WesWorld

25 June
Prime Minister Herman Loeder in a packed press conference today officially outlined the future of the Confederation Policy.
“It is clear that there has been strong feeling against several elements of the proposed constitutional changes. Many have voiced the opinion that a series of provinces with equal representations and a ruling Council based in the Netherlands was not a forward-thinking move. Some have said a series of constitutional monarchies would not be a proper bicameral system and the economic benefits were not clearly stated. The idea that each nation would have to contribute a percentage of their annual tax income to a central treasury was another disliked idea and for many the confusion between this and an exploitative colonial policy was erroneous but happened nevertheless. However, we have had positive support on a number of issues. Citizens of Holland, Belgium, the East Indies and the Kongo want to be richer, want stable economies and need sustained growth. The idea of a Bill of Rights which would establish minimal rights for all peoples and faiths was also widely applauded. Therefore the government has decided to pass the Bill of Rights and all the members of the United Kingdoms will have a chance to vote on it and if approved it will enshrine rights for all citizens from January 1946. While the political structures of the plan are obviously impractical to implement at the present time, a committee will be formed to look into joint economic policies more deeply.”

28 June
The Metropole Orkest (Metropole Orchestra) gave its first public performance in Amsterdam this evening. The Metropole is a combination of a jazz big band and a symphony orchestra. The orchestra was founded by Dolf van der Linden, who leads the ensemble, at the urging of officials from Dutch Public Broadcasting (Nederlandse Publieke Omroep – NPO), which manages and subsidises the orchestra. The NPO hope that its performances and broadcasts will meet a growing taste for modern music for the younger generation.
Another radio orchestra is the Radio Filharmonisch Orkest (Radio Philharmonic Orchestra –RFO) based in Hilversum and is also part of Dutch Public Broadcasting. The chief conductor is the celebrated Albert van Raalte.

1 July
Prime Minister Herman Loeder at a press conference today unveiled the United Economic Planning Committee. This group of twenty civil servants, academics and businessmen have been appointed to look at the economic plans of the Berg Plan and draw up a new series of policies to create a more unified and stronger joint economy between the Netherlands and Belgium and the Provinces overseas.

5 July
The DEI Governor-General, Hubertus Johannes van Mook, has sent an economist and two civil servants to join the economic talks to be hosted in Utrecht by special flying boat flight.

16 July
At Rotterdam, Cornelius van Winkel and two leading civil servants emerged from their Fokker 122 flying boat operated by KLM. They have arrived to take part in the United Economic Planning Committee. The resident Economic Charge d’Affaires of the Kongo will also take part.

19 July
In a small storeroom behind a small fruit merchants in Bangui, Ubangi-Shari, Colonel Ndofa addressed the fourteen men sat on various boxes and sacks.
“While the politicians talk about these plans they still do not consider giving us self-rule. Here is our newest recruit, Vaandrig Jean Bokassa who is currently at the Officer Training School. Mboya, how many others have signed to our cause recently?”
“Our officers and NCOs of the fourth and sixth provincial battalions have come over to our cause. A few officers and pilots of the Air Force have pledged themselves to us too.”
“Good. Very good. Soon we’ll teach these colonial masters a lesson.”
“Sir, have you heard of Barthélemy Boganda?”
Ndofa scoffed, “He is a priest. What of him?”
The young officer cadet spoke up, “I know him well, he is my cousin. He is a nationalist too and preaches the end of colonial rule and has a loyal following. He is sure to enter politics for the Ubangian Economic and Social Action at the next elections. He could easily become a powerful ally inside the Representative Council.”
“Perhaps, but being clergy he could become a thorn in our side. He may have a flock of parishioners but we have enough men and now potentially air support to easily capture the key bases. The rest of the local troops in the Army would join us. Even the Kongo would dare not send their troops to face us for fear of unrest there too. We grow stronger much faster than Boganda. He could useful for our plans however.”

