Nfs Unbound Won 39;t Launch

0 views

Skip to first unread message

Egisto Chancellor

unread,

Aug 3, 2024, 4:52:48 PM8/3/24

to gerslanote

I faced this issue as recently as yesterday after upgrading to VSCode 1.52.1. Debugger which was previously working fine suddenly started showing "Unbound Breakpoint". This was happening for all the breakpoints I was trying to set regardless of the place/file/line in code. I then had to add the "localRoot" property and make it point to my source code folder for it to start working again. Hope this helps. My launch.json configuration now looks like this

I have file A and B. File A called into File B (and was required at the top of File A). File A's breakpoints were working perfectly. File B's sometimes let me hit them but I wasn't getting the full debugging experience if it worked at all.

The very first thing you should check is the entry point - the first line of code that gets executed. If that one can bound a breakpoint, then you know your other breakpoints are unbound because something between the time your other breakpoints are met is pre-empted by an error introduced. Your code is not reachable in that case and the IDE can detect that your module is not loaded at all.

However, if I removed 'parent_folder' from my VS Code workspace, and instead added 'child_folder' to the workspace (thus changing the underlying value of the '$workspaceRoot' variable value), the original entry (without the '/child_folder' subfolder reference) caused the breakpoints to be activated.

The latest set of proposals by the EU at the WTO seeks to impose extreme levels of liberalisation on developing countries. This is in stark contradiction to a recent speech made by the Trade Minister of the United Kingdom, which presently holds the Presidency of the European Union. This begs the question: Who really speaks for Europe?

"My first priority for Hong Kong is that we must not force liberalisation on developing countries," said Alan Johnson, the UK's Secretary of Trade, in a speech in London on 20 October. "This is a development round. We must make sure that this is true. Developing countries must have flexibility to plan development in line with their own national priorities.

But on 28 October, the EU's Trade Commissioner Peter Mandelson, announced the EU's latest WTO proposal. Its offer on agriculture is linked to a condition that the developing countries take on extreme liberalisation commitments in services and non-agricultural market access (NAMA).

The latest set of proposals by the European Union at the World Trade Organisation which seeks to impose extreme levels of liberalisation on the developing countries is in stark contradiction to a recent speech made by the Trade Minister of the United Kingdom, which presently holds the Presidency of the European Union. This begs the question: Who really speaks for Europe?

Explaining what he meant by rejecting forced liberalisation, Johnson said: "We won't demand concessions from least developed countries" and for other developing countries "we must not prevent them engaging in deals that could offer huge opportunities. Instead, we should pursue policies that require less liberalisation from them than we concede to them; and ensure that they have the flexibility to plan and sequence liberalisation in line with national development plans."

Johnson did not link any EU agriculture offer to liberalisation in the South. On the contrary, he concluded his speech this way: "So, these are the three areas which I think can form the basis of a deal at Hong Kong. No forced liberalisation on the poorest countries. Big steps to cut trade distorting agricultural subsidies in the developed world. And abolishing all developed countries' trade distorting agricultural export support by 2010."

However, nine days later, on 28 October, the EU's Trade Commissioner Peter Mandelson, who is also British, announced the EU's latest proposal on agriculture, in which he made clear that a condition for its offers is that the developing countries take on extreme liberalisation commitments in services and non-agricultural market access (NAMA). If these EU demands are accepted, even in dilute form, they would threaten the business and the very survival of local manufacturing and services firms in developing countries.

Mandelson's demand for NAMA is that the developing countries slash their industrial tariffs using a Swiss formula with a coefficient of 10, which means that all their tariffs, except for a few, will be reduced to a range of 0-10%.

Some limited "flexibilities" would be available to developing countries to reduce a few of their tariff lines by less than this formula, said the EU paper. But in any event, all tariffs cannot exceed the level of 15%.

The EU also proposed a very harsh treatment of unbound tariffs. At present, countries are allowed not to "bind" in the WTO the tariffs of some of their products (usually sensitive items which need the most protection). Since they are not "bound", these tariffs can be set at or raised to any level.

