NationStates Jolt Archive

I've decided to go ahead and start a new thread for this proposal as it is no longer just about cheese, but food in general. The proposal has been submitted, but I consider it a "Draft Proposal" as it is still a work in progress. Here is the current text:
Global Food Distribution Act

A resolution to reduce barriers to free trade and commerce.


Category: Free Trade


Strength: Strong


Proposed by: Yeldan UN Mission

Description: The General Assembly of the United Nations,

RECOGNIZING the role of proper nutrition in maintaining the physical and psychological well-being of all persons;

FURTHER RECOGNIZING the importance of proper nutrition in the growth and development of children;

NOTING the responsibility of nations to provide adequate food supplies for their citizenry:

DEFINING FOOD AS: Material, usually of plant or animal origin, that contains or consists of essential body nutrients, such as carbohydrates, fats, proteins, vitamins, or minerals, and is ingested and assimilated by an organism to produce energy, stimulate growth, and maintain life.

HEREBY

1. ENCOURAGES the sale and/or transfer of food products between UN nations;

2. REQUESTS the free distribution of surplus food and food products to those unable to purchase them at fair market value and defined as worthy of such by the individual member nation;

3. MANDATES the removal of all tariffs, duties and trade restrictions on food. Exception will be made for trade restrictions which are in place for legitimate Religious, Cultural, Medical, or Ecological concerns;

4. ENCOURAGES STRONGLY the removal of all sales taxes levied on food;

5. CALLS UPON UN member nations to advance research into new and improved methods of food production and distribution as a priority within their research budgets;

6. ENCOURAGES all nations to institute health and nutritional education programs within their public school systems.

Yeldan UN Mission, i will mention real world because this is a really important matter.

In real world, i’m living in a nation member of the European Union, and even if i personally like the process of European integration, i really think sometimes things are going crazy:

Half of the budget of the European-Union administration goes to subventions to agriculture!
And I’m not applauding USA or Japan here, as these countries have exactly the same policy.

If you ““MANDATES the removal of all tariffs, duties and trade restrictions on food””
=> developing Nation will not be able to compete freely against massively-subventionned developed nation agriculture
=> The fragile economy of many developing nations will crumble

So if you want to free international food trade, you have to, in the same proposition, regulate strongly agriculture subventions in developed Nations

If your proposition doesn’t aim the collapse of developing nation agriculture => you don’t have the choice, sorry
You make some very good points. It isn't really totally free trade if subsidies are still in place. I'll take your advice under consideration and try to work it into the final version of the proposal.

We believe that it is neccissary to place point of orgin on cheese.
We agree, and that's covered quite adequately by Article III of United Nations Resolution # 123, Labeling Standards (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=9692888&postcount=124). We offer you a gift basket of Fine Yeldan Cheeses™. They are properly labeled "Product of The People's Democratic Republic of Yelda". Enjoy!

This looks pretty good, but I would like to suggest several small changes to the proposal text.

NOTING the responsibility of nations to provide adequate food supplies for their citizenry:

The word provide suggests a need for some sort of governmental action, and leaves no room for those nations in which no governmental action is needed for the people to have adequate food supplies. I would suggest a re-write like so:

NOTING the need of all peoples to have adequate food supplies:

Now let's look at the definition of food.

DEFINING FOOD AS: Material, usually of plant or animal origin, that contains or consists of essential body nutrients, such as carbohydrates, fats, proteins, vitamins, or minerals, and is ingested and assimilated by an organism to produce energy, stimulate growth, and maintain life.

This would be a wonderful definition of food for humans and humanoid organic species. Unfortunately for the sentient robots in the Federation, this definition leaves them out. In addition there are other creatures (OOC: I learned this in an IRC convo) that actively feed on the radiation produced by stars. Given these considerations, I would suggest a re-write like so:

DEFINES "food" as the appropriate and healthy substance(s) that a person uses or can use as a primary source of energy

The bit about research is next. My suggested re-write takes into account the circumstances of those nations that may not need to conduct such research.

5. CALLS UPON UN member nations to, except in cases where private entities already conduct such research, advance research into new and improved methods of food production and distribution as a priority within their research budgets insofar as is necessary and possible given their circumstance(s);

Thank you for your consideration.

Minister of UN Affairs
Edward Jones

Outstanding! Thank you for the advice, Minister Jones. Here is the new revised version:
Description: The General Assembly of the United Nations,

RECOGNIZING the role of proper nutrition in maintaining the physical and psychological well-being of all persons;

FURTHER RECOGNIZING the importance of proper nutrition in the growth and development of children;

NOTING the need of all peoples to have adequate food supplies;

DEFINES "food" as the appropriate and healthy substance(s) that a person uses or can use as a primary source of energy.

HEREBY

1. ENCOURAGES the sale and/or transfer of food products between UN nations;

2. REQUESTS the free distribution of surplus food and food products to those unable to purchase them at fair market value and defined as worthy of such by the individual member nation;

3. MANDATES the removal of all tariffs, duties and trade restrictions on food. Exception will be made for trade restrictions which are in place for legitimate Religious, Cultural, Medical, or Ecological concerns;

4. ENCOURAGES STRONGLY the removal of all sales taxes levied on food;

5. CALLS UPON UN member nations to, except in cases where private entities already conduct such research, advance research into new and improved methods of food production and distribution as a priority within their research budgets insofar as is necessary and possible given their circumstance(s);

6. ENCOURAGES all nations to institute health and nutritional education programs within their school systems.
Edited to include changes suggested by Texan Hotrodders.

DEFINES "food" as the appropriate and healthy substance(s) that a person uses or can use as a primary source of energy. This is assuming that all food which people choose to eat is healthy. Therefore does this mean that sales tax can still be levied and tariffs imposed on the sale of unhealthy food? Where is the line drawn between something energising and something fattening?

This is assuming that all food which people choose to eat is healthy. Therefore does this mean that sales tax can still be levied and tariffs imposed on the sale of unhealthy food? Where is the line drawn between something energising and something fattening?

I put the "healthy" part in there so that governments can't legitimately distribute unhealthy substances or unhealthy addictive drugs that can function as energy sources and call them "food".

And yes, sales tax can be levied on unhealthy foods.

It's practical and sovereignty-friendly. Damn I'm good.

Minister of UN Affairs
Edward Jones

The idea of ensuring all peoples (or sentient beings) have adaquate nutrition is one that we should all push for. Certainly, tariffs and subsidies in nations that have no food shortages, nor a large or productive agricultural industry, are inhumane when we consider the large numbers of poorer farmers who struggle to make a pittance. They aren't able to sell their products on the international market and they struggle to support themselves and their families as a result. It strikes me as doubly unfair when you consider the lavish quantities spent on supporting the agricultural industries of developed countries, that so much of the food produced there goes to waste, instead of being used.

We would like to suggest a modification to point 6:

ENCOURAGES all nations to institute health and nutritional education programs within their school systems.

It seems that the issue of proper nutrition and nutritional education is something that should be taught to all school children, not just those in public schools. I'd welcome replies to this idea.

As a note to the honourable delegate for Texan Hotrodders, Mr. Jones, we would like ask whether he does not consider that requiring all nations to abolish tariffs and subsidies, represents an infingement on national sovereignty.

May the blessings of our otters be upon you.

Leonard Otterby
Ambassador for the Republic of Compadria to the U.N.

As a note to the honourable delegate for Texan Hotrodders, Mr. Jones, we would like ask whether he does not consider that requiring all nations to abolish tariffs and subsidies, represents an infingement on national sovereignty.

May the blessings of our otters be upon you.

Leonard Otterby
Ambassador for the Republic of Compadria to the U.N.

Thank you for your concern, Ambassador Otterby. Tariffs are international in nature. A nation sets a tariff on goods from other nations. Thus, there is no violation of sovereignty.

In addition, I saw no abolition of subsidies in the most recent draft. Perhaps I missed it. If you would not mind, could you please point it out to me?

Minister of UN Affairs
Edward Jones

Ah, yes I see now that there is no mention of subsidies. I must have just imagined the word. This usually happens when I see tariffs, I automatically think 'subsidies' and go on from there.

May the blessings of our otters be upon you.

Leonard Otterby
Ambassador for the Republic of Compadria to the U.N.

The Adnarian Democratic Republic will support the idea if come to vote in UN.
The Adnarian Democratic Republic believes that we need to encourage our people(and especially our children) to eat correctly and give food to people who can't buy it.
Joshua Switzerberg,
Minister of Health,
David Contacts,
Ambassador of Adnaria to the United Nations,
Democratic Republic of Adnaria.

I like this...

Excellent work, Yelda

We would like to suggest a modification to point 6:

ENCOURAGES all nations to institute health and nutritional education programs within their school systems.

It seems that the issue of proper nutrition and nutritional education is something that should be taught to all school children, not just those in public schools. I'd welcome replies to this idea.
I realize that in many countries, "public" schools are actually "private" schools. What I am referring to here is state controlled schools, as opposed to privately run schools. Perhaps that article needs to be reworded. Or, since it only encourages it could be made to refer to all schools. I'll go ahead and use your suggestion. Thanks!


As a note to the honourable delegate for Texan Hotrodders, Mr. Jones, we would like ask whether he does not consider that requiring all nations to abolish tariffs and subsidies, represents an infingement on national sovereignty.
Please allow me to address this as well. I haven't mentioned subsidies or subventions yet because I actually do consider those to be a domestic matter, outside the scope of this resolution. This is also why it only encourages strongly the removal of sales taxes on food. Personally, I would like to see all sales taxes on food eliminated. But this resolution deals with international trade, so I didn't mandate it. Does the UN have the right to force nations to adjust their policies on internal taxation and farm subsidies? I don't think so. If I add language dealing with subsidies it won't go past "encouraging strongly".

I have only now been able to take the time to go through this proposal and I can at this juncture say it has the full backing and support of the Delegation of the Realm of Hibernia. This is a worth while, Well structured Piece of legeslature and we wish the Yeldan team the very best of luck when they Submit this for approval.

Prince Esheram Byron,
Chief Negotiator for the Delegacy of the Realm of Hibernia.

The Adnarian Democratic Republic will support the idea if come to vote in UN.
I like this...

Excellent work, Yelda
Thank you!

Since this is no longer just about cheese, do you suppose I should start handing out gift baskets of Fine Yeldan Food™?

I have only now been able to take the time to go through this proposal and I can at this juncture say it has the full backing and support of the Delegation of the Realm of Hibernia. This is a worth while, Well structured Piece of legeslature and we wish the Yeldan team the very best of luck when they Submit this for approval.

Prince Esheram Byron,
Chief Negotiator for the Delegacy of the Realm of Hibernia.
Thank you, Prince Byron! Since you missed out on the original discussion thread, here's a case of Fine Yeldan Cheeses™ for your enjoyment.

Since this is no longer just about cheese, do you suppose I should start handing out gift baskets of Fine Yeldan Food™?

Nah, stick to handing out cheese good sir! :D It tastes good and goes well with fine whiskey. :D
Excelsior,
Sen Horatio Sulla

You make some very good points. It isn't really totally free trade if subsidies are still in place. I'll take your advice under consideration and try to work it into the final version of the proposal.

thanks a lot

Here is the language I am considering adding to deal with subsidies:
ENCOURAGES STRONGLY the removal of all farm subsidies and subventions;
I'm not going to ban them outright for the same reason that I didn't ban sales tax on food. I feel that, although they are a bad idea, they are purely domestic in nature.

I would like to draw a distinction here between Free Trade Agreements and UN Resolutions. A free trade agreement is a treaty entered into willingly by all participants. None of the signatories of the treaty are being forced to comply. They do so willingly. A UN resolution, on the other hand, will force even those nations that do not agree with it to comply. This is not the way to conduct free trade. For that reason I am only strongly encouraging the elimination of subsidies and sales taxes on food.

Here is the language I am considering adding to deal with subsidies:

I'm not going to ban them outright for the same reason that I didn't ban sales tax on food. I feel that, although they are a bad idea, they are purely domestic in nature.

I would like to draw a distinction here between Free Trade Agreements and UN Resolutions. A free trade agreement is a treaty entered into willingly by all participants. None of the signatories of the treaty are being forced to comply. They do so willingly. A UN resolution, on the other hand, will force even those nations that do not agree with it to comply. This is not the way to conduct free trade. For that reason I am only strongly encouraging the elimination of subsidies and sales taxes on food.

You may want to reduce it to simply ENCOURAGES for the sake of getting more votes while acheiving the same thing.

Minister of UN Affairs
Edward Jones

I agree. :D
Excelsior,
Senator Horatio Sulla

Yeldan UN Mission, you said in your previous post:


I would like to draw a distinction here between Free Trade Agreements and UN Resolutions. A free trade agreement is a treaty entered into willingly by all participants. None of the signatories of the treaty are being forced to comply. They do so willingly. A UN resolution, on the other hand, will force even those nations that do not agree with it to comply. This is not the way to conduct free trade. For that reason I am only strongly encouraging the elimination of subsidies and sales taxes on food.

but your proposition states:

3. MANDATES the removal of all tariffs, duties and trade restrictions on food

it seems to me that nations will be forced to comply with "MANDATES" even if they don't agree

i really support your "mandates", but i hope you will recognize that your argument is illogical


may i suggest you the following, which need to be improved for sure:

"URGES the removal of all farm subsidies and subventions apart from legitimate significant economic needs exprimed by a nation"

"3. MANDATES the removal of all tariffs, duties and trade restrictions on food. Exception will be made for trade restrictions which are in place for legitimate Religious, Cultural, Medical, Ecological concerns or in protection from other nations who subsides illegitimely the concerned product;

your argument is illogical
No it isn't. Tariffs, duties and trade restrictions are more "international" in scope than sales taxes and subsidies. I don't have a problem with the UN requiring the removal of tariffs, but I feel that taxes and subsidies are domestic issues and I am only going to "encourage" that they be removed.

lets feed our people homeless people.that would solve 1,000,000 more problems than caused

You may want to reduce it to simply ENCOURAGES for the sake of getting more votes while acheiving the same thing.

Minister of UN Affairs
Edward Jones
I agree. :D
Excelsior,
Senator Horatio Sulla
Done. Here is the latest revision:
Description: The General Assembly of the United Nations,

RECOGNIZING the role of proper nutrition in maintaining the physical and psychological well-being of all persons;

FURTHER RECOGNIZING the importance of proper nutrition in the growth and development of children;

NOTING the need of all peoples to have adequate food supplies;

DEFINES "food" as the appropriate and healthy substance(s) that a person uses or can use as a primary source of energy.

HEREBY

1. ENCOURAGES the sale and/or transfer of food products between UN nations;

2. REQUESTS the free distribution of surplus food and food products to those unable to purchase them at fair market value and defined as worthy of such by the individual member nation;

3. MANDATES the removal of all tariffs, duties and trade restrictions on food. Exception will be made for trade restrictions which are in place for legitimate Religious, Cultural, Medical, or Ecological concerns;

4. ENCOURAGES the removal of all farm subsidies and subventions;

5. ENCOURAGES STRONGLY the removal of all sales taxes levied on food;

6. CALLS UPON UN member nations to, except in cases where private entities already conduct such research, advance research into new and improved methods of food production and distribution as a priority within their research budgets insofar as is necessary and possible given their circumstance(s);

7. ENCOURAGES all nations to institute health and nutritional education programs within their school systems.

lets feed our people homeless people.that would solve 1,000,000 more problems than caused
i want to propse that we tell the people that humans are healthy. turn homeless people into steaks. then make them pay a "had made into steak" tax

No it isn't. Tariffs, duties and trade restrictions are more "international" in scope than sales taxes and subsidies. I don't have a problem with the UN requiring the removal of tariffs, but I feel that taxes and subsidies are domestic issues and I am only going to "encourage" that they be removed.

No, sorry, what is the difference about trade between tarrifs and massive subsidies? => noone

Sorry, your proposition as it is written now is very dangerous for all developping Nation, their agriculture will not be able to compete with massively suventionned developped nation agriculture, as developped nations market will not be many more available for them and their market will be flooded with developped nations agriculture and food products.

if you don't add something similar than:
"Exception will be made for trade restrictions which are in place for legitimate Religious, Cultural, Medical, Ecological concerns or in protection from other nations who subsides illegitimely the concerned product;"

and if your proposition pass, the agriculure of many developping Nations will collapse, please, this is an important topic, we don't want to have to be involved again in an action to repeal it, exactly in the same way than "promotion of solar panel"

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/4267847.stm

some more information on this topic

we don't want to have to be involved again in an action to repeal it, exactly in the same way than "promotion of solar panel"
It hasn't even been voted on yet and you're already threatening to repeal it? LOL.

No, sorry, what is the difference about trade between tarrifs and massive subsidies? => noone

Actually, Yelda already pointed out the difference.

tariffs = international
subsidies = domestic

The first is within the proper scope of the UN's authority to dictate policy, and the second is not.

