[DEFEATED] Standards for International Road Freight

[Separatist Peoples]

OOC: And encourage Ara to change his attitude immensely and do the basic research into actual practices (the primary writer should do so as well) instead of dismissing them as "something I think is stupid in general".

OOC: I'll never not think road tolls to be stupid. I think many things done by people and governments in RL are stupid. That doesn't mean I was incapable of incorprating them as mentions or reasons in a proposal. Also, the current proposal is perfectly applicable to systems with road tolls - their existence is indeed a big part of the reason for the proposal in the first place. So whether I think they're stupid or not, it has nothing to do with the proposal's contents.

Also, this got to vote at a time that was an inconvenient timing for both of us (IA's proposal having been withdrawn at the last minute), so we were perhaps a little less well prepared than we should have been, for the debate. Not that it or anything we say here, would have helped, given the delegate stomp right out of the gate. It would be useful if someone could post the reasons here, but then big delegacies rarely bother to tell anyone anything on the actual forums... which bafflingly includes IA.

OOC: The WALL delegates do generally discuss their reasoning, but since most of them aren't GA regulars, they have little reason to bother posting here.

[Imperium Anglorum]

Why should I post feedback to my self-ascribed foe—though I certainly wouldn't use that nomenclature, as I don't see you (Ara) as a foe—who somehow blames me for his own unpreparedness? But sure, if you deem it worthy to open this post, my vote was motivated by two things: border closings should not have to be litigated with a compelling purpose burden, I prefer at maximum a rational basis burden, and I really like Schengen.

More importantly (especially for the OP), this implicit characterisation of large delegate, or more accurately government, voting positions is incorrect. It does not take much digging to find an explanation for, say, how the North Pacific voted. It is currently the ninth dispatch on the Dispatches list. https://www.nationstates.net/page=dispatch/id=1365800. I can't speak for all the Pacifics (for obvious reasons) but I would expect that they would be willing to tell you their reasons if they have them.

The large UCRs too have clear voting explanations, whether they be a winner-take-all system or a directed vote. The ones with directed votes also need to distribute that direction, which implies that their reasons too are public. That regional officers broadly have better things to do with their time than to submit themselves for the consideration of the GA forum... should not be shocking, especially so when the GA forum regulars haven't even paid the delegates a small fortune. I would expect most delegates would respond with something akin to "Do you feel in charge?"

[Endangered BIRDS]

His Imperial Majesty of the Kingdom of Endangered BIRDS opposes the General Assembly Resolution “Standards for International Road Freight” for the following reasons:

- Article IV requires member states to “charge a one-time fee on each transport for its passage through their territory”.
o While the Resolution’s title states that this proposal is to ‘reduce barriers to free trade, this Article explicitly imposes restrictions on free trade.
- Article V allows member states to “impose higher payment for routes that transverse environmentally sensitive areas”.
o This Article explicitly is further imposing restrictions on free trade.
- Article VI states that member states “use fair and reasonable judgment in the calculation of fees”
o This Article is a slippery slope towards, arbitrary, capricious and an abuse of discretion, as there is no governing body to determine what is considered “fair and reasonable”.

For the foregoing reasons – The Kingdom of Endangered BIRDS shall oppose this resolution for cause. So Declared.

[The Free Humans]

"First of all, the legistration is a bit misleading in saying that this reduces barriers to free trade when this clearly adds more regulations. Regulations are not necessarily a bad thing, but let's be honest about what's being proposal here. We don't need to coat our legistration with honey to make it more attractive, just be clear and concise. If that was the only issue then I could probably ignore it, but unfortunately there's one that's particularly glaring.

IV: Requires nations to charge a fee: Allowing us to charge a fee? Sure, we wouldn't do it if they're just passing through but we're not gonna regulate how other nations handle something like a fee. The problem is it "requires" nations to charge a fee, this is the World Assembly going too far. The World Assembly should be for issues of national security and upholding the peoples rights! Not to control how we handle transport through our nation.

