Agricultural Policy Act of 2015 (Final vote)

[Cranberry]

Now, I will not start with calling this necessarily maoist, but I do have my points with this bill.
Firstly, the basic idea behind this bill is one I see myself supporting. In Austria, similar ideas, that are cooperatives of individual farmers, which are to an extent often state-backed, exist since the mid-19th century, helping farmers by providing micro-credits, lending out equipment, and giving farmers better prizes for seeds as well as products.

The thing now obviously is, that farming in Austria is structured fundamentally differently than in Atlasia, especially in my region of Austria. Here, the vast majority of agricultural products, especially with cattle farming, are still produced by smaller family farms, often with both farmers working in another job and farming in one. I understand that in Atlasia, the structure of farming is very different, so an approach different from the Austrian is needed.

Let's go through this bill now step-by-step, shall we? Firstly, as I said, I like the idea behind this so-called "AAA". I do however have my problems with establishing an all-Atlasian, governmental organization for this purpose. In farming, famers often face regional or local problems or difficulties, such who could more effectively be tackled by locally-based organizations. Secondly, I do not really see a need for running such a project by the government. Farmers themselves often know their problems better than any government agency could, and as such, I would propose we rephrase 1.1 totally, establishing that we encourage formations of cooperatives or unions if you want to of (family) farmers that would have the same workfield as this AAA.
1.2 equally has some problems for me, in effect this "a return on their product equal to the wage of the average skilled worker". These excess products mentioned here will undeniably vary by great lengths among each other, and receiving just this average regional wage for products that on the free market could score far higher prices is not really that an incentive for farmers.
1.3 is no less than bullying hard-working family farmers into cooperative farming, methods that are not really existent in practice - I would guess for a reason - and I can see no situation in which I would support such.

I do like the other sections, my only point here is section 2, the definition of a working farmer in particular. I do not know if the Senator is familiar with the practices of family farming, but it will just not be possible for most farmers to not employ a farmhand of other during harvest time, for example - there is however no reason to think whatsoever that those farmers are any less members of the working class - which the Senator I believe wants to "empower" with said bill - than any other farmer who falls into this definition. There is certainly room for improvement in this definition.

I do think that something workable and agreeable for everyone can be crafted from this bill, and I am eager to hear the sponsor's responses as well as the other Senators' input.

[Cranberry]

Since the sponsor has not yet responded to my criticism/questions/input, and this will be my last day before a week-long LOA, I guess I will have to offer something to spur debate and to offer my point of views here for when I am absent. I will thus present the following, which is not intended as an amendment, rather as an impetus for debate:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

As said, this is not an amendment, rather an impetus to debate. I do understand if the sponsor is not so happy with such fundamental changes to his bill being offered, yet, I will be absent the following week, so I would want to get my points across here, and such is the most effective way, I thought.

Furthermore, if possible, I would request the Senators to hold off of any final vote until I have returned; this topic is of great interest to me, and I would like to bring myself into this debate a bit more. Thank you.

[Cranberry]

I object to the proposed amendment.

This is not an amendment, and never intended to be one, rather an impetus for debate... Good to see you all read my post

It even says "not an amendment" on top of the quote...

[Cranberry]

And I had the fear you would close this up before I return.

Anyway, I can only reiterate my points, echoing one made by the Attorney General: this bill as it stands is simply not fit for, I dare even say ignorant of, the current state of Atlasian agriculture. As such, I will work over this impetus of mine a bit this afternoon, and thereafter officially offering it.

[Cranberry]

Not yet offered, so no.

To counter this, here is a version that is suited to be proposed as an amendment:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Opinions hereon? I doubt that the sponsor will like this version bill, but I shall sure hope that this version is more feasible with reality and a majority of Atlasians and Senators...

[Cranberry]

Senators? Your opinion on this?

[Cranberry]

Which is what I asumed

[Cranberry]

AYE

[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.

[Cranberry]

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

[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.

[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.

[Cranberry]

Yes, this does strike me as workable as well.

[Cranberry]

It strikes me as if no one has taken on Al's impetus in regards of the possible un-necessity of the clause allowing farmers to collectively bargain with food processors, and that this could lead to courts ruling against marketing cooperatives. I do believe his legal analysis here on, but maybe someone else with knowledge on the matter could comment on this?

[Cranberry]

I see. Thank you for coming back to this.

I personally would be done there, I'm perfectly fine with the current version and have nothing to add here on.

[Cranberry]

Looks fine for me.

[Cranberry]

Aye

Through common work and common-sense amendments, we have brought this from something being decried at as "maoist" to something that is seemingly supported across the aisle.