Repeal "International Road Safety"

[Krazz Due]

Description: WA General Assembly Resolution #83: International Road Safety (Category: Free Trade; Strength: Mild) shall be struck out and rendered null and void.

Argument: The World Assembly,

NOTING the pratical effects of the regulations of the International Transport Safety Committee on free trade;

CONCERNED about the increase in the prices of the transported goods and subsequent damages to the equity in world economy;

FURTHER NOTING that a resolution in the "free trade" category is producing legal effects in international migrations,

CONCERNED that this might affect universal rights of free circulation;

FURTHER NOTING that this legislation forces WA member states to meet ITSC standards on the quality of domestic roads and related infrastructure only in international roads, therefore interfering with a sovereign nation's right to develop it's own spatial planning policy;

FURTHER NOTING that prohibitions on member states that are less capable to meet the requirements will only affect negatevely the country's development, by denying them acess to free trade;

CONCLUDES that the GENERAL ASSEMBLY RESOLUTION # 83 on International Road Safety:
- has affected negatevely free trade by increasing costs
- has affected negatevely the right to free migration
- interfered with member state's sovereign right to develop independent policies
- has denied free trade to lesser developed nations;

THEREFORE recognizes the International Transport Safety Committee must cease it's activities so that free trade across nations increase and develops;

Hereby repeals RESOLUTION # 83

[Grays Harbor]

We are quite curious as to how having requirements for safe trucks and roads has "affected negatevely the right to free migration"? How? Seriously. How. Is it because by having truck inspections you can't hide illegal immigrants in false floors now or something? Better quality roads are an impediment to migration?

Please, explain this oddity to us. We can't wait to hear this.

[Holy Roman Confederate]

We are quite curious as to how having requirements for safe trucks and roads has "affected negatevely the right to free migration"? How? Seriously. How. Is it because by having truck inspections you can't hide illegal immigrants in false floors now or something? Better quality roads are an impediment to migration?

Please, explain this oddity to us. We can't wait to hear this.

Though we rarely agree with Grays Harbor, the HRC is also eagerly awaiting the reply to this.

[Darenjo]

Okay, for serious, how long did you have this thread up before you submitted the proposal? Usually, you wait until you hear other nations' feedback before you submit stuff.

[Quelesh]

This proposal is worth considering, and toward that end I have approved the submitted proposal. However, I agree with my colleague from Darenjo: it is better to submit a draft here for review some time before submission, to give your colleagues ample time to comment and help improve the proposal.

[Quelesh]

And it's been removed, I see. Legality issue?

[Embolalia]

I fail to see the merits of which my colleague from Quelesh speaks. I honestly don't even understand what the arguments in this proposal are trying to say.

[Krazz Due]

We are quite curious as to how having requirements for safe trucks and roads has "affected negatevely the right to free migration"? How? Seriously. How. Is it because by having truck inspections you can't hide illegal immigrants in false floors now or something? Better quality roads are an impediment to migration?

Please, explain this oddity to us. We can't wait to hear this.

Dear Grays Harbor,
as written in the resolution:
«FURTHER AUTHORIZES the International Transport Safety Committee to promulgate regulations related to the safety of roads and related infrastructure at points where roads cross international borders at which one or more member states operate customs, immigration, or other border checkpoints;». If migratory checkpoints need to meet high standarts of regulation and they can't,wouldn't you then be excluding these checkpoints as a means of migration, therefore creating obstacles to international migration?

Thank you for the attention.

[Krazz Due]

And it's been removed, I see. Legality issue?

National sovereign reference.

[Krazz Due]

I fail to see the merits of which my colleague from Quelesh speaks. I honestly don't even understand what the arguments in this proposal are trying to say.

Please be a little more specific and insult the arguments individualy, so we may be clearer.

[Darenjo]

We are quite curious as to how having requirements for safe trucks and roads has "affected negatevely the right to free migration"? How? Seriously. How. Is it because by having truck inspections you can't hide illegal immigrants in false floors now or something? Better quality roads are an impediment to migration?

Please, explain this oddity to us. We can't wait to hear this.

Dear Grays Harbor,
as written in the resolution:

FURTHER AUTHORIZES the International Transport Safety Committee to promulgate regulations related to the safety of roads and related infrastructure at points where roads cross international borders at which one or more member states operate customs, immigration, or other border checkpoints;

If migratory checkpoints need to meet high standarts of regulation and they can't,wouldn't you then be excluding these checkpoints as a means of migration, therefore creating obstacles to international migration?

Thank you for the attention.

It could be viewed that way. However, most regulations on migratory checkpoints (if there are any WA ones) would probably be simple like "have translators" or "search luggage for nukes". I don't see how making sure that checkpoints meet international or national standards creates such a huge issue.

[Krazz Due]

It could be viewed that way. However, most regulations on migratory checkpoints (if there are any WA ones) would probably be simple like "have translators" or "search luggage for nukes". I don't see how making sure that checkpoints meet international or national standards creates such a huge issue.

