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: Domestic Market Protection Bill of 3384
Details
Submitted by[?]: Workers' Popular Alliance
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: December 3384
Description[?]:
| Imposing tariffs on goods of which we are entirely or partly self-sufficient encourages our people to buy Hutorian. Moving the profits from foreign companies and to our own. |
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 | 18:30:37, October 22, 2012 CET | From |  Old Whig Party | To | Debating the Domestic Market Protection Bill of 3384 |
| Message | Mr Speaker, This bill will only serve to increase prices and thus disproportionately affect the poorest in society. We urge parliament to reject this bill. |
| Date | 20:51:29, October 22, 2012 CET | From | Workers' Popular Alliance | To | Debating the Domestic Market Protection Bill of 3384 |
| Message | Mr Speaker, I would argue that the Hon. Member does not see the long-term benifits of this bill. It will expand the market for our buisnesses, thus creating greater profits, which in turn will allow them to employ more people, and I think we can all agree, that the greatest threat to prosperity is unemployment. In addition it will generate a direct income into the treasury which, if the OWP are really sincere in their quest to aid the poor, can be used as tax relief for low -income earners. |
| Date | 21:06:35, October 22, 2012 CET | From | Old Whig Party | To | Debating the Domestic Market Protection Bill of 3384 |
| Message | Mr Speaker, This will not expand the market, but shield it. This will remove competition and consumer choices, and money which would have gone to other sectors of the economy. This fosters inefficiency, high prices and unemployment as consumers will have less to spend. If this were not the case, why not ban imports altogether? |
| Date | 21:27:21, October 22, 2012 CET | From | Workers' Popular Alliance | To | Debating the Domestic Market Protection Bill of 3384 |
| Message | Mr Speaker, Because Hutori is not self-sufficient. I thought this to be rather self-evident. The Hon. Member can not seriously be completely ignorant in regards to the positive effect of a protectionist trade policy. We have no issues in admitting to the faults of a 100 per cent protectionist trade policy, as the Hon. Member just sarcastically proposed, but that is why we are proposing a middle road. |
| Date | 22:08:32, October 22, 2012 CET | From | Old Whig Party | To | Debating the Domestic Market Protection Bill of 3384 |
| Message | Mr Speaker, There is no grey area, no "middle road", in what is wrong or what is right - free trade allows production to occur in the most favourable conditions. Free trade protects from monopoly, free trade strengthens competition. To want less free trade is to want less competition. This plays into the hands of big business and the losers are everybody else, including the workers the WPA claim to represent. We beg parliament to reject this bill. |
| Date | 22:22:48, October 22, 2012 CET | From | Workers' Popular Alliance | To | Debating the Domestic Market Protection Bill of 3384 |
| Message | Mr Speaker, 'Tis a rather bold statement to proclaim something to be either wrong or right. There is certainly middle ground to be found on this issue, as with many others. The WPA can admit to being a radical party, though not on every single issue. We, apart from the OWP, also value moderation in certain aspects of the economy. We have seen, time and again, what happens when the government retracts all economic responsibility, and allows it to run rampant. You need not be a socialist to see the value of government intervention in certain aspects of the economy. Sadly, however, the Party of Anarcho-Capitalists, or Old Whig, do not seem to understand this. |
| Date | 22:31:45, October 22, 2012 CET | From | Old Whig Party | To | Debating the Domestic Market Protection Bill of 3384 |
| Message | Mr Speaker, To refer to us as anarchists is a gross misrepresentation, and we would respectfully ask you to withdraw. Unlike the WPA, we have respect for the rule of law and through it, the rights of the individual - we simply do not advocate a doctrine of economic hubris in which we think us as legislators are better equipped to make subjective choices. |
| Date | 01:13:06, October 23, 2012 CET | From | Mitten Partiet | To | Debating the Domestic Market Protection Bill of 3384 |
| Message | Mr Speaker, Our party supports a free trade policy and can't possible accept this. |
subscribe to this discussion - unsubscribe
Voting
| Vote | Seats | ||||
| yes | Total Seats: 92 | ||||
| no |
Total Seats: 234 | ||||
| abstain | Total Seats: 0 |
| Random fact: In your Message Centre there is a really useful feature which allows you to subscribe to all of the bill debates in your nation. If you use that, then the "Watched Discussions" section will show you every time a new message has been posted on a bill. You can also subscribe to other pages you want to follow, such as your nation message-board, party organisations or bills outside your nation which you are interested in. |
| Random quote: "Mine is the first generation able to contemplate the possibility that we may live our entire lives without going to war or sending our children to war." - Tony Blair |