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: Darnussian Trade Act
Details
Submitted by[?]: Social Libertarian Party
Status[?]: passed
Votes: This bill is a resolution. It requires more yes votes than no votes. This bill will not pass any sooner than the deadline.
Voting deadline: August 2041
Description[?]:
| The Social Libertarians believe that in order to bolster our economic strength, we must improve trade relations with our neighbors. Therefore we call upon Parliament to sanction the deployment of a diplomatic envoy to the Republic of Darnussia with the purposes of: 1) Lowering tariffs, removing quotas, and dissolving other barriers to trade between our two nations in regard to certain commodities and under certain conditions so that each nation's economy may benefit from freer trade without suffering ill effects; 2) Negotiating official permission of the use of sea lanes by both nations in times of peace and in times of war, especially Beluzian rights around the Darnussian island of Nihaton; and 3) Affirming Beluzia's commitment to regional peace and prosperity. |
Proposals
Debate
These messages have been posted to debate on this bill:
| Date | not recorded | From | To | Debating the Darnussian Trade Act |
| Message | Of your proposed purposes, the HNP can only support 2) and 3), and would have to vote no if 1) were to remain as-is. |
| Date | not recorded | From | Front for a Solidarian Country | To | Debating the Darnussian Trade Act |
| Message | We agree with both clauses 2) and 3), and with the general idea of negotiatiing a trade pact with our Darnussian friends. However, we completely oppose to the idea of lowering tariffs and liberalizing trade. To do that, would be to surrender our national sovereignity and would provoke a huge damage to our national industry. In addition, lowering tariffs would cause an leak of capital from our country, and reduce the State's revenue to spend on the Beluzian people. We say no to this attempt at reducing our sovereignity and increasing the rights of the rich factory owners! |
| Date | not recorded | From | Social Libertarian Party | To | Debating the Darnussian Trade Act |
| Message | There is absolutely nothing that is diminishing our sovereignty in this bill. It calls merely for an envoy to be sent that would work to lower trade barriers--not universally or rapidly, but in a manner beneficial to the long-term industrial needs of our state. Some tariffs, obviously, should not be removed at this point in order to protect our industry, but taking steps towards freer trade is extremely important for the health of our economy. I will amend the language to make this more clear, and hopefully it would be more satisfactory. |
| Date | not recorded | From | Libertarian Communist Party | To | Debating the Darnussian Trade Act |
| Message | The amended bill is acceptable to us. |
| Date | not recorded | From | Neo-Marxist revolutionary Party | To | Debating the Darnussian Trade Act |
| Message | The majority of this bill is acceptable to us. However, we cannot vote for this bill until we know: a)Which commodites? And b) under which conditions? |
| Date | not recorded | From | Social Libertarian Party | To | Debating the Darnussian Trade Act |
| Message | The bill calls for an envoy, which would probably be from the Libertarian Communist camp, to go to Darnussia with very vague instructions. If you do not trust the Libertarian Communists to protect our trade interests, then fair enough, but otherwise this bill should not become anymore detailed, as it is in essence merely a resolution to try to get the ball moving on international trade; there is nothing binding in this bill. |
| Date | not recorded | From | Neo-Marxist revolutionary Party | To | Debating the Darnussian Trade Act |
| Message | Ah no, don't misjudge us here. We believe it acceptable for the Libertarian Communist party to represent Beluzia, especially since both the foreign affairs ministry and economic ministries are held by the party. Our only reservations about the bill is the first article, which if not played correctly could damage our economy. However, as long as there is nothing binding in this bill the Neo-Marxist's will support this bill. |
| Date | not recorded | From | To | Debating the Darnussian Trade Act |
| Message | The amendment is insufficient to staisfy us. It is possible for the economy to benefit while the majority of the population suffer, and this is one of the possible results of 'freer' trade (the other is that both people and economy suffer). Therefore, we vote against it. Say 'no' to the subordination of the workers to the means of production! |
| Date | not recorded | From | Front for a Solidarian Country | To | Debating the Darnussian Trade Act |
| Message | We would support a joint economic program and/or a trade pact with Darnussia, and trust our friends in the LCP, but we nevertheless remain against a lowering of tariffs and a liberalization of trade conditions. It is time for nations to negotiate pacts not only benefitious to their industries, but also to their workers. |
| Date | not recorded | From | Social Libertarian Party | To | Debating the Darnussian Trade Act |
