[Draft Necromancy] Repeal 'On Multilateral Trade Talks'

[Imperium Anglorum]

OOC: The argument which I believe is best for repeal is basically: this resolution does nothing which nations can't already do by themselves. That argument isn't: this resolution supports free trade and therefore should be repealed. [EDIT] The former argument is something which everyone can get behind. The latter argument is one that alienates free trade supporters like myself.

Secondarily, your clause on the loophole seems to be self-contradictory with other clauses. At the top, with the 'free trade bad' stuff, it seems to criticise the resolution for not doing enough. In the loophole clause, it seems to criticise it for not doing enough.

Also, the clause on the negotiation terms should be made clearer. I also don't understand the ruling regarding why that isn't factually inaccurate. I know I certainly believe that all proposals ought be interpreted as legal, but I can't for the life of me find a way to construe the agreements spoken of in 221 GA to be binding until the next trade talks.

As a tertiary note, I do buy arguments for protectionism. They just have to be made instead of vaguely asserting that national economies will be damaged. As a note on economics, in terms of national income, the fall in imports is always, in the short run, matched by a fall in exports. Thus, the effect of tariff barriers alone is ambiguous. But in terms of real goods, it is always less efficient at producing real goods than free trade. And the transitional period will cause massive economic upheaval that is the real problem.

[Tinfect]

OOC: The argument which I believe is best for repeal is basically: this resolution does nothing which nations can't already do by themselves. That argument isn't: this resolution supports free trade and therefore should be repealed. [EDIT] The former argument is something which everyone can get behind. The latter argument is one that alienates free trade supporters like myself.

OOC:
Which is why I don't use the latter argument, if you'd point out exactly what you think it is that causes this interpretation of yours, I'd be happy to take a look at it.
As for the former argument, I really don't think focusing on a pure-national-sovereignty argument like that is going to hold up, nor is it what I would be willing to base a repeal on.

Secondarily, your clause on the loophole seems to be self-contradictory with other clauses. At the top, with the 'free trade bad' stuff, it seems to criticise the resolution for not doing enough. In the loophole clause, it seems to criticise it for not doing enough.

We've been over this in previous pages. It's perfectly normal to criticize something for both what it is trying to do, and for failing at it. In any case, if you're trying to tell me that a quick note that maybe 'free-trade' isn't a sacred, unequivocal good in all situations paints the whole draft in an anti-free-trade light, I really don't know what to say to you. Things are not quite so black and white.

Also, the clause on the negotiation terms should be made clearer. I also don't understand the ruling regarding why that isn't factually inaccurate. I know I certainly believe that all proposals ought be interpreted as legal, but I can't for the life of me find a way to construe the agreements spoken of in 221 GA to be binding until the next trade talks.

Again, we've been over this in previous pages, in fact, it's brought up in the ruling itself.

While there is nothing in GA#221 that prevents nations from renegotiating outside of the once-a-decade summit, it doesn't prevent nations from acting in bad faith outside the summit either. It's feasible for two or more nations to reach an agreement at the summit, which is then binding on all parties that assent. Any dissolution of or amendments to said agreement would require the same party of nations to agree to renegotiation, which is not guaranteed within the text itself. As such, said original agreement - which may be economically damaging for a given Member State - may be in place for the 10 year period that passes between summits.

As a tertiary note, I do buy arguments for protectionism. They just have to be made instead of vaguely asserting that national economies will be damaged.

I don't like the idea of padding the proposal with a few lines of fluff regarding how exactly economies might be damaged.

[Imperium Anglorum]

OOC: Which is why I don't use the latter argument, if you'd point out exactly what you think it is that causes this interpretation of yours, I'd be happy to take a look at it. As for the former argument, I really don't think focusing on a pure-national-sovereignty argument like that is going to hold up, nor is it what I would be willing to base a repeal on.

That isn't a national sovereignty argument if made correctly.

Secondarily, your clause on the loophole seems to be self-contradictory with other clauses. At the top, with the 'free trade bad' stuff, it seems to criticise the resolution for not doing enough. In the loophole clause, it seems to criticise it for not doing enough.

We've been over this in previous pages. It's perfectly normal to criticize something for both what it is trying to do, and for failing at it. In any case, if you're trying to tell me that a quick note that maybe 'free-trade' isn't a sacred, unequivocal good in all situations paints the whole draft in an anti-free-trade light, I really don't know what to say to you. Things are not quite so black and white.

