NationStates Jolt Archive

Hi all,

I am considering drafting up a resolution that will institute a free trade zone among UN member states for the automobile industry. Automobile industry jobs provide well-paying positions with plenty of opportunities in the engineering, art design, marketing, and professional fields. In the NS context, it will hopefully provide a boost to each nation's respective Automobile Manufacturing industries and boost the wavering economies of many nations that have an overreliance on regulation and protectionism.

I hope to achieve from this resolution a competitive advantage for the 30,000 or so UN member states, one such that it will entice non-UN nations to join this world body. As you know, I am trying to refocus the UN, among other things, to better facilitate international cooperation. In the absence of a WTO-like body in NS, I am hoping to utilize the UN to this end.

Questions? Comments? Will this run afoul of game mechanics?

Steve Perry
President

How do you define a "free trade zone for the automobile industry"?

What about nations that don't have automobiles (mine, for example)?

I think to answer your specific questions would require an actual draft of the proposal, since a lot of the details about whether or not something is illegal is entirely dependent on the way you phrase it :}

What about nations that have Automobiles, but have outlawed Fossile Fuel vehicles (IE Gasoline) and have gone with other non-hazardout materials (IE Ethanol and Hydrogen) like mine? I don't think this Resolution would help My nation at all. In fact, it would flood my nation with more and more automobiles that use Petrolium Gasoline.

You talk of Free Trade...yet some of your comments smack of protectionism. We would need to see a draft before we could give any substantiated comment.

Like Shazbotdom and Pallatium I'm curious as to how this would impact nations with strict restrictions on vehicles. I'm also wondering why we need a proposal like this. What's so special about the automotive industry?

Rose,
UN representative,
The Black New World,

In economic proposals, you can limit to the specific industry, rather than affect all industries.

This means that you will impact the ecology less by implementing the proposal for one sector as opposed to all sectors.

For nations that have no cars, perhaps this work for all "ground transportation industries" -- for there are certain things that might apply to automobiles and trucks but also to railroad engines, motorcycles or bicycles.

(ooc: There is no such thing as a 'bicycle industry' mechanistically in the game, nor an aircraft industry or shipbuilding for that matter. All we have is 'auto industry,' as far as I know.)

There are issues that apply across the board such as:

- Vehicle design - crash-testing and aerodynamics are expensive thing to model and actually test for. Joint ventures for crash-tests and wind tunnel experiments would help develop safety, performance and fuel efficiency features.

- Engine design and fuel economy - Perhaps your nation has better alternate fuel, hybrid or electric cars, you would have an advantage over other nations by selling what you have developed to countries further behind the curve. Hybrid diesel and electric engines for trucks and trains can also be researched in common.

- Material sciences - new tyre and wheel design, new structural and body materials apply to all vehicles regardless of their engine. Lighter weights, better durability, cleaner manufacturing processes, etc.

- Electronics and instrumentation - From digital guages to automatic windows and locks to navigation systems, cars are not just hunks of metal.

- Road surfaces and civil engineering -- which can help in safety, durability and fuel efficiency.

In many cases working independently would make for redundent and wasteful reinvention of the wheel -- quite literally.

Or, we can work together, and figure out how to build it better once, and share that trade knowledge within a UN-sponsored consortium.

(ooc: Ideally, you'd hope that such a proposal could actually be kinder to the environment as well as be good for business, but alas the game doesn't work that way.)

How about a proposal that guarantees Free Trade for all industries this will allow competitiveness for all areas of trade not just for automobiles. This will have the effect of creating sustainable markets across the board for stronger and weaker economies.

I will need to consult with our in house economics professors before giving or withholding approval. If it is just automobile manufactering, I would say no because it is too specific and affect the small proportion of us who are still at this level of technology rather than to the benefit of the whole.

Trade and Industry Aide to the UN Mission

Thanks, everyone, for your comments.

Gruenberg, the Republic of Teruchev's record on trade issues has not, in my view, been protectionist, although if you would supply me with some examples we can discuss this further.

Listeneisse, thank you for your informed and constructive comments. It would be an honour to work with you on developing this proposal.

I encourage everyone, in their comments, to first focus on my primary thrust in this proposal: creating a UN free trade zone that would give our nations a competitive advantage over the approx. 80,000 nations that are not UN members. We can get down to the brass tacks in subsequent discussions.

Thanks again, and keep those posts coming.

Steve Perry
President

Interesting idea. I certainly have no problem with taking measures to improve the automotive industry. Nonetheless, I would like to see a draft before giving my support.

Minister of UN Affairs
Edward Jones

Interesting idea. I certainly have no problem with taking measures to improve the automotive industry. Nonetheless, I would like to see a draft before giving my support.

Hi TH:

I'm trying to set that up as we speak, actually.

Actually, if you'd like to help out, feel free to do so. I'd like to get as much input as possible on this.

Steve Perry
President

What about nations that have Automobiles, but have outlawed Fossile Fuel vehicles (IE Gasoline) and have gone with other non-hazardout materials (IE Ethanol and Hydrogen) like mine?Heh. Ethanol and hydrogen are non-hazardous?


Storage: Keep away from heat, sparks, and flame. Keep away from sources of ignition. Store in a tightly closed container. Keep from contact with oxidizing materials. Store in a cool, dry, well-ventilated area away from incompatible substances. Flammables-area. Do not store near perchlorates, peroxides, chromic acid or nitric acid.

WHMIS: B2 - Flammable and combustible material - Flammable liquid D2A - Poisonous and infectious material - Other effects - Very toxic D2B - Poisonous and infectious material - Other effects - Toxic

Handling:Wash thoroughly after handling. Use only in a well ventilated area. Ground and bond containers when transferring material. Use spark-proof tools and explosion proof equipment. Avoid contact with eyes, skin, and clothing. Empty containers retain product residue, (liquid and/or vapor), and can be dangerous. Keep container tightly closed. Avoid contact with heat, sparks and flame. Avoid ingestion and inhalation. Do not pressurize, cut, weld, braze, solder, drill, grind, or expose empty containers to heat, sparks or open flames.

Protection: Eyes: Wear appropriate protective eyeglasses or chemical safety goggles as described by OSHA's eye and face protection regulations in 29 CFR 1910.133 or European Standard EN166. Skin: Wear appropriate protective gloves to prevent skin exposure. Clothing: Wear appropriate protective clothing to prevent skin exposure.

Exposure effects: May cause reproductive and fetal effects. Laboratory experiments have resulted in mutagenic effects. Animal studies have reported the development of tumors. Prolonged exposure may cause liver, kidney, and heart damage.

As for hydrogen? Well...It is an odorless, tasteless, colorless, and highly flammable gas that burns at concentrations as low as 4%. It reacts violently with chlorine and fluorine, forming hydrohalic acids that can damage the lungs and other tissues. When mixed with oxygen, hydrogen explodes on ignition. A unique property of hydrogen is that its flame is completely invisible in air. This makes it difficult to tell if a leak is burning, and carries the added risk that it is easy to walk into a hydrogen fire inadvertently.And trust me, HF is one of the nastiest things out there.

As for hydrogen? Well...


One word: Hindenburg.

Perhaps we can work on hydrogen fuel safety systems too: leak detectors, special extinguishers in case of crashes, etc.

There also need to be fuel compressors, cryogenics, and fuel transfer equipment that even careless consumers can use. In fact, filling systems should probably be fully automated to enable detectors to shut down refilling immediately upon automatic detection of problems. While a bit of spilled gas on the pavement is a safety risk, an inadvertant discharge of liquid hydrogen or compressed hydrogen gas can be far more dangerous. Antismoking regulations at hydrogen fuel stations need to be strictly enforced.

I believe what the above representative meant was that it was not hazardous to the environment in that hydrogen-powered cars give off water vapour as a byproduct. While this is not the same as CO2, it still carries in it waste heat and does provide a bit of fog.

For hydrogen fuel-celled vehicle manufacture, you need to develop special processes for platinum, gold, niobium and other special electrolytes (such as nafion or its equivalent).

The amount of platinum has dropped dramatically to power an automobile, from $30,000 in the past to $500. But still, there would need to be a host of special and often rare materials exchanged internationally to permit many nations to build these vehicles, as opposed to just the few who had the technical expertise and raw materials to hand.

The reason most nations have not done more in this area is specifically because technology costs for development of these sciences are astronomical. Yet the price keeps falling as technology makes inroads.

Perhaps by sharing, we can lower those costs more.

I would support this propsal, as it offers reasons to nations to join the UN. You help out your economy and everyone is happy.

If this is succesful, we should try to open up more some more free trade, to help make the UN more attractable. We need members to help enforce resolutions.

A unique property of hydrogen is that its flame is completely invisible in air.Huh, I didn't know that, I guess you do learn something new every day.

Bob Flibble
UN Representative

I would support this propsal, as it offers reasons to nations to join the UN. You help out your economy and everyone is happy.

If this is succesful, we should try to open up more some more free trade, to help make the UN more attractable. We need members to help enforce resolutions.

The Republic of New Poitiers second the statement from the SLI Sector. An improvement in the automobile industry would further benefit our nation in its development.

Duke Marechal Leclerc
UN Ambassador of the Republic of New Poitiers.

at this moment in time we have quite a few environment based resolutions on the book which will have to be taken into consideration including one on hydrogen fuelled vehicles.

We all know that fossil fuel is finite and my government is working on reducing the amount of vehicles on the roads, getting better fuel economies from existing vehicles and better public transport which dosen't need fossil fuels (trams and trains can run on electricity).

theres also hybrid vehicles that utilize battery power and petrol.

it may be a better idea to propose a committee or agency than can look at these concerns with the aim of developing a vehicle engine that will be far more fuel efficent.

Other aims for this agency could be to encourage the use of Ethanol and hybrid engines.

in a world where we are swamped with combustion powered vehicles an agency that could work with governments and vehicle manufacturers is a better aim.

this way we can work together to change the world for the better.

Thanks everyone, for your comments and furthering the discussion.

I'm encouraged to see some early signs of support for my primary thrust in this initiative, which is giving the UN a competitive advantage over the 80,000 nations that are not part of the UN.

While Teruchev is generally supportive of alternate fuels as much as realistically possible, I am hesistant to venture too far down this road, especially as the UN has dealt thoroughly with environmental concerns in the past and it would seem redundant to revisit these areas, especially in the kind of omnibus resolution I am proposing here.

It is encouraging to see on the part of some members here a realization of the importance of the Automobile industry, and I hope to work with all interested parties on crafting a resolution that will address as many individual concerns as possible while still maintaining broad-based appeal.

Thanks, and keep those popcorn chicken, I mean, posts, coming.

Steve Perry
President

Hi all,

I am considering drafting up a resolution that will institute a free trade zone among UN member states for the automobile industry. Automobile industry jobs provide well-paying positions with plenty of opportunities in the engineering, art design, marketing, and professional fields. In the NS context, it will hopefully provide a boost to each nation's respective Automobile Manufacturing industries and boost the wavering economies of many nations that have an overreliance on regulation and protectionism.

I hope to achieve from this resolution a competitive advantage for the 30,000 or so UN member states, one such that it will entice non-UN nations to join this world body. As you know, I am trying to refocus the UN, among other things, to better facilitate international cooperation. In the absence of a WTO-like body in NS, I am hoping to utilize the UN to this end.

Questions? Comments? Will this run afoul of game mechanics?

Steve Perry
President

I propose a counter-proposal, one that might interest some of those nations concerned as to the impact upon their own industries of a "free-trade zone" for automobile exports and imports.

This would be the creation of a "Fair-Trade Zone", which would follow these tenets:

-The Zone shall be overseen by a committee comprising representatives of all nations involved, with each member entitled to one representative.

-All nations have the right to assist their car industry up to approved levels decided by the federation committee.

-The committee shall prepare an annual report on trade and revenues from each nation in the zone.

-All nations shall be allowed to exercise the rule of "reverse-competitive strategy", whereby those nations with struggling car industries are allowed to impose tarriffs (but not subsidies) to protect the industry as it develops. Nations with successful industries shall not be permitted to use such measures. The definitions of "successful industry" and "struggling industry", shall be decided by the committee.

-All nations shall be required to offer a minimum wage of half average national income, as well as following environmental, labour and health standards defined by the committee.

-All members shall trade at preferential rates to other members of the zone and offer mutual assistance to boost economic vitality.

-All members shall be allowed to participate in a common strategy, with caveats and leeways for national circumstances.

If anyone could convert these basic ideals into a practical resolution, I'd be happy to propose it in partnership.

May the blessings of our otters be upon you all.

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

Love and esterel will probably approve this FTA (Free Trade Agreement), but of course we reserve our position until the draft is posted

just some thoughts:

- Maybe it will be good to implements a delay for Nations who don't feeling ready yet (even very few years will be ok, i think)

- It's important to protect developping Nations who have begin or want to begin an national automotive industry (special case can allow them a longer delay) [i'm echooing Compadria here]

-Subventions to compagnies who exports should be regulated [yes, Compadria said almost the same thing, again]

There still hasn't been an explanation - why the automotive industry (contrary to what Listeneisse said, you cannot limit the impact of free trade resolutions to certain industries - that's environmental resolutions - all you get with free trade is mild, significant or strong)?

Other issues we have with the proposal:

First of all, if we are to try to encourage the growth of an international industry, we feel that there are many which would be more responsible and more useful choices than the provision of private transport, which is frequently responsible for serious pollution, whether running on petrol or supposedly green alternative fuels.

Second, we are not supporters of out-and-out free trade. We prefer a system which allows for greater flexibility in the interests of aiding the development of poor nations and keeping open the possibility of restricting or stopping trade with certain nations for ethical reasons.

Thank you, everyone, for letting me know your thoughts on the matter.

The Republic of Teruchev is of the view that free trade is indeed "fair", if everyone plays by the rules. The low opinion in the international community for liberalized trade is a direct result of nations that try to have the best of both worlds, so to speak, when it comes to international trade issues.

I have been asked why the automotive has been singled out for particular focus in this initiative. While this industry is no more important than many other sectors of a nations' economy, Automobile industry jobs provide well-paying positions with plenty of opportunities in the engineering, art design, marketing, and professional fields. In the NS context, it will hopefully provide a boost to each nation's respective Automobile Manufacturing industries and boost the wavering economies of many nations that have an overreliance on regulation and protectionism.