It's getting better!

Whilest I personally would prefer the total removal of barriers and tarriffs and sibventions, I understand that it is a sticky point...

Actually, Yelda already pointed out the difference.

tariffs = international
subsidies = domestic

The first is within the proper scope of the UN's authority to dictate policy, and the second is not.


What is your argument to to draw a such line between "international for "tariffs" and "domestic" for "subsdies"?

from
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/4267847.stm

"Trade barriers and subsidies "severely" distort the market, the UN's Food & Agriculture Organisation report on the "State of Agricultural Commodity Markets 2004" said"
...
"According to the organisation, subsidies and high tariffs have a strong impact on the trade of products such as cotton and rice"

if you want only to "ENCOURAGES the removal of all farm subsidies and subventions;", why not, but then :

=> 3. MANDATES the removal of all tariffs, duties and trade restrictions on food. Exception will be made for trade restrictions which are in place for legitimate Religious, Cultural, Medical, or Ecological concerns and for developping nations;



Yelda, The Most Serene Republic of Love and esterel is aboslutly not against your proposition, and we don't want a total ban on subsidies either, we are just trying to help you and propose you several options in order your proposition to be fair and to not have catastrophic consequences if passed.

What is your argument to to draw a such line between "international for "tariffs" and "domestic" for "subsdies"?

I already explained why tariffs are international earlier in the thread, so I'll just address the subsidies here. A subsidy is a payment or other similar incentive given to a particular business or industry by a nation's government. This is not international.

Naturally, subsidies can affect the international economy, but you could argue that anything and everything affects the international economy in some way, so the "it affects the international economy" statement provides no useful standard. If we draw a distinction between mandated policies that are international and domestic; however, we create much more clear and useful standard that can be applied successfully and accurately.

Texan Hotrodders, what are the differences of consequences on international trade between subsidies and tariffs?

noone, you don't expose any arguments, sorry, they have almost exactly the same effects on trade: they restrict trade and protect a national market from foreigner competiters

=> so please, choose 1 of the 2 following scenarios in order to be logical with yourself, i don't care which one:

1: tariffs = international and subsidies = international
or
2: tariffs = domestic and subsidies = domestic

I can answer this one:

Tariffs protect farmers by stopping foreign produce coming in; therefore DIRECTLY putting those in developing countries at a disadvantage as they are unable to sell in the west.

Subsidies, by funding the farmers, reduce the price of agricultural produce and therefore INDIRECTLY putting the farmers of the developing world at a disadvantage. However, it is of course possible that it also can help developing nations, for, if the price of the subsidised food is less than the unsubsidised food of their own nation, they can afford more food.

So, whilest tariffs are a direct distorter of trade, subsidies are an indirect distorter with possible benefits for some developing countries.

(I'm not pro subsidies, but if it banned them, it wouldn't pass. Better an encourage than nothing at all)

However, it is of course possible that it also can help developing nations, for, if the price of the subsidised food is less than the unsubsidised food of their own nation, they can afford more food.

i know your post is well-intentionned but this will destroy developping nations agriculture and economy

Furthurmore, it impossible as it's a contradiction of the very good propostion paragraph 2:

2. REQUESTS the free distribution of surplus food and food products to those unable to purchase them at fair market value and defined as worthy of such by the individual member nation;

As a pro business,capitalistic, evil conservative, I have to say that subsidies don't bother me as much as tarriffs. If a country wants to prop up its own industry by giving it government funds, then let them continue to throw good money after bad. They'll soon learn that eventually the botom will fall out of the industry.( OCC:the foreign steel producers, in RL, will find that out when their long term economy finally tanks). Tarriffs on the other hand, directly interferes with my ability to send my goods into another country. (Granted the only foodstuff my nation produces is the delicious Palentine's Best Tuna[with genuine porpoise and orca meat filler]). I can still compete in a country with subsidies. I just have to have a product that is better than the native produced one. that is the beauty of CAPITALISM.
Exselsior,
Sen Horatio Sulla

The old version of the proposal recieved 61 (I think) approvals without a TG campaign. Since it's only Wednesday, I'm going to do a test submittal of the newest version and see how it does. I'm looking at submitting it for real Monday morning.

i know your post is well-intentionned but this will destroy developping nations agriculture and economy

In the real world, I would heartily agree with you.
However, in the NSUN, there is no correlation between the developement state of a nation and the industry (primary, secondary, tertiary) focus

i know your post is well-intentionned but this will destroy developping nations agriculture and economy

In the real world, I would heartily agree with you.
However, in the NSUN, there is no correlation between the developement state of a nation and the industry (primary, secondary, tertiary) focus

The Most Serene Republic of Love and esterel will actively participate in the repeal of every NSUN passed resolution which would have destroying effetcs in Real world, as we did for "Promotion of Solar Panel"

The Most Serene Republic of Love and esterel will actively participate in the repeal of every NSUN passed resolution which would have destroying effetcs in Real world, as we did for "Promotion of Solar Panel"
NS≠RL. In the Real World, the "real" UN would not be able to pass most of our resolutions. I choose to work within the parameters of the game, not real life. In the game, this resolution will improve the economies of all UN nations. If you want to roleplay that it is damaging your agricultural sector then you are free to do so. If it passes and you want to work for its repeal then you are free to do that too.

NS≠RL. In the Real World, the "real" UN would not be able to pass most of our resolutions.

i understand your point of view, but then if we follow your logic, there was nothing to reproach to "Promotion of Solar Panel", i don't remember your position on this topic.

Yelda, i hope you understand i fully agree with most of your proposition, i'm just sad that if passed it will open a big loophole damaging many developping Nation agriculture and economy, as the % of population working in agriculture in developping Nation is obviously higher and as your proposition will allow unfair practice from developped nation without letting developping ones deffending themselves.

=> i really think your proposition is not far from being very good.

But please add something allowing developping nations to restrict importation (by tariffs or embargo) of a certain sort of product from a certain developped nation who massively subvention this sort of product, when this same sort of product cultivation is essential to the developped Nation economy.

thanks a lot.

I'm reserving judgement for the moment; hopefully I'll have an analysis in the next couple of days.

Mathieu Vergniaud
Deputy Speaker to the UN

I'm reserving judgement for the moment; hopefully I'll have an analysis in the next couple of days.

Mathieu Vergniaud
Deputy Speaker to the UN
I look forward to your analysis and any suggestions/criticisms you have to offer. I won't be submitting it again until Monday morning, so there's still time to refine it some more.

I would support this resolution...

I would support this resolution...
Thank you for your support, Darvainia. Unless there are more comments/suggestions which would necessitate further discussion, the UN Mission will be submitting this sometime Monday morning. Does anyone happen to know approximately when the optimal Monday morning submission time is? Is it 8:00 GMT?

on the whole my nation could support this but we have concerns.

rather than flooding the market with surplus food I propose that a portion of a nations surplus food supplies be put aside for emergency relief aid in the case of a natural disaster, famine etc.

that way once its determined that a nation needs aid it can be sent out straight away rather than wasting time getting aid pledges from each nation state.

on the whole my nation could support this but we have concerns.

rather than flooding the market with surplus food I propose that a portion of a nations surplus food supplies be put aside for emergency relief aid in the case of a natural disaster, famine etc.

that way once its determined that a nation needs aid it can be sent out straight away rather than wasting time getting aid pledges from each nation state.
Thank you for your comments. Its not about "flooding the market with surplus food", and its certainly not about exporting free food to flood someone else's market. Its talking about the domestic distribution of food to the very poor. Here is the relevant article:
2. REQUESTS the free distribution of surplus food and food products to those unable to purchase them at fair market value and defined as worthy of such by the individual member nation;
(OOC) The USDA used to have an "agricultural commodities" program in which the extremely impoverished were given canned goods, cheese, etc. This is what I had in mind. Rather than just giving people "food stamps" or vouchers which they could then use to purchase Cheetos, Little Debbie cakes and beef jerky, why not directly give them "real" nutritious food instead. There will always be surplus food and this resolution won't change that. I hope that allays some of your concerns. It doesn't authorize the exporting of massive amounts of free food. In fact, it only "Requests" that this take place domestically. Nations will still be free to give surplus food to the poor, or not, or stockpile it for an emergency as you have suggested.

Stick to your guns Yelda. We're rooting for you!<smiling, while eating some fine Yeldan Smoked chedder, and drinking a glass of Old Crow on the rocks.>
:D

Excelsior,
Sen Horatio Sulla

Yelda, may i suggest you to add the following:
i think it will again be a little bit unfair, but it will be ok

"Authorizes farm subsidies and subventions for legitimate economic needs apart when given to farmer or companies exporting some of their product in another UN members"

=> you resolution will then be more Free trade

Yelda, may i suggest you to add the following:
i think it will again be a little bit unfair, but it will be ok

"Authorizes farm subsidies and subventions for legitimate economic needs apart when given to farmer or companies exporting some of their product in another UN members"

=> you resolution will then be more Free trade
No. Pretty much by definition this would make the proposal less free trade.

No. Pretty much by definition this would make the proposal less free trade.

Subsidies are the opposite of free trade, i'm sorry

may i encourage you to read warnings from UN's Food & Agriculture Organisation

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/4267847.stm

Subsidies are the opposite of free trade, i'm sorry

may i encourage you to read warnings from UN's Food & Agriculture Organisation

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/4267847.stm
Sigh. You're authorising subsidies, yes? Therefore...

Sigh. You're authorising subsidies, yes? Therefore...


what do you mean

i tried since this start begin to be about food, to propose as the UN's Food & Agriculture Organisation strongly recommands, that subsidies will be strongly limited, in particular for developped nation, who used it as unfair practice when they cannot put tarrifs high as they want

Half of the budget of the European-Union administration goes to subventions to agriculture!
And I’m not applauding USA or Japan here, as these countries have exactly the same policy.

it's absolutly unfair, and if all tariffs about food are removed => the trade will be very distorted and agriculture in many developping nations will suffer a lot

what do you mean

i tried since this start begin to be about food, to propose as the UN's Food & Agriculture Organisation strongly recommands, that subsidies will be strongly limited, in particular for developped nation, who used it as unfair practice when they cannot put tarrifs high as they want

Half of the budget of the European-Union administration goes to subventions to agriculture!
And I’m not applauding USA or Japan here, as these countries have exactly the same policy.

it's absolutly unfair, and if all tariffs about food are removed => the trade will be very distorted and agriculture in many developping nations will suffer a lot
OOC: I know of the above and happen to broadly agree with you.

We're quibbling over semantics, let's drop it.

We're quibbling over semantics, let's drop it.

about semantics, i proposed several sentences to the author, i never said my sentences were the better, i'm just trying to help and give some possible sentences to be improved

The people of Cluichstan will never support this.

about semantics, i proposed several sentences to the author, i never said my sentences were the better, i'm just trying to help and give some possible sentences to be improved
Love and esterel, I understand your opposition to subsidies. I don't like them either and believe they are just bad economic policy. I believe The Palentine stated earlier in this thread that subsidies are "throwing good money after bad". I agree with that. However, I do see them as more of a domestic matter, as opposed to tariffs which are more international in nature. That is why I didn't feel comfortable banning them outright in this proposal.
If this fails to reach quorum, we can revisit the subject of subsidies and possibly work out a schedule for eliminating subsidies in stages, in conjunction with simultaneous lowering of tariffs. Then it might be possible to make them both mandatory. If this does get voted on and becomes a resolution there is no reason that another resolution could not eliminate subsidies. This one only encourages their removal, so a later resolution removing them completely would be legal.

Subsidies can be incentives for positive change as well as to prop up failing farming systems. Not all subsidies are to be treated the same.

Also, there are direct subsidies and indirect subsidies. Consider that many developed nations give farmers services, paid for by the government, which in other countries, the farmers simply get cash.

Cash, on an individual farm basis, cannot put in, say, power or irrigation systems.

But a government that affords a multi-million dollar power or irrigation project for a rural community has, in fact, publically subsidized infrastructural development of their farmland.

So, understand that governments do distribute wealth in different ways to encourage the health of their agricultural sector. Crop subsidies are just one particular method.

They can also be vital during times of natural disaster, blight, pestilence, drought, or other severe condition which might seasonally devastate an economy. Without subsidies, the farm closes.

Period.

Rather than allow that to happen, governments might provide a subsidy to make up for a crop shortfall, to tide an industry over from a time of plenty to a time of lean.

Again, not all subsidies are the same.

There might also be subsidies to incent, say, an ecologically less intensive crop, or a more nutritious one, to be grown rather than a more economically advantageous, but more energy-intensive, environmentally damaging, or less-nutritious crop to grow.

Governments might want to subtly (or not so subtly) shift production for other reasons, and a tax incentive or even a subsidy, might be the only way to get farms to change their output.

Governments do that: they govern. That means that they reward certain desired behavior, and they disincent undesired behavior.

What might be desireable in your nation might be anathema -- fiscal and ecological disaster -- in another.

Saying patently "farm subsidies are harmful" is hyperbolic. There are microeconomic and macroeconomic reasons to believe that is not always the case. This is not 'government vs. capitalism' or 'government vs. common sense,' and should not be painted to be so dire in all situations.

Government subsidies can also alleviate burdens of the private sector, such as mass-scale financial foreclosures, written off investments, and insurance claims.

While farming communties may need to change to work with new realities, and eventually bad investments need to be cleared off ledgers, nations should not simply free-fall and rise on a temporary tide if you with to prevent sudden shortages or gluts, uncontrollable and unpredictable price spikes or dips, and upheavals of agricultural demographics and trade, whether across your nation, or around the world.

Governments govern. Which means controlling, to some degree, the rate to which those changes might be desired to happen.

Subsidies are one tool, of considerable use, to allow that to happen.

Tarriffs are another, but tarriffs should not be imposed to produce the purposeful starvation of a populace.

At the same time, it is difficult for domestic agricultural programs to catch fire if foreign foods are being dumped on a market. Why grow it locally if you are being given free from overseas?

I suggest, still, that we work on agricultural development, or at least do not make this program so that it undercuts or surplants local production.

Consider, if you wish, to remove tarriffs to certain quantities of importation, based on the poverty rate and median per capita GDP of a nation, plus factoring local production levels.

This way, if it is calculable that a percentage of the population is starving, cannot afford food, and cannot meet domestic food production levels, then food can be shipped in without tarriff or barrier.

Yet if there is a nation that can produce and afford to feed itself, and even the poorest people are well-fed, there's no reason why they should be forced to accept other nations trying to wheedle into their markets and surplant their local farmers.

Anyway, there are likely those who shall argue against this concept, but it's something to toss into the discussion for consideration.

Excellent post Listeneisse. Thank you for pointing out the difference between direct and indirect subsidies. If this becomes a resolution, I hope to address the subject of removal of subsidies in a later proposal. Your help in drafting it will be appreciated.

The people of Cluichstan will never support this.
Ah, but could the government of Cluichstan support it? :)

Ah, but could the government of Cluichstan support it? :)


Since the goverment of Cluichstan represents its people, no. ;)

Well, I seem to have missed the magic Monday morning submittal time as it's no longer at vote. I beleive it got 90 or so votes. I had pretty much stopped telegramming and I don't imagine anyone could vote for it Tuesday for most of the day. Almost all of the negative feedback I recieved was concerning article 2:
2. REQUESTS the free distribution of surplus food and food products to those unable to purchase them at fair market value and defined as worthy of such by the individual member nation;
Apparently, many people felt that this was authorizing the dumping of surplus food on foreign markets. Some were confused as to whether it meant the food was given to individuals or nations. So that article will need to be removed most likely. Also, Leg-ends expressed concern about the definition of food and the possibility that it would lead to lawsuits. So I may need to expand on that.
I'm going to let this rest for awhile. I'm tired of sending telegrams and I'm sure the other delegates are sick of hearing from me.

i wish the honourable delegate the best for his proposal.

at least now you know what part you need to fix.

Global Food Distribution Act

A resolution to reduce barriers to free trade and commerce.


Category: Free Trade


Strength: Strong


Proposed by: Yeldan UN Mission

Description: The General Assembly of the United Nations,

RECOGNIZING the role of proper nutrition in maintaining the physical and psychological well-being of all persons;

FURTHER RECOGNIZING the importance of proper nutrition in the growth and development of children;

NOTING the need of all peoples to have adequate food supplies;

DEFINES "food" as the appropriate and healthy substance(s) that a person uses or can use as a primary source of energy.

