[DRAFT] Democracy in Trade

[Sierra Lyricalia]

Sierra Lyricalia House of Diplomats
Edmundo Valerii, Secretary
Official World Assembly Proposal

Democracy in Trade
Category: Furtherment of Democracy | Strength: Significant

The World Assembly,

RECOGNIZING that multilateral trade pacts affect citizens' very livelihood in ways that other treaties do not;

EXCITED about the benefits to innovation and quality of life that stem from increased trade, especially trade stemming from WA-mandated negotiations; yet

WARY of the uniquely rampant potential for abuse of trade pacts by shady private interests, whose danger to working people exceeds that of all other non-military agreements;

VIGILANT against the subversion of greater national interests by minority profit motives; and

ENRAGED by well-documented examples of democratically enacted environmental and labor laws being nullified by fiat of corporate puppet "courts" and arbitrations;

Hereby:

1. Defines:

1. a "trade clause" as any provision of any international treaty or agreement, except a WA resolution, that has a foreseeable economic impact on one or more parties, and which has no direct military, diplomatic, environmental, or emergency humanitarian aim
2. a "trade pact" as any treaty among nations, except a WA resolution, whose aim or effect is primarily economic;

2. Requires that member nations that hold political elections or voter initiatives put any newly-signed trade pact to a popular vote, referendum, or plebiscite to ratify it;

3. Forbids nations from including or agreeing to trade clauses in totally unrelated treaties; for example, a war reparations clause in a peace treaty would be legal, but a lumber market deregulation clause in a marine wildlife reserve agreement would not;

4. Requires member nations to publish the full text of any contemplated trade pact, and to make a good faith effort to accurately inform their people about its particulars during the drafting and negotiation process; most especially where there is a possibility that the pact will require or enable externally-driven changes to the nation's laws, executive practices, or judicial procedures;

1. Likewise, nations must publicize instances in which national or subnational laws and practices are overturned by the WATC, IMF, or any other supra- or international body, or by international mediation;

5. Forbids member nations from retaliating directly against a nation for voting down a trade pact, for an 18-month period following the failure to ratify; and encourages nations to use that time to modify the pact to better suit the people it affects;

6. Clarifies that a nation's ratification referendum may be structured according to national preference, whether that be straight up-or-down, a series of line-item vetoes, or some other way;

7. Mandates that the government follow the results of the referendum to ratify or not ratify the trade pact in question; and

8. Forbids nations from agreeing to any trade clause or trade pact that is kept secret from the public.

"No doubt there's some serious flaw I'm overlooking, but I believe this should be legal and obviously I'm in favor of it. Please explain in excruciating detail why I'm wrong."

"Otherwise, this should be fairly self-explanatory. My one question is whether failing to exclude dictatorships makes this some kind of ideological ban. I don't think so, because it's not saying anything about political processes per se, only defining one narrow instance where there must be a national vote. But it might be a bit of a gray area."

[Sierra Lyricalia]

The World Assembly,

RECOGNIZING that multilateral trade pacts affect citizens' very livelihood in ways that other treaties do not;

EXCITED about the benefits to innovation and quality of life that stem from increased trade; yet

WARY of the uniquely rampant potential for abuse of trade pacts by shady private interests;

VIGILANT against the subversion of greater national interests by minority profit motives; and

ENRAGED by well-documented examples of democratically enacted environmental and labor laws being nullified by corporate puppet "courts;"

Hereby:

1. Requires that member nations that have signed a trade treaty put the entire treaty to a popular vote, referendum, or plebiscite to ratify it;

2. Requires member nations to make a good faith effort to accurately inform their people about the particulars of any contemplated treaty during the drafting and negotiation process; most especially where there is a possibility that the treaty will require changes to the nation's laws, executive practices, or judicial procedures;

1. Likewise, nations must publicize instances in which national or subnational laws and practices are overturned by the WATC, IMF, or any other supra- or international body;

3. Forbids member nations from retaliating (diplomatically, economically, militarily, or otherwise) against a nation for voting down a treaty;

4. Clarifies that a nation's ratification referendum may be structured according to national preference, whether that be straight up-or-down, a series of line-item vetoes, or some other way;

5. Mandates that the government follow the results of the referendum to ratify or not ratify the treaty in question; and

6. Forbids nations from including or agreeing to clauses or provisions in any trade pact that are kept secret from the public.

