Actual Free Trade Bill

[Democratic Hawk]

Actual Free Trade Bill

1. Section 3, F.L. 13-10 is hereby repealed.
2. Section 3, F.L. 13-11 is hereby repealed.
3. Section 3, F.L. 13-12 is hereby repealed.
4. Section 3, F.L. 13-19 is hereby repealed.
5. Section 3, F.L. 13-20 is hereby repealed.
6. Section 2 & 4, F.L. 13-23 is hereby repealed, and the sections are renumbered to reflect the above changes.
7. Section 3, F.L. 14-4 is hereby repealed.
8. Section 3, F.L. 14-5 is hereby repealed.

Sponsor: Sen. Jake

[MasterJedi]

I'll probably be voting for this because I would rather have it be full free trade as well. And when it fails I won't have a problem with that because the bills aren't that restrictive.

[Democratic Hawk]

Many Senators are familiar with my stance on free trade but for the benefit of those of you who aren't, I'll elaborate on the principles which underly the 'Hawk Doctrine' in a statement later today

What I will say is that F.L. 13-10, F.L. 13-11, F.L. 13-12, F.L.13-19, F.L. 13-20, F.L 14-4 and F.L. 14-5 are 'actual' free trade Bills; while, F.L. 13-23 has tariffs on manufactured goods only

'Hawk'

[Democratic Hawk]

I'll probably be voting for this because I would rather have it be full free trade as well. And when it fails I won't have a problem with that because the bills aren't that restrictive.

All with the exception of F.L. 13-23 are in fact full free trade Bills. There are no trade restrictions or tariffs whatsoever, for now

'Hawk'

[Democratic Hawk]

Back in August, Secretary of State Afleitch suggested a moratorium on free trade and, basically, my response to the statement he made encapsulates my approach to free trade

Senators, I include extracts from it for your information

I applaud Senator Hawk for the constant application of the ‘Hawk Doctrine’ which takes on board many of my own foreign policy concerns. While it has proven controversial and not to everyones taste, I believe it is being applied fairly to each nation based on strict criteria linked with human rights and democracy yet still remaining flexible

I appreciate those supportive comments of my approach to free trade. While it's certainly not to everyone's tastes and I don't in the least think it controversial. I don't see anything wrong with free trade being a means to promote such progressive values as democracy, freedom and civil rights while simultaneously encouraging economic development and the benefits it brings

Firstly, there are those countries worthy of free trade period. I refer, or course, to the liberal democracies of the Western world whose political, and economic, conditions compare favorably with that of our own

Secondly, there are those countries, which although on good terms with Atlasia, where there human rights records are tenuous, who are worthy of free trade but with a principle that they commit themselves to becoming fully-functioning liberal democracies, with respect for political freedoms and civil rights. I appreciate that this is never going to happen over night but we must encourage it as a matter of principle

Thirdly, there are those countries with whom Atlasia should not be considering free trade with period. I refer, of course, to overtly hostile nations, many of which have an atrocious record as far as human rights are concerned. China might not be overtly hostile politically towards Atlasia any more but it is economically and its human rights records are atrocious

The 'Hawk Doctrine' is visionary in that it robustly espouses free trade as means of promoting such progressive values in addition to facilitating economic development. It is not protectionist, neither in essence nor in principle, but it risks becoming protectionist should the recalcitrant ever need to be brought to heel. And, ultimately, it is down to those trading partners (i.e. nations), subject to it, as to whether such penalties would be incurred. And I, for one, most sincerely hopes it never comes to that

'Hawk'

[Democratic Hawk]

I hereby open the final vote on this Bill. Please vote Aye, Nay or Abstain

Actual Free Trade Bill

1. Section 3, F.L. 13-10 is hereby repealed.
2. Section 3, F.L. 13-11 is hereby repealed.
3. Section 3, F.L. 13-12 is hereby repealed.
4. Section 3, F.L. 13-19 is hereby repealed.
5. Section 3, F.L. 13-20 is hereby repealed.
6. Section 2 & 4, F.L. 13-23 is hereby repealed, and the sections are renumbered to reflect the above changes.
7. Section 3, F.L. 14-4 is hereby repealed.
8. Section 3, F.L. 14-5 is hereby repealed.