HEREBY

1. ENCOURAGES the sale and/or transfer of food products between UN nations;

2. ENCOURAGES all nations to institute health and nutritional education programs within their school systems;

3. REQUIRES the gradual reduction, in stages, of all protectionist mechanisms in the trade of food including, but not limited to, Tariffs, Duties, Farm Subsidies and Subventions. Exception will be made for protectionist mechanisms which are based upon legitimate Religious, Cultural, Medical, or Ecological concerns;

4. ESTABLISHES the following schedule for reducing protectionist mechanisms:

Years 1 thru 6: 36% cut over six years (6% per year)
Years 7 thru 11: 50% cut over five years (10% per year)
Year 12: 14% cut (total elimination of protectionist mechanisms)

5. EMPHASIZES that UN member nations reserve the right to employ retaliatory tariffs towards non-UN nations to prevent price dumping;

6. ENCOURAGES STRONGLY the removal of all sales taxes levied on food;

7. CALLS UPON UN member nations to, except in cases where private entities already conduct such research, advance research into new and improved methods of food production and distribution as a priority within their research budgets insofar as is necessary and possible given their circumstance(s).
Submitted without a TG campaign this time. Comments? Catcalls?

Bearing in mind the arguments about whether farm subsidies & subventions can be justified, and whether they are appropriate matters to discuss in a 'free trade' resolution, I'd suggest that instead of trying to ban them outright [even through several stages of reduction] you add a clause to the passage banning tarrifs that allows - but doesn't require - governments to use tarrifs solely in order to counterbalance the effects of any subisdies & subventions on the prices of imported foodstuffs.

*does a catcall*

Bearing in mind the arguments about whether farm subsidies & subventions can be justified, and whether they are appropriate matters to discuss in a 'free trade' resolution,
I can't think of any better place to discuss them than in a Free Trade proposal.
I'd suggest that instead of trying to ban them outright [even through several stages of reduction] you add a clause to the passage banning tarrifs that allows - but doesn't require - governments to use tarrifs solely in order to counterbalance the effects of any subisdies & subventions on the prices of imported foodstuffs.
This proposal has a long history. The previous version banned tariffs while only encouraging the removal of subsidies. I've had some time now to think it over and feel that it is appropriate to remove all protectionist mechanisms.

This
Exception will be made for protectionist mechanisms which are based upon legitimate Religious, Cultural, Medical, or Ecological concerns;
and this
5. EMPHASIZES that UN member nations reserve the right to employ retaliatory tariffs towards non-UN nations to prevent price dumping;
will provide enough loopholes for nations to still protect themselves from unfair trade practices.
I'm not a big fan of committees, but the next version might need to include a commission or somesuch to determine the legitimacy of claims under Article 3.

*does a catcall*
At least you didn't throw rotten vegetables.

At least you didn't throw rotten vegetables.

Come on. We both know I would never violate vegetable sovereignty.:cool:

And I'm seriously considering asking my Delegate to approve this.

Submitted without a TG campaign this time. Comments? Catcalls?

We fully agree with the new text which is about FREE and FAIR trade
Love and esterel approved it

Come on. We both know I would never violate vegetable sovereignty.:cool:

And I'm seriously considering asking my Delegate to approve this.
I would appreciate that very much. This is just a test submission but it's always nice to see NewTexas in the approvals.

We fully agree with the new text which is about FREE and FAIR trade
Love and esterel approved it
Thank you LAE. I know we had disagreements over the earlier version of this. I think this is the only way to make it work. If it only encouraged the removal of subsidies then nations could ignore that article and the resolution would be worthless.

Now, should I add this:
ESTABLISHES the United Nations Free Trade Commission to arbitrate trade disputes and pass rulings on exceptions claimed under Article 3;
Or does there need to be a stand-alone resolution establishing a Free Trade Commission?

I would appreciate that very much. This is just a test submission but it's always nice to see NewTexas in the approvals.

It sure is. He has very strict standards when it comes to approving proposals, which I think is an admirable trait for a Delegate to have.

Now, should I add this:

Or does there need to be a stand-alone resolution establishing a Free Trade Commission?

If you add the Commission, tack it on to the GFD Act. Don't try to make it via another resolution. If we want to use the FTC later in other resolutions and further define its powers we can do that.

If you add the Commission, tack it on to the GFD Act. Don't try to make it via another resolution. If we want to use the FTC later in other resolutions and further define its powers we can do that.
I'll add it to the next version. I really didn't feel up to writing a whole new resolution anyway. Here's the new text:
Global Food Distribution Act

A resolution to reduce barriers to free trade and commerce.


Category: Free Trade


Strength: Strong


Proposed by: Yeldan UN Mission

Description: The General Assembly of the United Nations,

RECOGNIZING the role of proper nutrition in maintaining the physical and psychological well-being of all persons;

FURTHER RECOGNIZING the importance of proper nutrition in the growth and development of children;

NOTING the need of all peoples to have adequate food supplies;

DEFINES "food" as the appropriate and healthy substance(s) that a person uses or can use as a primary source of energy.

HEREBY

1. ENCOURAGES the sale and/or transfer of food products between UN nations;

2. ENCOURAGES all nations to institute health and nutritional education programs within their school systems;

3. REQUIRES the gradual reduction, in stages, of all protectionist mechanisms in the trade of food including, but not limited to, Tariffs, Duties, Farm Subsidies and Subventions. Exception will be made for protectionist mechanisms which are based upon legitimate Religious, Cultural, Medical, or Ecological concerns;

4. ESTABLISHES the following schedule for reducing protectionist mechanisms:

Years 1 thru 6: 36% cut over six years (6% per year)
Years 7 thru 11: 50% cut over five years (10% per year)
Year 12: 14% cut (total elimination of protectionist mechanisms)

5. EMPHASIZES that UN member nations reserve the right to employ retaliatory tariffs towards non-UN nations to prevent price dumping;

6. ESTABLISHES the United Nations Free Trade Commission (UNFTC) to arbitrate trade disputes and pass rulings on exceptions claimed under Article 3;

7. ENCOURAGES STRONGLY the removal of all sales taxes levied on food;

8. CALLS UPON UN member nations to, except in cases where private entities already conduct such research, advance research into new and improved methods of food production and distribution as a priority within their research budgets insofar as is necessary and possible given their circumstance(s).

Just to show that I can be positive about resolutions, I'd like to say that I will vote for this resolution once it comes up and do not have any major objections to it.

There is a minor point, but I know it's late in the drafting process and it isn't absolutely necessary in this resolution, but I do have a slight fear of food dumping in the UN, where large corporations in the developed nations might dump cheap food onto developing markets, where the local farmers can't compete and go out of business, ruining the country's own ability to produce food. But that problem is bigger in a non-free trade situation, so I won't make a big deal of it. It is a concern, though. Also, it'd be nice if there'd be a line in the resolution stressing the importance of good quality, healthy food. If there's one thing every citizen needs to be certain of, it's that the food they buy and eat is disease-free, healthy food.

OOC: See for example the hysteria in Italy, where the bird flu news caused a huge drop in chicken sales. People care about their food, even if they eat more junk food than what's healthy.

Just to show that I can be positive about resolutions, I'd like to say that I will vote for this resolution once it comes up and do not have any major objections to it.

There is a minor point, but I know it's late in the drafting process and it isn't absolutely necessary in this resolution, but I do have a slight fear of food dumping in the UN, where large corporations in the developed nations might dump cheap food onto developing markets, where the local farmers can't compete and go out of business, ruining the country's own ability to produce food. But that problem is bigger in a non-free trade situation, so I won't make a big deal of it. It is a concern, though.
It's not too late to make changes. I'm just doing a sort of "test submission" right now and none of this is written in stone. Developing countries would be able prevent the destruction of their agriculture sector using the cultural exemption in Article 3. Of course, large corporations in UN nations would no longer be subsidized. So it might not even be necessary to invoke those exemptions as the playing field would be level between UN nations. If it was a non-UN nation attempting to dump cheap food on a local market, then the developing nation could invoke Article 5.
Also, it'd be nice if there'd be a line in the resolution stressing the importance of good quality, healthy food. If there's one thing every citizen needs to be certain of, it's that the food they buy and eat is disease-free, healthy food.

OOC: See for example the hysteria in Italy, where the bird flu news caused a huge drop in chicken sales. People care about their food, even if they eat more junk food than what's healthy.
This is covered to a certain extent by Resolution # 123, Labeling Standards. I may need to expand on the definition of food and make sure to stress the importance of healthy food as opposed to junk food.

If you're offering bribes...err generous gifts then you have my vote if this comes to these halls.

Excelsior,
Sen Horatio Sulla
UN Ambassador
Palentine UN Office (New Nation, same great policies and corrupt, and unwholesome practices.):D

Approvals: 129 (Yeldan UN Mission, Tyndarus, The Philosophes, Omigodtheykilledkenny, The County of Worksop, Korinekia, CR Oscilloscopes, MJUNRep, Jard-Sur-Mer, Bellaben, Kalmar_dk, Love and esterel, Khalistantinople, Gaiah, Great Britain---, Leg-ends, Darvainia, Lamorkand, Feq, Richard2008, Of Cascadia, White Kanatia, Flibbleites, Pauli the Great, Brazilianopolis, The Black New World, Tinis, Sinsvyka, Planeswalkers, North Koster, Proudhonland, New Cyberia, Legendary Rock Stars, Baudrillard, Onahere, Spring hurst, Taylor Mill, The third flamingo, Eve the First, Wegason, Kleinekatzen, Mommy D, Lybo, Jey, Square rootedness, Kittycow, Buffybots, Darth Mall, New Hamilton, Cmabland, God007, Caseylvania, Intangelon, Keepingthepeace, ChasingxFiction, Ujaria, Zingarelho, Twoddlevania, LawnElf, Posul, Garage-land, Reasonable Prudence, NewTexas, Sumnmerset, Drayylonia, Azraelias, Bernard Bear, Musicgirl, FallingDonkey, Oven Chiller, Goblinites, Nelvaan, Dsjtuj, T quinn, Intellect and the Arts, Scandinavian Duchies, Upi Upi, Punrovia, Death In Tight Pants, Errorista, Moroboshi, Emperor Gowen I, Skyscraper Island, Snazzopia, Kapellen, Amphitrite of Atlantic, Rolling Stone, Reformentia, The Two Sheds, Barsaca, West-Bestonia, Novelleway, Of Stoner Goners, Vohteria, Westariaby, Neon Plaid, Osovia, FyreStorm, Zocane, Kevin Islands, Stanimir, British Renaissance, Lightsabre, Rageistan, Fendart, Cornbread Fanatics, Fishy Fishies, Ms Vargas, Determined cows, The Campbell dynasty, Redmire, Terra Infinatum, Blahostan, The Supreme Superpower, -Council -, PotheadMonkeys, Sentynel, Wild Lands of North, Pomplex, Davarin, Theorb, The earths inhabitants, The Talisman, Former Antarctica, Rotadoa, Trober, Roisoin, Greater Tiki, Wuotanval)

Status: Quorum Reached: In Queue!
And there was much rejoicing.

We extend thanks to all of the honorable delegates who have approved this proposal.

And there was much rejoicing.

We extend thanks to all of the honorable delegates who have approved this proposal.

Congratulations on reaching quorum.

Congratulations on reaching quorum.

Congrats

I've already cast my FOR vote.

I've already cast my FOR vote.

Love and esterel voted for and want to thanks Yelda for his FAIR proposal

I fully support this fine resolution. Best of luck to the Yeldan representative in his efforts to defend this document.

Minister of UN Affairs
Edward Jones

I support this resolution.:)

NAY! destructive to small nations economies.

NAY! destructive to small nations economies.Would the honorable representative from Tajiri_san elaborate on how it will destroy small nations economies?

Would the honorable representative from Tajiri_san elaborate on how it will destroy small nations economies?
You are removing the measures needed to protect or new colony's agriculture from being priced out of the market by produce from larger nations that can produce the food in high quantities for less.

I feel as though the reduction of tariffs could cripple the farmer in an advanced society who's profits are already marginal due to overproduction. The real problem is not tariffs into countries on food: it's that there's too much food, but that it's distributed in the wrong places.

Removing tariffs will only allow wealthy countries to import food: crippling their own farmers, and not helping distribute food to the poorest nations of the world.

The Disputed Territories and Island Providences of Mytush have voted against the current resolution. We strongly urge other nations to consider what this issue really means, and not how good it sounds in ideology.

You are removing the measures needed to protect or new colony's agriculture from being priced out of the market by produce from larger nations that can produce the food in high quantities for less.
I feel as though the reduction of tariffs could cripple the farmer in an advanced society who's profits are already marginal due to overproduction. The real problem is not tariffs into countries on food: it's that there's too much food, but that it's distributed in the wrong places.

Removing tariffs will only allow wealthy countries to import food: crippling their own farmers, and not helping distribute food to the poorest nations of the world.

The Disputed Territories and Island Providences of Mytush have voted against the current resolution. We strongly urge other nations to consider what this issue really means, and not how good it sounds in ideology.
Hmmm...Tajiri_san believes that it is the farmers in developing nations that will suffer because of imports from developed nations, while Mytush believes that the farmers in developed nations will suffer because of imports from developing nations. Both of you can't be right, because if you are the entire agriculture sector will collapse and we will all starve! I would suggest that both of you are wrong. There are safeguards in articles 3,5 and 6 of this resolution which will help ensure that trade is not only "free", but "fair". In the end, it is consumers of food who will benefit the most from this resolution. And we are all, rich and poor alike, consumers.

Hmmm...Tajiri_san believes that it is the farmers in developing nations that will suffer because of imports from developed nations, while Mytush believes that the farmers in developed nations will suffer because of imports from developing nations. Both of you can't be right, because if you are the entire agriculture sector will collapse and we will all starve! I would suggest that both of you are wrong. There are safeguards in articles 3,5 and 6 of this resolution which will help ensure that trade is not only "free", but "fair". In the end, it is consumers of food who will benefit the most from this resolution. And we are all, rich and poor alike, consumers.
But even if one of them is wrong, if the other is right, then this resolution could have dire effects on the agricultural sectors of a staggering number of nations. The resolution may reduce food costs for consumers in UN nations, but this will undoubtedly come at the price of many farmers' livelihoods. The existence of article three, which flattens any sort of protectionism, is more likely to favor farms with developed infrastructure and modernized equipment. Article five grants a right that we consider to be reserved to sovereign nations anyway, and article six is simply an accessory function for article three.

We were willing to support it even when the resolution transferred from covering cheeses to covering food in general, but with the addition of article four, and in particular the rigid and brief schedule contained within, which legislates on something public opinion considers to be an internal policy matter, our government is unlikely to support this resolution. This type of free trade agreement is something that nations should work between them, on terms agreed to by all parties, not something that should be forced upon thousands of nations, against their will, by an overbearing international body.

THe Council of Kanienkha has taken this measure under consideration and agrees with some of the concerns previously voiced here but agrees with the spirit and goals of this bill. Our largest concern comes under how the resolution will be arbitrated by this yet to be created U.N. Free Trade Council. What would the composition of this council consist of and more importantly, how would it be able to enforce penalties for infractions? We do not want to see the creation of yet another powerless panel, complaining about constant infractions it has no ability to address. Finally, for this council to be able to make informed and sensitive decisions, it has to be understanding of social customs (eating habits etc.) in its judgements. Standards may go against these views and as to which we hold, who knows. We hope this area can be clarified some more before we make work with no one able to do it. We thank you for your time and consideration of our views.

-All Our Relations

The Council of Kanienkha

[As the Kanienkhan delegate finishes his thoughts, a portion of the floor in one of the main aisles suddenly raises, revealing torch-lit stone steps leading downward, spooky organ music and smoke eminating from the darkness below. Cobwebs hang from the passage door, which on the inside bears a brightly flashing neon sign reading:

UNOG DUNGEON SUPER SUPER SECRET ENTRANCE!!![A man in his mid-forties wearing disheveled hair and a rumpled suit emerges from the smoke, stumbling up the staircase with a glass of wine in one hand and a slice of Fine Yeldan Cheese™ in the other. The members of the General Assembly, having been struck with a spell of stunned silence, greet him with bewildering stares. He raises his glass, as if to toast the crowd:]

My fellow deputies, I regret my tardiness, but my superior is too busy setting up world leaders for romance to appear before you this afternoon, and had to dispatch me at the last moment to voice my government's support for this measure.

[He pauses to take a bite of Yeldan™.]

I really got hooked on this stuff! ... At any rate, while I myself have not read the bill, our corporate sponsors assure me that it will be most beneficial to our economy, and who'd've thunk that giant corporations would favor a free-trade measure? So anyway, we cast our votes in the affirmative.

[His statement is greeted with more stunned silence. He notices UNOG members glaring at him in shock.]

... Oh ... were they not supposed to know about this entrance?

[Silence and stares.]

Cheese™?

[No takers.]

[clears throat:] Well, anyway, if you'll excuse me, I have to go and wash down this cheese with some wine ... and then wash down that wine with more wine. So I will humbly take my leave of you now.

