Treaty on the Establishment of a Common Market between Atlasia and GB (approved)

[Terry the Fat Shark]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Sponsor: Senator Scott (Labor)

[Terry the Fat Shark]

Debate commences on the ratification of said treaty, I type this as the daily Atlas crash occurs.

[The world will shine with light in our nightmare]

This treaty is based on an early proposal of mine that I introduced a few months ago.  I'm glad to have the support of the administration and the Secretary of State on this, and I'll answer any questions or concerns if there are any.

[Unconditional Surrender Truman]

I am likewise available to answer questions on behalf of the State Department.

[Blair]

I'm extremely skeptical of this bill- when the original common market was formed (or when the UK had joined in 1972) there had been years of slow integration with the Rome Treaty and the Coal and Steel Community before that.

This bill; whilst surely having good intentions would be a massive leap into the unknown- even NAFTA didn't come anywhere close in regards to allowing freedom of movement of people. As I said before with the unknown status of EU nationals in the UK we'd be putting ourselves in limbo.

Likewise as someone who's dealt with both custom systems the UK has a much more lax entry requirements; I believe it could pose a genuine security threat to have such a radical removal of border controls between the two countries.

I'd be happy for a much smaller and limited treaty dealing with the movement of goods and removing tariffs, and allowing for easier trade but otherwise I'm deeply skeptical.

[Terry the Fat Shark]

I need to read in a bit further, but at first glance I am with Senator Blair on this one, why do we need to remove borders?

[The world will shine with light in our nightmare]

This treaty doesn't remove borders.  It's very similar to the agreement we had with Canada pre-reset, which neither country experienced any problems with.

[Unconditional Surrender Truman]

It seems that there is a healthy degree of confusion regarding what this treaty actually does. I would refer the Senate to Article IV, Section 1 of the agreement:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

This clause allows subjects of the UK to travel freely to and from Atlasia. That's it. As Senator Scott duly notes, this is no more liberal than the agreement that existed between Canada and this Republic prior to the adoption of the Fourth Constitution, which was never shown to have compromised national security or the integrity of our borders. It does not apply to persons who are not British subjects and/or Atlasian citizens, and it does not eliminate the passport requirement; in this sense, it is considerably more conservative than the ACCMA.

Senator Blair raises valid questions regarding the discordant customs systems of the presumed signatories and the status of EU nationals living in the UK; so valid are these questions, in fact, that they are actually addressed in the body of the treaty. I refer the Senate to Article IV, Section 2

You must be logged in to read this quote.

and, in turn, to Article VIII, Section 2

You must be logged in to read this quote.

In summary, there is already established in this treaty a provision by which the customs systems of the signatories may be reconciled; furthermore, the treaty will not take effect until after Britain has formally withdrawn from the EU, eliminating any ambiguity regarding their status under this treaty. I would further note that, should either of these processes be resolved in a way that is not favorable to Atlasia, we reserve the right to withdraw from the common market according to the provisions of Article VII.

[Terry the Fat Shark]

I promise I will read more into this tomorrow, I have a math midterm in 4 hours and I pulled another one of those accidental all nighters

[Terry the Fat Shark]

After reading through the Treaty again I am now in favor of it, I also note Section 2 which notes that this does not compromise the sovereignty of nations.

[Blair]

I'm still leaning heavily against this treaty because we're entering into a relationship with the UK before they've even filled divorce papers with the EU- to use a rather cringey metaphor

[Blair]

Does Article 2, Section 3 open up the potenial for the Investor-State dispute courts?

[Classic Conservative]

I'm still leaning heavily against this treaty because we're entering into a relationship with the UK before they've even filled divorce papers with the EU- to use a rather cringey metaphor

[Unconditional Surrender Truman]

Does Article 2, Section 3 open up the potenial for the Investor-State dispute courts?

Do you mean Article III? Article II only has one section.

[Clyde1998]

Does Article 2, Section 3 open up the potenial for the Investor-State dispute courts?

Do you mean Article III? Article II only has one section.

I think Blair's probably referring to Article 3, Section 2:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[Blair]

Ah yes got the two muddle up

[Terry the Fat Shark]

Senator Blair, would you like me to move on and open up a vote on this bill to gauge the Senate, or would you like debate to continue?

[Blair]

Senator Blair, would you like me to move on and open up a vote on this bill to gauge the Senate, or would you like debate to continue?

I'd want the debate to continue; if we confirmed this I assume it would not go to the House as it's a Treaty (or is that only a rule that applies to RL Congressional stuff)

I'm still very concerned about the article that Clyde posted; it opens up an entire can of warms where for example tough consumer standards (on food, banking, insurance etc) can be torn apart because it's restricting 'free movement' of goods. The infamous case from Australia springs to mind were they're getting sued by an Asian tobacco company for having plain packaging on cigarettes 

[The world will shine with light in our nightmare]

I'm deferring to Secretary Truman on this question.  The treaty as written doesn't seem to prescribe a formal court process to settle these matters.  I'm also not sure if we can amend the treaty as it's already been negotiated in case we would like to clarify this in the bill.

[Unconditional Surrender Truman]

The treaty as presently constituted does not provide for the institution of an ICS. To Senator Blair's concern that the "free movement of goods" clause could create a situation where Atlasia is sued by a British company for prohibiting the importation of goods that do not meet our regulatory standards, I would refer the Senate to Article III, Section 1:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Note that, under the terms of this treaty, Atlasia is obligated to afford British goods treatment only as favorable as that afforded to our own products. So, in the case of the cigarette example, British tobacco producers would still need to conform to Atlasian packaging requirements to sell their products in this country; the "free movement" clause simply exempts them from any sort of tariff that might otherwise be applicable.

[Blair]

Thank you to the Secretary of State for his comments

[Classic Conservative]

Say No to Globalism. End the Communist Takeover of Atlasia. Stop the Common Market.

[Terry the Fat Shark]

If there are no objections to this, I will open up a vote on this later today.

[Terry the Fat Shark]

I open up a 48 hour final vote on this bill, Senators will have 48 hours to vote AYE, NAY, or ABSTAIN. If this passes, it will go onto the House for their decision.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
AYE

[LLR]

Aye but only because of Classic's anti-Semitic comments.