[Separatist Peoples]

Hereby:

1. Requires that member nations that have signed a trade treaty put the entire treaty to a popular vote, referendum, or plebiscite to ratify it;

“This would work perfectly if all governments were direct democracies. Many governments with republican aspects rely on their elected leader to exercise no small amount of discretion on these matters, and public democratic opinion on those matters are satisfied by elections.”

2. Requires member nations to make a good faith effort to accurately inform their people about the particulars of any contemplated treaty during the drafting and negotiation process; most especially where there is a possibility that the treaty will require changes to the nation's laws, executive practices, or judicial procedures;

OOC: So Brexit has you pissed, eh?

IC: “The overwhelming majority of most citizens lack the full economic education to make informed decisions regarding foreign trade deals. Short of offering degrees in international economics and industry-specific information, how could we possibly offer enough of an education to ensure that the populace is remotely well informed? You ask only for a good faith effort, but no government that has the least bit of interest in maintaining popular support could dare do less than a full education on the topic for fear of the people scuttling it with half-baked notions.”

Likewise, nations must publicize instances in which national or subnational laws and practices are overturned by the WATC, IMF, or any other supra- or international body;

OOC: Aren’t WA happenings already public? I know resolutions almost have to be, but regulatory agencies, too? Interesting question for the higher-ups I guess.

3. Forbids member nations from retaliating (diplomatically, economically, militarily, or otherwise) against a nation for voting down a treaty;

“What constitutes retaliation? Does forming an identical treaty with an ideological or cultural opponent count? It may not be obvious retaliation, but supporting an enemy, especially one with a longstanding historical animosity would be questionable.”
OOC: Like if the US magically decided to piss off South Korea by trading with North Korea.

5. Mandates that the government follow the results of the referendum to ratify or not ratify the treaty in question; and

“Regardless of whether that actually benefits the people, huh?”

6. Forbids nations from including or agreeing to clauses or provisions in any trade pact that are kept secret from the public.

“How does this relate to confidential, proprietary, or trade secret deals?

“Your Excellency, I cannot help but feel that this unnecessarily skews the balance of discretion in governments to the people. While I generally have no problem handing more power to the people, there are absolutely highly specialized fields that demand authority be rested on those with proper experience, knowledge, and clearance. This is akin to adding a jury to a brain surgery.

“I also feel that this places an incredibly difficult burden on non-democratic states. While I personally revile such forms of government, the Secretariat does require that we take pains to play nice. That will be a terrible political burden this will have to struggle against, as it will assuredly merit aggressive resistance from any nondemocratic member.”

[Imperium Anglorum]

PARSONS: The populace doesn't know how to evaluate trade deals. The point of constitutional government in democratic countries is to restrain populism, not empower it. This here simply appears, to me, an attempt to force states to make their decisions based on the opinions of those least in any place to make a decision.

[Calladan]

While I have the utmost respect for the citizens of my nation, as does my Tri-Arch and the rest of my government, there can be no denying that there are some of them that might not have the knowledge required to grasp the ins and outs of international trade, international diplomacy and the ins and outs of a 300 to 400 page treaty written in the most legal and technical language imaginable.

I am a fairly well educated woman (my Tri-Arch would not have appointed me otherwise) and sometimes I struggle to understand the finer and more abstruse points of national and international law).

