NationStates Jolt Archive

Right, we can't tax the citizens, taxing nations would leave some seriously disadvantage and a progressive system would cause so much extra bureaucracy it would be ridiculous.

The solution?

Tax non-UN nations!



UN Funding Act

RECALLING UN resolution #4 “UN Taxation ban”,

NOTING that the UN is currently funded by voluntary donations from member states,

DEEPLY REGRETTING that this funding operation cannot sustain the financial growth of current and future UN operations,

SEEKING to rectify this potentially serious fiscal situation,

TAKING INTO ACCOUNT the variation in economic development between the member nations,

The United Nations hereby,

MANDATES the establishment of a standardised tariff for all goods imported into member states originating from non-member states, the rate of which will be set at 20%,

AUTHORISES the further establishment of a zero-rated standardised tariff for all goods imported into member states from other member states,

ACCEPTS that the above two clauses may be declared null and void during war or economic sanctioning,

PROCLAIMS that the 50% of the revenue received from the abovementioned import tariffs be directed to the United Nations’ for the purposes of funding it’s international operations and legislative requirements.

That's got to be illegal

I love it! Though I would prefer the money go in our pockets, not the gnomes'.

[EDIT:]

That's got to be illegalHow?

I just looked at it and was sure something would ban it... It seems not.

by the way it says orginaly posted by DBL not me.

This poses a problem for countries such as Norderia, who already impose tariffs on goods, both from members and non-members alike. Cutting the UN in on more of that money would endanger some of our local programs, and raising the tariffs would endanger our already tenuous trade deals.

So, alas, were this to pass, Norderia would not be able to participate. Since it is not demanding participation, however, we have no problem supporting it.

That's got to be illegal

Depends on who's paying the tax, I would imagine.

sometimes a UN resolution can affect non-un members. the GFDA is a prime example.

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

That act affects non-un members and its wasn't illegal.

I just had a crazy thought about thousands of non-UN nations applying for membership, vote against the proposal if it ever reaches quorum, and then resign from the UN afterwards...

This is a brilliant idea and the Free Land of Party Mode will make sure to approve it when it's done.

Some typos to fix:
SEEKING to rectify this potentially seriously fiscal situation
serious* (if this isn't a typo, what's a 'seriously fiscal situation'? ;))

MANDATES the establishment of a standardised tariffs for
tariff*

ACCEPTS that the above two clause may
clauses*

Finally, does anyone think
declared null and void in the case of war or economic sanctions
should be 'during war or economics sanctions' so that it doesn't seem as if it will permanently be null and void (like a repeal) if a war or sanction comes?

Sounds like a great plan. You got my vote.

Love and esterel is a proud member of the "Knootian International Stabilisation Treaty" inside which many nations (not all) had choosen to establish free trade between them. Amid those nations, some (as Love and esterel) are UN-members and some are not.

http://ns.goobergunch.net/wiki/index.php/KIST

Furthermore inside "PARALLEL PACIFIC", the region where our nation is located, many UN nations and non-UN have signed bilateral FTA to differents levels.

Love and esterel likes very much the UN, but we will never question our beloved diplomatic, economic, cultural, scientist and trades links with others nations even if those are not UN members.

IN RL, this poposal will be equivalent for the European Union members as Germany or Sweden to establish 20% tariffs for goods from Switzerland or Norway.

The UN has no jurisdiction over Non-UN Nations. Thus this proposal would most likely (if not definitally) be illegal under the Rules of UN Proposals.

The UN has no jurisdiction over Non-UN Nations. Thus this proposal would most likely (if not definitally) be illegal under the Rules of UN Proposals.

Even if we strongly oppose it, we don't see anything illegal in this proposal.

sometimes a UN resolution can affect non-un members. the GFDA is a prime example.

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

That act affects non-un members and its wasn't illegal.
You do realize UN nations already had that right, regardless of the resolution...right?

We are amused, but sadly opposed.

~Rono Pyandran
Chief of Staff

i know that but the fact that its been used in a passed resolution also makes this proposal legal. the GFDA set a precedent.

if this flies we will also oppose it. Setting trading tarrifs is a nations right and their decision. not the NSUN's.

Ms Midori Kasigi-Nero, deputy kirisuban ambassador

i know that but the fact that its been used in a passed resolution also makes this proposal legal. the GFDA set a precedent.
Not at all.