| Message | Subordination of the workers? This is not subordination, BRCL, but rather it is empowerment for workers. You seem to think that, for whatever reason, losing an inefficient domestic industry is bad for the economy. How is that bad? The vast majority of people in our country will benefit from the availability of cheaper imports that will empower them in the economy. Indeed, there is no reason to hold the entire nation back for the temporary suffering of displaced workers (who will undoubtedly be able to find jobs in the industries that may now grow better with lower costs provided by freer trade). Collective economic stagnation is a consequence of stubbornly refusing to acknowledge the benefits of free trade, and it is nations that restrict trade the most that suffer the greatest poverty rates. And, if nothing else, you should realize that the delegate is NOT BOUND by the three purposes listed in the bill, so if you trust the LCP, then there is no reason not to vote yes. |
| Date | not recorded | From | Front for a Solidarian Country | To | Debating the Darnussian Trade Act |
| Message | To liberalize tariffs on imports, even those of an "inneficcient local industry", as you define it, is always negative. Lower tariffs mean that foreign cheap imports may flood our national market and destroy the national industry. This hurts the economy in many ways: it creates unemployment, since you have no guarantee that other industries will grow due to the influx of cheap imports, and it makes the economy dependant of importing products. A liberalized economy is also more vulnerable to crisis in the global market, not to mention the fact that you have no guarantee that the cheap imports you allow today will always remain cheap. It is very possible that, once the national industry has been crushed, the imports become more expensive, since there is no local competition. This would effectively cripple not only the local industry, but also worker wages and the adquisitive power of the average beluzian citizen. Economics is not linear science, but a social science. There are no 'magical formulas' that work for every country and every situation. Rather than that, ech economic policy has to be specially carved according to the place, the situation and the needs of the population. Free trade has destroyed, and is destroying now, the economies of countless developing countries, while in the first world creates poverty, unemployment, social inequality and reduces living standards. We are, quite frankly, appaled that this disastrous bill was passed. |
| Date | not recorded | From | Social Libertarian Party | To | Debating the Darnussian Trade Act |
| Message | To emphasize a point we've made earlier, there is nothing binding in this bill except the commission of an envoy to be sent to Darnussia. This bill does not presume to declare what the trade policy should be, only that a cautious and and practiced liberalizing of trade relations be conducted. You also neglect the problems of the side of the coin you are advocating, which is maintaining all present tariffs. Though unemployment is often created in the nation with the weaker sector for Industry A, this unemployment need not be permanent, nor does it signify that the economy has been damaged. Indeed, usually this allows most consumers to gain more purchasing power immediately because Good A is now cheaper. You worry that the price will rise once local industry is crushed, but you don't take into account the fact that controls can be established by our envoy that will prevent dumping or monopolistic price-fixing from being allowed in trade between our two nations. You also seem to believe that free trade invariably hurts everyone involved. When it is carried out improperly and clumsily, this is possible, but the fact is that with free trade agreements that are non-exploitave, the improvement of the economies of both countries generally results. Do not despair. |
| Date | 14:50:27, April 27, 2005 CET | From | Front for a Solidarian Country | To | Debating the Darnussian Trade Act |
| Message | Well, yes, free trade invariably hurts everyone involved...except for the large industry owners. Free trade gives these owners access to new markets and the right to pay lower wages, while it creates social inequality and poverty for the rest of the population. The economy may grow, but the living standards of the population will get worse. Whether you agree with this or not, my point remains. We do not possess economic data of neither our nation nor Darnussia and so, it is not possible for us to verify if free trade will benefit us or not. It is too soon, at this point, to sign a free trade agreement. |
subscribe to this discussion - unsubscribe
Voting
| Vote | Seats | |||
| yes | Total Seats: 122 | |||
| no | Total Seats: 65 | |||
| abstain | Total Seats: 64 |
| Random fact: Cultural Protocols should generally be reflective of RP conducted within the nation and should not significantly alter or modify the ethnic, religious or linguistic composition without considerable and reasonable role-play or other justification. |
| Random quote: "I do not believe in the creed professed by the Jewish church, by the Roman church, by the Greek church, by the Turkish church, by the Protestant church, nor by any church that I know of. My own mind is my own church." - Thomas Paine |