NationStates

Posted: **Sat Oct 10, 2020 2:57 pm**

Repeal "WA Trade Rights"

The World Assembly finds as follows:

Extending trade preferences on a most-favoured nation basis to all member nations requires that any further preference to an allied member nation also be given to other unfriendly member nations. Governments have interests in stopping the transfer of technology or linking of their industry with such unfriendly nations, motives which are not accounted for in GA 209, which only permits exceptions for 'vital national security interests during serious international disputes or times of war'.

Section 1(c) of the target resolution allows for existing trade zones to exist. But it is unclear how such existing trade zones can possibly 'ultimately lower trade barriers between their members' without inherently contradicting the most-favoured nation provision in section 1(a), as any members of a trade zone would by virtue of their membership be more favoured than non-trade zone member nations, putting such members in violation of section 1(a) unless their trade zone membership privileges were extended to all World Assembly member nations.

Section 2 does not give member nations authority to institute retaliatory tariffs against dumping or other unfair trade practices, instead only giving member nations the ability to support domestic industry with subsidies. This has two impacts. First, subsidies cost member nations money, while tariffs (being taxes) are net positive on a nation's treasury. By only allowing subsidies, this penalises member nations with weaker financial situations. Second, the use of subsidies instead of tariffs causes a race towards higher subsidies, as subsidies increase production, further driving down commodity prices, necessitating even higher subsidies to ensure viability. This singular-minded view on subsidies therefore harms the poorest member nations and saddles the Assembly as a whole with chronic overproduction and government support of inefficient industries.

GA 440 'Administrative Compliance Act' uses trade sanctions as a core means of enforcement of World Assembly legislation. It is unclear how strong such sanctions can be when section 1(a) requires equal treatment of nations regardless of their compliance with World Assembly resolutions. Basic fairness requires that member nations which are not compliant with Assembly legislation, a duty of membership in the Assembly, should not be given the benefits of membership. Repeal, therefore, repairs a sense of basic fairness necessary for the Assembly to operate justly and impartially.

Further legislation should be passed, patching the flaws present in GA 209, to ensure sufficient incentives for membership in the World Assembly.

Now, therefore, the World Assembly repeals GA 209 'World Assembly Trade Rights'.

Posted: **Sat Oct 10, 2020 2:57 pm**

Target resolution. viewtopic.php?p=10556924#p10556924
GA 440 (ACA). viewtopic.php?p=34697384#p34697384

Member states must enforce the strongest sanctions available against those member states that refuse to pay IAO fines, subject only to the limitations of extant law, until the fines are paid or the issue becomes moot.

Other remarks on how WA Trade Rights can also be loopholed by its poor treatment of origination rules. viewtopic.php?f=9&t=492140&p=37757644#p37757644.

Ejusdem generis.

Posted: **Sat Oct 10, 2020 3:13 pm**

IC: "Support. I don't even care what reasons you give for this repeal, it's still supported."

OOC: I still won't read your OOC lectures (that you linked to), but that resolution never really made sense in the multiversal context of WA.

EDIT: Though the argument #4 (about trade bans and compliance gnomes) seems to be covered by 2. a., c. and d. of the target.

Posted: **Sat Oct 10, 2020 3:16 pm**

"This is a cromulent repeal in terms of the Socialism in All Countries policy of the Party. The People's Democracies should be free to pick and choose which other member nations they wish to trade with while the previously well known flaws, applicable to our misguided "liberal" friends, are well covered here and good spot on this additional issue regarding GAR#440."

Posted: **Sat Oct 10, 2020 3:31 pm**

Araraukar wrote:EDIT: Though the argument #4 (about trade bans and compliance gnomes) seems to be covered by 2. a., c. and d. of the target.

It's not.

Posted: **Sat Oct 10, 2020 4:23 pm**

Imperium Anglorum wrote:
Araraukar wrote:EDIT: Though the argument #4 (about trade bans and compliance gnomes) seems to be covered by 2. a., c. and d. of the target.

