[DEFEATED] Standards for International Road Freight

[Maowi]

OOC: Why is that your intention? And I don't think it sounds like it only affects vehicles travelling from non-member nations into member nations. Am I missing something here?

OOC: Hold on, I clearly can’t read. That’s not the intention, it intends to apply to ALL vehicles crossing into a WA nation. Considering the mandate is domestic rather than foreign, it would inadvertently apply to non-members’ transport vehicles.

Makes a LOT more sense

[New Chillvania]

IV. Requires member states to charge a one-time fee on each transport vehicle for its passage through their territory, a charge that can account for, for example, any anticipated toll fees, applicable fees for road maintenance as well as for the environmental impact of cargo traffic

I believe the intent here is to make sure that any fees charged to a transporter for a transport vehicle passing through a WA member state's territory are included in a single, one-time fee. However, could the wording "requires" not allow small-government nations to charge no fee? Even being required to charge a $0.01 fee could require a huge amount of paperwork to ensure that each transport vehicle has been charged!

[The New Sicilian State]

IV. Requires member states to charge a one-time fee on each transport vehicle for its passage through their territory, a charge that can account for, for example, any anticipated toll fees, applicable fees for road maintenance as well as for the environmental impact of cargo traffic

I believe the intent here is to make sure that any fees charged to a transporter for a transport vehicle passing through a WA member state's territory are included in a single, one-time fee. However, could the wording "requires" not allow small-government nations to charge no fee? Even being required to charge a $0.01 fee could require a huge amount of paperwork to ensure that each transport vehicle has been charged!

"The 'huge amount of paperwork' involved would likely be the result of poor administrative function, would it not? Even the smallest fees, if treated the same as the larger fees, should have the same administrative weight. Besides, a member state charging menial fees but grumbling about the hassle of employing such can easily remedy their situation by increasing their charges to be of substance."

[The New Sicilian State]

OOC: This is quorate, subject changed accordingly

[Gorundu]

I'm confused as to why nations are required to charge trucks entering their borders? Why can't it be left up to their choice?

[New Chillvania]

"The 'huge amount of paperwork' involved would likely be the result of poor administrative function, would it not?"

The huge amount of paperwork would be due to the huge number of transport vehicles that enter a nation-state each day, and would increase bureaucracy even in a nation-state with as refined administrative function one could reasonably hope for.

"Even the smallest fees, if treated the same as the larger fees, should have the same administrative weight. Besides, a member state charging menial fees but grumbling about the hassle of employing such can easily remedy their situation by increasing their charges to be of substance."

You are correct that the smallest fees would have the same administrative weight as larger fees, however this is exactly the fact that I take issue with. The quorate provides no path to charge no fees transporters or transport vehicles, and in doing so adds administrative work to government bodies.

Additionally, the idea that this can be solved by "increasing their charges to be of substance" is entirely missing the point! The hypothetical of a nation-state charging menial fees is to represent that a nation-states cannot effectively free transporters using their nation-state as part of their logistics system from paying fees, which could greatly hurt nation-states with largely liberal markets, who would have to choose between:

a) charging menial fees to transporters, and ending up with a net loss due to payments for staff, servers, etc.
OR
b) charging greater fees to transporters, impacting the bottom line of these companies

It is not unrealistic for many nation-states to exist who would happily implement the protections encapsulated within the quorate if it were not for this issue.

[The New Sicilian State]

You are correct that the smallest fees would have the same administrative weight as larger fees, however this is exactly the fact that I take issue with. The quorate provides no path to charge no fees transporters or transport vehicles, and in doing so adds administrative work to government bodies.

Additionally, the idea that this can be solved by "increasing their charges to be of substance" is entirely missing the point! The hypothetical of a nation-state charging menial fees is to represent that a nation-states cannot effectively free transporters using their nation-state as part of their logistics system from paying fees, which could greatly hurt nation-states with largely liberal markets, who would have to choose between:

a) charging menial fees to transporters, and ending up with a net loss due to payments for staff, servers, etc.
OR
b) charging greater fees to transporters, impacting the bottom line of these companies

It is not unrealistic for many nation-states to exist who would happily implement the protections encapsulated within the quorate if it were not for this issue.

