NationStates Jolt Archive

New Economic Block
Put forth by the Federation of Undbagarten


-Article I-

Member States of the United Nations shall take all appropriate measures to promote the development of trade and economic relations between their respective countries.

-Article II-

Member States shall grant each other most favoured nation treatment in all matters relating to:

a. Customs duties and charges of any kind, including the method of levying such duties and charges, imposed in or in connection with importation or exportation imposed on the transfer of payment for imports or exports;
b. Rules and formalities connected with customs clearance
c. All internal taxes or other internal charges of any kind imposed on or in connection with imported and exported goods, and
d. Issuance of import and export licences.

-Article III-

The provisions of Article 2 shall not, however, apply to the grant or continuance of any [remove semi-colon]

a. Advantages accorded by either Member States to contiguous countries with the purposes of facilitating frontier trade;
b. Advantages resulting from customs unions or other agreements on customs free trade;
c. Advantages accorded by virtue of multilateral economic agreement relating to the international commerce.

-Article IV-

Member States through the competent authorities of all member countries shall issue the necessary licences for export and import of commodities mentioned in Schedule 'A' and 'B' annexed to this Agreement which are indicative and not exhaustive, in conformity with the laws, rules and regulations in force in their respective countries.

-Article V-

The trade between their respective countries may be conducted through their Foreign Trade Organizations as well as other importers and exporters of their own countries.

-Article VI-

All payments between Member States shall be made in any freely convertible currency subject to the laws, rules and regulations portaining to the foreign trade and foreign exchange prevalent in either country.

-Article VII-

Any difference or dispute arising out of the transactions under this Agreement shall be settled by mutual consultation of Member States.

-Article VIII-

The prices of goods supplied under this resolution shall be fixed by mutual agreement between the exporters and importers of the member countries.

-Article IX-

a. Member States shall facilitate each other's participation in trade fairs to be held in either country, and in arranging exhibitions of either country in the territory of the other, on terms to be agreed between their competent authorities.
b. The exemptions from customs duties and other similar charges of articles and intended for fairs and exhibitions, as well as their sale and disposition, shall be subject to the laws, rules and regulations of the country to where such fairs and exhibitions are held.

-Article X-

Nothing in this resolution shall be construed to prevent the adoption and enforcement by Member States of measures necessary to protect public morals, human, animal or plants life or health or industrial, literary or artistic property and the security of its own territory or in pursuance of general International Convention whether already in existence or concluded hereinafter to which it is a party.

Article XI

a. Member States shall consult each other at the request of either of them on all matters of mutual interest, as well as on the necessary measures aiming at the expansion of mutual co-operation and trade relations concerning the implementation of present resolution.
b. The meeting called at the request of either of either State shall be held at a time and place mutually agreed upon but not later than ninety (90) days after the date of receipt of the request from other.

OOC: This is a treaty, not a UN proposal. Take it to II.

OOC: This is a treaty, not a UN proposal. Take it to II.

It is a proposed economic treaty that all member nations of the UN must follow when trading with each other. That is why I posted it here. It is a global treaty; like the Nuclear Nonproliferation Act.

OOC: When you talk about "contracting parties," you are talking about signatories, so only those who vote for it in the UN would be bound by it. Try again, or, like I said, take it to II.

Same difference. If it is passed in the UN it will be like everyone signed it because they will be bound to it; according to nationstates rules. All member nations of the UN must abide by laws passed here. Or something to that nature.

OOC: When you talk about "contracting parties," you are talking about signatories, so only those who vote for it in the UN would be bound by it. Try again, or, like I said, take it to II.

OCC: and by the way it is already in II, it is part of the International Industrial Trade Union. That I created.

OOC: Good. Leave it there. It doesn't belong here.

NO,

It is international trade regulation. Maybe its a bit wordy and needs to be revised a bit more, but I still think it has a place in the UN.

OOC: Good. Leave it there. It doesn't belong here.

Good bloody god...

I-N-T-E-R-N-A-T-I-O-N-A-L bleedin' TREATY!

NO,

It is international trade regulation. Maybe its a bit wordy and needs to be revised a bit more, but I still think it has a place in the UN.

OOC: Again, this is not a regulation. It's a bleedin' treaty, what with talking about signatories and such. It belongs in II, in my opinion, but we can let the mods handle it from here. I'm done with it.

The representative of Cluichstan is correct. This is a treaty. And that's what it should remain. It looks like a very good, well-written treaty. We believe nations should give it careful attention. We intend to have our Foreign Ministry take a hard look.

But should it be shoved down the throats of almost 30,000 nations, whether it suits their economic circumstances or not? No.

Balthasar H. von Aschenbach
Prime Minister

The representative of Cluichstan is correct. This is a treaty. And that's what it should remain. It looks like a very good, well-written treaty. We believe nations should give it careful attention. We intend to have our Foreign Ministry take a hard look.