[He turns about and descends the staircase back into the shadows. The door slams shut and seals up behind him.]

George Brown
Deputy Ambassador to the United Nations

[OOC: After all the trash proposals to cross this forum over the past couple of weeks, I am pleased that we are finally discussing and preparing to implement something of substance. I congratulate the author for his perseverence on this very worthy proposal. And yes, I did read it.]

:p

Two reasons to vote against this resolutions.

1. If you ban farm subsidies, that would also ban state-controlled farms. That is a big part of communism, and it is against the rules to ban political ideologies.

2. Probibiting farm subsidies, whether quickly or slowly will decrease the world's food supply. Many farms will not stay in business. Urbanization will spread and big cities will stand on top of fertile land. There will be less food, more famine, more heartbreak around the world. If you think eliminating fame subsidies is a good idea, you have an ally in that thinking George W. Bush.

Crussia feels quite confident in its vote agains this, as free trade is clearly not the path to increased general nourishment, but rather to the destruction of small farmers and the growth in wealth of the larger corporations whose goal lies in profits, not the well being of their consumers and provider nations.

I am a nation with a command economy. Now, considering that the government pays the farmers, provides housing, equipment and Public Works projects that would otherwise be paid for by said farmers, am I considered to be giving subsidies?

If so, what am I supposed to do with the wave of unemployed that would result from a cut of these "subsidies"? And the death, unrest and starvation? What, I ask you, are my unemployed farmers to do?

that, my friend, is why a vote on the negative is a vote for the people.

We look with favor upon this proposed resolution, and note especially Article 3:

3. REQUIRES the gradual reduction, in stages, of all protectionist mechanisms in the trade of food including, but not limited to, Tariffs, Duties, Farm Subsidies and Subventions. Exception will be made for protectionist mechanisms which are based upon legitimate Religious, Cultural, Medical, or Ecological concerns;

We are greatly pleased with the esteemed Yeldan representative for noting the importance of Religious and Cultural concerns when they impact with free trade. As a nation firmly committed to the principle of free trade, yet also concerned with the ritual purity of Our peoples' food, We find this article meets both needs in a fair and balanced manner. We extend Our thanks to the Yeldan nation for their sensitivity to such matters, and wish them success.

I like it! It doesn't involve mass death, a dense plot, or confusing equations, and it is still effective! My congratulations and vote go to Yelda.

Ausserland has voted in favor of this proposal and thanks the honorable representative of Yelda for authoring it.

Hurlbot Barfanger
Ambassador to the United Nations

Protectionism is required for developing nations. If a nation with a weak agriculture constantly is overwhelmed by cheaper food by developed nations, who obtain the monopoly, they will become dependent on this foreign food and not be obliged to form their own food production. This is just another attempt at globalization from the wealthier companies to further exploit developing nations.

The existence of article three, which flattens any sort of protectionism, is more likely to favor farms with developed infrastructure and modernized equipment.
Upon what are you basing this statement? Common sense would dictate that the larger, more advanced agricultural sectors in the developed world would have to make a far larger adjustment since it is they who are heavily subsidized and benefit most from protectionism.
Article five grants a right that we consider to be reserved to sovereign nations anyway,
Article 5 clarifies that UN nations will still have the right to protect their agricultural sectors from unfair trade practices by non-UN members. Would you rather I had left that out?
and article six is simply an accessory function for article three.
Yep. And without article 6, article 3 would be open to interpretation and rampant abuse. Who would you have decide which exceptions were legitimate and which were not?
We were willing to support it even when the resolution transferred from covering cheeses to covering food in general, but with the addition of article four, and in particular the rigid and brief schedule contained within, which legislates on something public opinion considers to be an internal policy matter, our government is unlikely to support this resolution.
Then don't support it. Article 4 lays out a schedule for reducing protectionist mechanisms. Earlier versions of this resolution (which you say you supported) required that they be removed INSTANTLY. I think a gradual reduction is better.
This type of free trade agreement is something that nations should work between them, on terms agreed to by all parties, not something that should be forced upon thousands of nations, against their will, by an overbearing international body.
In RL, this sort of thing would be an agreement entered into voluntarily by all of the involved parties. It would also be several hundred pages long and published in multiple languages. Unfortunately, it's just not possible to do that in NS. Resolutions cannot be optional.

Yay famine!

Ahem. To clarify: I support this proposal. I, crazily, believe in success in business being determined not by one's nationality, but by one's ability. I also believe in wacko ideas like being able to afford food. What a nutcase.

Our largest concern comes under how the resolution will be arbitrated by this yet to be created U.N. Free Trade Council. What would the composition of this council consist of and more importantly, how would it be able to enforce penalties for infractions? We do not want to see the creation of yet another powerless panel, complaining about constant infractions it has no ability to address. Finally, for this council to be able to make informed and sensitive decisions, it has to be understanding of social customs (eating habits etc.) in its judgements. Standards may go against these views and as to which we hold, who knows. We hope this area can be clarified some more before we make work with no one able to do it.
Here is the rule on the creation of committees:
Creating Stuff

Committees may be created, as long as certain things are kept in mind: nations do not sit on committees, they are staffed by mystical beings that instantly spring into existance and live only to serve on said committee. Committees are also bound by the above MetaGame rules. Also, keep in mind that Committees are additions to Proposals; they shouldn't be all the Proposal does.
The Commission will function just the same as any commission would in RL. We just don't get to pick who sits on it. It would have been very easy to write numerous articles defining the powers and duties of the commission, but then the resolution would have been more about the commission than about free trade. The actions of the commission are implied. It will arbitrate trade disputes and pass rulings on exceptions claimed under Article 3.

Two reasons to vote against this resolutions.

1. If you ban farm subsidies, that would also ban state-controlled farms. That is a big part of communism, and it is against the rules to ban political ideologies.
Yes, The People's Democratic Republic of Yelda has gone batshit insane and decided to outlaw communism.
It does NOT ban state controlled farms. It does NOT ban communism. Subsidies are paid by the government to private individuals and private entities (like corporations). Money sent by the state to a collective farm is just part of the operating budget of that collective. In a socialist economy, the means of production are held by the state on behalf of all the people. You can't subsidize yourself.

George W. Bush.
Is irrelevent to this discussion.

I am a nation with a command economy. Now, considering that the government pays the farmers, provides housing, equipment and Public Works projects that would otherwise be paid for by said farmers, am I considered to be giving subsidies?
No.

At the very least, we MUST be compassionate.


My morals say support this, but I can't unless my region lets me...


Regardless, I implore you to support this, how can you deny someone food?

But even if one of them is wrong, if the other is right, then this resolution could have dire effects on the agricultural sectors of a staggering number of nations. The resolution may reduce food costs for consumers in UN nations, but this will undoubtedly come at the price of many farmers' livelihoods.

Yes. And? Quality of food will rise, prices will drop. That's what matters. Why should we be more protective towards farmers, while we don't feel the same compassion for telemarketeers, to take just one simple example? I'm pretty sure those farmers can find something else to do. Selling a reasonably-sized plot of land can raise quite a bit of money. Those farmers won't starve. Well, not with all the cheap food around anyway.

Yes, The People's Democratic Republic of Yelda has gone batshit insane and decided to outlaw communism.
It does NOT ban state controlled farms. It does NOT ban communism. Subsidies are paid by the government to private individuals and private entities (like corporations). Money sent by the state to a collective farm is just part of the operating budget of that collective. In a socialist economy, the means of production are held by the state on behalf of all the people. You can't subsidize yourself.


Is irrelevent to this discussion.

Farms in capitalist countries need subsidies!! The world already more people than it can supply with food. I will not vote for any resolution that will make more children starve!!!

The Palentine UN office casts a resounding Yea, for the resolution. And heartedly congradulates the Yeldan ambassador for finally geting the proposal to the floor. Now I'm off for some fine Yelda(TM) Cheese, and Old Crow(TM)

Excelsior,
Sen Horatio Sulla,
Ambassador, Palentine UN Office(New Nation, Same corrupt and unwholesome pratices:D )

"Sic Semper Tyrannis"

having consulted with my region i can say that i have been authorised to vote against.

despite my own feelings about this the main concern that i expressed during the draft stage still remains. Food dumping.

point 5 may let a UN nation levy tarrifs against a non-un nation (which in my view is overstepping the boundaries of the UN) but food dumping by a UN nation has still not been addressed to my satisfaction.

The Ambassador for the Republic of Compadria, Leonard Cato Otterby rises to his feet and takes the floor. He begins with the customery salutation of Compadria, "May the blessings of our otters be upon you". Then he enters into the main body of his argument.

"Many among us have argued that the case for Free Trade is one based on the mighty versus the meek. The few against the many. The strong crushing the disadvantaged. Many have argued from ideological conviction that this is wrong, because it entrenches capitalist dogma upon even more nations than ever before and weakens the advance of alternate economic systems.

Yet they are incorrect. There is nothing inhumane about noting the need of all peoples to have adequate supplies of good quality, healthy food . There is nothing exploitative entailed by 1. ENCOURAGES the sale and/or transfer of food products between UN nations or 2. ENCOURAGES all nations to institute health and nutritional education programs within their school systems. A grievance can be redressed by the work of the UNFTC or the 5th clause. We should recognise these facts and accept that this is based on using and harnessing the best aspects of competition and free enterprise, along with the values of social justice and the need to combat inequality.

By opening markets around the world to fair and free trade, we act to deal a mortal blow to poverty. No child or family need go hungry because they cannot receive the nutrition they need, due to some tariff or protectionary measure, which shields the big farmers, yet hurts those who are most at risk from famine. It means that no small farmer need see his crop go to waste, when he cannot export it or use it, just because another farm far away has been protected and subsidised to the point that he could never farm a day in his life and still retire a rich man. How is unfair to the poor to remove sales taxation on food, I ask you? How is it morally repugnant or objectionable?

It sets out a vision of the future where, joined together, the forces of science and progress set out to solve the problems of famine, by offering us a chance to ensure that there is no good reason that anyone should suffer hunger. Yet it also ensures that a nation will still be able to protect its heritage, ecology and health, by retaining means of quality control. It ensures that price dumping is not permitted nor approved, however implicitely and that means of redress are available for those whom are victims of such actions.

Some may question our idealism, or even mock it. Yet none can deny the facts. That is why Compadria votes Yea to the passage of this resolution.

May the blessings of our otters be upon you all".

Leonard Otterby
Ambassador for the Republic of Compadria to the U.N.

I agree entirely with His Excellency Leonard Otterby; and commend his speech. Cobdenia has voted yes; and nothing you...you...protectionists* will say will make me change my mind

*The worst insult in Cobdenia

Farms in capitalist countries need subsidies!!
Farms in capitalist countries do not need subsidies. They might want subsidies, but they don't need them. Subsidizing any industry in a free market economic system is a textbook example of throwing good money after bad.

Upon what are you basing this statement? Common sense would dictate that the larger, more advanced agricultural sectors in the developed world would have to make a far larger adjustment since it is they who are heavily subsidized and benefit most from protectionism.
Upon what are you basing that statement? You are suggesting that it is well-known fact that all successful farms must be heavily subsidized. Is it not possible, probable even, that there are some farms out there that do well because they are simply more profitable than others, before adding in any sort of state subsidy or subvention? Furthermore, even for farms that have used subsidies, isn't it highly likely that once all subsidies have been removed from all nations that the farm with two tractors, a crop duster, seven miles of irrigation canals, and a combine harvester is going to do a whole hell of a lot better than the farm with two oxen and a cast iron plow? Coupled with the removal of tariffs, the small farms wouldn't even be able to act competitively in their own local markets.

Article 5 clarifies that UN nations will still have the right to protect their agricultural sectors from unfair trade practices by non-UN members. Would you rather I had left that out?
I mean that article 5 is unnecessary, as claiming "between UN nations" meant between UN nations and non-UN nations would be a fairly fantastic leap of logic.

Yep. And without article 6, article 3 would be open to interpretation and rampant abuse. Who would you have decide which exceptions were legitimate and which were not?
Okay, I'll give you that.

Then don't support it. Article 4 lays out a schedule for reducing protectionist mechanisms. Earlier versions of this resolution (which you say you supported) required that they be removed INSTANTLY. I think a gradual reduction is better.
Better, but still not very good.

In RL, this sort of thing would be an agreement entered into voluntarily by all of the involved parties. It would also be several hundred pages long and published in multiple languages. Unfortunately, it's just not possible to do that in NS. Resolutions cannot be optional.
The best course of action, then, would be to not make resolutions out of what should be voluntary contracts. The "tyranny by the majority" aspect of the UN is a thing that can be very dangerous, and this resolution demonstrates why. Our government just cannot, in good faith, force this on so many nations who would suffer.

I'm going to vote against this resolution because, although it's well-intentioned, it will hurt the recipients more that it will help them. By supplying people in underdeveloped nations with free food, this resolution will undermine the agriculutural infrastructure in those countries, and it provides no incentives for the development of this infrastructure. All this will do is put the people in recipient nations at the mercy of the nations who donate the food.

Farms in capitalist countries do not need subsidies. They might want subsidies, but they don't need them. Subsidizing any industry in a free market economic system is a textbook example of throwing good money after bad.

So, unless a country is communist they must have a completely free market?

And what is the response of all these nations championing this resoulution to the third worldesque nations that rely primarily on agriculture, yet just aren't as good at producing food as most of the larger nations? The ones whose governments use tariffs to protect their country from a mass of less expensive products? Once these tariffs are gone, there is literally nothing (save, perhaps, raw patriotism) to prevent these small, underdeveloped farms from being priced out of the market. And once their agricultural sectors simply collapse, the rest of their industries could well follow. It doesn't matter how cheap the food is if you've got no money to pay for it.

Not to mention the numerous people who would lose their jobs in even the developed nations. Not necessarily the farmers, though. In developed nations on large farms, the people who will suffer will be the farm hands, the ranch hands, the machinery operators, the food packers, the migrant laborers, and all the other auxiliaries that farms employ. One should bear in mind that if prices drop, then someone by definition is losing money. In this case, it is not some wealthy plutocrat, but an average farm laborer. And unlike a telemarketer, the professional skills of a farm worker tend to be hard to apply in other professions. They will be out of work, with little chance of finding new work.

There is actually an interesting phenomenom at work here. Apparently, the inhabitants of those lesser nations, as well as the laborers who work the farms of the world, do not fall under the category of "people" to many of the governments present. Now, we do not wish to suggest active malevolence on the part of any nation, but it does seem likely that in all this talk about how much good that this resolution might do, little attention has been paid to those who may suffer because of it.

Though, admittedly, many people would benefit from this resolution, our people feel that it is not quite their place to aid the many by damning the few.

And once their agricultural sectors simply collapse, the rest of their industries could well follow.

No it wouldn't: the opposite would happen. Other industry would grow. You'd get a free-ing up of the labour previously engaged in working in an competetive industry; thus attracting investment in these new industries.

In this case, it is not some wealthy plutocrat, but an average farm laborer
The fall of price would be due to competition; not just a random price drop. The price would fall in order to increase profits. Plus, previous legislation ("Right to Labour Unions") would, if not directly, prevent massive falls in wages.

I agree entirely with His Excellency Leonard Otterby; and commend his speech. Cobdenia has voted yes; and nothing you...you...protectionists* will say will make me change my mind

*The worst insult in Cobdenia


:eek: :eek: :eek: :eek: :eek:
I'm Shocked, Shocked I say, to hear such a vulger insult as "protectionists" uttered in these Hallowed and August Halls. Actually I have other more colorful ones I might add but will refrain. Stick to you guns Yelda! we've got your back.
Excelsior,
Sen Horatio Sulla
The Dominion of Palentine UN office
"Sic Semper Tyrannis!"
New Nation, same corrupt and unwholesome practices!:D

NO NO NO! this plan will hurt my nation's economy! Our main industry if fast food and you CANNOT take that away from us!


DIE DIE DIE BAD RESOLUTION!!!!!!!!

:mp5: :sniper: :mp5: :sniper: :mp5: :sniper: :mp5: :sniper: :mp5: :sniper:

Upon what are you basing that statement? You are suggesting that it is well-known fact that all successful farms must be heavily subsidized. Is it not possible, probable even, that there are some farms out there that do well because they are simply more profitable than others, before adding in any sort of state subsidy or subvention?
I would say that in the "Real World" exactly the opposite is true. We could speculate all day and night about the state of agricultural subsidies in NS, but it's safe to assume that it works the same here as in RL. It's time now for the dreaded "RL reference":

"The U.S. Department of Agriculture is required by law to subsidize over two dozen commodities. Between 1996 and 2002, an average of $16 billion/year was paid by programs authorized by federal legislation dating back to the Agricultural Adjustment Act of 1938, the Agricultural Act of 1949, and the CCC Charter Act of 1948, among others.