It's not.

OOC
In the interests of the completeness of the record, it would be greatly appreciated if you could elaborate as to how, here, rather than dragging the explanation out for two pages between snipes.

Posted: **Sat Oct 10, 2020 4:42 pm**

Tinfect wrote:
Imperium Anglorum wrote:It's not.

OOC. In the interests of the completeness of the record, it would be greatly appreciated if you could elaborate as to how, here, rather than dragging the explanation out for two pages between snipes.

Sure. In these clauses:

2. Clarifies that member nations may suspend their individual responsibilities under the above provision in the following cases:

Are all possible violations of WA legislation included as part of the exceptions? No. If, for example, one nation fails to enforce say, the provisions in International Transport Safety, having to do with commercial freedoms, in a way which is not significant, then this whole section does not provide an exception for the operation of the ACA. (This is especially the case when considering that ACA sanctions and fines are imposed on the basis of coercing compliance rather than being expensive licences for unlawful behaviour.) Nor would, say, sanctions in response to a member nation illegally seizing WA Choice Plus clinics. Sanctions also, on say, import of paper from some non-compliant nation, also would not be a 'vital national security interest[]' that would be immunised from GA 209. On top of that, subsection (d) fails to save the ACA sanctions' efficacy, because among the goals of GA 209, you will not find 'enforce compliance with ACA fines'.

Posted: **Sun Oct 11, 2020 1:55 am**

OOC: So you are saying the compliance gnome resolution was illegal for contradiction when it passed and you knew it?

Not really agreeing with your clause 5 here, but because Araraukar in IC doesn't WANT to be forced to do foreign trade with anyone, still support for IC reasons

Posted: **Sun Oct 11, 2020 4:40 am**

Araraukar wrote:OOC: So you are saying the compliance gnome resolution was illegal for contradiction when it passed and you knew it?

Not really agreeing with your clause 5 here, but because Araraukar in IC doesn't WANT to be forced to do foreign trade with anyone, still support for IC reasons

Ooc: it is quite possible to write something and figure out after that there is a conflict. Or at least a genuine question as to how two laws interact.

Full support.

Posted: **Sun Oct 11, 2020 5:23 am**

Absolute full support

Posted: **Sun Oct 11, 2020 5:30 am**

Separatist Peoples wrote:Ooc: it is quite possible to write something and figure out after that there is a conflict. Or at least a genuine question as to how two laws interact.

OOC: Well aware of that, given the GenSec exists for that whole reason, pretty much.

Posted: **Sun Oct 11, 2020 9:56 am**

Araraukar wrote:OOC: So you are saying the compliance gnome resolution was illegal for contradiction when it passed and you knew it?

Beyond Sep's well-taken point about how information from the future is sometimes not available: maybe instead of making strange allegations of illegality, you should read the ACA. Specifically, art 4 s 4. Oh, and, to the end of the clause as well, unlike how you read section 1(b) of GA 209. Then, you might be able to make arguments that respect the text and meaning of the resolution, instead of strangely unbalanced accusations.

Posted: **Mon Oct 12, 2020 4:00 am**

Imperium Anglorum wrote:maybe instead of making strange allegations of illegality

OOC: Quite sure I have never called your resolution illegal after it passed, since by virtue of passing it can't be illegal... :eyebrow:

Posted: **Mon Oct 12, 2020 7:06 am**

Potted Plants United wrote:
Imperium Anglorum wrote:maybe instead of making strange allegations of illegality

OOC: Quite sure I have never called your resolution illegal after it passed, since by virtue of passing it can't be illegal...

How do we evaluate the truth value of this statement? It must be some kind of mystery!

OOC: So you are saying the compliance gnome resolution was illegal for contradiction when it passed and you knew it? (at 4.55p EDT on 11 Oct 2020)

When was the proposal passed?