But should it be shoved down the throats of almost 30,000 nations, whether it suits their economic circumstances or not? No.

Balthasar H. von Aschenbach
Prime Minister

There is always room for revision to make it a little more acceptable on a wider scale. Any suggestions?

Do you think this is ready to be submitted to the UN?

Do you think this is ready to be submitted to the UN?

OOC: No, because you've phrased it as if it were a treaty ("Contracting Parties", "Agreement", etc...). Articles XII & XIV are almost certainly illegal.

OOC: No, because you've phrased it as if it were a treaty ("Contracting Parties", "Agreement", etc...). Articles XII & XIV are almost certainly illegal.

Well... if you please, would you kindly do a little creative rephrasing for me so I can get a basic idea of how it should sound. It has taken my hours to write this one draft and I am out of steam.

Do you think this is ready to be submitted to the UN?

Give me an "N" --

N!

Give me an "O" --

O!

Whaddya got?

NO!

As everybody else has said, this is not a UN proposal. It's a proposal that some nations set up a trading bloc.

Yes, it's international, in the sense that it's between nations. But just some nations. Not all the UN's nations. Even my nation, internationalist though it is, doesn't want to trade with everyone in these halls (and this has nothing to do with the fact that I think half of them would rob us blind). It's really not within the UN's ambit to tell us who to sell our hand-knitted socks to.

As treaties go, it's a beauty. I'm glad you put it in II. I'm sure you'll soon be knocked over in the rush to join up. Good luck with it.

EDIT: Okay, I confess, I'm not as nice and patient as Ariddia. I will go away and contemplate my manifold weaknesses -- but I still don't think it's do-able!

Give me an "N" --

N!

Give me an "O" --

O!

Whaddya got?

NO!

As everybody else has said, this is not a UN proposal. It's a proposal that some nations set up a trading bloc.

Yes, it's international, in the sense that it's between nations. But just some nations. Not all the UN's nations. Even my nation, internationalist though it is, doesn't want to trade with everyone in these halls (and this has nothing to do with the fact that I think half of them would rob us blind). It's really not within the UN's ambit to tell us who to sell our hand-knitted socks to.

As treaties go, it's a beauty. I'm glad you put it in II. I'm sure you'll soon be knocked over in the rush to join up. Good luck with it.

EDIT: Okay, I confess, I'm not as nice and patient as Ariddia. I will go away and contemplate my manifold weaknesses -- but I still don't think it's do-able!

I understand. And thank you for the completment on the New Economic Block. It is the first thing I have posted here that people actually took seriously.

Let's see... For the basic problem:

-Article I-

Member States of the United Nations shall take all appropriate measures to promote the development of trade and economic relations between their respective countries.

-Article II-

Member States shall grant each other most favoured nation treatment in all matters relating to:

a. Customs duties and charges of any kind, including the method of levying such duties and charges, imposed in or in connection with importation or exportation imposed on the transfer of payment for imports or exports;
b. Rules and formalities connected with customs clearance
c. All internal taxes or other internal charges of any kind imposed on or in connection with imported and exported goods, and
d. Issuance of import and export licences.

-Article III-

The provisions of Article 2 shall not, however, apply to the grant or continuance of any [remove semi-colon]

a. Advantages accorded by either Member States to contiguous countries with the purposes of facilitating frontier trade;
b. Advantages resulting from customs unions or other agreements on customs free trade;
c. Advantages accorded by virtue of multilateral economic agreement relating to the international commerce.

-Article IV-

Member States through the competent authorities of all member countries shall issue the necessary licences for export and import of commodities mentioned in Schedule 'A' and 'B' annexed to this Agreement which are indicative and not exhaustive, in conformity with the laws, rules and regulations in force in their respective countries.

-Article V-

The trade between their respective countries may be conducted through their Foreign Trade Organizations as well as other importers and exporters of their own countries.

-Article VI-

All payments between Member States shall be made in any freely convertible currency subject to the laws, rules and regulations portaining to the foreign trade and foreign exchange prevalent in either country.

-Article VII-

Any difference or dispute arising out of the transactions under this Agreement shall be settled by mutual consultation of Member States.

-Article VIII-

The prices of goods supplied under this resolution shall be fixed by mutual agreement between the exporters and importers of the member countries.

-Article IX-

a. Member States shall facilitate each other's participation in trade fairs to be held in either country, and in arranging exhibitions of either country in the territory of the other, on terms to be agreed between their competent authorities.
b. The exemptions from customs duties and other similar charges of articles and intended for fairs and exhibitions, as well as their sale and disposition, shall be subject to the laws, rules and regulations of the country to where such fairs and exhibitions are held.

-Article X-

Nothing in this resolution shall be construed to prevent the adoption and enforcement by Member States of measures necessary to protect public morals, human, animal or plants life or health or industrial, literary or artistic property and the security of its own territory or in pursuance of general International Convention whether already in existence or concluded hereinafter to which it is a party.