For this reason alone The Free Humans oppose this legislation." -Mistress Amara

[Angelsnow Matriarchy]

The Angelsnow Matriarchy will stand undecided in this issue. We have taken the matter before the inner circle but we could not reach consensus on the matter. on one hand our trade is negligable.. on the other hand our neighbouring countries incessantly try to smuggle things across our borders so we have had to be harsh in our response. Win or loose, we have no clear gain in voting for or againt. i leave it to the assembly.

Signed, Jeszebel.

[The New Sicilian State]

Why should I post feedback to my self-ascribed foe—though I certainly wouldn't use that nomenclature, as I don't see you (Ara) as a foe—who somehow blames me for his own unpreparedness? But sure, if you deem it worthy to open this post, my vote was motivated by two things: border closings should not have to be litigated with a compelling purpose burden, I prefer at maximum a rational basis burden, and I really like Schengen.

OOC: I can hardly see a statutory difference between "compelling purpose" and "rational basis"; I see it as needlessly pedantic, but perhaps I just don't understand.

[Separatist Peoples]

Why should I post feedback to my self-ascribed foe—though I certainly wouldn't use that nomenclature, as I don't see you (Ara) as a foe—who somehow blames me for his own unpreparedness? But sure, if you deem it worthy to open this post, my vote was motivated by two things: border closings should not have to be litigated with a compelling purpose burden, I prefer at maximum a rational basis burden, and I really like Schengen.

OOC: I can hardly see a statutory difference between "compelling purpose" and "rational basis"; I see it as needlessly pedantic, but perhaps I just don't understand.

OOC: Rational basis means the government needs to articulate a basis that is rational and not necessarily tailored to a specific goal. Government rationale is presumptively legal. Compelling purpose is the opposite, as part of the strict scrutiny standard. The government argument is presumptivley illegal and the government has to show that their position has a compelling state interest that supersedes the individual's violation of rights. There is a huge difference.

[The New Sicilian State]

OOC: I can hardly see a statutory difference between "compelling purpose" and "rational basis"; I see it as needlessly pedantic, but perhaps I just don't understand.

OOC: Rational basis means the government needs to articulate a basis that is rational and not necessarily tailored to a specific goal. Government rationale is presumptively legal. Compelling purpose is the opposite, as part of the strict scrutiny standard. The government argument is presumptivley illegal and the government has to show that their position has a compelling state interest that supersedes the individual's violation of rights. There is a huge difference.

OOC: Thank you for filling the knowledge gap. I wasn't aware there was a difference between the two, and certainly see the advantage in rational basis.

[Araraukar]

Why should I post feedback to my self-ascribed foe—though I certainly wouldn't use that nomenclature, as I don't see you (Ara) as a foe—who somehow blames me for his own unpreparedness?

OOC: The forum ignore function is called Foe List, so word choice not my own. And I'm not blaming you for anything, there was another quorate proposal that got withdrawn or discarded or something, and together they ended up bumping this one going to vote faster than I had calculated. Such things happen. In this case RL happened at the same time.

my vote was motivated by two things: border closings should not have to be litigated with a compelling purpose burden, I prefer at maximum a rational basis burden

So you think border closures should have more or less reason than "compelling"? I'm not being facetious, I can't tell from that sentence whether you think the line in the proposal is too much or too little.

and I really like Schengen.

...which this proposal would be compatible with?

That regional officers broadly have better things to do with their time than to submit themselves for the consideration of the GA forum... should not be shocking,

The OP isn't under my control and the only large delegate I wondered about was you. You're around GA often enough. But thank you for posting after being prompted.

especially so when the GA forum regulars haven't even paid the delegates a small fortune.

...that sounds like you saying the delegates want bribes.

I would expect most delegates would respond with something akin to "Do you feel in charge?"

And now you've again lost me. What does this mean?

I wasn't aware there was a difference between the two

OOC: Same. English is a weird language. "Pakottava syy" is much simpler and easily understood to be both compelling and rational, because no reasonable nation would close their borders unless they absolutely had to.

[Newark Aristocracy]

In full support.

[Imperium Anglorum]

Why should I post feedback to my self-ascribed foe—though I certainly wouldn't use that nomenclature, as I don't see you (Ara) as a foe—who somehow blames me for his own unpreparedness?

