Atlasian-Fiji Free Trade Bill

[bgwah]

aye

[Virginian87]

Aye.

[Hatman 🍁]

nay

[Јas]

Aye

[ilikeverin]

Yup

[MasterJedi]

This bill has enough votes to pass. Senators now have 24 hours to change their votes.

[WMS]

Aye FTR.

[MasterJedi]

With 7 Ayes, 3 Nays and 0 Abstentions this bill has passed. I hereby present it to the President for his signiture.

[Ebowed]

VETO

[MasterJedi]

Veto override I'll be seeking.


EDIT: This is in the 6th override slot but Solomon Islands can't go in one.

[Jake]

VETO

FF

[Democratic Hawk]

VETO

An explanation as to why you have vetoed this Bill would be most welcome, Mr President or;

1. Is the Senate to assume you approve of the institutional racism and ethnic tensions, which my amendment seeks to address, that blights Fiji?

2. Is the Senate to assume that you simply disapprove of Atlasia having a  unilateral free trade agreement with Fiji?

'Hawk'

[Ebowed]

1. Is the Senate to assume you approve of the institutional racism and ethnic tensions, which my amendment seeks to address, that blights Fiji?

2. Is the Senate to assume that you simply disapprove of Atlasia having a  unilateral free trade agreement with Fiji?

Both of these assumptions are wrong and insulting.  The fact of the matter is that if there were no Section 3 in this bill, I wouldn't have vetoed it.  Given similar actions taken on Morocco, Singapore, and Bahrain last session (though, granted, I lapsed on Oman), I don't see why this couldn't have easily been inferred.  To suggest that I support Fiji's institutional racism because I vetoed this bill is nonsensical and weak.  This is not, and should not be, an "agreement."  It is simply a removal of tariffs.  I don't support adding on various restrictions or some sort of commitment regarding Fiji lessening its ethnic tensions in order for us to keep our tariffs removed on them.  The same goes for the Solomon Islands.

[MasterJedi]

Why are you being hypocritical Ebowed? You didn't just lapse on one bill. You signed five other bills that had more restirctions than this so you didn't lapse. Nice try though. (The bills are: Thailand, Oman, India, Malaysia and Jordan)

[Democratic Hawk]

1. Is the Senate to assume you approve of the institutional racism and ethnic tensions, which my amendment seeks to address, that blights Fiji?

2. Is the Senate to assume that you simply disapprove of Atlasia having a  unilateral free trade agreement with Fiji?

Both of these assumptions are wrong and insulting.  The fact of the matter is that if there were no Section 3 in this bill, I wouldn't have vetoed it.  Given similar actions taken on Morocco, Singapore, and Bahrain last session (though, granted, I lapsed on Oman), I don't see why this couldn't have easily been inferred.  To suggest that I support Fiji's institutional racism because I vetoed this bill is nonsensical and weak.  This is not, and should not be, an "agreement."  It is simply a removal of tariffs.  I don't support adding on various restrictions or some sort of commitment regarding Fiji lessening its ethnic tensions in order for us to keep our tariffs removed on them.  The same goes for the Solomon Islands.

With all due respect, what am I supposed to think? My amendment addresses the concerns raised by the Secretary of State and the Mideast Governor and you veto this Bill because of my amendment

Pro-free trade as I am I don't, generally, support unilateral free trade agreements with nations, who fall short of the liberal democratic ideal without strings attached. At the end of the day, free trade with Fiji will be ensured as long as they comply. As things stand, I see no problem but should political conditions deteriorate any further in Fiji then they can, and more importantly should , jolly well take the consequences

Nevertheless, I appreciate you informing the Senate as to your reasons for vetoing this Bill

'Hawk'

[Democratic Hawk]

1. Is the Senate to assume you approve of the institutional racism and ethnic tensions, which my amendment seeks to address, that blights Fiji?

2. Is the Senate to assume that you simply disapprove of Atlasia having a  unilateral free trade agreement with Fiji?

Both of these assumptions are wrong and insulting.  The fact of the matter is that if there were no Section 3 in this bill, I wouldn't have vetoed it.  Given similar actions taken on Morocco, Singapore, and Bahrain last session (though, granted, I lapsed on Oman), I don't see why this couldn't have easily been inferred.  To suggest that I support Fiji's institutional racism because I vetoed this bill is nonsensical and weak.  This is not, and should not be, an "agreement."  It is simply a removal of tariffs.  I don't support adding on various restrictions or some sort of commitment regarding Fiji lessening its ethnic tensions in order for us to keep our tariffs removed on them.  The same goes for the Solomon Islands.