Thus, while I admire the goals of those who want to turn this proposal into an initiative for environmental concerns, I believe, in light of the many progressive environmental UN resolutions already on the books, this proposed resolution could work within those parameters without having to add in additional language redundant to that already contained within other resolutions.

Steve Perry
President
Republic of Teruchev

"Sorry if some people are tired with my RL references, but i don’t know where we can find some references outside RL!"

In 1951, was created the “European Coal and Steel Community” limited to coal and steel. Then after further consecutive steps, the 1st January 1993 the European common/single market was achieved.

Love and esterel will support a "fair, graduated in time and respective of developing Nations" agenda for a UN common market.

We don’t know if automotive is the best sector to begin with, we have no opinion about it, but we think it can be a good idea to begin with one economic sector.

I agree with the last poster, I would be hesistant to submit an omnibus free trade proposal, lest it get even more bogged down in the details as this one is!

And yes, I know that free trade proposals cannot affect a specific industry as do enviro. proposals, but you go to war with the army you have, to quote a famous person.

Finally, would anyone like to take a crack at a 1st draft for this proposal? I would love to start work on it myself but unfortunately my schedule does not allow.

Steve Perry
President

Many industries provide good employment prospects. Why not pick a sector which we have other good reasons for wanting development in? One which we will need and want to see flourish in the long term, and which is sustainable?

I'll already said that I feel we are swamped by combustion engined vehicles as it is.

the way ahead for the car industry is a vehicle with vastly supperior fuel efficency or can do the same with Ethanol or a hybrid engine, not more cars.

if you've ever tried to drive in my capital of Edo you'll know why i catch the tram most of the time.

surely a free trade agreement would only mean more vehicles on the roads of the world.

I'll already said that I feel we are swamped by combustion engined vehicles as it is.

the way ahead for the car industry is a vehicle with vastly supperior fuel efficency or can do the same with Ethanol or a hybrid engine, not more cars.

if you've ever tried to drive in my capital of Edo you'll know why i catch the tram most of the time.

surely a free trade agreement would only mean more vehicles on the roads of the world.

Well if it's done to boost car manufacturing, then clearly a trade agreement would result in a greater volume of road traffic. This need not be a bad thing however. So long as the fuel technology used in the engines of these automobilies is environmentally friendly and sustainable and the road network is either ready for, or reformed in order to deal with the greater amount of traffic, then it should be beneficial.

May the blessings of our otters be upon you.

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

I'll already said that I feel we are swamped by combustion engined vehicles as it is.

the way ahead for the car industry is a vehicle with vastly supperior fuel efficency or can do the same with Ethanol or a hybrid engine, not more cars.

if you've ever tried to drive in my capital of Edo you'll know why i catch the tram most of the time.

surely a free trade agreement would only mean more vehicles on the roads of the world.

I'm not sure where the Republic of Teruchev stated that it wanted more cars on the streets of your respective nations, but it wouldn't be the first time words have been put in my mouth...

We're all missing the point here. Do we or do we not want a free trade zone in automobiles for the UN? This thread is not to discuss environmentally friendly initiatives; if everyone cares so much about that then let us please submit a separate proposal in future dealing with this.

Right now all that is pertinent is discussing the pros and cons of having a free flow of automobiles between UN members (to those that apply), which will ensure that sub par automobiles do not survive the glaring light of competition, and will make way for automobiles with superior build quality, reliability, and safety.

Keep them posts coming.

Steve Perry
President

mr Perry, i wasn't putting words in anybodys mouth.

all i was doing was expressing my view that theres too many cars around already.

We are talking about the pros and cons of free trade in cars. As far as we can see, a major con is that this threatens to increase environmental damage by increasing the availability of cars. If we are to encourage the growth of an industry, why can't it be something other than private transportation?

We are talking about the pros and cons of free trade in cars. As far as we can see, a major con is that this threatens to increase environmental damage by increasing the availability of cars. If we are to encourage the growth of an industry, why can't it be something other than private transportation?

Because most of the other industries are not as productive and fincancially stable as Automobile Industy, which will remain as long as there is a need for transportation. You can replace the engine with something else, but it will remain a car...

Furthermore, these cars might all be hydrogen-powered, or have special compartments for nourishing baby dolphins. The Free Trade Zone will be for cars, and will remain so when technology improves to the level where they are environmentally friendly. I understand your concerns...but I would this, despite consideration about the environment.

Thanks to the last two posts for putting matters into perspective.

Good discussion everyone, I was glad to see I evoked some passion from some of the member states in this thread. It's all healthy discussion and I welcome more of it.


Steve Perry
President

while we're on this subject is there a nation that could co-operate with us in building an ethanol powered engine for military vehicles?

feel free to TG me if anyone is interested.

This shall be the first draft of my proposal for the UNFTAA, or United Nations Free Trade Agreement for the Automobile sector. It is very bare-bones at this point, but gives the gist of what the resolution will speak to...

United Nations Free Trade Agreement for the Automobile sector (UNFTAA)

A resolution to reduce barriers to free trade and commerce.

Category: Free Trade Strength: Significant Proposed by: Teruchev

Description: The United Nations,

-A- CONCERNED about protectionist economic policies' damaging effects to the free flow of trade,

-B- CONVINCED that the aforementioned free flow of trade is the most suitable policy for the economic health of all nations,

-C- SEEKING a common market for United Nations member states in the trade of automobile technology and equipment,

-1- STRONGLY URGES all nations to phase in policies gradually removing protectionist laws and regulations in the trade of Automobile technology and equipment,

-2- ESTABLISHES the United Nations Free Trade Agreement for the Automobile sector (UNFTAA),

-3- ENCOURAGES a timeline for implementation not exceeding two (2) years in length.

Thoughts? Comments/Suggestions?

Keep those posts coming folks. I know somebody has something to say about my draft.


Steve Perry
President

I like it. I keep coming back, trying to think of what to say...but I can't quite put my finger on what's still missing. Sorry, I know that's deeply unhelpful. If I can think of something more productive to add, I shall do so.

I like it. I keep coming back, trying to think of what to say...but I can't quite put my finger on what's still missing. Sorry, I know that's deeply unhelpful. If I can think of something more productive to add, I shall do so.

I was thinking of adding a clause encouraging trade in environmentally-friendly engines, etc. from nations proficient in them to those that are not.


Steve Perry
President

Ok. We wouldn't be too fussed about that, but I can see how it might appeal to some.

Ok. We wouldn't be too fussed about that, but I can see how it might appeal to some.

Neither would I, but this discussion has seemed to bring out environmental concerns almost exclusively, and so I must defer to the overriding sentiment expressed herein.


Steve Perry
President

Agreed. Perhaps simply 'ENCOURAGES global cooperation in the development and distribution of environmentally-friendly technology'? You are right to include it; it's just not a major concern of ours.

Erm - we don't have any automobiles in our nation. So why is this of interest to us?

Erm - we don't have any automobiles in our nation. So why is this of interest to us?

Presumably it's not.

Possibility 1: The Empire of Forgottenlands takes offense at the concept that our Tarriffs are for protectionist policies for our local automotive plants. Any company that has accurately analyzed our policies will see that we have a progressive tariff dependant upon the fuel efficiency or the vehicle (both energy consumed per km and % energy wasted). Several models of cars have no taxation on them whatsoever!

Possibility 2: "It's not a tarriff, it's a 'foreign product' tax".

Point: maybe you should add a definition of tariffs.

On another note, please do not advertise your proposal on threads that have little relevance. Thank you.

Point: maybe you should add a definition of tariffs.

Tariffs are taxes imposed on imported products by nations afraid of competition.

The Republic of Teruchev will not concede this point. We apologize for that, but do not feel it is in anyone's interest to begin mealy-mouthed dancing with words like "foreign product tax".


Steve Perry
President

Not quite....there's a few interpretations

tar·iff Audio pronunciation of "Tariff" ( P ) Pronunciation Key (trf)
n.

1.
1. A list or system of duties imposed by a government on imported or exported goods.
2. A duty or duties so imposed.
2. A schedule of prices or fees.


tr.v. tar·iffed, tar·iff·ing, tar·iffs

To fix a duty or price on.

United Nations Free Trade Agreement for the Automobile sector (UNFTAA)

A resolution to reduce barriers to free trade and commerce.

Category: Free Trade Strength: Significant Proposed by: Teruchev

Description: The United Nations,

-A- CONCERNED about protectionist economic policies' damaging effects to the free flow of trade,

-B- CONVINCED that the aforementioned free flow of trade is the most suitable policy for the economic health of all nations,

-C- SEEKING a common market for United Nations member states in the trade of automobile technology and equipment,

-1- STRONGLY URGES all nations to phase in policies gradually removing protectionist laws and regulations in the trade of Automobile technology and equipment,

-2- ESTABLISHES the United Nations Free Trade Agreement for the Automobile sector (UNFTAA),

-3- ENCOURAGES global cooperation in the development and distribution of environmentally-friendly technology,

-4- MANDATES a timeline for implementation not exceeding two (2) years in length.

Thanks to Gruenberg for his helpful suggestion (in bold).


Steve Perry
President

Free trade.... come on people wake up and smell reality. Nothing is free anymore. Heck look at the United States, who have stolen over 6 billion doallrs from Canada softwood lumber producers in the form of illegal Tariffs being charged. Even though the north American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) has ruled against the United States.

Free Trade doesn't work, simply because nothing is free, everything has a price.

My friend from _Myopia_ has raised concerns that continue to trouble me. Otherwise, this proposal is of little consequence to Ecopoeia on a domestic level since we have virtually no automotive industry.

Varia Yefremova
Speaker to the UN

My point about defining tariff is to prevent someone from wanking the definition. Plus, not everyone may know what a tariff is. I'm not aware of any definition still being on the books.

My point about defining tariff is to prevent someone from wanking the definition. Plus, not everyone may know what a tariff is. I'm not aware of any definition still being on the books.

Point taken, Delegate from Gruenberg.

Please be assured that the tone of my remarks were not aimed in your direction.

I would like to get a consensus on what would be the best language possible to include in my resolution as it regards defining tariffs.


Steve Perry
President

I'm not sure why Forgottenlands had made bold the third definition. I would go with a mixture of the first and second, perhaps: 'DEFINES 'tariffs' as any fee, tax or duty levied on an import or export by a government'. Seem ok? I'm really no expert here.

Sounds about right, but I will likely be using stronger language in the eventual clause I insert.

More thoughts? Suggestions?


Steve Perry
President

Well, for one thing...do you have to format it like that? I don't personally like -A-, -1-. I wouldn't bother lettering the Introductory Clauses, and just use 1. for the Operative Clauses. Minor thing, though.

Maybe remove the word 'gradually'? People can still interpret it as gradual if they so wish, but why give them that idea to start with?

3rd draft...

United Nations Free Trade Agreement for the Automobile sector (UNFTAA)

A resolution to reduce barriers to free trade and commerce.

Category: Free Trade Strength: Significant Proposed by: Teruchev

Description: The United Nations,

-A- CONCERNED about protectionist economic policies' damaging effects to the free flow of trade,

-B- CONVINCED that the aforementioned free flow of trade is the most suitable policy for the economic health of all nations,

-C- SEEKING a common market for United Nations member states in the trade of automobile technology and equipment,

-1- STRONGLY URGES all nations to phase in policies removing protectionist laws and regulations in the trade of Automobile technology and equipment,

-2- ESTABLISHES the United Nations Free Trade Agreement for the Automobile sector (UNFTAA),

-3- ENCOURAGES global cooperation in the development and distribution of environmentally-friendly technology,

-4- MANDATES a timeline for implementation not exceeding two (2) years in length.

I was about to insert a clause defining tariffs, but stopped myself when I realized that there are oodles of non-tariff trade barriers at a nations' disposal. I think I like my wording just fine. "Protectionist economic policies" is a suitable blanket term that will cover both tariff and non-tariff barriers to trade.

Won't be going down the garden path in this thread, I'm afraid.

Steve Perry
President

Keep those cards and letters coming.


Steve Perry
President

Keep those cards and letters coming.


Steve Perry
President


(See Above)

I have little else to add. I'm sorry you've been getting so little attention; I really do think it's a worthwhile proposal.

I find myself, once again, agreeing with my Gruenberger friend. This is most certainly a worthwhile proposal. However, much of my attention of late has been focused on repealing the FFRA. (OOC: That and I was banned from the forums for two days.) With the repeal of FFRA, though, seeming more and more like a lost cause, I will gladly devote more attention to the support of this proposal.

Respectfully,
Sheik Nadnerb bin Cluich
Cluichstan's Ambassador to the UN
Regional Delegate from Scybala

Free trade?

Seeing as my nation is named after the so calledApostle of Free Trade (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Cobden)it would be hard for me not to support it!

Have you thought about a submission time, yet? Obviously, you still want to refine it first. But when you are ready to submit, I'm happy to help with the TG campaign if needed.

Have you thought about a submission time, yet? Obviously, you still want to refine it first. But when you are ready to submit, I'm happy to help with the TG campaign if needed.

The Republic of Teruchev would be most pleased to have the nation of Gruenberg's assistance on a TG campaign. We feel that the repeal of the Sex Ed Act may have met with greater success if our staff had had the time to execute it more thoroughly.

I do indeed want to refine and perhaps expand my draft a bit before submission, so I invite all interested parties to help with the drafting process so we can make this as polished and thorough of a resolution as possible.

Thanks to everyone for their encouraging words.

Steve Perry
President

The people of Cluichstan also offer their assistance on any future telegram campaign.

(OOC: People are gonna get so sick of getting TGs from Gruen and me. :D )

The people of Cluichstan also offer their assistance on any future telegram campaign.

(OOC: People are gonna get so sick of getting TGs from Gruen and me. :D )

The Republic of Teruchev offers its sincere thanks for your offer, and hopes to engage in said campaign very soon, once this proposal has been deemed fit to print.


Steve Perry
President

3rd draft...

Steve Perry
President

I've made some changes below that should aid in getting this passed.

United Nations Free Trade Agreement for the Automobile sector (UNFTAA)

A resolution to reduce barriers to free trade and commerce.