As a result, I feel that asking every one of my citizens to vote on matters that they have no or little understanding of to be a waste of time, money and resources. Plus it is - quite frankly - patronising and insulting to the people of my nation to pretend I am asking for their considered opinion on a topic that a fair number of them will have no clue about, other than "We hate Genovian's so we're voting against this" -- that is no way to run a civilised country and neither I nor my Tri-Arch will let Calladan descend to that level.

In addition, the fact that local political squabbles will be brought to bear on matters of national importance is also just utter lunacy and not one I can countenance taking place.

Consequently Calladan will vote against this, and - should it pass - will resign until it is repealed.

Although - based on a plain text reading, all we have to do is put it to a popular vote in a referendum. So if the referendum read read "Do you agree to ratify (said treaty)" and the option was "Yes" or "Of course" then - arguably - we have done our duty under the proposal, wouldn't you say?

[Tinfect]

PARSONS: The populace doesn't know how to evaluate trade deals. The point of constitutional government in democratic countries is to restrain populism, not empower it. This here simply appears, to me, an attempt to force states to make their decisions based on the opinions of those least in any place to make a decision.

"The Imperium is in the decidedly rare position of agreeing with the Delegation of Imperium Anglorum on matters of trade. The average Imperial citizen is not even remotely qualified to make such decisions, lacking both the appropriate education, and the required information, to make any such decision with a degree of competency."

WARY of the uniquely rampant potential for abuse of trade pacts by shady private interests;
VIGILANT against the subversion of greater national interests by minority profit motives; and
ENRAGED by well-documented examples of democratically enacted environmental and labor laws being nullified by corporate puppet "courts;"

"All things that occur primarily in easily-corrupted democratic systems. One wonders why you intend to impose such things on Member-States if you are so 'enraged' by them."

1. Requires that member nations that have signed a trade treaty put the entire treaty to a popular vote, referendum, or plebiscite to ratify it;

"Needless to say, the Imperium will not recognize the legitimacy of any 'referendum'. Such things have never held power within the Imperium, and we see no reason to compromise a system that has proven itself ideal over the past centuries, simply to allow for the unqualified to make decisions of national import."

2. Requires member nations to make a good faith effort to accurately inform their people about the particulars of any contemplated treaty during the drafting and negotiation process; most especially where there is a possibility that the treaty will require changes to the nation's laws, executive practices, or judicial procedures;

"This clause applies equally to all such agreements, not merely those relating to trade. While the Imperium understands the purpose of this clause, the Imperium must point out that there are entirely legitimate reasons to obscure negotiations or terms from the public, at least until the final agreement is struck. One would not wish to cause riots in the streets due to an easily misinterpreted clause in a simple, early draft that would undoubtedly be rectified in later ones."

3. Forbids member nations from retaliating (diplomatically, economically, militarily, or otherwise) against a nation for voting down a treaty;

"Again, Ambassador, this appears to refer to all such agreements, not merely those relating to trade. A government refusing an agreement for their surrender should not be protected from the continuation of the war effort."

5. Mandates that the government follow the results of the referendum to ratify or not ratify the treaty in question;

"The Imperium considers this to be a blatant attempt to subvert the legitimacy of those Member-States utilizing sensible systems of governance. Through the direct bypass of any established legal system or institution within member-states, enforcing a foolish ideological system without regard for such established systems and institutions, it carefully and intentionally subverts both the government of the Member-State, and the laws of the Secretariat. As such, we cannot, and will not support this, nor any derivatives of it."

OOC:
In case you missed it, the Mods have previously ruled that this sort of thing is okay, way back in that one draft of Sciongrad's. If all it does is subvert the ideology and slowly break down all of its institutions and systems, its okay, just so long as it is technically possible to practice such a system if you resort to ungodly levels of -wank to make it vaguely plausible.

[Kryozerkia]

I presume this is for all non-WA conventions, treaties, accords etc?

[States of Glory WA Office]

Neville: Any particular reason why the preamble, the first clause and the sixth clause deal only with trade treaties when the rest of the proposal deals with all treaties? Also, how would this work for absolute monarchies, representative democracies, dictatorships and God knows how many other systems of government?