28 July
The United Economic Planning Committee’s Report has been published today. They have proposed a new Economic Union plan. This new economic plan is designed to policies to create a more unified and stronger joint economy between the Netherlands and Belgium and the Provinces overseas.
A centralised Customs Union would be created for nations and provinces within the UKN. This would seek to standardise all customs duties internationally (those within PETA being unaffected) and ensuring a free trade area for all inter-UKN trade. There would potentially be scope for other nations to join as associate members into the Customs Union.
A new central Treasury would be entrusted with controlling the primary currency (the Guilder) and all secondary local UKN currencies pegged to it, controlling debts and loans and deciding on joint monetary policies. It would not mint currency as previously planned. All provincial currencies would be annually repegged to the Guilder which will allow for disparate growth at a capped inflation rate to aid in gaining investment.
The DEI, Kongo, Ubangi-Shari and Suriname (and potentially Yemen and Saudi Arabia) will be able to access limited issuance of joint bonds, more access to internal and external markets and technology transfer deals. Additional legal measures will be put into place to protect investment rights across the UKN for all members.

29 July
Press and political reactions to the Customs Union:

Editorial in the newspaper De Telegraaf; “This common sense plan that combines all that is needed to enforce liberalisation of economic and social shackles to let free economic growth and growing prosperity for all areas of the United Kingdom, backed up by financial probity and political solidity while removing the more unfavourable elements of the Berg Plan.”

Editorial in the newspaper De Volkskrant; “The Customs Union is the same bitter pill as the Confederation Plan. They cut the taxes and nastier political control elements but it does nothing to immediately ease the burden on the working classes and totally ignores any calls for self-determination from the citizens of the East Indies and Kongo.”

Editorial in the newspaper Het Financieele Dagblad; “This Plan offers the correct balance of stimulus and corrects the lop-sided economic policies of the Kingdoms. One complaint that could be raised is that is perhaps depends on Dutch and Belgian generosity and there is no safeguarding of repayments. It is good news for importers and exporters however.”

Editorial in the newspaper Batavia Daily; “The Customs Union treats the East Indies as a poor cousin who needs financial support and ignores the more important aspects of our own economic needs. This business as usual policy is presented with the Bill of Rights as a foolproof assurance of acceptance without offering us anything we don’t already possess and totally ignoring the reality of the past few weeks.”

Spokesman for the De Mannen met Zeer Boze Blikken Partij (DMZSBD); “While a welcome economic blueprint, the Bill of Rights is an unworkable promise and the Customs Union a drain on our central resources.”

Spokesman for the Social Democratic Workers' Party (Sociaal Democratische Arbeiders Partij, SDAP); “The Bills of Rights remains the shining beacon of this plan. The Customs Union may bode well in reducing prices but it does not offer direct solutions to unemployment or social security and political discussion is still needed to gain the social reform the peoples and workers of all the member nations so desperately require.”

I will put the question out-of-character, rather than IC, for sake of clarity. I have alluded to them in the German news.

Hood writes,

Quoted

A centralised Customs Union would be created for nations and provinces within the UKN. This would seek to standardise all customs duties internationally (those within PETA being unaffected) and ensuring a free trade area for all inter-UKN trade.

The existing PETA treaty reads,

Quoted

Article 3
The signatory nations agree to free trade between all signatories, reducing tariffs, duties, and taxes upon all goods from fellow signatories to the same level as if they had been produced domestically.

As the DEI, Kongo and other nations of the UKN are not individual signatories of the PETA treaty, Article 3 does not, at this time, apply to them. However, if the proposed customs union of all the nations of the UNK were to come into effect - and establish free trade within the UNK - it is conceivable that products from the DEI, Kongo or other nations of the UKN would be enter the Dutch or Belgian home markets at preferential rates compared to products from France, Italy or other member of PETA. If so, that would seem to violate Article 3.

Alternatively, and this has been my personal interpretation, Article 3 of the PETA treaty in effect creates a free trade zone insofar as a tariff regime is concerned - that is, there are no external tariffs on goods manufactured in one member and sold in another. Trade with non-signatories and colonial possessions I have understood to be excluded from this apparent free-trade zone. Under this interpretation, and if the aforementioned UKN-wide free trade zone were established, the effect would be to open up the local economies of the DEI, Kongo etc to imports from other PETA members on a free-trade basis.

I think the implications of this seeming contradiction needs to be considered.

Quoted

Article 3
The signatory nations agree to free trade between all signatories, reducing tariffs, duties, and taxes upon all goods from fellow signatories to the same level as if they had been produced domestically.

