[PASSED] Stock Exchanges and Foreign Investment

[Narbone]

We, in Narbone, do not believe in the need of such an resolution as it will limit our power over our borders and commerce, thus we vote against.

[Europe and Oceania]

We voted against this.

[Wallenburg]

"The problem, Ambassador Zakalwe, is that this committee has the power 'to develop, maintain, and publish a model code of securities regulations'. Member states have no influence over what regulations this committee introduces. The resolution grants it free reign to design whatever laws it sees fit."

OOC: This is still Ogenbond, for the moment.

Markwardt: Sir, I do realise that not everyone has legal education, but perhaps you should look up what a model code of law is. A model code is a code that is developed by an institution independent of the institution that has the jurisdiction to implement it, in this case the legislative branch of each WA member. By stating it as such, the committee admits it cannot force its code upon any member.

"No such definition of 'model code' exists, Ambassador. My point stands."

[Chus Kruthe]

"We vote against this resolution and urge other members to do likewise. We take particular issue with the phrasing of Article 2, which seems to have no force what so ever yet attempts to grant waivers to its requirements.
Specifically it states (I spoiler tagged the cited portion for reading ease):

"Recommends that all stock exchanges headquartered within a member state be open to the citizens of any World Assembly member state unless this section is:

waived between the investors and exchanges of nations engaged in a direct military conflict, embargo, or as part of sanctions, or

waived for any specific individual or group that has been found guilty of a crime related to the buying and/or selling of securities or any individual or group found guilty of a crime that was facilitated by the buying and/or selling of securities;

waived for any specific individual or group that has violated WA legislation"

How can you provide a wavier from a recommendation, under this article there is no obligation for nations to open their stock exchanges to citizens of members states, we can just choose not to follow that recommendation and thus there is no need for a waiver. This seems to be a major hole in the legislation and frankly makes the entire proposal very weak as a large portion of what it sets out to do can frankly be ignored as it is phrased merely as a recommendation. This proposal seems to mostly be full of recommendations which members can simply ignore and choose not to act on. Mostly it just defines terms which is important but everything else in it is almost completely optional. "

[Enternetia]

"We En, in the spirit of internationalism alongside our socialist allies of the Bloc, completely object to this resolution. It serves only to place the stifled workers of the world more at the mercy of the capitalist class. Furthermore, we state that capitalists cannot be trusted to follow through with article 2. subsection b & c of this resolution."

[Wealthatonia]

*Ambassador Rockefeller returns from vacation and looks at the current resolution*

"Yes, fuck yes all the yes!"

[Willania Imperium]

*Reads through resolution*
You've got my vote.

[Nativista]

Zachary sits there, thinking. He gets a cup of coffee and sips it. "I reckon I dunno what to say. Nativista needs more economic freedom, not less. Our economy's purdy darned terrible as is, and I reckon we can't risk laws bein' passed dat limit growth any more den previous economic decisions have."

[Kraljevina Gabrija]

If this law is accepted, how will affect countries with lower GDP?
10-30m people?

[Vaflunia]

The Government of Vaflunia and the leftypol delegation strongly opposes this poor resolution.

[Covenstone]

The Government of Vaflunia and the leftypol delegation strongly opposes this poor resolution.

Why?

[Kraljevina Gabrija]

The Government of Vaflunia and the leftypol delegation strongly opposes this poor resolution.

This law is the death of anti capitalism ???

[Vaflunia]

The Government of Vaflunia and the leftypol delegation strongly opposes this poor resolution.

Why?

We see the benefits of this resolution as only temporary and it would hurt the workers of our country and our region in general. This resolution would only benefit our 1%. In addition, article 2 will not be followed by economic elites and nations that are ran by capitalism

[Secundus Imperium Romanum]

We see the benefits of this resolution as only temporary and it would hurt the workers of our country and our region in general. This resolution would only benefit our 1%. In addition, article 2 will not be followed by economic elites and nations that are ran by capitalism

Giulia Maccini: Is it not better to combat social inequality rather than to vote against mercantilist laws?

[Covenstone]

Why?