"The quorate seeks to streamline the process. By establishing all of the fees at the border rather than at multiple checkpoints and toll booths, we consolidate the administrative weight to a single point; all applicable road taxes, tolls, and costs are compiled into one charge. The idea that charging greater fees to transporters would impact the bottom line of transport companies is true, but negligible. We're essentially collecting the Easter eggs around the room and placing them at the door for the trucker to find; realistically, a transport company will not pay any more at the border than they will through the state itself, the quorate mandates that member states be reasonable in their charges. Besides, depending on the prior systems of these same states, the paperwork burden is likely to be less now that we've organized and streamlined all charges."

I'm confused as to why nations are required to charge trucks entering their borders? Why can't it be left up to their choice?

"To properly hold transport companies accountable for their impact on member states. By getting rid of all other tolls and fees for transport vehicles within the state, the path taken to avoid a total loss of a revenue stream is consolidated fees at the border. In its own way, this protects the government spending of member states, as charging transport vehicles or companies opens up revenue to pay for road maintenance and to compensate for impact to environmentally sensitive areas."

[New Chillvania]

"To properly hold transport companies accountable for their impact on member states."

I feel like the nation-state should be able to decide whether they would like to hold the transport company accountable for the impact on their own state.

[The New Sicilian State]

"To properly hold transport companies accountable for their impact on member states."

I feel like the nation-state should be able to decide whether they would like to hold the transport company accountable for the impact on their own state.

“Then as it stands, they can charge the carriers menial fees and ‘forget’ to file the paperwork, but I have trouble seeing what reasonable member state would reject that centralized of revenue stream.”

[New Chillvania]

"I have trouble seeing what reasonable member state would reject that centralized of revenue stream.”

I would imagine a member-state with a privatised road network perhaps? Or with heavily decentralised government?
Other than that I fully support the quorate

[Gorundu]

I feel like the nation-state should be able to decide whether they would like to hold the transport company accountable for the impact on their own state.

“Then as it stands, they can charge the carriers menial fees and ‘forget’ to file the paperwork, but I have trouble seeing what reasonable member state would reject that centralized of revenue stream.”

OOC: I don't believe forgetting to file the paperwork would be good faith compliance, and there are indeed reasons for rejecting imposing a fee, for example, if a nation wants to open itself up to more imports by waiving certain fees.

[Kenmoria]

I feel like the nation-state should be able to decide whether they would like to hold the transport company accountable for the impact on their own state.

“Then as it stands, they can charge the carriers menial fees and ‘forget’ to file the paperwork, but I have trouble seeing what reasonable member state would reject that centralized of revenue stream.”

“This reasonable member state, Kenmoria, has a privatised road network and an incredibly free-trade attitude. Fees, no matter how small they are, put Kenmoria as a worse nation to enter than one with no fees, even if by a small amount. Since these charges can, as you say, be incredibly low, this won’t be a reason to vote against, but is still a concern.”

[Wallenburg]

This is now at Vote.

Clauses II and IV ban free movement of goods, clause VI restricts the ability to form preferential trade agreements, and clause X is just nonsense. Why should foreigners be exempt from road tolls? I am opposed.

[Uan aa Boa]

What fresh hell is this? As a nation that has no road transport for environmental reasons we strongly oppose a law intended to force us to have operational points of entry for road vehicles. I say intended because the author has forgotten to include "road" in the definition of a transport vehicle, but the title suggests that's what it's meant to do.

[United Dependencies]

II. Mandates that foreign transporters communicate with domestic national services ahead of the transporter vehicle's departure to clarify logistical details including, but not limited to, the contents of the cargo being transported and the intended route,

This seems a little extreme. I could see having to have documentation when arriving at a point of entry, but requiring that it be sent to a nation prior to even departing would be a bureaucratic mess.

Edit: Also, the indented route? What? Destination makes sense but requiring each truck to detail the roads they're going to drive over? That's way too much paperwork for no practical benefit.

[Temasek-Riau]

Ok I actually didn't mind the resolution and was about to vote Yes when I realised so many people voted No.

Look -- I get people's concerns, but at the end of the day the resolution is worded such that the country still has full sovereign power over its customs practices, so I really have no issue there.

And, trade is always good (or mostly is), and there is no reason we should take steps to stifle it.