That's a vague clause anyway unless you can prove to me that all members of PETA can produce the same goods domestically at identical prices. Not likely given each member's internal taxes, average wages, investments, subsidies, markets etc. are going to differ. Likely as not some nations gain and others loose.

Quoted

it is conceivable that products from the DEI, Kongo or other nations of the UKN would be enter the Dutch or Belgian home markets at preferential rates compared to products from France, Italy or other member of PETA.

It is quite conceivable that has been happening for years anyway. SANTA and the TIDE have been giving preference to SAE and DEI for years too. Likely as not DEI, Kongo and Suriname have been more or less operating as a free market with the Netherlands. This Customs Union is designed to iron out any irregular features and ensure that inter-province trade has no snags (my catch all to cover anything Kirk may have set up/ holes in knowledge). The main aim is to standardise trade from the UKN with the outside world so that tariffs for the UK, USA, Nordmark, China, Japan - whoever- can get goods and services from anywhere in the UKN and pay the same tariffs. I recognise this may not benefit all members but it seems each UKN member had a set of core exports in materials or goods so all should benefit in some way.

Quoted

Trade with non-signatories and colonial possessions I have understood to be excluded from this apparent free-trade zone. Under this interpretation, and if the aforementioned UKN-wide free trade zone were established, the effect would be to open up the local economies of the DEI, Kongo etc to imports from other PETA members on a free-trade basis.

If PETA does not include non-signatories and colonial possessions (though this is not explicit in the Treaty text) then it won't matter. PETAs only point of contact is via the Netherlands so only goods shipped through Dutch territory or customs would count. (I don't know if Belgium joined or not, Kirk said they would apply in Q4/35 but I've no idea if he ever did.) Goods shipped direct from Kongo would not count as they would be taxed under Kongolese customs. Even though the new plan centralises the setting of tariffs you will note there is no new central customs authority which I think was part of Kirk's original plan. So each area still takes its own cut of the tariffs directly, even though the rate is set by agreement centrally. The Neterlands would probably try to keep those rates compatible with PETA rates but of course dealing with each Province as independent units outside PETA would not break Article 3.


I think too many conflicting and vague economic agreements have been made in WW. Much as the treaty system got tangled, I think everyone jumped onto the bandwagon free trade and no-one ever really thought all this stuff out.

Quoted from "Hood"

PETAs only point of contact is via the Netherlands so only goods shipped through Dutch territory or customs would count. (I don't know if Belgium joined or not, Kirk said they would apply in Q4/35 but I've no idea if he ever did.)

They did join. They're not listed as a current signatory on the post for the treaty, but neither are Romania and Bulgaria listed. I'll fix that. But also note that Luxembourg is an original member of PETA.

Quoted from "Hood"

I think too many conflicting and vague economic agreements have been made in WW. Much as the treaty system got tangled, I think everyone jumped onto the bandwagon free trade and no-one ever really thought all this stuff out.

Indubitably. In real life, PETA probably would have just resulted in Germany and to a lesser extent France dominating the economic scene of continental Europe - and it would probably seriously threaten British economic relations with the member states. Instead, it's all happy in Happyville...

Quoted from "Brockpaine"

Quoted from "Hood"

PETAs only point of contact is via the Netherlands so only goods shipped through Dutch territory or customs would count. (I don't know if Belgium joined or not, Kirk said they would apply in Q4/35 but I've no idea if he ever did.)

They did join. They're not listed as a current signatory on the post for the treaty, but neither are Romania and Bulgaria listed. I'll fix that. But also note that Luxembourg is an original member of PETA.

Quoted from "Hood"

I think too many conflicting and vague economic agreements have been made in WW. Much as the treaty system got tangled, I think everyone jumped onto the bandwagon free trade and no-one ever really thought all this stuff out.

Indubitably. In real life, PETA probably would have just resulted in Germany and to a lesser extent France dominating the economic scene of continental Europe - and it would probably seriously threaten British economic relations with the member states. Instead, it's all happy in Happyville...

Well, I was not playing when the treaty was written, and since most - if not all - of the players who were party to the original treaty are no longer here, determining intent at this point could be problematic. If no one now is going to pay attention to the treaty as written, then perhaps I should not either...