Category: Free Trade Strength: Significant Proposed by: Teruchev

Description: The United Nations,

-A- CONCERNED about the damaging effects that protectionist economic policies often have on the free flow of trade and the economic sustainability of nations,

-B- CONVINCED that the aforementioned free flow of trade is the most suitable policy for the economic health of all nations and the economic oppotunity of their citizens that need such opportunity to provide for themselves,

-C- SEEKING a common market for United Nations member states in the trade of automobile technology and equipment so as to engender this economic health and sustainability as well as the sharing of technologies that will be beneficial to the citizens of member nations,

-1- STRONGLY URGES all nations to phase in policies removing protectionist laws and regulations in the trade of Automobile technology and equipment,

-2- ESTABLISHES the United Nations Free Trade Agreement for the Automobile sector (UNFTAA),

-3- ENCOURAGES global cooperation in the development and distribution of automotive, particularly environmentally-friendly technology,

-4- MANDATES a timeline for implementation not exceeding two (2) years in length.

I suspect that my revisions will improve your chances, both in garnering approvals and in the floor debate.

Minister of UN Affairs
Edward Jones

Not bad, Mr. Jones, it certainly improves the flow of one clause to the other...

Should we put something in there about helping developing nations because of the movement of jobs and factories to low-wage areas, or would that turn it into a corporatist document?


Steve Perry
President

Not bad, Mr. Jones, it certainly improves the flow of one clause to the other...

Should we put something in there about helping developing nations because of the movement of jobs and factories to low-wage areas, or would that turn it into a corporatist document?


Steve Perry
President

(see above)

Sorry to do this again, but there's been an awful lot of activity going on in the forum right now.

Steve Perry
President

My opinion: leave it out.

The People's Republic of Groot Gouda is supportive of Free Trade resolutions, and has in fact been the main author of the regional Free Trade Agreement. For this reason, we would like to encourage the author of this resolution not to restrict this resolution to the automobile industry. It would be rather dull to have to go through this whole drafting procedure for each industry, while I'm sure we can agree on many more that will benefit from free trade. We have mentioned this before in discussions, but unfortunately nothing has been done with these comments. Also, it is unclear to my government why the automobile industry specifically has been picked to de-regulate instead of other industries. Why not the food industry? Why not the furniture restoration industry? The book publishing sector?

The People's Republic of Groot Gouda is supportive of Free Trade resolutions, and has in fact been the main author of the regional Free Trade Agreement. For this reason, we would like to encourage the author of this resolution not to restrict this resolution to the automobile industry. It would be rather dull to have to go through this whole drafting procedure for each industry, while I'm sure we can agree on many more that will benefit from free trade. We have mentioned this before in discussions, but unfortunately nothing has been done with these comments. Also, it is unclear to my government why the automobile industry specifically has been picked to de-regulate instead of other industries. Why not the food industry? Why not the furniture restoration industry? The book publishing sector?

The Republic of Teruchev would not be adverse to this at all; we were hoping to approach this initially in a piecemeal fashion so as to make it more palatable to those diametrically opposed to free trade.

However, keeping in mind game mechanics Groot Gouda makes a fine point, as had previous posters to this thread. You cannot have a free trade resolution affect merely one industry, which Teruchev was aware of all along but nonetheless thought would be an excellent first step. If a free trade agreement could be seen to be in the best interest of that particular industry then surely, the logic goes, it would spread to others. But I concede the point.

With that out of the way, anything else you'd like to see in this resolution folks?


Steve Perry
President

I think it's fine to start off with resolutions targeting a single industry, with the aim of eventually having a comphrehensive agreement for all industries. Remember that the European Union had its beginnings as the European Coal and Steel Community, then later became the "Common Market".

Compadria took a great interest in this resolution when first proposed and was supportive of the measures proposed by the honourable delegate for Terchurev. The opening of markets and the freeing of trade, if done correctly, can deliver enormous benefits to both consumers and producers, through increasing competition and mandating a market-orientated approach to production and innovation.

We are appreciative of the measures expressing support for environmentally-friendly fuel and motor technologies and also for the proposed UNFTAA and statement of principles regarding the necessity of freer trade in automobiles.

Compadria does however have a concern that we wish to receive some feedback upon. Little has been discussed of social partnerships and workers rights during this debate and also of the mechanisms for ensuring competition. We are concerned that the opening of the market, if done without due care and with the implementation of a 'Bolkestein' type policy on service provision, might undermine many national laws and create a two-tier workforce. Perhaps a set of uniform standards ought to be proposed for conducting business and trade, so as to strengthen the UNFTAA.

Equally, how would cartels be prohibited from forming, as it has been shown that these adversely affect competition and work towards providing a monopoly situation in the market place, which would rather defeat the principle behind the UNFTAA.

May the blessings of our otters be upon you all.

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

Compadria does however have a concern that we wish to receive some feedback upon. Little has been discussed of social partnerships and workers rights during this debate and also of the mechanisms for ensuring competition. We are concerned that the opening of the market, if done without due care and with the implementation of a 'Bolkestein' type policy on service provision, might undermine many national laws and create a two-tier workforce. Perhaps a set of uniform standards ought to be proposed for conducting business and trade, so as to strengthen the UNFTAA.

Equally, how would cartels be prohibited from forming, as it has been shown that these adversely affect competition and work towards providing a monopoly situation in the market place, which would rather defeat the principle behind the UNFTAA.

Good points, delegate from Compadria.

I will defer to a more learned colleague as far as framing this in the proposed resolution I have before all of you.

Steve Perry
President

Perhaps this is not such an effective proposal now that the fuel reduction thingy is for sure in place.:rolleyes:

Compadria does however have a concern that we wish to receive some feedback upon. Little has been discussed of social partnerships and workers rights during this debate and also of the mechanisms for ensuring competition. We are concerned that the opening of the market, if done without due care and with the implementation of a 'Bolkestein' type policy on service provision, might undermine many national laws and create a two-tier workforce. Perhaps a set of uniform standards ought to be proposed for conducting business and trade, so as to strengthen the UNFTAA.

Equally, how would cartels be prohibited from forming, as it has been shown that these adversely affect competition and work towards providing a monopoly situation in the market place, which would rather defeat the principle behind the UNFTAA.

I think there are good points in this. Regulation is something that should be used with care when discussing free trade, but in the end, we want free trade because of the benefits for the companies and consumers. Those consumers need some basic form of protection. One way would be a maximum allowed market share of say 50% (to just throw in a suggestion for discussion purposes). We could also introduce an organisation that checks for proper competition, where people, nations and other companies can file complaints if they suspect cartel-forming and other improper business methods.

As for the workers, I don't know whether we should be concerned in this resolution. Perhaps it's better to formulate basic workers' rights in a separate resolution?

I think there are good points in this. Regulation is something that should be used with care when discussing free trade, but in the end, we want free trade because of the benefits for the companies and consumers. Those consumers need some basic form of protection. One way would be a maximum allowed market share of say 50% (to just throw in a suggestion for discussion purposes). We could also introduce an organisation that checks for proper competition, where people, nations and other companies can file complaints if they suspect cartel-forming and other improper business methods.

As for the workers, I don't know whether we should be concerned in this resolution. Perhaps it's better to formulate basic workers' rights in a separate resolution?

We accept your points about the workers rights concerns, we'll consider formulating a relevant resolution to this effect.

As for the proposal concerning cartels, it meets my idea of a solid measure to counter-act the development of trusts and I support it.

May the blessings of our otters be upon you.

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

I am not adverse to inserting a clause dealing with cartels, which are by their nature anti-competitive and would violate the spirit of this proposal to its core. Something along the lines of "ESTABLISHES a regulatory agency to prevent the development of trusts and cartels"?

That verbage is inadequate, anyone care to take a crack at improving it?


Steve Perry
President

Perhaps something like this is in order.

United Nations Free Trade Agreement for the Automobile sector (UNFTAA)

A resolution to reduce barriers to free trade and commerce.

Category: Free Trade Strength: Significant Proposed by: Teruchev

Description: The United Nations,

-A- CONCERNED about the damaging effects that protectionist economic policies often have on the free flow of trade and the economic sustainability of nations,

-B- CONVINCED that the aforementioned free flow of trade is the most suitable policy for the economic health of all nations and the economic oppotunity of their citizens that need such opportunity to provide for themselves,

-C- SEEKING a common market for United Nations member states in the trade of automobile technology and equipment so as to engender this economic health and sustainability as well as the sharing of technologies that will be beneficial to the citizens of member nations,

-1- STRONGLY URGES all nations to phase in policies removing protectionist laws and regulations in the trade of Automobile technology and equipment,

-2- ESTABLISHES the United Nations Free Trade Agreement for the Automobile sector (UNFTAA),

-3- ENCOURAGES global cooperation in the development and distribution of automotive technology, particularly environmentally-friendly automotive technology,

-4- MANDATES a timeline for implementation not exceeding two (2) years in length.

-5- URGES all member nations to ensure that unhealthy barriers to productive competition, which may include trusts and cartels, do not become a hindrance to the benefits of this resolution.


Now that I think of it, two years may not be very good for some nations. Perhaps the timeline could be extended?

Minister of UN Affairs
Edward Jones

This should in no way be taken as an endorsement of the proposal at hand, but I believe earlier UN provision for workers' rights may be sufficient to allay the fears expressed by Mr Otterby and Ms Lane.

Varia Yefremova
Speaker to the UN

Perhaps something like this is in order.



Now that I think of it, two years may not be very good for some nations. Perhaps the timeline could be extended?

Minister of UN Affairs
Edward Jones
I would go with a longer timeline, say 10-15 years. In RL these things are done in stages. Of course in RL these types of agreements are also hundreds of pages long.

I will not be able to accept a proposal like that because it does not reflect my nations ideology.

I will not be able to accept a proposal like that because it does not reflect my nations ideology.

Expensive cars is an ideology?

Now that I think of it, two years may not be very good for some nations. Perhaps the timeline could be extended?

Minister of UN Affairs
Edward Jones


Perhaps five years would be enough, given the advanced nature of the majority of the economies signing up to the deal, 10-15 years would probably not be required.

May the blessings of our otters be upon you.

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

I think one thing we've learned from recent environmental legislation is that being hasty is not a good thing. I don't have a problem with allowing extra time, although I don't think Gruenberg itself would need it. No point setting deadlines some won't be able to make. After all, we're interested in realistic targets.

4th draft...

United Nations Free Trade Agreement for the Automobile sector (UNFTAA)

A resolution to reduce barriers to free trade and commerce.

Category: Free Trade Strength: Significant Proposed by: Teruchev

Description: The United Nations,

-A- CONCERNED about the damaging effects that protectionist economic policies often have on the free flow of trade and the economic sustainability of nations,

-B- CONVINCED that the aforementioned free flow of trade is the most suitable policy for the economic health of all nations and the economic oppotunity of their citizens that need such opportunity to provide for themselves,

-C- SEEKING a common market for United Nations member states in the trade of automobile technology and equipment so as to engender this economic health and sustainability as well as the sharing of technologies that will be beneficial to the citizens of member nations,

-1- STRONGLY URGES all nations to phase in policies removing protectionist laws and regulations in the trade of Automobile technology and equipment,

-2- ESTABLISHES the United Nations Free Trade Agreement for the Automobile sector (UNFTAA),

-3- ENCOURAGES global cooperation in the development and distribution of automotive technology, particularly environmentally-friendly automotive technology,

-4- URGES all member nations to ensure that unhealthy barriers to productive competition, which may include trusts and cartels, do not become a hindrance to the benefits of this resolution.

-5- MANDATES a timeline for implementation not exceeding five (5) years in length.



I am hesistant to remove clause 5, as this would merely serve as a cop-out for nations that had no intention to implement the UNFTAA in the first place. I have, however, been generous and more than doubled the implementation time for all those reticient nations out there.

Having a Free Trade Zone is against my ideology. For anything!

Having a Free Trade Zone is against my ideology. For anything!

But how? You can say it's against your ideology, but until you explain how it conflicts with your ideology, I don't really see how constructive such criticisms are.

Creating a Free Trade Zone is good for business, it is good for capitalism it is good for employers. It is good for capitalist governments. It opens up the whole region, in this case the United Nations and allows the corporations to go anywhere without any restrictions.

In a socialist society that my nation is in, this will not go well because there is no private sector unless it is Gambling.

Creating a Free Trade Zone is good for business, it is good for capitalism it is good for employers. It is good for capitalist governments. It opens up the whole region, in this case the United Nations and allows the corporations to go anywhere without any restrictions.

In a socialist society that my nation is in, this will not go well because there is no private sector unless it is Gambling.

Right. Well then this resolution doesn't affect you. You have no automobile industry to deregulate. So don't.

4th draft...



I am hesistant to remove clause 5, as this would merely serve as a cop-out for nations that had no intention to implement the UNFTAA in the first place. I have, however, been generous and more than doubled the implementation time for all those reticient nations out there.

I have a question, and I might have misunderstood a lot of this, but...

Clauses 1,3 and 4 require any action - they would merely like it.
Clause 2 is something the UN would do whether we like it or not.

So what does Clause 5 actually do? It mandates that we have five years to do something, if we are going to do it. But if we are not going to do it, do we still have to... not do it in five years?

I have a question, and I might have misunderstood a lot of this, but...

Clauses 1,3 and 4 require any action - they would merely like it.
Clause 2 is something the UN would do whether we like it or not.

So what does Clause 5 actually do? It mandates that we have five years to do something, if we are going to do it. But if we are not going to do it, do we still have to... not do it in five years?
That's right. If clause 1 is optional, then clause 5 doesn't really "Mandate" anything. I would change clause 1 from STRONGLY URGES to REQUIRES.

Creating a Free Trade Zone is good for business, it is good for capitalism it is good for employers. It is good for capitalist governments. It opens up the whole region, in this case the United Nations and allows the corporations to go anywhere without any restrictions.

In a socialist society that my nation is in, this will not go well because there is no private sector unless it is Gambling.
And yet Marx supported Free Trade. In fact, he said this: " But, in general, the protective system of our day is conservative, while the free trade system is destructive. It breaks up old nationalities and pushes the antagonism of the proletariat and the bourgeoisie to the extreme point. In a word, the free trade system hastens the social revolution. It is in this revolutionary sense alone, gentlemen, that I vote in favor of free trade."

