Central American Free Trade Agreement Bill

[Ebowed]

Do you wish to hear my opinion on NAFTA, Senator Q?

[Q]

Do you wish to hear my opinion on NAFTA, Senator Q?

I believe you have made your position sufficiently clear, Senator Conniption McRage.

[Ebowed]

Do you wish to hear my opinion on NAFTA, Senator Q?

I believe you have made your position sufficiently clear, Senator Conniption McRage.

LOL

I'm going to have to change my name just for you, Q.

[Ebowed]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

That is not so. No sovereignty is ceded; our policy remains entirely within our control.

Why is the Codex Commission mentioned in Chapter 6 of this agreement as a regulatory standard for nations that join the agreement?  There was a reason drug companies supported CAFTA, and here it is.  This international organization of an agreement can be used to outlaw drugs or put tougher restrictions on them, both for us, and the countries of Central America.

[Q]

With a recent poll showing little more than one-third of Atlasian citizens supporting this bill, I remain convinced that it is not in the best interest of our Republic to pass such a bill at this time.

[Ebowed]

Senators,

This regulated trade agreement contains some very interesting sections.  Such as Chapter 3, Article 3.12, Clause 1:
"Each Central American Party and the Dominican Republic shall recognize Bourbon Whiskey and Tennessee Whiskey, which is a straight Bourbon Whiskey authorized to be produced only in the State of Tennessee, as distinctive products of the United States.

Accordingly, those Parties shall not permit the sale of any product as Bourbon Whiskey or Tennessee Whiskey, unless it has been manufactured in the United States in accordance with the laws and regulations of the United States governing the manufacture of Bourbon Whiskey and Tennessee Whiskey."

I assure you that I did not make that ridiculous little clause up; you can see it in the agreement here; just scroll down to Article 3.12.

Why can't these countries manufacture Bourbon Whiskey or Tennesse Whiskey, and why can't they permit the sale of products named these not made the United States?  Is that not an invasion of the sovereignty of each of the countries that has signed this agreement with the United States?

[Ebowed]

Dear Senators,

I have been told to "quit wasting the Senate's time."  Well, excuse me, but I believe it is not a waste of time to point out the anti-free trade regulations in this agreement.  No Central American nation may produce Bourbon; if they sell it, it has to be made in Tennessee; if they make it, they can't call it Bourbon Whiskey.  When I pointed this out to a Senator personally, I was told that he had no response to that.

No response?  This code of regulations just might not be free trade, and when I point out a blatant example, there is nothing to reply in defense?

Of course, there are two reasons that the Senators won't reply to these speeches of mine.  First off, they want 24 hours to pass, so if they defend their support of the bill, they have to wait longer to vote on it.  Second, it seems, most of the Senators supporting this bill haven't even read even sections of the agreement, and are just supporting it because that's what they're fellow blue-avatar Senators are doing.  I don't mean to suggest these reasons based on guessing; I'm aware of this firsthand after speaking to Senators who support this bill.

Therefore, any motions to invoke cloture should be voted down.  We need to make it clear that this bill isn't what it claims to be, and as much as the Senators would like to ignore that, we can't let them.

Additionally, if pointing out problems with the agreement is a waste of time, then this bill is a waste of time also.  Why exactly are we in a hurry to rush this through the Senate before points against it can be raised?  It's not like we're in any great hurry to consider other legislation.  We are already seeing a growing plurality of Atlasians opposing CAFTA; if you wish to suppress the opposition in the Senate, I suspect it will backfire greatly.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Second, this would essentially establish an international organization, a surrender of Atlasian sovreignty.  I doubt this is what any free trade advocate wants.

That is not so. No sovereignty is ceded; our policy remains entirely within our control.

Under NAFTA, evil Canadians tried to violate California's sovereignty.
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=Methanex+california+nafta&btnG=Google+Search

[DanielX]

I propose that CAFTA be re-negotiated, either by the Siege40 administration or by its successor. Free trade's a good idea, but I think that the current form goes too far in some places, and not enough in others.

BTW, Sen. McRage, there's a big difference between our dealings with Central America and with China.

[Ebowed]

BTW, Sen. McRage, there's a big difference between our dealings with Central America and with China.

I'm aware of that.

What is your opinion of NAFTA, as Q was asking earlier?

[DanielX]

BTW, Sen. McRage, there's a big difference between our dealings with Central America and with China.

I'm aware of that.

What is your opinion of NAFTA, as Q was asking earlier?

