Agricultural Policy Act of 2015 (Final vote)

[Senator Cris]

I support it.
A good improvement.

[windjammer]

Senators, a vote is now open on Cranberry's amendment. Please, vote AYE, NAY or Abstain.

[windjammer]

Aye.

This is a good improvement, as Cris pointed out.

[Senator Cris]

Aye

[Fmr President & Senator Polnut]

I still have considerable issues about this Bill. But for the sake of progress, which I believe this amendment is...

AYE

[Talleyrand]

AYE

[Lief 🗽]

NAY

[Cranberry]

AYE

[TNF]

Nay

[Blair]

Nay

[HagridOfTheDeep]

Aye

[windjammer]

The result of the vote:
Aye (5): Windjammer, Talleyrand, Cranberry, Cris, Polnut
Nay (3): Blair, TNF, Lief
Non voting (2): SWE, Hagrid (too late)

Cranberry's amendment has been adopted.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[Cranberry]

Just found a couple of logical and contination errors, sorry on my part, hence the following new amendment (just to bring things in order again, there should be no objection to that I would think?)

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[TNF]

Amendment is friendly.

[Cranberry]

Thank you, this should help speed up the process a lot.

[windjammer]

Senators have 36 hours to object.

[windjammer]

Cranberry's amendment has been adopted.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[bore]

This bill doesn't seem particularly objectionable at the moment, and sections 3 and 4 look very positive but I'd like to go back to something the Attorney General (who, as a non townie, knows a lot about farming) said. Is there any real demand from farmers for collective bargaining? As in, would we, at great expense, be setting up something that no one would use?

[Cranberry]

This bill doesn't seem particularly objectionable at the moment, and sections 3 and 4 look very positive but I'd like to go back to something the Attorney General (who, as a non townie, knows a lot about farming) said. Is there any real demand from farmers for collective bargaining? As in, would we, at great expense, be setting up something that no one would use?

I believe I am qualified to answer this as well, I myself life in a rural community, and my grandfather was a small farmer until recently.

There are farmers that certainly would prefer bargaining collectively with other farmers in their community/area/region, while others would rather keep alone; bigger, industrial famers like there are many in Atlasia, come to mind. This was my main objective in proposing to let the famers do the work themselves, in a way - provide them with assistance, yes, but let them themselves set up vehicles to eases their work and maximising their incomes if they so wish. I doubt that this would produce great costs, furthermore, monetary assistance would mostly affect rural areas with a weak economical structure, maybe in the end even providing economic stimulus for said regions through this programme (can you too hear the dollars clinging in our treasury? Dagobert Duck surely would approve). To sum up, no, I disagree with the Attorney General's and the President's notion that this would be an unnecessary expense. I believe, that with individualising and bringing towards the farmers the whole thing, we created a workable solution, and it's now up to the farmers if they want to accept the offers or keep on as they do now. Either shall be equal for us.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

I don't think there's much doubt that marketing co-operatives (and related arrangements and organisations) are popular with some farmers. If the Senate wishes to give financial support to such ventures, then that is political matter and I won't comment either way.

I am a little concerned, however, that we still have a little gap between this bill and reality: farmers are self-employed by definition and 'giving' them the right to organise as employees (who of?) is a little strange. As going business concerns of their own, they already have the right to bargain however they see fit. I actually have worries that hostile courts in the future could potentially use Section Two of this bill as grounds for ruling against marketing co-operatives.

Section Three is a little odd; does this Republic not already have agricultural colleges? I should warn this assembly that the Man from The Ministry with a clipboard and a white coat is generally not terribly popular on farms (even when he brings money) and his advice would normally be ignored. I would recommend re-writing that section to make it look less like instructions on egg sucking.

Section Four is blatant and hilarious pork. Urban farming, Senators, is a scam.

[HagridOfTheDeep]

I'm open to hearing why you believe urban farming is a scam, because I can point you to a number of people who don't. Community gardens offer huge benefits to the people who make use of them.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Oh, I'm all in favour of allotments and the like (although that would be horticulture rather than agriculture... and in addition it must be noted that most of the produce grown is for personal use. Allotments are great, but they do not increase the overall rate of agricultural productivity).* But if you want to spend federal money on encouraging such laudable things rather than on rent-seeking shakedown artists, I would suggest that literally writing a blank cheque is not the best of ideas.

_{*Although if I were a Senator I would have to ask whether productivity for the sake of productivity is necessarily what Atlasian agriculture - and the Atlasian countryside - needs at present...}

[HagridOfTheDeep]

Well, as you said, I don't think productivity needs to be our most important goal. Overall levels of food output may not significantly change, but bringing sites of production closer to consumers is never a bad thing. There's the emotional argument related to being out on the "land" and seeing where food comes from, but urban farming also has environmental benefits in that the food is local. I'm not sure on this because obviously the quality of food will be different, but buying directly from the source could have cost benefits too because there wouldn't be a middle man. I do know, though, that being the source most certainly would have financial benefits.

I don't know if making an industry out of urban agriculture would ever work, but I do think we could encourage and support small operations throughout our cities to great results. Especially if we start concerning ourselves with the problem of urban food deserts and that type of stuff in this discussion.

Just my two cents.

[Cranberry]

I can see your points, Al, regarding Section 2, and I am going to follow your judgement, simply because I am not familiar at all with all-too-legal/court business.

I don't see the Ministry-Man anywhere within what Section 3 aims. I see it as a compliation to agricultural colleges, through further information, organised by those individual farming marketing cooperatives.

[Fmr President & Senator Polnut]

Could those who are passionate about this, on both sides, get in contact with me?