Not that it matters if you're opposed to it. You HAVE to put it to a vote, no matter what.
-
We have updated our Community Code of Conduct. Please read through the new rules for the forum that are an integral part of Paradox Interactive’s User Agreement.
- Status
[OOC: Just nitpicking, but technically, it'd be Part B, Article IX, Section 1 - or Article IX(1) for short (I'll add "Parts" in the constitution to clarify that). The Part doesn't really need to be specified, though.
]
Mr. Von Streusser, last time I cheked my party was undecided.
And about your constitutional quote: you are NOT the one who decides to when there has been enough debating. I, however, am.
Anyway, you don't have to worry, since mr. Morgan is absolutely right. I have to put it up for a vote, and I will, before the end of this term. I hesitate to have a vote now, because of the MTEF's discussion forum. And althoug I know mr. Von Streusser does not find input from voters very important, I do. Even if they cannot authorise or finance it, it does not mean they should be ignored.
---Bram Borgman
(OOC: when are the elections? And when will parliament close? I couldn't find it)
And about your constitutional quote: you are NOT the one who decides to when there has been enough debating. I, however, am.
Anyway, you don't have to worry, since mr. Morgan is absolutely right. I have to put it up for a vote, and I will, before the end of this term. I hesitate to have a vote now, because of the MTEF's discussion forum. And althoug I know mr. Von Streusser does not find input from voters very important, I do. Even if they cannot authorise or finance it, it does not mean they should be ignored.
---Bram Borgman
(OOC: when are the elections? And when will parliament close? I couldn't find it)
Oh, I might as well put this up for vote now, since you are obviously going to kill the forum and fire me as your advisor now.
I had no intention of firing you. I also offered to let Mr. Liep continue his work on the Gambling Commission, which he declined. However, no debate has occured regarding this bill in Parliament for a week or more, and even longer has passed since anyone has expressed any interest in the MTEF forum.
I would say the total lack of further debate indicates a reasonable amount of time has passed. But you are correct that I can now take certain measures to accelerate the process if they become necessary. I hope they won't.
I would say the total lack of further debate indicates a reasonable amount of time has passed. But you are correct that I can now take certain measures to accelerate the process if they become necessary. I hope they won't.
FINAL REPORT OF THE COMMISSION FOR THE INVESTIGATION OF MEMBERSHIP IN THE W.T.O.
The CIM-WTO hereby concludes its business and presents its final report (or majority report).
The World Trade Organization is an organization composed of the mainline nations of the world, in which nations can avoid costly trade wars and disputes. WTO membership would enable EUtopian corporations to expand and become international figures, doing work for and in other countries. Furthermore, foreign investment will boom if EUtopia enters the WTO. Foreign companies investing in EUtopian markets will expand the economy and make this country a richer one. EUtopia may even be a destination for NAFTA businesses.
More money, of course, means more economic and political power and the ability to do pricey things such as reform the military.
The WTO fights protectionism, which was at the heart of ferocious trade wars in the 1930s, which extended the gloom of the Great Depression. Protectionism also raises prices. WTO countries enjoy much cheaper products in every field, so the average consumer will have more to spend later.
Furthermore, a look at a list of countries NOT in the WTO will give you the will to join. Non-members include Afghanistan, Bosnia, Eritrea and Ethiopia, the Axis of Evil (Iran, Iraq, and North Korea), Liberia, Libya, Saudi Arabia, Somalia, Syria, and Yugoslavia. Almost all of the most turbulent countries in the world are not in the WTO--in plainer terms, they are in the same boat as we are.
The WTO, for the above reasons, is the way to EUtopia's future. We need to take the steps to join.
The CIM-WTO hereby concludes its business and presents its final report (or majority report).
