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: Ratification of the Alliance of International Allies (ALA)
Details
Submitted by[?]: Selucian Sovereignty Party
Status[?]: defeated
Votes: This bill proposes for the ratification of a treaty. It will require two-thirds of the legislature to vote in favor[?]. This bill will not pass any sooner than the deadline.
Voting deadline: April 2159
Description[?]:
| This bill asks for the ratification of the <a href="viewtreaty.php?treatyid=49">Alliance of International Allies (ALA)</a>. If this treaty is ratified, it becomes binding and will define national law. |
Proposals
Article 1
Ratify the Alliance of International Allies (ALA).
Debate
These messages have been posted to debate on this bill:
| Date | 22:09:19, December 14, 2005 CET | From | Selucian Sovereignty Party | To | Debating the Ratification of the Alliance of International Allies (ALA) |
| Message | This is an alliance dedicated to the preservation of democracy. THis would raise our international profile somewhat, and open the door to new economic and defense alliances. |
| Date | 00:59:29, December 17, 2005 CET | From | Selucian Liberty Party | To | Debating the Ratification of the Alliance of International Allies (ALA) |
| Message | Sure, I'll vote for this. I'll vote for most alliances |
| Date | 17:55:22, December 18, 2005 CET | From | Imperial Party of Selucian | To | Debating the Ratification of the Alliance of International Allies (ALA) |
| Message | We will vote in favour too. This treaty will bring us our island based neighbour in the east into a defense alliance. Therefore it will be more dangeraous for Deltaria to pass the straits between the islands to invade other nations wether they are allies or not. |
| Date | 15:14:20, December 20, 2005 CET | From | Selucian Sovereignty Party | To | Debating the Ratification of the Alliance of International Allies (ALA) |
| Message | I'll also bring this defence treaty to a vote too. Essentially, this is an alliance of nations who favour the free market, and codemn communism and fascism: "2. All nations will work to condemn ideologies of protectionism, communism, fascism or other anti-democratic ideologies." Given the free trade bent that our nation has recently adopted, this alliance would seem to fit in well with both our economic and military philosophy. |
| Date | 17:15:18, December 20, 2005 CET | From | VBS Party | To | Debating the Ratification of the Alliance of International Allies (ALA) |
| Message | Although VBS is not a protectionist or fascist party, we respect the parties that are more than socialist parties. |
| Date | 17:35:52, December 20, 2005 CET | From | Selucian Sovereignty Party | To | Debating the Ratification of the Alliance of International Allies (ALA) |
| Message | So you respect Fascism and protectionism? |
| Date | 19:48:11, December 20, 2005 CET | From | VBS Party | To | Debating the Ratification of the Alliance of International Allies (ALA) |
| Message | You didn't get the point. I say we should not ban them before we ban socialism |
| Date | 20:12:28, December 20, 2005 CET | From | Selucian Sovereignty Party | To | Debating the Ratification of the Alliance of International Allies (ALA) |
| Message | But by supporting this treaty for the reasons you put forth, you are suggesting that you have respect, or at least tolerance, for overtly Fascist and Protectionist (anti-Free Trade) parties. Secondly, this treaty does not seek to ban any party, it simply seeks to support free democracies and condemn anti-democratic ideologies. Your refusal to support a treaty which condemns non-democratic movements speaks volumes about your commitment to democracy, liberty and freedom of trade. |
| Date | 23:16:26, December 20, 2005 CET | From | VBS Party | To | Debating the Ratification of the Alliance of International Allies (ALA) |
| Message | Firstly, let me explain my opinion: I believe in a free trade economy, BUT I want to make chances of survival and growth of Selucian companies as big as possible (That is one of the major reason why I don't like corporation taxes. IF these people mean a very strict form of free trade (like some people in real life want, namely the same subsides, taxes, VAT, etc.), they MIGHT concider me a protectionnist, because I want the best for the Selucian companies, I would rather have ten foreign companies bankrupt than one Selucian company. I think it's rather logic I don't support a bill that might try to condemn my ideas. I know this is not likely, but I don't want to take the risk Also, by making the previous rule, they could create a dogma about all forms of "fascism" (you can consider the governement's reactions to things in australia (anti-riot rules) fascist). I of course don't like that, I want to be able to debate that, and you know my opinion about these things to. |
| Date | 03:53:22, December 21, 2005 CET | From | Selucian Sovereignty Party | To | Debating the Ratification of the Alliance of International Allies (ALA) |
| Message | Thanks for your candour. I think you've been mis-labeling yourself. you are not in favour of a free market. LP is now the only party who can lay claim to that title. I say this because you clearly don't believe in a free trade economy. You are an economic nationalist. You want free trade where it benefits Selucian interests, but want protectionism (and higher consumer prices for Selucians) in sectors where Selucia does not have a comparative economic advantage. Essentially, you are trying to suck and blow at the same time. Based on that point of view, it is logical that you do not want to pass this bill. However, based on your economic nationalist point of view, you should also have voted against the free trade deal with Barmenistan, as that will damage Selucian companies that don't have a comparative in industries that are better suited to other signatory countries. |
