[PASSED] Repeal "Ethics in International Trade"

[Separatist Peoples]

Total support! To hell with ethics in trade!!

I fully endorse but one question. Will a 2nd bill be submitted that levels the playing field, bans tariffs etc? Or will the repeal of this bill do that?

No such bill is currently being drafter, ambassador, though I'm sure we will end up seeing one. Repeals cannot add laws, they only remove an existing law. I hope that helps.

[Sciongrad]

You still have my full support in this endeavor.

Total support! To hell with ethics in trade!!

We are humbled by your Excellencies' support in our fight against this economically insidious excuse for a resolution.

I fully endorse but one question. Will a 2nd bill be submitted that levels the playing field, bans tariffs etc? Or will the repeal of this bill do that?

This proposal in particular is focused on simply the repeal, and that's all it can do. A replacement is not necessary by any stretch of the imagination, but I do have an anti-protectionist proposal that was created in conjunction with this one, although I'm unsure as to whether or not I'll proceed with it.

[Sciongrad]

I had initially forgotten to include some suggestions by his Excellency Eberhart of Mousebumples, and so I've incorporated most of them into the current draft.

[The Dark Star Republic]

"I think you should consider adding #23, Ban on Slavery and Trafficking, to the laundry list of past resolutions. That resolution is relevant for two reasons. First, it bans forced labour and human trafficking. And second, it mandates an embargo and divestment campaign on goods produced through such means, and thus, I would argue, would prevent any sudden influx of goods thus produced into the WA even were Ethics... repealed."

~ Ambassador to the WA Inky Fungschlammer

[The Dourian Embassy]

I don't know if I've mentioned this yet, but I obviously support.

[Rotwood]

A bit unsure at this time, but this sticks out:

NOTING GAR#118, in relevant part:

"1. Imposes an ethical and ad valorem tariff on any imported good that features one or several of the following criteria:

Said imported goods were manufactured, recovered or generated by those (excluding non-sentient employees, ex. Automata) who do not have,

1.b) An entitlement to,

Clean water, sanitation and/or nutrition;"

SHOCKED that the use of the phrase "and/or" allows workplaces to selectively choose which of the three aforementioned entitlements it will provide to its workers, and that only providing one of the three cannot result in the imposition of a tariff, thus removing what little value the original resolution had,

How?

The term and/or does not give a choice. It effectively means that if one, a combination of two or all three of those are not met, the tariff gets put in place, there is no selection about it.

[Sciongrad]

A bit unsure at this time, but this sticks out:
How?

The term and/or does not give a choice. It effectively means that if one, a combination of two or all three of those are not met, the tariff gets put in place, there is no selection about it.

This was an unfortunate misread on our part, as we read it as workplaces being required to provide those entitlements others they would receive a tariff, not the providing of them being conditional upon not receiving the tariff. I appreciate your Excellency's observation, and will rectify this immediately.

[Sciongrad]

This has been submitted and can be approved here!

[Mousebumples]

APPROVED!

Also:

[Sciongrad]

We're quorate, folks!

[Dai Coon Ree]

*Ambassador Gor Al'ethrim raises*

"Ehtics in Trade? Ethics in...? Ethics there? Shamada shamada...! You trade honestly you pay honestly? You abuse one of such? You not longer trade anything? How ridiculous is it to even think about to define such? Dont we have more important things to consider as to define how to Trade?"

*he sits down wondering when they start to talk about how to breath...*

[Normlpeople]

Courtesy bump to the top, as this is now at vote.

Edit: After careful deliberation, we have decided to lend our support to this repeal. Voted for.

[Defwa]

Defwa vehemently protests, with what little power it has to do so.

EIT Tariffs have been the only thing preventing mass counterfeiting of our products by less scrupulous nations with more manufacturing power.
The fact that EIT Tariffs do not effect nonWA nations is meaningless as are the mentioned GARs.

The point of EIT is to prevent WA members from purchasing goods from nonWA nations with unsatisfactory employee conditions. The GARs mentioned do not effect those nonmember nations and the EIT Tariff is a perfect solution to that gap. It even covers situations in which nations or companies refuse to have their working conditions investigated by installing tariffs based on that resistance. Either they participate or they're made completely uncompetitive.

