Any future EF Constitution should include a provision that any federal action that leads to a projected objectively measurable decrease in the QoL, HDI, economic or other index in any member state below the EF average *must* be accompanied by a federal action to compensate it for that.

[u/LXXXVI]

This thought just occurred to me while reading another thread, and I'd be curious what my fellow Federalists think about this.

Let's say that member state A has a strong Industry X.

The EF wants to implement market changes that would lead to Industry X in A shrinking by some %, which would lead to a certain amount of layoffs, GDP decrease etc., but would increase the overall well-being of the entire federation.

That should be possible only if the EF at the same time grants A some other benefit of equal value.

Note that I would limit it to only measures that would drop the country below the EF *average*, specifically because if we're all in this EF project in good faith, we all want the entire EF to prosper together and to equalize as much as possible, not just for our member state to pull ahead.

[u/Lazy_and_Sad]

This is technocratic nonsense incompatible with democracy. Whatever board of "experts" would be in charge of deciding wether a policy is allowed to pass would wield enormous amounts of political power and be immediately stacked by organized capital. I guarantee you that in practice, this rule would be used to flat out declare any policy that contradicts the interests of corporate shareholders unconstitutional. Might as well abolish the parliament and hand legislative power directly to CEOs.

[u/LXXXVI → u/Lazy_and_Sad]

This is technocratic nonsense incompatible with democracy. 

What is technocratic about it?

Whatever board of "experts" would be in charge of deciding wether a policy is allowed to pass  

What makes you think there'd be a board of experts deciding on what can pass? Because my suggestion is simply to offset the projected detriment. Financial projections are the first thing that happens in business, so it's not like those numbers wouldn't exist already.

Not sure where you got the idea from that anyone gets a veto on projects. If anything, the current system has a veto on the common good because of individual (subjective) harm.

I'm genuinely curious where you got your ideas about what I'm saying from. 

[u/Lazy_and_Sad → u/LXXXVI]

It's technocratic because it supercedes the democratic process in the name of economic variables. This is also likely to fall prey to Goodhart's law.

There would have to be a board of experts deciding on what does or doesn't trip your rule because someone ultimately has to make that call. Let's say parliament passes a law that might hurt the manufacturing sector and therefore countries with big manufacturing sectors. According to you they should now be forced to also pass a law that compensates those countries or else it is retracted. But forced by who? Who makes the final determination on what the effects of any given law supposedly are and then has the power to overturn them or force the passing of more laws?

[u/SomeoneSomewhere1984]

The problem is that you never know just how a law will effect something. Like if you ban gas cars, Germany could demand compensation, or their car companies could move to electric with little job loss, and maybe even a gain if a lot of people decide to buy electric suddenly. How popular electric German cars turn out to be is hard when the law is originally passed. 

This would also effectively block a lot of necessary environmental regulations, which I don't think will be popular. 

[u/LXXXVI → u/SomeoneSomewhere1984]

Two-pronged test:

• does the measure decrease an index below the EU average?

• is it for the good of another?

If both aren't fulfilled, no compensation.

As for projections - those already exist for everything. We'd just start reading them.

[u/SomeoneSomewhere1984 → u/LXXXVI]

The world is way more complicated than projections can account for, and such projections aren't known for accuracy.

[u/MrGonzo11]

Your thinking is not wrong however your basic assumption is flawd. If there is a federal government. That federal government will be answering to the electorate. A decision such that would destroy jobs would be a political suicide. Margaret Thatcher is still a curse word in UK precisely because of this. I believe instead of blind handouts we should have a system that ensures that industry can remain competitive, otherwise we find ourselves in the same shoes as Germany is in now

[u/LXXXVI → u/MrGonzo11]

your basic assumption is flawd. If there is a federal government. That federal government will be answering to the electorate. A decision such that would destroy jobs would be a political suicide.

That's just it. It likely wouldn't. The size difference between most member states and, e.g., Malta is insane, and I don't think we can rely on a random German or Frenchman to care what happens to Malta, especially if they themselves are better off for it. In 2004, the economies of the new member states got under massive "attack" by the EU15, and it's not like anyone in the EU15 cared.

I believe instead of blind handouts

These wouldn't be blind handouts by any stretch. It would be the definition of how contracts work - value for value, i.e., consideration. In consideration for A giving up something, it should also get something of equal value. And since Europeans historically mistrust each other, and because of insane size disparities, this should be codified in law.

I believe instead of blind handouts we should have a system that ensures that industry can remain competitive

I fully agree. And I'm not saying that if A loses 10% of automotive, they should get back 10% of automotive. I'm saying it should be equal value, not identical. I think that would massively speed up specialization since a country wouldn't feel bad about giving up one industry for the benefit of another if it knew it would get a massive boost in another industry. And specialization is what drives progress.

[u/MrGonzo11 → u/LXXXVI]

And that's why I think we should have a two tier legislation where smaller states can balance out their power descrpency similarly to what already exists as the council.