[PASSED] Repeal GA#221 "On Multilateral Trade Talks"

[Tinhampton]

On the 6th of August 2021, Repeal "On Multilateral Trade Talks" became GA#567!

---

This proposal has been filed to the General Assembly Repeals Board.
NOTE: at 0324 BST on the 20th of July 2021, this proposal reached quorum with Enlais' approval, the 54th all told.
NOTE 2: as of 1815 BST on the 28th of July 2021, this proposal had 104 approvals, double the number required for quorum.

---

Character count: 1,461
Word count: 232

Alexander Smith, Tinhamptonian Delegate-Ambassador to the World Assembly: There will not be a replacement from the Tinhamptonian delegation, if that was not obvious from the final clause.

OOC 1: Post number 8,500. w00t.
OOC 2: Regarding the FIRMLY REFUSING clause... the end of this post contains a comparison of the relevant provisions of GA#26 and GA#221.

Repeal "On Multilateral Trade Talks"
A resolution to repeal previously passed legislation.

Category: Repeal

Target: GA#221

Proposed by: Tinhampton

---

General Assembly Resolution #221 “On Multilateral Trade Talks” (Category: Free Trade, Strength: Mild) shall be struck out and rendered null and void.

Noting that Article 1 of GA#221 requires that the World Assembly organise "multilateral trade negotiations... with the mandate of reducing protectionist measures between all member nations" on a decadal basis, and that its Article 3 tasks members with deploying "at least one qualified delegate to these negotiations,"

Concluding that GA#221 not only fails to require members to actually subscribe to free trade agreements, but in fact allows member state delegates to its negotiations to attempt to reach such agreements about exceedingly minor categories of goods and services with other delegates, so long as they meet Article 4's requirement that they "make a good faith effort... to come to mutually beneficial agreements which are in the best interests of all national populations involved" in doing so,

Firmly refusing to applaud GA#221's goal of "reducing protectionist measures between [member]s," given that GA#26 "World Assembly Economic Union" - the third article of which had similar provisions to that of GA#221 - was repealed by GA#45 exactly because of the damage that the WA-sanctioned reduction of such measures can cause to the economies of the least developed members, and

Believing that individual members are more than capable of negotiating their own free trade agreements - comprehensive or otherwise - without having to be babysat by the WA in the process...

The General Assembly hereby repeals GA#221 "On Multilateral Trade Talks."

Articles 1 and 5 of On Multilateral Trade Talks:

1. Declares that multilateral trade negotiations must be hosted at the World Assembly at least once every ten years, with the mandate of reducing protectionist measures between all member nations; [...]

5. Notes that any agreement arising from these negotiations is binding on all member nations which consent to that agreement.

Article 3 of World Assembly Economic Union:

3. AUTHORIZES the WATC to implement a process for the gradual elimination of protectionist devices restricting the trade of all goods, services, raw materials, commodities and labor, including but not limited to tariffs, duties, subsidies, subventions and quotas employed by WA member nations.

- The process will be conducted through a series of meetings convened by the WATC at its own discretion, but at least one per decade, with the goal of eventual elimination of all protectionist devices employed by WA member nations;

- Decisions arrived at by the WATC in the scheduled meetings are binding;

Repeal World Assembly Economic Union, in relevant part:

APALLED that the resolution makes no reference to developing nations (only to nations in "severe economic crisis"), not recognizing the importance of tariffs, subsidies, and other such “protectionist devices” to the improvement of developing nations’ domestic nonessential industry, which is vital to economic expansion and advancement

NOTING that Resolution #26 only benefits the few nations with powerful nonessential industries, effectively out-competing the minor industries of less developed nations due to forcibly unrestricted borders

[Araraukar]

OOC: But realistically you can't require WA nations to prefer trade with other WA nations, given the low percentage of WA nations out of all nations. So requiring good faith effort is about the most you can do.

I support repealing the target, but I'm unconvinced by your reasoning.

[Tinhampton]

OOC: But realistically you can't require WA nations to prefer trade with other WA nations, given the low percentage of WA nations out of all nations. So requiring good faith effort is about the most you can do.

I am not arguing that member states ought to "prefer trade with other" members as opposed to with non-members, rather that members that do not want to "reduc[e] protectionist measures" have to participate in inter-WA negotiations to reduce them anyway - and that they are still allowed to do nothing more than negotiate the reduction of tariffs on extremely specific sectors of the economy with close allies (even if those negotiations were underway before the Article 1 negotiations began), so long as they do so in "good faith."

[Araraukar]

I am ... arguing ... that members that do not want to "reduce protectionist measures" ... are still allowed to do nothing more than negotiate the reduction of tariffs on extremely specific sectors of the economy with close allies ... so long as they do so in "good faith".

OOC: And based on that you want them to not be able to do that. So, like I said, not convinced by your reasoning. I don't want the target resolution to be replaced by something that would make WA a tighter economic union than RLEU is. It wouldn't be realistic because of the nature of NSWA (multiple universes, solar systems, nations ranging from interstellar to small islands, etc.), and even the resolution currently in place stretches the limits of believability (if all the trade-related things in resolutions were actually true, the FT nations willing to trade with MT nations would own the MT nations, which would have very little production themselves, given the FT or FFT nations could easily flood their markets with cheaper and better resources and goods, but since we don't RP like that in general, I'm assuming the majority of people are actually noncompliant with those resolutions).

[Tinhampton]

Just to confirm OOCly that I will not be proposing a replacement of GA#221 should this repeal pass.

