Talk Elections

https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=133144.msg3271763#msg3271763


Sponsor: Clarence, I think

Clarence and Ben, you guys have 24 hours to start talking here.

I think this is a very well-done review that I see no problems with other then the following...
Ben and I were going to be working on a bill to treat Gaza Strip and West Bank as separate entities for the purpose of this review but if Ben doesn't object- an amendment here may be just fine

I hope my concerns will be addressed.

Sorry, but could repost those concerns?  Much obliged :)

Yup, can you repost that. I seemed to have missed it. I have concerns as well, especially Israel's favored status even when we are admitting they aren't doing everything right. Also we need to recognize the west bank as a state.

You make good points too Senator. Here is what I suggested:

I cannot support any legislation that implies a belligerent or potentially-belligerent posture of our nation towards every other one in the world.  Jefferson's philosophy has always been and remains that which is most likely to bring both peace and prosperity to a nation that follows it:  "Peace, commerce, and honest friendship with all nations — entangling alliances with none."

Napoleon,

Attack only appears in the definition, and even then it is a minor thing, indicating where the culpability lies for the sanctions.  Can you think of better phrasing?

And Sbane, Clarence and I are working on legislation to handle the West Bank.  As for Israel, no nation is doing everything right.

More pressure needs to be put on Israel and I intend on doing that by getting rid of favored nation status with them unless they work with us to ensure a Palestinian state in the West Bank. And we must also extract promises from them to do the same if the leadership changes in the Gaza strip.

Partial: Specific restrictions such as selective tariffs or partial embargoes are to be in place to pressure the government to change course, not to change the regime itself. Foreign aid can be granted if the regime shows signs of progress towards democracy.

Credit for this phrasing goes to Mr. Joyce, who will be a valuable contributor to foreign policy I am sure. Senator Sbane also has some good ideas, they should be considered here.

I propose the following amendment- I hope Ben and Sbane can tell me if this sounds good to them

Amendment
-The Palestinian lands are to be considered separately as West Bank and Gaza STrip
-Each shall be given a status by the Secretary of External Affairs

Frankly, I'd make Gaza/West Bank separate legislation, simply to avoid complicating things.

OK- that sounds good to me, Ben

We need to enact a trade embargo against companies involved human right violations in China, this is an acceptable to me as a Labor party member.

Senators have 24 hours to object to Senator Clarence's amendment.

If there are no other comments on the FPR, is it possible to advance to a final vote?

The amendment has passed.



Senators this is now at final vote please vote Aye, Nay or Abstain.

Uh, can we stop this please. I wanted to add an amendment.

Amendment:

Are votes allowed to be stopped? :P

Nay

Well if it can't be stopped...Nay

Aye

If we are discussing Sbane's amendment...I have a few points...
-I would like to hear more information regarding settlements....I'm not familiar with Green Line but that part sounds ok to me
-Israel I believe has worked very hard to have direct negotiations with the Palestinians...particularly Abbas. The second line I do not believe is warranted
-I agree with full military restrictions on Gaza but would also advocate full economic restrictions considering the government is Hamas
-I essentially agree but have problems with the West Bank...town squares and sports teams are named after suicide bombers for example- though moderate and a potential partner for peace- I believe they have some issues which need to be addressed

These are relatively minor points- to be honest Senator SbaneI would've thought we would be further away on this issue...I disagree with parts of your amendment but it is reasonable and recognizes the reality of the situation

Nay

Changing my vote to nay.

The Green Line is the demarcation line between Israel and the West Bank; it means the same thing as '1967 borders'. Rerouting the West Bank separation barrier along the Green Line, instead of its current route (in which it cuts off Palestinians from Palestinian territory to encompass Israeli settlements), would be much fairer and cleaner:
()
Red is the planned route for the barrier, and the areas, especially around Immanuel and Ariel, where it sticks into Palestinian territory would be rerouted to follow the border between Israel and the West Bank.

As to the settlements, they're Jewish civilian communities (Palestinians/Muslims are not allowed inside) built on land in the West Bank/East Jerusalem/Golan Heights by Israelis (there used to be some in Gaza/the Sinai, but they were removed in 2005 and 1979, respectively). Israel continues to expand and make new settlements in the West Bank, which is illegal under the Oslo Accords and the Fourth Geneva Convention, and has been declared illegal by the ICJ and Ban Ki-Moon.

That line about negotiations appears in
; it was just added so it wouldn't miss anything in the FPR already.

As to Gaza, I'd be concerned about whether full economic restrictions means we can't sell them things like what were previously banned by Israel from entering Gaza; things like cement, wood, iron, cattle, most medicines, musical instruments, and notebooks. Gaza really needs aid at this point in time; we don't want to cut off all trade.

The names of town squares and sports teams can be decided later; right now, we don't want to alienate the people who we need (and want, over Hamas) to work with for peace due to the name of their soccer team.

