DEFEATED: Trade Enhancement Act (TEA)

[Mad Sheep Railgun]

Trade Enhancement Act

A resolution to reduce barriers to free trade and commerce.


Category: Free Trade


Strength: Strong


Proposed by: Mad Sheep Railgun

Description: The World Assembly, resolved to strengthen the special bonds of friendship and cooperation among our nations; contribute to the harmonious development and expansion of world trade; provide a catalyst to broader international cooperation; create an expanded and secure market for the goods and services produced in our nations; reduce distortions to trade and ensure a predictable commercial framework for business planning and investment;


1.ENCOURAGES the free, fair and open trade/transfer of all goods, services, raw materials, commodities and labor between member states without prejudice;

2. ESTABLISHES the World Assembly Trade Commission (WATC) to arbitrate any and all trade disputes which may arise concerning the implementation of this legislation. Such arbitration may include, but is not limited to, cases involving alleged price dumping by WA members upon WA members, disputes over the interpretation of the terms and conditions of this resolution, and any alleged violations by member states;

3. AUTHORIZES the WATC to implement a process for the gradual elimination of protectionist devices restricting the trade of all goods, services, raw materials, commodities and labor not affected by previous World Assembly legislation, including but not limited to tariffs, duties, subsidies, subventions and quotas employed by WA member nations.

- The process will be conducted through a series of meetings convened by the WATC at its own discretion, but at least one per decade, with the goal of eventual elimination of all protectionist devices employed by WA member nations;

- Decisions arrived at by the WATC in the scheduled meetings are binding;

4. RECOGNIZES that certain domestic programs such as fuel subsidies, government stipends and small business loans are not protectionist in nature. Authorizes the WATC to review these programs and declare any that are not in fact protectionist in nature to be outside the scope of this resolution;

5. DECLARES that nations may apply reasonable restrictions on trade in the following cases:

- to ensure the stability of industries supplying essential products (such as military equipment or other items vital to national security);
- in times of severe economic crisis, where such measures are required to ensure a stable supply of essential products;
- to collect revenue for the sole purposes of economic recovery following severe collapse;
- in other special circumstances, as determined by the WATC.

6. AFFIRMS the right of nations to impose regulations, including embargoes, for cultural, safety, environmental, human rights, ethical or other reasons, on goods and services and their manufacture, subject to WATC approval;

7. EMPHASIZES that WA member nations reserve the right to employ retaliatory tariffs towards non-WA nations to prevent price dumping and authorizes the WATC to review and rule upon alleged cases of price dumping by WA members upon WA members;

8. REQUIRES member governments to establish programs to alleviate the possible impact of this resolution on workers and their families. Examples of the services provided by such programs are job retraining, help with relocation of displaced workers and training or assistance in small business start-ups.

This is WAEU with a new title and submitted by this nation rather than New Leicestershire. There have been some murmurs and accusations of plagiarism and I've been told the Charlotte Ryberg is in fact telegramming people to tell them it is plagiarism and to remove their approval. This is untrue since I am New Leicestershire.

[New Leicestershire]

This is untrue since I am New Leicestershire.

Just to verify this for all the busybodies, Mad Sheep Railgun is in fact me.

[Mad Sheep Railgun]

Now that we've cleared that up....

I haven't done a full-blown TG campaign for this, just contacted some of the nations that have voted on the current resolution at vote. It looks like it may reach quorum though and that's fine because I wasn't planning to make any major changes anyway. I did alter article 3 so that it will not conflict with Food Welfare Act.

[Glen-Rhodes]

(OOC: If we already repealed this text, wouldn't you be contradicting the repeal? Seriously, for someone so concerned about wasting the WA's time, you are certainly keen on doing so yourself. There aren't even any major changes. At least look at the repeal and address the problems with the WAEU... the problems that got it repealed.)

[Mad Sheep Railgun]

(OOC: If we already repealed this text, wouldn't you be contradicting the repeal? Seriously, for someone so concerned about wasting the WA's time, you are certainly keen on doing so yourself. There aren't even any major changes. At least look at the repeal and address the problems with the WAEU... the problems that got it repealed.)