It is odd that PETA being a trade agreement only has one clause related to trade directly and that clause is quite vague.
I don't see any mention of colonies etc. so we can only assume they are not covered. Kirk had obviously not seen a problem either with his original plan. I would not see a serious problem here as the Customs Union is not likely to undercut PETA tariffs or impose undue increases to other PETA members.

Quoted from "Hood"

It is odd that PETA being a trade agreement only has one clause related to trade directly and that clause is quite vague.
I don't see any mention of colonies etc. so we can only assume they are not covered. Kirk had obviously not seen a problem either with his original plan. I would not see a serious problem here as the Customs Union is not likely to undercut PETA tariffs or impose undue increases to other PETA members.

The article reads:

Quoted

The signatory nations agree to free trade between all signatories, reducing tariffs, duties, and taxes upon all goods from fellow signatories to the same level as if they had been produced domestically.

One does not impose a tariff or duty on goods produced domestically. Therefore, if tariffs or duties are to be reduced to the level imposed on domestic products they would be reduced to zero. This why I interpret Article 3 as a free-trade agreement between the signatories.

One may impose excise or other taxes on goods produced domestically. Article 3 would prohibit any manner of discriminatory excise or other tax on goods imported from a fellow PETA member – they would be taxed at the same rate as domestic product. This also supports the interpretation of the article as a free trade agreement.

As written, the article does not prohibit imposition of discriminatory duties on goods from a non-PETA member, nor discriminatory taxation on goods of non-PETA origin. It does not specifically prohibit preferential tariffs though it does not countenance them. I would presume – and I admit this is a presumption – that application of Article 3 would be on a most-favored nation basis – that preference extended to one nation would be extended to all.

I do not know how Kirk, or Red Admiral (who wrote the text), or any of the original players viewed the PETA agreement with regard to preferential tariffs. I can only interpret what has been written and seek to attain a common understanding now.

As I say, its unlikely to undercut or be preferential if both are set at zero. That wouldn't be favouritism at all. We don't even know whether inter-UKN trade has always been free trade or not ever since the signing of PETA. The same would go for France, do they impose tariffs on Colonial goods?

I don't see why most-favoured nation status would allow PETA to force external nations to accept their goods at zero tariffs if there is not a reciprocal offer. If, say, Argentina signed a free-trade deal with France in theory then that would mean they would have to accept all PETA-sourced goods at zero tariff while still having levies imposed on their exports? How would that be good for free trade? Why would other nations which to sign preferential treaties on that basis, especially when Article 3 specifically sates "The signatory nations agree to free trade between all signatories." So it would not apply to any nation who has not signed. That is my view and would be the official view of the UKN members IC. A workable alternative would be to have the Colonies join PETA, but in no way should that influence customs policy with external nations beyond PETA.

Quoted from "Hood"

The same would go for France, do they impose tariffs on Colonial goods?

No, because tariffs are only exacted on an international level, rather than an intra-national level.

Well it seems to me that in that case PETA is irrelevant to the Customs Union. The colonies don't count and whatever external trade they have is not covered. In addition, PETA has no influence on member states dealing with other nations unless there is some clause taking over sovereignty to make decisions. If all parts of the UKN standardise their tariffs I can't see how that affects PETA beyond any potential clause covering existing PETA free trade and its protection as a special case in regards to the UKN tariff setting discussions. It may well be decided to extend the free trade to non-signatory parts of the UKN, but that would be best handled by applications to join PETA by DEI et al.

Quoted from "Hood"

The colonies don't count and whatever external trade they have is not covered.

It depends a bit on how other people interpret the UKN's arrangements. Kirk always seemed to treat Kongo, for example, as a self-governing nation within a union or commonwealth; and so I think Kongo at the very least, and possibly the DEI, would be outside PETA. (Similarly, Indochina's changing status as an autonomous region could very well put them outside PETA unless specific arrangements were made.)

Quoted from "Brockpaine"

Quoted from "Hood"

The colonies don't count and whatever external trade they have is not covered.

It depends a bit on how other people interpret the UKN's arrangements. Kirk always seemed to treat Kongo, for example, as a self-governing nation within a union or commonwealth; and so I think Kongo at the very least, and possibly the DEI, would be outside PETA. (Similarly, Indochina's changing status as an autonomous region could very well put them outside PETA unless specific arrangements were made.)

Precisely...