And yet Marx supported Free Trade. In fact, he said this: " But, in general, the protective system of our day is conservative, while the free trade system is destructive. It breaks up old nationalities and pushes the antagonism of the proletariat and the bourgeoisie to the extreme point. In a word, the free trade system hastens the social revolution. It is in this revolutionary sense alone, gentlemen, that I vote in favor of free trade."

It's true, he did say it. Read up on The Communist Manifesto and Das Kapital for more insights.

5th draft, incorporating Yelda's suggestion to change clause 1 from "STRONGLY URGES" to "REQUIRES". Thank you Yelda. Might as well give this resolution some teeth.

United Nations Free Trade Agreement for the Automobile sector (UNFTAA)

A resolution to reduce barriers to free trade and commerce.

Category: Free Trade Strength: Significant Proposed by: Teruchev

Description: The United Nations,

-A- CONCERNED about the damaging effects that protectionist economic policies often have on the free flow of trade and the economic sustainability of nations,

-B- CONVINCED that the aforementioned free flow of trade is the most suitable policy for the economic health of all nations and the economic oppotunity of their citizens that need such opportunity to provide for themselves,

-C- SEEKING a common market for United Nations member states in the trade of automobile technology and equipment so as to engender this economic health and sustainability as well as the sharing of technologies that will be beneficial to the citizens of member nations,

-1- REQUIRES all nations to phase in policies removing protectionist laws and regulations in the trade of Automobile technology and equipment,

-2- ESTABLISHES the United Nations Free Trade Agreement for the Automobile sector (UNFTAA),

-3- ENCOURAGES global cooperation in the development and distribution of automotive technology, particularly environmentally-friendly automotive technology,

-4- URGES all member nations to ensure that unhealthy barriers to productive competition, which may include trusts and cartels, do not become a hindrance to the benefits of this resolution.

-5- MANDATES a timeline for implementation not exceeding five (5) years in length.

I think this is nearly ready for submission. At first I had the urge to pile on countless clauses and sub-clauses like countless resolutions preceding it, in that self-important way authors do to make their proposals sound thorough and profound, but what's wrong with a little brevity?

Steve Perry
President

I still think that it shouldn't be purely about the Automobile Industry, and the limited scope is a reason for me not to vote for it.

Creating a Free Trade Zone is good for business, it is good for capitalism it is good for employers. It is good for capitalist governments. It opens up the whole region, in this case the United Nations and allows the corporations to go anywhere without any restrictions.

In a socialist society that my nation is in, this will not go well because there is no private sector unless it is Gambling.

That is not the case. A Free Trade Agreement would mean that your centralised car manufacturers would (assuming your cars are competitively priced) sell more cars abroad, therefore employ more people, gain more revenue that can be passed on as wage increases for your employers (assuming a true planned economic system) or increase government spending.

It benefits both free market and planned economies.

That is not the case. A Free Trade Agreement would mean that your centralised car manufacturers would (assuming your cars are competitively priced) sell more cars abroad, therefore employ more people, gain more revenue that can be passed on as wage increases for your employers (assuming a true planned economic system) or increase government spending.

It benefits both free market and planned economies.

I would dispute this. Because the resources of a private sector company are focused normally on one type or a particular range of product, in this case automobiles, they can invest a far higher percentage of their budget in marketing, research and development, etc. In a publicly owned manufacturing plant, the resources are usually more limited because they have to be shared out amongst dozens of departments and services. This results in an inability to innovate quick enough to compete with the private sector, which would cause the collapse of the industry. To save it (or try to at least), one would be required to introduce protectionist measures, which contradict the vary idea of this resolution. Therefore, it does not benefit both free-market and planned-economies, just free-market ones.

May the blessings of our otters be upon you.

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

I still think that it shouldn't be purely about the Automobile Industry, and the limited scope is a reason for me not to vote for it.

The trouble is I can't see a practical free trade agreement covering all industries being workable in a) one resolution and b) one resolution of ~3400 characters or fewer. I think it is better to promote free trade through a series of resolutions, as one uber one would me more likely to be shot down by the free trade brigade. I would support such a resolution in theory, but in practice I can't see how it would be workable. I would urge you not to scupper a good, if admittedly narrow, resolution, in the hope of a dream which may not be realized.

to limit it to one industry is obserd to us. but in that light, our automobile industry has no choice but to limit the number of cars imported, otherwise the Auto Workers Union, along with quite a few others, would strike, crippling our nation.

I would dispute this. Because the resources of a private sector company are focused normally on one type or a particular range of product, in this case automobiles, they can invest a far higher percentage of their budget in marketing, research and development, etc. In a publicly owned manufacturing plant, the resources are usually more limited because they have to be shared out amongst dozens of departments and services. This results in an inability to innovate quick enough to compete with the private sector, which would cause the collapse of the industry. To save it (or try to at least), one would be required to introduce protectionist measures, which contradict the vary idea of this resolution. Therefore, it does not benefit both free-market and planned-economies, just free-market ones.

May the blessings of our otters be upon you.

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

The distinction that you are drawing is not actually one between free-market and planned economies, but between industries in nations that have well-funded automobile industries and those that do not. A privately owned automobile sector in a nation would lack funding because consumers simply are not interested in buying their automobiles. So be it. However, when a public industry is run by the government (people) and is underfunded, it is something far worse: government neglect. Of course, the government may not see it as a vital industry and therefore only spend a minimal amount of funding on it, but in that case it would be just as easy to let the automobile sector die in your nation and transfer those workers to jobs importing/transporting the same number of cheap automobiles from companies in other nations, thereby providing the nation with the same goods and jobs while remaining in compliance.

Minister of UN Affairs
Edward Jones

The trouble is I can't see a practical free trade agreement covering all industries being workable in a) one resolution and b) one resolution of ~3400 characters or fewer.

Why not? Basically, you need to say that there are no more tariffs, and that nations have to remove protectionist measures. To use this resolution:

-1- REQUIRES all nations to phase in policies removing protectionist laws and regulations,

-2- ESTABLISHES the United Nations Free Trade Agreement (UNFTA),

-3- ENCOURAGES global cooperation in the development and distribution of knowledge and technology, particularly environmentally-friendly technology,

-4- URGES all member nations to ensure that unhealthy barriers to productive competition, which may include trusts and cartels, do not become a hindrance to the benefits of this resolution,

-5- MANDATES a timeline for implementation not exceeding five (5) years in length.

I think it is better to promote free trade through a series of resolutions, as one uber one would me more likely to be shot down by the free trade brigade. I would support such a resolution in theory, but in practice I can't see how it would be workable. I would urge you not to scupper a good, if admittedly narrow, resolution, in the hope of a dream which may not be realized.

I do agree that it might be easier to pass it one resolution at a time, but that takes a lot of time. A solution in between could be to go to a higher level and take the industrial (secondary) sector. And the services sector next. Food is already being done right now.

I mean, free trade isn't that difficult. As long as the resolution stresses the benefits and makes it clear that they are greater than the costs, it will be voted on. Easy is nice, but if you want easy, write resolution on the protection of fluffy or sentient beings. Easy yes, but is that what we want?

Why not? Basically, you need to say that there are no more tariffs, and that nations have to remove protectionist measures. To use this resolution:

-1- REQUIRES all nations to phase in policies removing protectionist laws and regulations,

-2- ESTABLISHES the United Nations Free Trade Agreement (UNFTA),

-3- ENCOURAGES global cooperation in the development and distribution of knowledge and technology, particularly environmentally-friendly technology,

-4- URGES all member nations to ensure that unhealthy barriers to productive competition, which may include trusts and cartels, do not become a hindrance to the benefits of this resolution,

-5- MANDATES a timeline for implementation not exceeding five (5) years in length. ?

I do agree that it might be easier to pass it one resolution at a time, but that takes a lot of time. A solution in between could be to go to a higher level and take the industrial (secondary) sector. And the services sector next. Food is already being done right now.

I mean, free trade isn't that difficult. As long as the resolution stresses the benefits and makes it clear that they are greater than the costs, it will be voted on. Easy is nice, but if you want easy, write resolution on the protection of fluffy or sentient beings. Easy yes, but is that what we want?

The difficulty of establishing a free-trade group, is that eventually everyone will be demanding exemptions for a particular industry on the grounds of national sovereignty, pride, etc. No one wants to deal directly with the political consequences of free trade, if it 'goes wrong' so to speak. Free trade should not mean a free-for-all, rather an equal footing for companies and an opportunity for greater collaboration and commercial transaction between nations. That said, we support this resolution.

I would just like to point out that food would also be a primary sector, because, (if memory serves me correctly), the resolution dealt with production and distribution.

May the blessings of our otters be upon you.

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

But what happens when a rich nation with a heavily subsidised automobile industry starts exporting its extremely cheap cars to _Myopia_, which cannot afford to give substantial support to its industry? (OOC: in the same way that US and EU farmers dump their surplus on poor countries' markets at artificially low prices, putting local farmers out of business) We need to be able to put in place tariffs to make up for this and level the playing field.

Additionally, would we still be able to block free trade with certain nations or organisations for ethical reasons (such as human rights, workers' rights and environmental concerns)?

But what happens when a rich nation with a heavily subsidised automobile industry starts exporting its extremely cheap cars to _Myopia_, which cannot afford to give substantial support to its industry? (OOC: in the same way that US and EU farmers dump their surplus on poor countries' markets at artificially low prices, putting local farmers out of business) We need to be able to put in place tariffs to make up for this and level the playing field.

Additionally, would we still be able to block free trade with certain nations or organisations for ethical reasons (such as human rights, workers' rights and environmental concerns)?

Well if the nation is subsidising its industry heavily, it is not really engaging in free trade. The resolution states under clause 1:

-1- REQUIRES all nations to phase in policies removing protectionist laws and regulations,

This would be used to block any unfair assistance, in my view. In addition, if you object to the ethics of any nation in the UNFTAA, then you are not required to trade with them and can encourage your companies not to do so, through 'indirect means'.

May the blessings of our otters be upon you.

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

I have recently been asked when I am planning to submit this proposal.

Seeing as though the Global Food and IT resolutions will occupy everyone's time for at least the next forseeable week, how about I submit this Monday morning, November 21. Would this give my helpful assistants (Gruenberg and Cluichstan) time to prepare with me a TG campaign?

This is dependent, of course, upon everyone coming to an agreement that we can live with. Overall, I am seeing a generally positive response, with some wanting to retain protectionist measures (_Myopia_) to some proposing a general free trade agreement (Groot Gouda). I feel my proposal, while certainly limited in scope, could help provide a catalyst for later and greater free trade resolutions to come. I would gladly help repeal my own resolution if it meant a more general free trade agreement would be installed in its place.

Let me know your thoughts.


Steve Perry
President

Yes, I can make space around then to help, if needed.

Are there any other thoughts for revisions to this draft before submission next Monday?

Keep those cards and letters coming.


Steve Perry
President

(tumbleweed)

(tumbleweed)

*shoots the tumbleweed, then goes back to sipping lemonade*

*shoots the tumbleweed, then goes back to sipping lemonade*

I retract my tumbleweed statement.

Is everyone relatively happy with the current draft as it sits now? I know that it's too much for some, too little for others, but it's a start in the right direction.

If there is anything else that needs to go in there, please submit in writing. My learned colleagues have addressed most concerns on my behalf, but don't be shy if you think there's some glaring omission present within.

Keep those cards and letters coming.


Steve Perry
President

hi just a thought, sorry i didin't read all the thread

LAE will probably support your proposition but may you consider to add a similar clause as the following one yelda included in his food resolution::

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

You want to establishing a FTA on automotive, normally it's of course better for a FTA to have common tariffs about products from outside the FTA, but it may be dificult in NS, so let at least nations have this possibility

maybe you can say something as:

EMPHASIZES that UN member nations reserve the right to employ retaliatory tariffs towards non-UN nations and ENCOURAGES UN members to sign multilateral agreements about tariffs towards non-UN members

i ask a similar question to the one i asked during the vote.

whats to stop a UN member dumping a lot of cars in my country especially since we're trying to reduce the number of cars on Kirisubo's roads?

i am afraid i cant support this proposal. the automotive union has set limits on what can be imported, and if they are broken, they will strike, along with many other unions, crippling our nation. being a island nation, it can be pretty hard to sneek anymore in, so we would violate this from the get-go

Originally Posted by Love and esterel
EMPHASIZES that UN member nations reserve the right to employ retaliatory tariffs towards non-UN nations and ENCOURAGES UN members to sign multilateral agreements about tariffs towards non-UN members


In lieu of this, which I don't particularly care for, would I be creating a new precedent in mandating a tribunal to hear complaints of violations of the UNFTAA?

I don't want to step on any established toes here...


Steve Perry
President

You can create a tribunal all you want, but it wouldn't do much. But it might be a good idea, in case people cry "OMG what if the beastly capitalists abuse it?"

The people of Cluichstan support free trade in all markets and, therefore, fully support this proposal.

You can create a tribunal all you want, but it wouldn't do much. But it might be a good idea, in case people cry "OMG what if the beastly capitalists abuse it?"

Yeah, I am still wavering on this one, taking this kind of advice is like...well, never mind.

The people of Cluichstan support free trade in all markets and, therefore, fully support this proposal.

And we thank you. Just as a heads-up, I am still planning on submitting this proposal barring any unforeseen events early Monday morning (the 21st), C.S.T. It looks like there'll be another resolution at vote by then, but hopefully that won't distract or detract too much from this initiative.

Steve Perry
President

Would it be worthwhile to define automobiles in this proposal, since, depending by nation, this could mean anything from Model T's to Hovercraft (yes I know I'm being facetious).

Steve Perry
President

In lieu of this, which I don't particularly care for, would I be creating a new precedent in mandating a tribunal to hear complaints of violations of the UNFTAA?

I don't want to step on any established toes here...



LAE will regret a similar clause as yelda's one:

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

but we will support and approve this proposal anyway

LAE will regret a similar clause as yelda's one:

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

but we will support and approve this proposal anyway

I agree, we need to keep this proviso.

LAE will regret a similar clause as yelda's one:

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

but we will support and approve this proposal anyway

If it means enticing more non-UN nations to join up, then I'd be willing to tolerate a little protectionism. After all, that is the "spirit" of this proposal.