The beneficiaries of the subsidies have changed as U.S. agriculture changes. In the 1930s, about a quarter of the U.S. population resided on the nation's six million small farms. By 1997, 157,000 large farms accounted for 72% of farm sales, with only 2% of the U.S. population residing on farms."

That's in the U.S., in the European Union farms are just as heavily subsidized. The larger, more advanced food producers heavily subsidize their crops. This produces an enormous disadvantage for the farmers of developing nations, who are unable to compete with the subsidized imported food. The developing nation then has no choice but to levy punitive tariffs in an effort to defend their farmers. Then the subsidies are increased. Then the tariffs are raised some more. The cycle repeats itself. It has nothing to do with farms being "profitable" or "successful". It has everything to do with market manipulation, high prices and food shortages.

Furthermore, even for farms that have used subsidies, isn't it highly likely that once all subsidies have been removed from all nations that the farm with two tractors, a crop duster, seven miles of irrigation canals, and a combine harvester is going to do a whole hell of a lot better than the farm with two oxen and a cast iron plow?

Coupled with the removal of tariffs, the small farms wouldn't even be able to act competitively in their own local markets.
Once the protectionist perversions are eliminated, everyone will compete on a level playing field. Maybe not perfectly level, but certainly under more equitable circumstances than currently exist. Some advanced farming operations will flourish, some will fail miserably. The same for the farms that consist of "two oxen and a cast iron plow". What you're talking about is industrialised, commercial farming vs. subsistence farming. But the person with two oxen and a plow probably doesn't sell his produce on the open market anyway.


I mean that article 5 is unnecessary, as claiming "between UN nations" meant between UN nations and non-UN nations would be a fairly fantastic leap of logic.
Without article 5, all tariffs would have been removed, even tariffs on food imported from non-UN nations. The non-UN nations would have been under no obligation to lower their own tariffs or subsidies. UN nations will still be able to work out reciprocal bi-lateral and multi-lateral trade agreements with non-UN nations. I hope that they will, in fact, use this resolution as a basis for opening up free trade agreements between the UN and the rest of nationstates.

The best course of action, then, would be to not make resolutions out of what should be voluntary contracts. The "tyranny by the majority" aspect of the UN is a thing that can be very dangerous, and this resolution demonstrates why. Our government just cannot, in good faith, force this on so many nations who would suffer.
You're basing this on your assumption that nations are going to suffer. If this resolution was something that you believed in, and thought would actually be helpful to the peoples of the UN (as I do), I doubt you would be so worried about "tyranny by the majority".

I challenge anyone to shew me a nation whose UN economic ranking fell because of this resolution (assuming it passes, which it bally well ought to!)

By supplying people in underdeveloped nations with free food, this resolution will undermine the agriculutural infrastructure in those countries, and it provides no incentives for the development of this infrastructure. All this will do is put the people in recipient nations at the mercy of the nations who donate the food.
Which version of the resolution are you reading? This one says nothing about supplying underdeveloped nations with free food. In fact, the older version didn't either.

So, unless a country is communist they must have a completely free market?
Of course not. But what has that got to do with my statement about subsidies being flawed economic policy?

lets assume this passes and a free market in agriculture is created over the next few years.

obviously the farms of bigger richer nations are going to be able to grow more food even without subsidies and protectionist policies.

this will still leave developing countries at a disadvantage because if theres a glut of food prices will drop and its always the poorer nations that take this the hardest.

its going to be the same with any free trade ideas wether its food, automobiles or fossil fuels.

(if other people are going to use RL such as the EU (which i'm part off) farmers in northern ireland are having a real hard time even with EU subsidies in place. without then the NI farming economy would collapse)

i still feel that national sovereignty is at stake here. although the intentions of this proposal are good we all know what road good intentions lead to. each nation needs to handle trade its way since they all want the same thing. a fair price for their goods.

a free market would do a lot more damage to developing countries than the current systems in place do.

a free market only really affects exports so if a nation has grown too much food it'll quite rightly export it. the cargo ship still has to go somewhere and that leads to a glut of food where the said items are exported to hence lowering the overall world price.

take the example of oil production. when theres a shortage of crude oil on the market the price goes up. when theres a glut the price goes down.

thats a free market already in action if you need an example.

I must say that I am totally against this resolution.

Once more it is a good idea combined with a haphazzard set of clauses.

One problem is that as much as we desire to compete in a free market, my country subsidises food production as past wars have shown that a heavy dependance on foreign foodstuffs can become a strangle hold in times of conflict.

In addition, the "the removal of all sales taxes levied on food" would hit our VAT on restaurant food.

The whole act has a kind of circular logic to it, we are expected to approove "the gradual reduction, in stages, of all protectionist mechanisms in the trade of food including" however we are expected to fund areas of research into "improved methods of food production".

So allow me to get this straight. Various industries in my country require protection, or face being strangled out of existence by foreign labor. Large sectors of my economy depend on the protection the government affords them. Yet I'm expected to hand the decision as to whether or not to protect them over to a distant third party, who neither understands nor appreciates the particulars of my economic system? An excellent idea. Perhaps they also know best as to how I handle social welfare. Why don't we set up a committee to rule over that for me? After all, cold, impersonal, removed governing institutions distant from those they rule always know best!

:mp5: :sniper: :mp5: :sniper: :mp5: :sniper: :mp5: :sniper: :mp5: :sniper:
How, exactly, do you suppose that this resolution will have a harmful effect on your fast food industry? (Not that the elimination of said fast food industry would necessarily be a bad thing.) No, the effect on the fast food market will be lower prices and a greater variety of foods being available. Hopefully your nation will follow Article two and your children will grow up requesting good, healthy food instead of junk(thus improving the quality of fast food). But I think your fast food sector will survive.

Of course not. But what has that got to do with my statement about subsidies being flawed economic policy?

flawed or not, each individual nation should be able to decide.

Once the protectionist perversions are eliminated, everyone will compete on a level playing field. Maybe not perfectly level, but certainly under more equitable circumstances than currently exist. Some advanced farming operations will flourish, some will fail miserably. The same for the farms that consist of "two oxen and a cast iron plow". What you're talking about is industrialised, commercial farming vs. subsistence farming. But the person with two oxen and a plow probably doesn't sell his produce on the open market anyway.
This resolution would be much more pallatable if it attacked subsidies while still permitting the use of tariffs. There is a reason why such taxes are called "protectionism." The fact that farms, developed or not, will fail miserably, as you just mentioned, is one of the main issues that we have with this resolution.

You're basing this on your assumption that nations are going to suffer. If this resolution was something that you believed in, and thought would actually be helpful to the peoples of the UN (as I do), I doubt you would be so worried about "tyranny by the majority".
Rather unwise of you to make such an assumption. Because of the UN's built-in ability to force unwelcome legislation, our government's official stance is against using the United Nations as an economic bloc at all. Even if we were for this resolution, these concerns would remain, undiminished. Furthermore, such gross speculation on the motives behind a single nation's opinion does not dismiss any legitimate problems this resolution has.

This resolution would be much more pallatable if it attacked subsidies while still permitting the use of tariffs. There is a reason why such taxes are called "protectionism."
If you outlaw subsidies while leaving tariffs in place you accomplish two things:
1: You bring the international food trade to a screeching halt.
2: You destroy those food producers who formerly depended on exports for their income.
The fact that farms, developed or not, will fail miserably, as you just mentioned, is one of the main issues that we have with this resolution.
Of course some farms will fail while others thrive. Farms are businesses, some will be profitable and thrive, while others will be unprofittable and fail. That is true now, and it will still be true if this passes or not.

Rather unwise of you to make such an assumption. Because of the UN's built-in ability to force unwelcome legislation, our government's official stance is against using the United Nations as an economic bloc at all. Even if we were for this resolution, these concerns would remain, undiminished. Furthermore, such gross speculation on the motives behind a single nation's opinion does not dismiss any legitimate problems this resolution has.
What you have mentioned so far are normal market forces, not legimate problems with the resolution. We can argue until both of us are blue in the face about the pros and cons of free trade. The main thrust of your argument is that this resolution will do what it says it will do. It will remove barriers to trade in foodstuffs. This will result in an increasing worldwide supply and availability of food and thus, lower prices. People will be able to feed their families a greater variety of food at lower cost. Some farms will fail while others will not. Econ 101.

Protectionism is required for developing nations. If a nation with a weak agriculture constantly is overwhelmed by cheaper food by developed nations, who obtain the monopoly, they will become dependent on this foreign food and not be obliged to form their own food production. This is just another attempt at globalization from the wealthier companies to further exploit developing nations.

Protectionism is required for developing nations. If a nation with a weak agriculture constantly is overwhelmed by cheaper food by developed nations, who obtain the monopoly, they will become dependent on this foreign food and not be obliged to form their own food production. This is just another attempt at globalization from the wealthier companies to further exploit developing nations.

Is there an echo (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=9924109&postcount=105) in here?

How is providing the means to be able to eat 'exploitation'?

Is there an echo (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=9924109&postcount=105) in here?

How is providing the means to be able to eat 'exploitation'?
Yeah, I thought that sounded familiar and was about to point it out.

[Ferran Adria, the chef, welcomed his guests. The place was surprisingly small for the world most famous restaurant. All of the 50 lucky guests of tonight at “El Bulli” had reserved one year in advance, some had tried for years unsuccessfully, as more than 100 000 persons called for reservation every year. But Georges Shallmar, the powerful minister of economy and trade, called the restaurant the same morning; he was the only one in Love and esterel with these kinds of passe-droit.

Pazu-Lenny didn’t feel comfortable in this formal atmosphere and was regretting not to be with his friends, partying at the “Café del Mar”, but it was not possible for him refuse the invitation of Georges Shallmar.]


Georges Shallmar: “You made the good choice by giving the approval of LAE to the very good “UN Small Education Business” and “Global Food Distribution Act” proposals. I’m happy that the UN is focusing also on economy. I learn that their authors, Powerhungry Chipmunks and Yelda, are members of the NSO. Is NSO a common market, Free trade area or some sort of economic union, maybe interesting for LAE to join. What NSO means?

Pazu-Lenny Nero: NSO means “National Sovereignty Organisation”

Georges: “National Sovereignty Organisation”? You kidding!:p

Pazu-Lenny: Yes

Georges: So, I love these guys from the NSO, they have a good sense of humour and for sure are some pure 100% certified politicians:D . They called themselves sovereignists but violates the sovereignty of 30 000 nations by requiring them to abolish tariffs on food! What a joke! I love these political manoeuvres! Maybe they will change their name soon for “National Sovereignty is Over”:D !

Pazu-Lenny: In fact the NSO defends Sovereignty on Human Rights issues, they are pretty conservatives, so maybe they will change their name to “Neo-con on Social-issues Organisation”!

Georges: Pazu, even if I’m not a Human rights specialist, you know I like the UN, and I was a strong support of your Sex ed and adoption and IVF resolutions, wasn’t I? I’m glad you support these NSO members on these economic issues. But don’t fear them on human rights issues, they will not be able to use anymore their Natsov argument after this food Act, that will be so flagrant hypocrisy! …. So what about the food you just eat;) ?


[Pazu-Lenny was stunned, he even forgot the “Café del Mar” for a while, he had never imagine that food like this could exist. Ferran Adria was opening his restaurant only 6 months a year; the others 6 months he was working in his kitchen laboratory to invent new substances, new textures, new tastes and that was truly astonishing.

Then Pazu-Lenny remembered what he told to Georges Shallmar, two days ago, and that Georges Shallmar invited him this morning to “El Bulli”:
“I don’t like so much to eat, it’s boring me, there is no creation in food, we are always eating the same stuff. You know in House music there are dozens of releases every week, not mentioning the numerous others music style”. Pazu-lenny was impressed]


--------------
OOC: “El Bulli” restaurant, Costa Brava, Spain
Sadly, the odds I will eat in this restaurant one day are very low
http://enjoyment.independent.co.uk/f...icle191953.ece

IC: I would like to point out to the honourable representative from Love and esterel that Yelda's submission of the GFDA, and Powerhungry Chipmunks's of UNSBE, are not NSO-sponsored, endorsed, or approved. They are NSO members acting as legislators, not legislators acting as NSO members. At no point has the NSO claimed a monopoly on its members thoughts, freedoms, or actions.

It so happens that there has been dissent amongst the NSO regarding the resolution at vote: you may have noticed an NSO member vociferously arguing against it in this forum topic, and on the NSO forum.

I would say I am a fairly 'strong' sovereigntist. Yet I support this. Why? Because by entering the UN, we are entering into a special international agreement. We are acknowledging that we are going to pass FT/SJ resolutions, and given that UN resolutions cannot affect non-members, we are thus confining ourselves to a special trade area. In that spirit, then, to do anything other than protect the rights of my citizens to a) be able to purchase good, affordable food and b) compete in a global marketplace in which their industry, and not their national origin, is the prime determinant of success, seems ludicrous.

But that is my personal view. I am not speaking for other NSO members. We are, as I understand, a discussion forum. We are not a secret cult of the undead, all lurching across the floor of the GA murmuring "braaaains, braaaains, must feed on the braaaaains of international federalists". We're looking out for our citizens, as is our appointed, elected or otherwise decided responsibility. That you are unable to see that, and must instead resort to childish taunts, is a great, great shame.

This measure worries me.

While in general, allowing free trade of food stuffs and permitting citizens of all nations access to adequate nutrition is an honorable goal, this measure leaves unaddressed several side issues that will have grave impact upon its purposes.

Example #1: A rogue state joins the U.N. The strong-man government uses this legislation to gain access to large quantities of inexpensive food stuffs. It then uses these to feed its armies, leaving its citizenry out in the cold while making it easier for themselves to threaten their neighbors.

Example #2: A religious nation joins the U.N. They believe that children are the gift of the gods and that people should have as many of them as possible no matter what. They use this measure to gain access to large quantities of inexpensive food stuffs. Nine months later, the baby boom begins....and, soon, the food stuffs are once again not so inexpensive (supply and demand, you know).

This measure lacks safeguards to prevent its misuse; and any such safeguards would, in the humble opinion of this delegate, be so draconian as to make them morrally unthinkable. It's quite a can of worms that this measure opens up by not allowing nations the ability to safeguard their own food production. This is why the Dominion of Dastardly Stench has voted against this measure.

If you outlaw subsidies while leaving tariffs in place you accomplish two things:
1: You bring the international food trade to a screeching halt.
2: You destroy those food producers who formerly depended on exports for their income.
How exactly is it that not removing existing tariffs, without adding any new taxes, mind you, would cause a market that already exists despite those taxes, to spontaneously combust?

Of course some farms will fail while others thrive. Farms are businesses, some will be profitable and thrive, while others will be unprofittable and fail. That is true now, and it will still be true if this passes or not.

What you have mentioned so far are normal market forces, not legimate problems with the resolution. We can argue until both of us are blue in the face about the pros and cons of free trade. The main thrust of your argument is that this resolution will do what it says it will do. It will remove barriers to trade in foodstuffs. This will result in an increasing worldwide supply and availability of food and thus, lower prices. People will be able to feed their families a greater variety of food at lower cost. Some farms will fail while others will not. Econ 101.
Just because farms do fail already does not make the effects of this resolution "normal market forces." The sheer scale of farm failures that will likely occur will be several times greater than during any normal period of time. And it won't be sporadic farms in fairly random allotment, either. It will be across specific regions, which may well in turn destabilize local economies. It may bear features of the status quo, but it will by no means be business as usual. If tomorrow somebody came here and said "OMG TYPHOON!", would it be appropriate to counter that rain and the occasional windstorm are normal parts of fall weather?

To distort what I am arguing as such seems like little more than use of a straw man. The ruination of entire sectors of industries of other nations is not "Econ 101."

Just one point. As a socialist state, Stoddenia is not interested in free trade. Free trade hurts smaller nations, as comparative advantage always translates into extractive input form smaller nations traded for finished products from larger nations. We are not interested in turning Stoddenia into a banana republic by reducing the barriers that allow our nation to remain self-sufficient. While the general purpose, putting food into the hands of those who cannot afford it themselves, is VERY much in line with the ideals of our revolution, the provisions that tie this altruistic gesture to free trade policy spoils the entire resolution. Therefore we will vote against it, and sadly at that, because a serious attempt at social welfare like this appaears mired in the taint of capitalism.

The Stoddenian UN Mission

How exactly is it that not removing existing tariffs, without adding any new taxes, mind you, would cause a market that already exists despite those taxes, to spontaneously combust?
Are you certain that nations would not raise the existing tariffs? Is it not likely, in fact, that this would happen with tariffs being the only protectionist weapon left in their arsenal? And what about my second point? What would become of the formerly subsidized food exporters? They no longer have their subsidies, yet they must try to export their product to nations that still have tariffs.