1. GFDA did not directly affect non-members. It merely acknowledged that UN members did affect non-members, as a matter of course.
2. It gave nations a right (that they already had); this proposal mandates they affect non-members.

As such, there is a difference, and I think this proposal is illegal, by the standards of GFDA.

All it does is set a single tariff for goods imported from non-UN nations into the UN. Whilst it does affect non-UN nations, it does not legislate over them, therefore allowed. Otherwise a law saying that citizens of non UN nations need a visa to get into an UN nation is against the law.

Effecting non-UN nations is allowed, directly legislating over them isn't...

Not at all.

1. GFDA did not directly affect non-members. It merely acknowledged that UN members did affect non-members, as a matter of course.
2. It gave nations a right (that they already had); this proposal mandates they affect non-members.

As such, there is a difference, and I think this proposal is illegal, by the standards of GFDA.

Indirectly almost every proposal affects non-UN-members.

This proposal has nothing illegal as it will not induce any change in legislation of any non-UN members, and will not change anything for anyone inside the borders of any non-UN-nation.

Indirectly almost every proposal affects non-UN-members.
I agree.

This proposal has nothing illegal as it will not induce any change in legislation of any non-UN members, and will not change anything for anyone inside the borders of any non-UN-nation.
Having a 20% tariff slapped on their exports won't change anything for them?

I agree.


Having a 20% tariff slapped on their exports won't change anything for them?

in the legislation of their own nation: no
inside the borders of their own nations: no
Indirectly : yes (as almost every UN proposal) even if we care about that, I fail to see what is illegal here. This is pure national sovereignty.

Even if will never do that, nothing prevent Love and esterel to establish 20% tariffs for Gruenberg's goods (food apart), or in RL nothing prevent US to establish embargo against Cuba's many products. Nothing illegal. This is pure national sovereignty.

We'll see if this is legal or not in due course.

apart from the legality issue is it wise to slap a universal NSUN wide tarrrif on a non-un nations exports to us?

its ecomomic suicide and nations vote with their feet as well as their merchant fleets.

Any tarrif applied by a UN member would probally be levied on them in return if they tried to export to that nation.



Ms Midori Kasigi-Nero, Deputy Kirisuban Ambassador

nothing prevent Love and esterel to establish 20% tariffs for Gruenberg's goods (food and nuclear energy and recycled goods and certified waste disposal services apart)
Quite.

Your point? (Although I disagree that the implementation of tariffs is a matter of sovereignty. Sovereignty refers to jurisdiction over a set of people, or a place - international trade transcends such distinctions).

Anyway, this is getting away from the subject at hand. I appreciate there is a general sentiment that the GA would vote down a UN-wide free trade agreement, and thus underhand ways of slipping it in are being sought, but I don't think this is the way to approach it. The greatest economies of the world are not in the UN; I see little point trying to annoy them.

Quite.

Your point? (Although I disagree that the implementation of tariffs is a matter of sovereignty. Sovereignty refers to jurisdiction over a set of people, or a place - international trade transcends such distinctions).

And what about international migration of people.
Why does international migration of people doesn't transcends such distinction then?
Does only goods cross borders. Doesn't any people on earth have friends and relatives across borders?

Ok, I understand better your very personal biased perception of national sovereignty.
It deals only with people and places but not at all with goods and money.
Goods are more important than people. Great philosophy.

We'll see if this is legal or not in due course.

apart from the legality issue is it wise to slap a universal NSUN wide tarrrif on a non-un nations exports to us?

its ecomomic suicide and nations vote with their feet as well as their merchant fleets.

Any tarrif applied by a UN member would probally be levied on them in return if they tried to export to that nation.



Ms Midori Kasigi-Nero, Deputy Kirisuban Ambassador

Not really; there are enough nations in the UN to make it more then self sufficient and it's a large enough market for exports, plus the zero rated tariff on imports from UN nations would, I believe, lead to an increase in inter-UN trade, and thus improve the economy of all UN nations.

OoC: The other reason is so that is actually some benefit, and some to being in the UN in an RP sense, and some disadvantage to not being in it.

And what about international migration of people.
Why does international migration of people doesn't transcends such distinction then?
Yes, of course it does. Hence our support for legislation on refugees, displaced war victims, or freedom of movement for working persons.

Ok, I understand better what sovereignty is for you.
It deals only with people and places but not at all with goods and money.
Goods are more important than people. Great philosophy.
Isn't it!