The EU proposed to remove this flexibility in the harshest way. It wants all tariffs to be bound, and at very low levels. It proposed a system to mark up the applied rates of the unbound tariffs by 10 percentage points and then reduce them by the formula.

For example, a product with an applied tariff of 40% that is not bound would have 10 percentage points added to give it a base value of 50%. This would then be slashed by the formula, giving the result of the new tariff (now bound) of 8.3%.

Although many countries have liberalised their imports in recent years, they still keep moderate to high tariffs (some exceeding 50% or even 100%) for sensitive products to protect local industries. If all tariffs have to be brought down to the low levels demanded by the EU, many local firms would lose a large part of their business, or close down.

The EU demand in services is equally extreme. The present WTO rules on services allow developing countries the right to commit to open up various sub-sectors to the extent they consider appropriate, according to their national policies and interests.

Using this flexibility, developing countries have been cautious and have not opened up in many sectors in which local firms are unable to compete. Also, they have committed to open up only partially in some sectors, retaining some controls such as limits on foreign ownership.

Recently, the EU launched a campaign to establish a new "benchmarking" system in which developing countries must compulsorily commit to open up at least a certain number of services sub-sectors. Last Friday, it revealed the extent of its demands. It wants developing countries to increase liberalisation in 93 out of the 163 services sub-sectors (or 57%) classified in the WTO.

Further, it wants the WTO to launch "sectoral negotiations in key sectors to achieve quality offers for critical masses of WTO Members." By this it means that there will be additional efforts by (and thus pressures on) countries to open up in the most important sectors.

The EU mentions financial services, telecommunications, distribution services, construction, computer and related services, environmental services, financial, maritime transport plus certain sub-sectors of professional and business services.

At a WTO meeting last week, 14 developing countries issued a joint statement opposing any attempts to include the "benchmarking approach" (or the setting of targets) in the Ministerial Declaration that will be adopted at the WTO's Hong Kong meeting. Many others spoke in support of the 14 countries (see SUNS #5905).

The EU move is seen by many observers as deliberately asking for a "package", in which other partners have to accept its extreme demands in other areas (especially services and NAMA) so that it can shift the blame to them if its agriculture offers are rejected for being inadequate.

The scene is thus set for continuing the "blame game" in which each party uses public relations to try to shift responsibility to the other parties in the event that the Hong Kong Ministerial meeting does not succeed.

It is an extremely dangerous game, because the future development of the developing countries is being used as pawns in a high-level bargaining process that at the moment involves only a few countries.

The Doha talks have gone a long way down the hill from the high rhetoric of the Doha Declaration that launched them in 2001, when the Trade Ministers declared that the needs and interests of developing countries would be at the centre of the negotiations.

The developed countries keep talking about how this is a Development Round to benefit the developing countries. But in their concrete proposals and demands, they are cynically doing the opposite, as the EU's latest paper revealed.

It could be that the UK Minister meant what he said. If so, the EU Trade Commissioner and his negotiators are doing the direct opposite of what the Minister, who chairs the EU Presidency on trade, is advocating.

In his remarkable speech entitled "The Wall of Shame", presented at the Foreign Policy Centre, Alan Johnson said the kind of deal he wanted to see at the WTO's Hong Kong Ministerial is "one that sweeps away protectionism in the richest countries; whilst protecting the poorest."

He first reminded his audience of how in 1785 the then Prime Minister Pitt the Younger tried to reverse the protectionist measures imposed by Britain on Ireland, banning Irish ships from carrying exports; forbidding the import of Irish cattle; and levying huge duties on Irish wool.

Johnson recounted how Pitt tried to persuade Parliament to bring these trade barriers down, describing Ireland's treatment as "a system of cruel and abominable restraint" and called for a "system of equality and fairness". But his proposals were voted down by protectionist forces, Ireland descended further into abject poverty and "the rest is history."