[The Greater Siriusian Domain]

Teran Saber: "While the Greater Siriusian Domain commends your intentions and efforts, we sadly cannot support this proposal. It doesn't interact well at all with a large number of government systems, and it is an unfortunate truth that a lot of civilians in many nations lack the necessary knowledge to make trade decisions like this. However, if you were to propose a resolution that simply enforces transparency in trade agreements, then the Confederacy would be 100% willing to support it."

[Hannasea]

"What is a trade treaty?

"This resolution rests on the assumption that there is something particular and unique to 'trade treaties' as opposed to other kinds of treaty - on labor law, environmental law, human rights law, immigration law, and so forth. All of those treaty types could end up having profound effect on people's "livelihood", so I don't even grant the basic premise of the proposal, but let's suppose it is true - it is still going to depend on what qualifies as a trade treaty, and what does not. Does a bilateral investment treaty count? Does a general treaty, such as a war armistice or a recognition of sovereignty, that includes some trade terms, count? Does a treaty on the free movement of labor count, or only on the free movement of goods and services - what if the treaty is on the free movement of all three? Do treaties on currency exchanges, or avoidance of double taxation, or intellectual property law, count?

"This is a case where, irrespective of the merits of subjecting to the treaties to popular vote, having no definition could allow the resolution to veer in the direction of either complete meaninglessness or ridiculous legislative creep.

"For that reason, I'll be advising our office not to support it at this time."

Daniella Russel, MA PhD (who is not an ambassador)
Representing the office of:
Ambassador Brittany Hepburn (who is)
Semi-Permanent Representative to the World Assembly

[Calladan]

"What is a trade treaty?

"This resolution rests on the assumption that there is something particular and unique to 'trade treaties' as opposed to other kinds of treaty - on labor law, environmental law, human rights law, immigration law, and so forth. All of those treaty types could end up having profound effect on people's "livelihood", so I don't even grant the basic premise of the proposal, but let's suppose it is true - it is still going to depend on what qualifies as a trade treaty, and what does not. Does a bilateral investment treaty count? Does a general treaty, such as a war armistice or a recognition of sovereignty, that includes some trade terms, count? Does a treaty on the free movement of labor count, or only on the free movement of goods and services - what if the treaty is on the free movement of all three? Do treaties on currency exchanges, or avoidance of double taxation, or intellectual property law, count?

"This is a case where, irrespective of the merits of subjecting to the treaties to popular vote, having no definition could allow the resolution to veer in the direction of either complete meaninglessness or ridiculous legislative creep.

"For that reason, I'll be advising our office not to support it at this time."

Daniella Russel, MA PhD (who is not an ambassador)
Representing the office of:
Ambassador Brittany Hepburn (who is)
Semi-Permanent Representative to the World Assembly

I think the argument is that most treaties involving trade are between a limited number of countries, and therefore would not involved "world authorities" (such as the WA or other august bodies) and - as such - be subject to less scrutiny, where as labour laws, human rights laws and other such things are more likely to be handled by global organisations (and so be subject to more scrutiny, discussion and debate) and would be unlikely to be negotiated between two countries.

[Sierra Lyricalia]

"Heh. So consensus among non-dictatorial powers is that regular citizens have the wisdom and education to decide who should represent them politically, in the halls of government and to foreign countries... but not to decide whether a trade agreement whose effects must be broken down and analyzed for their benefit, is suitable for their continued livelihood. Sure, that makes sense."

"I've revised the draft to correct our carelessness in not clarifying this affects only trade pacts all the way through; and to give up on the always-ludicrous long shot of imposing FoD with any kind of teeth on autocratic and totalitarian powers. It tends not to work, but you have to try, amirite?"

"Several other changes have been made to hopefully better target the nefarious behavior we're trying to get rid of. I think we've at least partly addressed all of the concerns that you all raised; if we missed anything by all means speak up."