With all due respect, what am I supposed to think? My amendment addresses the concerns raised by the Secretary of State and the Mideast Governor and you veto this Bill because of my amendment

Pro-free trade as I am I don't, generally, support unilateral free trade agreements with nations, who fall short of the liberal democratic ideal without strings attached. At the end of the day, free trade with Fiji will be ensured as long as they comply. As things stand, I see no problem but should political conditions deteriorate any further in Fiji then they can, and more importantly should , jolly well take the consequences. The ball will be in their court

Nevertheless, I appreciate you informing the Senate as to your reasons for vetoing this Bill. In future, it would be courteous, when exercising your veto, if you would give reasons. That would avoid me having to make assumptions

'Hawk'

[Ebowed]

Why are you being hypocritical Ebowed? You didn't just lapse on one bill. You signed five other bills that had more restirctions than this so you didn't lapse. Nice try though. (The bills are: Thailand, Oman, India, Malaysia and Jordan)

You're right, I did lapse on more than one bill.  My mistake.  Calling me hypocritical is cute though, because you originally voted Nay on the protectionist amendments and now you vote Aye or Abstain on them.  Do you really think it's safe and fair to assume that either a.) I oppose free trade with this country at all or b.) I favor the racism/ethnic tensions addressed by the amendment?

[MasterJedi]

Why are you being hypocritical Ebowed? You didn't just lapse on one bill. You signed five other bills that had more restirctions than this so you didn't lapse. Nice try though. (The bills are: Thailand, Oman, India, Malaysia and Jordan)

You're right, I did lapse on more than one bill.  My mistake.  Calling me hypocritical is cute though, because you originally voted Nay on the protectionist amendments and now you vote Aye or Abstain on them.  Do you really think it's safe and fair to assume that either a.) I oppose free trade with this country at all or b.) I favor the racism/ethnic tensions addressed by the amendment?

I just know how to compromise, you don't. We just need to override you each time you don't know what you're doing.

[Democratic Hawk]

Why are you being hypocritical Ebowed? You didn't just lapse on one bill. You signed five other bills that had more restirctions than this so you didn't lapse. Nice try though. (The bills are: Thailand, Oman, India, Malaysia and Jordan)

You're right, I did lapse on more than one bill.  My mistake.  Calling me hypocritical is cute though, because you originally voted Nay on the protectionist amendments and now you vote Aye or Abstain on them.  Do you really think it's safe and fair to assume that either a.) I oppose free trade with this country at all or b.) I favor the racism/ethnic tensions addressed by the amendment?

Had you not vetoed the respective Bills then the assumptions I made I doubt would have ever been assumed. My amendments are reasonable

Only two of the unilaternal free trade agreements have protectionist measures, as you call them, the Atlasia-India Free Trade Act and the Bill that is before you and even there its restricted to manufacturing goods; motor vehicles and moto vehicle components, respectively. They are not unreasonable given the circumstances

The Moroccan, Singaporean, Bahrainian, Omani, Thai, Malaysian, Jordanian Acts don't have tariffs and nor do the Fijian and Solomon Islands Bills. While the latter two have more context-specific amendments, the aforesaid Acts have a standard amendment, which reads:

3. This Agreement requires a commitment on the part of ... to make progress towards becoming a fully functioning liberal democracy, with respect for political freedoms and civil rights. This will be monitored by the Secretary of State in accordance with the terms of the Foreign Policy Review Act. Should he determine that ... is regressing on its commitment, and then he shall either (depending on the severity of the regress):
a. Request that the Senate introduce an appropriate tariff either on:
i. Selected ... goods.
ii. All ... goods.
b. Request that the Senate revoke the Agreement with ... in its entirety

I think Atlasia's free trade policy should be linked to such ideals as liberal democracy, political freedoms and civil rights. Only should the aforesaid nations renege on making such progress towards, or regress, on this, do they have to fear tariffs. The ball is in their court and, as a principled free trader (albeit a conditional one), I for one hope it never comes to that

'Hawk'

[Ebowed]

We just need to override you each time you don't know what you're doing.

So in other words, you don't merely hold the procedurial duties here, you control how the Senate votes.  As long as you can get six buddies to vote the same way, you can keep that dastardly President in check.  The fact that you basically consider a veto override a non-optional procedure in all instances where I hand down a veto is becoming a serious problem.  Nobody is voting differently on veto overrides than they did on the final passage of the original bill.  What's the damn point?  Why do you even need to me to sign the legislation in the first place?  It's not like my approval matters, because my disapproval certainly doesn't.

With all due respect, what am I supposed to think?

You openly pondered the idea that I support institutional racism.  That's a total cheap shot and you know it.  Completely uncalled for and it was not in any way a reasonable possibility.  I don't want to hear anything further about it.  One of the most ridiculous things I've seen in fantasy government in the last year and a half.

Only two of the unilaternal free trade agreements have protectionist measures

First of all, these are not agreements!!  Regardless, requiring a country to make progress into becoming a more liberal democracy, or whatever else, with the threat that tariffs will be reinstated, is a protectionist measure.  What on earth else could it be?