Article XI

a. Member States shall consult each other at the request of either of them on all matters of mutual interest, as well as on the necessary measures aiming at the expansion of mutual co-operation and trade relations concerning the implementation of present resolution.
b. The meeting called at the request of either of either State shall be held at a time and place mutually agreed upon but not later than ninety (90) days after the date of receipt of the request from other.

[remove Article XII]

[remove Article XIII; I don't think a UN resolution can expire unless it's repealed]

[remove Article XIV]

Let's see... For the basic problem:

-Article I-

Member States of the United Nations shall take all appropriate measures to promote the development of trade and economic relations between their respective countries.

-Article II-

Member States shall grant each other most favoured nation treatment in all matters relating to:

a. Customs duties and charges of any kind, including the method of levying such duties and charges, imposed in or in connection with importation or exportation imposed on the transfer of payment for imports or exports;
b. Rules and formalities connected with customs clearance
c. All internal taxes or other internal charges of any kind imposed on or in connection with imported and exported goods, and
d. Issuance of import and export licences.

-Article III-

The provisions of Article 2 shall not, however, apply to the grant or continuance of any [remove semi-colon]

a. Advantages accorded by either Member States to contiguous countries with the purposes of facilitating frontier trade;
b. Advantages resulting from customs unions or other agreements on customs free trade;
c. Advantages accorded by virtue of multilateral economic agreement relating to the international commerce.

-Article IV-

Member States through the competent authorities of all member countries shall issue the necessary licences for export and import of commodities mentioned in Schedule 'A' and 'B' annexed to this Agreement which are indicative and not exhaustive, in conformity with the laws, rules and regulations in force in their respective countries.

-Article V-

The trade between their respective countries may be conducted through their Foreign Trade Organizations as well as other importers and exporters of their own countries.

-Article VI-

All payments between Member States shall be made in any freely convertible currency subject to the laws, rules and regulations portaining to the foreign trade and foreign exchange prevalent in either country.

-Article VII-

Any difference or dispute arising out of the transactions under this Agreement shall be settled by mutual consultation of Member States.

-Article VIII-

The prices of goods supplied under this resolution shall be fixed by mutual agreement between the exporters and importers of the member countries.

-Article IX-

a. Member States shall facilitate each other's participation in trade fairs to be held in either country, and in arranging exhibitions of either country in the territory of the other, on terms to be agreed between their competent authorities.
b. The exemptions from customs duties and other similar charges of articles and intended for fairs and exhibitions, as well as their sale and disposition, shall be subject to the laws, rules and regulations of the country to where such fairs and exhibitions are held.

-Article X-

Nothing in this resolution shall be construed to prevent the adoption and enforcement by Member States of measures necessary to protect public morals, human, animal or plants life or health or industrial, literary or artistic property and the security of its own territory or in pursuance of general International Convention whether already in existence or concluded hereinafter to which it is a party.

Article XI

a. Member States shall consult each other at the request of either of them on all matters of mutual interest, as well as on the necessary measures aiming at the expansion of mutual co-operation and trade relations concerning the implementation of present resolution.
b. The meeting called at the request of either of either State shall be held at a time and place mutually agreed upon but not later than ninety (90) days after the date of receipt of the request from other.

[remove Article XII]

[remove Article XIII; I don't think a UN resolution can expire unless it's repealed]

[remove Article XIV]


I like the sound of this, you only changed a couple of words. And deleted a couple illegal articles; do you mind if I just copy and paste this on the over the original?

If I make the changes proposed by Ariddia will this draft then be acceptable and understood. All I need is one more endorsment and UN delegate approval and I am submitting this.

OOC: Go ahead, but if I were you I'd wait until a mod takes a look at it to confirm it's all legal, just in case.

Yeah that is probably a good idea. I guess I will have to wait for this thread to catch a mods attention and get them to look over it.

I like the sound of this, you only changed a couple of words. And deleted a couple illegal articles; do you mind if I just copy and paste this on the over the original?

OOC: Go ahead, but if I were you I'd wait until a mod takes a look at it to confirm it's all legal, just in case.

There is some basic housekeeping you should do before you submit:

Fix up the "pOrtaining to" (pertaining to) typo in Article VI and run a spell-check just in case you've missed anything else.

See if it fits the character limit.

Decide what category it belongs in.

Decide what strength it is.

(The experts always say these last two should have been done first, but I guess it's a bit late for that.)

.

There is some basic housekeeping you should do before you submit:

Fix up the "pOrtaining to" (pertaining to) typo in Article VI and run a spell-check just in case you've missed anything else.

See if it fits the character limit.

Decide what category it belongs in.

Decide what strength it is.

(The experts always say these last two should have been done first, but I guess it's a bit late for that.)

.

I will run a spell check on it now. I think it fits inside the charactor limit now that two whole articles have been deleted.
Can you just say the category is trade, or industry? Or do you have to choose something more specific.
And I would probably say the resolution strenghth is medium. ??

