Fair Trade Renewal Bill (Failed)

[MasterJedi]

Fair Trade Renewal Bill

1)  All Atlasian free trade agreements will be hereafter restricted on the basis that their existence will be contingent on both countries enabling free trade. 

2)  Should any nation with an Atlasian free trade agreement not draft a free trade agreement or rescind an already present one, the Atlasian free trade agreement will also be rescinded.
Spon: Sen. HappyWarrior

[Franzl]

This is a pretty complicated matter. You need to define "countries enabling free trade".
It sounds to me like something that has general restriction of free trade as its underlying motive, to be honest.

In my opinion, if there's a certain country that a majority of senators wish to abolish free trade with, then it should be done separately, and not in the context of such a vague bill as this one.

There's no way to really interpret or enforce this bill.

[HappyWarrior]

The basic point is that our free trade is totally without restriction in this country, we need to ensure we are not giving something for nothing.

[Franzl]

The basic point is that our free trade is totally without restriction in this country, we need to ensure we are not giving something for nothing.

That is impossible to enforce with such vague language. I would prefer, if you're unhappy with certain free trade agreements, that you propose the abolition of those specific agreements....

you really need to define "fair".

[Bacon King]

I approve this bill in spirit, even if it is a little vague. Our trade agreements should be reciprocal.

[MasterJedi]

The basic point is that our free trade is totally without restriction in this country, we need to ensure we are not giving something for nothing.

That is impossible to enforce with such vague language. I would prefer, if you're unhappy with certain free trade agreements, that you propose the abolition of those specific agreements....

you really need to define "fair".

I think he just wants to force it with this so that there is NO free trade.

[Purple State]

The basic point is that our free trade is totally without restriction in this country, we need to ensure we are not giving something for nothing.

That is impossible to enforce with such vague language. I would prefer, if you're unhappy with certain free trade agreements, that you propose the abolition of those specific agreements....

you really need to define "fair".

I think he just wants to force it with this so that there is NO free trade.

Yeah, seems to me this is a veiled attempt at putting an end to free trade?

[Franzl]

I understand the reasoning behind this, but this would be a terrible thing to pass because:

a.) it's impossible to enforce...what is "fair"? There aren't always clear indicators to even determine that.....every case needs to be examined individually.

b.) Who determines what "fair" is? Sounds to me like something that could very easily be abused.

c.) I think the underlying motive here is to restrict free trade....and protectionism, in my opinion, never has and never will be a good policy.

[HappyWarrior]

Basically free meaning that if we offer them free trade they do the same.

[Franzl]

Basically free meaning that if we offer them free trade they do the same.

Yes, but what is "free"?

[afleitch]

Free trade agreements should be on a nation by nation or bloc by bloc basis. Even amongst free trading nations internal markets work differently.

[Smid]

Basically free meaning that if we offer them free trade they do the same.

This goes without saying. They're Free Trade Agreements which by definition means that the two countries need to agree on the FTA. If they're not willing to remove barriers to trade on our goods, then I'm sure the Senate won't agree to the FTA.

Amending this slightly, I'd be fine with the SoEA's department hiring an agency to assess the subsidies received by foreign manufacturers and producers, and allowing the SoEA to levy tariffs on those goods to the level received by the producer (effectively, if a foreign producer receives a subsidy, the department calculates the marginal benefit of the subsidy and then levies that on those goods imported into Atlasia - at the SoEA's discretion, so that if a product isn't produced in Atlasia, the tariff isn't imposed).

Something along the lines of:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[HappyWarrior]

I guess I can accept Smid's compromise on the matter.  I'll accept it as a friendly amendment.

[Purple State]

I'm not even so supportive of Smid's amendment. If we believe a country has broken the spirit of a free trade agreement we should target those individually. If we want the SoEA to provide briefs on such actions to allow us to react, that is one thing, but to make a broad bill like this that instantly initiates trade wars with certain nations can be harmful.

[Smid]

I'm not even so supportive of Smid's amendment. If we believe a country has broken the spirit of a free trade agreement we should target those individually. If we want the SoEA to provide briefs on such actions to allow us to react, that is one thing, but to make a broad bill like this that instantly initiates trade wars with certain nations can be harmful.

I agree - if we have a FTA, we can't impose tariffs on goods from those countries without breaking the Agreement. I didn't intend for it to sound like we should. Perhaps we should have an additional section along the lines of:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

If a country has broken the FTA with us, there is probably legal recourse through the World Bank or one of those organisations (I forget which).

[Franzl]

Smid's Section 4 is good.

[MasterJedi]

So Happy, are all those things friendly or do I need to start votes?

[HappyWarrior]

Yes I accept them as Friendly.  I am totally open to compromise.

[MasterJedi]

Ok then. I hereby open up a final vote on the bill below. Please vote Aye, Nay or Abstain.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Nay

[Purple State]

Nay

[Bacon King]

abstain

[Associate Justice PiT]

     Nay

[HappyWarrior]

AYE

[afleitch]

Nay

[RI]

Abstain.