Just because farms do fail already does not make the effects of this resolution "normal market forces." The sheer scale of farm failures that will likely occur will be several times greater than during any normal period of time. And it won't be sporadic farms in fairly random allotment, either. It will be across specific regions, which may well in turn destabilize local economies. It may bear features of the status quo, but it will by no means be business as usual. If tomorrow somebody came here and said "OMG TYPHOON!", would it be appropriate to counter that rain and the occasional windstorm are normal parts of fall weather?

To distort what I am arguing as such seems like little more than use of a straw man. The ruination of entire sectors of industries of other nations is not "Econ 101."
If the resolution passes and you can prove that these massive farm failures and economic destabilizations have actually occured, bring it to my attention. I will repeal this resolution and you may compose it's replacement.

This is excellently thought out. One of the best resolutions I've seen so far.

`)
HSVN

I put the "healthy" part in there so that governments can't legitimately distribute unhealthy substances or unhealthy addictive drugs that can function as energy sources and call them "food".

And yes, sales tax can be levied on unhealthy foods.

It's practical and sovereignty-friendly. Damn I'm good.

Minister of UN Affairs
Edward Jones
Thank you. RensSignol will now have a legal base to heavily tax the whole bunch of unhealthy import food. We will now be able to tax (at 1000% or up) the import of: sugar-enhanced mayonaise, yoghurt, ham, yes even import CHEESE often is "enhanced" with sugar (be it often monosaccharoids) ... This is one of the main causes for obesity left on our menu.
Corn and soy, basically being forage much more than healthy "food" (defined to feed "persons" ) can equally be taxed when this passes. We see a good reason now to raise taxes on large groups of import food-alikes. Thank you for coming up with this.

We understand that for some nations, their persons need other things than our humanoids need, but we aren't afraid of them importing their "food" to us: our humanoid population won't need big quantities of pop corn, corn flakkees, soy paste and other "high energy" forage. Instead we can grow our own sesame, almonds, hazelnuts, blackberries. The export of which doesn't even NEED subventions: foreign demands far exceed our -and most other nations'- capacity of production, though for internal use we have enough.
Same thing goes for raisins/grapes (luckily) and all kinds of large grasses. These produce excellent ingredients for beer and wine, as well as ginger breads, cookies etc. Yes, some of those CAN contain sugar too. Those aren't the base "food" types though. They are more the kind of "celebration" ones. As an exception, they aren't burdeoning our obese either. (Most of them cannot afford more than three pieces of gingerbread weekly, so ...)

Again, thanks for the opportunity to get our peple back in "shape" (though round is a shape as well) AND fill the treasury again on the expenses of others.
Our parliament, or the government itself, will sure find a way to spend the extra.

I'm dumbfounded!

This proposal, if allowed to pass, will enable some UN member nations to indulge in price dumping of their food exports to other UN member nations.

Nations, which have a relatively weaker agricultural sector would be weakened further in that area. This will make them vulnerable to blackmailing tactics from other UN member nations who will be left dominating international agricultural trade in the absence of protectionist mechanisms.

I therefore vote against this proposal and will probably resign from the UN if it's passed.

P.S.: Just to be clear, I'm all for free trade in sectors other than agriculture.

How is providing the means to be able to eat 'exploitation'?

"Give a man a fish and he will be fed for a day. Teach a man how to fish and he will be fed for life."

In theory the ultimate goal should be to give food to all, but in practice the goal should be to encourage local production of food resources and to supplement the difference between supply and demand with external food sources.

Becase local food generation should be a high priority in terms of a local regions supply food, completely free trade actually goes against this process. It can potentially turn producers of food into consumers of food, and consumers of food without resources because you have just removed their own source of income. Thus you increase the general poverty of a region that becomes more and more dependant on external resources which must be secured through income of some sort. Free trade is not free for the nation receiving it. It is not aid.

There are some areas of industry that can easily migrate across borders. I don't think that food production should be one. External food sources should supplement not surplant local food production. Local food production needs to be encouraged as much as possible.

This resolution seems less like a "feed the world" resolution, and more like "let's expand our export markets" reslution veiled as a "feed the world" resolution. Oddly enough I'm not really opposed to making my nation wealthier at the expense of other poorer nations whose agriculture would be decimated by my nation's superior technology and effieiency. But is that what we really want?

...

There are some areas of industry that can easily migrate across borders. I don't think that food production should be one. External food sources should supplement not surplant local food production. Local food production needs to be encouraged as much as possible.

This resolution seems less like a "feed the world" resolution, and more like "let's expand our export markets" reslution veiled as a "feed the world" resolution. Oddly enough I'm not really opposed to making my nation wealthier at the expense of other poorer nations whose agriculture would be decimated by my nation's superior technology and effieiency. But is that what we really want?

Thank you! You said exactly what I wanted to say. These are some of the concerns which bother me too. I will add that this proposal could become a tool in the hands of those nations wanting to use their dominance in agricultural trade in other aspects of foreign policy to subjugate other UN member nations.

This measure worries me.

While in general, allowing free trade of food stuffs and permitting citizens of all nations access to adequate nutrition is an honorable goal, this measure leaves unaddressed several side issues that will have grave impact upon its purposes.

Example #1: A rogue state joins the U.N. The strong-man government uses this legislation to gain access to large quantities of inexpensive food stuffs. It then uses these to feed its armies, leaving its citizenry out in the cold while making it easier for themselves to threaten their neighbors.

Example #2: A religious nation joins the U.N. They believe that children are the gift of the gods and that people should have as many of them as possible no matter what. They use this measure to gain access to large quantities of inexpensive food stuffs. Nine months later, the baby boom begins....and, soon, the food stuffs are once again not so inexpensive (supply and demand, you know).

This measure lacks safeguards to prevent its misuse; and any such safeguards would, in the humble opinion of this delegate, be so draconian as to make them morrally unthinkable. It's quite a can of worms that this measure opens up by not allowing nations the ability to safeguard their own food production. This is why the Dominion of Dastardly Stench has voted against this measure.

I would like to reply to the Dominion of Dastardly Stench's points, particularly number 2. Firstly, it should be remembered that armies do not win wars on supplies alone, though that does play an important part. I doubt it could sustain such practices for very long, as soon embargoes would be put in place and thus they would be unable to continue to use this food for military reasons.

Equally, number 2 is not viable, simply because no matter how religious a nation is, there's nothing like a good famine to turn you into an atheist. On a more serious note, this is a problem, yet I doubt any nation would do such a thing, simply because this mass buying would collapse as their purchasing power decreases. It sounds harsh to say this, yet in a way, if it takes a famine for them to realise their stupidity, then so be it. It's not a scenario that any of us would want to see, yet sometimes, you have to let nature take its course to a certain degree.

May the blessings of our otters be upon you.

Leonard Otterby
Ambassador for the Republic of Compadria to the U.N.

I agree. People learn the hard way, and you just have to let that be. I'm sorry but there is no way I can agree with this piece of legislation. I firmly stand against it.

4. ESTABLISHES the following schedule for reducing protectionist mechanisms:

Years 1 thru 6: 36% cut over six years (6% per year)
Years 7 thru 11: 50% cut over five years (10% per year)
Year 12: 14% cut (total elimination of protectionist mechanisms)

Actually as written this would leave you with 35% of subsidies in year 12, not 0%.

RensSignol will now have a legal base to heavily tax the whole bunch of unhealthy import food.
Yes, but only if you can convince the UNFTC that they truly are unhealthy. You can also claim an exemption under Article 3. But again, the UNFTC will rule on the legitimacy of your claim.

Also, if you were to apply it via sales taxes, you wiuld have to apply the same sales taxation to unhealthy food produced whithin your nation.

I'm dumbfounded!

This proposal, if allowed to pass, will enable some UN member nations to indulge in price dumping of their food exports to other UN member nations.
Read articles 3 and 6 more closely. There are safeguards in place.

I reiterate my point that if any nations' UN economic rankings fall as a result of this resolution, I'll eat my heavily decorated Cobdenian Diplomat Uniform fore and aft bicorn hat.

Actually as written this would leave you with 35% of subsidies in year 12, not 0%.
6% per year for 6 years is 36%. 10% per year for 5 years is a further 50%. Thats 86%. In the 12th year, the final 14% is eliminated. The 6%, 10% and 14% are percentages of the original amount, not the reduced amounts.

This proposal, if allowed to pass, will enable some UN member nations to indulge in price dumping of their food exports to other UN member nations.
Read articles 3 and 6 more closely. There are safeguards in place.
There are safeguards only for Religious, Cultural, Medical, or Ecological concerns. My concern was strategic. Your proposal will result in big nations using economies of scale to destroy the agricultural sector of small nations and make them subservient and unalterably dependant on big nations for the most basic of human needs: food.

There are safeguards only for Religious, Cultural, Medical, or Ecological concerns. My concern was strategic. Your proposal will result in big nations using economies of scale to destroy the agricultural sector of small nations and make them subservient and unalterably dependant on big nations for the most basic of human needs: food.
Yes, but in addition to Article 3, what does Article 6 say? Don't you suppose that what you are describing would qualify as a "trade dispute"?

There are safeguards only for Religious, Cultural, Medical, or Ecological concerns. My concern was strategic. Your proposal will result in big nations using economies of scale to destroy the agricultural sector of small nations and make them subservient and unalterably dependant on big nations for the most basic of human needs: food.
Yes, but in addition to Article 3, what does Article 6 say? Don't you suppose that what you are describing would qualify as a "trade dispute"?
...
6. ESTABLISHES the United Nations Free Trade Commission (UNFTC) to arbitrate trade disputes and pass rulings on exceptions claimed under Article 3
...
The trade disputes will only be considered if they qualify as the exceptions mentioned under Article 3, namely Religious, Cultural, Medical, or Ecological concerns and not strategic.

The trade disputes will only be considered if they qualify as the exceptions mentioned under Article 3, namely Religious, Cultural, Medical, or Ecological concerns and not strategic.
It says: "to arbitrate trade disputes and pass rulings on exceptions claimed under Article 3;"
I wrote it. I think I know what it means.

It says: "to arbitrate trade disputes and pass rulings on exceptions claimed under Article 3;"
I wrote it. I think I know what it means.
You are right. You know what it means. But, being a proposal under consideration by other UN members, you should have framed it in a more comprehensible language, so that they too would know what it means exactly.

You should have been clearer. Unless the proposal is rewritten to explicitly address the concerns raised here, I'll will not withdraw my vote against it.

You are right. You know what it means. But, being a proposal under consideration by other UN members, you should have framed it in a more comprehensible language, so that they too would know what it means exactly.

You should have been clearer. Unless the proposal is rewritten to explicitly address the concerns raised here, I'll will not withdraw my vote against it.

6. ESTABLISHES the United Nations Free Trade Commission (UNFTC) to arbitrate trade disputes and pass rulings on exceptions claimed under Article 3


If the exemption is to be claimed under Article 3, then it will still have to be linked to certain grounds contained in that Article. This isn't difficult, you should just come up with a way of linking the complaints to this Article, even if at face value they're not and you will be able to apply for arbitration.

I understood, personally, the passage in question absolutely. It means exactly what it says, so I dont' think this should be too difficult to understand for any member.

May the blessings of our otters be upon you.

Leonard Otterby
Ambassador for the Republic of Compadria to the U.N.

6. ESTABLISHES the United Nations Free Trade Commission (UNFTC) to arbitrate trade disputes and pass rulings on exceptions claimed under Article 3


If the exemption is to be claimed under Article 3, then it will still have to be linked to certain grounds contained in that Article. This isn't difficult, you should just come up with a way of linking the complaints to this Article, even if at face value they're not and you will be able to apply for arbitration.
...
This is what I apprehended. If I come up with a way of linking my dispute to this Article, the UNFTC will rule against me on a technicality even if such ruling results in the destruction of my nation's agricultural sector. This happens all the time. Principles of natural justice are trounced upon by technicalities. That's why laws and legal resolutions have to be written in a technically sound way, minimising the scope for misinterpretion.

This is what I apprehended. If I come up with a way of linking my dispute to this Article, the UNFTC will rule against me on a technicality even if such ruling results in the destruction of my nation's agricultural sector. This happens all the time. Principles of natural justice are trounced upon by technicalities. That's why laws and legal resolutions have to be written in a technically sound way, minimising the scope for misinterpretion.

If the destruction of your agricultural sector was to cause great hardship for farmers, possibly leading to famine or wastage of land, then you could use the Health and Ecological sections of this resolution to challenge a deal. The act has to be broad, because if we detail every specific facet of the potential outcomes of the law, it would run into dozens of pages. I'm sure that one could use this law and be able to maintain an independant farm industry, without resorting to tariffs or subsidies.

May the blessings of our otters be upon you.

Leonard Otterby
Ambassador for the Republic of Compadria to the U.N.

If the destruction of your agricultural sector was to cause great hardship for farmers, possibly leading to famine or wastage of land, then you could use the Health and Ecological sections of this resolution to challenge a deal. The act has to be broad, because if we detail every specific facet of the potential outcomes of the law, it would run into dozens of pages. I'm sure that one could use this law and be able to maintain an independant farm industry, without resorting to tariffs or subsidies.

I'm not very concerned about my farmers. They will somehow survive like workers of other industries who adjust to the forces of globalisation. My concern is the resultant dependence of my citizens on foreign trade for food.

Removal of tariffs and subsidies will absolutely destroy an independant farm indutry in small nations. Again, free trade is great for industries other than the farming industry. I can only support partially free trade in the agricultural sector.

Dear Leader in consultation with his Secretary for Trade and Industry and the Trade and Industry Aide to the UN Mission has authorised me to make the following statement.

The Nation of Palacetonia supports this proposal.

We have been striving to reform our industry sectors to make it less dependent on state help. We believe that the best way forwards is for our industry to innovate to be profitable and world leaders in their fields.

Current state subsidies have done two things to our industry:

1) Become over-reliant on state help to survive when sometimes it is best to allow sclerotic and outmoded methods of production to die
2) Undercut local markets in other nations leading to over-reliance on foreign goods. The result of this is that agricultural and other production sectors in those nations are underdeveloped leading to a lack of self-sufficiency in times of emergency.

Obviously this does in no way abdicate our responsibilities in times of, for example, civil war and famine.

I also endorse the comments of the honourable Ambassador for Compradia today at 7.21pm GMT

I thank you for your attention

The Ambassador Plenipontiary

I'm not very concerned about my farmers. They will somehow survive like workers of other industries who adjust to the forces of globalisation. My concern is the resultant dependence of my citizens on foreign trade for food.

Removal of tariffs and subsidies will absolutely destroy an independant farm indutry in small nations. Again, free trade is great for industries other than the farming industry. I can only support partially free trade in the agricultural sector.

On the contrary, it will boost it. When the farmers no longer have to deal with unnecessary internal or external blocks to the sale of their produce (should they so will it), then there will be greater opportunity for trade to expand. This isn't just the rich nations exploiting the small ones, as the resolution specifically prohibits dumping.

I do not think relying on others for a certain need is particularly bad, if anything it teaches the value of humility. Furthermore, if there is no longer one major supplier who, when hit badly by say, a bad harvest, cuts his exports, thus causing shortages. Now a multitude of nations can perform that function, all due to the abolition of such preferential trade agreements and protectionist measures. Protectionism does not actually prevent any problems, merely prolongs the time it will take for them to have an affect. Thus, it is self-defeating and won't actually help the industry in question or consumers.

May the blessings of our otters be upon you.

Leonard Otterby
Ambassdor for the Republic of Compadria to the U.N.

On the contrary, it will boost it. When the farmers no longer have to deal with unnecessary internal or external blocks to the sale of their produce (should they so will it), then there will be greater opportunity for trade to expand. This isn't just the rich nations exploiting the small ones, as the resolution specifically prohibits dumping.

I do not think relying on others for a certain need is particularly bad, if anything it teaches the value of humility. Furthermore, if there is no longer one major supplier who, when hit badly by say, a bad harvest, cuts his exports, thus causing shortages. Now a multitude of nations can perform that function, all due to the abolition of such preferential trade agreements and protectionist measures. Protectionism does not actually prevent any problems, merely prolongs the time it will take for them to have an affect. Thus, it is self-defeating and won't actually help the industry in question or consumers.
The resolution only prohibits dumping by non-UN nations. It's very sad.
5. EMPHASIZES that UN member nations reserve the right to employ retaliatory tariffs towards non-UN nations to prevent price dumping
... and begging for food doesn't teach the value of humility, it does the opposite.

I would say that the price dumping, if done by a U.N. member, could be construed as a violation of Article 3. I did not mean, either, to suggest that the nations should beg for food and that this would teach humility, rather that in having to rely on a degree for others, they would become more community spirited and internationally minded as a result.

May the blessings of our otters be upon you.

Leonard Otterby
Ambassador for the Republic of Compadria to the U.N.

the way i read article 3 its dosen't.