[Democratic Hawk]

Well, I am going to have my say

The moral of the story and the lesson that I hope is learnt from this, is that should the President in future exercise his constiutional right to cast his VETO then he should, at least, give his reasons for doing so

Frankly, VETO and that alone just isn't good enough. As to what I stand accused of, all I'm going to say is that when I propose an amendment, which in principle seeks to address what myself and others - my amendment passed (9:1:0) - consider an injustice then the President should have cited his reasons for opposing it in the first instance. It's common courtesy if nothing else

I don't intend to raise this subject again, except that I urge that my colleagues in the Senate override this veto but when I'm in the right, I'll jolly well have the last word. My stance on free trade is, at least, a highly principled one. It is important that Atlasia consider who is and isn't worthy of free trade, be it conditional or unconditional. The 'Hawk Doctrine' is about encouraging democracy, freedom and civil rights as universally acceptable ideals, not protectionism. Tariffs are merely a tool that can be used to bring the recalcitrant to heel. I've stated I hope it doesn't come to that, what more can I say?

Nevertheless, pro-free trade as I am, I wouldn't hesitate to introduce limited protectionist measures if they served the Atlasia's socio-economic interests; hence, the selective tariffs with regards to India and South Korea. Of course, I most sincerely hope this proves to be the exception rather than the norm

'Hawk'

[Ebowed]

The moral of the story and the lesson that I hope is learnt from this, is that should the President in future exercise his constiutional right to cast his VETO then he should, at least, give his reasons for doing so

Frankly, VETO and that alone just isn't good enough.

I gave my reasons for doing so when asked.  I don't do so in my post with the veto just as I don't post my reasons for signing a bill in the same post where I sign it.  I like to keep things clean and tidy; call me an anal retentive if you wish.  You are blowing that out of proportion and using it to justify your disgusting post accusing me of supporting racism.  You asked whether it was safe to assume that I support Fijian institutional racism.  Quit trying to explain yourself out of it.  Frankly, I'd normally expect an apology of some sort, but I don't particularly care, and I wouldn't expect that much out of someone who accuses me of supporting government sanctioned racism in the first place.

As to what I stand accused of, all I'm going to say is that when I propose an amendment, which in principle seeks to address what myself and others - my amendment passed (9:1:0) - consider an injustice

Appeal to popularity fallacy.  And just because I opposed the amendment does not mean I consider what you were trying to address to not be an injustice.  A sneaky implication, but let's try and do better than that.

The 'Hawk Doctrine' is about encouraging democracy, freedom and civil rights as universally acceptable ideals, not protectionism.

I have already explained this.  Making the free trade conditional based on those things is a form of protectionism.  Shifting definitions in the middle of a debate makes this entirely meaningless.

[Democratic Hawk]

As to what I stand accused of, all I'm going to say is that when I propose an amendment, which in principle seeks to address what myself and others - my amendment passed (9:1:0) - consider an injustice

Appeal to popularity fallacy.  And just because I opposed the amendment does not mean I consider what you were trying to address to not be an injustice.  A sneaky implication, but let's try and do better than that.

You should have made that clear then when you cast your VETO . And none of this would have happened and well you know it. Though I can't for the life of me, figure why you'd veto a Bill because of an amendment that is only just in the first instance but that's your prerogative
 
As for being sneaky? In fact, nothing sneaky about it since I'm stating the obvious

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I have already explained this.  Making the free trade conditional based on those things is a form of protectionism.  Shifting definitions in the middle of a debate makes this entirely meaningless.
[/quote]

On that we can respectfully agree to differ . Time and time again, I've stated where I stand on free trade loud and clear, thank you

'Hawk'

[MasterJedi]

We just need to override you each time you don't know what you're doing.

So in other words, you don't merely hold the procedurial duties here, you control how the Senate votes.  As long as you can get six buddies to vote the same way, you can keep that dastardly President in check.  The fact that you basically consider a veto override a non-optional procedure in all instances where I hand down a veto is becoming a serious problem.  Nobody is voting differently on veto overrides than they did on the final passage of the original bill.  What's the damn point?  Why do you even need to me to sign the legislation in the first place?  It's not like my approval matters, because my disapproval certainly doesn't.

So..... you don't want there to be checks and balances? That's what I get from that. Of course the people will vote the same way they did before, why should they vote different?

[Ebowed]

So..... you don't want there to be checks and balances? That's what I get from that. Of course the people will vote the same way they did before, why should they vote different?

You are completely misinterpreting this.

You have quite clearly demonstrated repeatedly that when I veto something, it seems to be pretty much automatic that an override will follow.  It makes me useless.  I'm nothing more than a figurehead for a legislative branch that passes legislation that I don't even agree with.  I'm not the one eliminating checks and balances here, YOU ARE.  By making a mockery of the veto process, why should I even bother signing legislation if my approval doesn't matter, since my disapproval doesn't?

People should consider voting differently (they don't necessarily have to) on veto overrides if they consider why there is executive opposition to the legislation.  The way things work now, you basically get everyone to vote the same way they did a few days before as if it's just some sort of necessary obstacle in getting past the mean old executive branch.  Hawk here is upset that I didn't immediately state why I vetoed the bill.  The problem here is that nobody here really seems to care, because they're going to vote the same way they did originally if you have your way.

BTW, I forgot to mention earlier that it's pretty cheap for you to accuse me of being hypocritical and act all surprised about this veto when I told you on AIM several days ago that I was sympathetic to Jake's goals on these bills.