We see the benefits of this resolution as only temporary and it would hurt the workers of our country and our region in general. This resolution would only benefit our 1%. In addition, article 2 will not be followed by economic elites and nations that are ran by capitalism

I disagree. Anyone can trade on stock and currency exchanges (criminal laws aside), not just the ludicrously rich. In addition, most company pensions and such like are generally funded via stock markets and the like, so opening up national ones (if a nation so desires) would increase those as well.

[The Neo-Barons]

The more I read the writing of this resolution...the more I hated it.

These barriers exist for a reason and that is to help preserve the sovereignty of nations or the people therein. In other words to keep them out of the entanglement of outside investors or influence from foreign nations that have no appreciation for culture. Our citizens will not stand for such a measure and risk having jobs lost to other countries through such means.

I think this will foster unnecessary competition within my own country from those that have no interest in the stability of my nation and the Barons of my state will not have it.

[New Jaedonstan]

"Honorable members of the General Assembly I wish to present the following draft before you for your feedback on the legality and content of this proposal," said Mr. Xavier before presenting his proposal to the Assembly.

Stock Exchanges and Foreign Investment
Category: Free Trade
Strength: Mild

Recognizing that stock exchanges provide corporations and governments the ability to raise funds,

Further recognizing that there is a significant amount of capital that could be invested outside of any given country’s borders,

Also noting that nations which have invested in the economies of other nations are less likely to enter an armed conflict,

Acknowledging that there are certain barriers, like exchange rates, to international investment,

Believing that foreign investment provides a way for corporations and governments to raise more funds than may have been previously available to them, hereby:

1. Defines, for the purposes of this resolution,
   
   1. 'stock' as a portion of ownership in a corporation,
   2. 'bond' as a certificate showing the ownership of a specific amount of debt to be paid back, with interest, at a later date specified at the time the bond was bought,
   3. 'tradable derivative' as a tradable contract, which derives value from specific currencies, commodities or stocks,
   4. 'security' as a document, be it physical or otherwise, attesting to the ownership of stocks, bonds, or a tradable derivative,
   5. 'stock exchange' as a platform, be it physical or otherwise, on which securities are bought and sold, and
2. Recommends that all stock exchanges headquartered within a member state shall be open to the citizens of any World Assembly member state unless this section is:
   
   1. waived between the investors and exchanges of nations engaged in a direct military conflict, embargo, or as part of sanctions, or
   2. waived for any specific individual or group that has been found guilty of a crime related to the buying and/or selling of securities or any individual or group found guilty of a crime that was facilitated by the buying and/or selling of securities;
   3. waived for any specific individual or group that has violated WA legislation
3. Establishes the International Securities and Exchange Commission (ISEC) to develop, maintain, and publish a model code of securities regulations, which may act as a guide for member state governments;
   
   
4. Empowers the ISEC to regulate the exchanges on which currencies are traded to prevent artificial manipulation of the exchange rate and to ensure that these exchanges operate without bias toward the citizens of any one nation.
   
   
5. Reserves the right for member states to implement whatever regulations they see fit on domestic exchanges, within the confines of current WA legislation.

I think it would be better if you changed "recommends" to something a little stronger because that doesn't seem like a command. You say that nations could have opportunities to invest outside of their immediate vicinity. What is keeping them from doing so?

Also noting that nations which have invested in the economies of other nations are less likely to enter an armed conflict,

This is not necessarily true. Nations with large economies will be able to support and fund a campaign a lot more easy than a weak nation.

Acknowledging that there are certain barriers, like exchange rates, to international investment,

Two things, you don't really address this problem anywhere else. In fact, you don't even address it as a problem, so why include it? Second: so you would advocate that an international body tear down laws that nations have put in place, either for their own or their people's protection?

Believing that foreign investment provides a way for corporations and governments to raise more funds than may have been previously available to them, hereby

It could also drain funds as well.

[United Christian]

Of the many over steps by the World Assembly, this takes the cake. You can't force companies and nations to open economic ties with others simply because the don't hate each other. If this passes, and it looks like it will I'll be campaigning and supporting any repeal measure.

[Bananaistan]

OOC: Hmmm, shame that I've stopped paying attention (and that I'm no longer inclined to lodge any legality challenges, particularly against noobs), but how is this a free trade proposal? Forcing (recommended) regulations on businesses does not enhance free trade nor eliminate barriers to trading. Also clause 4 is a contradiction of GAR#68.

