The so-called retention of tariffs on domestic purchases and payment of tariffs on purchases refer to Hoffmann's beginning to play the EU economic circle, which is divided into three levels:

The first level is the European Community, which refers to the negotiation and coordination of permanent neutral countries such as Switzerland, including the European countries - excluding colonies, overseas territories, East Russia, etc.;

The second layer is the European sphere of interest, which refers to the urgent exchanges between the colonies, overseas territories and mother countries of various countries;

The third level is the EU cooperation circle, which refers to countries in the economic system that have good relations with the EU, such as Africa, the Middle East, South America, and the Far East, which are suitable for inclusion in bilateral institutional arrangements, and also include the trade between the colonies of country A and country B.

These three economic circles with the EU as concentric circles have built a new trade spectrum, and those who remove these three levels are naturally outsiders.

The EU Economic Area has a differentiated tax system based on three levels:

The pro-rata internal tax collection of the first tier is retained by the collecting country itself;

The second tier of tariffs is set at 8%, which is divided between the collecting country and the EU in a 3:1 ratio, which not only reflects the preferential treatment of the suzerain, but also shows European solidarity - for example, if Italy imports goods from Libya and generates tariffs of 4 million lire, it will pay 1 million to the EU;

The third tier of tariffs is set at 15%, which is divided between the country and the EU in a 1:1 ratio – for example, Germany imports goods from Argentina in South America and generates a tariff of 2 million marks, and pays 1 million to the EU.

Trade relations outside the above three levels, that is, no matter how much tariffs are incurred on goods imported from countries outside the circle, are divided between the imposing country and the EU according to the ratio of 1:3, which seems to be the same, but in fact it is particularly devastating to the United States.

On the surface, Europe does not exclude imports from the United States - as long as you pay an average of 25% tariffs, you can trade normally, but the problem is that 75% of the non-European tariffs levied by countries are paid to the EU, and the latter is at the disposal of the latter, so that the importing country is suddenly SB: the customs duties received by the country (which are actually paid by the consumers of that country) contribute to the EU in vain. Unless it is a last resort, it must seek a solution within the circle - in Hoffman's view, there is no commodity in the world that only the United States can exclusively produce.

This will strengthen internal coordination, exchange of information and achieve an overall closure to the United States, with Germany, Italy, Britain, and France clearly benefiting the most.

This economic strategy, which is neither export-oriented by advanced industrial countries nor import-substitution by late-developing countries, is finally summarized as community industrial cooperation, which has created a new model.

After the first two principles were well advanced, the third principle of the December reform was soon on the horizon – the establishment of a common EU finance.

Now there is an EU tax on oil and an EU profit tax on tariffs, and Speer and the financial experts have put the idea on the combined shipping tax, and the additional charge for intermodal mileage per person and ton of goods in Europe is very low, so low that it is almost negligible, but it cannot stand the large amount, and it has suddenly obtained more than ten times the revenue of the oil tax. And this is a tax levied on industrially developed and densely populated countries, and small, poor, and sparsely populated countries do not feel it.

In addition to shipping taxes, EU financial taxes, securities transaction taxes, and other tax rules involving the entire European Economic Circle are also being formulated.

After this series of rules were formulated, Britain, France, Italy, and Russia quickly understood Germany's play: for example, the EU is regarded as a large company, Germany is the controlling shareholder, and other major countries are important shareholders.

The European Parliament, the European Central Bank, the European Joint Force, the United European Fleet, and even the European Court of Justice can be established when the EU has a strong financial base, and the EU is not a sovereign organization that overrides the entities of various countries, but it raises the level of the entire EU in the handling of relations between countries and other countries, and leaving the EU means closing the country. Even Western Russia, the largest in Europe, did not dare to play like this, let alone other countries.

The biggest difference between the EU and the League of Nations is that it does not play the false principle of equality between countries, and all countries, regardless of their size, have one vote - isn't it because of this principle that the League of Nations finally got out of play? In this world, the differences between big and small countries, poor countries and rich countries, strong countries and weak countries already exist, and the strength is not equal in the first place.