[Draica]

Ambassador Edward Tung claps vigourosly

"The Republic of Draica, while it believes in protecting it's jobs, goods, and services from harm, also believes in protecting the consumer and the business owner from harm. The Ethics in International Trade act puts crushing restrictions on businesses, preventing them from expanding. We need more growth, not less. Less regulation, less Government, not more. This is why my Government has directed me to vote FOR this purposal to strike this act down, FOREVER. And I gladly shall comply."

[New Alderaan-Coruscant]

Just a quick question... if we vote FOR this, then we repeal mandatory acceptance of Issues with regard to ethics in International Trade, such as...

GAR#4, "Restrictions on Child Labor," GAR#7, "Workplace Safety Standards Act," GAR#21, "Living Wage Act," GAR#23, "Ban on Slavery and Trafficking," GAR#43, "WA Labor Relations Act," GAR#107, "Clean Water Act," GAR#176, "Disability Welfare Act," and GAR#234, "Freedom to Read and Learn,"

So we can still choose to do this as an individual nation and as such, choose to do business whom we feel also has "ethichs" in our own, individual definitions... we are just simply repealing mandated acceptance?

[Bears Armed]

Just a quick question... if we vote FOR this, then we repeal mandatory acceptance of Issues with regard to ethics in International Trade, such as...

GAR#4, "Restrictions on Child Labor," GAR#7, "Workplace Safety Standards Act," GAR#21, "Living Wage Act," GAR#23, "Ban on Slavery and Trafficking," GAR#43, "WA Labor Relations Act," GAR#107, "Clean Water Act," GAR#176, "Disability Welfare Act," and GAR#234, "Freedom to Read and Learn,"

So we can still choose to do this as an individual nation and as such, choose to do business whom we feel also has "ethichs" in our own, individual definitions... we are just simply repealing mandated acceptance?

That's right.

[Bananaistan]

The Republic of Bananaistan stands resolutely against this proposal and we urge all other socially minded nations to also reject this repeal. We are deeply concerned about the effect that repealing this motion may have on the labour force in non member nations which are, of course, not subject to the list of resolutions outlined in this resolution but whose produce could be subject to a tariff in all member nations if the conditions of employment are not sufficient to meet the demands of the target resolution. Owners of sweatshops in non member nations will be rubbing their hands with glee at the prospect of the new markets now opening up to them. Shame on all who are voting in favour of this monstrosity.

We reject this attempt at economic liberalisation at the expense of workers in non member nations just so people in some member nations can now buy slave labour produce more cheaply. We hope that most member nations will restrict imports of produce from non member nations where that produce is not produced through ethical and fair treatment of workers and should this motion pass we will look at drafting a replacement to achieve these aims of forcing producers of all goods sold in WA members to treat their workers fairly.

[Sciongrad]

The Republic of Bananaistan stands resolutely against this proposal and we urge all other socially minded nations to also reject this repeal. We are deeply concerned about the effect that repealing this motion may have on the labour force in non member nations which are, of course, not subject to the list of resolutions outlined in this resolution but whose produce could be subject to a tariff in all member nations if the conditions of employment are not sufficient to meet the demands of the target resolution. Owners of sweatshops in non member nations will be rubbing their hands with glee at the prospect of the new markets now opening up to them. Shame on all who are voting in favour of this monstrosity.

We reject this attempt at economic liberalisation at the expense of workers in non member nations just so people in some member nations can now buy slave labour produce more cheaply. We hope that most member nations will restrict imports of produce from non member nations where that produce is not produced through ethical and fair treatment of workers and should this motion pass we will look at drafting a replacement to achieve these aims of forcing producers of all goods sold in WA members to treat their workers fairly.

While I can appreciate your idealism, your notion of the resolution's actual impact is quixotic. In the repeal itself, it is detailed as to why non-member nations are not accurately or fairly impacted by this resolution - a non-member nation cannot be compelled to open its businesses up for investigation by the ITA, therefore, there is no accurate way for the ITA to assess labor conditions in non-member states. The argument in the repeal is not that sweatshop owners and first world consumers of member nations should gain at the expense of oppressed laborers in non-member nations, but that the ITA cannot properly account for those laborers given the scope of the WA, and therefore, this particular avenue of preventing trade with "unethical" businesses is not effective.