But meh, I cba doing anything about it and I wish the repeal author well.

[New Jaedonstan]

Of the many over steps by the World Assembly, this takes the cake. You can't force companies and nations to open economic ties with others simply because the don't hate each other. If this passes, and it looks like it will I'll be campaigning and supporting any repeal measure.

I will hopefully be getting out a repeal soon.

[Covenstone]

Well this proposal has given me more reason to be depressed about The World Assembly. Not because it overreaches its power, but because its members cannot, apparently, read.

This proposal recommends you open your stock exchanges and currency markets to foreign investors, and if you do requires you to abide by the decision of an independent agency.

No where within it does it FORCE you to open your markets, impose ANY rules or regulations upon you or MAKE you implement the guidelines for transactions that it sets up.

And if you are going to launch a repeal because you think it does ANY of those things, then you really should read it again, or get someone with a greater degree of reading comprehension to read it to you.

[Wealthatonia]

Well this proposal has given me more reason to be depressed about The World Assembly. Not because it overreaches its power, but because its members cannot, apparently, read.

This proposal recommends you open your stock exchanges and currency markets to foreign investors, and if you do requires you to abide by the decision of an independent agency.

No where within it does it FORCE you to open your markets, impose ANY rules or regulations upon you or MAKE you implement the guidelines for transactions that it sets up.

And if you are going to launch a repeal because you think it does ANY of those things, then you really should read it again, or get someone with a greater degree of reading comprehension to read it to you.

Just because you oppose it does not mean people can't read. I hope you don't mind if I buy majority stock in your markets when this passes

[Wealthatonia]

I love the salt that those who oppose this have.

Wealthatonian Businessmen look forward to buying stock

[United Christian]

Well this proposal has given me more reason to be depressed about The World Assembly. Not because it overreaches its power, but because its members cannot, apparently, read.

This proposal recommends you open your stock exchanges and currency markets to foreign investors, and if you do requires you to abide by the decision of an independent agency.

No where within it does it FORCE you to open your markets, impose ANY rules or regulations upon you or MAKE you implement the guidelines for transactions that it sets up.

And if you are going to launch a repeal because you think it does ANY of those things, then you really should read it again, or get someone with a greater degree of reading comprehension to read it to you.

Okay I raise you this, during the original read. The one I personally read it said mandates. Which they then changed to recommend. Okay great you are no longer infringing on my economic sovereignty so now the question is begged why is this section still in the bill. If it was about creating a central organization regulating exchanges I'm all for it. But again that entire section as far as my political mind is concerned, I've written, edited and worked with politicians on many bills on the state level, has two fates. First being the language is strengthened which is a sovereignty issue and call for instant repeal. Secondly the section regarding it is completely removed which makes the most sense.

[United Federated States of Omega]

Well this proposal has given me more reason to be depressed about The World Assembly. Not because it overreaches its power, but because its members cannot, apparently, read.

This proposal recommends you open your stock exchanges and currency markets to foreign investors, and if you do requires you to abide by the decision of an independent agency.

No where within it does it FORCE you to open your markets, impose ANY rules or regulations upon you or MAKE you implement the guidelines for transactions that it sets up.

And if you are going to launch a repeal because you think it does ANY of those things, then you really should read it again, or get someone with a greater degree of reading comprehension to read it to you.

Okay I raise you this, during the original read. The one I personally read it said mandates. Which they then changed to recommend. Okay great you are no longer infringing on my economic sovereignty so now the question is begged why is this section still in the bill. If it was about creating a central organization regulating exchanges I'm all for it. But again that entire section as far as my political mind is concerned, I've written, edited and worked with politicians on many bills on the state level, has two fates. First being the language is strengthened which is a sovereignty issue and call for instant repeal. Secondly the section regarding it is completely removed which makes the most sense.

The section is still in the proposal because we are still recommending that nations open their exchanges we just are not mandating it. I don't think it is such a bad thing for the GA to recommend something to nations. Also because that section was made into a reccomendation the strength was lowered to mild.
The section on the ISEC is there to try to make currency exchanges fairer and to help nations with developing their securities regulations by publishing a model code of regulations.
Edit: Someone also brought up that this contradicts GAR 68 however since this does not restrict commerce in any way I see no contradiction.