South American Free Trade Bill

[MasterJedi]

South American Free Trade Bill

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, Columbia, Guyana, Suriname, Brazil, Ecuador, Peru, Paraguay, Uruguay, Argentina and Chile.
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.
__________________________________________________________

Sponsor: Sen. MasterJedi

[True Democrat]

It won't pass in Ecudor probably (big protests in the real world).  You better hope that Colombian elections turnout how you want them to.

[jerusalemcar5]

It won't pass in Ecudor probably (big protests in the real world).  You better hope that Colombian elections turnout how you want them to.

Argentina and Chile are tentative too.

[Colin]

It won't pass in Ecudor probably (big protests in the real world).  You better hope that Colombian elections turnout how you want them to.

Argentina and Chile are tentative too.

In RL, America already has a free trade agreement with Chile. Mercosur would probably not bite and you would have trouble with much of the Andean Community. Columbia would probably support as would Chile, Guyana and Suriname, as well as possibly Argentina, but that's a big maybe.

[jerusalemcar5]

It won't pass in Ecudor probably (big protests in the real world).  You better hope that Colombian elections turnout how you want them to.

Argentina and Chile are tentative too.

In RL, America already has a free trade agreement with Chile. Mercosur would probably not bite and you would have trouble with much of the Andean Community. Columbia would probably support as would Chile, Guyana and Suriname, as well as possibly Argentina, but that's a big maybe.

Chile already has one, but it's the fact that they don't now that worries me.  Chile is quite a bit farther left than Atlasia and it might cause some tension.  Colombia would most definitely support since they are rather conservative.

[Colin]

It won't pass in Ecudor probably (big protests in the real world).  You better hope that Colombian elections turnout how you want them to.

Argentina and Chile are tentative too.

In RL, America already has a free trade agreement with Chile. Mercosur would probably not bite and you would have trouble with much of the Andean Community. Columbia would probably support as would Chile, Guyana and Suriname, as well as possibly Argentina, but that's a big maybe.

Chile already has one, but it's the fact that they don't now that worries me.  Chile is quite a bit farther left than Atlasia and it might cause some tension.  Colombia would most definitely support since they are rather conservative.

When we are talking about leftists in Chile were not talking Evo Morales and Chavez we are talking about centre-leftist and Christian Democrats who, though they have ruled Chile since Pinochet, are very unwilling to tamper with the economy. The free trade agreement in RL was signed by Ricardo Lagos who was from the same party and had basically the same views as Ms. Bachelet.

[Keystone Phil]

It's about time. This has my full support. I do expect it to meet strong opposition in some countries, as noted by others, but it will pay off in the long run.

[Bono]

WHy would this need support in other countries?
Nothing in this bill is anything more than unilateral.

[jerusalemcar5]

WHy would this need support in other countries?
Nothing in this bill is anything more than unilateral.

South American Free Trade Bill

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, Columbia, Guyana, Suriname, Brazil, Ecuador, Peru, Paraguay, Uruguay, Argentina and Chile.

The between implies no tariffs exist in either country.  We can't approve the removal of their tariffs, therefore it is multilateral.

[Emsworth]

The between implies no tariffs exist in either country. 

It is a rule of statutory construction that interpretations that result in manifest absurdities should be rejected. It is, of course, absurd that Atlasia would make laws for another country. The law must therefore be interpreted as though it applied to this country alone.

[jerusalemcar5]

The between implies no tariffs exist in either country. 

It is a rule of statutory construction that interpretations that result in manifest absurdities should be rejected. It is, of course, absurd that Atlasia would make laws for another country. The law must therefore be interpreted as though it applied to this country alone.

Well I believe the law is much like the addition of Maryland, DC, and PR proposal in the NE.  It is merely saying that Atlasia approves the removal of tariffs with these countries upon the approval of the other countries stated.  In order for it to come into effect, all nations involved must pass it.

[Emsworth]

Well I believe the law is much like the addition of Maryland, DC, and PR proposal in the NE.  It is merely saying that Atlasia approves the removal of tariffs with these countries upon the approval of the other countries stated.  In order for it to come into effect, all nations involved must pass it.

