Global Financial Transaction Tax Resolution (Passed)

[Cranberry]

Thirdly, I am friendly of (former) Senator Yankee's amendment.

Must have disappeared in this text wall.

[windjammer]

Well, I obviously support a global financial transaction but I remain concerned if we should pass this resolution or not.

Hmmmm, I need to think about it .

[Cranberry]

Well, I obviously support a global financial transaction but I remain concerned if we should pass this resolution or not.

Hmmmm, I need to think about it .

If you might tell me your main points of critique, I will see if they are addressed in the amendment I will post tomorrow/Wednesday (sorry for that taking so long, but I guess I will need to come nearer to your position here, and I guess this needs to be thought about carefully beforehand)

[windjammer]

Well, I obviously support a global financial transaction but I remain concerned if we should pass this resolution or not.

Hmmmm, I need to think about it .

If you might tell me your main points of critique, I will see if they are addressed in the amendment I will post tomorrow/Wednesday (sorry for that taking so long, but I guess I will need to come nearer to your position here, and I guess this needs to be thought about carefully beforehand)

You don't have to apologize. I have to apologize. I'm sorry for not having clearer and for having simply criticized your bill without having tried to improve it.

Well, you know my position on this issue and I know your position on this issue, but I think we should be able to compromise on this. Like pushing for an autonomous Poland in the Lumine game instead of a Poland literally controlled by Germany or by an independent Poland if you see what I mean. I will try to amendment sections after section your bill.

My first amendment:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Well, simply, I believe it would be a good compromise between my vision and your vision about what we should do: we would tell the Secretary of State what he needs to do, but he would have flexibilities. I believe this is better in that way because while we can care about foreign policy because we're representing the people of Atlasia, we will never be able to micromanage EVERYTHING and some details will probably be only known after a long work made by the Secretary of State.

For instance, do you know that Sweden, who is one of the most liberal countries in the world, would be strongly opposed to any negociations about a global financial tax? Why considering they are much more leftwing than many other countries? Simply because they passed a similar tax 20 years ago (only 0.5%) and that was a failure for them and they have been forced to repeal that.

By the way, considering that Russia seems to have launched a missile against us??? I would understand that the Secretary of State doesn't want to start negociations with them .

[HagridOfTheDeep]

Removing the particulars like you've done is interesting, windjammer. It's more akin to the way the senate might assign a task to the SoIA. I'm still very hesitant to pass a resolution that basically offers nothing of substance. I know that's what resolutions are for... but I was never a big fan of them the last time I was in the senate either.

[Fmr President & Senator Polnut]

I remain extremely wary of this Bill and I don't see myself supporting it.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Finally, yes indeed I misspelled global in the title. "Oh no!" (I hope you get this one)

I just wanted to make sure someone noticed the problem so that it could get corrected before this has past. Unfortunatley, it was too late to add it to my amendment as I noticed it after the previous Senate came to a conclusion and therefore, as you said, "former" for now Senator.

Thirdly, I am friendly of (former) Senator Yankee's amendment.

Must have disappeared in this text wall.

I used to force Senators to bold their's if it was in a wall of text.

[TNF]

Yankee's amendment has been adopted. Senators have 36 hours to object to Windjammer's amendment.

[Cranberry]

Windjammer's amendment is friendly.

I see your point, Senator Windjammer, and I guess this is an area where I can compromise without getting things too symbolic, too toothless in a way, but still trying to adress your concerns of micromanaging that I believe many of you have raised. Anyway, instead of falling into too long a text with my usual affinity to saying nothing in long phrases with no meaning (I curse my German mother tongue for that), here would be a version of this I hope many of you can live with. I will not formally offer this as an amendment, just to see if the Senators can agree on this. Otherwise, I guess I will not be able to further compromise without changing the nature and intent of the bill, and I would withdraw sponsorhsip in order to see it tabled.

Here we are though:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

What is your opinion on this? I still think that we should at least state what we want to have in place in an ideal world, but I removed the part that the SoEA should act after it. Without 1b I do think however that the resolution is too toothless...

[windjammer]

Your amendment looks very good Cranberry. I would propose a final amendment if your version passes but that would change nothing to the resolution.

I understand the concerns of Hagrid and Polnut because I have this concern too. While I do believe this isn't our role to micromanage the SoEA's duties, I do believe that, as members of the senate of atlasia which represents the people of Atlasia, we can pass resolutions like that.

[Talleyrand]

The wording of clause "1a" should say something like the senate "implores the SoEA" to initiate talks rather than that he "shall". If we keep the wording as is, it is micromanaging what the Secretary does rather than simply being a reflection of the will of the senate which I would be on board with.

[Cranberry]

Good to see this version is recepted more eagerly. Do propose your amendment, Senator Windjammer, I will see if I will support it.

The wording of clause "1a" should say something like the senate "implores the SoEA" to initiate talks rather than that he "shall". If we keep the wording as is, it is micromanaging what the Secretary does rather than simply being a reflection of the will of the senate which I would be on board with.

I see, and good that you mention it, such, I dare say, "finer" qualities of the English language often make me problems and I do find it good if a native speaker does offer me advice on how to better word a phrase.

Anyway, I will offer this version now as an amendment:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[TNF]

Senators have 36 hours to object to the proposed amendment.

[windjammer]

Senator Cranberry's amendment has been adopted.

[windjammer]

I will propose my amendment tonight or tomorrow.

[Cranberry]

I'm very eager to see it.

[windjammer]

Cranberry's amendment has been adopted.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[windjammer]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Can I introduce that???
No offense to the senators, but seriously, none of us is an economic export for determining exactly this tax.

[windjammer]

After some PM talks, I won't propose this amendment.

[Cranberry]

Instead, I will propose the following:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[windjammer]

Senators have 36 hours to object.

[HagridOfTheDeep]

I appreciate the work going into this, but "implores" and "would like to see" aren't really words that quell my concern about the toothlessness of this proposal.

[Cranberry]

I appreciate the work going into this, but "implores" and "would like to see" aren't really words that quell my concern about the toothlessness of this proposal.

Look, since I proposed this bill, I have heard complaints on how this bill "micromanages" the work of the SoEA, on how this is "too strong" or whatever. Now I tone down on that, to see these concerns met, and now I here it is too toothless. It is not easy to please you all.

Seriously though, I would like to know now: Is a majority of Senators more on board with the current "toothless" version, or with the older "micromanaging" version? This does get tiring with time...

[Talleyrand]

Even if did put in more "hardline" language this bill would be toothless unless the SoEA had already come up with a financial transaction tax plan with all the nations mentioned in this bill and we were ratifying it. It's fine that way it is now.

[Cranberry]

Even if did put in more "hardline" language this bill would be toothless unless the SoEA had already come up with a financial transaction tax plan with all the nations mentioned in this bill and we were ratifying it. It's fine that way it is now.

Ah, I see, that is what you mean with "toothless". I guess I must have misunderstood you there earlier.