Senate Protest and Analysis Thread

[Speed of Sound]

Where do I put consitutional amendment suggestions? Here?

Yes please!  Anything to interrupt the monotonous stream of bilateral free trade bills!

Thats an exetremely good point you make. I have one more question before I do though:

Does Bono V. Atlasia II still stand relevant? i.e., can the senate still not pass a minimum wage law for the nation? Can it still not run certain means of production?

This is not the place for asking questions, the debate thread is. This is just for introducing amendments.

Eh, I dont feel like re-typing it, so Ill just skip it. Thanks for telling me for future reference though.

It's called copying and pasting. And the Senate can't pass a minimum wage until the amendment passes, it failed last time.

Yeah, im even feeling too lazy for that. Im aware of that, but I wanted to know if the simple striking of the free market line in Article I, Section 5, line 4 would be enough to make a national minimum wage legal.

[Speed of Sound]

Comprehensive 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 and the following countries: Singapore, Morocco, Bahrain, Thailand, Oman, India, Malaysia, and Jordan.
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.
3. The following legislation is repealed: Atlasian-Singapore Free Trade Act, Atlasian-Morocco Free Trade Act, Atlasian-Bahrain Free Trade Act, Atlasia-Thailand Free Trade Act, Atlasia-Oman Free Trade Act, Atlasia-India Free Trade Act, Atlasia-Malaysia Free Trade Act, and Atlasia-Jordan Free Trade Act.

I was kind of expecting this. Still, if you desire unconditional free trade with countries where political conditions are not up to scratch and where basic human rights are either widely abused or tenuous, at best, then so be it. Just because I take a moral approach to free trade with such nations, I can hardly expect you to

Progressives like yourself should be firmly aligned to the Hawk Doctrine, which views free trade as a means of encouraging such progressive values as liberal democracy, freedom and civil rights

'Hawk'

I support the view of senator Hawk. From an SOEA's point of view, this bill is simply miserable. As my ideologiocal points wont make a difference, Ill simply go with the SOEA ones.

1.This is a reputation killer, through and through.By passing this, we are saying to all of our civil friends across the globe, "We do not wish to be a part of your class. We before moralless Third Worldism in the name of cheap funds." I dont think I need to spell out the kind of diplomatic power I would lose over this.

2.Due to 1, this will lessen our odds of landing major contracts with the nations that already are unsure if us. Many left leaning South American countries may quite trade all togather, with some of the even more powerful coming later with towering tarrifs or worse.

3. Due to 2, we'll probably end up losing all we gain, meaning there will be no economic profit for major moral loss.


Sounds like a flawed equation in the eyes of the SOEA. I urge all senators to send this bill right back from where it came: The trashbin.

[Speed of Sound]

Sounds like a flawed equation in the eyes of the SOEA.

That's only because you are ideologically opposed to it.  On the contrary of what you claim, Atlasia continuously gets flack from the international community for putting various pet interests above free trade.  Countries do not appreciate being given conditional free trade agreements that come with a threat to be reconsidered at any time.  This will alleviate that diplomatic nightmare and make your job easier because countries won't be asking you anymore why the Philippines didn't get the Hawk Treatment while Bahrain did.

We may discuss this more on the floor.  For now, I'm only disappointed that of all the bills that could have generated some sort of controversy, it had to be this one.  Abolishing Christmas is about fifty times more interesting than free trade.

Thats a great rebuttal of none points.

[Speed of Sound]

In response to DWTL:

Expect every bill I make that has anything to do with money at all to completely disregard numbers, as a message to the uselessness money issues have become of the lack of action on revising/removing the budget. It is to remind us that under this system, trillions of dollars can be shifted without any effect on the game at all.

[Speed of Sound]

If the senate wont make itself take on this issue, Im going to continue to push this. The senate must be responsible and wrangle this embarrassment, and I will fight for it until I am drug out of office.

[Speed of Sound]

If the senate wont make itself take on this issue, Im going to continue to push this. The senate must be responsible and wrangle this embarrassment, and I will fight for it until I am drug out of office.

The proper term would be "dragged"

And I've come around to agreeing with you. I think we can debate whether a bill is a frivolous cost without actually ascribing a price tag to everything. It just takes judiciousness on the part of the Senators.

Well, I suppose that is a fair deal, and Grammar Nazi.

I am not opposed to having prices add later, but Im not gonna get piky, since there arent numbers to get picky with since we have no idea where our budget or currency are.

[Speed of Sound]

Touche Speedy on bringing that up

I shouldn't have mentioned it, but hopefully the senate can have a fun conservation on that if things change

Bringing what up? This bill has no connection to bills of past.

I hope so too. I have made some changes that I felt were necessary. See if you can pick them out.

[Speed of Sound]

It shouldn't be required. Encouraged, yes, but not required.

We've got nothing better to encourage? Honestly? If you guys are gonna pass this crackpot thing, you may as well go for broke.