The New Economic Block

Category- Trade Regulation

Strenghth- Significant



-Article I-

Member States of the United Nations shall take all appropriate measures to promote the development of trade and economic relations between their respective countries.

-Article II-

Member States shall grant each other most favored nation treatment in all matters relating to:

a. Customs duties and charges of any kind, including the method of levying such duties and charges, imposed in or in connection with importation or exportation imposed on the transfer of payment for imports or exports;
b. Rules and formalities connected with customs clearance
c. All internal taxes or other internal charges of any kind imposed on or in connection with imported and exported goods, and
d. Issuance of import and export licenses.

-Article III-

The provisions of Article 2 shall not, however, apply to the grant or continuance of any [remove semi-colon]

a. Advantages accorded by either Member States to contiguous countries with the purposes of facilitating frontier trade;
b. Advantages resulting from customs unions or other agreements on customs free trade;
c. Advantages accorded by virtue of multilateral economic agreement relating to the international commerce.

-Article IV-

Member States through the competent authorities of all member countries shall issue the necessary licenses for export and import of commodities mentioned in Schedule 'A' and 'B' annexed to this Agreement which are indicative and not exhaustive, in conformity with the laws, rules and regulations in force in their respective countries.

-Article V-

The trade between their respective countries may be conducted through their Foreign Trade Organizations as well as other importers and exporters of their own countries.

-Article VI-

All payments between Member States shall be made in any freely convertible currency subject to the laws, rules and regulations pertaining to the foreign trade and foreign exchange prevalent in either country.

-Article VII-

Any difference or dispute arising out of the transactions under this Agreement shall be settled by mutual consultation of Member States.

-Article VIII-

The prices of goods supplied under this resolution shall be fixed by mutual agreement between the exporters and importers of the member countries.

-Article IX-

a. Member States shall facilitate each other's participation in trade fairs to be held in either country, and in arranging exhibitions of either country in the territory of the other, on terms to be agreed between their competent authorities.
b. The exemptions from customs duties and other similar charges of articles and intended for fairs and exhibitions, as well as their sale and disposition, shall be subject to the laws, rules and regulations of the country to where such fairs and exhibitions are held.

-Article X-

Nothing in this resolution shall be construed to prevent the adoption and enforcement by Member States of measures necessary to protect public morals, human, animal or plants life or health or industrial, literary or artistic property and the security of its own territory or in pursuance of general International Convention whether already in existence or concluded hereinafter to which it is a party.

Article XI

a. Member States shall consult each other at the request of either of them on all matters of mutual interest, as well as on the necessary measures aiming at the expansion of mutual co-operation and trade relations concerning the implementation of present resolution.
b. The meeting called at the request of either of either State shall be held at a time and place mutually agreed upon but not later than ninety (90) days after the date of receipt of the request from other.


OCC: ran spell check and fixed all the minor mistakes in the draft.

There are a number of set categories for UN proposals. This lot (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=8913218&postcount=2) came first, then this lot (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=10564309&postcount=5).

I'd say your best bet is to take as informed a guess as you can, put it up in this thread and see what people think.

This is the ruling on strength:

Strength Violation

This is very rare, but has been used in extreme cases. If your Proposal calls for the immediate destruction of all nuclear weapons and forbids their construction, and you list it as 'mild', it'll probably be deleted, so you should take a look at how Strength is decided.

Strong

Proposals that affect a very broad area of policy and/or use very strong language and possibly detailed clauses to affect a policy area in a dramatic way.

Significant

Proposals that affect a fair-sized area of policy and/or use fairly strong language to affect a policy area.

Mild

Proposals that affect a very limited area of policy and/or use fairly mild language to affect only that policy area, or broader policy areas in a very minor way.

I need one more endorsment before I can submit.

You've got to assign it to one of the categories in those lists. Like "Free Trade" or "Advancement of Industry" (which sounds likely to me, but economics is far from being my bag).

I am going to assign it to free trade. That is the closest thing to it.

You've got to assign it to one of the categories in those lists. Like "Free Trade" or "Advancement of Industry" (which sounds likely to me, but economics is far from being my bag).

And don't forget to remove "remove semi-colon" in Article III.

(Damn Jolt time warps.)

Are you sure? This is the definition:

Free Trade
A resolution to reduce barriers to free trade and commerce.

I'd have thought a resolution setting up a trade bloc increased barriers, especially the "most favoured nation" clause -- for the nations that aren't most favoured, anyway.

But then, in Ardchoille, economists tend to end up being sent to Your Room, our place of internal exile.

I am going to assign it to free trade. That is the closest thing to it.

Again, that's not how it works. If you don't write your proposal to fit a category, it's not adequate to just point it at something and say, "well, that's sorta close".

Having looked over it in some detail, I don't see that it actually does anything to enhance Free Trade (or any other category). All it really says is "you can continue to do whatever it is you've been doing, according to your national laws and accepted international trade practices. Given that, it has an effective strength of 'null', which is of course not an assignable value.