Abstain

You are damn lucky Sbane, now I have to decide if your post on page 1 can be interpretted in such a way as to avoid a 72 hour objection period requirement.

Sbane's post indicates a desire to seek changes, so I will take that.


Okay, vote halted.

Amendment:
I could also introduce a bill for creation of an committee overseeing human right abuses in China by companies that export to Atlasia.

Sponsor Feedback: NO VALID ENTRY!!!

---

Sponsor Feedback: NO VALID ENTRY!!!

Can you explain what does "NO VALID ENTRY!!!" means, and what would be an acceptable amendment in foreign policy review?

I'm not sure that I'm able to target a specific company unless it's run by a government, let alone target a certain factory complex. This'd probably be a separate bill, creating a committee or whatever you want to lay out.

As for Sbane's amendment, I think we have to accept Clarence's amendment first before we can consider Sbane's, as until Clarence's is accepted Palestine is not considered separately and thus Sbane's cannot be applied.

The only amendment that I have noted on this bill by Clarence has already been adopted prior to the abortive final vote. Sbane's amendment is currently under consideration. Both his and Seatown's need the feedback of the sponsor to move forward.

Ah; it was still on the amendment tracker in the noticeboard, so I assumed it hadn't.

That doesn't track the status just all amendments offered in the Senate.

It has nothing to do with the texts of the amendments. It means the sponsor has yet to respond to the amendments regarding whether he sees them as "Friendly" or "Unfriendly". Friendly means they can be passed by simply allowing 24 hours to object to passage. Unfriendly provokes a vote.

:)

Perhaps the wording of Seatown's amendment could be changed to something that would pressure the Chinese government to address the human rights and pass labor standards, or take action against the factory.

We could add a note into the FPR, or just make it a separate bill.

Oh sponsor?

To the Chinese factory amendment? I say friendly

What about Sbane's? It was entered first and therefore must be considered first?

The Israel one- I do not declare friendly

As the Secretary of External Affairs, it is my interpretation that the Foreign Policy Review is intended to lay out the policy of the administration towards nations. Although I find labor standards to be a serious concern, unless the company is run by the government (which Hon Hai Precision Industry Co., Ltd. (Foxconn) is not), it has no place in the Foreign Policy Review. I'm not trying to say I oppose this in what it aims to do, but this is not the proper format to do so. I would encourage Senator Seatown to propose legislation that would do what he aims to do, but our policy towards imports from a factory in Shenzhen isn't really part of our policy towards the current administration in the People's Republic of China.

Sponsor Feedback: Hostile
Status: Pending Vote Commencement

---

Sponsor Feedback: Friendly
Status: Senators have 24 hours to object

I am going to enter an objection to Seatown's amendment based on the method by which it seeks to acheive the desired result.

Reading over the FPR again, I'm concerned that we only have six nations on "Most Priority" status. Can we up that? Nations like Brazil, India, Indonesia, Argentina, Mexico, Canada, South Africa, Turkey, and Italy (a good chunk of whom are developing, a few of whom could emerge as superpowers in future, all of whom we should be striving to attain good relations with) aren't at that status.

I'll offer an Amendment:

The status for Brazil, India, Mexico, Canada, and Turkey shall be changed to "Most Priority".  Yankee can format that properly :P

Most Priority for a pair of BRICS, our neighbors, and one of our closest allies in the Islamic world; wonderful. Let's wrap this up to move on to Iran.

Who says I will?


Places gun on the table and starts to laugh in a sadistic fashion.

Why not Indonesia, Argentina, South Africa and Italy? Especially Italy....what did they do wrong except for repeatedly voting for Berlusconi? :P

We need to hold votes on Sbane's and Seatown's Amendments here. I had hoped that if Ben could restructure his garbage into something usefull we could get that to a position where it could either be passed or voted on.

Do Senators Sbane and Seatown still desire their amendments?

Apologies, Yank.  Here it is:


If that doesn't work, let me know.

The DoEA supports this amendment (and Sbane's question).

Yea

Yes I would like a vote on my amendment.

If we're voting, then the Department of External Affairs encourages an Aye on Ben's amendment, a Nay on Seatown's, and a tentative Yea on Sbane's.

Damn, we are gonna have to do these one at a time.


Sbane's is first.


A vote is now open on Amendment 49:06, please vote Aye, Nay or Abstain. And please vote quickly. None of this 5-4 w/ 1 AWOL sh**t. Those really piss me off!

Sponsor Feedback: ERROR!!! An invalid value "0000" was entered and does not comply with field parameters. Please rectify immediately lest the system develop core instability.
Status: Limbo

Aye

Aye

Nay- I can't vote for the commentary at the end of Israel's paragraph

...you sponsored the commentary...

