Overiding the Veto on the Atlasian Worker Defense Bill

[Bono]

PPT? Vote, opening.

[12th Doctor]

The President, and many others in Atlasia have stated that this bill is anti-freetrade.  The problem with that reasoning is that NAFTA is not freetrade, but rather a series of regulations and restrictions.  Real free trade would not resemble what NAFTA has stated. caused, or created.

Thusly, I urge the Senate, and the President himself to take a close look at NAFTA and find the sense to ignore all the political bantering and vote against this veto.

[JohnFKennedy]

Very well, I hereby open voting on whether to override the Presidential veto.

--------------

Nay

[12th Doctor]

Yea

[Bono]

Yea

[A18]

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

[12th Doctor]

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.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Aye

[ThePrezMex]

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.

[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.

[ThePrezMex]

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.

[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.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

The question that must be asked about NAFTA is a simple one; who's benifited from it?

Have the hardworking folks of my district benifited? The miles of rusting steelworks, ruined and burned out factories and dying coal towns in my district speak for themselves.
Have ordinary Mexicans benifited? No... of course not. Mexico still has an appalling poverty problem, wages are low, labor laws are lax, working conditions are poor and it is becoming economically dependent on Atlasia to a worrying extent.
So who has benifited? I speak for my constituents when I say the answer is obvious... Yet again the only people to benifit in a meaningful way are out of touch Corperate Fat Cat's. Why should our trade policy be dependent on the whims of a tiny minority, most of which belong behind bars anyway?

[Defarge]

Yea

[WMS]

Yea.

[Gabu]

Eh... I still don't know; there are way too many arguments on either side, both of which seem to have merit.

Abstain.

[Sam Spade]

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.

I tried to point this out earlier, but no one was listening. 

I'm all for trying to make the environmental regulations stronger, but scrapping of the agreements to me is a terrible idea for the reasons you listed above, some of which I have seen personally in real life.

[Sam Spade]

The question that must be asked about NAFTA is a simple one; who's benifited from it?

Have the hardworking folks of my district benifited? The miles of rusting steelworks, ruined and burned out factories and dying coal towns in my district speak for themselves.
Have ordinary Mexicans benifited? No... of course not. Mexico still has an appalling poverty problem, wages are low, labor laws are lax, working conditions are poor and it is becoming economically dependent on Atlasia to a worrying extent.
So who has benifited? I speak for my constituents when I say the answer is obvious... Yet again the only people to benifit in a meaningful way are out of touch Corperate Fat Cat's. Why should our trade policy be dependent on the whims of a tiny minority, most of which belong behind bars anyway?

Typical socialist blame-mongering. 

Many lower, middle class families in the South and elsewhere have benefitted heavily from NAFTA in their business lives as many new jobs have been created from the increased trade of goods and services between the US, Mexico and Canada. 

It is those families, many of whom I know personally, who will devastated by the Senate's lack of conscience here.

Corporate fat-cats have nothing to do with this at all.

[Gabu]

Well, I've done more research still, and stuff like this, while from an openly conservative site, has raised doubts in me regarding the merits of revoking NAFTA at this point in time.  While I still don't really know for sure, I tend to like to keep the status quo unless I'm reasonably sure that what we're doing is a good idea.  I also agree with the qualms that others have had that a complete withdrawal from NAFTA would probably not go over well with Mexico and Canada, even if this is a good idea.

Because of this, I'd like to change my vote to "nay".

I realize that this puts me square in the John Kerry seat, but, eh, what can I say?

[Sam Spade]

Well, I've done more research still, and stuff like this, while from an openly conservative site, has raised doubts in me regarding the merits of revoking NAFTA at this point in time.  While I still don't really know for sure, I tend to like to keep the status quo unless I'm reasonably sure that what we're doing is a good idea.  I also agree with the qualms that others have had that a complete withdrawal from NAFTA would probably not go over well with Mexico and Canada, even if this is a good idea.

Because of this, I'd like to change my vote to "nay".

I realize that this puts me square in the John Kerry seat, but, eh, what can I say?

Thanks for the excellent decision, Gabu.

[ThePrezMex]

Thanks Gabu! you are an excellent Senator

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Because of this, I'd like to change my vote to "nay".

IIRC you can't do that

[Gabu]

Because of this, I'd like to change my vote to "nay".

IIRC you can't do that

Why not?

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Because of this, I'd like to change my vote to "nay".

IIRC you can't do that

Why not?

Because it makes the whole point of voting on any bill pointless as if enough people changed their minds they could dig up an old bill and vote it down or whatever.

[Platypus]

if voting is still open, then you change change from abstain to aye/any-iirc, I set a precedent for that when we were voting on new regional maps.

Maybe there are some new senate rules, but if not the precedent is that it is allowable.

Geez, right now i' violating my own proposal