Discussion: Remove the SCUE from the SC.

[Kaiser Mors VI]

This is a discussion to break the SCUE loose as a separate organization from the SC. Many have argued it is in the best interest of the SCUE to do so.

[Malliki Tosha]

Since the SCUE, as well as the SC for that matter, have stagnated horribly, why not try breaking it out.

[Daniel Farewell]

Wouldn't that require a treaty amendment which is ratified by each State?

[Malliki Tosha]

It would have to be ratified by each signatory to the SCUE treaty at least.

[Malliki Tosha]

Or at least 3/4ths of the signatories.

[Jonas]

Since the SCUE, as well as the SC for that matter, have stagnated horribly, why not try breaking it out.

Stagnated? Do you expect that people will start buying and selling things when the organisations are separated?
If there is one reason that the SCUE would be stagnating, it is because of the current low activity of the sector.

[Malliki Tosha]

I didn't say that, nor did I imply it. I simply said that since use of the SCUE has stagnated (even before the sector slump), why not try breaking it out, perhaps getting some new members in the process? You know, the ones that don't want to be in the SC.

[Andreas the Wise]

While it might be legally possible to do it with less, in practical terms I would like each member of the current SCUE to agree to a transfer treaty and sign the new treaty; which would probably be almost exactly the same as the current treaty but removing now superfluous bits (like the initial distribution between Shireroth and Gralus bit; or the 'You must join the Small Commonwealth to be in here' bit).

[Malliki Tosha]

I can have a look at the treaty and see what bits need to be cut, and what the process should look like legally. What I said before was completely from memory.

[Kaiser Mors VI]

It would likely need to be done as a Amendment to the existing Treaty. And we might want a new name for the treaty/organization the results...

I like Unified Economy Coalition. Or Unified Economic Convention... or something similar.

[Jonas]

No, I like the current name: SCUE...

[Jonas]

I have said this in Nelaga, but will repeat it: can we use this opportunity to change the treaty on certain things? We could allow export or income taxes (and make it possible for nations to chose which tax is for which, e.g. Batavia trades with Shireroth and both have, thanks to a trade treaty no taxes for trading between each other. But when it comes to trade with, Alexandria there is an export tax of 2% because Batavia doesn't have a treaty with that nation). Also: what with the money of members that leave the system or go inactive?

[Kaiser Mors VI]

I have no problem with allowing tarrifs personally.

But we can't call it the SCUE anymore... It's not part of the Small Commonwealth. And I like my name ideas better...

As for money of dead nations, right now we just take the active citizens, let them keep there money and send them on their way to other nations. What remained in that nations coffers and inactive accounts is deleted, (after paying debts I would assume, if there were any.)

[Malliki Tosha]

Why not just remove the abbreviation? Call it SCUE, since the name is known and used by all, but let it stand for nothing. Or redefine the meaning.

[Harvey Steffke]

Sector Currency Unified Exchange? Sector Collective Union Exchange?

I don't see why we have to be modifying treaties or what not. If we're breaking the SCUE out, tough nuts to the treaties - not wanting to deal with them is a major part of the reason for doing this in the first place.

[Malliki Tosha]

Because the entire foundation of the SCUE is in the treaties.

[Daniel Farewell]

Exactly.

[Harvey Steffke]

Yeah, and that's exactly what we hope to change.

[Andreas the Wise]

I have said this in Nelaga, but will repeat it: can we use this opportunity to change the treaty on certain things? We could allow export or income taxes (and make it possible for nations to chose which tax is for which, e.g. Batavia trades with Shireroth and both have, thanks to a trade treaty no taxes for trading between each other. But when it comes to trade with, Alexandria there is an export tax of 2% because Batavia doesn't have a treaty with that nation). Also: what with the money of members that leave the system or go inactive?

I still think that tariffs are fun in a 'shooting yourself in the foot' kind of way. For me, the whole point of this is to effectively function as one economy - lots of different bits, and different economies might do things differently (for example, Novatainia was toyed with the idea of being an 'RP economy', meaning that if you wanted to use something in an RP, and there was a shop selling it, you had to buy it), but at the end of the day, I should be able to go to Batavia, Nelaga, Shireroth etc, and still be able to buy an image just as if I was a citizen. People already have the cost of having to go to another nation's forums, work out what shops there are there, and then ask someone they don't know to do something. If you add some extra fee, you can almost guarantee that they won't bother going outside their nation to buy something.

EDIT: However, if there is strong interest in removing that part from the treaty, I won't stop you. I'll just add the warning that an automatic technical solution will be more trouble than it's worth, when you have dual citizens.

[Kaiser Mors VI]

hmm... Andreas is kinda right. If we had say...100 people per nation. Tarrifs wouldn't be that bad.. but we don't even have 100 people in the whole system.

[Jonas]

EDIT: However, if there is strong interest in removing that part from the treaty, I won't stop you. I'll just add the warning that an automatic technical solution will be more trouble than it's worth, when you have dual citizens.

Yes, even if it's just symbolic: if we really just want an organisation that arranges the possibility of have one economic bank system, then we should avoid forbidding this (I'm not saying that Batavia would do this, but it's the symbolic).