It has never been clear whether the UKN and French colonies are covered by the PETA agreement or not. If they are, then the Customs Union has little impact. If they are not - then the question of how they will relate to PETA needs to be determined. The situation might be different for France and for the UKN - but the UKN cannot ignore the PETA implications - they need to be addressed.

Right. I feel that if the constituent entities have the authority to set their own economic policy (the ability to level tariffs or enter a customs union, for example), then they would not be covered by PETA.

The Kongo and Ubangi-Shari are still technically owned by the Crown (the Queen) so are her personal possessions more than separate constitutional entities, albeit ones with local political representation. However Kongo does seem to have independent powers too. DEI seems to have a different economic deal with TIDE etc. Despite having an elected representative body, the Governor appointed by The Hague still seems to be the primary political power. I have indicated they have some political powers to decide home issues, otherwise I could have simply imposed the Confederation Plan on them. The fact Kirk was talking about centralised customs and treasuries and extra taxes indicates to me that such bodies not exist, therefore I read that as each colony has its own economic control over its own taxes and trade.

Even if the Kongo and DEI etc. were counted as part of the UKN under the agreement and therefore a part of PETA, then any external trade would class as being from "the Netherlands" as they would be possessions of the Netherlands.

If you are telling me that the PETA members have no control over their own tariffs with other non-signatories then it seems a rather draconian bloc. I can't see any preferential deal being better than the 0% deal PETA already has or why deals done with the SAE or any other non-European nation should concern PETA. Each nation should be able to decide its own policy. My plan would mean each nation beyond PETA would have a standardised tariff with all parts of the UKN. Maybe not entirely free trade but perhaps lower tariffs for those close allies and friends or not much change for those who are not.
PETA nations of course could be standardised at zero, but I'd want the same in reverse for exports from UKN colonies to PETA. If that was not forthcoming then the DEI and Kongo at least would apply to join PETA. I can see no reason why mutual free trade could not be agreed on an amicable basis. The other option would be a continuation of the status quo as a special case with dual tariffs for Benelux and the colonies to PETA nations.

Quoted

If you are telling me that the PETA members have no control over their own tariffs with other non-signatories then it seems a rather draconian bloc.

I do not believe that I have said such; if I have said something to suggest it, rest assured that was not my intent. Tariff relations with non-members are, in my mind, not subject to PETA control. The question is whether UKN colonies are covered by the PETA umbrella or not. If they *are not* bringing them under the PETA umbrella *is* a valid topic of discussion between the members.

Quoted

I can't see any preferential deal being better than the 0% deal PETA already has or why deals done with the SAE or any other non-European nation should concern PETA.

If you accept my interpretation of free trade between PETA members, there would be no possible preferential rate and the point is moot. Is that now your interpretation of the application of Article 3?

Quoted

PETA nations of course could be standardised at zero, but I'd want the same in reverse for exports from UKN colonies to PETA.

I would have no problem with this interpretation so long as other PETA members could export to UKN colonies on the *same* basis.

As Germany has no colonies that can be considered captive markets in any sense, equal and open access to the colonial markets of PETA members is an important matter of economic policy. For non-PETA members, Germany has no problem with the negotiation of bilateral agreements on preferential tariffs – however, re-exports of non-PETA origin goods would be subject to local tariffs. For example, goods exported from the SAE to the Netherlands to take advantage of specific reciprocal preferential tariffs could not be re-exported from the Netherlands to Germany at zero-tariffs rates.

Quoted from "BruceDuncan"

Tariff relations with non-members are, in my mind, subject to PETA control.

Typo?

Quoted from "BruceDuncan"

As Germany has no colonies that can be considered captive markets in any sense, equal and open access to the colonial markets of PETA members is an important matter of economic policy. For non-PETA members, Germany has no problem with the negotiation of bilateral agreements on preferential tariffs – however, re-exports of non-PETA origin goods would be subject to local tariffs. For example, goods exported from the SAE to the Netherlands to take advantage of specific reciprocal preferential tariffs could not be re-exported from the Netherlands to Germany at zero-tariffs rates.

Exactly so.

Quoted from "Brockpaine"

Quoted from "BruceDuncan"

Tariff relations with non-members are, in my mind, subject to PETA control.

Typo?

Yes - and now corrected. Darned cold... ?(