The World Trade Organization is an organization composed of the mainline nations of the world, in which nations can avoid costly trade wars and disputes. WTO membership would enable EUtopian corporations to expand and become international figures, doing work for and in other countries. Furthermore, foreign investment will boom if EUtopia enters the WTO. Foreign companies investing in EUtopian markets will expand the economy and make this country a richer one. EUtopia may even be a destination for NAFTA businesses.
More money, of course, means more economic and political power and the ability to do pricey things such as reform the military.
The WTO fights protectionism, which was at the heart of ferocious trade wars in the 1930s, which extended the gloom of the Great Depression. Protectionism also raises prices. WTO countries enjoy much cheaper products in every field, so the average consumer will have more to spend later.
Furthermore, a look at a list of countries NOT in the WTO will give you the will to join. Non-members include Afghanistan, Bosnia, Eritrea and Ethiopia, the Axis of Evil (Iran, Iraq, and North Korea), Liberia, Libya, Saudi Arabia, Somalia, Syria, and Yugoslavia. Almost all of the most turbulent countries in the world are not in the WTO--in plainer terms, they are in the same boat as we are.
The WTO, for the above reasons, is the way to EUtopia's future. We need to take the steps to join.
I second the WTO bill.
Does the MDIA have any alternate plans for where to procure military equipment if the US and EU continue to refuse to sell to Eutopia?
Does the MDIA have any alternate plans for where to procure military equipment if the US and EU continue to refuse to sell to Eutopia?
The MDIA is seeking Assembly approval to send a delegation of distinguished citizens to the United States, to improve relations and push aside the annoying Senator Blowerd. We think we can succeed brilliantly, if Assembly approves.
Also, in order to present the opposing viewpoint from the CIM-WTO (for not everybody was in favor!), I wish to invite Mr. Jacob Langley to the Assembly for his presentation.
Also, in order to present the opposing viewpoint from the CIM-WTO (for not everybody was in favor!), I wish to invite Mr. Jacob Langley to the Assembly for his presentation.
Do we really need Assembly approval to send a team of delegates to the US? I think this sort of thing can be decided upon by MDIA itself.
Oh, I second the invitation for Mr. Langley to speak about WTO
Josephus I
Oh, I second the invitation for Mr. Langley to speak about WTO
Josephus I
I agree that we shouldn't need to pass any sort of initiative to send a delegation...I'd think if you needed any form of approval it'd be from the President. Just send that delegation already...
Gentlemen, I am here to present the dissenting report from the commission that was formed to investigate joining the World Trade Organization. I have been invited by National Assembly members, Charles Morgan and Speaker Bram Borgman, and I will answer any question pertaining to the report I present. Here is a transcript of my official report.
I believe it sums up my arguments very well, and that most of you are familiar with them. Let me add this, in light of recent attempts by certain nations to further isolate Eutopia, the tempation to join an international organization such as the WTO has grown. However, we must weigh the long term consequences, which I have outlined, versus the short term gains. No one more than me wants to see Eutopia gain acceptance on the international stage, but we cannot sacrifice our sovereignty and our workers to acheive that aim. The first duty of any government is to protect it's citizens and it's citizens' interests. It is not in the best interests of the Eutopian worker to be placed in direct competition with cheap, inhumane labor.
Questions or comments?
I believe it sums up my arguments very well, and that most of you are familiar with them. Let me add this, in light of recent attempts by certain nations to further isolate Eutopia, the tempation to join an international organization such as the WTO has grown. However, we must weigh the long term consequences, which I have outlined, versus the short term gains. No one more than me wants to see Eutopia gain acceptance on the international stage, but we cannot sacrifice our sovereignty and our workers to acheive that aim. The first duty of any government is to protect it's citizens and it's citizens' interests. It is not in the best interests of the Eutopian worker to be placed in direct competition with cheap, inhumane labor.
Questions or comments?
Last edited:
I agree with Mr. Langley's statements. Eutopia should not join the WTO. By doing so, Eutopia surrenders its economic sovereignty to the will of the USA and the E7 countries. As our recent dispute with Canada over softwood lumber shows, we need to protect our industries; and we'll do that on a one-on-one basis as necessary, like our current attempts at a NAFA agreement.
