[Draft] World Assembly Agreement on Trade

[Sciongrad]

"Any other objections?" Natalia asked, while stirring an iron cauldron of kale soup with a very large wooden spoon.

[States of Glory WA Office]

"Any other objections?" Natalia asked, while stirring an iron cauldron of kale soup with a very large wooden spoon.

Fairburn: The mountains of transcripts suggest that this is in no way an "agreement".

[Sciongrad]

"Any other objections?" Natalia asked, while stirring an iron cauldron of kale soup with a very large wooden spoon.

Fairburn: The mountains of transcripts suggest that this is in no way an "agreement".

Ricardo chimed in. "Yeah, well, everyone here that seems to know how tariffs work is in agreement... Although some objections by Bananaistan and Sierra Lyricalia are being studied now by... oh wait, I should be doing that."

[Imperium Anglorum]

Fairburn: The mountains of transcripts suggest that this is in no way an "agreement".

NORTH: Actually, we think there is a very strong consensus in favour.

[States of Glory WA Office]

Fairburn: The mountains of transcripts suggest that this is in no way an "agreement".

NORTH: Actually, we think there is a very strong consensus in favour.

Fairburn: That's why I've had to listen to ten hours' worth of economics lectures from Ambassadors who clearly aren't paid enough.

[Bears Armed]

"What about any 'imposts, duties, tariffs and other protectionist devices' that are actually imposed -- or, at least, are specifically allowed -- under the terms of other resolutions, and that consequently could not be abolished unless and until those other resolutions were to be repealed? I think that the duties and tariffs mentioned in GAR #244 would fall within the exceptions allowed by this proosal anyhows, but there might be others...
"Indeed, what of future proposals to impose or allow tariffs (or other protectionist devices) through General Assembly resolutions? Would those have to contain expiry dates so as not to contradict this proposed resolution, if their contents were not completely covered by the list of allowed exceptions here?"

Ursiosina RedRose,
Commercial Attaché, Bears Armed Mission at the World Assembly.

________________________________________________________________

OOC
I'm fairly sure that, unless we're changing the rules, proposals can't include expiry dates legally: Once a resolution passes, it's in effect unless & until repealed... Right?

[United Federated States of Omega]

Seeing as how there is still no protection for our own tariffs and embargos based on our national laws we will be voting against this should it come to a vote.

[Lord Dominator]

"The arguments of the ambassador from Sierra Lyricalia have convinced me that there may be significant chaos and social upheaval should this pass. Therefore, I will be offering my support of this resolution."

OOC: That and what you or IA said in the Discord, but Deedee doesn't care about that.

[Aclion]

Looks good to me.

*readies rubber stamp*

Seeing as how there is still no protection for our own tariffs and embargos based on our national laws we will be voting against this should it come to a vote.

You're opposing it because you're not exempt?

[States of Glory WA Office]

Fairburn: This proposal still requires us to know what legislation will be passed in the future, so since our nation does not practise precognition, we must remain opposed.

Barbera: Why are we still required to abolish all duties within ten years, including those on alcohol, tobacco and motor vehicles? What possible international purpose does this serve?

[The United Royal Islands of Euramathania]

~the ambassador returns looking a bit tired but quite happy-
A Meridian: I do apologize for the delay, why I got caught up researching the nuances of international trade law at our fine new central library, a marvelous vacation if I do say so myself. I am prepared to present our rebuttal argument to the frameworks asserted by our sciongrad colleague and their resolution, after a few clarifications questions.

Before that however, I wish to make the following corrections to the record: (1) We apologize for asserting that they were pro-corporate shills and only interested in advancing the interests of the rich over the poor. We have often been mischaracterized on an ideological basis and recognize that name calling has no basis in this chamber. I can only state that in my pre vacation stress I made error in word choice poorly reflecting on the character of a fellow ambassador. (2) Upon further evaluation of economics curriculum, we have discovered that the introductory textbooks previously untilized did contain overly socilitious representations of perfect competition as representation of ideal markets, and were also out-of-date. While more current versions do recognize these ideas it is within a greater more realistic context, notably that no market can function on competition alone. However we do contend that more outreach should be made to inform the lay public of such changes as it does permeate the tone of many tv pundits. Further the newer textbooks still contain the patina of adoration reserved for the idea, even if it remains impossible in reality. We apologize for using outdated reference material while arguing before this body, and shall strive to avoid doing so in the future..