For the most part, Pro.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

I would just like the Senate to know that I have made an offer (several days ago) to certain other Senators that will hopefully end this farce.

[Bono]

I would just like the Senate to know that I have made an offer (several days ago) to certain other Senators that will hopefully end this farce.

Aw uh.

[Q]

I would just like the Senate to know that I have made an offer (several days ago) to certain other Senators that will hopefully end this farce.

Could you please elaborate?

[Ebowed]

Dear Senators,

There are many reasons to oppose CAFTA, which can be seen from my varying (and increasingly unanswered) arguments against the bill, some of which come from progressive standpoints, conservative standpoints, and libertarian standpoints.  Similarly, I have posted my own defense against this bill, as well as articles by Ron Paul, Phylis Schaffly, and now the liberal Common Dreams website.

Can CAFTA Before it Destroys Sovereignty and Small Farms
by Arnie Alpert
 

You must be logged in to read this quote.

http://www.commondreams.org/views05/0506-30.htm

I think the consensus here between liberal, conservative, and libertarian arguments against this bill is pretty clear:  CAFTA is an invasion of our sovereignty.  The only defense against this argument has been weak and inaccurate; for the most part, this point seems to be ignored by the supporters of this bill.  We cannot allow this great invasion of our sovereignty to pass the Senate, and I urge the Senate to reconsider its views.

[Ebowed]

I wish to propose the following amendment:

Clauses 1, 2, and 3 shall be stricken and replaced with:
1. No tariffs, customs, or restrictions on movement of goods, except those that have been outlawed by the destination or interim nation, shall exist between the Republic of Atlasia, the Republic of Costa Rica, the Republic of El Salvador, the Republic of Guatemala, the Republic of Honduras, Nicaragua, and the Dominican Republic.
2. The President and other officers of the Atlasian Government shall take such actions as may be necessary to implement the provisions of this bill.

Does anyone have suggestions on this amendment?

[Filuwaúrdjan]

I would just like the Senate to know that I have made an offer (several days ago) to certain other Senators that will hopefully end this farce.

Could you please elaborate?

I will when I hear back from these certain other Senators. If not, my assumption would be they don't want to compromise. Pity.

[DanielX]

I wish to propose the following amendment:

Clauses 1, 2, and 3 shall be stricken and replaced with:
1. No tariffs, customs, or restrictions on movement of goods, except those that have been outlawed by the destination or interim nation, shall exist between the Republic of Atlasia, the Republic of Costa Rica, the Republic of El Salvador, the Republic of Guatemala, the Republic of Honduras, Nicaragua, and the Dominican Republic.
2. The President and other officers of the Atlasian Government shall take such actions as may be necessary to implement the provisions of this bill.

Does anyone have suggestions on this amendment?

That sounds pretty good, except that the deal should be mutual - ie that the elimination of tariffs should be contingent on the elimination of tariffs by the target countries.

Certainly, this concept is less bloated and bureaucratic, and thus meets my approval.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

I'm beginning to see the attractions of CAFTA now

[Defarge]

Interesting article in the Economist today about manufacturing.  It brought up very good points in favor of Free Trade and why we should be unafraid of the decrease in manufacturing jobs.  While I will continue to vote in favor of debate (for the moment), my vote on the final bill is in doubt. 

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Interesting article in the Economist today about manufacturing.  It brought up very good points in favor of Free Trade and why we should be unafraid of the decrease in manufacturing jobs.  While I will continue to vote in favor of debate (for the moment), my vote on the final bill is in doubt. 

The article made some fundamental errors about the employment structure etc. in the manufacturing industry and why it's declined as well as a misunderstanding of the way the labour market works as a whole.

[A18]

No, actually it illustrated very simple economic principles Al is simply too dumb to understand.

All of the progress that the U.S. has made over the last couple of centuries has come from unemployment. It's come from doing more with less.

Trade between nations is no different from trade between people. Each person doing his own thing is far more efficient than every person trying to do everything for himself.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

So you're posting abuse at me here as well? Charming.

[jokerman]

Interesting article in the Economist today about manufacturing.  It brought up very good points in favor of Free Trade and why we should be unafraid of the decrease in manufacturing jobs.  While I will continue to vote in favor of debate (for the moment), my vote on the final bill is in doubt. 

Well that article is likely comming from a short-term economic point of view, not considering the national security implications and long term economic impact.

[Ebowed]

I'm beginning to see the attractions of CAFTA now

Oh?