Overiding the Veto on the Atlasian Worker Defense Bill

[Bono]

PPT? Vote, opening.

[Bono]

Yea

[Bono]

So what does NAFTA do if it's not free trade?

As I said, it is really a series of Trade restrictions and regulations.  It isn't free trade at all.

This is clearly not true. Tariffs between Atlasia and Canada and Mexico have practically disappeared now because of NAFTA and the benefits have been huge for everybody. I want add that Texas has profited enormously from NAFTA creating hundreds of thousands of jobs for Atlasians as well as other states in the south, so our Senators need to listen, at least for once.

regulations aren't tariffs. We are in a different wave lenght.

[Bono]

So what does NAFTA do if it's not free trade?

As I said, it is really a series of Trade restrictions and regulations.  It isn't free trade at all.

This is clearly not true. Tariffs between Atlasia and Canada and Mexico have practically disappeared now because of NAFTA and the benefits have been huge for everybody. I want add that Texas has profited enormously from NAFTA creating hundreds of thousands of jobs for Atlasians as well as other states in the south, so our Senators need to listen, at least for once.

regulations aren't tariffs. We are in a different wave lenght.

Which regulations? Rules of Origin for example? Well, unless you are proposing right here to create worldwide free trade, you need regulations about rules of origin for products produced within the countries signatories of NAFTA. Environmental regulations? they have never been enforced. Panels to solve controversies? Well, you need them in case one country decides to unfairly establish a compensatory tariff. I understand that the motivation is to seek total free trade in the world, and that's great, but this is clearly one of the worst ways to do it.
It actually is going to backfire. Just imagine the signal that the Senate would be sending to the financial markets: Repeal of NAFTA! they will just go into a panic frenzy, regardless of how you want to explain them. Put on top of that the fact that several people are trying to impeach the Treasury Secretary and the crisis with China.
Repeal of Nafta! - Impeachment of the Treasury Secretary and China possibly confiscating Atlasian investments because of misguided policies? Does the Senate have any sense of the economic consequences of the bills it is approving?
Investors should be clearly very worried about the recent developments in Atlasia. That, plus the uncertainty of a Presidential campaign will leave the economy of Atlasia in tatters. Poor President PBrunsel, the Senate will cause him to leave office with an economic crisis that not even if BRTD as President could have created.

He should ahve thought of that before going into interventionist frenzy.
I voted against the China bill, just for you to know.

[Bono]

Upon further consideration, while I don't think NAFTA is a panacea nor perfect, this bill goes a bit too far. I change my vote to nay, for much the same reasons as Senator Gabu. I would like to see changes in NAFTA, but not through an outright pullout.

How can it go too far? The only possible courses of action are staying, with all the problems inherent to it, or pulling out.

[Bono]

Upon further consideration, while I don't think NAFTA is a panacea nor perfect, this bill goes a bit too far. I change my vote to nay, for much the same reasons as Senator Gabu. I would like to see changes in NAFTA, but not through an outright pullout.

How can it go too far? The only possible courses of action are staying, with all the problems inherent to it, or pulling out.

Can't we attempt to fix it?  I think that that course of action would be a lot more agreeable to Canada and Mexico than to just suddenly and unilaterally drop it.

We are waiting six months(of game time) to pull out, and we are negotiating a trade agreement with canada. What do you want more?

[Bono]

Upon further consideration, while I don't think NAFTA is a panacea nor perfect, this bill goes a bit too far. I change my vote to nay, for much the same reasons as Senator Gabu. I would like to see changes in NAFTA, but not through an outright pullout.

How can it go too far? The only possible courses of action are staying, with all the problems inherent to it, or pulling out.

Can't we attempt to fix it?  I think that that course of action would be a lot more agreeable to Canada and Mexico than to just suddenly and unilaterally drop it.

We are waiting six months(of game time) to pull out, and we are negotiating a trade agreement with canada. What do you want more?

But NAFTA is already a trade agreement with Canada (and Mexico, and I support one with Mexico as well); I'm not sure why we need to completely scrap this one to just make another one.

Also, why are we negotiating a trade agreement with Canada before we even knew whether or not this would pass?  Who's doing the negotiating if PBrunsel doesn't support this bill?

Because this one presuposes regulations and restrictions, while a trade agreement with canada is simply saying we won't charge tariffs between us on the specified goods.
We are not, that's why the 6 months waiting period is for.
The secretary of state is forced to, under the terms of the bill.

[Bono]

For historical reference, let me point out that I can't recall a veto that has been overridden ever here, and both bills that were vetoed had enough votes to override if they had kept their whip count together.  Wonder why, but it may be the authority of the Presidency carries a lot.

The Senate overrode the veto of the None of the Above (and possibly Below) Act as well as the Clean Energy Act. To my knowledge, this is the first bill to remain off the books after a veto, though I'm not too sure about that.

Marijuana.