"Except, of course, the near-universal basic skepticism that this is even advisable. Representative governments vary widely, according to voting and counting methods, victory criteria, and... the amount and role of currency spending in political campaigns. Don't worry, I'm not about to try to wrestle that nightmarish swamp! But the point is that trade treaties affect people's livelihood without generally affecting other areas where exclusive government control of policy is clearly necessary; and even the best representative governments are susceptible to being unduly influenced by private interests in those areas, like trade, that don't obviously need government control not to go haywire (or subsidization in order to even work). In other words, you can sign a trade treaty without, I don't know, starting a war; so private companies traditionally have a much easier time influencing government to make trade deals enriching them at the expense of the people, than they do influencing it to pay for ludicrously expensive boondoggles like... uh, engineering giant butterflies to power wind farms during good weather."

"What I'm getting at is that it's too easy for a government to fall prey to the argument that what's good for General Products - or the management team of General Products - is good for the country, without taking all the other ramifications into account; and that if your nation has any confidence at all in its media and propaganda outfits, you shouldn't have any problem educating people about the actual benefits of increased trade. And if that's not good enough for them, then there's a fundamental flaw in the treaty itself, which they oughta be well within their rights to shove back up their bosses' butts."

"I know better than to think this will be universally popular, but I hope we can whittle and craft it down into something a majority finds convincing."

[Separatist Peoples]

"Heh. So consensus among non-dictatorial powers is that regular citizens have the wisdom and education to decide who should represent them politically, in the halls of government and to foreign countries... but not to decide whether a trade agreement whose effects must be broken down and analyzed for their benefit, is suitable for their continued livelihood. Sure, that makes sense."

"It does when their candidates are chosen, in part, because of their experience and familiarity with the extremely complex nature of international diplomacy and large-scale economic considerations. The executive is almost always, in modern politics, given a large degree of discretion when acting in the capacity of a sovereign nation interacting with other sovereign entities. It is the same reason that we use ambassadors instead of merely voting on the best course of action, Your Excellency."

"I've revised the draft to correct our carelessness in not clarifying this affects only trade pacts all the way through; and to give up on the always-ludicrous long shot of imposing FoD with any kind of teeth on autocratic and totalitarian powers. It tends not to work, but you have to try, amirite?"

"That, ambassador, was a legitimate concern based on the breadth of your use of "treaty"."

"Several other changes have been made to hopefully better target the nefarious behavior we're trying to get rid of. I think we've at least partly addressed all of the concerns that you all raised; if we missed anything by all means speak up."

"This still democratizes actions of the nation as a sovereign entity, an action that necessarily complicates the executive powers of an office tasked with foreign interaction. That is still going to be a serious imposition."

"Except, of course, the near-universal basic skepticism that this is even advisable. Representative governments vary widely, according to voting and counting methods, victory criteria, and... the amount and role of currency spending in political campaigns. Don't worry, I'm not about to try to wrestle that nightmarish swamp! But the point is that trade treaties affect people's livelihood without generally affecting other areas where exclusive government control of policy is clearly necessary; and even the best representative governments are susceptible to being unduly influenced by private interests in those areas, like trade, that don't obviously need government control not to go haywire (or subsidization in order to even work). In other words, you can sign a trade treaty without, I don't know, starting a war; so private companies traditionally have a much easier time influencing government to make trade deals enriching them at the expense of the people, than they do influencing it to pay for ludicrously expensive boondoggles like... uh, engineering giant butterflies to power wind farms during good weather."

"What I'm getting at is that it's too easy for a government to fall prey to the argument that what's good for General Products - or the management team of General Products - is good for the country, without taking all the other ramifications into account; and that if your nation has any confidence at all in its media and propaganda outfits, you shouldn't have any problem educating people about the actual benefits of increased trade. And if that's not good enough for them, then there's a fundamental flaw in the treaty itself, which they oughta be well within their rights to shove back up their bosses' butts."