'Hawk'

[Democratic Hawk]

Nay

'Hawk'

[Dr. Cynic]

Some recent reading came to my attention, just a little while ago... I will vote Nay.

[MasterJedi]

Aye

[jerusalemcar5]

Nay.

[Speed of Sound]

Nay

[Jake]

Aye

[Bdub]

Aye

[Јas]

Whilest I consider myself understanding of the case made against the 'Hawk Doctrine' in favour of 'Real Free Trade', I note that as far as I am aware the relevant sections have not been invoked and that the Senate shall have to consent to such an invocation. The motives of the doctrine anre good and worthwhile, in my opinion. Given that, the doctrine has not affected 'real free trade' between Atlasia and these other nations, and can only have helped the cause of liberal democracies, even if only marginally do, I shall stand by the relevant clauses for now.

With regard to the Indian Bill, I am against the section 2 tariffs but in favour of the section 4 child labour clause.

Taking all of this into consideration therefore, I shall be voting against this bill.

Nay

[WMS]

Nay.

[Jake]

I think the biggest reason to reject the "Hawk Doctrine" is how it was used in regards to Thailand. Surely a military coup is usually a negative in the democracy scheme of things, yet our Secretary of State decided he (subjectively) supported the coup, and allowed free trade to continue (with a military government). I'm glad you guys are continuing to prove yourselves hypocrites.

[Democratic Hawk]

I think the biggest reason to reject the "Hawk Doctrine" is how it was used in regards to Thailand. Surely a military coup is usually a negative in the democracy scheme of things, yet our Secretary of State decided he (subjectively) supported the coup, and allowed free trade to continue (with a military government). I'm glad you guys are continuing to prove yourselves hypocrites.

The Hawk Doctrine (Clause 3) can be flexibly applied, Senator. The Secretary of External Affairs is moderating the situation in Thailand. Should he decide to request that the Senate envoke Clause 3, I will gladly support it

You're right in state military coups are usually negative in the democracy scheme of things but its too early to tell whether or not this coup is necessarily a regressive step

When I introduced my amendment to the Atlasian-Thailand Free Trade Bill, I actually had Thaksin and his actions in mind, rather then some military coup, given he himself seems to have undermined Thai democracy. Thailand can't have been a healthy democracy considering most of her major opposition parties didn't even partake in the last legislative elections, which in itself precipitated a constitutional crisis, which raised issues as to the Thaksin government's legitimacy, a factor, which ultimately led to this coup

It may yet transpire that a fully-functioning liberal democracy may emerge from the military coup of all things. It's too early to tell, which is why the situation needs monitoring and unless, the military and interim civilian civilian government headed by Surayud Chulanont hold free and fair elections by October 2007, then Clause 3 should almost certainly be envoked

The Secretary of External Affairs is right not to act with haste; while, I most sincerely hope that this coup is Thailand's last. Unfortunately, it is a complex situation, which warrants a a flexible approach to it

'Hawk'

[Jake]

Heh, you could've simply wrote "I'm a hypocrite, don't take anything I say seriously" and saved yourself 15 minutes of typing.

[Democratic Hawk]

Heh, you could've simply wrote "I'm a hypocrite, don't take anything I say seriously" and saved yourself 15 minutes of typing.

I've told it like it is

'Hawk'

[Democratic Hawk]

This Bill has enough votes to fail. Senators now have 24 hours to change their votes

'Hawk'

[Virginian87]

 Nay.

[Democratic Hawk]

With 3 Ayes, 7 Nays and 0 Abstentions this Bill has failed

'Hawk'