Further to my last post, draft number six...

United Nations Free Trade Agreement for the Automobile sector (UNFTAA)

A resolution to reduce barriers to free trade and commerce.

Category: Free Trade Strength: Significant Proposed by: Teruchev

Description: The United Nations,

-A- CONCERNED about the damaging effects that protectionist economic policies often have on the free flow of trade and the economic sustainability of nations,

-B- CONVINCED that the aforementioned free flow of trade is the most suitable policy for the economic health of all nations and the economic oppotunity of their citizens that need such opportunity to provide for themselves,

-C- SEEKING a common market for United Nations member states in the trade of automobile technology and equipment so as to engender this economic health and sustainability as well as the sharing of technologies that will be beneficial to the citizens of member nations,

-1- REQUIRES all nations to phase in policies removing protectionist laws and regulations in the trade of Automobile technology and equipment,

-2- ESTABLISHES the United Nations Free Trade Agreement for the Automobile sector (UNFTAA),

-3- ENCOURAGES global cooperation in the development and distribution of automotive technology, particularly environmentally-friendly automotive technology,

-4- URGES all member nations to ensure that unhealthy barriers to productive competition, which may include trusts and cartels, do not become a hindrance to the benefits of this resolution,

-5- EMPHASIZES that UN member nations reserve the right to employ retaliatory tariffs towards non-UN nations,

-6- MANDATES a timeline for implementation not exceeding five (5) years in length.

Steve Perry
President

with respect my question still hasn't been answered.

whats to stop a UN member dumping a lot of cars in my country especially since we're trying to reduce the number of cars on Kirisubo's roads? under this proposal we would lose the right to stop this happening.

we already have imported vehicles coming into Kirisubo but I feel a free market in this area would lead to dumping and a derailment of our nations transport policies.

with respect my question still hasn't been answered.

whats to stop a UN member dumping a lot of cars in my country especially since we're trying to reduce the number of cars on Kirisubo's roads? under this proposal we would lose the right to stop this happening.

we already have imported vehicles coming into Kirisubo but I feel a free market in this area would lead to dumping and a derailment of our nations transport policies.
i agree with this. under this proposal, it would be hard for nations reducing the number of cars on the road to continue to do so, and also opens the way for faulty equiptment hitting the road too. there are other areas that free trade needs to be expanded than on the automotive industry

with respect my question still hasn't been answered.

whats to stop a UN member dumping a lot of cars in my country especially since we're trying to reduce the number of cars on Kirisubo's roads? under this proposal we would lose the right to stop this happening.

we already have imported vehicles coming into Kirisubo but I feel a free market in this area would lead to dumping and a derailment of our nations transport policies.

Supply and Demand, I would reckon. If your nation is not demanding x number of automobiles then other nations under this agreement will not supply them. Also, this proposal is cognizant of environmental concerns your nation may have in regards to fossil-fuel driven autos, and as such mentions that any passed resolution

-3- ENCOURAGES global cooperation in the development and distribution of automotive technology, particularly environmentally-friendly automotive technology,.


Steve Perry
President

whats to stop a UN member dumping a lot of cars in my country especially since we're trying to reduce the number of cars on Kirisubo's roads? under this proposal we would lose the right to stop this happening.

As far as I understand it, you're not allowed to protect your own car industry. So if you have some kind of environmental tax on cars from foreign nations, you have to apply the same to locally produced cars. All this resolutions says is that any advantages you give to your local automobile industry should be removed. That's import tariffs, etc. It doesn't legislate about other policies that are there regardless of the origin of the product.

with respect my question still hasn't been answered.

whats to stop a UN member dumping a lot of cars in my country especially since we're trying to reduce the number of cars on Kirisubo's roads? under this proposal we would lose the right to stop this happening.

we already have imported vehicles coming into Kirisubo but I feel a free market in this area would lead to dumping and a derailment of our nations transport policies.

I'm not sure. But this proposal covers tariffs, only. If no one in your nation wants cars, because you're using anti-car policies such as high gas tax, then they won't buy foreign cars.

I'm not sure. But this proposal covers tariffs, only. If no one in your nation wants cars, because you're using anti-car policies such as high gas tax, then they won't buy foreign cars.
so this doesnt affect my unions having a limit on imported cars as well?

so this doesnt affect my unions having a limit on imported cars as well?

I can't answer as I'm a) not the author and b) not sure what you mean. But this is about trade protectionism, and nothing else.

what i mean is that the Auto Workers Union of TLA have put a limit on how many of what cars can be imported into TLA. it means if it goes over, the AWU-TLA, along with other unions, would go on strike, practically crippling our country

what i mean is that the Auto Workers Union of TLA have put a limit on how many of what cars can be imported into TLA. it means if it goes over, the AWU-TLA, along with other unions, would go on strike, practically crippling our country

If there is such demand for cars, your industry might do well to buck its ideas up. If there is not, then I can't see how there would be a problem.

ooc: my take is the same as the RL take of the USA. their automobile unions have set quotas on the amounts of car types that can be imported, before they have to be locally made. example: GM Holden made a 2 door coupe of their Commadore model, and badged it as a Monaro (legendary aussie icon ;) ). GM liked it so much that they started exporting it from Australia. for the american model, it was rebadged GM Pontiac GTO. now due to the union constraints, only 18,000 (i think) per year were allowed to be imported, after that they had to be american made. GM stayed with the 18,000, as they couldnt produce the cars there. i hope this clears up the way i am running it in my NS nation

ooc: my take is the same as the RL take of the USA. their automobile unions have set quotas on the amounts of car types that can be imported, before they have to be locally made. example: GM Holden made a 2 door coupe of their Commadore model, and badged it as a Monaro (legendary aussie icon ;) ). GM liked it so much that they started exporting it from Australia. for the american model, it was rebadged GM Pontiac GTO. now due to the union constraints, only 18,000 (i think) per year were allowed to be imported, after that they had to be american made. GM stayed with the 18,000, as they couldnt produce the cars there. i hope this clears up the way i am running it in my NS nation

If unions are dictating the terms of industrial planning, then any conflict of interest with them, regardless of the overall impact on the national economy and/or well-being, will be severe. I would suggest, personally, that you try and knock some sense into them (like we did in Compadria, a la Mrs. T, except much more sensibly). I don't mean to criticise your internal policy, I'm just offering the idea that if you could negotiate a compromise with the unions that they accept the deal, but retain perhaps, the right to have local input into production and selling, albeit on a smaller scale. I'm not suggesting union bashing, just trying to propose a compromise deal.

May the blessings of our otters be upon you.

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

the thing is, we agree with the unions. we prefer to protect the jobs of our workers than see the work going overseas. although, at the moment, this is only restricted to the automotive industry, and nothing else. other industries dont have such protections

the thing is, we agree with the unions. we prefer to protect the jobs of our workers than see the work going overseas. although, at the moment, this is only restricted to the automotive industry, and nothing else. other industries dont have such protections

It'd be difficult to say how much outsourcing the new resolution would create. It really depends on how productive your industry is overall, if you could boost car production, you might end up with being able to maintain most jobs in this sector.

May the blessings of our otters be upon you.

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

OOC: My RL take is the Auto Pact that was negotiated between the United States and Canada in 1965. It created a free trade zone in Automobiles between the two countries and created thousands of jobs for Canadian workers that would not have been the case otherwise. Today, Canadian auto plants such as Oshawa # 1 are world-renowned for their quality and productivity.

The lesson here? The U.S. was a massive producer of automobiles, Canada, not so much. But instead of hiding behind a protectionist curtain and protecting NO jobs, today guys like Buzz Hargrove of the CAW can sit pretty on the union dues of thousands of Canadian Auto Workers.

A Free Trade Zone for Automotive Industry is good for the UN as a whole and for individual economies. However, it would also be a benefit to have a Free-Trade zone for Woodchip Exports, Trout Farming, Uranium Mining, Agriculture Products, Food Imports and Medicinal Imports.

In this way basic economic goals will be easier to achieve, the prices of Food and Medicine will go down with foreign competition and money will be saved by not having to collect tariffs.

A Free Trade Zone for Automotive Industry is good for the UN as a whole and for individual economies. However, it would also be a benefit to have a Free-Trade zone for Woodchip Exports, Trout Farming, Uranium Mining, Agriculture Products, Food Imports and Medicinal Imports.

In this way basic economic goals will be easier to achieve, the prices of Food and Medicine will go down with foreign competition and money will be saved by not having to collect tariffs.

I couldn't agree more, admittedly this "one bite at a time" strategy has its downsides, but it's a start.


Steve Perry
President

OK, Gruenberg and Cluichstan, the weekend is upon us, and I suppose that means we need to talk about telegramming.

I can't promise my undivided availablility this weekend, but if you have any ideas for how you would like to divide up the telegramming duties, I'm all ears.

If either of you guys' plans change and aren't able to assist this weekend, no big deal, just let me know and we can reschedule.

Thanks for all your help on this proposal.


Steve Perry
President

Like the Phoenix, the Auto Free Trade Agreement is rising from the ashes...

Excuse the artistic license. In light of the current UN resolution at vote, I thought the time was apt to resume the discussion of my proposed Free Trade Agreement in Automobiles.

I was going to tack on this post to the last discussion thread I had on this topic, but this thread, the original, has all the backgrounder and discussion which is rich in analysis and will be instructive to anyone who has not been part of the discussion previously.

I personally just finished poring over the 10 pages of discussion, and was thoroughly impressed with the progression within. As well, it reaffirmed my belief that this is a worthy proposal deserving of passage. But that aside, I open the floor to solicit offers of assistance and suggestions for refining the draft and for possible submission times.

Steve Perry, GCRC
President

United Nations Free Trade Agreement for the Automobile sector (UNFTAA)

A resolution to reduce barriers to free trade and commerce.

Category: Free Trade Strength: Significant Proposed by: Teruchev

Description: The United Nations,

-A- CONCERNED about the damaging effects that protectionist economic policies often have on the free flow of trade and the economic sustainability of nations,

-B- CONVINCED that the aforementioned free flow of trade is the most suitable policy for the economic health of all nations and the economic oppotunity of their citizens that need such opportunity to provide for themselves,

-C- SEEKING a common market for United Nations member states in the trade of automobile technology and equipment so as to engender this economic health and sustainability as well as the sharing of technologies that will be beneficial to the citizens of member nations,

-1- REQUIRES all nations to phase in policies removing protectionist laws and regulations in the trade of Automobile technology and equipment,

-2- ESTABLISHES the United Nations Free Trade Agreement for the Automobile sector (UNFTAA),

-3- ENCOURAGES global cooperation in the development and distribution of automotive technology, particularly environmentally-friendly automotive technology,

-4- URGES all member nations to ensure that unhealthy barriers to productive competition, which may include trusts and cartels, do not become a hindrance to the benefits of this resolution,

-5- EMPHASIZES that UN member nations reserve the right to employ retaliatory tariffs towards non-UN nations,

-6- MANDATES a timeline for implementation not exceeding five (5) years in length.

I personally think this last version we agreed upon the previous month was fine and I don't see any particular problems with presenting it. I think we ought to propose it in January, next year, since the holidays are coming up for a lot of people and activity will probably be going down during that period. Also, L&E and I are working on a resolution to introduce for discussion next week, so I wouldn't want to crowd it out.

May the blessings of Tarkan the Great Otter be upon you

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

P.S. Are you looking forwards to the otter festivities?

As it is, I would vote against this proposal. Now, don't get me wrong, I am a strong free-trade supporter, but I find sectorial free-trade agreements to be counter-productive, and frankly, bad economics. Allowing countries with a strong automobile sector free access to all the world, while keeping protectionist strategies in other sectors, can have disastrous consequences to smaller, less developed nations.

As it is, I would vote against this proposal. Now, don't get me wrong, I am a strong free-trade supporter, but I find sectorial free-trade agreements to be counter-productive, and frankly, bad economics. Allowing countries with a strong automobile sector free access to all the world, while keeping protectionist strategies in other sectors, can have disastrous consequences to smaller, less developed nations.

I agree, but with one caveat...

I am of the view that a Free Trade Zone in Automobiles will level the playing field for all nations, so that while there will invariably be some short-term pain as small players have to adapt to the rigours of competition, the very conditions that kept these players small in the first place will be removed and the improved access to markets this Agreement will provide will in turn allow for greater opportunities for business expansion.

Steve Perry, GCRC
President

Let me ask you this. Have you fully considered the effects on the current account of nations that do not posess the technology to produce automobiles?

Free-trade in a nutshell: countries are allowed to specialize in the goods they can produce cheaply, export them, and use the aquired foreign currency to purchase other goods that are harder to produce internally. Goods are cheaper for everyone, thus everyone is better off.

Now, if a country is open to import foreign goods, but not allowed to export the goods where it is competitive, soon:
1. It will run out of foreign currency reserves.
2. National currency will devalue.
3. Foreign goods will no longer be cheaper, not because national tech is better, but simply because wages, prices, and purchasing power within the country have significantly deteriorated.

The Republic of Teruchev agrees with Fonzoland's comments wholeheartedly.

That said, we felt that introducing an omnibus free trade resolution would galvanize the protectionist brigade such that this proposal would never see the light of day.

We regret as well the need to introduce free trade piecemeal, but assert that this is an excellent place to start.


Steve Perry, GCRC,
President.

The people of Cluichstan concur wholeheartedly.

Let me ask you this. Have you fully considered the effects on the current account of nations that do not posess the technology to produce automobiles?

In this instance, where there exists a lack of demand for such products, these products will not be supplied.

It would be my hope that companies within nations that do not yet use automobiles or who have banned them outright would not be asking for them from other nations that do.

I understand your point, but one must imagine the can of worms that would be opened in the event that I added a clause to the effect of "in nations that currently produce or import automotive technology."

Steve Perry, GCRC,
President.

I'm not sure. But this proposal covers tariffs, only. If no one in your nation wants cars, because you're using anti-car policies such as high gas tax, then they won't buy foreign cars.

Or just put a high sales tax on all cars (not the same as a tariff, for it would apply to cars made in your country too, thus causing no advantage)

In this instance, where there exists a lack of demand for such products, these products will not be supplied.

