that rogue regimes normally don't - a want to change, a want to reconcile. Have we not seen this in Korojaunu Sanders's summit here?
The EU must continue to act as to protect itself - we cannot, at this time, truly trust the UNSR. But we must try to build relationships with them; the present situation is untenable. We cannot forever spend our lives in constant distrust, especially with the UNSR.
It is my desire, as such, to reach, détente with the UNSR - so that this tension may finally end, not with the destruction of one side but with the preservation, in freedom and safety, of both.
In this, Fremetian voices will and must be heard. As I said, Fremet was and remains the most endangered by the UNSR; surely, then, it must have a voice, a strong voice, in this process, as should all those other nations affected - Ruthund, Gallorum, and perhaps Kaitsja and Montenbourg.
The alternative is continued struggle, continued war, and continued misery. Is that truly what is necessary, what must be done? I don't believe so.
Now, of course, I understand that there are some concerns about my policy. I do not intend to significantly raise or lower the present European budget; the rebates that I propose are primarily supposed to be temporary in nature - meant to help an area recover from sudden shock. Those that must remain in place for a longer period of time can likely no longer take the form of a rebate - that would be devastating for the budget, in the long term. Rather, they would likely evolve into concentrated investment - a more sustainable strategy, one that at the same time may generate further revenue for the Union.
We seek not a Union that creates dependence, but one that uplifts - one that shies away from the domain of nations, but one that is willing to help and defend, in solidarity, for the common good.
I will simply say that I believed you were in support of giving unconditional grants, which I believed were not financially sound. I continue to stand by the fact, however, that I stand for very different causes as compared to you, as well as that I have a comprehensive plan, each part playing a greater role in a greater system, that is at odds with the system that you appear to want to establish. For this, as I have stated before, I have apologized, and continue to apologize.
I do not think it is a good idea to continue with this, and will refrain from doing so.
I am not continuing my campaign for Premier, due to personal circumstances. My supporters - I urge you, do not vote for the vapid EPA, nor for the unhinged populists who scream of nonsense constantly. Vote for those with reasoned policy; those who have shown themselves to be calm, rational, and detailed in their policy - firm in what they support. These are not the candidates who go around promising bandages, not those without a platform - but rather those who have stuck, in fact, to the same, concise but detailed, platform for so long.
But thank you for your support. I will continue to work for a better Europe, even now.