Like most of the others have said, it's a great framework for a roleplay contract between nations, but it's not international law. It's regulations and guidelines for behavior between individual nations, not the international community as a whole. I'm not convinced it's illegal, but it's surely not adding anything but verbiage to international law.

I'm not convinced it's illegal, but it's surely not adding anything but verbiage to international law.

Ambassador Rhodri looks up at that remark, and appears to be about to speak (probably at length) about how verbiage is good for you. Fortunately for the sanity of all, his delegation distracts him.

Having looked over it in some detail, I don't see that it actually does anything to enhance Free Trade (or any other category).

I was going to say that this is the strongest free trade treaty I've ever seen, but then I think I'm assuming on a definition of a word. "Member States shall grant each other most favored nation treatment in all matters ..."

Webster defines the definition of shall being “will have to” as an archaic one. If we assume this definition, that member UN nations “will have to” grant MFN status on all other UN members we can see this as the mother of all UN free trade agreements because MFN is basically the highest level of free trade and all UN member states is the largest area of influence of the United Nations. Of course for the legal definition, Webster says that it is, “used in laws, regulations, or directives to express what is mandatory.”

Therefore article II, being “mandatory” is massive!

I was going to say that this is the strongest free trade treaty I've ever seen, but then I think I'm assuming on a definition of a word. "Member States shall grant each other most favored nation treatment in all matters ..."

Webster defines the definition of shall being “will have to” as an archaic one. If we assume this definition, that member UN nations “will have to” grant MFN status on all other UN members we can see this as the mother of all UN free trade agreements because MFN is basically the highest level of free trade and all UN member states is the largest area of influence of the United Nations. Of course for the legal definition, Webster says that it is, “used in laws, regulations, or directives to express what is mandatory.”

Therefore article II, being “mandatory” is massive!


So is this a condemnation, or are you happy that I have put together such a solid free-trade agreement? Or a you angry because it is so rigid? And yes, article II was meant to be 'massive' and spark debate.

So is this a condemnation, or are you happy that I have put together such a solid free-trade agreement? Or a you angry because it is so rigid? And yes, article II was meant to be 'massive' and spark debate.

I'm not quite sure yet. My original point was to Fris' argument that this is a do nothing resolution. It clearly is anything but.

OK on to the other points and then I'll get back to the question. Honest.

In any agreement between A & B, C is often left out. Trading blocks promote free trade within the block, in this case the entire UN. Since the UN can only make resolutions binding on the UN, this is as all enompasing as it can legally get. Definitely a free trade agreement as per the definition.

Now to nit pick the points:

Article I: Nice and Fluffy
Article II: Will comment later
Article III: need a "remove the remove" joke because I can't think of one
Article IV: schedule A&B, attached ... stuff like that needs to be addressed or downright removed because you realy cover this in II.D
Article V: ok
Article VI: currency ... this could be a problem ... or it might not be
Article VII: dispute resolutions could be tricky ... create a gnome committee
Article VIII: get rid of this immediately ... do you know how many people around here would misread that?
Article IX: Nice anf Fluffy
Article X: adopt more UN resolution sounding section
Article XI: drop completely

Back to Article II, do I like it? Well the thought of Kennite beer (yes it's that bad and their pizza is horrid as well) flowing freely into our local markets is enough to make ones sin crawl but even though the thought of some of the products of UN member states do concern me greatly, I am confident in the free market that we will never sink to their level. And it might lower the price of sushi which is alwaysa good thing.

So for the moment, assuming massive revisions in minor details, I'm for it.

I'm not quite sure yet. My original point was to Fris' argument that this is a do nothing resolution. It clearly is anything but.

OK on to the other points and then I'll get back to the question. Honest.

In any agreement between A & B, C is often left out. Trading blocks promote free trade within the block, in this case the entire UN. Since the UN can only make resolutions binding on the UN, this is as all enompasing as it can legally get. Definitely a free trade agreement as per the definition.

Now to nit pick the points:

Article I: Nice and Fluffy
Article II: Will comment later
Article III: need a "remove the remove" joke because I can't think of one
Article IV: schedule A&B, attached ... stuff like that needs to be addressed or downright removed because you realy cover this in II.D
Article V: ok
Article VI: currency ... this could be a problem ... or it might not be
Article VII: dispute resolutions could be tricky ... create a gnome committee
Article VIII: get rid of this immediately ... do you know how many people around here would misread that?
Article IX: Nice anf Fluffy
Article X: adopt more UN resolution sounding section
Article XI: drop completely

Back to Article II, do I like it? Well the thought of Kennite beer (yes it's that bad and their pizza is horrid as well) flowing freely into our local markets is enough to make ones sin crawl but even though the thought of some of the products of UN member states do concern me greatly, I am confident in the free market that we will never sink to their level. And it might lower the price of sushi which is alwaysa good thing.