[Andreas the Wise]

I can have a look at the treaty and see what bits need to be cut, and what the process should look like legally. What I said before was completely from memory.

Are you still planning to do this?

[Kaiseress Anandja II]

Thanks for the reminder.

[Andreas the Wise]

No problem. If you can't do it, I will; but I figured you're better at the legal stuff.

[Kaiseress Anandja II]

After a quick look, it seems like only a small amendment to the SCUE treaty is needed:

1. Any nation who has signed the General Membership Treaty may sign this Small Commonwealth Unified Currency Treaty, provided they gain approval from existing signatories.

Perhaps the name should be changed, but that would be up to the members to decide.

As for breaking the SCUE out of the SC, that is a bit trickier. The General Membership treaty doesn't deal with that sort of thing at all, so the following is just my motivation, based on ease and common sense.

I would argue that since all treaties of the Small Commonwealth are stand-alone treaties not mentioned in the General Membership treaty, a simple amendment to the SCUE treaty should suffice. If we consider this from a literal viewpoint, simply removing the references to the Small Commonwealth makes the treaty in itself a separate one. The sub-treaties refer to the GM treaty, not the other way around. The Small Commonwealth Bank has also never been considered to be the property of the Small Commonwealth. We even went to great lengths to make sure that the SC did not act as a legal entity but only through its members. The only problem I see is what majority is needed to amend the SCUE treaty. Unfortunately it is silent on that matter. I would suggest using the majority requirement in the GM treaty for amending the SCUE treaty (that is, a 3/4ths majority of the SCUE members), but that is just a recommendation.

[Andreas the Wise]

Ideally, we would get all SCUE members to amend it - I certainly hope to; so the majority requirement shouldn't be a problem.

How about:

Simple Currency Unified Economy Treaty

1. Any nation may sign this Simple Currency Unified Economy Treaty, provided they gain approval from existing signatories.

2. An applicant to this treaty shall be considered by existing signatories. If, within a week, no existing signatory objects, the new nation shall be able to sign this treaty and issued starting currency as explained below.

3. All signatories to this treaty have a unified currency, and share a unified bank. Any participant in the economy of a signatory nation may make economic transactions with participants of any other signatory nations without restrictions, fees or tariffs.

4. Each signatory nations reserves the right to refer to the currency by whatever name they want. This does not make their currency different from the unified currency, and all the names are assumed to have a 1:1 exchange ratio.

5. Participants within this unified currency shall register their accounts in a particular signatory nation, or region thereof. By registering with that nation, participants' accounts are subject to any economic regulation or taxation of that nation, but not of any other nation.

6. No currency can be created or destroyed by the signatory nations, except in the manner outlined here and in section 7. Each new signatory nation is entitled to create currency for an initial distribution among citizens of that country, under the following conditions:
a. They shall count how many citizens they have who do not currently hold accounts via any existing signatory nation.
b. They shall be entitled to 7,500 units of currency per citizen counted in this manner, to be distributed as they see fit.

7. In addition to section 6, the member nations may authorise a special, once-off creation or destruction of currency if 2/3 of all member nations agree.

8. There shall be an administrator of the bank, with the power to change the region of accounts as required; to create currency for new signatory nations; and to enforce taxation.

9. This administrator shall be elected by the signatory nations. At any time the administrator may be removed by a 2/3 vote of no confidence in the administrator, at which time a new administrator shall be elected by the signatory nations.

10. Should a signatory nation withdraw from this treaty, due to death or otherwise, all currency held in accounts registered in that nation shall be removed.

11. This treaty may be amended with the approval of a majority of all member nations.

I went through and did a few changes anyway:
- Named it 'Simple Currency Unified Economy Treaty', to keep the acronym. Harvey suggested 'Sector Currency' - I decided I liked 'Simple' better myself, but don't mind changing that.
- Removed the part about an initial distribution to Gralus and Shireroth. That's superfluous now.
- Added in section 7, which says the nations can authorise a special creation or destruction of currency if 2/3's agree. I don't expect we'll use this much; but there was once discussion about giving the SCX money - if such an occasion arose again, we would have a legal mechanism of dealing with it.
- Added in section 11, which says it can be amended by a majority of member nations (not 50% of people who vote; but a majority of actual members).

Other things to consider:
- Dropping the second sentence in paragraph 3 (ie allowing tariffs between member nations)
- In section 10, dead nations lose their currency. Should we specify a mechanism for declaring a nation dead? If we did, I assume it would be an announcement of death or removal from the MCS map because they're dead.
- I'm assuming we'd ask for a subforum on the as-of-yet unnamed micronational forum (ie the MCS) to handle treaty matters (mainly the admission of new members).

[Kaiseress Anandja II]

I won't comment the content since we have a representative for that, but perhaps it should be "... approval of a majority of all member nations." Might seem superfluous, but for some reason voting rules seem to be controversial here.

[Andreas the Wise]

Thanks, I added that in to be safe.

[Erik Mortis]

'Simple Currency Unified Economy Treaty' ....Yuck!

[Jonas]

What if... let us say, Batavia, doesn't agree with moving? How would such a problem be solved?