[/HIJACK]

Also, what category would this be? It has one Protective Tariffs clause, and one Free Trade clause.

I'm thinking free trade, as I think the free trade effects would have more effect to UN members, plus the protectionist side would be different from nation to nation (some would have to raise tarrifs, other lower, some would get more revenue from it, others less). Plus, I think that the UN having some cash would improve the economy...

Sir Cyril, its not just me you have to convince about the benefits of a UN wide protectionist policy and a UN wide trade zone.

its the general assembly and the regional delegates that you need to convince.

also it looks like a more protectionist policy to me than a free trade proposal.


Ms Midori Kasigi-Nero, Deputy Kirisuban Ambassador

Well, it's technically a UN customs union (OoC: Like the EU) which is considered to be one step up from a Free Trade Zone, and the protectionist bit only really effects non UN members (OoC: who don't feel the stat changes)

Yes, of course it does. Hence our support for legislation on refugees, displaced war victims, or freedom of movement for working persons.


Ok thanks for agreeing that sovereinty can be transcended both by goods and people.

It's why if you say :"Sovereignty refers to jurisdiction over a set of people, or a place"

then you have to say also "Sovereignty refers to jurisdiction over a set of people, or a place or goods"

Well, it's technically a UN customs union (OoC: Like the EU) which is considered to be one step up from a Free Trade Zone, and the protectionist bit only really effects non UN members (OoC: who don't feel the stat changes)

In case of the EU establishing 20% tariffs on Norway's and Switzerland good's, I'm afraid that's it will change Norway and Switzerland stats.

I would like to point out that the EU realized it's customs Unions, without increasing tariffs for non-EU-members.

From wikipedia:


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Union_Association_Agreement
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Free_Trade_Agreements

EU Agreements with third states
Agreements with FTA provisions

* Algeria AA (2005)
* Croatia SAA (2005)
* Republic of Macedonia (FYROM) SAA (2004)
* Mexico AA (2000)
* Chile AA (2003)
* South Africa AA (2000)
* Faroe Islands, autonomous entity of Denmark (1997)
* Switzerland FTA (1973)
* Morocco AA (2000)
* Tunisia AA (1998)
* Egypt AA (2004)
* Jordan AA (2002)
* Lebanon AA (2006)
* Israel AA (2000)
* Palestinian Authority interim AA (1997)
* Bulgaria EA (1995)
* Romania EA (1995)
* Albania SAA (signed 2006, entry into force pending)
* Andorra CU (1991)
* San Marino CU (2002)
* Turkey CU (1996)

OoC: Note the OoC! The actual in game stat change won't affect the non-UN nations

Ok thanks for agreeing that sovereinty can be transcended both by goods and people.

It's why if you say :"Sovereignty refers to jurisdiction over a set of people, or a place"

then you have to say also "Sovereignty refers to jurisdiction over a set of people, or a place or goods"
No, you misunderstand. The "goods" to me are just extensions of the people - they're manifestations of the activities of the people.

But if you want, it could be phrased as "sovereignty entails jurisdiction over a set of people, and/or a specific place, and the activities conducted solely within that place". Ugly, but I think it demonstrates the difference between regulating, say, alcohol age limits (domestic) and trade in alcoholic goods (international): to me, sovereignty would only apply in the former case. Similarly for legislating murder (domestic) and extradition of murderers (international).

OoC: Note the OoC! The actual in game stat change won't affect the non-UN nations


You right

But if you want, it could be phrased as "sovereignty entails jurisdiction over a set of people, and/or a specific place, and the activities conducted within".

Agree.
And that means also sovereignty over activities from other nations to be conducted within.


EDIT as you changed you sentence after my answer:

But if you want, it could be phrased as "sovereignty entails jurisdiction over a set of people, and/or a specific place, and the activities conducted solely within that place". Ugly, but I think it demonstrates the difference between regulating, say, alcohol age limits (domestic) and trade in alcoholic goods (international): to me, sovereignty would only apply in the former case. Similarly for legislating murder (domestic) and extradition of murderers (international).

So, You states that the trade in Gruenberg of cocaine made in Bolivia from coca cultivated in Bolivia is not to be entailed by Gruenberg sovereignty?

For example a classical protectionist measure is to prohibit a product (only manufactured by foreign companies) for various technical reasons, when it's not yet ready by national industry, in order to give time to the national industry to manufacture it. But in reality this is nothing different from tarrifs. This is really the same. There are so many examples of stuff like that. Exportations subventions is the same as dumping. No differences.

