[Draft] Repeal GA 199 Sustainable Fishing Act

[Alsace and Lorraine United]

Category: Repeal
Target: 199 GA
Proposed By: Alsace and Lorraine United

The General Assembly,

Considers that it is a noble quest to attempt to impose regulation to allow for the influx of life and happiness of wildlife. As is to be concerned with the sustainability of said wildlife.

Concerned however regarding Clause 6 of the target resolution in which nations are required to enforce a moratorium on overfishing in their sovereign waters.

Convinced that such a ban would be desirable for the following reasons:

I. The deregulation of the industry would see a boost in the income made by the companies as well as the workers,

II. The price of fish would drop relative to the newfound availability of the fish,

III. Allowing the nations to regulate themselves will find that the legislation passed would better suit such nations needs,

IV. Nations on which their economies are not based on fishing can make up for nations of which their economies are by passing much stricter fishing policy,

Seeking, therefore, to empower this Assembly once again to deregulate the fishing market and allow for further growth of economic wealth and population, does hereby repeal General Assembly Resolution #199 "Sustainable Fishing Act."

[Kenmoria]

"There needs to be a comma after the “The General Assembly” line."

[Alsace and Lorraine United]

Fixed thanks

[Antiyard]

"It is a noble quest..." is not a preambulatory clause. The paragraph needs to start with a preambulatory clause. I suggest "Considers that it is a noble quest..."

[Alsace and Lorraine United]

Fixed thank you

[Kenmoria]

"I would place commas at the end of the sub-clauses: I, II, III and IV."

[Alsace and Lorraine United]

Fixed!

[Aclion]

I'm not sure how you expect nations to self regulate in an industry that operates largely outside of their nations national waters. Fishery is a classic case of the tragedy of the commons, and without some form of regulation each nation will race to deplete the international stock as quickly as possible. I'm also not sure how you expect strict regulations in nonfishing nations to have a counterbalancing effect on the deregulation of fisheries in nations with large fishing industries.

This seems like a recipe for destroying our international fisheries.

[Alsace and Lorraine United]

As to regulating waters, it uses the same thing as the original document as to each nation regulating its waters and only its waters. And the counterbalancing goes to the effect that a large nation may pass lax regulation as it needs fish but I largely farming based nation should not be regulated with lax laws as they don’t need the fish. Also I am not calling for no regulation but I don’t feel that this is within the WA jurisdiction and should be left to the nations to regulate

[Bears Armed]

Opposed, unless & until a superior replacement is presented to urrs here.

[Alsace and Lorraine United]

I have a replacement law drafted but I can’t present it until this is repealed

[New-Brussels]

I have a replacement law drafted but I can’t present it until this is repealed

Your argument sure looks like you intend to just pamper the fishing industry.

[Wrapper]

I have a replacement law drafted but I can’t present it until this is repealed

OOC: You can post a proposed replacement in a separate thread and link to it here.

[Alsace and Lorraine United]

I have a replacement law drafted but I can’t present it until this is repealed

Your argument sure looks like you intend to just pamper the fishing industry.

Not pamper the fishing industry, but to make the market more free and to allow the nations (the body closer to the civilians) to regulate based on the needs, and if it boosts the economy I’ll pamper if I must

[New-Brussels]

Your argument sure looks like you intend to just pamper the fishing industry.

Not pamper the fishing industry, but to make the market more free and to allow the nations (the body closer to the civilians) to regulate based on the needs, and if it boosts the economy I’ll pamper if I must

We are perfectly reassured that the glorious mountainhomes of Alsace and Lorraine will present us a proper framework for large scale fishing, in that case.

OOC : Just pulling your leg, but yeah please post the draft

[East Gondwana]

I don’t feel that this is within the WA jurisdiction and should be left to the nations to regulate

This is precisely the sort of issue that the World Assembly is for. Oceans are open and cannot be closed off like land borders; fish stocks tend to be much more migratory than land animals.

Say a large nation, with a large ocean territory and fish stocks, chooses not to regulate their fisheries industry and their stocks are severely, even irreversibly, depleted. Say that this nation doesn't rely on on fisheries at all, it's a small but profitable part of their economy. It is not in their interest to regulate fisheries because if they are depleted, it's not a big problem.
However, a small neighbouring nation, whose economy absolutely depends on fisheries, who has no say in how their larger, more reckless neighbour regulates their economic activity, now has their livelihood destroyed. Their economy in ruins.

Contrary to your supposition that nations not dependent on fishing can pass stronger regulation, it is these nations precisely that do not have an incentive to regulate, as it is not a significant loss if they overfish. And in the case of heavily industrialised nations, with super trawlers and other such monstrosities, they can cause huge damage to fisheries for a relatively small contribution to the economy (few employees, few corporations and owners meaning, in the case of capitalist systems, little wealth contributed to the overall economy).

All of this does not even begin to address the environmental cost of overfishing (and how this also affects national economies).

It is not in the interests of the international community to repeal this resolution.

[New Keam]

OOC: Disregard the previous post, I had no idea what I was talking about.

Edit: "As a former member of 10,000 islands, we shared a archipelago. Think about sharing an archipelago with a bunch of nations, and not having any international fishing regulations. What would happen to the international waters we all shared for fishing?

[East Gondwana]

I have a replacement law drafted but I can’t present it until this is repealed

OOC: I think you can. A comprehensive bill can repeal and replace an existing bill. We at least did that several times years ago if I recall, but I'm coming back after a long absence.

OOC: I'm afraid you can't. Repeals can ONLY repeal, they cannot legislate. And you can't repeal in a regular proposal.

[New Keam]

OOC: I think you can. A comprehensive bill can repeal and replace an existing bill. We at least did that several times years ago if I recall, but I'm coming back after a long absence.

OOC: I'm afraid you can't. Repeals can ONLY repeal, they cannot legislate. And you can't repeal in a regular proposal.

OOC: You caught me just as I freshened up on the subject and edited.

[Alsace and Lorraine United]

viewtopic.php?f=9&t=441724

[The New California Republic]

OOC: I don't believe that the reasons given are anywhere near good enough to warrant a repeal. I also don't like the fact that the current replacement being drafted is inferior to the original. Strongly against.

[New Keam]

"I am strongly opposed to this legislation. I don't believe it will get the support to pass".

[Bears Armed]

OOC: I don't believe that the reasons given are anywhere near good enough to warrant a repeal. I also don't like the fact that the current replacement being drafted is inferior to the original. Strongly against.

This.
Also, as fishing is essentially a form of hunting, I argue that repealing GAR #199 would simply make the matter subject to GAR #267 'Sensible Limits on Hunting' instead.

[The Greater Siriusian Domain]

Teran Saber: "The whole point of sustainable fishing legislation in general is to allow for the populations of sought-after food and game fish to be maintained so that they can continue to be available. Your arguments that the repeal of GA 199 would create more jobs and allow for economic growth are incredibly short-sighted. Sure, it would increase the number of available jobs and bolster the economy for a while, but what will you do when you've reduced the populations of those fish to nothing? Suddenly, not only do the additional jobs disappear, but you also lose the rest of the entire industry and the economic power it provided."

"Opposed on principle. Next time you decide to draft a repeal or proposal that promotes economic gain at the expense of sustainability, consider the long-term implications of your proposal."

[Imperium Anglorum]

The answer is to privatise fishing grounds. Tragedy of the commons solved.