"That's what an election year is generally for, ambassador. A leader is supposed to act in the interest of the country as a whole. Occasionally, that means harming a subset of the nation. Where the line on the appropriateness of that action is drawn is a decision for voters, not the World Assembly, because it varies so greatly from jurisdiction to jurisdiction."

"I know better than to think this will be universally popular, but I hope we can whittle and craft it down into something a majority finds convincing."[/quote]

[Cogoria]

Cogoria reserves the right to trade with other nations as we have always done. This is not an international issue worthy of the WA, it is an issue that should only concern the nations involved in such a deal. Forcing the knowledge of all trade treaties into the public domain could jeopardise national security! What if the treaty was to purchase enriched Uranium, or some such material for weapons programs? Knowledge of such a deal could put such a shipment at risk from terrorist organisations and make keeping secret weapons programs redundant! No, a document such as the one you have proposed can not be allowed, Cogoria's security comes first.

Representative Barishnikov
Cogorian Diplomatic Corps

[Calladan]

"Heh. So consensus among non-dictatorial powers is that regular citizens have the wisdom and education to decide who should represent them politically, in the halls of government and to foreign countries... but not to decide whether a trade agreement whose effects must be broken down and analyzed for their benefit, is suitable for their continued livelihood. Sure, that makes sense."

Actually I was personally appointed by My Tri-Arch. I was not elected to the position of Ambassador at Large, because it is not a political position in the traditional sense of the word - I do not speak for the people of Calladan (directly) but for My Tri-Arch, and for her alone. And while it is assumed that she does represent the people of Calladan (being their elected leader), it is not assumed that she speaks for all of them at once, since not all of them voted for her.

And quite frankly - the politics of a national election are far, far simpler to understand than the ins and outs of a trade negotiation. I have seen some of these treaties and - as I said in my previous post - I am a well educated woman with degrees up the ying-yang, but I am not a lawyer, especially not a trade and business lawyer, and some of the more complex and specific points of these treaties are well beyond my capabilities to understand.

So while I do not wish to be patronising to my fellow citizens, asking them to make a decision about something that they - quite honestly - can not possibly comprehend - is just asking for trouble and is insulting to them.

In addition - if I told you that the Calladan-Genovia trade deal would generate ten thousand dinosaur herding jobs in District 12, but see the entire fish juggling industry (five thousand jobs in your district) move to Genovia with the loss of all those jobs - resulting in you and all your family being put out of work. Would you vote to ratify it, given that it would put you out of work? Despite the fact the new jobs in District 12 will bring in a billion coins to the country and generate a billion more over the next ten years?

To govern is to choose - and the Calladan government is their to make these choices at the behest of the people. If we abdicate that responsibility and let the people make decisions based on partial understanding and incomplete information then we have failed in our duty to govern responsibly and should all be required to resign at once.

I will re-read the draft (I have not done that yet, having just returned from a meeting) but I am not certain I can see a way Calladan can ever come to support it.

[Sierra Lyricalia]

...What if the treaty was to purchase enriched Uranium, or some such material for weapons programs? Knowledge of such a deal could put such a shipment at risk from terrorist organisations and make keeping secret weapons programs redundant!...

"What would happen, Ambassador? What would happen is that those agreements or provisions would be by definition not trade pacts or trade clauses, and therefore not subject to these rules. The security concern with this proposal is completely baseless. Your secret weapons programs are safe."

[Cogoria]

...What if the treaty was to purchase enriched Uranium, or some such material for weapons programs? Knowledge of such a deal could put such a shipment at risk from terrorist organisations and make keeping secret weapons programs redundant!...

"What would happen, Ambassador? What would happen is that those agreements or provisions would be by definition not trade pacts or trade clauses, and therefore not subject to these rules. The security concern with this proposal is completely baseless. Your secret weapons programs are safe."