So for the moment, assuming massive revisions in minor details, I'm for it.

Thanks for the comments. I will take what you have said into serious consideration.
BUT: what you said about Article VIII really is bothering me. I don't think that many people will misread it. I made it very clear what I was trying to say.

"The prices of goods supplied under this resolution shall be fixed by mutual agreement between the exporters and importers of the member countries."

Basicly the delegates of the member countries get together and fix the prices of goods by mutual agreements. I don't see what is so complicated.

"The prices of goods supplied under this resolution shall be fixed by mutual agreement between the exporters and importers of the member countries."

Basicly the delegates of the member countries get together and fix the prices of goods by mutual agreements. I don't see what is so complicated.

You see, there is the word "prices" and the word "fix" which could cause some people to put the two together and come up with price fixing (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Price_fixing) which is not what you are talking about. You could get a significant backlash, especially from US players on the idea.

You see, there is the word "prices" and the word "fix" which could cause some people to put the two together and come up with price fixing (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Price_fixing) which is not what you are talking about. You could get a significant backlash, especially from US players on the idea.

I see. How is this for rephrasing?

"Each member nation will mutually decide the price of goods with the nation they are supplying the goods to."

Of course if I do replace that particular part of the resolution it will be much longer. But anyway... is this better?

[bump to top]

OOC: No sense in bumping, so please don't do it again. This is a treaty, not international legislation. We all know it (except for you, it seems, but only because you refuse to listen to those who've posted in this thread). The mods know it (see Fris' post). Hell, even dogs know it. II is the place for treaties, not the UN. Please take it there and stop wasting our time.

OOC: No sense in bumping, so please don't do it again. This is a treaty, not international legislation. We all know it (except for you, it seems, but only because you refuse to listen to those who've posted in this thread). The mods know it (see Fris' post). Hell, even dogs know it. II is the place for treaties, not the UN. Please take it there and stop wasting our time.

I think the U.N. is divided over the issue. Because RetiredWerePenquins seems to think differently than you Cluichstan.

I think the U.N. is divided over the issue. Because RetiredWerePenquins seems to think differently than you Cluichstan.

OOC: Yes, one person has taken your side. Hardly a huge division in the UN on this one.

OOC: Yes, one person has taken your side. Hardly a huge division in the UN on this one.

Theres really not a whole lot against me either. The last 40 odd posts have been by really all the same people. I think I may have Ardchoille on my side as well. And just out of curiosity, have you even read the updated version of the N.E.B. yet? Its on the first page, shouldn't be too hard to miss.

[GrammarNazi]

The poll is flawed. It asks a non-"yes/no" question, then uses "yes/no" as the primary responses.

(lol)
[/GrammarNazi who's really, really bored at the moment]

-the Author of Wolfgang

Still reads like a treaty. And the poll question makes no bloody sense.

Still reads like a treaty.

How in the hell does it still read like a treaty, I have rewritten it three times now.?

OOC: Yes, I have read the revised version. And here's your second mod opinion.

Still reads like a treaty. And the poll question makes no bloody sense.

The Wolf Guardians;12453043'][GrammarNazi]

The poll is flawed. It asks a non-"yes/no" question, then uses "yes/no" as the primary responses.

(lol)
[/GrammarNazi who's really, really bored at the moment]

-the Author of Wolfgang

SHIT! I just now realized it. :headbang:

OOC: Yes, I have read the revised version. And here's your second mod opinion.

Still reads like a treaty. Even though I have changed it, so that it is obviously a piece of U.N. Legislation now that I have revised it.

The number of times you have written or rewritten it is really quite irrelevant. Max Barry rewrote Company several times, but that doesn't mean it's an acceptable piece of UN Law.

The thing is, UN Proposals are laws and this still reads like an agreement. I suggest you reread Fris' comments and work from there.

Still reads like a treaty. And the poll question makes no bloody sense.

My mistake, if you would be so kind as to delete the poll I would be very appreciative.

Still reads like a treaty. Even though I have changed it, so that it is obviously a piece of U.N. Legislation now that I have revised it.

OOC: Ummm...no, still not obvious, but I'm done here. You're clearly going to remain too pig-headed to listen to reason, so I see no point in bothering any longer.

... I think I may have Ardchoille on my side as well.

Uh, no, actually. I was just trying to be helpful because I was ashamed I'd shouted at you earlier in the thread.

My RL attitude to this would be angry sputtering, coloured by my reaction to events in Australian-American trade deals.

I really think you should just let it go now. You've tried, you've learnt some things about how to write proposals, and you've still got the basis for a really good RP.

If two mods and the ever-amiable Sheik can't convince you to drop it, then I'd suggest you don't let your UN delegation stand too close to the windows in the General Assembly.

And buy them all parachutes.

"While the Great Commonwealth is fairly new on the international scene and thus unfamiliar with legislation outside the UN, this seems like it should be something... well... outside the UN. It's nice and all, but it definitely sounds like something that individual nations should be signing onto, not something that should be enacted by democratic process. Us dogs do indeed 'know it'[/Cluich reference]," Wolfgang chuckled, "and thus stand against."