[WayNeacTia]

Just to confirm OOCly that I will not be proposing a replacement of GA#221 should this repeal pass.

Pretty sure it won't anyway. Repealing an actual helpful piece of legislation, instead of introducing more minutiae? I must say, this is a switch.

[Tinhampton]

I'm not sure who GA#221 is supposed to help... but noted anyway

[Graintfjall]

Always thought this would have been a fun thing to RP.

[Tinhampton]

Always thought this would have been a fun thing to RP.

I thought we already did that

[Separatist Peoples]

Always thought this would have been a fun thing to RP.

OOC: It turns out nobody here knows how trade talks work.

[Tinhampton]

Bump for further comments because of course

[Tinhampton]

Will submit in about a week absent any further comments of substantial substance... or something.

[Imperium Anglorum]

Repeal is unnecessary.

[Tinhampton]

Repeal is unnecessary.

Resolution is unnecessary.

[Tinhampton]

Will likely submit on 19th July 2021.

[Picairn]

OOC: It turns out nobody here knows how trade talks work.

OOC: None of us here are diplomats or trade representatives of the government, are we?

[Tinhampton]

If you have any thoughts, please get them in at some point in the next 28.6 hours

[Tinhampton]

No? Anyway, we are Proposal-A-Go-Go regardless...

[WayNeacTia]

No? Anyway, we are Proposal-A-Go-Go regardless...

Hopefully WALL sees the light and consigns this repeal to the dumpster where it belongs.

[Tinhampton]

Quorate. Will be voted on between the major updates of Monday 2nd August and Friday 6th August, in the exceedingly likely event that Factory Farming Ban by The Python reaches quorum and it - along with the two other queued proposals - remain eligible for voting.

AS OF 0324 BST ON TUESDAY: Approvals: 54 out of 54 needed (Tinhampton, The Flyin, Bearded Dragones, Brototh, Krovx Luxembourg, CoraSpia, You Should See Me in a Crown, Taki Calxur, Gibraltarica, Jedinsto, Rogue River, TESDAI, United Lammunist Republic, Sheepiania, Seludong, Ench Table, Tostandia, Novum Orientis, Duhhhmurica, Kustonia, Noble Titans, Republic of Blank, Sedgistan, Pastries, Hakuri, Socialist Amogus, Krovnik, Zamastan, Camaordia, Lamerdon, Wischland, Krezenel, Meliant, Conservativealia, Zombiedolphins, Queen of the Ruckus, Sanctaria, Hometania, Chodean Kal, Paleocacher, Socruell, Grand Memeland, Tartaso, Cus Kazdines, Johanneslanden, Dilber, Oliveriaa, Whitemore, Reultan, NewTexas, Hulldom, Floyssauu, Smiley Bob, Enlais)

---

I sent out the following campaign telegram about nine hours ago, when this proposal already had twelve approvals:

Greetings, Delegate. I politely request that you approve my repeal of "On Multilateral Trade Talks".

On Multilateral Trade Talks requires the World Assembly to organise meetings between all of its member nations once every ten years.

At those meetings, nations must attempt to reach "mutually beneficial" free trade agreements (FTAs).

The resolution allows these FTAs to cover just a few small sectors of the economy. These FTAs are not even required to ever actually come into effect.

Resolutions which promote such wasteful agreements should not remain in place. Member states should be able to reach their own FTAs without WA interference.

I am seeking the repeal of On Multilateral Trade Talks for these reasons. I hope that you will approve it today.

Thank you,
The PikaThink of Tinhampton

[The Great Boom]

Great work. Our delegation will support the resolution. I have no feedback as this is a repeal and the additional condemnations of the original resolution which I would mention would undermine the concision with which you've written your repeal.

Although I insist that "every 10 years" is an objectively better way to say "on a decadal basis" not only for ease, but also clarity. Decades sometimes revolve around a relevant year (often the current one), and sometimes they imply a ten year set in a base ten system like 2000 to 2010. And surely that is not the intent of either resolution. As well, not all WA nations necessarily use the base 10 system or similar calendars.

[Morover]

As well, not all WA nations necessarily use the base 10 system or similar calendars.

Expert on Morovian Tribes whose name is not readily available, and seems to be visiting the Morovian offices as a vacation.

"I find this an odd thing to note, given that 'every 10 years' is not any more friendly to systems with bases that are not ten than 'decadal' is. For instance, in several tribes on a continent adjacent to Morover as a nation, Senary is the primary base system. To these tribespeople, 'every 10 years' would mean to us 'every 6 years', and we would need to say 'every 14 years' to them in order to portray the same message. I cannot comment on the proposal in question, as I am no expert in international legislative technique, but I just found it odd to point this out as a potential issue. I would assume that the standard translation services, which I have no doubt are in place, would cover base-differences as well."

[Bears Armed]

OOC: Numbers get converted, along with units if necessary, when the Gnomes transcribe copies of proposals & resolutions for each member-nation... just as the actual language originally used gets translated, IC, into ones that those nations' governments -- or at least, for proposals not yet queued for voting, their diplomats -- can understand.

[Nondenominational Christian Commonwealth]

I am in full support of this resolution. The World Assembly was established to help establish peace and aid its members. This resolution hurts nations due to red tape. Nations need to be free to make their own decisions.

[WayNeacTia]

This resolution hurts nations due to red tape.

Do explain how please? I am guessing you didn't actually read the target did you? Instead you read Tinhampton's interpretation of the target didn't you?