Any proposed replacement that seeks to resolve the issues you brought up that uses internationally imposed protectionism by a quasi-judicial bureaucracy will be met with fierce counter-campaigning, and, if need be, another repeal attempt.

[Bananaistan]

While I can appreciate your idealism, your notion of the resolution's actual impact is quixotic. In the repeal itself, it is detailed as to why non-member nations are not accurately or fairly impacted by this resolution - a non-member nation cannot be compelled to open its businesses up for investigation by the ITA, therefore, there is no accurate way for the ITA to assess labor conditions in non-member states. The argument in the repeal is not that sweatshop owners and first world consumers of member nations should gain at the expense of oppressed laborers in non-member nations, but that the ITA cannot properly account for those laborers given the scope of the WA, and therefore, this particular avenue of preventing trade with "unethical" businesses is not effective.

Any proposed replacement that seeks to resolve the issues you brought up that uses internationally imposed protectionism by a quasi-judicial bureaucracy will be met with fierce counter-campaigning, and, if need be, another repeal attempt.

We do not see how no accurate assessment equals no tariff. We would think that no accurate assessment would automatically lead to the highest possible tariff. Our line of thinking for a replacement would seek to only impose tariffs on produce imported from outside the WA where the ITA is not permitted to assess the labour conditions or where they have assessed the labour conditions and found that they come up short.

The argument in the repeal is irrelevant. A material fact of the lifting of the target resolution is that "sweatshop" producers from outside the WA may well be able to sell into WA members with no tariff or any other restriction. If it walks like a duck and talks like a duck, it probably is a duck. In fact your strong reaction in your last paragraph seems to indicate that you simply want to buy cheap trainers.

We also have no interest in promoting protectionism nor have we formed an opinion on specifically fighting it and replacement we would propose, like the target resolution, would be neutral on protectionism in the normal course of business.

[Draica]

I am flabbergasted that the nations not oppose this for the core, fundamental principle that Draica fights to protect: Businesses and job creation. These tarrifs hurt businesses and hurt jobs. Would the drafter of this resolution not agree?

[The Saint James Islands]

"For future reference, we are voting AGAINST only because we are obligated to vote with our region's majority. We have no significant interest in whether this resolution is carried or not and would have abstained otherwise, though we would be passionately and steadfastly against any planned anti-protectionist bills in this Assembly."

[FreedomsLands]

This resolution is despicable, misguided, and will have lasting implications that extend far beyond what the issuing nation took into account. We, with all force we can muster, CONDEMN it! It serves as a facilitator for further promotion of unbridled corporate domination of the markets, at the expense of the poor, the disenfranchised and goes against the very principles this Body was founded on. We exist to serve our people, and to do so, we must impose tariffs on less-than morally created commodities and by doing so, we promote capitalism, we promote free but fair market practices, and we uphold the honor of the institution we are all apart of!

We would implore you to reconsider your vote on the current WA General Assembly Bill if you affirmed it or vote nay should you still be undecided. Our Parliament has today issued a proclamation expressing strong dismay with the proposing government for its egregious disregard of the importance of ethical international trade. It is important to recognize that we, as a society, must disincentivize cruel labor practices and that some market regulation is necessary to strike out abhorrent conditions and de facto praise of "blood products." We understand the stringency of the policies but firmly believe they are necessary to sustaining a healthy, moral business environment. This Repeal motion mislabels the original bill as protectionist, rather than for what it is - a move to stamp out evil labor practices and create an unbiased commission to effectively oversee the implementation of the instruments by which this becomes a reality. We recognize that the existing bureaucracy is less than perfect, but we would like to see it improved, not done away with.

FreedomsLands Ambassador to the World Assembly:
Kerin Yarshnikov

[Deterria]

We vote to see this come to pass.

The markets must remain free! No tariffs just because someone is a bit 'morally questionable' in the means that they produce their goods.

[Mousebumples]

Very much in favor, and quite pleased to see this passing by such a large margin.

[Voltzenkrad]

How did this pass in the first place?