by Max Barry

Latest Forum Topics

Advertisement

Post

Region: Geopolity

European free trade organisation

Orange-bourgogne wrote:Official correspondence
To: The Council of EFTO (European free trade organisation)
From: Department of State for Commerce, Orange-bourgogne
Subject: Observership
Encryption: None

To whom it may concern, Greeting!

On behalf of the Government of Orange-bourgogne, and all and singular Departments of State involved in this affair thereof, I am able to thank you for explaining a bit more about the observership role we might have in the future. However, I am not able to truthfully say that we are completely assured by the picture you painted in front of us. Please allow me to explain this.

In your latest response, you wrote that Observers have more “leeway with regards to implementing the various chapters and articles [of] the Convention”. We would like to know what this phrase means specifically. Because one is either obliged to implement a certain policy in law or not, so which one of the two is it? Are Observers obliged under the Convention to implement in their legal structure (that is, to make them come into effect; to provide legislation that regulates it) or not, and if so, what makes them different from regular Members, except for the fact that Observers have no representation on the Council? Because it would seem a very bad idea for us to subject ourselves to rules that we then have no say over if they are changed in the future and we have to follow the new rules without representation. It would, in our view, make us a second-grade Member instead of an Observer.

Please allow me to explain how the Government of Orange-bourgogne views the distinction between regular Member States and Observers when it comes to international organisations. As we understand it, Members, under the Convention, have to implement the regulations adopted by the Council; they must make sure that they are put in effect through legislation. In exchange for that, they have the right to vote and therefore block the said regulations. Observers on the other hand have no right to vote, but can participate in an advisory manner during the debates if so requested. They follow and spectate on what happens and could align their policies with that of the EFTO if they are so willing, yet they are not obliged to do so, because they do not have to implement and follow the regulations of the Organisation as they have no vote on it.

With that said I will move on to the next point you made, which is that Observers must “adhere” to the policies and regulations adopted by the EFTO. Now, if we were opposed to the ideals set out in the Convention, we would not have applied to become an Observer to the Organisation, I may assume that so much is clear. That does not mean, of course, that we will blindly follow any and all policies you adopt and would like to see implemented though, for then we would have applied to become regular and full Members. It is because of our internal political issues that we do not want to become a full Member though yet. Besides that argument, we would also like to await the general directions that the EFTO seeks to move towards, before we decide to either [apply to] join it or to remain but an Observer.

The third paragraph of your latest letter does, to me, not make that much sense. Are you really saying that the EFTO requires Observers, who are not Members, must engage with third countries in the way the EFTO tells them to do? For if that be true, we would like to revoke our application as an Observer. Please do not get me wrong, we do like to be associated with the Organisation, but we will not let you prescribe our policies with third nations, even if they have a special relationship secured for themselves with Members. That, to us, is another thing that ought to distinguish Members from Observers. To put it very blunt, we will not follow the directives put to us by the Council of the EFTO per se. We will follow the legislation passed by Parliament. Now if Parliament is convinced that it is right for us to follow the EFTO on trade matters, we will of course do so. Yet if we do not think it would be a good idea, we will not do so. That is part of the reasons why we apply to become an Observer rather than a regular Member: to have the ability to do just this.

With that in mind, you also asked for a specific subject towards we would have a reservation from implementing it into our national law. I responded by saying that we have a reservation with regards to the freedom of movement [of people]. That remains the case. It is the most important example of reservations we have. So, in such a way, you may conclude indeed that we would like to be exempt from the requirement to adhere to the provisions set out in Chapter I, Article 2, section c and the entirety of Chapter II, Article 3 so far it concerns the said free movement of individuals.

I hope to have been able to explain the view of the Government in greater detail yet also more clearly than before. If not, feel welcome to write to me so I can clear up the viewpoints of the Government even more.

[Signed]

Also for the other Departments involved:
Nathan de Rothschild PC MP
Secretary of State for Commerce

THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN FREE TRADE ORGANISATION

To: Nathan de Rothschild PC MP, Department of State for Commerce, Orange-bourgogne

We the Council of the EFTO wish to address your concerns and we will now address them as follows;

Becoming an Observer member of any organisation, particularly when it comes to free-trade, requires some common rules between the various signatories. There must be rules in order to make sure such arrangements are mutually beneficial. We are quite happy to review your request as an observer to engage with free trade while not aligning with the free movement of people. I feel we made that clear it would be reviewed by the current Delegates of the Council. Of course if your state was applying for full membership it would be required to follow the Convention in full. It is however fully expected that any Observer will align with the principals of free trade with member states, and treat each member state equally with regards to trade. I hope we have made it clear that while Observer status does afford states the right to not sign up to parts of the Convention, the Council takes each Observer application on a case by case basis depending on the wishes of the Observer in question. Hence, we needed to clarify which part of the Convention your nation took exception with.

With regards to your other point, I struggle to see where this insinuation that we would force an Observer state to engage with a third nations or blocs comes from. We specifically stated it would apply to new member states approved by the Council. This does not include third parties the EFTO engages into free trade agreements with. Orange-bourgogne trade relations outside of the EFTO will be entirely within the remit of your national parliament. Any of your existing trade agreements with non-EFTO nations will also not be affected. So to be really clear, any new Full Member States to the EFTO, we expect all Observer's and trade partners to treat them as they would any other member of the EFTO.

To address what you say when you speak about your parliament only following EFTO directives that it considers a "good idea". The Council similarly will only make agreements based on what is beneficial to the EFTO, its member states, observer states and trade partners. So we find your Office's hostility towards the Council very concerning and quite frankly baffling with regards to threatening to withdrawing your application. We hope the Council and your Parliament, through your appointed representative should your application be approved, will work closely together to engage in any potential new articles on the Convention.

The EFTO does not wish to encroach on your national sovereignty. On the occasion that an article is voted through by the Council and your parliament is not willing to accept, which we hope will be rare, as an observer it will not have to adhere. However whenever an Observer does not align with a new article, their case for Observer status may be reviewed by the Council once more.

ContextReport