The repeal was idiotic and I don't see any reason to revisit its "arguments". I'm going forward with it as written, that is what I said I would do. I know you oppose it. I could care less.

[Meadowmere]

The Monarchy of Meadowmere tends to identify with three types of tarriffs: (1) revenue tarriff (usually less than 10%); (2) equalizing tarriff (10-90%); and punitive tarriff (in excess of 100%).

Any country issuing revenue tarriffs does no significant harm to consumers, nor substantial support for local industry. Single-digit tarriffs are of no concern.

If we have expectations of employers to provide levels of safety to workers and consumers, as well as environmental standards for production, but the industry of another country is not saddled with such niceties of having reasonably safe and clean working and living conditions then imposing a tarriff to equalize the value of the trade goods is only fair. It is only fair too for the trading partner to raise prices so as to improve profit margins so they can afford such living and working conditions at home, making their product again competitive yet without the equalizing tarriff.

Punitive tarriffs, meanwhile, are excessive not so much to the trading partner but to the local consumer and importing businesses. Some things simply do not need to be traded, or some trading partners can be used but severely curtailed. Lead paint toys for instance -- toy collectors may buy them for collections and displays, but not for young children to play with.

By my own hand

Monarch Meadowmere

[Glen-Rhodes]

The repeal was idiotic and I don't see any reason to revisit its "arguments". I'm going forward with it as written, that is what I said I would do. I know you oppose it. I could care less.

(OOC: I guess I'll just have to copy and paste the repeal, then. We can go on for months, just you and I, copying and pasting to our heart's content.)

[Mad Sheep Railgun]

The repeal was idiotic and I don't see any reason to revisit its "arguments". I'm going forward with it as written, that is what I said I would do. I know you oppose it. I could care less.

(OOC: I guess I'll just have to copy and paste the repeal, then. We can go on for months, just you and I, copying and pasting to our heart's content.)

Don't count on it bucko. I just put you on ignore.

[Glen-Rhodes]

Don't count on it bucko. I just put you on ignore.

(OOC: You can't put resolutions on ignore! )

[Krioval]

Don't count on it bucko. I just put you on ignore.

(OOC: You can't put resolutions on ignore! )

OOC: We get it. Your nation doesn't like free trade proposals. That's fine. What's absolutely infuriating is to have the same objections brought up, over and over, about a given proposal/resolution as if we didn't get it the first seven times. Once upon a time, I RP'd Krioval as doing this on environmental resolutions. They still tended to pass, and I got a lot of headaches from banging my head against the wall. Eventually I learned to critique proposals, even those I'd rather not have pass, for their content. Then, at least a solid proposal would make it through the voting on its merits. Of course I'd still object to the content, but I'd try to keep it to a post or two out of civility. Consider this path.

[Jey]

Don't count on it bucko. I just put you on ignore.

(OOC: You can't put resolutions on ignore! )

I guess you haven't heard of loopholes or RP'd noncompliance.

[Charlotte Ryberg]

My head went in circles and I was confused, so I'm sorry for being confused although it would be a good idea for you to, yes, post it here to verify your transition to a new nation, which you did right, honoured ambassador. Not all member states have been senior as some are and some may have missed your transition ceremony, and it was the right thing to do to clear things up.

Thanks for clearing things up, honoured ambassador.

Back to the resolution, and I support the principle of the resolution, as I note by all means that the mythical creatures that pop up to life will only just do their job, honoured ambassador.

[Mad Sheep Railgun]

Thanks for clearing things up, honoured ambassador.

I hadn't planned on it reaching quorum this time but I should have started a thread first anyway. Sorry for the confusion.

[Mad Sheep Railgun]

I'll probably use a different nation, maybe even New Leicestershire, to debate this IC. I've only posted OOC with this nation and I don't really know what the nation even consists of. Probably just a railgun and a bunch of rabid sheep.

[Hirota]

Hirota expresses it's tentative support of this proposal. Free trade rules indeed.