OOC: The forum ignore function is called Foe List, so word choice not my own. And I'm not blaming you for anything, there was another quorate proposal that got withdrawn or discarded or something, and together they ended up bumping this one going to vote faster than I had calculated. Such things happen. In this case RL happened at the same time.

my vote was motivated by two things: border closings should not have to be litigated with a compelling purpose burden, I prefer at maximum a rational basis burden

So you think border closures should have more or less reason than "compelling"? I'm not being facetious, I can't tell from that sentence whether you think the line in the proposal is too much or too little.

and I really like Schengen.

...which this proposal would be compatible with?

That regional officers broadly have better things to do with their time than to submit themselves for the consideration of the GA forum... should not be shocking,

The OP isn't under my control and the only large delegate I wondered about was you. You're around GA often enough. But thank you for posting after being prompted.

especially so when the GA forum regulars haven't even paid the delegates a small fortune.

...that sounds like you saying the delegates want bribes.

I would expect most delegates would respond with something akin to "Do you feel in charge?"

And now you've again lost me. What does this mean?

A rational basis burden is a standard of review in which the government must show that the state action was taken in order to forward some state interest. A compelling purpose standard is more akin to intermediate scrutiny than rational basis. At a maximum, I would not be willing to accept anything more stringent.

The proposal is not compatible with Schengen because of its requirement that fees be collected at border crossings. Nor does Schengen require statement of a travel plan or entrance at specific border crossing zones. In fact, all of these arguments are provided in the TNP opinion, which I had some input on via WALL.

The claim that "but then big delegacies rarely bother to tell anyone anything on the actual forums" is directed to far more delegates than just me. Especially in light of the following clause which would have me be a sub-set of those delegates, implied by the word "including". The implication that "they" (who are also not some kind of monolithic mass) should have to come here and submit filings as if the forum is regulating them fundamentally misapprehends how the Assembly works. As to the references to the Dark Knight Rises, which you somehow impute into something like a call for corruption and rule-breaking game monetisation, see YouTube, Do you feel in charge?

I would also appreciate it if you did not break up paragraphs into little quote chunks, especially when they strip words of their context and create openings for misunderstandings like the two I noted above. Certainly it is clearer signposting; it is hardly good faith to make it so easy, however, for a neutral observer to be misled.

[Krishna Rashtra]

Opposed, on the same grounds as Kandorith.

[Provident Nation]

.

[Liberty Albion]

Liberty Albion is AGAINST this resolution on the basis that the proposal would actually increase barriers to free trade, rather than reduce them.

[Kenmoria]

Liberty Albion is AGAINST this resolution on the basis that the proposal would actually increase barriers to free trade, rather than reduce them.

(OOC: You’re right; I think the proposal should be regulation - transportation, rather than free trade. It’s a little late starting a legality challenge with 7 hours to go and the proposal failing at vote, but is something that ought to have been mentioned earlier.)

[The New Sicilian State]

Liberty Albion is AGAINST this resolution on the basis that the proposal would actually increase barriers to free trade, rather than reduce them.

(OOC: You’re right; I think the proposal should be regulation - transportation, rather than free trade. It’s a little late starting a legality challenge with 7 hours to go and the proposal failing at vote, but is something that ought to have been mentioned earlier.)

OOC: I agree, will be fixed on the next go around

[Araraukar]

OOC: On mobile so can't write lots, but category is correct - additional regulations that make the flow of goods smoother, fits Free Trade. But we'll talk about stuff before posting the new draft.

[Separatist Peoples]

OOC: On mobile so can't write lots, but category is correct - additional regulations that make the flow of goods smoother, fits Free Trade. But we'll talk about stuff before posting the new draft.

OOC: This ^. The regulations are designed to facilitate trade not a non-profit motive like safety or equity. Free Trade is right.

[Morover]

"Standards for international Road Freight" was defeated 18,221 votes to 4,001.

[The New Sicilian State]

OOC: Thanks to those that supported! We'll be back soon with an improved draft to tackle this again based on a lot of the feedback given during the voting period.