The cost of joining WTO, as Mr. Langley outlined, are too high. I recommend the Assembly joins me in voting "Nay" on this issue.
Josephus I
The cost of joining WTO, as Mr. Langley outlined, are too high. I recommend the Assembly joins me in voting "Nay" on this issue.
Josephus I
About the WTO
I wish to thank Mr. Langley for presenting the dissenting opinion of the commission to join the WTO. It indicates that joining the WTO is a subject studied in depth from multiple angles. For that I pay my respects to the commission.
But the reasons outlined by Langley not to join the WTO can be turned around to work in our favour too. To quote a favourite fictional character: "It's a poor man's nuclear blaster that doesn't point both ways." First, joining the WTO is a first step to see Eutopian agriculture produce sold on European markets. Surely all present can see the benefit of that. Second, if we can no longer embargo the French, so can the French, or any other European country, no longer embargo us.
Mr. Josephus, what is this 'economic sovereignty' you are talking about? Doesn't a free market economy indicate that we never had any 'economic sovereignty from the start?
- Timothy Wellesford
I wish to thank Mr. Langley for presenting the dissenting opinion of the commission to join the WTO. It indicates that joining the WTO is a subject studied in depth from multiple angles. For that I pay my respects to the commission.
But the reasons outlined by Langley not to join the WTO can be turned around to work in our favour too. To quote a favourite fictional character: "It's a poor man's nuclear blaster that doesn't point both ways." First, joining the WTO is a first step to see Eutopian agriculture produce sold on European markets. Surely all present can see the benefit of that. Second, if we can no longer embargo the French, so can the French, or any other European country, no longer embargo us.
Mr. Josephus, what is this 'economic sovereignty' you are talking about? Doesn't a free market economy indicate that we never had any 'economic sovereignty from the start?
- Timothy Wellesford
Good questions Mr Wellesford.
Regarding economic sovereignty, you're right in that unbridled, the Free Market can overwhelm economic sovereignty. But thankfully, we do have some government programs in place that give us some control over our economy.
Further, Although still a little-known and little-understood institution, the WTO has become increasingly controversial as it has expanded the scope of its work from its original narrow GATT focus on reducing tariffs on manufactured goods. The WTO now also works to eliminate nontariff barriers, and can be used to challenge environmental, health, and other regulations that may serve legitimate social goals but may be regarded as impediments to international trade. The 1995 replacement of GATT by the WTO heightened concern among critics because its stronger enforcement powers represent a further shift in power from citizens and national governments to a global authority run by unelected bureaucrats. Business, academic, and government supporters applaud the WTO as a more muscular sheriff of the world trading system.
Josephus I
Regarding economic sovereignty, you're right in that unbridled, the Free Market can overwhelm economic sovereignty. But thankfully, we do have some government programs in place that give us some control over our economy.
Further, Although still a little-known and little-understood institution, the WTO has become increasingly controversial as it has expanded the scope of its work from its original narrow GATT focus on reducing tariffs on manufactured goods. The WTO now also works to eliminate nontariff barriers, and can be used to challenge environmental, health, and other regulations that may serve legitimate social goals but may be regarded as impediments to international trade. The 1995 replacement of GATT by the WTO heightened concern among critics because its stronger enforcement powers represent a further shift in power from citizens and national governments to a global authority run by unelected bureaucrats. Business, academic, and government supporters applaud the WTO as a more muscular sheriff of the world trading system.
Josephus I
Where'd THAT come from?
Further, the WTO itself has this to say about "challenging environmental, health, and other regulations that may serve legitimate social goals but may be regarded as impediments to international trade.":
Thanks for that Mr. Morgan. I love reading corporate sanctioned double talk. Beats the morning funnies any day.....
Josephus I
Josephus I
- Status