OoC: Note the OoC! The actual in game stat change won't affect the non-UN nations
Another case of wishful thinking that can't be supported by existing rules. Since there is no UN Category under which this could be correctly filed, it would be illegal for category violation ... regardless of the category chosen.

It'll be illegal if it's posted, so don't post it.

Another case of wishful thinking that can't be supported by existing rules. Since there is no UN Category under which this could be correctly filed, it would be illegal for category violation ... regardless of the category chosen.

It'll be illegal if it's posted, so don't post it.

There is the following category and effects, but I suppose it will not fit to the title of the proposal.

Category: Advancement of the Industry
Effects: Protective tariffs

By the way, I personnaly really disagree with the classification of "Protective tariffs" in "Advancement of the Industry", I really don't think it's objective or fair but this is my personnal opinion.

This no longer has Norderia's support.

As stated, we cannot play with our tariffs and mandating that we set a 20% tariff on goods will either result in budget cuts for us, or higher tariffs for our trade partners, and that will blow any deals.

I've also decided that I don't like the free trade clause, even if it isn't a mandate.

Another case of wishful thinking that can't be supported by existing rules. Since there is no UN Category under which this could be correctly filed, it would be illegal for category violation ... regardless of the category chosen.

It'll be illegal if it's posted, so don't post it.

How is it not Protective Tariffs?

Regardless

IC: As Secretary for Aberdeen to the UN, I must oppose this proposal outright. The Aberdeen Constitution founded the Aberdeen Free Trade Zone and this zone will be heavily threatened should this resolution be passed. With both non-UN members and UN members alike, the Aberdeen FTZ will be unable to operate as it was enacted in the constitution. Considering both the Aberdeen Constitution and the UN resolutions are mandatory, there is no maneuvering room.

As a servant of the Forgotten Territories, I must also oppose this proposal. While Forgottenlands UN is officially part of the UN, Forgottenlands continually holds a position of following the UN's laws, even though the UN will not recognize the dual membership. The third nation in the Forgotten Territories, Angel Fire, remains firmly outside the UN's influence. Should this resolution be passed, the economic impact upon the Forgotten Territories will be devestating.

This resolution clearly fails to take into account the bonds between nations within the same region. We would be more inclined to support it if it dealt with extra-regional shipping from non-UN nations.

How is it not Protective Tariffs?
Ehh. 'Cause I screwed up, and forgot that one.

Still, you can't specify percentages or quantify where the funds are going in that way. Our formulas may not work that way ... and they surely don't work that way on non-UN nations. No matter how you phrase it, UN nations will take the hit for this proposal, and non-UN nations will have no effect.

Since that doesn't match the text, I think we'd rule that it comes down. I could even make a case for a "Game Mechanics" violation. The author might not get a warning, but it wouldn't be allowed to go to quorum. That's not a precedent we're willing to set.

This proposal has nothing illegal as it will not induce any change in legislation of any non-UN members, and will not change anything for anyone inside the borders of any non-UN-nation.Wrong it will effect legislation in non-UN members in regards to current treaties with member nations. If member nations are mandated to apply any form of tarrif on them that was not in place; then those nations would have to take action if those current treaties are violated as a result of this. Thus producing more problems than doing good as we seem to forget that there are more nations outside the UN than in it.. We need many of them more than they need us.

Since many nations as members are in rigions where they are a minority nation, as a member of the UN, this would create hardships within some regions above what might already exist.

Highly amusing, though I'm not convinced of the need to erect more barriers between UN and non-UN nations. Besides, the Free Trade clause is a no-go for me.

The government of the St Edmundan Antarctic must also state its opposition to this proposal. Whilst we would find the creation of a UN-wide customs union quite tolerable this would have to be open to any non-UN nations that are already involved in customs unions with member-nations (as the other members of the Godwinnian Commonwealth are with our own nation, for example) too in order to be acceptable to us.

Although, come to think of it, this clause ACCEPTS that the above two clauses may be declared null and void during war or economic sanctioning, could be read as allowing us to drop the tariffs on trade with those non-UN nations whilst we & they were allies in a war... ;)

The proposal is not illegal. UN resolutions may not mandate non-UN members to do anything, but they ARE allowed to modify UN members' behaviour towards non-UN states. In my understanding of the matter.