Although small countries have less political say, they have benefited a lot economically, and in the future, the EU will play the common market, and small countries will have a lot of room for development; If the EU wants to form a unified defense system, small countries will not have to bother to maintain high defense spending – in Hoffman's words, "Can the three Baltic states, the countries of the East, arm themselves to the teeth to resist Stalin?" Isn't it about European unity? In that case, they simply don't waste money on national defense! ”

This is where the fourth reform coordinated by the EU is on the horizon: the harmonization of weights and measures. The mainland countries dominated by Germany, France and Italy play the metric system, and the maritime countries represented by the United Kingdom play the British system. After difficult negotiations, the metric system was adopted uniformly throughout Europe in the field of ordinary weights and measures, and the feet, inches, and yards were gone, but the imperial system was adopted in maritime trade terms, for the British Empire was the most skillful and smooth in this set.

In addition to the existing standards, the standards in other areas have also been adjusted: for example, the general broad gauge of the Russian railway instead of the European standard gauge, since the whole European intermodal transport is to be realized, the inconsistency must of course be abolished, Vlasov has promised to turn all the broad gauge in West Russia into a standard gauge, but West Russia is now shy in the pocket, hoping that the European powers will help a part - Germany naturally agreed, Belgium and France agreed to purchase a large number of railway facilities because of West Russia, and of course they also agreed, and even Britain took a share of the pie, After all, the earliest railway system was played by the British. After the Western Russia announced the reconstruction, the other Eastern countries naturally followed suit - this field alone can create a lot of demand.

The rules of the railways were unified, then the rules of shipping, the rules of the telegraph, the rules of the postal service, the rules of telecommunications, and then the rules of administration, statistics, and road traffic were also gradually unified. Taking advantage of the fact that there are not many vehicles now, the British will change from driving on the left to the right, and the loss from right-hand drive to left-hand drive is not too great.

Of course, there is opposition to this kind of change in Britain, but the opposition cannot put forward specific reasons for opposition, at most it is emotion, tradition, culture, etc., but now the situation is stronger than people, and many places in Great Britain still have to rely on Germany for help, so naturally they cannot interfere in these matters.

The unification of these rules is what the EU wants to do but has never been able to do, but there is one thing that Hoffman does not plan to implement for the time being - the rules of free movement and free employment within the EU, or other conditions can only be implemented. The free movement of the population soon involved the jobs of the working class, the petty bourgeoisie and the uniqueness of the nation, coupled with Hoffmann's terrible advance through the greenery of pre-Europe, which was even more unacceptable to Germany, so the population rules were quite strictly controlled - the ordinary movement of people in various countries (referring to visits, schools, tourism, family visits, etc.) could simplify visas or even achieve visa-free at a certain stage, but the free movement of labor was not allowed in the short term.

He proposed a unique principle of immigration and regularization - when European countries want to admit immigrants, regardless of their skin color and race, they must require the immigrants to have a secondary education or higher recognized by the European Union, and openly convert to the mainstream religion of the country of immigration, which is also the fifth principle of the December reform, and it is also one of the most far-reaching measures in the field of social relations.

In other words, it is possible for a French to convert an Algerian into a Frenchman, but the Algerian must have a secondary school diploma and must convert to a French religion - Catholicism or Protestantism, a Pakistani must be British Orthodox to become British, and a Slav must be Orthodox if he is naturalized as a Russian.

This provision was strongly supported by various religious groups, including Protestant, Catholic, Anglican and Orthodox churches, which appreciated Germany's efforts to promote the purity of the faith in Europe. And this rule also subtly caters to the anti-Jewish forces in various countries - Jews who do not convert are not good Jews, and can Jews still be called Jews after they are converted? At the same time, this rule also limited the spread of Bolshevism – is it still a religious one?

The major powers thought that Germany had used this name to establish an anti-Semitic and anti-Bolshevik pattern -- this sounded much more justified than the blatant anti-Semitism, national hard labor, and anti-Bolshevik, and Germany had established by legislation all the things that the European right had always wanted to say and wanted to do but had not been able to do.

The only excuse is that there is an exemption from citizenship and no compulsory proselytism, but that the newborn must follow this principle, which in the eyes of the Church makes the "infidels" disappear spontaneously and without having to bear the burden of murder, which seems like a good solution.

After Germany came forward to put forward this principle, the Vatican Church openly expressed its support for the new European order and the establishment of the European Union, and frequently visited Europe, and the mainstream churches in various countries also supported it.