[The Palentine]

Hells Yeah! Free Trade, BABY!!!!!!
Excelsior,
Sen. Horatio Sulla

[Kelssek]

The repeal was idiotic and I don't see any reason to revisit its "arguments". I'm going forward with it as written, that is what I said I would do. I know you oppose it. I could care less.

With this sort of regrettable attitude, we see little point in you even inviting discussion at all. The repeal brought up valid objections, even if not expressed in the most eloquent way.

We have serious concerns with the pursuit of "free trade" as a goal in itself. Trade is a tool, and can be either useful or detrimental in achieving the real goal of maintaining or improving living standards in the face of the reality of scarce resources.

We regard this resolution as an unfair intrusion into the socioeconomic order and balance each nation and society must build. At its worst, it is a cynical attempt by financially powerful nations to force open markets for their own profit and to add to their own power, at the necessary expense of the strength and well-being of other nations. If a nation regards increased trade as beneficial to its interests, would it not take steps on its own to encourage trade, without the need for coercive measures?

[Glen-Rhodes]

I guess you haven't heard of loopholes or RP'd noncompliance.

(OOC: I'm talking more "There's no 'Ignore' button on the WA page". I would assume that MSR has ignored my posts, meaning that he/she/it can't see them at all.)

[Tanaara]

"Thank the Divine that Tanaara is not in the WA." The Undelegate exclaims. We like out interaction with other nations to be on our terms."

[New Leicestershire]

The repeal was idiotic and I don't see any reason to revisit its "arguments". I'm going forward with it as written, that is what I said I would do. I know you oppose it. I could care less.

With this sort of regrettable attitude, we see little point in you even inviting discussion at all. The repeal brought up valid objections, even if not expressed in the most eloquent way.

As always we welcome the comments of our esteemed colleagues from Kelssek. Regrettably, free trade is one area where our governments find themselves on opposite sides of the fence. I would like to emphasize however that we don't dismiss out of hand your concerns about free trade policies.

The repeal was...shabbily written. I don't think anyone, even the most ardent opponent of free trade would deny that. Its arguments consisted of:

1. Resolution #26 is an abuse of power.
2. The resolution makes no reference to developing nations.
3. Resolution #26 only benefits the few nations with powerful non-essential industries.
4. WATC is given the unchecked power to arbitrarily regulate intra-national subsidies.

Now, 1 is merely an opinion. The World Assembly is not capable of abusing its power because its power is defined by its own rules and the will of its members. Resolution #26 was passed by a margin of 2,841 to 1,622. It was clearly the will of the members at that time to impose the provisions of Resolution #26 on themselves.

As for 2, it made no reference to developing nations but then it didn't have to. Most of the safeguards built into Resolution #26 were put there for developing nations to make use of (though they would been available to any nation, not just developing ones), so I'm not sure how adding the words "developing nations" would have necessarily made the resolution more effective.

( OOC: I'd have to go back and re-read the repeal debate, but I'm pretty sure I remember some controversy over just what the repeal author meant by "developing nations". It seems that he meant the "developing" WA economic category rather "developing" in the RL sense. Does that sound right? )

3 is another opinion. I believe that free trade policies benefit all nations. Now that's opinion too, but it is my opinion and I'm sticking to it. I can trot out the standard charts, graphs and studies to back up my opinion if you like. But then you could also trot out some of your own to support your opinion.

4 is a lie. WATC simply did not have "unchecked" power to regulate intra-national subsidies.

We have serious concerns with the pursuit of "free trade" as a goal in itself. Trade is a tool, and can be either useful or detrimental in achieving the real goal of maintaining or improving living standards in the face of the reality of scarce resources.

I know that you have serious concerns about free trade. I believe those concerns are misplaced, but I do recognise that you have them.

And trade is indeed a tool, but it can also be wielded as a weapon. That is one of the things that we would like to put an end to.

We regard this resolution as an unfair intrusion into the socioeconomic order and balance each nation and society must build. At its worst, it is a cynical attempt by financially powerful nations to force open markets for their own profit and to add to their own power, at the necessary expense of the strength and well-being of other nations. If a nation regards increased trade as beneficial to its interests, would it not take steps on its own to encourage trade, without the need for coercive measures?

