05-28-2006, 08:48 AM
Ceorana Posted on May 27 2006, 03:17 PM
Quote: Recycling doesn't need total free trade to work, but that's not what the recycling resolution did. It encouraged companies to recycle by banning protectionism on them, so companies would have an incentive to recycling because of reduced tariffs on recycled products. This resolution would effectively cripple any resolution that wanted to go about promoting recycling in that manner.
And what I meant about the CM was that there wouldn't be a problem with big nations abusing free trade agreements over small nations, because the UN could define the terms. Similarly, it is possible to have free trade strictly defined, because we have a binding UN to regulate it.
Quote: Similarly, how can the CM force compliance when a resolution includes within it the right to opt out of any future FTA-like provision? It would require and even greater number of silly repeals than occur now. [/quote]
That's assuming this proposal passes. [/quote]
Thanks for the info on the recycling initiative; it must have flown under the radar or appeared while I was CTE'd. Yes, this is a very positive use of free trade in which recycling is encouraged by forbidding certain trade restraints. I doubt there are many other examples, but you clearly identify a major weakness in the resolution as drafted -- enough for me to reconsider my first response (not that it mattered since I was in the minority anyway).
Even with the CM, meddling can occur; but I take your point that it is at most an inconvenience rather than a reall problem (again, food for thought).
Your last point correct and written like a true partisan, and my hat goes off to you.
I especially like being an extreme moderate because I can, e.g., with the secular government value, and frequently do argue with myself, often long after other people have decided and moved on. 
Remember too I'm the nation that alone in the IDU voted against the Nobel Peace Prize resolution. 
Quote: Recycling doesn't need total free trade to work, but that's not what the recycling resolution did. It encouraged companies to recycle by banning protectionism on them, so companies would have an incentive to recycling because of reduced tariffs on recycled products. This resolution would effectively cripple any resolution that wanted to go about promoting recycling in that manner.
And what I meant about the CM was that there wouldn't be a problem with big nations abusing free trade agreements over small nations, because the UN could define the terms. Similarly, it is possible to have free trade strictly defined, because we have a binding UN to regulate it.
Quote: Similarly, how can the CM force compliance when a resolution includes within it the right to opt out of any future FTA-like provision? It would require and even greater number of silly repeals than occur now. [/quote]
That's assuming this proposal passes. [/quote]
Thanks for the info on the recycling initiative; it must have flown under the radar or appeared while I was CTE'd. Yes, this is a very positive use of free trade in which recycling is encouraged by forbidding certain trade restraints. I doubt there are many other examples, but you clearly identify a major weakness in the resolution as drafted -- enough for me to reconsider my first response (not that it mattered since I was in the minority anyway).
Even with the CM, meddling can occur; but I take your point that it is at most an inconvenience rather than a reall problem (again, food for thought).
Your last point correct and written like a true partisan, and my hat goes off to you.
I especially like being an extreme moderate because I can, e.g., with the secular government value, and frequently do argue with myself, often long after other people have decided and moved on. Remember too I'm the nation that alone in the IDU voted against the Nobel Peace Prize resolution.