(OOC: Nice poll, whichever mod did that.)

The Wolf Guardians;12455016']"...Us dogs do indeed 'know it'[/Cluich reference]," Wolfgang chuckled, "and thus stand against."

OOC: That should be "we," not "us," Mr. Grammar Nazi. ;)

OOC: I am the Grammar Nazi, not Wolfgang. :p I win!

-Article III-

The provisions of Article 2 shall not, however, apply to the grant or continuance of any [remove semi-colon]

a. Advantages accorded by either Member States to contiguous countries with the purposes of facilitating frontier trade;
b. Advantages resulting from customs unions or other agreements on customs free trade;
c. Advantages accorded by virtue of multilateral economic agreement relating to the international commerce.

I like the first two articles, but could you explain what the intent with this one is? Danke! :)

If two mods and the ever-amiable Sheik can't convince you to drop it, then I'd suggest you don't let your UN delegation stand too close to the windows in the General Assembly.

And buy them all parachutes.

The man clad in black who had been stealthily approaching the Undbagarten delegates quickly slid behind the nearest pillar, cursing under his breath.

The man clad in black who had been stealthily approaching the Undbagarten delegates quickly slid behind the nearest pillar, cursing under his breath.

The Secretary General of Undbagarten, delegate to the United Nations, will be leaving the U.N. building due to an increacing crisis the Federation. Civil appears imminent. The New Economic Block is hereby withdrawn as a U.N. proposal seeing as the Undbagartian government cannot sustain the budget of maintaining a seat in the United Nations at this time. We will return once this crisis on the home front is resolved.

Thank you.

Signed,
General Trevenosky of the Federal Army of Undbagarten

When the nation of Undbagarten returns to the hallow halls of the UN, I must ask them to answer a few all-too-important question to the representatives of the legislative body: What does their piece of legislation do? How does it work? What considerations have been made to extenuating circumstances? How does it benefit us?

Before I begin to analyze this document in full and at length, I want to remind you of a few things. This body is an International Body designed to bring people together to discuss, deliberate and decide on matters with a full International Scope REGARDLESS OF CONFLICTS between member nations. We are not a body of allies or even friends - in fact, it would be safe to say that there are very many bitter enemies. As such, we do not always wish to extend a certain level assistance, friendship or even gratitude towards many of our fellow ambassadors. Why is that important? Because that is the BIGGEST difference between the essence of an Economic Cooperation Treaty which you have proposed and the essence of a piece of UN Legislation. An Economic treaty is between people who would enjoy a cordial economic relationship with one another to benefit all parties involved. It is a sign of friendship - or, at least, a sign of not being enemies.

It is to this problem that you must address and redesign your treaty so that it becomes UN legislation, fit for this illustrious body of enemies

So without further ado, we begin our analysis:

-Article I-

Member States of the United Nations shall take all appropriate measures to promote the development of trade and economic relations between their respective countries.

Quite frankly, there are 30,000 nations out there in the UN and many more beyond the UN's border. A lot of them we just don't like and don't feel like signing trade agreements with them. It's not because we're at war with them or have started embargoes or blockades against them, we just simply don't want to trade with them.

Net Effect: This is a Free Trade resolution promoting Free Trade

-Article II-

Member States shall grant each other most favored nation treatment in all matters relating to:

a. Customs duties and charges of any kind, including the method of levying such duties and charges, imposed in or in connection with importation or exportation imposed on the transfer of payment for imports or exports;
b. Rules and formalities connected with customs clearance
c. All internal taxes or other internal charges of any kind imposed on or in connection with imported and exported goods, and
d. Issuance of import and export licenses.

-Article III-

The provisions of Article 2 shall not, however, apply to the grant or continuance of any [remove semi-colon]

a. Advantages accorded by either Member States to contiguous countries with the purposes of facilitating frontier trade;
b. Advantages resulting from customs unions or other agreements on customs free trade;
c. Advantages accorded by virtue of multilateral economic agreement relating to the international commerce.

First, what is this semi-colon comment about?

Second, I fail to see why I should be forced to put my fellow UN nations above non-UN nations. That is a favor afforded to nations we're friendly with or allied with, not to those that we have a very negative attitude towards and want to check everything over thoroughly to ensure that it isn't sabotaged

Net Effect: UN members get first priority in processing of incoming and outgoing goods. Has a minor effect

-Article IV-

Member States through the competent authorities of all member countries shall issue the necessary licenses for export and import of commodities mentioned in Schedule 'A' and 'B' annexed to this Agreement which are indicative and not exhaustive, in conformity with the laws, rules and regulations in force in their respective countries.

First, what is Schedule A and B?

Second, explain to me why I cannot begin an embargo against all products from an enemy nation I'm about to go to war with just because they're in the UN?