In order to better understand this resolution, we wish to know what the author is considereing protectionist devices under the terms of the resolution? Further we ask for the author to clarify what social, economic, or political harm this resolution is attempting to address via international mandate. Perhaps we can come to some agreement on how to fix that issue rather than further encroach upon the diversity of economic values found among member states by making it progressively harder to practice alternative economic models.

[Araraukar]

OOC: To avoid further RL-wanking, I've left this alone for a while, but I presume it's still going to be worked on?

If yes, before I get to it on an RP acc...
1. Does the committee exist before this proposal?
2. What exactly are "the agreements" mentioned in clause 3?
3. Exactly what does 4.c. mean, especially in reference to the rest of the proposal? In language that doesn't require me to be an economics major student, please.

[Jarish Inyo]

The Empire will not be giving up any of its quotas, subsidies, tariffs and other protectionist devices on goods and services. These things are used for environmental programs and clean up and port and airport security and maintenance. Without such devises, we'd be forced to charge large docking fees and other fees to maintain all ports of call that international shippers and travelers use.

[Secundus Imperium Romanum]

Certainly the Second Roman Empire will vote in favor of the project. But it must be remembered that the sovereignty of nations and their laws must be respected.

[Sciongrad]

1. Does the committee exist before this proposal?
2. What exactly are "the agreements" mentioned in clause 3?
3. Exactly what does 4.c. mean, especially in reference to the rest of the proposal? In language that doesn't require me to be an economics major student, please.

OOC:
1. Yes, it was created by GAR#52.
2. The agreements in clause 3 refer to the protectionist reduction plans mentioned in clause 2.
3. Clause 3 is just a safeguard against potential non-compliance. Put simply, if a nation imposes protectionist devices meant to disadvantage another nation, that disadvantaged nation can respond with tariffs of its own, provided they're proportional.

I'll respond to others when I have more time.

[Araraukar]

3. Clause 3 is just a safeguard against potential non-compliance. Put simply, if a nation imposes protectionist devices meant to disadvantage another nation, that disadvantaged nation can respond with tariffs of its own, provided they're proportional.

OOC: I think you meant clause 4 there. So it basically says that if Nation A puts, say, a 5% duty on imports from Nation B, then Nation B can put duty on imports from Nation A, but making that duty 50% instead of 5-10% would be forbidden?

I just want to be sure I understand this stuff OOCly, because the IC characters probably won't...

[Aclion]

3. Clause 3 is just a safeguard against potential non-compliance. Put simply, if a nation imposes protectionist devices meant to disadvantage another nation, that disadvantaged nation can respond with tariffs of its own, provided they're proportional.

1. Who decides what is proportional?
2. Suppose a nation put a 10% tariff on all Aclionian agriculural products but we do not import any of their agricultural products could we put a tarriff on a different product that we import.
3. When you say proportional do you mean proportional in terms of rate or total income from the tariffs. For example if nation A placed a 10% tariff on nation b's goods, collecting 2billion ns$ could nation b place a 70% tariff on nation A to recoup those 2billion?

OOC: I think you meant clause 4 there.

They're all nicely labled, just call it 4.c

[Thyerata]

Ironically enough, my government has just begun implementing tariffs on any imports that come from states outside our home region of International Democratic Union. With respect to our learned delegate, my government instructs me to vote against this proposal.

[Marzicon]

John Marzicon: What do you mean free trade? Nothing's free, Thomas. Tell him to screw off, cordially.

Thomas Mines: John, stop sipping that rum and come to your senses. Your days as a pirate are over. You're the leader of a country now. Make the response yourself, sir.

John Marzicon: Wanna get fired, son? I'm the leader. My country, my rules.

Thomas Mines: We are a democratic capitalistic country. It's in our best interest to say yes, sir.

John Marzicon: Then agree with him!!!

Thomas Mines: *mutters under his breath* You're so difficult.

Yes, we agree.

[Araraukar]

OOC: I think you meant clause 4 there.

They're all nicely labled, just call it 4.c

OOC: ...Scion himself called it "Clause 3"... Unless he forgot to answer my question 3, which was indeed about subclause 4.c.

[Bakhton]

Fairburn: The mountains of transcripts suggest that this is in no way an "agreement".