Those agreements most assuredly would be trade agreements, they would be trades that have been agreed upon. By very definition they would be included in your proposal. If I am trading Cogorian Nerve agents (Which do not exist.....) for enriched Uranium or a supply of heavy water then they would be made public, as Cogoria is not just going to ship WMDs to nations willy nilly, an agreement with terms and other legal jargon would need to be signed. And this is all beside the point, trade is a domestic issue, WA has no place putting it's nose in what me and my partners want to give each other and how we go about it. I dont go making you tell the world what you bought your mother on her birthday or how you went about giving it to her, and I assume you didn't hold an expensive vote over it. The people elect their leaders to represent them on the world stage (well..... In some countries), if you want my nation to hold numerous costly votes for every single treaty then I shall only agree if your nation shall be paying for it.

[Sierra Lyricalia]

"Rep. Barishnikov, I fail to see how trading uranium doesn't have a direct military effect, or how its aim is primarily economic."

OOC: phone + unreliable wifi ate my longish response - I'll hit you back later on...

[Cogoria]

We may concede that argument, in favour of pursuing the more important matter at hand, you fail to present any evidence that this is an internationally important proposal. Trade agreements are between two or more countries, and is the business of the involved parties and them alone. The WA has no place in dictating how a Trade agreement should be carried out.

[Separatist Peoples]

We may concede that argument, in favour of pursuing the more important matter at hand, you fail to present any evidence that this is an internationally important proposal. Trade agreements are between two or more countries, and is the business of the involved parties and them alone. The WA has no place in dictating how a Trade agreement should be carried out.

"The World Assembly absolutely has the subject matter jurisdiction to consider this. Combating corruption and deliberate disenfranchisement of citizens by enacting abusive policies is well within the purview of the World Assembly. Likewise, the issues surrounding international trade treaties are inherently international. The issue is not whether the World Assembly can justify legislation, it is whether this policy is in the best interest of the international community and whether it would accomplish it's ultimate goal of serving the people.

"As the ambassador noted, the prevention of exploitative economic policy is unquestionably compelling in the abstract, but this delegation's is not satisfied by the assertion of abstract interests. Broad prophylactic solutions that fail to respond precisely to the substantive problem which legitimately concerns the World Assembly cannot be allowed to dictate policy without otherwise exhausting all other appropriate remedies, and even then, perhaps not at all. If the issue of corruption at the highest level of political office must be broached by the Assembly, and indeed it should, it must be done in a prudent and carefully narrowed manner."

[Tinfect]

EXCITED about the benefits to innovation and quality of life that stem from increased trade, especially trade stemming from WA-mandated negotiations; yet

"Yes... because requiring a State with no intentions of opening its markets to foreign meddling to repeatedly reiterate this fact so as to not be roped into some nonsensical agreement is surely beneficial to all involved."

VIGILANT against the subversion of greater national interests by minority profit motives; and

"And yet, here we are."

2. Requires that member nations that hold political elections or voter initiatives put any newly-signed trade pact to a popular vote, referendum, or plebiscite to ratify it;

"The Imperium continues to see no reason to allow the unqualified masses to make decisions of such importance. Quite honestly, Ambassador, the Citizenry is neither prepared, nor qualified, to be making any such decisions."

7. Mandates that the government follow the results of the referendum to ratify or not ratify the trade pact in question; and

"The Imperium maintains its position that this draft is a clear and obvious attempt to subvert and undermine the legitimate governments of Member-States. It is not the place of the World Assembly to sponsor subversion and sedition within Member-States."

[States of Glory WA Office]

"Heh. So consensus among non-dictatorial powers is that regular citizens have the wisdom and education to decide who should represent them politically, in the halls of government and to foreign countries... but not to decide whether a trade agreement whose effects must be broken down and analyzed for their benefit, is suitable for their continued livelihood. Sure, that makes sense."

Neville: If the people decide all the laws, what's the point of elected representatives?

Fairburn: Ambassador Zakalwe, we would like to ask you a sincere question: Did you wake up on the wrong side of the bed this morning?