We are working on a brand new version of the game! If you want to stay informed, read our blog and register for our mailing list.
Bill: International Trade Proposal.
Details
Submitted by[?]: We Say So! Party
Status[?]: defeated
Votes: This is an ordinary bill. It requires more yes votes than no votes. This bill will not pass any sooner than the deadline.
Voting deadline: June 2114
Description[?]:
| In order to allow for International Trade, but also to protect those industries that could otherwise be destroyed through the importation of cheap, low quality imports, the Government will impose limited tariffs on certain goods on a case-by-case basis. Tariffs are only to be introduced on those goods that could destroy internal industry or are imported from Countries with questionable human or employment rights records. |
Proposals
Article 1
Proposal[?] to change International trade (this is a default in the absense of a specific free trade agreement or specific trade embargo)
Old value:: The nation does not impose any tariffs or quotas on imports.
Current: The nation allows for imports, but imposes tariffs and quotas in certain areas.
Proposed: The nation allows for imports, but imposes tariffs and quotas in certain areas.
Debate
These messages have been posted to debate on this bill:
| Date | 15:05:20, September 16, 2005 CET | From |  Liberal-Progressive Union | To | Debating the International Trade Proposal. |
| Message | This could cause some problems later on. If we impose tariffs on imports, then those nations will respond with their own tariffs and a trade war could result. I understan dthe need to protect our own industry but I believe tariffs should be imposed only if we are forced to pay tariffs to export our goods to that nation. |
| Date | 21:22:00, September 16, 2005 CET | From | United Socialist Movement | To | Debating the International Trade Proposal. |
| Message | I feel that this could hadve dire conse |
| Date | 21:22:49, September 16, 2005 CET | From | United Socialist Movement | To | Debating the International Trade Proposal. |
| Message | sorry about that... I think this could have dire consequences for less developed countries trying to lift themselves out of poverty - and finding that it is uneconomically viable for them to import to us. I cannot support this as it is. |
| Date | 22:23:55, September 16, 2005 CET | From | United Blobs | To | Debating the International Trade Proposal. |
| Message | The main problem with this is we have no idea of our current trade status. Until we can see whether we are importing or exporting more see no reason to ammend the current laws. |
| Date | 18:19:09, September 18, 2005 CET | From | Liberal-Progressive Union | To | Debating the International Trade Proposal. |
| Message | Yeah, I am afraid if we impose tariffs on imports, then we may lose a lot of trade as those who export will go to a much cheaper nation that levies no tariffs. |
| Date | 21:02:17, September 18, 2005 CET | From | We Say So! Party | To | Debating the International Trade Proposal. |
| Message | We would point out the conditions for imposing tariffs: 1. To protect Hobrazian industries that would otherwise be destroyed by cheap, low quality imports, and; 2. Imported from Countries with questionable human rights. As tariffs are imposed by Government we would assume that before said tariffs are introduced the Government would investigate what goods are being imported and from where. This can be added as a specific clause within the above regulations if this would be preferable, but the wording, I believe, would already cover this. |
| Date | 21:48:47, September 18, 2005 CET | From | Liberal-Progressive Union | To | Debating the International Trade Proposal. |
| Message | I agree with 1 to a point, but I would rather see a case by case basis. If we knowingly let in imports that destroy our industries, that is just bad policy. 2)Those countries would rather deal with friendly nations without paying a tariff. I am not opposed to tariffs, just using them where there is no benefit longterm. |
| Date | 19:08:15, September 20, 2005 CET | From | We Say So! Party | To | Debating the International Trade Proposal. |
| Message | "2)Those countries would rather deal with friendly nations without paying a tariff." - But the introduction of tariffs would allow us to increase pressure on these countries without necessarily removing the possibility of imports (which we might well require). Description editted to highlight case-by-case. |
| Date | 19:19:21, September 20, 2005 CET | From | Liberal-Progressive Union | To | Debating the International Trade Proposal. |
| Message | I oppose this to. Why quotas and tariffs as common protocal? This is protectionism, and it just voided the treaty I made with the Selucians. That was the key to the treaty, but now a tariff war is going to begin and there goes our trading and jobs that went with it. |
| Date | 19:30:02, September 20, 2005 CET | From | We Say So! Party | To | Debating the International Trade Proposal. |
| Message | Please read the above description. Tariffs are not protocol, nor does it void the treaty with the Selucians. I would assume that they wouldn't try to export cheap, low quality goods to us. Nor do they seem to have a questionable human rights record, unless there is something you haven't told us. The bill, as mentioned, is on a case-by-case basis. As long as they don't break any of the above points then they have no reason to fear the introduction of any tariffs against them. We would also ask, what is so wrong with wanting to protect our industry and our workers that you seem to want to stop? |
| Date | 19:38:57, September 20, 2005 CET | From | Liberal-Progressive Union | To | Debating the International Trade Proposal. |
| Message | But when first speaking about a treaty involving trade, the fact that we may impose a tariff on them would send them away, even if they have quility goods. I cannot go back to the Selucians and tell them "well there is a chance you will pay a tariff if we feel you are delivering shoddy goods" we will never form a treaty again with anyone. |
| Date | 19:43:04, September 20, 2005 CET | From | United Blobs | To | Debating the International Trade Proposal. |
| Message | I think the idea is that the case-by-case basis this bill will introduce means that we could easily create an addition resolution to not impose tariffs on the Selucians as long as the treaty is in force. |
| Date | 19:53:47, September 20, 2005 CET | From | Liberal-Progressive Union | To | Debating the International Trade Proposal. |
| Message | There current law is "no tariffs imposed on imports at all, unless thay get hit paying for an export" That a better way I think. Tariffs bring down the quality of goods, look at American steel a few years ago. They started with high tariffs out of the blue to make up for lost profit. Then every nation importing American steel, tariffs shot up, the quiality went down , and hundreds lost their jobs. It's very risky. |
| Date | 23:46:15, September 20, 2005 CET | From | Liberal-Progressive Union | To | Debating the International Trade Proposal. |
| Message | But it;s not a good start to a treaty. Main issue was tarifs, then the next day we pass a tariff bill. Not good for trust. |
subscribe to this discussion - unsubscribe
Voting
| Vote | Seats | ||||
| yes |
Total Seats: 180 | ||||
| no |
Total Seats: 220 | ||||
| abstain | Total Seats: 0 |
| Random fact: Head to the "Language assistance" thread to receive and offer help with translations: http://forum.particracy.net/viewtopic.php?f=5&t=6368 |
| Random quote: "And what is Aleppo?" - Gary Johnson |