Ricardo chimed in. "Yeah, well, everyone here that seems to know how tariffs work is in agreement... Although some objections by Bananaistan and Sierra Lyricalia are being studied now by... oh wait, I should be doing that."

"Of course, by this logic us dissenters are obviously in agreement acting as the majority because they agree with my views on tariff laws."

[Sciongrad]

3. Clause 3 is just a safeguard against potential non-compliance. Put simply, if a nation imposes protectionist devices meant to disadvantage another nation, that disadvantaged nation can respond with tariffs of its own, provided they're proportional.

1. Who decides what is proportional?
2. Suppose a nation put a 10% tariff on all Aclionian agriculural products but we do not import any of their agricultural products could we put a tarriff on a different product that we import.
3. When you say proportional do you mean proportional in terms of rate or total income from the tariffs. For example if nation A placed a 10% tariff on nation b's goods, collecting 2billion ns$ could nation b place a 70% tariff on nation A to recoup those 2billion?

OOC: 1. Nations do, obviously, using RNT. I'm sure the WTA could be given a quasi-judicial function if it becomes a problem.
2. No. Because the net effect of that tariff would disproportionately disadvantage the other nation.
3. Proportional means that the retaliatory tariff cannot given your nation a net advantage.

3. Clause 3 is just a safeguard against potential non-compliance. Put simply, if a nation imposes protectionist devices meant to disadvantage another nation, that disadvantaged nation can respond with tariffs of its own, provided they're proportional.

OOC: I think you meant clause 4 there. So it basically says that if Nation A puts, say, a 5% duty on imports from Nation B, then Nation B can put duty on imports from Nation A, but making that duty 50% instead of 5-10% would be forbidden?

OOC: Yes.

[Bears Armed]

"What about any 'imposts, duties, tariffs and other protectionist devices' that are actually imposed -- or, at least, are specifically allowed -- under the terms of other resolutions, and that consequently could not be abolished unless and until those other resolutions were to be repealed? I think that the duties and tariffs mentioned in GAR #244 would fall within the exceptions allowed by this proosal anyhows, but there might be others...
"Indeed, what of future proposals to impose or allow tariffs (or other protectionist devices) through General Assembly resolutions? Would those have to contain expiry dates so as not to contradict this proposed resolution, if their contents were not completely covered by the list of allowed exceptions here?"

Ursiosina RedRose,
Commercial Attaché, Bears Armed Mission at the World Assembly.

________________________________________________________________

OOC
I'm fairly sure that, unless we're changing the rules, proposals can't include expiry dates legally: Once a resolution passes, it's in effect unless & until repealed... Right?

Any reply to this?

[Thyerata]

OOC: I'm in the middle of revising EU law, and quite a bit of it relates to the free movement of goods throughout the Single Market, in accordance with articles 28-30TFEU. Looks like this resolution is trying to do the same thing

[Sciongrad]

"What about any 'imposts, duties, tariffs and other protectionist devices' that are actually imposed -- or, at least, are specifically allowed -- under the terms of other resolutions, and that consequently could not be abolished unless and until those other resolutions were to be repealed? I think that the duties and tariffs mentioned in GAR #244 would fall within the exceptions allowed by this proosal anyhows, but there might be others...

"You may need to be more specific. If there are resolutions that currently permit member nations to impose protectionist devices on other member nations that aren't covered under the exceptions clause, I can create a more explicit exception."

"Indeed, what of future proposals to impose or allow tariffs (or other protectionist devices) through General Assembly resolutions? Would those have to contain expiry dates so as not to contradict this proposed resolution, if their contents were not completely covered by the list of allowed exceptions here?"

"No, this proposal would foreclose the possibility of future resolutions permitting the discretionary use of protectionist devices outside of the exceptions provided here."

OOC
I'm fairly sure that, unless we're changing the rules, proposals can't include expiry dates legally: Once a resolution passes, it's in effect unless & until repealed... Right?

OOC: Is that a rule? Which rule would cover that? And even if a rule did cover that, this proposal doesn't include provisions with expiration dates. It requires member nations to come into compliance with its provisions within a certain time frame.

OOC: I'm in the middle of revising EU law, and quite a bit of it relates to the free movement of goods throughout the Single Market, in accordance with articles 28-30TFEU. Looks like this resolution is trying to do the same thing

OOC: That's exactly what this proposal is trying to do! It's sister proposal, the agreement on labor, is trying to replicate the EU's free movement of labor.