It would be my hope that companies within nations that do not yet use automobiles or who have banned them outright would not be asking for them from other nations that do.

I understand your point, but one must imagine the can of worms that would be opened in the event that I added a clause to the effect of "in nations that currently produce or import automotive technology."

That is not my point. Restricting the resolution wouldn't make it any better. My point is that, for something like this to be effective, each nation needs to have an opportunity to export, not just import. Otherwise free trade goes down the drain. (OK, this is simplistic, but I don't intend/feel qualified to digress on the subtleties of the balance of payments.)

That is not my point. Restricting the resolution wouldn't make it any better. My point is that, for something like this to be effective, each nation needs to have an opportunity to export, not just import. Otherwise free trade goes down the drain. (OK, this is simplistic, but I don't intend/feel qualified to digress on the subtleties of the balance of payments.)

Well surely if all nations signed up to a free-trade agreement covering imports, then by default, someone would have to be exporting, thus the two are tied in together and resolve the problem of balance of payments (in theoretical terms).

May the blessings of our otters be upon you.

Anthony Holt
Deputy Ambassador for the Republic of Compadria to the U.N.

Well surely if all nations signed up to a free-trade agreement covering imports, then by default, someone would have to be exporting, thus the two are tied in together and resolve the problem of balance of payments (in theoretical terms).

Nop, the balance of payments is the problem of individual countries. If there is international trade in automobiles, some countries will be net exporters, some will be net importers of automobiles. For the countries that are net importers, they will need to export other goods to compensate. If trade barriers are not removed in those, they are screwed.

For some analysis of this issue by a nation more eloquent than mine, here is a post originally on the IDU site:

I only noticed this long after it was written, but I disagree with GG on this one. In RL, most generalised free trade agreements have been built upon previous sector-specific ones. Three examples that immediately come to mind are:
NAFTA: the North American Free Trade Agreement, built upon the Canada-U.S. FTA and more distantly on the Autopact between Canada and the USA
EU: the European Union, built upon the European Economic Community (which Britain wrongly insisted on calling the Common Market) and more distantly upon the European Coal and Steel Community
Germany's Second Reich, built upon the North German Federation and more distanly upon the Zollverein. Sidebar: One of the most productive mines in Germany's industrial Ruhrgebiet area was named after this Customs Union.

I agree that auto manufacturing is probably too specific, but how about manufactured goods generally? This is how the European Free Trade Association (Britain and the Nordic hold-outs from the EEC, until they all begged to join) worked, leaving the politically more contentious issues of agriculture and culture out of the mix.

The basic principle is sound, namely giving an economic advantage to the UN in exchange for accepting limitations on human rights and environmental affairs.

Steve Perry, GCRC,
President

For some analysis of this issue by a nation more eloquent than mine, here is a post originally on the IDU site:

Steve Perry, GCRC,
President

First of all, it is a very interesting post you bring to our attention. The historical facts and interpretation are correct, but you should note three crucial unstated factors about nations in the RL examples given:
1. They agreed unanimously to the free-trade treaty, after evaluating the overall impact in their individual economies. It was not a majority decision, as would be here.
2. They were all at extremely similar levels of wealth, technological development, and wages. (I would note here the complications found in attempts to extend NAFTA to South America. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_Trade_Area_of_the_Americas)
3. Their economies were already heavily integrated, so the treaty facilitates trade in some categories, but there is strong pre-existing trade in others.

Under conditions 2 and 3, I would happily agree with the current proposal, but they are unfortunately not valid across the UN.

Still, I appreciate the difficulties of an omnibus free-trade agreement. Especially since food trade is apparently regulated in another proposal, I would happily support Sober Thought's suggestion of a manufactured goods agreement.

Still, I appreciate the difficulties of an omnibus free-trade agreement. Especially since food trade is apparently regulated in another proposal

Now that everyone's surely sick of talking about divorce, let's talk about automobiles! I am prepared to resubmit this proposal as is, but, like our friend Fonzoland here, if anyone else has something to add, let's polish it up and get it out again some time in the new year.


Steve Perry, GCRC,
President.

Nop, the balance of payments is the problem of individual countries. If there is international trade in automobiles, some countries will be net exporters, some will be net importers of automobiles. For the countries that are net importers, they will need to export other goods to compensate. If trade barriers are not removed in those, they are screwed.

Well I think that a nation does not necessarily need to maintain a strong balance of payments to remain a powerful economy. Of course, avoiding a huge trade deficit is obvious common sense, but running a small to moderate deficit in terms of balance of payments doesn't seem to be to serious a problem in my opinion.

Also (RL reference) to the best of my knowledge, only 1 (Germany) of the worlds top 5 economies has a surplus in terms of balance of payments.

May the blessings of our otters be upon you.

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

Well I think that a nation does not necessarily need to maintain a strong balance of payments to remain a powerful economy. Of course, avoiding a huge trade deficit is obvious common sense, but running a small to moderate deficit in terms of balance of payments doesn't seem to be to serious a problem in my opinion.

Also (RL reference) to the best of my knowledge, only 1 (Germany) of the worlds top 5 economies has a surplus in terms of balance of payments.

OK, I will not pick on the difference between balance of payments and current account. I will just say this:

Negative BoP = Increase in foreign debt = Unsustainable, bad, bad thing

Now, my own RL references: Have you followed world news in the last few months? I don't give a damn about Germany, or my own country, in these matters. They can take care themselves, and they are part of a huge common market. I do give a damn about Africa. They have to swallow all the free trade agreements if they want any help, and all the while every single developed country has protectionist policies in agriculture.

every single developed country has protectionist policies in agriculture

Debatable.

countries that are net importers, they will need to export other goods to compensate

OOC:I will not expound upon the innumberable RL nations that have benefitted and brought themselves out of Third World conditions because of having access to Western markets, but will note it for posterity, lest it help sway the debate on this forum.

Nor will I (again) expound upon RL examples like the Auto Pact, wherein certain industries instituted liberalized trade policies whilst others remained cloistered.

IC:The Republic of Teruchev is of the opinion that if every developed nation plays by the rules and allows their markets access to products from developing nations without tariff or non-tariff barriers, developing nations will be able to address the BoP issues addressed above.

Steve Perry, GCRC,
President

OOC:I will not expound upon the innumberable RL nations that have benefitted and brought themselves out of Third World conditions because of having access to Western markets, but will note it for posterity, lest it help sway the debate on this forum.

OOC: At last, someone sees my point!!! (I am not being sarcastic here.) Do you really think allowing Etiopia to sell their cars in the American market actually qualifies as "having access to Western markets"? You are allowing America to access Etiopia, not the other way around. (examples are randomly selected poor and rich countries)

EDIT: The Republic of Teruchev is of the opinion that if every developed nation plays by the rules and allows their markets access to products from developing nations without tariff or non-tariff barriers, developing nations will be able to address the BoP issues addressed above.

We are in total agreement, but that is an issue your proposal does not address.
I have been saying from the beginning, if nations can freely export, as well as import, my objections are withdrawn. But developing nations have the unpleasant tendency of not building that many cars.

One problem with starting with one industry is immediately clear to me.

If we are concerned with creating good automotive jobs in countries, this is not the way to do it. This resolution will probably end with one country producing the cars for the entire region. This is due to the concept of comparative advantage. For any one industry, one country will have a clear comparative advantage over all the other countries in an area, and thus will lead to them producing all the cars for the region.

Unless we assume that the automotive industry is actually several different related industries, this is the clear result.

You are correct, however, in that it will lower overall costs on cars for consumers in the different countries. This, in turn, will lead to less inflation and a better standard of living for most within the nations of the UN. For this reason, I have urged our nation's great leader, Fu Huangdi, to support this resolution. However, I would like to see more free trade.

Thank you,
Fu Kuaiqian, PhD
Minister of Finance, Hou Mian

In keeping with the advice of my minister of finance, I will accept this proposal.

Fu Huangdi,
Leader of the Nomadic People's of Hou Mian

I have urged our nation's great leader, Fu Huangdi, to support this resolution. However, I would like to see more free trade.

Thank you for your support of this initative worthy of the UN's consideration.

We are in total agreement, but that is an issue your proposal does not address.
I have been saying from the beginning, if nations can freely export, as well as import, my objections are withdrawn.

Let's read over the text of the proposal one more time...

United Nations Free Trade Agreement for the Automobile sector (UNFTAA)

A resolution to reduce barriers to free trade and commerce.

Category: Free Trade Strength: Significant Proposed by: Teruchev

Description: The United Nations,

-A- CONCERNED about the damaging effects that protectionist economic policies often have on the free flow of trade and the economic sustainability of nations,

-B- CONVINCED that the aforementioned free flow of trade is the most suitable policy for the economic health of all nations and the economic oppotunity of their citizens that need such opportunity to provide for themselves,

-C- SEEKING a common market for United Nations member states in the trade of automobile technology and equipment so as to engender this economic health and sustainability as well as the sharing of technologies that will be beneficial to the citizens of member nations,

-1- REQUIRES all nations to phase in policies removing protectionist laws and regulations in the trade of Automobile technology and equipment,

-2- ESTABLISHES the United Nations Free Trade Agreement for the Automobile sector (UNFTAA),

-3- ENCOURAGES global cooperation in the development and distribution of automotive technology, particularly environmentally-friendly automotive technology,

-4- URGES all member nations to ensure that unhealthy barriers to productive competition, which may include trusts and cartels, do not become a hindrance to the benefits of this resolution,

-5- EMPHASIZES that UN member nations reserve the right to employ retaliatory tariffs towards non-UN nations,

-6- MANDATES a timeline for implementation not exceeding five (5) years in length.

Now I thought that the notion of free trade was rooted in the notion of reciprocity, i.e. a free flow of goods to and from ALL nations. Where in this proposal would you like me to be explicit and spell that out so that everyone is clear on this? ( I am also not being sarcastic here)

Steve Perry, GCRC,
President

...a new automotive product that runs by solar power.

Our automotive industry and engineers have invented a high storage capacity battery that can store solar electricity for along time.

The battery is very lightweight and small. We seek free trade with other nations so that all can benefit from our great technological break though and products.

Since the national economy of our nation is based on a value created currency we can offer our manufactured automobiles and appliances at a reasonable price or in exchange for other goods and services or natural resources.

It is the great dream of the people of the United Socialist States of Kemeyita for all thw worlds people to enjoy the benefits of polution free machines.

...a new automotive product that runs by solar power.

Our automotive industry and engineers have invented a high storage capacity battery that can store solar electricity for along time.

The battery is very lightweight and small. We seek free trade with other nations so that all can benefit from our great technological break though and products.

Since the national economy of our nation is based on a value created currency we can offer our manufactured automobiles and appliances at a reasonable price or in exchange for other goods and services or natural resources.

It is the great dream of the people of the United Socialist States of Kemeyita for all thw worlds people to enjoy the benefits of polution free machines.

Thank you, Kemeyita. It is for reasons such as this that we hope to make the Auto Free Trade Agreement a reality.


Steve Perry, GCRC,
President

Now I thought that the notion of free trade was rooted in the notion of reciprocity, i.e. a free flow of goods to and from ALL nations. Where in this proposal would you like me to be explicit and spell that out so that everyone is clear on this? ( I am also not being sarcastic here)

That is not my idea of reciprocity. Going back to the poor vs. rich example, a free market in automobile products is, on paper, giving the right to export automobiles to both Poorlandia and Richdonia. However, in practice, we all know that Poorlandia will never have a strong automibile industry, and so all the agreement does is open the Poorlandian market to Richdonian cars.

True reciprocity would be a free market in both cars and <name a product that Poorlandia produces cheaper>. That way some actual trade could go on, ie Poorlandia would be able to export products to Richdonia, get some Richdonian currency, and use it to buy the cars.

That is not my idea of reciprocity. Going back to the poor vs. rich example, a free market in automobile products is, on paper, giving the right to export automobiles to both Poorlandia and Richdonia. However, in practice, we all know that Poorlandia will never have a strong automibile industry, and so all the agreement does is open the Poorlandian market to Richdonian cars.

True reciprocity would be a free market in both cars and <name a product that Poorlandia produces cheaper>. That way some actual trade could go on, ie Poorlandia would be able to export products to Richdonia, get some Richdonian currency, and use it to buy the cars.

This proposal is about free trade in -2- Automobile technology and equipment. Note that nowhere in this proposal is any mention made of precluding this only to finished automobiles. While of course this will be included, perhaps "Poorlandia" will have a competitive advantage in producing seatbelts or car seats and can thus export these products to "Richdonia", where indeed this more affluent nation could in fact have the edge in finished automobile production. Or not.

Steve Perry, GCRC
President

Bumping this because I think it will soon be resubmitted for a general UN vote, after all the holiday-related activities are over, of course.

I have heard very reasoned suggestions for improving this proposal, and have tried to incorporate these whenever possible. There is still time though, to polish up this draft. On TNP forum I received a suggestion related to ensuring that clause -5- is more clearly defined so that it is clear UN member states may still engage in any trade activities they see fit with non-UN states however, whenever.

Steve Perry, GCRC,
President.

How many times has this been in the UN forum? Until you define this, we're against it.

How many times has this been in the UN forum? Until you define this, we're against it.

I present Exhibit A:

Originally posted in the thread "Submitted: Auto Free Trade Agreement", at 7:24 p.m. on 23-11-2005

This is the only proposal with which I have ever fully agreed. You have this so right, that I am prepared to move to your nation, endorse you, vote for this resolution and campaign my socks off. I hope you do get this into the UN. Please Telegram me if you ever want more support.
Optischer

I rest my case.

Steve Perry, GCRC,
President.

I think you can safely disregard comments posted by Optischer. When do you plan to resubmit this?

I think you can safely disregard comments posted by Optischer. When do you plan to resubmit this?

OOC: Oh, I was hoping maybe the first week of January before things get too hectic at work. I'm unsure as to what the timelines will be for getting this in if successful, as the Divorce repeal and the new Chemical Weapons Ban resolutions will be on the floor, respectively. And probably something by LAE.

Yelda mainly tries to squash me down, for some silly reason. The free trade answer before was supported before a shift in optischer's views, of which we are against this proposal.

Yelda mainly tries to squash me down, for some silly reason. The free trade answer before was supported before a shift in optischer's views, of which we are against this proposal.