If the intention is to make an agreement with other countries, the President would have to make a treaty. However, this is a bill, which therefore applies to Atlasia only, whatever other countries may or may not please to do.

[jerusalemcar5]

Well I believe the law is much like the addition of Maryland, DC, and PR proposal in the NE.  It is merely saying that Atlasia approves the removal of tariffs with these countries upon the approval of the other countries stated.  In order for it to come into effect, all nations involved must pass it.

If the intention is to make an agreement with other countries, the President would have to make a treaty. However, this is a bill, which therefore applies to Atlasia only, whatever other countries may or may not please to do.

Then I would argue that this bill is consitutionally questionable.  I find the bill to be quite overt in implying it is a multilateral agreement.

[Emsworth]

I find the bill to be quite overt in implying it is a multilateral agreement.

That is not the interpretation that has been applied to the Central American Free Trade Bill and the North American Free Trade Bill, which are both worded in the same manner.

[jerusalemcar5]

I find the bill to be quite overt in implying it is a multilateral agreement.

That is not the interpretation that has been applied to the Central American Free Trade Bill and the North American Free Trade Bill, which are both worded in the same manner.

Well I still say the word between in the context is not appropriate if it is a unilateral bill.

[MasterJedi]

I hereby opne up the final vote on this bill. Please vote Aye, Nay or Abstain.

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, Columbia, Guyana, Suriname, Brazil, Ecuador, Peru, Paraguay, Uruguay, Argentina and Chile.
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.

[MasterJedi]

Aye

[Hatman 🍁]

Abstain

[Democratic Hawk]

I notice of the 10 countries specified that Paraguay is subject to partial military and partial economic restrictions as per the Secretary of State's Foreign Policy Review due to a decline in civil liberties and political freedoms

However, I've no wish to derail this agreement because of reservations about Paraguay, therefore, I vote Aye but I, hereby, give notice that should any of these South American countries slip into their "bad old ways", I hope that the Senate wouldn't think twice about proposing legislation that could either revoke their free trade status with the Republic of Atlasia or introduce tariffs as means of reprimanding them depending on the severity of their regression

It's my conviction that Free Trade should be all about raising those countries to our socio-economic, and political, standards; therefore, any regressive steps on their part should not go without penalty

'Hawk'

[Gabu]

Aye.

[Virginian87]

I agree with Hawk's convictions for the most part, that free trade should be used to the mutual benefit of all countries participating.  Several of the South American countries that would be included in this amendment have had a history of unstable governments and/or economic situations (such as Argentina's monetary crisis in 2002).  Therefore I second Hawk's proposition that the Senate be prepared to take the appropriate action to withdraw free trade with one or more of these countries should a crisis occur there.

As to the amendment at hand, I vote aye.

[Democratic Hawk]

I agree with Hawk's convictions for the most part, that free trade should be used to the mutual benefit of all countries participating.  Several of the South American countries that would be included in this amendment have had a history of unstable governments and/or economic situations (such as Argentina's monetary crisis in 2002).  Therefore I second Hawk's proposition that the Senate be prepared to take the appropriate action to withdraw free trade with one or more of these countries should a crisis occur there.

As to the amendment at hand, I vote aye.

Thanks for your supporting comments Senator . Basically, I have supported this Bill on its final passage but stressed what I think would be appropriate action for the Senate should any of those countries party to this agreement slip back into their "bad old ways". Atlasia should only enter into free trade agreements with those countries worthy of them

As of now, it's only Paraguay I have reservations about but such reservations were not strong enough for me to oppose the Bill. I'd like to think overall that South America is on the right track in terms of political freedoms and civil rights. Of course, the re-election of Atlasia's friend and ally, Alvaro Uribe, in the war on the organised crime of the drugs cartels is encouraging

'Hawk'

[Hatman 🍁]

I change my vote to nay. I think this bill lacks a great deal of detail that would protect certain industries and people from harm, along with protecting the environment, etc.

[ilikeverin]

Nope (the amount of free-trading going on is starting to creep me out...)

Actually, on second thought, I guess I'll change my vote to abstain.

[Keystone Phil]

Aye