It has to do with these, which I would amend the following:

Noting that many Member States would suffer severe and lasting economic damage due to the removal of trade barriers, Noting that many member states rely on trade barriers to protect certain areas of their economies,

Disturbed by the Resolution's failure to account for the varied economic systems and statuses in it's mandates to reduce trade barriers,

Again, we've been over this in previous pages, in fact, it's brought up in the ruling itself.

While there is nothing in GA#221 that prevents nations from renegotiating outside of the once-a-decade summit, it doesn't prevent nations from acting in bad faith outside the summit either. It's feasible for two or more nations to reach an agreement at the summit, which is then binding on all parties that assent. Any dissolution of or amendments to said agreement would require the same party of nations to agree to renegotiation, which is not guaranteed within the text itself. As such, said original agreement - which may be economically damaging for a given Member State - may be in place for the 10 year period that passes between summits.

This is why I am puzzled by the ruling. The agreements reached, which the resolution speaks nothing about, would have to be monumentally stupid if no amendment provisions were contained or if no termination agreements were included. The only way for nations to be put in this situation is by negotiating that agreement such that they are put into that situation, something which (1) self-interested nations would never do and (2) is entirely immaterial to the resolution.

As a tertiary note, I do buy arguments for protectionism. They just have to be made instead of vaguely asserting that national economies will be damaged.

I don't like the idea of padding the proposal with a few lines of fluff regarding how exactly economies might be damaged.

Then tell me here how those economies might be damaged.

[Tinfect]

OOC:
Figured I'd better get back to this.
Again.
Maybe it will get some more attention this time.

That isn't a national sovereignty argument if made correctly.

I don't really see how it couldn't be. I'm not going to base a repeal off a sole, flimsy premise, that will almost certainly be torn apart from every angle imaginable.

It has to do with these, which I would amend the following:

Noting that many Member States would suffer severe and lasting economic damage due to the removal of trade barriers, Noting that many member states rely on trade barriers to protect certain areas of their economies,

Disturbed by the Resolution's failure to account for the varied economic systems and statuses in it's mandates to reduce trade barriers,

So... you want a slight, meaningless language change to a preamble clause because... it could be even more vague than it already is? I'll see about that. Personally, I like the way it's worded, but it's not really a real issue to change it at the end of the day.
As for the latter change, no, that's staying. The resolution demonstrates a total failure to account for Economies that aren't hugely Pro-Market and open to International Access. I'm changing it as well, but not removing it entirely.

This is why I am puzzled by the ruling. The agreements reached, which the resolution speaks nothing about, would have to be monumentally stupid if no amendment provisions were contained or if no termination agreements were included. The only way for nations to be put in this situation is by negotiating that agreement such that they are put into that situation, something which (1) self-interested nations would never do and (2) is entirely immaterial to the resolution.

(1) Political Corruption is a thing, as is changes in Government, and unforeseen changes in Economic State. And, just as a sidenote, here in RL, more than a few trade-agreements have advanced the profits of various special interests over the best interests of a Nation's citizens.

(2) I don't really see what you're trying to say here. If a Resolution allows for something like this to happen, I'm rather of the opinion that it ought to be mentioned.

Then tell me here how those economies might be damaged.

Oh for fuck's sake. Excuse me for assuming that the people here are able to actually see things that aren't explained to them.

There exist states, often calling themselves Socialist, Communist, or even Mixed-Market States, with comparatively weak industries in certain sectors. If said sectors were suddenly opened up to foreign interference, even if they are beholden to the same restrictions as Native Businesses, the far extended scope and bases of the International Corporations or what-have-you, will give them an edge over native businesses, out-competing them in what may very well be an extremely limited market. It takes funds and resources out of the hands of a native people and gives them to a foreign-owned business.

As an example, I've stated that the Imperium, while ostensibly Socialist, actually does allow Private Industry to exist, and in most areas it exists, it operates without having to compete with the State. With the current Civil Overseer, that has actually been, very carefully expanding in the interest of strengthening the Private Economy without infringing on the independence of the Imperium from Private Industry.

If the Borders were suddenly open to Foreign Commerce, many Imperial Businesses, which, in several industries, are limited to a (relatively) small operational area, to ensure that other Businesses are able to work in the same field without being crushed by a larger one, would be flattened by some Foreign Behemoth coming in and taking over. Even with a limited operational area, like Imperial Businesses, they have far more resources to draw on from their base in one or more other nations, and will, as stated, flatten Native businesses. All but certainly doing so while paying its workers a lower wage, and, if my experience here in RL is any indication, delivering an inferior product, at a lower price.