Thanks for the bump.


Steve Perry, GCRC,
President.

We wish you the best and look forwards to this coming to vote.

May the blessings of our otters be upon you.

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

P.S. Should this proposed resolution eventually be passed, we shall present Terchurev with a Compadrobile 360, our finest luxury car, as a symbol of our apreciation for the efforts of Mr Perry.

We wish you the best and look forwards to this coming to vote.

May the blessings of our otters be upon you.

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

P.S. Should this proposed resolution eventually be passed, we shall present Terchurev with a Compadrobile 360, our finest luxury car, as a symbol of our apreciation for the efforts of Mr Perry.

I shall enjoy adding that fine automobile to my already large collection.

Glad to hear that you enjoyed our 1st Annual Fall Otter Festival.

Steve Perry, GCRC,
President

We've been told by one of the Mods (somewhere or other in the forums) that when 'Trout Fishing' is included amongst a nation's list of major industries that referrence is actually to all of the possible forms of fishing put together: That being so, do you think that 'Automobile Manufacturing' should be taken, in NS terminology, as covering the manufacture of all other kinds of vehicles (such as ships & aircraft) as well?

We've been told by one of the Mods (somewhere or other in the forums) that when 'Trout Fishing' is included amongst a nation's list of major industries that referrence is actually to all of the possible forms of fishing put together: That being so, do you think that 'Automobile Manufacturing' should be taken, in NS terminology, as covering the manufacture of all other kinds of vehicles (such as ships & aircraft) as well?

Good you brought that up, St. Edmund, I shall clean up some of the language in my proposal to reflect this, and clarify that this resolution is not only confined to passenger cars.

Thusly,

United Nations Free Trade Agreement for the Automotive sector (UNFTAA)

A resolution to reduce barriers to free trade and commerce.

Category: Free Trade Strength: Significant Proposed by: Teruchev

Description: The United Nations,

-A- CONCERNED about the damaging effects that protectionist economic policies often have on the free flow of trade and the economic sustainability of nations,

-B- CONVINCED that the aforementioned free flow of trade is the most suitable policy for the economic health of all nations and the economic oppotunity of their citizens that need such opportunity to provide for themselves,

-C- SEEKING a common market for United Nations member states in the trade of automotive technology and equipment so as to engender this economic health and sustainability as well as the sharing of technologies that will be beneficial to the citizens of member nations,

-1- REQUIRES all nations to phase in policies removing protectionist laws and regulations in the trade of Automotive technology and equipment,

-2- ESTABLISHES the United Nations Free Trade Agreement for the Automotive sector (UNFTAA),

-3- ENCOURAGES global cooperation in the development and distribution of automotive technology, particularly environmentally-friendly automotive technology,

-4- URGES all member nations to ensure that unhealthy barriers to productive competition, which may include trusts and cartels, do not become a hindrance to the benefits of this resolution,

-5- EMPHASIZES that UN member nations reserve the right to employ retaliatory tariffs towards non-UN nations,

-6- MANDATES a timeline for implementation not exceeding five (5) years in length.

I have changed any mention of "automobile" which is described as:

au·to·mo·bile
n.
A self-propelled passenger vehicle that usually has four wheels and an internal-combustion engine, used for land transport. Also called motorcar.

and substituted the general term "automotive" which is described as:

au·to·mo·tive
adj.
Moving by itself; self-propelling or self-propelled.
Of or relating to self-propelled vehicles.

That should clear up that matter. Thank you, St. Edmund.

Steve Perry, GCRC
President

Thank you, St. Edmund.

Steve Perry, GCRC
President

You're welcome.

United Nations Free Trade Agreement for the Automotive sector (UNFTAA)

A resolution to reduce barriers to free trade and commerce.

Category: Free Trade Strength: Significant Proposed by: Teruchev

Description: The United Nations,

-A- CONCERNED about the damaging effects that protectionist economic policies often have on the free flow of trade and the economic sustainability of nations,

-B- CONVINCED that the aforementioned free flow of trade is the most suitable policy for the economic health of all nations and the economic oppotunity of their citizens that need such opportunity to provide for themselves,

-C- SEEKING a common market for United Nations member states in the trade of automotive technology and equipment so as to engender this economic health and sustainability as well as the sharing of technologies that will be beneficial to the citizens of member nations,

-1- REQUIRES all nations to phase in policies removing protectionist laws and regulations in the trade of Automotive technology and equipment,

-2- ESTABLISHES the United Nations Free Trade Agreement for the Automotive sector (UNFTAA),

-3- ENCOURAGES global cooperation in the development and distribution of automotive technology, particularly environmentally-friendly automotive technology,

-4- URGES all member nations to ensure that unhealthy barriers to productive competition, which may include trusts and cartels, do not become a hindrance to the benefits of this resolution,

-5- EMPHASIZES that UN member nations reserve the right to employ retaliatory tariffs towards non-UN nations,

-6- MANDATES a timeline for implementation not exceeding five (5) years in length.

Isn't that St. Edmund a bang-up guy (or gal)?

While I was a bit coy about New Years' Resolutions on that other thread, I do have a fond desire to ensure that this proposal will find the widest possible appeal at (re)submission time. Let's get the debate going on this one, as it will likely be brought forward for delegates' consideration in the first week of January 2006. Also, it would be more helpful to point out perceived shortcomings or weaknesses before the vote, for obvious reasons.

Many thanks to Gruenberg for his assistance in posting this draft on some offsite forums for review. I look forward to getting feedback from as many NS states as possible. You're using the above draft, right Gruen?

Steve Perry, GCRC,
President.

I used whatever you posted on NSO. It looks to be this draft, yes.

I used whatever you posted on NSO. It looks to be this draft, yes.

It's just an insignificant housekeeping matter wherein I replaced any mention of "automobile" with "automotive" to address the issue St. Edmund brought up. If you've posted an earlier draft, I'm sure no one will notice anyhow at resubmission time.

Thanks again by the way.

Steve Perry, GCRC,
President.

OK. You are aware, I hope, of my main objection, so I will skip it.

1. "oppotunity" is misspelt.
2. You might want to give countries the right to stop trading with opponents during a war.
3. "productive competition" sounds strange. You might want to change productive to something like beneficial.
4. -A- has a horrible platitude. Protectionism does not "often damage" free flow of trade. Protectioninsm is, by definition, restricting free-trade. I would just put "...have on the economic sustainability of nations,"
5. With minimal changes, you could turn automotive into manufactured goods. ;) Eventually excluding weapons and drugs, for which separate resolutions exist.

OK. You are aware, I hope, of my main objection, so I will skip it.

1. "oppotunity" is misspelt.
2. You might want to give countries the right to stop trading with opponents during a war.
3. "productive competition" sounds strange. You might want to change productive to something like beneficial.
4. -A- has a horrible platitude. Protectionism does not "often damage" free flow of trade. Protectioninsm is, by definition, restricting free-trade. I would just put "...have on the economic sustainability of nations,"
5. With minimal changes, you could turn automotive into manufactured goods. ;) Eventually excluding weapons and drugs, for which separate resolutions exist.

7th (8th?) draft...
United Nations Free Trade Agreement for the Automotive sector (UNFTAA)

A resolution to reduce barriers to free trade and commerce.

Category: Free Trade Strength: Significant Proposed by: Teruchev

Description: The United Nations,

-A- CONCERNED about the damaging effects that protectionist economic policies have on the free flow of trade and the economic sustainability of nations,

-B- CONVINCED that the aforementioned free flow of trade is the most suitable policy for the economic health of all nations and the economic opportunity of their citizens that need such opportunity to provide for themselves,

-C- SEEKING a common market for United Nations member states in the trade of automotive technology and equipment so as to engender this economic health and sustainability as well as the sharing of technologies that will be beneficial to the citizens of member nations,

-1- REQUIRES all nations to phase in policies removing protectionist laws and regulations in the trade of Automotive technology and equipment,

-2- ESTABLISHES the United Nations Free Trade Agreement for the Automotive sector (UNFTAA),

-3- ENCOURAGES global cooperation in the development and distribution of automotive technology, particularly environmentally-friendly automotive technology,

-4- URGES all member nations to ensure that unhealthy barriers to beneficial competition, which may include trusts and cartels, do not become a hindrance to the benefits of this resolution,

-5- EMPHASIZES that UN member nations reserve the right to employ retaliatory tariffs towards non-UN nations,

-6- MANDATES a timeline for implementation not exceeding five (5) years in length.

1. Egads! The meticulous people of Teruchev will be agog at their capable leaders' oversight,

2. I will defer to those nations with a better understanding of game mechanics on this one. How could this be phrased to ensure that it does not cross into illegality? I was tempted to write in "and to suspend this Agreement during hostilities" but backed away from it.

3. Done.

4. Done.

5. Oh gawd, if only...

Steve Perry, GCRC,
President.

Isn't that St. Edmund a bang-up guy (or gal)?

guy.

I personally believe a nation would suspend all trade with an opposing nation anyway during wartime, so it I don't think it would be necessary to actually state such a right in the text of the resolution.

May the blessings of our otters be upon you.

Anthony Holt
Deputy Ambassador for the Republic of Compadria to the U.N.

I personally believe a nation would suspend all trade with an opposing nation anyway during wartime...

...unless that would be in non-compliance with UN legislation. If such is not stated, you will be forced to sell tanks and fighter jets to your enemies.

...unless that would be in non-compliance with UN legislation. If such is not stated, you will be forced to sell tanks and fighter jets to your enemies.

What 'e said. This allowance would need to be explicit, however obvious it might seem to some.

I personally believe a nation would suspend all trade with an opposing nation anyway during wartime, so it I don't think it would be necessary to actually state such a right in the text of the resolution.


And under the 'Rights of Neutral States' resolution any nation wishing to be counted as 'Neutral' in a conflict is already forbidden to sell anything at all to any of the belligerent nations...

I personally believe a nation would suspend all trade with an opposing nation anyway during wartime, so it I don't think it would be necessary to actually state such a right in the text of the resolution.

May the blessings of our otters be upon you.

Anthony Holt
Deputy Ambassador for the Republic of Compadria to the U.N.

If I put in a statement under clause 5 that states, "...and to suspend trade activities during hostilities" am I crossing into illegality?

Steve Perry, GCRC,
President.

If I put in a statement under clause 5 that states, "...and to suspend trade activities during hostilities" am I crossing into illegality?

Steve Perry, GCRC,
President.

No, I think that'd be fine. As St Edmund points out, you might also have to include an allowance for neutral states to stop trading, although I think 'during hostilities' would cover this.

No, I think that'd be fine. As St Edmund points out, you might also have to include an allowance for neutral states to stop trading, although I think 'during hostilities' would cover this.

Well then,

8th (9th) draft? I'm gonna say 9th draft.
United Nations Free Trade Agreement for the Automotive sector (UNFTAA)

A resolution to reduce barriers to free trade and commerce.

Category: Free Trade Strength: Significant Proposed by: Teruchev

Description: The United Nations,

-A- CONCERNED about the damaging effects that protectionist economic policies have on the free flow of trade and the economic sustainability of nations,

-B- CONVINCED that the aforementioned free flow of trade is the most suitable policy for the economic health of all nations and the economic opportunity of their citizens that need such opportunity to provide for themselves,

-C- SEEKING a common market for United Nations member states in the trade of automotive technology and equipment so as to engender this economic health and sustainability as well as the sharing of technologies that will be beneficial to the citizens of member nations,

-1- REQUIRES all nations to phase in policies removing protectionist laws and regulations in the trade of Automotive technology and equipment,

-2- ESTABLISHES the United Nations Free Trade Agreement for the Automotive sector (UNFTAA),

-3- ENCOURAGES global cooperation in the development and distribution of automotive technology, particularly environmentally-friendly automotive technology,

-4- URGES all member nations to ensure that unhealthy barriers to beneficial competition, which may include trusts and cartels, do not become a hindrance to the benefits of this resolution,

-5- EMPHASIZES that UN member nations reserve the right to employ retaliatory tariffs towards non-UN nations, and to suspend trade activities during hostilities,

-6- MANDATES a timeline for implementation not exceeding five (5) years in length.

Bang up suggestions, all.

Thanks for all the input lately, and don't hesitate to keep em coming.

Steve Perry, GCRC,
President.

I suggest the following resolution:

Free tazde rulez. Let's make all tradez free tradez.

Does that work?

I suggest the following resolution:

Free tazde rulez. Let's make all tradez free tradez.

Does that work?

I like it. Unpretentious, yet concise.

Just to illustrate how little stake I have in seeing this proposal pass, I direct you to today's UN Rankings, which shows Teruchev has an almost undetectable Automobile sector.

http://www.nationstates.net/teruchev

I therefore absolve my nation of any conflict of interest in the passage of the UNFTAA. Teruchev's miniscule automotive companies will not be able to run roughshod into developing nations, in fact, it may be countries with huge automotive industries, like Nak, that run roughshod over us.

Happy New Year.

I am impressed, and as a nation with an automobile sector rougly twice the size of yours (56,249th in the world), I applaud your selflessness in opening up your markets to the titan of industry that is Compadria.

May the blessings of our otters be upon you.

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

I have a puppet that's 807th in the world. And when are you going to submit this?

I have a puppet that's 807th in the world. And when are you going to submit this?

Well, there's a lot of proposals in the queue right now, so I'm not sure when my able friends Cluich and Gruen will be able to assist with a TG campaign. I don't think I'd be giving too much away by saying that the passage of this proposal is definitely on the agenda of a few nations and regions.

I am impressed, and as a nation with an automobile sector rougly twice the size of yours (56,249th in the world), I applaud your selflessness in opening up your markets to the titan of industry that is Compadria.

I look forward to seeing Fine Yeldan Automobiles (tm) and the Compadrobile 360 on the streets of our capital Troxville in the very near future.

Steve Perry, GCRC
President

Not to mention the Tarka 56, Leonville 99 and SuperTurbo Ottermobile 44*!

May the blessings of our otters be upon you.

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

*Actually a mini

LAE will vote against this proposition
why:

some nations are past tech and don't have car, this will force them to import car

And some car include
-GPS, oh no
-car radio, oh no
-DVD player, oh no

and even some car are electric
are you crazy, some nations are past tech and have no electricity

Please can you stop to opress past tech nation

L&E, I'd suggest that you have particular gripes about the way some people RP, you talk to them about it, instead of hijacking legitimate threads to moan.