3. REQUIRES the gradual reduction, in stages, of all protectionist mechanisms in the trade of food including, but not limited to, Tariffs, Duties, Farm Subsidies and Subventions. Exception will be made for protectionist mechanisms which are based upon legitimate Religious, Cultural, Medical, or Ecological concerns;

a UN Nation can still food dump and that was a concern i raised at the drafting stage.

also point 5 causes me a lot of concern. this proposal affects non-un nations. something i think crosses the line unless the Yeldan anbassador thinks the UN is a world government?

I think the maths is all wrong again.

Years 1 thru 6: 36% cut over six years (6% per year)
Years 7 thru 11: 50% cut over five years (10% per year)
Year 12: 14% cut (total elimination of protectionist mechanisms)

Surely the effect is going to be cumulative so you will never hit 0% but the curve is much steeper?

If the proposal is for percentage reductions on the principal figure then the proposal should say so, otherwise this just doesn't add up.

It's a no for me.

6% per year for 6 years is 36%. 10% per year for 5 years is a further 50%. Thats 86%. In the 12th year, the final 14% is eliminated. The 6%, 10% and 14% are percentages of the original amount, not the reduced amounts.

No - thats not what the act says. If people are going to come up with complicated metrics they need to make sure they are not open to misinterpretation.

Its in the absence of clarity that lawyers thrive.

The WestCorvinus rule of law clearly states ...

As clarity -> zero, law suits -> infinity ... ;)

If the resolution passes and you can prove that these massive farm failures and economic destabilizations have actually occured, bring it to my attention. I will repeal this resolution and you may compose it's replacement.
Now, hold on! We're both well aware that the role-played consequences of UN resolutions and the mechanical effects on national statistics are almost always wildly divergent. If they weren't, my nation, along with a whole lot of others, would have left the UN a long time ago. FFRA, for instance, comes to mind. I've always personally considered resorting to the game mechanics effects (or lack thereof) of a resolution to be a lousy argument, no matter which side uses it. Not to mention the fact that you're trying to pass off some sort of artificial burden of proof onto me. I'm not trying to turn you against your own resolution, anyway, and am under no delusions about the current vote tally.

Upon reveiwing this proposal, and consulting with Her Majesty, it has been decided that the Sacred Kingdom of Karianis must vote against this act, as is, unfortunately, far too common.

We feel that certain parts of this act impinge on a country's internal rights, specifically item 7, which 'encourages' the removal of sales taxes on food items. Furthermore, this proposal would cut a great deal of governmental income on food items, and this is unacceptable. Perhaps your government needs little funding, but Karianis takes a very active role in the lives of its people, and we can ill afford reckless tax cuts, UN mandated or not.

So, at Her Majesty's direction, I have voted against this proposal, as stated before.

Serifina Karin
Ambassador to the UN

Fuhrer Greer must strongly disagree with the bill due to the ill effects of free trade on its economy.

We also recognize that nutrition is important, but believe that it should be up to each nation to decide what measures be taken to determine what measures they take in meddling in their citizen's diets.

Fuhrer Greer also recognizes that free trade has absolutely nothing to do with nutrition and is a threat to Fuhrer Greer's economical stability.

Tariffs and duties are a great way to raise revenues for the country as well as promote the purchase of home-grown produce and agricultural products. Farm subsidies are also important because they help the farmers of Fuhrer Greer continue to produce food for the nation. These so-called "protectionalist mechanisms" aren't used for anyone's protection, but rather as stabilizers for the great country of Fuhrer Greer.

It is highly important for a goverment to support the businesses of its country as well as itself. Fuhrer Greer is alarmed that the UN would take measures to force free trade upon members. This is a disturbing as well as disgusting trend that could spread to other areas and further digrade the economies of many countries.

Fuhrer Greer strongly believes in a country's right to tax its people. Taxes are necessary not only to help fund a government, but also to help pay for the services expected of one by its citizens. The strong encouragement of tax removal is unacceptable to my country.

This resolution supposedly supporting nutrition is nothing more than a way to spread free trade. Fuhrer Greer would like to point out that this bill too powerful in that it will cause STRONG changes in two areas: nutrition and free trade. Had this bill truly been about nutritional standards and not about promoting free trade, Fuhrer Greer might have voted differently, but as is, Fuhrer Greer must STRONLY vote against and VEHEMENTLY suggest others follow suit.

This proposal seems to be worthy, at first glance. After all any wise warrior knows the value of keeping his troops healthy , thru the use of propper diet. However..... If one will examine this proposal closely one finds that it benifits larger countries much more than it does smaller ones. Hsaur, while mighty, is small, and this proposal would seriously reduce income to the government thru food taxes and tariffs. Would that possibly be an unspoken reasoning behind this proposal? That thru "accepted" means, weaken smaller countries so that they might be more easily controled or even annexed (forcibly so) by the larger countries?

The measure seems less like an international matter deserving of attention. While full support would be given for an economic fund to help member nations with food shortages (by assisting them in developing viable agriculture), this "open market" idea seems like nothing more than a way to make other nations accept a short-term solution to a long-term problem.

As the saying goes, teach a man to fish, etc etc.

Voting against.

An old gray haired man stood up, his eyes seemingly looking somewhere far away as he adressed those in the UN, in his old fatherly tone

"I have seen some intresting arguments for this idea but due to the civil war in Cuation, we have been unable to say our own nation view. This has been accepted by the current Minister of the Interoir, Minister of Food who handles such things as farming and our Chancellor. All three have agreed then sent it up to our Warlord."

"I am delighted to inform you all that the nation of Cuation has voted For this. I would like to thank the nation of Yelda and all those that worked into making such a good thing."

The Delegation from the Unified State of the Moravian Counties hereby declares its oppposition to this resolution. Protective tarriffs are used by many nations for internal reasons. This violates the United Nations principle of Nonintervention; it specifically REQUIRES nations to repeal some of their laws (I.e tariffs). This is totally unacceptable, and the leaders of this nation will refuse to ratify it even if it is passed.

Free trade has proven only harmful in the past, it just allows for rich countries to get richer and poor ones to get poorer because free trade in no way allows for the small countries to get the head start they need. Look at NAFTA, it has been around for years and still hasn't worked. This is honest and truthful, and is coming from a relatively large nation, one of almost 1.5 Billion People.

This delegation strongly urges you to vote against this resolution on the grounds that it violates nonintervention and will hurt the smaller nations.

This violates the United Nations principle of Nonintervention;

That's a new one. Has anyone informed the gnomes of this principle?

That's a new one. Has anyone informed the gnomes of this principle?
nonintervention is a policy used in all international governing bodies, such as the UN, OAS, ANC, etc. It states that the body cannot force a government to do anything, nor interfere with its internal affairs

nonintervention is a policy used in all international governing bodies, such as the UN, OAS, ANC, etc. It states that the body cannot force a government to do anything, nor interfere with its internal affairs

Right. THIS ISN'T THE REAL FUCKING UN.

(You may want to look at some of the past resolutions, and evaluate the extent to which 'nonintervention' has been practiced. You may also want to observe the significant lack of any mention of it in, oh, I don't know, the rules?)

nonintervention is a policy used in all international governing bodies, such as the UN, OAS, ANC, etc. It states that the body cannot force a government to do anything, nor interfere with its internal affairs

Love and esterel support this proposal and because of that, obvioulsy, we cannot be sovereignists.

But if you want that the UN don't force a government to do anything, nor interfere with its internal affairs, i recommand you to join the NSO (National Sovereignty Organisation). I suppose they will help you on this topic, as it's exactly their leitmotiv:p

Is there an echo (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=9924109&postcount=105) in here?

How is providing the means to be able to eat 'exploitation'?

I reposted because nobody addressed it. Now I normally think that means they concede. So I want people to see a good argument. But let's explain what I mean.

Developing nation A, has a weak agriculture. Developed nation B has a strong agricultural production because it is advanced. So instead of developing agriculture, nation A just becomes reliant of the cheap influx of nation B's goods.

Now, what do these people do? They've skipped a crucial step in the development of their nation. So perhaps they are a raw resource nation (since you need resources before you can industrialize). They then just ship off their mining goods and employ themselves under cheap labour just to get food. The industrialized nation then takes the cheap materials, makes a commodity, then sells it back to nation A. Sounds a lot like a colony doesn't it? As I said, the people who vote for this, obviously support economic imperialism.

Love and esterel support this proposal and because of that, obvioulsy, we cannot be sovereignists.

But if you want that the UN don't force a government to do anything, nor interfere with its internal affairs, i recommand you to join the NSO (National Sovereignty Organisation). I suppose they will help you on this topic, as it's exactly their leitmotiv:p
I'd just like to point out that there are members of the NSO, like myself, who are in fact, in favor of this proposal.

Bob Flibble
UN Representative

Love and esterel support this proposal and because of that, obvioulsy, we cannot be sovereignists.

But if you want that the UN don't force a government to do anything, nor interfere with its internal affairs, i recommand you to join the NSO (National Sovereignty Organisation). I suppose they will help you on this topic, as it's exactly their leitmotiv


I'd just like to point out that there are members of the NSO, like myself, who are in fact, in favor of this proposal.


i know, even most all NSO members who expressed their comments are FOR.

Flibbleites, sorry my post was Irony.

This is what all the fun is about, NSO members are sovereignists but most of them fully support a resolution which violates the right of 30 000 nations by requiring them to abolish tarrifs on food:D

If this were a communist world, the distribution of goods would be different. But since it's the sale of food, it makes it corporate imperialism.

But let's explain what I mean.

Developing nation A, has a weak agriculture. Developed nation B has a strong agricultural production because it is advanced. So instead of developing agriculture, nation A just becomes reliant of the cheap influx of nation B's goods.

Yes, but the people get fed cheaper. What's wrong with that? It's nonsense to aim for each nation to provide for 100% of their own food demand.

Now, what do these people do? They've skipped a crucial step in the development of their nation. So perhaps they are a raw resource nation (since you need resources before you can industrialize). They then just ship off their mining goods and employ themselves under cheap labour just to get food. The industrialized nation then takes the cheap materials, makes a commodity, then sells it back to nation A. Sounds a lot like a colony doesn't it? As I said, the people who vote for this, obviously support economic imperialism.

It doesn't sound like a colony to me. What's wrong with nations not producing everything there is? What matters is that people get their products as cheaply as possible and with as high a quality as possible. Who cares whether a nation's carrot-farmers suffer from this resolution if another nation is much better at producing carrots?

Besides, it is highly unlikely that agricultural sector in a nation will disappear because of this resolution. Food relies on freshness, and freshness is best when it's produced locally. The local agricultural sector always has that as an advantage.

If you need to help your farmers to produce expensive products, something is seriously wrong. Invest that money into things your nation is good at.

Official Message
From The
Texas Department of UN Affairs
As the current Secretary of United Nations Affairs for the region of Texas, it is my duty to infom you that NewTexas (http://www.nationstates.net/cgi-bin/index.cgi/06089/page=display_nation/nation=newtexas), the Delegate for our region, has cast his vote AGAINST the current resolution in accordance with the wishes of the majority.
Texas Secretary of UN Affairs
Sam I Am

The New Pictavien government has cleared me to tell the NSUN that they fully support this proposal, and I have declared this stand accordingly.

The resolution Global Food Distribution Act was passed 9,207 votes to 5,172, and implemented in all UN member nations.

Congrats

As another nation keen on seeing its own free trade resolution pass in the near future, congratulations, Yeldan UN Mission, on a job well done.


Steve Perry
President

If some one makes a better product then another, one should not be jealous and prevent them from selling it, they should be happy something better is out there and let it flourish as much as possible. Things will eventually even out when every one finds what they are beat at doing.

FREE TRADE TO ALL!!!!:mad: :sniper:

It doesn't sound like a colony to me. What's wrong with nations not producing everything there is? What matters is that people get their products as cheaply as possible and with as high a quality as possible. Who cares whether a nation's carrot-farmers suffer from this resolution if another nation is much better at producing carrots?

Besides, it is highly unlikely that agricultural sector in a nation will disappear because of this resolution. Food relies on freshness, and freshness is best when it's produced locally. The local agricultural sector always has that as an advantage.

If you need to help your farmers to produce expensive products, something is seriously wrong. Invest that money into things your nation is good at.

Then you're not as educated as I thought. Research a bit of history of pretty much ANY colony (especially British colonies however) and it will prove my point and your ignorance.

And a developed nation has the industry to preserve food, or transport it more efficiently (quickly) to the newly acquired corporate colony. So that argument is pretty much bunk.

Well no sense arguing; the vote is over and I have to leave the UN. Not going to be a part of a committee that's primary goal is commercialization.

Haha:
You inform the United Nations that The Rural Commune of Grantsburg will no longer participate in its corrupt, hollow debates. From this moment forward, your nation is on its own.

Sounds about right.

the vote is over and I have to leave the UN

I bagsy his office!

*The Stoddenian Ambassador to the UN takes the podium*

Members of the UN. Our time in this body has come to an end. I am sorry to report this, because we had hopes for the collective security functions of this body.

However, the "Global Food Distribution Act" was passed, promoting "free trade" which works as a detriment to the vast majority of people in my nation. As a result, the official status, as a result of the UN's activity, of "The United Socialist States of Stoddenia" has been changed from Scandanavian Liberal Paradise, which is where the policies of our government have kept us, to "Capitalizt", whatever that means. We are a socialist nation who has been forced to adopt pro-capitalist, anti-socialist measures by the vote of this body. This runs contrary to our national ideology, forces tax rates down which is our only means of developing our state and our people to starve or suffer from diseases, while the rich of our nation live high on the hog.

This action has singlehandedly undermined our social revolution and it will take a VERY long time to undo the damage this one bill has caused. A long spate of bills that are prejudiced against the well to do will be necessary to undo the effects of this one bill that we did not agree with. This actually runs further contrary to our egalitarian policies.

So, I repeat my regrets to this body concerning our departure, but will finish my statement with "Thanks a LOT!"

We respect the will of this body, and wish you all do good work in the future, but if our sovereignty cannot be maintained in the face of global capital, we would just as soon work with the Socialist International we are attempting to organize. At least then we wouldn't lose our social revolution in one afternoon.

Thank you for the opportunity to participate and we wish you all well. We will remain for comments, but we are withdrawing from this body effective immediately, and will set about undoing the damage that the UN has done to our social revolution.

Serenely,
The Ambassador to the UN from the United Socialist States of Stoddenia

I bagsy his office!
OK then, according to our records the Grantsburg offices were located in the Janitor's Closet on the 34th floor. Enjoy your new office.

William Smithers
Senior VP, UN Building Management

Well no sense arguing; the vote is over and I have to leave the UN.Good fucking riddance! :rolleyes:

Good fucking riddance! :rolleyes:

Once again, I see you have nothing intelligent to say;) . Cheers my stupid, stupid friend.

OK then, according to our records the Grantsburg offices were located in the Janitor's Closet on the 34th floor. Enjoy your new office.

Somebody has to clean up after you sleazy capitalists.

And at least I'm not the only one who can see the capitalist road the UN has taken. My country went from Democratic Socialists (which happened to be a Left-Wing Utopia at one time then I think a UN resolution changed that even) to Inoffensive Centrist Democracy. Good riddance to you hegemonic capitalists.

Sigh, am I the only leftist who's not complaining?

This resolution affected us too. It put our economy up from fair to strong (yay) and changed our UN catagory from Liberal Democratic Socialists to New York Times Democracy (not so yay). Its no big deal however. A few issues will have that sorted out in a week or two.

Stats can be changed, its not the end of the world :).

the vote is over and I have to leave the UN.

And as the average intelligence of the UN rises slightly, that of non-UN members drops. May the hair on your food grow long forever!

Sigh, am I the only leftist who's not complaining?

This resolution affected us too. It put our economy up from fair to strong (yay) and changed our UN catagory from Liberal Democratic Socialists to New York Times Democracy (not so yay).

I'm a leftist, and I'm not complaining. I did find myself to have a basket case economy (could be worse) and be an anarchy.

I'm a leftist, and I'm not complaining. I did find myself to have a basket case economy (could be worse) and be an anarchy.

Yes of course you could be worse with "imploded" lol, but i'm pretty sure you could do better;)

http://test256.free.fr/Economic,%20Political,%20and%20Civil%20Rankings.jpg

Yay famine.

OK then, according to our records the Grantsburg offices were located in the Janitor's Closet on the 34th floor. Enjoy your new office.

A Janitors Closet? Yay!

Moving out of the ladies loo at last!

The Commonwealth of Frumentia would like to make clear why it is voting against this proposal:

1. It encourages industry, which is a detriment to the environment, even if it is just careless IT workers littering.

2. It takes away the freedom of the schools to teach other, more practical subjects, due to the time spent on giving children an IT education.