The problem with allowing countries to set there own tariffs with regards to non-UN nations is the problem of trade diversion. Example

Cobdenia and St Edmund have a free trade agreement. Cobdenia also has a free trade agreement with Gruenberg, but St Edmund charges 20% on all products imported from Gruenberg. Gruenberg wants to sell it's products in St Edmund. So Gruenberg ships it's stuff to Cobdenia, unloads it, loads it again and imports it into St Edmund, and no tarriffs are paid, St Edmund gets nothing.

Hence a customs union is required if you want a functioning free trade area.

The problem with allowing countries to set there own tariffs with regards to non-UN nations is the problem of trade diversion. Example

Cobdenia and St Edmund have a free trade agreement. Cobdenia also has a free trade agreement with Gruenberg, but St Edmund charges 20% on all products imported from Gruenberg. Gruenberg wants to sell it's products in St Edmund. So Gruenberg ships it's stuff to Cobdenia, unloads it, loads it again and imports it into St Edmund, and no tarriffs are paid, St Edmund gets nothing.

Hence a customs union is required if you want a functioning free trade area.

Cobdenia might want to look into a wider free-trade agreement (http://s11.invisionfree.com/Antarctic_Oasis/index.php?showtopic=32) with the entire Antarctic Oasis region. ;)

UN Funding Act

Free Trade, Strong

RECALLING UN resolution #4 “UN Taxation ban”,

NOTING that the UN is currently funded by voluntary donations from member states,

DEEPLY REGRETTING that this funding operation cannot sustain the financial growth of current and future UN operations,

SEEKING to rectify this potentially serious fiscal situation,

TAKING INTO ACCOUNT the variation in economic development between the member nations,

The United Nations hereby,

ESTABLISHES the United Nations Committee for Legitimate Expenditure (UNCLE)

MANDATES the establishment of standardised tariffs for all goods imported into member states originating from non-member states. Such rates are to be set by UNCLE and are to be based on a basket of tarrifs currently in existence,

AUTHORISES the further establishment of a zero-rated standardised tariff for all goods imported into member states from other member states,

ACCEPTS that the above two clauses may be declared null and void whilst a state is actively involved in war or economic sanctioning,

PROCLAIMS that a percentage, to be decided by UNCLE, of the revenue received from the abovementioned import tariffs be directed to the United Nations’ for the purposes of funding it’s international operations and legislative requirements.

Changes:

Numbers removed and replaced by a UNCLE

The Basket of current tarriffs; this basically means an average of all existing tariffs so non-UN nations will not be affected, for all intents and purposes.

Ok, I'm beginning to worry you're actually being serious with this...

UN Funding Act

Free Trade, Strong

The Basket of current tarriffs; this basically means an average of all existing tariffs so non-UN nations will not be affected, for all intents and purposes.

This still destroys existing customs unions that cross the UN/non-UN boundary. We are still opposed to it.

Nothing stopping them from joining the UN and enjoying the benefits of the customs union

The problem with allowing countries to set there own tariffs with regards to non-UN nations is the problem of trade diversion. Example

Cobdenia and St Edmund have a free trade agreement. Cobdenia also has a free trade agreement with Gruenberg, but St Edmund charges 20% on all products imported from Gruenberg. Gruenberg wants to sell it's products in St Edmund. So Gruenberg ships it's stuff to Cobdenia, unloads it, loads it again and imports it into St Edmund, and no tarriffs are paid, St Edmund gets nothing.

Hence a customs union is required if you want a functioning free trade area.

Alternatively, we bring Gruenberg (and the rest of the Antarctic Oasis) into that free trade agreement.

By the way, would a business based in a UN nation that imports raw materials from a non-UN nation, and turns them into manufactured items for export back to the latter country, have to pay the 20% tarrif, despite this intended re-exportation? Even if this means that it loses the export market, because the necessary increase in its prices means that firms based in other non-UN nations can now undercut its prices despite it being more efficient than them in the actual manufacturing side of things? And then that it loses the complete supply of that raw material to those rival firms too, meaning that it can't make those items for its domestic market either?

Nothing stopping them from joining the UN and enjoying the benefits of the customs union

And "enjoying" the details of all the other existing resolutions, including any that are actually against their principles? :(

OOC: How about the 'One UN nation per player' rule? Just because you don't have any "puppets"...