But always happy to hear out for new opinions

[Araraukar]

What fresh hell is this? As a nation that has no road transport for environmental reasons we strongly oppose a law intended to force us to have operational points of entry for road vehicles. I say intended because the author has forgotten to include "road" in the definition of a transport vehicle, but the title suggests that's what it's meant to do.

IC: "Does your nation not have fees or taxes for imports? For the use of your rail network and terminals? Or port services, if you're an island nation? Araraukar certainly does; we don't have a road network for environmental reasons either, and this still wouldn't affect us much, because there already are fees in place for using our infrastructure, which are invoiced to the transporter if foreign. No payment, no entry."

OOC: The definition may be an oops on our part, but the use of "vehicle" may be relevant. I don't ever recall seeing a train being referred to as a vehicle, or a ship, or a plane. But you do make a good point; for next run we could just remove "road" from the title and alter the wording to fit all cargo transport... or just add it to the definition. Both work. *shrug*

---

II. Mandates that foreign transporters communicate with domestic national services ahead of the transporter vehicle's departure to clarify logistical details including, but not limited to, the contents of the cargo being transported and the intended route,

This seems a little extreme. I could see having to have documentation when arriving at a point of entry, but requiring that it be sent to a nation prior to even departing would be a bureaucratic mess.

Edit: Also, the indented route? What? Destination makes sense but requiring each truck to detail the roads they're going to drive over? That's way too much paperwork for no practical benefit.

OOC: The documentation processing before actual attempt at entry would likely greatly streamline the processing and speed up border crossings, because you wouldn't need to stop every single vehicle to check driver's passport and visa and cargo manifest and see that there at least shouldn't be anything illegal there.

As for the intended route - using RL example from USA eastern seaboard: "Intended route from Miami (point of entry) to Boston, is via Interstate 95." Not very complicated, eh?

[United Dependencies]

OOC: The documentation processing before actual attempt at entry would likely greatly streamline the processing and speed up border crossings, because you wouldn't need to stop every single vehicle to check driver's passport and visa and cargo manifest and see that there at least shouldn't be anything illegal there.

As for the intended route - using RL example from USA eastern seaboard: "Intended route from Miami (point of entry) to Boston, is via Interstate 95." Not very complicated, eh?

Thank you for your quick response and clarification.

I agree that having documentation get to a checkpoint in advance of arrival can be useful, and I'm concerned that this proposal would create a confusing situation for truckers who receive a dispatch to pick up goods while they're already in the middle of completing an order.

Also, There's still seems to be little use for requiring a declaration of the intended route. To keep with your example, what difference does it make if a commercial truck uses I-95, I-85, or old US1?

On a separate note:

X. Grants special exception to international cargo transport vehicles from stops including, but not limited to, road tolls and province checkpoints except when ordered to stop by law enforcement,

This seems to be in conflict with section IV which requires a collection of a fee. How does a nation assess whether a fee has been collected except by processing them at a border checkpoint or through a toll?

Further, does this prohibit nations from checking cargo against a bill of lading at the border entry? Our border agents usually will take a look at cargo while a driver's visa paperwork is being examined.

Thank you again for your response.

[Araraukar]

I'm concerned that this proposal would create a confusing situation for truckers who receive a dispatch to pick up goods while they're already in the middle of completing an order.

OOC: Honestly, that's something for transport companies to figure out. Trying to legislate on it in detail would create a very micromanaging inflexible system.

Also, There's still seems to be little use for requiring a declaration of the intended route. To keep with your example, what difference does it make if a commercial truck uses I-95, I-85, or old US1?

I'll be honest and say I have no idea, because roads around here (RL Finland) don't have toll booths for anything, given that roads are publicly maintained by taxes. You still need your documentation processed, though, so there's probably a fee for that (or at least for cargo traffic from Russia, which is a non-EU-non-Schengen country, and visas are required in addition to passports to cross the border - much of my advice on this draft is based on my knowledge of how that border crossing works and doesn't work for cargo traffic). In places that DO have road tolls, my understanding is that most places you can buy a state-wide (at least) pass that gets read by scanners at the tolls, and you get billed afterwards? This proposal is basically trying to pre-empt that, by asking for the route you're planning on (most transporting companies would prefer to use the fastest way of getting their stuff from A to B, so likely highways if they exist), and then calculating how much the road tolls and whatnot would be, and once you've paid that, you don't need to stop at the toll places, as you've already paid.