Implemented Tue Aug 28 2018

Was this claim made after the proposal passed? Yes. Is saying a resolution 'was illegal ... when it passed' still 'call[ing] [a] resolution illegal'? Yes. Did the president receive supplemental oxygen? 'The president is not receiving supplemental oxygen right now.' Is this an attempt to distract from the fact that the original claim of contradiction with GA 209 is still wrong? Possibly. Is the original claim of contradiction with GA 209 is still wrong? Yes. Is this entire argument about the ACA's illegality at any time, before or after passage, based on incorrect assumptions? Yes.

Is the specific provision of ACA which doesn't conflict with GA 209 quoted in this thread explicitly? Yes. When was it added? 10 Oct 2020 18:35 EDT. Was that before Ara's post alleging 'illegal[ity] for contradiction when it passed'? Yes.

Posted: **Tue Oct 13, 2020 7:03 am**

OOC: Reading comprehension, dear, is your friend here. I asked if you were calling your resolution illegal. If you weren't, you could have just said no. Now it's looking like a case of "the lady doth protest too much".

Also, have you thought of talking to someone about this "Ara is always out to get me" paranoia of yours?

To everyone else, don't worry, I won't respond to more offtopicness from him on this thread, just things related to the proposal.

Posted: **Tue Oct 13, 2020 7:37 am**

Araraukar wrote:*snip*

This is some extreme projection here. After misreading my proposal (above), GA 209, GA 440 (the ACA), GA 17, NEF, CoCR and my response, you want to pivot to reading comprehension. I laid out your claim bare, deconstructed its premises, and showed their objective falsity already. I'm sorry for not being the pushover you like to noob bash.

I intend to submit post-haste.

Posted: **Tue Oct 13, 2020 10:48 am**

Submitted. Also opposed due to bullet point #4.

Posted: **Tue Oct 13, 2020 5:34 pm**

General support.

Posted: **Tue Oct 13, 2020 10:01 pm**

We are opposed for the same reason as the...questionably honorable ambassador Smith. We view the neutering of the ACA as an absolute feature, and not a bug.

Posted: **Wed Oct 14, 2020 8:00 am**

While I do understand the necessity to repeal a resolution that stifles the functioning of other resolutions and also contains some contradictions within itself, considering that §5 mentions further legislation, is such legislation being drafted right now, or are there some plans for the foreseeable future?

Posted: **Wed Oct 14, 2020 8:03 am**

Ouardeheya wrote:While I do understand the necessity to repeal a resolution that stifles the functioning of other resolutions and also contains some contradictions within itself, considering that §5 mentions further legislation, is such legislation being drafted right now, or are there some plans for the foreseeable future?

I have a draft in the works. It's not ready for public comment yet, but should be shortly.

Posted: **Thu Oct 15, 2020 3:45 pm**

For the information of all Members, Proposal 1602607325, "Repeal: 'World Assembly Trade Rights'", proposed by the United Commonwealths of Imperium Anglorum, has reached quorum and is now in the queue to be voted on. Question to be put in five hours fourteen minutes.

Posted: **Thu Oct 15, 2020 11:45 pm**

Why do I feel like IA is just going to turn around and remake a proposal very similar to the one they are repealing in order to get another proposal high score count under their belt.

Posted: **Fri Oct 16, 2020 12:33 am**

United Republic Empire wrote:Why do I feel like IA is just going to turn around and remake a proposal very similar to the one they are repealing in order to get another proposal high score count under their belt.

It’ll be years before anyone even gets close to IA’s current score, so your theory is likely false

Posted: **Fri Oct 16, 2020 7:02 am**

United Republic Empire wrote:Why do I feel like IA is just going to turn around and remake a proposal very similar to the one they are repealing in order to get another proposal high score count under their belt.

Maybe a bit late.

NationStates

[PASSED] Repeal "WA Trade Rights"

[PASSED] Repeal "WA Trade Rights"