[Passed] Repeal "International Competition Law"

[Christian Democrats]

How are "the methods of regulation tasked to the International Trade Administration . . . excessively cumbersome"?

The ITA was tasked with monitoring every single multinational business and approving every single international merger. I'm not saying this to be mean or catty, but did you read the original resolution?

I always reread the original resolution before voting on a repeal proposal. I did not think that provision was that cumbersome.

The point, though, is that we don't know what these practices could be, so we should keep the avenues open, so to speak.

I am more hesitant to support a proposal with an unclear mandate.

It's not necessary for the World Assembly to be directly involved in monitoring individual corporations, or approving individual mergers. Those things are already done domestically.

Says who? I am sure a considerable number of member states neither monitor corporations nor approve corporate mergers. This includes countries with laissez-faire economies as well as countries that lack the state capacity to regulate the economic activities of multinational corporations.

[Preconstitutional Utopia]

Esteemed fellow delegates,

while I agree with the author of the resolution that "International Competition Law" didn''t turn out as effective as hoped, I 'd rather like to see it replaced directly with something more effective. Until then, I see no reason to repeal the old resolution. Even if there is something new and better in the works, it's anything but certain that a new and better resolution would pass in the current WA which has grown substantially in numbers since the passing of the original resolution. Today many deligates seem to be opposed to anything that might be used to regulate the market or might effect their business at home.

The Federal Republic of Preconstitutional Utopia wold rather have at least some concerns on the international market addressed (even if the regulation is inefficent) than having a more or less unregulated international market.

Until a resolution, that addresses international competition better, is at vote, we have to vote AGAINST the repeal.

[The Akashic Records]

Until a resolution, that addresses international competition better, is at vote, we have to vote AGAINST the repeal.

I'm sorry, but did you read the debate? The replacement can be found here.

[Preconstitutional Utopia]

I'm sorry, but did you read the debate? The replacement can be found here.

I'm aware of the replacement draft, I'm just not to sure it stands a chance in the WA. I'd rather have an additional resolution which addresses concerns that the old resolution failed to, instead of repealing the old resolution first and hoping and praying, that we can agree on a replacement in the near future.

The current replacement draft seems to be rather mild compared to the old resolution.

[The Akashic Records]

I'm aware of the replacement draft, I'm just not to sure it stands a chance in the WA. I'd rather have an additional resolution which addresses concerns that the old resolution failed to, instead of repealing the old resolution first and hoping and praying, that we can agree on a replacement in the near future.

The current replacement draft seems to be rather mild compared to the old resolution.

As for why a repeal needs to be made first, we shall point our esteemed colleague in the general direction.

[...]
Amendments

You can't amend Resolutions. Period. You can't add on, you can't adjust, you can't edit. If you want to change an existing Resolution, you have to Repeal it first.

House of Cards

"RECALLING Resolutions #48, #80, #92, and #103..."

If those Resolutions are repealed, you've gutted the base of your own Resolution. A Proposal must be able to stand on its own even if all referenced Resolutions were struck from existence; however, you may assign duties to an existing committee. Should the Resolution that creates the committee be Repealed, the committee will continue to exist, but in a reduced capacity. If your Proposal "builds on" an existing Resolution, you're amending that resolution. Excessive back referencing is not acceptable either. Create a new Proposal, don't just parrot existing ones. (see: Duplication)
[...]
Duplication

If the majority of your Proposal is covered by an existing Resolution, your Proposal is toast. We've got enough of these things already, we don't need to double up (i.e. the WA has already banned landmines, we don't need to do it again). As an aside, since the WA has already banned biological weapons, you don't need to include it in your Proposal to ban nuclear and chemical ones. (see: House of Cards)[...]

[Retired WerePenguins]

After giving this repeal some thought and after glancing at the replacement - we have decided to vote for this repeal.

We do have one comment on the debate, however.

The ITA was tasked with monitoring every single multinational business and approving every single international merger. I'm not saying this to be mean or catty, but did you read the original resolution?

I always reread the original resolution before voting on a repeal proposal. I did not think that provision was that cumbersome.

As the current stat block states, "The World Assembly has 20,323 member nations." All international mergers that involve any of those nations have to go before the committee for investigation and approval. That appears to be excessively cumbersome to me.

[Glen-Rhodes]

I am more hesitant to support a proposal with an unclear mandate.

It's impossible to regulate specific practices that nobody has thought up yet.

[Leutria]

While I will admit the old resolution is a bit too specific I find the replacement far to vague and weak. As such I have changed my vote to against. I much prefer the old one which banned specific things, verses the new one which only requires investigations, merely encouraging and recommending everything else.

[Ranseur]

Supreme Executive Jack Rage steps up to the podium bedecked in a suit made of fibers of woven platinum, with studded diamond cufflinks, pearl buttons, and a ruby-studded tie.

"Stocks are great! Due to this WA measure passing, Ranseur stocks will be more lucrative than ever. Thanks to our foreign investment designs, freeing up the competitive markets will make us all richer than ever... well... except of course for the third world markets. Of course, the skills services market could use more investments. I say that if we want to go all the way, we ban lower wages for outsourced jobs. Then we'll raise the value of all money, especially the Ranseur Bullet. We can get rid of some of this horrid inflation, raise wages for the lower class, thus expanding the middle class and furthering to cement this high standard of living we are enjoying."

[Free South Califas]

I'm sorry, but did you read the debate? The replacement can be found here.

I'm aware of the replacement draft, I'm just not to sure it stands a chance in the WA. I'd rather have an additional resolution which addresses concerns that the old resolution failed to, instead of repealing the old resolution first and hoping and praying, that we can agree on a replacement in the near future.

The current replacement draft seems to be rather mild compared to the old resolution.

But shouldn't that mean it has a good chance to pass in the WA? As of yet, it doesn't even require good-faith policies against anti-competitive practices. That part is still being hammered out - you can ask it to be added if you want (G-R left the possibility open). That being said, while it may be "mild" in one sense, it is also much broader, covering a wider range of practices. That shouldn't affect its ability to pass, I'd think, but also helps bolster the legislation itself.

[The Dourian Embassy]

This has passed.

[Free South Califas]

Many congratulations, Dourian and Glen-Rhodes delegations.

(OOC: oops sorry...didn't want to put teh cart before the horse there, also see "note" spoiler in sig.)

[Glen-Rhodes]

Many congratulations, Dourian(s).

Oh I see how it is.

[Omigodtheykilledkenny]

Congratulations, Glen-Rhodes. See you in a couple weeks, when I oppose your ill-advised and unnecessary replacement.

[Glen-Rhodes]

Congratulations, Glen-Rhodes. See you in a couple weeks, when I oppose your ill-advised and unnecessary replacement.

Have I developed a reputation for taking an ungodly amount of time to draft proposals? I'm going to slap a preamble on the replacement, put out an RFC for a few days, and send it on its merry way. That's my intention, at least!

[Araraukar]

That's my intention, at least!

And now that you jinxed it, just watch your computer/internet connection/whatever you can think of to blow up tomorrow.