And I would counter that protectionist policies are an unfair intrusion into the socio-economic order. I would also like to state that at their core, free trade policies are about freedom. Economic freedom. People like to make much hay about freedom and liberty where civil rights, human rights and political rights are concerned. But why not economic liberty as well? Are not a person's money, his goods, and his labour his own? Why should the state interfere with the peaceful exchange of goods, services and labour?

David Watts
Ambassador
The Dominion of New Leicestershire

[Kelssek]

As for 2, it made no reference to developing nations but then it didn't have to. Most of the safeguards built into Resolution #26 were put there for developing nations to make use of (though they would been available to any nation, not just developing ones), so I'm not sure how adding the words "developing nations" would have necessarily made the resolution more effective.

As I said, this would be charitable to the repeal author, but I would think such was a reference to infant industry, whereby many nations attempt to develop their economies through the creation of higher-value industries such as manufacturing, a move which essentially requires protectionism.

4 is a lie. WATC simply did not have "unchecked" power to regulate intra-national subsidies.

Actually, it does. Unless you mean section 4, which is a bit of a stretch as the examples clearly are those of a individual welfare nature, I don't see any exemption by which subsidies to domestic industries are not actually forbidden outright. It is also possible that some nations interpreted "subject to WATC approval" in section 6 to be granting unchecked power to the WATC to veto even decisions made on other than economic grounds, such as embargoes as part of hostile measures against another country. [Although of course, the WATC had no problem with us embargoing all non-IFTA members on ethical grounds...]

It's not that I don't agree with you as far as the repeal was poorly written, but there was some rudimentary good in it, and the fact that it passed shows that it is worth paying attention to.

And trade is indeed a tool, but it can also be wielded as a weapon. That is one of the things that we would like to put an end to.

It's interesting that you say that, because we feel free trade is itself a weapon which can be used by some to achieve economic domination over other nations. It is easy to see a situation in which a nation's "less competitive" industries are completely destroyed and supplanted by foreign multi-national businesses, and surely you can see how this can affect a nation's security on a fundamental level.

And I would counter that protectionist policies are an unfair intrusion into the socio-economic order.

Well, turn it the other way round, would anyone really be silly enough to force protectionism upon your nation by mandating you impose tariffs?

Actually, scratch that; there are some very silly ones in this Assembly. But the point remains, it is hard to conceive of one intruding into your society and economy by doing the reverse of this proposal, mandating protectionism on nations without it.

I would also like to state that at their core, free trade policies are about freedom. Economic freedom. People like to make much hay about freedom and liberty where civil rights, human rights and political rights are concerned. But why not economic liberty as well?

There is a difference here. We are now discussing things at a national level, while what you are referring to is on the personal level. This is not a resolution which directly affects the economic liberty of individuals. This does not, in our interpretation, remove bans on trade or other such measures whereby one really could argue that it grants people or collectives of people the freedom to buy or sell goods to certain countries where they were previously prohibited from doing so. All you are really doing is specifically banning protectionist policy. What liberties are increased by this?

Are not a person's money, his goods, and his labour his own? Why should the state interfere with the peaceful exchange of goods, services and labour?

Again, we do not see the link between this at an individual level, which we do not necessarily deny, in application at the international level, which is what is relevant for this proposal.

I note your use of the word "interfere" in this context, as if the state was a third party meddling for no good reason. However, every economic action will have some effect on a third party - what in economics is referred to as externalities. In our view, the state, inasmuch as it embodies the collective interest of society, should act to correct this, whether to encourage actions which are beneficial or to discourge those which are not.

[Mad Sheep Railgun]

Actually, it does. Unless you mean section 4, which is a bit of a stretch as the examples clearly are those of a individual welfare nature, I don't see any exemption by which subsidies to domestic industries are not actually forbidden outright. It is also possible that some nations interpreted "subject to WATC approval" in section 6 to be granting unchecked power to the WATC to veto even decisions made on other than economic grounds, such as embargoes as part of hostile measures against another country. [Although of course, the WATC had no problem with us embargoing all non-IFTA members on ethical grounds...]