Cobdenia might want to look into a wider free-trade agreement (http://s11.invisionfree.com/Antarctic_Oasis/index.php?showtopic=32) with the entire Antarctic Oasis region. ;)

The nations of the Godwinnian Commonwealth will certainly be looking into this possibility...

Numbers removed and replaced by a UNCLE



You mean the United Nations Command for Law Enforcement? :p

http://fp.culttv.plus.com/ukculttv/logos/uncle.jpg

The nations of the Godwinnian Commonwealth will certainly be looking into this possibility...Aw, hell. I thought we'd ended the region-pimping. :p

At the risk of deletion, I'd like to say that both Cobdenia and St Edmund are welcome to sign our free-trade pact. Final draft's in a different thread than the one linked, though.

Nothing stopping them from joining the UN and enjoying the benefits of the customs union

I believe I have indicated a problem that prevents nations from joining the UN but still suffering from the customs union - both on the UN and non-UN side of the issue

The problem with allowing countries to set there own tariffs with regards to non-UN nations is the problem of trade diversion. Example

Cobdenia and St Edmund have a free trade agreement. Cobdenia also has a free trade agreement with Gruenberg, but St Edmund charges 20% on all products imported from Gruenberg. Gruenberg wants to sell it's products in St Edmund. So Gruenberg ships it's stuff to Cobdenia, unloads it, loads it again and imports it into St Edmund, and no tarriffs are paid, St Edmund gets nothing.

Hence a customs union is required if you want a functioning free trade area.
Why? All this does is neutralize St Edmund's tariffs, which only furthers the free trade area. Or am I missing something?

Currently, Ceorana opposes this for being selfish. The benefits of free trade should be extended to all nations, not just those that are in the UN. This could also hamper trade in other areas, such as regions, that already have free trade agreements among UN and non-UN members.

Enrique Lopez
Ambassador to the United Nations

Why? All this does is neutralize St Edmund's tariffs, which only furthers the free trade area. Or am I missing something?

Doesn't if force us to impose tariffs on all imports into our UN member-nation (i.e., currently, the St Edmundan Antarctic) from all of the Godwinnian Commonwealth's other [non-UN] nations?

Any more complaints about the actual resolution's aims can be considered to be answered with a resounding "Bah!"

Any more complaints about the actual resolution's aims can be considered to be answered with a resounding "Bah!"

If it's agreed the UN is underfunded then I might support a similar resolution, if the tariff was set verrrrrrrrry low. .5% perhaps. I have looked at the current status of the UN budget in some time. What UN projects are currently underfunded?

Even if we still strongly disagree with the new proposal, because of already existing free trade zone including both UN-member and non-UN-member; we would like to commend the effort of Sir Cyril MacLehose-Strangways-Jones III and his staff for trying to solve the problem of UN funding.

Neoma would never pay the useless UN a dime of our hard earned money.

We would go to war to insure it.

If it's agreed the UN is underfunded then I might support a similar resolution, if the tariff was set verrrrrrrrry low. .5% perhaps. I have looked at the current status of the UN budget in some time. What UN projects are currently underfunded?

All of them

To start off, what UN projects are currently funded?

Doesn't if force us to impose tariffs on all imports into our UN member-nation (i.e., currently, the St Edmundan Antarctic) from all of the Godwinnian Commonwealth's other [non-UN] nations?
I was referring to Cob's example, not the resolution.

Even if this means that it loses the export market, because the necessary increase in its prices means that firms based in other non-UN nations can now undercut its prices despite it being more efficient than them in the actual manufacturing side of things? And then that it loses the complete supply of that raw material to those rival firms too, meaning that it can't make those items for its domestic market either?Hey, I like the sound of that.

The Hack supports the UN's latest attempt to eviscerate itself!


http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v251/Tindalos/Random/doctor.jpg
Doctor Denis Leary
Ambassador to the UN
The Federated Technocratic Oligarchy of the Most Glorious Hack

We would go to war to insure it.

Go to war with whom? We would encourage the honourable delegate to think before he speaks.

Anyway... An amusingly interesting proposal. But such a one-size-fits-all economic policy will be far more harmful than helplful. We will have to oppose.


Christelle Zyryanov,
Ambassador the the United Nations,
PDSRA

Although immoral, stupid and funny, I will support. That is because the idea is so cunning, crude and clever.

Good work.

This is better than some other recent drafts posted on here to encourage debate. It's moot though, it's probably illegal.

Sod it. I think I'll do another boaty one...