3. For the dictatorships among us, it removes their freedom to control their citizen's education, which could lead to the downfall of many otherwise-strong dictatorships.

4. Children have no need to be taught about Information Technology. If they and their state are set on following that path, they can follow it when they're older.

For these reasons, among others, the Commonwealth of Frumentia votes against this measure. Thank you for your time.

I have to really, really rofl at all these people talking about the capito UN scum. We're widely derided in the NS world as a bunch of liberal lefties. Knoot once said that might as well go ahead and stick the hammer and sickle on the UN flag. Are you seriously suggesting that one Free Trade proposal suddenly goes against that?

http://img165.imageshack.us/img165/9219/crad45rf.png

I feel the UN is corrupt because it does not listen to the proposals submitted by us smaller regions. :(

I feel the UN is corrupt because it does not listen to the proposals submitted by us smaller regions. :(

Which ones? We listen to proposals, and to who shouts loudest. Regional activity has nothing to do with how proposals fare.

Yes of course you could be worse with "imploded" lol, but i'm pretty sure you could do better;)

http://test256.free.fr/Economic,%20Political,%20and%20Civil%20Rankings.jpg
This list is inaccurate. Please click here (http://ns.goobergunch.net/wiki/index.php/Economic%2C_Political%2C_and_Civil_Rankings) for the correct rankings.

Ecopoeia appears to be an Anarchy. Good grief.

....Somebody has to clean up after you sleazy capitalists.

And at least I'm not the only one who can see the capitalist road the UN has taken. My country went from Democratic Socialists (which happened to be a Left-Wing Utopia at one time then I think a UN resolution changed that even) to Inoffensive Centrist Democracy. Good riddance to you hegemonic capitalists.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v335/JimRad-Mac/ns/capitalism.jpg

First I'd like to thank Vastiva. Some of you might remember that this started out back in June as "The International Cheese Act". Vastiva asked "how about a "free cheese" proposal?", so I wrote one. He took it and reworded it into a legitimate proposal and was kind enough to submit it for me. It recieved about 80 approvals.

I brought it back in September, and since then it has had several incarnations, finally evolving into the version just passed by the General Assembly. This truly was a resolution "written on the forum" and the list of those who contributed to it (both here, at UNOG and through TG's) is long. I'd like to thank Texan Hotrodders, Gruenberg, Compadria, Ausserland, The Palentine, Cobdenia, Knootoss, Ecopoeia, Groot Gouda, Venerable Libertarians, The Eternal Kawaii, Love and esterel, Waterana, Listeneisse, and anybody I might be leaving out (I'm looking back through the thread(s), a lot of people had input on this). The resolution has my name on it, but a lot of the words/ideas were contributed by others. Thank you. Also, a big thank you to those who defended the resolution during the forum debate. Lastly, I'd like to thank Greater Boblandia, who argued in opposition. You were, for the most part, the opponent who offered the most coherent arguments against the resolution. Thank you for making the debate interesting.

This has been a long and fairly laborious undertaking. I think I'll take a few weeks off from the proposal writing business before submitting my next one.

And don't forget, the next time you go shopping be sure to pick up some Fine Yeldan Cheeses™, now available in a store near you!

I feel the UN is corrupt because it does not listen to the proposals submitted by us smaller regions. :(

We would be curious to learn what evidence the honorable delegate from Durtyfox could provide to back up this statement. Our experience has been that the members of the NSUN pay attention to proposals that (1) make some sense, (2) include reasonable arguments, (3) are well written, and (4) are posted as drafts in this forum so members can discuss the issue, express their concerns and make suggestions. We don't believe that the size of the region to which the submitter belongs has anything to do with it. For our part, we make decisions on proposals based on their content. We have never once even thought of considering the size of the submitter's region in making those decisions.

And--just to put our comments in context--Ausserland belongs to a relatively small region: City Ankh Morpork, with only 36 nations and 8 NSUN members.

Patrick T. Olembe
Minister for Foreign Affairs

Once again, I see you have nothing intelligent to say;) . Cheers my stupid, stupid friend.



Somebody has to clean up after you sleazy capitalists.

And at least I'm not the only one who can see the capitalist road the UN has taken. My country went from Democratic Socialists (which happened to be a Left-Wing Utopia at one time then I think a UN resolution changed that even) to Inoffensive Centrist Democracy. Good riddance to you hegemonic capitalists.

THe Ambassador of the Palentine UN Office would like to reply, to the ambassador of Grantsburg, with the words of the esteemed cowboy Roy Rodgers.
<Pulls out guitar from behind podium and brings up his staff as backup vocals, and starts to sing!> "Happy trails to you....until we meet again!":p :p :p :p

Excelsior,
Sen Horatio "Deadeye" Sulla
The Dominion of Palentine UN Office
"New Nation, same corrupt and unwholesome practices!":D

P.S. Strange, mostly its the Evil Capitalists who complain about having to clean up the UN's messes! BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

I feel the UN is corrupt because it does not listen to the proposals submitted by us smaller regions. :(

Corrupt? Say it ain't so!:eek: :eek:

Actually, I tend to agree with the esteemed ambassador from Ausserland, on this one.

Excelsior,
Sen. Horatio "Deadeye" Sulla

Once again, I see you have nothing intelligent to say;) . Cheers my stupid, stupid friend.So much hostility. Pent up much? I dare say your ambassador could use a visit from our illustrious hospitality czar, Michelle. She aims to please. ;) (see the last line of my sig if you're wondering what the hell I'm talking about)

As the President of United Specopscom, I voted against this act, as I find this act a offront on the nations of the world. As with the IT act, this is nothing but an attempt to force the nations of the world to do what the Council wants. With this act and others the UN is only trying to displace the leaders of nations and replace them with their own leaders. That will Never happen with United Specopscom.

I will not Transfer or Trade food with othe Nations unless I feel that my nation is in need of such an act, and my nation will not be forced to do such either.
I will not be forced to distribute free surplus food products to those unable to purchase those products at fair market value. The simple matter of the fact is that ALL citizens of my nation are feed regardless of their funds or station in the nation.
I will not be forced to remove Tariffs, taxes, or trade restrictions of food. What I taxe in my nation is what I tax. Their will not be a tax in my nation of only a certain portion of citizens, such as a tax on smokers or drinkers. That is not just. It is not fair to tax smokers and drinkers and noone else. Besides, my nation gets more taxes from taxing something that everyone must use.
I will not be forced to research into new and improved methods of food porducts. My nation is feed by natural crops in fields, meat, milk etc. Everyone has the same type food available to them.

The Compliance Ministry has contacted me and informed me that Laws have been inacted to bring me into compliance with the Global Food Distirbution Act. I ask what laws?
When did the UN become a dictatorship? When did the UN become a military entity?
If I knew that the UN was to become such a entity I would have never requested membership and would have boycotted the UN.
I inform the world now, Any attempt to force my nation to comply with any UN resolution will be considered and act of aggression and I will be forced to go to my nations Congress to request a Declaration of War. In addition I will remove my nation from the UN. Permamently

As the President of United Specopscom, I voted against this act, as I find this act a offront on the nations of the world. As with the IT act, this is nothing but an attempt to force the nations of the world to do what the Council wants. With this act and others the UN is only trying to displace the leaders of nations and replace them with their own leaders. That will Never happen with United Specopscom.

I will not Transfer or Trade food with othe Nations unless I feel that my nation is in need of such an act, and my nation will not be forced to do such either.
I will not be forced to distribute free surplus food products to those unable to purchase those products at fair market value. The simple matter of the fact is that ALL citizens of my nation are feed regardless of their funds or station in the nation.
I will not be forced to remove Tariffs, taxes, or trade restrictions of food. What I taxe in my nation is what I tax. Their will not be a tax in my nation of only a certain portion of citizens, such as a tax on smokers or drinkers. That is not just. It is not fair to tax smokers and drinkers and noone else. Besides, my nation gets more taxes from taxing something that everyone must use.
I will not be forced to research into new and improved methods of food porducts. My nation is feed by natural crops in fields, meat, milk etc. Everyone has the same type food available to them.

The Compliance Ministry has contacted me and informed me that Laws have been inacted to bring me into compliance with the Global Food Distirbution Act. I ask what laws?
When did the UN become a dictatorship? When did the UN become a military entity?
If I knew that the UN was to become such a entity I would have never requested membership and would have boycotted the UN.
I inform the world now, Any attempt to force my nation to comply with any UN resolution will be considered and act of aggression and I will be forced to go to my nations Congress to request a Declaration of War. In addition I will remove my nation from the UN. Permamently

As the President of United Specopscom, I voted against this act, as I find this act a offront on the nations of the world. As with the IT act, this is nothing but an attempt to force the nations of the world to do what the Council wants. With this act and others the UN is only trying to displace the leaders of nations and replace them with their own leaders. That will Never happen with United Specopscom.

I will not Transfer or Trade food with othe Nations unless I feel that my nation is in need of such an act, and my nation will not be forced to do such either.
I will not be forced to distribute free surplus food products to those unable to purchase those products at fair market value. The simple matter of the fact is that ALL citizens of my nation are feed regardless of their funds or station in the nation.
I will not be forced to remove Tariffs, taxes, or trade restrictions of food. What I taxe in my nation is what I tax. Their will not be a tax in my nation of only a certain portion of citizens, such as a tax on smokers or drinkers. That is not just. It is not fair to tax smokers and drinkers and noone else. Besides, my nation gets more taxes from taxing something that everyone must use.
I will not be forced to research into new and improved methods of food porducts. My nation is feed by natural crops in fields, meat, milk etc. Everyone has the same type food available to them.

The Compliance Ministry has contacted me and informed me that Laws have been inacted to bring me into compliance with the Global Food Distirbution Act. I ask what laws?
When did the UN become a dictatorship? When did the UN become a military entity?
If I knew that the UN was to become such a entity I would have never requested membership and would have boycotted the UN.
I inform the world now, Any attempt to force my nation to comply with any UN resolution will be considered and act of aggression and I will be forced to go to my nations Congress to request a Declaration of War. In addition I will remove my nation from the UN. Permamently

As the President of United Specopscom, I voted against this act, as I find this act a offront on the nations of the world. As with the IT act, this is nothing but an attempt to force the nations of the world to do what the Council wants. With this act and others the UN is only trying to displace the leaders of nations and replace them with their own leaders. That will Never happen with United Specopscom.

I will not Transfer or Trade food with othe Nations unless I feel that my nation is in need of such an act, and my nation will not be forced to do such either.
I will not be forced to distribute free surplus food products to those unable to purchase those products at fair market value. The simple matter of the fact is that ALL citizens of my nation are feed regardless of their funds or station in the nation.
I will not be forced to remove Tariffs, taxes, or trade restrictions of food. What I taxe in my nation is what I tax. Their will not be a tax in my nation of only a certain portion of citizens, such as a tax on smokers or drinkers. That is not just. It is not fair to tax smokers and drinkers and noone else. Besides, my nation gets more taxes from taxing something that everyone must use.
I will not be forced to research into new and improved methods of food porducts. My nation is feed by natural crops in fields, meat, milk etc. Everyone has the same type food available to them.

The Compliance Ministry has contacted me and informed me that Laws have been inacted to bring me into compliance with the Global Food Distirbution Act. I ask what laws?
When did the UN become a dictatorship? When did the UN become a military entity?
If I knew that the UN was to become such a entity I would have never requested membership and would have boycotted the UN.
I inform the world now, Any attempt to force my nation to comply with any UN resolution will be considered and act of aggression and I will be forced to go to my nations Congress to request a Declaration of War. In addition I will remove my nation from the UN. Permamently

As the President of United Specopscom, I voted against this act, as I find this act a offront on the nations of the world. As with the IT act, this is nothing but an attempt to force the nations of the world to do what the Council wants. With this act and others the UN is only trying to displace the leaders of nations and replace them with their own leaders. That will Never happen with United Specopscom.

I will not Transfer or Trade food with othe Nations unless I feel that my nation is in need of such an act, and my nation will not be forced to do such either.
I will not be forced to distribute free surplus food products to those unable to purchase those products at fair market value. The simple matter of the fact is that ALL citizens of my nation are feed regardless of their funds or station in the nation.
I will not be forced to remove Tariffs, taxes, or trade restrictions of food. What I taxe in my nation is what I tax. Their will not be a tax in my nation of only a certain portion of citizens, such as a tax on smokers or drinkers. That is not just. It is not fair to tax smokers and drinkers and noone else. Besides, my nation gets more taxes from taxing something that everyone must use.
I will not be forced to research into new and improved methods of food porducts. My nation is feed by natural crops in fields, meat, milk etc. Everyone has the same type food available to them.

The Compliance Ministry has contacted me and informed me that Laws have been inacted to bring me into compliance with the Global Food Distirbution Act. I ask what laws?
When did the UN become a dictatorship? When did the UN become a military entity?
If I knew that the UN was to become such a entity I would have never requested membership and would have boycotted the UN.
I inform the world now, Any attempt to force my nation to comply with any UN resolution will be considered and act of aggression and I will be forced to go to my nations Congress to request a Declaration of War. In addition I will remove my nation from the UN. Permamently

As the President of United Specopscom, I voted against this act, as I find this act a offront on the nations of the world. As with the IT act, this is nothing but an attempt to force the nations of the world to do what the Council wants. With this act and others the UN is only trying to displace the leaders of nations and replace them with their own leaders. That will Never happen with United Specopscom.

I will not Transfer or Trade food with othe Nations unless I feel that my nation is in need of such an act, and my nation will not be forced to do such either.
I will not be forced to distribute free surplus food products to those unable to purchase those products at fair market value. The simple matter of the fact is that ALL citizens of my nation are feed regardless of their funds or station in the nation.
I will not be forced to remove Tariffs, taxes, or trade restrictions of food. What I taxe in my nation is what I tax. Their will not be a tax in my nation of only a certain portion of citizens, such as a tax on smokers or drinkers. That is not just. It is not fair to tax smokers and drinkers and noone else. Besides, my nation gets more taxes from taxing something that everyone must use.
I will not be forced to research into new and improved methods of food porducts. My nation is feed by natural crops in fields, meat, milk etc. Everyone has the same type food available to them.

The Compliance Ministry has contacted me and informed me that Laws have been inacted to bring me into compliance with the Global Food Distirbution Act. I ask what laws?
When did the UN become a dictatorship? When did the UN become a military entity?
If I knew that the UN was to become such a entity I would have never requested membership and would have boycotted the UN.
I inform the world now, Any attempt to force my nation to comply with any UN resolution will be considered and act of aggression and I will be forced to go to my nations Congress to request a Declaration of War. In addition I will remove my nation from the UN. Permamently

As the President of United Specopscom, I voted against this act, as I find this act a offront on the nations of the world. As with the IT act, this is nothing but an attempt to force the nations of the world to do what the Council wants. With this act and others the UN is only trying to displace the leaders of nations and replace them with their own leaders. That will Never happen with United Specopscom.

I will not Transfer or Trade food with othe Nations unless I feel that my nation is in need of such an act, and my nation will not be forced to do such either.
I will not be forced to distribute free surplus food products to those unable to purchase those products at fair market value. The simple matter of the fact is that ALL citizens of my nation are feed regardless of their funds or station in the nation.
I will not be forced to remove Tariffs, taxes, or trade restrictions of food. What I taxe in my nation is what I tax. Their will not be a tax in my nation of only a certain portion of citizens, such as a tax on smokers or drinkers. That is not just. It is not fair to tax smokers and drinkers and noone else. Besides, my nation gets more taxes from taxing something that everyone must use.
I will not be forced to research into new and improved methods of food porducts. My nation is feed by natural crops in fields, meat, milk etc. Everyone has the same type food available to them.

The Compliance Ministry has contacted me and informed me that Laws have been inacted to bring me into compliance with the Global Food Distirbution Act. I ask what laws?
When did the UN become a dictatorship? When did the UN become a military entity?
If I knew that the UN was to become such a entity I would have never requested membership and would have boycotted the UN.
I inform the world now, Any attempt to force my nation to comply with any UN resolution will be considered and act of aggression and I will be forced to go to my nations Congress to request a Declaration of War. In addition I will remove my nation from the UN. Permamently

Before you remove your nation from the UN, could you clean up its mess, please? If the server's laggy, don't keep hitting the submit button.

Magnificent! I haven't seen a septuple post in yonks!

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v335/JimRad-Mac/ns/office.jpg

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v335/JimRad-Mac/ns/office.jpg

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v335/JimRad-Mac/ns/office.jpg

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v335/JimRad-Mac/ns/office.jpg

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v335/JimRad-Mac/ns/office.jpg

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v335/JimRad-Mac/ns/office.jpg

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v335/JimRad-Mac/ns/office.jpg

Magnificent! I haven't seen a septuple post in yonks!
Hell, I don't think I ever saw a septuple post back on the old forums.