I'll answer this with Mad Sheep since I need to talk about gnomes and RP and such and it would be hard to do that with New Leicestershire. I'll address the rest of your post with NL later.

Those examples in article 4 were just examples. I didn't want to make a big long list and those were some things that Quod suggested so I just used them. I would imagine a nation could have dragged just about any intra-national subsidy program before the WATC and asked for an exemption. WATC may or may not have approved it, but the whole process would have been public and as in your example of IFTA and the embargoes, they might have approved it.

The committees (like WATC) are staffed by gnomes. We have to say that to explain how they are staffed because there's no way to name the members of the committee in a resolution. We tried once to RP the actual members of a committee (Pretanama Panel) and it failed miserably (you know all of that of course but I'm repeating it for new players that maybe don't know it). So gnomes it is. But I've always assumed that "the gnomes" are in actuality real people from our nations that somehow come to be assigned to these committees. As such, they would be accountable to the entire WA and their decision-making process would be as transparent as possible. If a nation presented a case to leave a domestic subsidy program in place, and there was just cause to leave it in place, I think it likely that WATC would leave it alone. We've been told by the mods to assume that these committees are incorruptible, so we should assume that they would rule correctly in all (or at least most) cases.

Also, none of the protectionist devices were "forbidden outright" as you say, by WAEU. There was to be a process for their gradual elimination, but that process could have taken a decade or ten decades. We really don't know how long it would have taken. All we know is that there was a process under way working towards their eventual elimination.

So WATC didn't have "unchecked" power. Maybe it did in theory, but it wouldn't have in practice. It would have been under a variety of constraints both political and ethical and the entire WA would have been watching its decisions. At least that's how I saw it.

[Morlago]

(OOC: If we already repealed this text, wouldn't you be contradicting the repeal? Seriously, for someone so concerned about wasting the WA's time, you are certainly keen on doing so yourself. There aren't even any major changes. At least look at the repeal and address the problems with the WAEU... the problems that got it repealed.)

How can any new resolution contradict a repeal? The last line always specifies which resolution it repeals. As long as that resolution doesn't come back to life, it's OK. Otherwise, Resolution #37 will be illegal as it contradict the repeals Resolution #11 and #28.

[Kelssek]

as in your example of IFTA and the embargoes, they might have approved it.

If I am to be completely honest this was loophole exploitation combined with godmod. The IFTA thing is explicitly protectionist, but I exploited the general conventions of RP to make the WAEU "approve" it, since no one really could with any authority RP that it had been denied...

Also, none of the protectionist devices were "forbidden outright" as you say, by WAEU. There was to be a process for their gradual elimination, but that process could have taken a decade or ten decades. We really don't know how long it would have taken. All we know is that there was a process under way working towards their eventual elimination.

So WATC didn't have "unchecked" power. Maybe it did in theory, but it wouldn't have in practice. It would have been under a variety of constraints both political and ethical and the entire WA would have been watching its decisions. At least that's how I saw it.

All rather tricky ground, again, because then the question is, what actually does the proposal do then? Here, you seem to be saying it had no real effect. This would be... uhm, illegal. But by the text, it did have an effect, and, well, if it had it in theory, by the text, it would have it in practice. We would have seen the "elimination of protectionist devices". I don't remember either the original discussion or the repeal discussion but it would seem that one has to discuss on the basis of the potential resolution's final effect for the discussion to have any point.

All in all, this is a very convoluted mess we've now wound ourselves into... so let's just drop this whole "the repeal was terrible" line and get into the real bitchfest

[New Leicestershire]

All rather tricky ground, again, because then the question is, what actually does the proposal do then? Here, you seem to be saying it had no real effect.

No I didn't say it had no effect. I said the effect it would have had was "the gradual elimination of protectionist devices". So in other words, we didn't wake up the day after it passed to a world where all protectionist devices were totally eliminated. There were no doubt thousands of protectionist schemes which were left in place, at least temporarily. The strength of the resolution was 'strong' not because it would eliminate protectionist devices instantly, but because it would have eventually eliminated them completely.

David Watts
Ambassador
The Dominion of New Leicestershire