If nations are past-tech and don't acknowledge the existence of cars, then it's unlikely there'd be much demand for them, nor that they would have established trading routes with nations exporting cars. If they do acknowledge the existence of more advanced cars, then it's only right their citizens should have the right to enjoy more advanced technology.

L&E, I'd suggest that you have particular gripes about the way some people RP, you talk to them about it, instead of hijacking legitimate threads to moan.

I'm not hijacking any thread, i just use irony, related to what you did in the passport thread

If nations are past-tech and don't acknowledge the existence of cars, then it's unlikely there'd be much demand for them, nor that they would have established trading routes with nations exporting cars.

Why?
You can use car without roads
It's not because a government doesn't want car, that eveybody in this nation don't want car

Then, if car trade is allowed car may be imported in past tech, and these nation will not be past tech anymore

If you support a proposal to mandate car free trade and then obvioulsy introduction of cars in past tech nation, then why do you want to prevent introduction of photography in these nation?

This resolution will introduce cars and then electricity (cars battery are nothing else than electricyty), even GPS, DVD player in past tech nation.
We will support this proposal anyway.

I'm not hijacking any thread, i just use irony, related to what you did in the passport thread

Irony is intended to be funny. And this is a different objection to the one in the passport thread. If a nation starts importing cars, it need have no similar level of technology. This is not forcing a nation to adopt a particular technology, but merely at accept it. Your 2D barcoding proposal would require nations to actually develop and implement a new technology, without any consideration of their having the technological or financial structure therefor.

Why?
You can use car without roads
It's not because a government doesn't want car, that eveybody in this nation don't want car

Then, if car trade is allowed car may be imported in past tech, and these nation will not be past tech anymore

Exactly. There is a distinction between people, and between governments. This proposal relates to people wanting cars; the other proposal relates to governments having to buy new technology. Can you see the distinction? This proposal would not force any nation to buy anything. It merely allows them to do so. Your 2D barcode suggestion forces them to buy new technology.

If you support a proposal to mandate car free trade and then obvioulsy introduction of cars in past tech nation, then why do you want to prevent introduction of photography in these nation?

I don't. I just pointed out, in the other thread, that an allowance had been made for nations without photography.

But, anyway, if you feel my behaviour is so disingenuous and heinous, here's a tip: don't sink to my level. Take the moral high ground. The oxygen may be a little thinner, but it's such a beautiful view.

Irony is intended to be funny. And this is a different objection to the one in the passport thread. If a nation starts importing cars, it need have no similar level of technology. This is not forcing a nation to adopt a particular technology, but merely at accept it. Your 2D barcoding proposal would require nations to actually develop and implement a new technology, without any consideration of their having the technological or financial structure therefor.


Why not let every nation the right to choose their passport language, while asking every nation, with a possible 2-3 years delay if needed, to include on the passport a "Two-Dimensional Barcode'"
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=10215607&postcount=21

Do you think 2-3 years is not enough, if some nations need 5 years, i' will not be opposed.
Furthermore we said we will b happy to help, and i think we will not be alone.




Exactly. There is a distinction between people, and between governments. This proposal relates to people wanting cars; the other proposal relates to governments having to buy new technology. Can you see the distinction? This proposal would not force any nation to buy anything. It merely allows them to do so. Your 2D barcode suggestion forces them to buy new technology.

It seems to me your forgot that government are not people. It's just a structure, an administration, only that, they are not sentiant or sapient. Then there is absolutly no difference between asking them to allow cars or to use photography.


But, anyway, if you feel my behaviour is so disingenuous and heinous, here's a tip: don't sink to my level. Take the moral high ground. The oxygen may be a little thinner, but it's such a beautiful view.

Sorry if it was not very funny for you, but the difference is my post was irony (as i always support Free Trade Zone for Automotive Industry), unlike your post in the passport thread (please let me now if i'm wrong and if your post was indeed irony, i will be very happy to have been stupid and to not have seen your irony anyway)

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=10215607&postcount=21

Do you think 2-3 years is not enough, if some nations need 5 years, i' will not be opposed.
Furthermore we said we will b happy to help, and i think we will not be alone.

That wasn't the post I was commenting on though, was it? And I somehow doubt, however powerful your "2D barcode industry", that you could supply 30,000 nations with it.

I'm not interested in your suggestion, basically. If it's included, it's no sweat off my back. I don't care either way. But let's keep that to that thread.

It seems to me your forgot that government are not people. It's just a structure, an administration, only that, they are not sentiant or sapient. Then there is absolutly no difference between asking them to allow cars or to use photography.

That very sentence highlights the difference: 'allow cars' vs. 'use photography'. The UNFTAA does not incur costs for the government, because it is people, and not the government, who will be buying the cars. Buying, distributing and using cameras would be something the government would have to pay for under your suggestion. There is a difference, precisely because, as I said and you restated, there is a difference between 'government' and 'people'.

That very sentence highlights the difference: 'allow cars' vs. 'use photography'. The UNFTAA does not incur costs for the government, because it is people, and not the government, who will be buying the cars. Buying, distributing and using cameras would be something the government would have to pay for under your suggestion. There is a difference, precisely because, as I said and you restated, there is a difference between 'government' and 'people'.


In fact, the barcode is also a solution to reduce the cost of border administrations, borders officials will have only to read the informations with a barcode reader, and the information will be then checked and recorded easily and without mistakes, this is called productivity:) :) :)

In fact, the barcode is also a solution to reduce the cost of border administrations, borders officials will have only to read the informations with a barcode reader, and the information will be then checked and recorded easily and without mistakes, this is called productivity

We find it's more productive just to look at their face, and decide on that basis.

We find it's more productive just to look at their face, and decide on that basis.

Sorry, i don't understand what you mean

Sorry, i don't understand what you mean

It was a [bad] joke, about the excessively racist tendencies of the Gruenberger Customs & Immigration Department.

Anyway, I'm tired, and we should give Teruchev his thread. According to Hack, 2D barcoding is actually pretty cheap. So I'm fine with that, past tech be screwed.

Now, let's get back to promoting freedom through pollution and forced political oppression!

It was a joke, about the excessively racist tendencies of the Gruenberger Customs & Immigration Department.

[B]Anyway, I'm tired, and we should give Teruchev his thread. According to Hack, 2D barcoding is actually pretty cheap. So I'm fine with that, past tech be screwed.

Now, let's get back to promoting freedom through pollution and forced political oppression!

OOC: Jeez, I go away for one weekend and goats and the Portugese overrun my thread! ;)

OOC: Jeez, I go away for one weekend and goats and the Portugese overrun my thread! ;)

Hope you will forgive me for the Hijacking, lol;)

Now that we have a free trade resolution at vote for the first time in months, I thought why not rescue my proposal, just as it was about to fall off the precipice into irrelevancy and/or redundancy?

OOC: What's everybody's lives like at this point? Should this proposal be redrafted as a general manufactured goods treaty a la what Gruen tried to sneak in with the Teddy Bears thing? Or is it a finely tuned piece that merely needs a good ol' TG campaign and Gen. Ass'y floor vote?

If we want to turn this into a general mfg. goods agreement, I'm going to need help, as my area of expertise is, surprise surprise, the automotive industry.

OOC: Personally, I favour keeping it to vroom vrooms for now. It's more specific, but it allows us to do it one step at a time. I have no objections to it being made into manufactured goods, that said.

Meh. Although my distant objections still stand as my opinion, thinking strategically I will probably support the OMGEvilEcoThreats Free Trade Zone.

Happy to see this has been resurrected. We will support this proposition.

Excellent, a nice new BMW 3/15 Wartburg Roadster is closer to becoming reality.

http://www.channel4.com/4car/media/features/2004/bmw-75/03-large/1931-3-15-PS-Wartburg-Roads.jpg

Maybe you should help people find the final draft...

Maybe you should help people find the final draft...

But of course, it's here, just a little buried...

United Nations Free Trade Agreement for the Automotive sector (UNFTAA)

A resolution to reduce barriers to free trade and commerce.

Category: Free Trade Strength: Significant Proposed by: Teruchev

Description: The United Nations,

-A- CONCERNED about the damaging effects that protectionist economic policies have on the free flow of trade and the economic sustainability of nations,

-B- CONVINCED that the aforementioned free flow of trade is the most suitable policy for the economic health of all nations and the economic opportunity of their citizens that need such opportunity to provide for themselves,

-C- SEEKING a common market for United Nations member states in the trade of automotive technology and equipment so as to engender this economic health and sustainability as well as the sharing of technologies that will be beneficial to the citizens of member nations,

-1- REQUIRES all nations to phase in policies removing protectionist laws and regulations in the trade of Automotive technology and equipment,

-2- ESTABLISHES the United Nations Free Trade Agreement for the Automotive sector (UNFTAA),

-3- ENCOURAGES global cooperation in the development and distribution of automotive technology, particularly environmentally-friendly automotive technology,

-4- URGES all member nations to ensure that unhealthy barriers to beneficial competition, which may include trusts and cartels, do not become a hindrance to the benefits of this resolution,

-5- EMPHASIZES that UN member nations reserve the right to employ retaliatory tariffs towards non-UN nations, and to suspend trade activities during hostilities,

-6- MANDATES a timeline for implementation not exceeding five (5) years in length.

This was declared to be in pristine condition as of late last year, but as always, comments and suggestions are welcome.

Steve Perry, GCRC,
President.

bump

I don't want to hijack the proposal, but is there a way to use this at all to take out the appalling Hydrogen Powered Vehicles resolution, or Alternative Fuels, by including an environmental clause, and then repealing them for redundancy?

Does this count?
-3- ENCOURAGES global cooperation in the development and distribution of automotive technology, particularly environmentally-friendly automotive technology,

Does this count?
I guess.

Also, what about using the committee set up by Yelda's GFDA to abritrate trade disputes?

No. My nation doesn't use cars anyway, and gasoline and diesel and such is banned (we use hydrogen and nuclear energy). This would mess my nation up!

We oppose this proposal entirely.

No. My nation doesn't use cars anyway, and gasoline and diesel and such is banned (we use hydrogen and nuclear energy). This would mess my nation up!

We oppose this proposal entirely.

My friend, you are still allowed to ban whatever you want. This just requires you to have the same regulations for domestic and foreign cars.

Earlier you suggested you didn't want to define 'protectionist policies', especially, but how about: "all protectionist mechanisms in the automotive trade including, but not limited to, tariffs, duties, subsidies and subventions" (stolen from GFDA). You could also require trade disputes to be arbitrated by the UNFTC.

Heh, farm subsidies. I would include quotas.

I don't want to hijack the proposal, but is there a way to use this at all to take out the appalling Hydrogen Powered Vehicles resolution, or Alternative Fuels, by including an environmental clause, and then repealing them for redundancy?

Oh yes, those two gems.

As Hack has pointed out in this thread, Hydrogen Powered Vehicles, are, oh, what's the word...scary, and while I don't disagree with the other resolution's intentions, where in the world did they come up with the arbitrary "1% of profits"?

IMO, repeal and replace Alternative Fuels, or else insert a subclause in mine "encouraging" it, and completely scrap the Hydrogen Powered Vehicles one.

Earlier you suggested you didn't want to define 'protectionist policies', especially, but how about: "all protectionist mechanisms in the automotive trade including, but not limited to, tariffs, duties, farm subsidies and subventions" (stolen from GFDA). You could also require trade disputes to be arbitrated by the UNFTC.

I don't personally see anything wrong with this outside of the minor concerns of creating a HoC violation, and would be in favour of a nuanced clause such as the Gruenberger delegate's suggestion based on the fact that this proposal now affects "automotive" instead of "automobile", i.e. we've got more than just your Grandma's Buick Century affected now.

Steve Perry, GCRC,
President.

Let me know when you propose it again, and I'll ask my region's delegate to approve it.

bump

I agree with Shazbotdom. We do not want free trade. Our automobile industry is already protected by tariffs. Internally we have moved to a plug in hybrid electric automotive system using kelp ethanol 75% of kelps biomass can be converted to ethanol making it the most efficient plant for ethanol production "if you can manage kelp farms" and electricity from solar, wind, and wave energy turbines. We do not wish to have more gasoline automobiles flood our market.

Amara Cruon, Trade Minister to the Commonalitarianism

bump

Are you gonna put the examples in?

With suggested revisions, version 11.

United Nations Free Trade Agreement for the Automotive sector (UNFTAA)

A resolution to reduce barriers to free trade and commerce.

Category: Free Trade Strength: Significant Proposed by: Teruchev

Description: The United Nations,

-A- CONCERNED about the damaging effects that protectionist economic policies have on the free flow of trade and the economic sustainability of nations,

-B- CONVINCED that the aforementioned free flow of trade is the most suitable policy for the economic health of all nations and the economic opportunity of their citizens that need such opportunity to provide for themselves,

-C- SEEKING a common market for United Nations member states in the trade of automotive technology and equipment so as to engender this economic health and sustainability as well as the sharing of technologies that will be beneficial to the citizens of member nations,

-1- REQUIRES all nations to phase in policies removing protectionist laws and regulations in the trade of Automotive technology and equipment, including, but not limited to, tariffs, duties, quotas, farm subsidies and subventions,

-2- ESTABLISHES the United Nations Free Trade Agreement for the Automotive sector (UNFTAA),

-3- ENCOURAGES global cooperation in the development and distribution of automotive technology, particularly environmentally-friendly automotive technology,

-4- URGES all member nations to ensure that unhealthy barriers to beneficial competition, which may include trusts and cartels, do not become a hindrance to the benefits of this resolution,

-5- EMPHASIZES that UN member nations reserve the right to employ retaliatory tariffs towards non-UN nations, and to suspend trade activities during hostilities,

-6- MANDATES a timeline for implementation not exceeding five (5) years in length.

Nooooooooo. For the love of God, think of the children!!!! What will happen to my Porche trees if I stop giving out farm subsidies???

Nooooooooo. For the love of God, think of the children!!!! What will happen to my Porche trees if I stop giving out farm subsidies???

Just on agricultural equipment, of course.

Feel free to encourage overproduction of grains, oilseeds, etc. ;)