And then there's the matter of how the foreign businesses operate in the first place, again, taking experience from RL here, many Corporations, especially large or multinational ones, operate as far outside the law as they feel they can get away with. I have literally worked for businesses, (Specifically, S&G Flooring, as the worst offender) that have not just allowed, but encouraged Salespeople, and Installers, to sell inferior product at a higher price, and to do shoddy (But not obviously so, lest they get called on repair) work, so that the floor has to be replaced sooner than it should have to be if it used decent product and been installed properly. We've lost work, as a licensed contractor, to illegal unlicensed, and straight up incompetent laborers because they were willing to work for damn pennies compared to what they have to pay us for the work we do.

Since we can reasonably expect the same behavior here on NS, it'd probably happen in the Imperium as well, especially early on when Intelligence hasn't established infiltration in these new foreign businesses, and when it's discovered, they'll all have their assets seized and be prohibited from operating within the Imperial Territories again. And then there's just a huge void in the market. Hell, even if by some miracle it isn't discovered, then there are now businesses that can operate illegally and get away with it, making them effectively invincible to any possible competition in their operational area.

Now, I'm sure you think that foreign businesses flattening Native ones is all well and good, because they just replace them and the benefit is all nice and even or somesuch with all the happy market forces. But these aren't Imperial Businesses, they are owned by foreigners, moving Imperial Resources to Foreign Businesses and Countries that don't benefit the Imperium or it's people in any way shape or form, because States like the Imperium don't have damn near every sector of their society open to Private Industry, and don't depend on said industries to function.

Further, Imperial Businesses, barring mass-scale political change that is simply not going to happen unless you replace all the Overseers, will be heavily restricted in operating in Foreign Countries, due to Imperial Technological Laws and Controls intended to ensure that Imperial Technologies do not fall into the hands of possibly hostile foreign powers. Subspace, in particular if it spreads, can effectively nullify Imperial Defensive Policy, assuming whoever gets it knows to take the Technology in certain directions, and be used in the creation of weapons that really shouldn't be trusted to any state, from an OOC perspective anyway. And in where they actually can operate effectively, they can't use any Imperial Resources to do it, which again, rather cripples them.

And, on the topic of Technology, pretty much the only thing keeping the Imperium from being inundated with a million and one nonsensical patent claims from foreign nations no-one's ever heard of, that being the fact that no foreigners can reasonably expect to exploit patents in the Imperium due to the total lack of foreign access to Imperial Markets, would be destroyed, and the Imperium would be deadlocked for quite some time in nigh-endless legal battles over the simplest of things due to the widely varied and absolutely exploitative patent laws across Member-States. If any of them get settled against the Imperium, it could cripple the Imperium in any number of ways, all it takes is for some Military-Industrial business over in Whereeverthefuckistan-year2999 to pitch a sufficiently convincing bitch to a neutral/international court about a joint in Imperial Powered Armour, or the Connected Optics on a Pulse Rifle, and the entire Imperial Military is crushed instantly. All because of a particularly bothersome incredibly shortsighted resolution designed to fuck over Socialist States and advance the industries of Free-Market states.

Obviously, this all assumes that the foreign industries involved are based in a power with a reasonably comparable Technological Level. MT Industries would not be an issue for the Imperium, barring some extreme circumstances that are pointless to get into.

[Imperium Anglorum]

-stuff-

OOC: I don't have the will to argue this right now. Perhaps in a few weeks I will (of all things I need, I need more sleep ). But as a point of clarification: if this proposal repeals based off optionality and points regarding it being unnecessary, I will support. If this proposal repeals based off a vague hatred of free trade and the embracing of protectionism as economic panacea, I will not.

[Tinfect]

-stuff-

OOC: I don't have the will to argue this right now. Perhaps in a few weeks I will (of all things I need, I need more sleep ). But as a point of clarification: if this proposal repeals based off optionality and points regarding it being unnecessary, I will support. If this proposal repeals based off a vague hatred of free trade and the embracing of protectionism as economic panacea, I will not.

OOC:
I wouldn't worry too hard about arguing the point, I've conceded a good portion of them anyhow. And the fact that I have a tendency to ramble with hostility when posts get written up in the dead of night.

I've tried to avoid the latter, and while I do see where you're coming from in a few areas, I just have trouble seeing where you're getting the idea that I'm trying for the latter, rather than the former. Again, I'll ask you to try and explain where you're coming from here, I just don't see it.