Treaty on the Establishment of a Common Market between Atlasia and GB (approved)

[Unconditional Surrender Truman]

I am likewise available to answer questions on behalf of the State Department.

[Unconditional Surrender Truman]

It seems that there is a healthy degree of confusion regarding what this treaty actually does. I would refer the Senate to Article IV, Section 1 of the agreement:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

This clause allows subjects of the UK to travel freely to and from Atlasia. That's it. As Senator Scott duly notes, this is no more liberal than the agreement that existed between Canada and this Republic prior to the adoption of the Fourth Constitution, which was never shown to have compromised national security or the integrity of our borders. It does not apply to persons who are not British subjects and/or Atlasian citizens, and it does not eliminate the passport requirement; in this sense, it is considerably more conservative than the ACCMA.

Senator Blair raises valid questions regarding the discordant customs systems of the presumed signatories and the status of EU nationals living in the UK; so valid are these questions, in fact, that they are actually addressed in the body of the treaty. I refer the Senate to Article IV, Section 2

You must be logged in to read this quote.

and, in turn, to Article VIII, Section 2

You must be logged in to read this quote.

In summary, there is already established in this treaty a provision by which the customs systems of the signatories may be reconciled; furthermore, the treaty will not take effect until after Britain has formally withdrawn from the EU, eliminating any ambiguity regarding their status under this treaty. I would further note that, should either of these processes be resolved in a way that is not favorable to Atlasia, we reserve the right to withdraw from the common market according to the provisions of Article VII.

[Unconditional Surrender Truman]

Does Article 2, Section 3 open up the potenial for the Investor-State dispute courts?

Do you mean Article III? Article II only has one section.

[Unconditional Surrender Truman]

The treaty as presently constituted does not provide for the institution of an ICS. To Senator Blair's concern that the "free movement of goods" clause could create a situation where Atlasia is sued by a British company for prohibiting the importation of goods that do not meet our regulatory standards, I would refer the Senate to Article III, Section 1:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Note that, under the terms of this treaty, Atlasia is obligated to afford British goods treatment only as favorable as that afforded to our own products. So, in the case of the cigarette example, British tobacco producers would still need to conform to Atlasian packaging requirements to sell their products in this country; the "free movement" clause simply exempts them from any sort of tariff that might otherwise be applicable.

[Unconditional Surrender Truman]

While I am all for a U.K./Atlasian common market, they need to work out their withdrawal from the EU first.

Did anyone actually read the treaty? It's stated quite clearly that the agreement does not take effect until after Britain has formally withdrawn from the EU.

[Unconditional Surrender Truman]

In response to the PPT's question: yes, treaties with foreign powers need only the assent of the Senate to proceed to the president's desk. Per the Constitution,

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Additionally, Leinad does have the option to hold a referendum on the Treaty should he so wish to hold one, as per the text.

Based on my understanding of the Constitution, I believe that particular clause (Article VIII, Section 1) would need to be invoked by the Senate, not the president, were a popular referendum desired.