SJoyceFla- I did not sponsor that amendment. I sponsored this bill- and declared that amendment unfriendly

The former is a direct quote from this bill (emphasis mine). The latter is the amendment section in question. The reason the amendment's phrasing is like such, and the reason it's nearly identical, and the reason it's in there in the first place, is due to it being taken almost word-for-word from the bill.

Well my friend- you've got me on that one! That is my mistake and I would've attempted to amend...however having realized the error I change my vote to

AYE

We can always amend it later, and I think in light of recent events Iran needs amending too. All's good.

Having written that commentary, I'd hope that y'all can find it acceptable.

Aye

Aye

Aye

Aye


Clarence I need you to give a judgment on Ben's amendment.

Vote on passage of Amendment 49:06 by sbane.

Aye (8): AndrewPA, Ben, Clarence, NC Yankee, sbane, Seatown, Scott, and TJ in Cleve
Nay (0):
Abstain (0):

Didn't Vote (2): ILV and Worms

With eight votes in the affirmative, the amendment has passed.


I will start the next one, this afternoon.

Ben's amendment I treat as friendly

Sponsor Feedback: Friendly
Status: Objection entered

An objection was entered by Senator NC Yankee, A vote is now open on Amendment 49:07 by Seatown, please vote Aye, Nay, or Abstain.

A quick correction, Sbane's amendmnet was actually number 49:05. 49:06 was Scott's amendment to the Mountain Top Removal Ban Act.

Sponsor Feedback: Friendly
Status: Senators have 24 hours to object

Nay on Seatown's amendment, object to Ben's.

Nay

Wrong bill and probably the wrong way to do this.

The Department of External Affairs has already stated their serious objections to this amendment.

Nay

Nay. I echo NC Yankees concerns.

Nay

Nay

Nope

Aye on my amendment

Vote on Amendment 49:07:

Aye (1): Seatown
Nay (8): Ben, Clarence, ILV, NC Yankee, sbane, Scott, TJ in Cleve and Wormyguy
Abstain (0):

Didn't Vote (1): AndrewPA

With eight votes in the negative, the amendment is rejected.

Sponsor Feedback: Friendly
Status: Objection Entered by Senator Wormyguy

A vote is now open on the above amendment, please vote Aye, Nay or Abstain.

Yup ;D

The DoEA suggests a Yea.

Aye

Aye

Aye

Aye

Aye

Nay

Would you mind explaining your objections?

I don't believe in playing favorites in foreign policy; no special treatment for anyone, and no hostility.

Aye

Aye

Vote on passage of Amendment 49:08:

Aye (9): AndrewPA, Ben, Clarence, ILV, NC Yankee, Sbane, Scott, Seatown, and TJ in Cleve
Nay (1): Wormguy
Abstain (0):

Didn't Vote (0):

With nine votes in the affirmative, Amendment 49:08 is passed.

This done here, or is there another amendment floating around amongst the cobwebs of your brains?

None of those nations has, in my opinion, either a close enough relationship with the US OR enough strategic significance to warrant Most Priority.

http://www.thejakartapost.com/news/2010/11/10/insight-strategic-significance-indonesiaus-relations.html (http://www.thejakartapost.com/news/2010/11/10/insight-strategic-significance-indonesiaus-relations.html)
http://www.frontline.org.za/articles/TheBattleForSouthAfrica.htm (http://www.frontline.org.za/articles/TheBattleForSouthAfrica.htm)
http://www.iai.it/pdf/DocIAI/IAI0921.pdf (http://www.iai.it/pdf/DocIAI/IAI0921.pdf)

I'm still not totally convinced on all of them.

I'll introduce this Amendment:

The DoEA approves!

Yes, but I've reached my limit.  No more nations get Most Priority.

Sponsor Feedback: Server didn't respond at the listed address within the timeout period
Status: Error

Of course. Wouldn't want too many major allies :P

We have got a problem here without Clarence.

Here to save the day...

Is it too late for me to be a co-sponsor, so that we don't slow down without Clarence?

Clarence has to okay that.

Yes I am of course ok with Ben as a conspor-

Damn it, that won't work.

We need Clarence to judge the amendment or him to motion to withdraw the legislation so that Ben can assume sponsorship, pending a 48 hour objection period.

Ben's amendments- friendly

Looks like we're ready for a final vote.  Yankee, can that be arranged?

Final text. (https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=153557.msg3298846#msg3298846)

This bill is now at final vote, Senators please vote Aye, Nay or Abstain.

Aye

Yup ;D

Aye

Aye

Aye

This has enough votes to pass, senators have 24 hours to change their votes.

Aye

Vote on Final Passage of the April 2012 Foreign Policy Review:

Aye (7): AndrewPA, Ben, ILV, sbane, Scott, Seatown and TJ in Cleve
Nay (1): Wormyguy
Abstain (0):

Didn't Vote (2): Clarence and NC Yankee

With seven votes in the affirmative the Review has been passed.