Yes, it is subject to interpretation and imagination, but I can't see it come to life without major bureaucracy and that would undermine the dynamics that an open border (such as in the Schengen Space [am I allowed to make real-life references?]) can produce.

[Embolalia]

Please be a little more specific and insult the arguments individualy, so we may be clearer.

You asked for it...

CONCERNED about the increase in the prices of the transported goods and subsequent damages to the equity in world economy;

Smells like exaggeration to me. You have to fit some safety and driver training standards, and only on international road shipping. Yes, this is what will be the downfall of the world economy...

FURTHER NOTING that a resolution in the "free trade" category is producing legal effects in international migrations,

Uhh, what? How does this affect migration at all? This is about commercial road vehicles. It doesn't have anything to do with immigration. Absolute nonsense.

CONCERNED that this might affect universal rights of free circulation;

Bear in mind that we aren't all Europeans here. You need to be more specific here just to get people to know what you mean. A search of our legal archives (OOC: Google) shows that "free circulation" means that a product was produced entirely within, or has been properly imported into the aforementioned European community. Not only does 83 have nothing to do with tariffs or importation or customs, but it also wouldn't in any way reduce the free movement of goods (which I suspect is what you actually meant). It merely requires that the point of crossing is safe. Again, nonsense.

FURTHER NOTING that this legislation forces WA member states to meet ITSC standards on the quality of domestic roads and related infrastructure only in international roads, therefore interfering with a sovereign nation's right to develop it's own spatial planning policy;

Pure NatSov, which alone has no place in a repeal argument. And seriously? "Spatial planning policy"? It requires safe road infrastructure literally only at the point where it crosses the border. Unless your nation is ten feet wide, this clause is ridiculous.

FURTHER NOTING that prohibitions on member states that are less capable to meet the requirements will only affect negatevely the country's development, by denying them acess to free trade;

Spell check this. And the requirements are minimal. You're not going to deny a country access to free trade by making them be safe crossing the border. Although, this is the closest the proposal comes to being coherent.

CONCLUDES that the GENERAL ASSEMBLY RESOLUTION # 83 on International Road Safety:
- has affected negatevely free trade by increasing costs
- has affected negatevely the right to free migration
- interfered with member state's sovereign right to develop independent policies
- has denied free trade to lesser developed nations;

You really don't need the conclusion. If you've actually shown your points, they stand for themselves.[quote]THEREFORE recognizes the International Transport Safety Committee must cease it's activities so that free trade across nations increase and develops;[quote]Don't need this line either. If you repeal, the activities cease. That's what it means to repeal. And again, if you made the point well before, you don't need to repeat it.

[Krazz Due]

You asked for it...

and I thank you for the time you spent on this. I will read this with more attention tomorrow and then write a reply. Stay well.

[Grays Harbor]

We are quite curious as to how having requirements for safe trucks and roads has "affected negatevely the right to free migration"? How? Seriously. How. Is it because by having truck inspections you can't hide illegal immigrants in false floors now or something? Better quality roads are an impediment to migration?

Please, explain this oddity to us. We can't wait to hear this.

Dear Grays Harbor,
as written in the resolution:
«FURTHER AUTHORIZES the International Transport Safety Committee to promulgate regulations related to the safety of roads and related infrastructure at points where roads cross international borders at which one or more member states operate customs, immigration, or other border checkpoints;». If migratory checkpoints need to meet high standarts of regulation and they can't,wouldn't you then be excluding these checkpoints as a means of migration, therefore creating obstacles to international migration?

Thank you for the attention.

We are still waiting for your explanation. Where, exactly, does it say anything about standards for checkpoints? Nowhere. You are quoting a description, not a requirement. Check your facts, sparky.

[Darenjo]

It could be viewed that way. However, most regulations on migratory checkpoints (if there are any WA ones) would probably be simple like "have translators" or "search luggage for nukes". I don't see how making sure that checkpoints meet international or national standards creates such a huge issue.

Yes, it is subject to interpretation and imagination, but I can't see it come to life without major bureaucracy and that would undermine the dynamics that an open border (such as in the Schengen Space [am I allowed to make real-life references?]) can produce.

The problem is that most nations don't have open borders with each other like the RL European Union (and yes, you can use real world references, but make sure that you make it clear [say RL for 'real life' - there's a region in NS called European Union]) does. I for one wouldn't want open borders with Great Nepal, Omigodtheykilledkenny, Missourian Rebels, etc.

As to your other point, yes, having border patrols, customs, etc. does create a fair amount of bureaucracy. However, big government doesn't necessarily mean bad government.

[Bears Armed]

As to your other point, yes, having border patrols, customs, etc. does create a fair amount of bureaucracy. However, big government doesn't necessarily mean bad government.

"That's just usually the case..."


Urra o HighPeaks,
Apprentice Voice, Bears Armed Mission at the World Assembly.

^_^

[Embolalia]

You asked for it...

and I thank you for the time you spent on this. I will read this with more attention tomorrow and then write a reply. Stay well.

*taps fingers on desk* We're waiting....