As for the exact route to take, if there are several viable options and you're in no hurry, I'd guess you'd pick the one with least costs? In which case you'd still know your plan ahead of time. Of course if there are reasons not your fault, that require you to change plans (like, say, a landslide has taken out the road), I don't think it would be reasonable for any nation to go "hey, you didn't stick to your preplanned route! fined!", and the proposals really need to be written as if they're going to be applied by reasonable nations, because otherwise there's really no point. It's impossible to create fully loophole-proof resolutions, so it's better to go for ones that require unreasonable reading to get out of.

X. Grants special exception to international cargo transport vehicles from stops including, but not limited to, road tolls and province checkpoints except when ordered to stop by law enforcement,

This seems to be in conflict with section IV which requires a collection of a fee. How does a nation assess whether a fee has been collected except by processing them at a border checkpoint or through a toll?

Further, does this prohibit nations from checking cargo against a bill of lading at the border entry? Our border agents usually will take a look at cargo while a driver's visa paperwork is being examined.

The reason for the few examples provided is to specify such stops would happen within the nation, after they've already crossed the border. Do note the previous clause: IX. Does not restrict member states' ability to search all transport vehicles at the border to ensure compliance with national laws involving contraband goods,

[Tcacarwhpt]

Our nation does not have road vehicles. Nor can we have operational points of entry because we have a large insect hive-mind: the presence of any foreigners would inconvenience elements of that hive mind in navigation.

In such cases we will have our police ants stop all such vehicles for repeated warrantless searches at all times. And unless you use a licensed TcaCARwhpt-brand motor vehicle, which is assuredly better for the environment, we will fine fee the crap out of you.

There may also be contradiction between this proposal and International Transport Safety in the standard of how entry can be denied.

[Nollaa]

This topic is very close to the heart of our united states, The United States of Nollaa is in complete compliance and support of this resolution.

[Araraukar]

There may also be contradiction between this proposal and International Transport Safety in the standard of how entry can be denied.

OOC: Do note that the proposal at hand does not mention anything about denying entry, specifically to avoid contradictions.

And if you have no roads system, then it's unlikely that any transporting company would seek to move their cargo through your territory to begin with.

Off-topic: Can I ask, what kind of hivemind model are you using? One mind in many bodies or many small minds joined together into a larger whole? Groupthink? A hybrid of one of those?

[The New Sicilian State]

Why should foreigners be exempt from road tolls? I am opposed.

OOC: Only transport vehicles are exempt from road tolls, not all foreigners. The fee collection at the border is meant to consolidate needless stops and fees within the member state itself to keep transport vehicles moving through the state.

[Carbo Nation]

Carbo Nation sees no need for this to be an assembly decision. Nations that feel that they would benefit from entry fees can already choose to do so.

We see no need or benefit to the world at large that outweighs the right of national sovereignty in this proposal.

[Terttia]

IC: Phantomson looks at the proposal. He nods with approval. “This has my full support.”

I'll be honest and say I have no idea, because roads around here (RL Finland) don't have toll booths for anything, given that roads are publicly maintained by taxes.

All OOC: That’s interesting. However, most interstates aren’t toll roads. Albeit, two out of the three motorway grade roads (I think there’s only three) leading out of Miami are toll roads. I-95 isn’t one of them.

In places that DO have road tolls, my understanding is that most places you can buy a state-wide (at least) pass that gets read by scanners at the tolls, and you get billed afterwards?

If I remember correctly, Florida’s scanner works in other states as well. Though, you can drive up and pay statewide (I think), and around Miami on select toll roads, one can be billed via their license plate.

Also, one issue, though minor, is that freight vehicles don’t have to stop at provincial checkpoints pursuant to clause X. For example, let’s examine the two agricultural inspection stations on I-95 south of the Florida-Georgia state line. There’s a sign on the interstate that says “Agricultural Inspection”, and then there however many miles ahead it is. After that, there’s a list of vehicles types that must stop. Now, let’s apply a similar situation to member states that have provincial checkpoints. Do vehicles have to stop? Member nations could in fact make those signs law enforcement officers.