| Date | 06:42:41, December 21, 2005 CET | From | Green Moderate Party | To | Debating the Ratification of the Alliance of International Allies (ALA) |
| Message | Sorry I didn't join the debate sooner, folks, I haven't had much time recently. I disapprove of the treaty. Picture the following scenario among signatories: Deltaria docks in Nation A's waters during time of war. It is unclear whether Nation A allowed this willingly, as there were moderate compulsion tactics in play. Nation B has been itching to invade Nation A but was previously prohibited by the treaty, and uses Nation A's arguable noncompliance as an excuse to declare war on them. Nation C doesn't see Nation A as having willingly allowed Deltaria to dock, so sees Nation B's "disciplinary action" as "warmongering," and thus in itself a violation of the treaty. Confusion ensues. |
| Date | 06:47:51, December 21, 2005 CET | From | Green Moderate Party | To | Debating the Ratification of the Alliance of International Allies (ALA) |
| Message | Oops! Sorry, disregard that last comment. It was meant for another bill. I also disagree with this one, though, because it says we must condemn protectionism. I'm not opposed to reserving the right to use tariffs at certain times. |
| Date | 12:38:34, December 21, 2005 CET | From | VBS Party | To | Debating the Ratification of the Alliance of International Allies (ALA) |
| Message | ssp, you didn't read my message, or you just didn't understand it. I say we should make it possible for the Selucian companies to survive and make profit. We should do this by giving them ideal circumstances, like good harbors, low corporation taxes, ... I did not say we should have taxes on goods from other nations, I don't know why you think I want that. I just want to make our corporation taxes very low, so (Selucian) companies can produce very cheap, and there products can be as cheap. I do want Value added taxes, because I don't want corporation and income taxes, and the governement must get money for basic tasks, even if we cut the budget. Every company pays that VAT, even Selucian companies, so I don't see how that directly is protectionist. Besides, you can read the VBS economical program in a previous cabinet proposal, I think you read it, but if you want, I will search for it and post the link here, so you can re-read it. I would like some answers from you: 1) I would rather have ten foreign companies bankrupt than one Selucian company (just answer agree or not agree) 2) If you were ministre of finance, and you had a surplus, wich one would you cut first? Income/VAT/corporation tax? 3) Would you like a pact that says every nation should have the same corporation tax and VAT? (y/n) 4) Would you sign more free trade treaties if you knew a huge % of Selucian companies will get bankrupt then? (y/n) PS: As I said, 99% of the people would not think the above point of view is protectionist, but the people with a very strict definition of protectionist (1%) will, that's why I didn't vote yes |
| Date | 15:29:09, December 21, 2005 CET | From | Selucian Sovereignty Party | To | Debating the Ratification of the Alliance of International Allies (ALA) |
| Message | I misunderstood your point. It sounded to me like you were in favour of subsidies to protect Selucian industry and ensure that they did not go bankrupt. You seem to have clairified that point in your subsequent statement. 1. I disagree. All things being equal, I want the ten most efficient corporations to survive, so that the market is at its most efficient, its prices are the lowest, and our consumers purchasing power increases. I will however work to ensure that the one Selucian company has the necessary infrastructure in place so that it can be as efficient as possible. 2. I'd probably cut Income, then Corporate, then VAT. My reasoning is that when you cut income taxes, spending increases, which increases demand for goods and services, which then benefits corporations through increased production and profit. 3. No. However, I have only seen one example in my life where a country argued that a lower tax was a "subsidy". (The US has accused Canada of subsidizing its lumber industry, because it charges lower stumpage fees (taxes) than America. THe NAFTA trade panels have repeatedly rejected the American view, and the Americans have repeatedly refused to abide by the NAFTA ruleing and remove its tarrifs). 4. It would depend on what the treaty said. if I thought the treaty was true to the principles of free and fair trade, and that our consumers would accordingly benefit, then yes, I would sign it. I don't believe in babysitting uncompetitive local companies, and believe that the free market and competitive forces ought to determine who provides the goods and services in Selucia. If the companies that do this are foreign owned, then so be it. They will still employ Selucians, Still be subject to taxes, and Selucians will still earn incomes, but they will benefit from lower prices and increased purchasing power. |
subscribe to this discussion - unsubscribe
Voting
| Vote | Seats | |||
| yes | Total Seats: 284 | |||
| no |
Total Seats: 217 | |||
| abstain | Total Seats: 74 |
| Random fact: Real-life organisations should not be referenced in Particracy, unless they are simple and generic (eg. "National Organisation for Women" is allowed). |
| Random quote: "No man can outrun a bullet." - Idi Amin |