Net effect: Make sure to issue your trade licenses

-Article V-

The trade between their respective countries may be conducted through their Foreign Trade Organizations as well as other importers and exporters of their own countries.

I've got nothing other than

Net effect: Override the current bureaucracy with our new suggested one that does nothing if you already have a relationship with fellow members

-Article VI-

All payments between Member States shall be made in any freely convertible currency subject to the laws, rules and regulations pertaining to the foreign trade and foreign exchange prevalent in either country.

Still got nothing except

Next effect: Make sure you have a currency exchange available

-Article VII-

Any difference or dispute arising out of the transactions under this Agreement shall be settled by mutual consultation of Member States.

30,000 nations will decide who was right for my Trade Dispute with Cluichstan? I don't even like half of these people!

Net effect: zilch, add bureaucracy

-Article VIII-

The prices of goods supplied under this resolution shall be fixed by mutual agreement between the exporters and importers of the member countries.

This, if split from and expanded could actually be a valid proposal. However, you didn't so its effect is nadda

-Article IX-

a. Member States shall facilitate each other's participation in trade fairs to be held in either country, and in arranging exhibitions of either country in the territory of the other, on terms to be agreed between their competent authorities.

30,000 trade fairs? Mercy!

Net effect: Read 1

b. The exemptions from customs duties and other similar charges of articles and intended for fairs and exhibitions, as well as their sale and disposition, shall be subject to the laws, rules and regulations of the country to where such fairs and exhibitions are held.

Net effect: nadda

-Article X-

Nothing in this resolution shall be construed to prevent the adoption and enforcement by Member States of measures necessary to protect public morals, human, animal or plants life or health or industrial, literary or artistic property and the security of its own territory or in pursuance of general International Convention whether already in existence or concluded hereinafter to which it is a party.

Net effect: illegal due to optionality at worst, at best, nadda

Article XI

a. Member States shall consult each other at the request of either of them on all matters of mutual interest, as well as on the necessary measures aiming at the expansion of mutual co-operation and trade relations concerning the implementation of present resolution.
b. The meeting called at the request of either of either State shall be held at a time and place mutually agreed upon but not later than ninety (90) days after the date of receipt of the request from other.

Bunch of bureaucracy that would be appropriate for a Trade Agreement

NET EFFECT for the entire resolution:
-Develop your trade relations
-Give each other first preference on handling of customs
-Disputes will be settled by a committee of 30,000 instead of good ol' leftie
-Add a bunch of bureaucracy

Yes, there was much more in there, but its all worth even less combined than any of the above points. You are not affecting nations in any way, you are creating more headaches. This idea is not designed for a UN resolution and I don't care how many times you reword it, you have to blow it up and start from scratch with the idea of WHAT you want to happen put as the FIRST element of consideration. If you want to make it so that everyone in the UN starts being trade buddies, you are barking up the wrong tree. That's a good thing for an agreement, it is not a good resolution.

OOC: Wow, FL. You just said exactly what the rest of us have been saying throughout the entire thread, only in several hundred words.

The Secretary General of Undbagarten, delegate to the United Nations, will be leaving the U.N. building due to an increacing crisis the Federation. Civil appears imminent. The New Economic Block is hereby withdrawn as a U.N. proposal seeing as the Undbagartian government cannot sustain the budget of maintaining a seat in the United Nations at this time. We will return once this crisis on the home front is resolved.

Thank you.

Signed,
General Trevenosky of the Federal Army of Undbagarten

OOC: Translation: "I'm screwed here. I'm buggering out." Fine by me.

OOC: Wow, FL. You just said exactly what the rest of us have been saying throughout the entire thread, only in several hundred words.

I can't tell whether this is praise or sarcasm, but I will assume the latter so I have a chance to explain the logic.

You guys

You: "It's a treaty"
OP: "No it isn't. It says member nations"
You: "Yes it is. It doesn't do anything"
OP: "I don't understand"
You: "It's a treaty, you seem to be the only one who hasn't figured it out"

You did a great job hitting what but you only briefly touched on Why or How and every so often, when I see a person who's baffled and doesn't understand, I like to take an hour or so and explain it all to him. Something about the idealist in me says that banging the same person on the head with the same stick over and over doesn't help them understand what they're doing wrong, just that they are doing something wrong. I'd like to believe we are a body that improves her members rather than just beans them on the head over and over again.

I could be wrong here, but isn't this just a way to turn the UN into an economic union, and therefore essentially a single nation?

If we are going to pass something like this, we might as well take the final step and add in a common currancy.

I could be wrong here, but isn't this just a way to turn the UN into an economic union, and therefore essentially a single nation?

If we are going to pass something like this, we might as well take the final step and add in a common currancy.

Er....then it would be clearly illegal rather than just unpassable and questionable wording.

Oh - I forgot to mention that there is a 3500-character count limit on all proposals. I'm sure yours fails to meet that limit by a large margin.