NationStates Jolt Archive

At my government's request, I'm trying my hand at creating a proposal on funding the World Assembly’s operations, whilst limiting its ability to set taxes directly, too. Here we go:


Ways and Means

Category: Furtherment of Democracy
Strength: Mild

Description: The World Assembly,

REALISING that the operations of this World Assembly itself, and of whatever agencies and programmes it might establish through other resolutions, will need to be paid for in some way,

RECOGNISING that it is nations themselves (as represented by their governments), rather than the inhabitants of those nations, that hold membership in this Assembly,

UNDERSTANDING that the diversity of economic systems, strengths and traditions amongst those nations, coupled with respect for their governments’ rights, would make any attempts at setting taxes within those nations by the World Assembly highly undesirable;

1. DECLARES that the World Assembly and its agencies and programmes shall be funded primarily by contributions levied from its member nations, but does not attempt to specify how those nations’ governments should raise the money concerned;

2. ESTABLISHES the Assembly Budgetary Commission (or ABC), which shall
i. Draw up budgets for the World Assembly, and for its agencies and programmes;
ii. Determine how the costs of funding those budgets shall be shared out amongst the member nations in the fairest way possible;
iii. Receive and distribute those funds;
iv. Publish full and accurate accounts, for the WA itself and for each WA agency or programme, along with independent auditors’ reports on these, annually;
v. Oversee the financial management of all World Assembly departments, agencies and programmes, and the financial affairs of senior staff employed in those operations, in order to minimise corruption, fraud and waste;

3. REQUIRES that all member nations pay their assessed contributions to the ABC promptly and in full, unless the ABC accepts that they are genuinely kept from doing so by emergencies;

4. ESTABLISHES an agency called the World Assembly Arbitration Tribunals (or WAAT), commands this to act justly, and gives it the authority
i. To hear appeals by national governments against decisions of the ABC;
ii. To impose binding arbitration in those cases;
iii. To recover the costs of hearing each case from whichever of the parties to that case it considers appropriate;

5. STATES that any voluntary donations to any WA agencies or programmes must be channelled through the ABC, which shall not tell those agencies and programmes whom the donors were, except when governments are specifically funding operations within their own territories;

6. RESERVES the right to pass resolutions that would over-rule national governments’ policies on taxation
i. To regulate customs duties, tariffs, and any other taxes and official charges that apply to international trade, for the specific purpose of promoting that trade;
ii. To reduce or end the possible inclusion of unfair discrimination in those policies;

7. ACKNOWLEDGES that full control over all other aspects of the taxation applicable within any WA member nation[/color] is and remains a sovereign right for that nation's own government alone;

8. RESERVES the right to grant any WA agency that may be established through any further resolution the authority to charge fees for its services, by specifying this point in that same resolution;

9. URGES all national governments to include some form of democratic process in their procedures for making decisions about budgets and taxation, and to make accurate and audited copies of their accounts (to the extent that concern about national security makes this possible) available to their nations' peoples.

Author: St Edmund.


Alfred Devereux Sweynsson,
Speaking for the government of
The Protectorate of The St Edmundan Antarctic.


(Original draft edited on the 10th April, 11th April, 12th April, 14th April, 15th April, and 22nd April. Author credit added, ready for its submission by a certain other nation, 08th May...)

5. RESERVES the right to pass resolutions that would affect tariffs, customs duties, and other taxes and charges, in the specific context of international trade;

"I was all set to approve this until I got to this resolution. Remove it and you shall have TMZ's support, but until then I am afraid I can not approve" Captain Abagail Hardcastle said firmly after reading the proposal carefully.

"I was all set to approve this until I got to this resolution. Remove it and you shall have TMZ's support, but until then I am afraid I can not approve" Captain Abagail Hardcastle said firmly after reading the proposal carefully.

From a game mechanics perspective, the WA already has this ability. Removing this clause will only push it from a WA action to a WA-mandated national action. It'll cost exactly the same either way.

Wolfgang blinked. "I really, really like this. The only thing I'm not sure I like is the 'Alliance Budgetary Committee.' I'd prefer 'assembly' or some other such, if you're married to the 'ABC' initialism. Otherwise... 'unified', maybe? 'Universal'? 'United'? That's a bit reminiscent of the old organization, though... But then, I'm just nitpicking, I suppose. You have our full support."

OOC: I don't really have a logical reason. Alliance just sounds... wrong, somehow. "Assembly Budgetary Committee" sounds better to me, but I'm just nitpicking from the OOC side as well, now.

>.>

<.<

Sorry. I'll be quiet now.

actually, i thuroughly agree with NS wolf guardian. Alliance seems wierd, assembly seems appropriate. and you say alliance in "than the inhabitants of those nations, that hold membership in this Alliance," its not an alliance....

5. RESERVES the right to pass resolutions that would affect tariffs, customs duties, and other taxes and charges, in the specific context of international trade;

actually unnecessary, unless you expect a change in the games mechanics rules. currently its illegal to make an resolution that forbids the WA from making any type of resolution, which would include a tariff resolution.

same with clause seven

8. URGES all national governments to include democratically elected legislatures in their procedures for making decisions about budgets and taxation.

dont like it. dont like it at all. it is a slap in the face to dictatorships, and slightly contrary to "but does not tell those nations’ governments how they should raise that money;"

and with all that said, the Mud Planet of Decapod Ten is still adamant in its opposition to all forms of WA taxation.

*clears throat* I fail to see much substantive difference between this new proposal and my nation's proposal (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=553774), the WA Treasury of the States Resolution, which has the zingy acronym of WATS. I expect that much of the opposition to this proposal will be the same as the objections that have been raised against the WATS proposal.

Having said that, I can see issues arising under Clause IV. I presume the intentions of the clause is to thwart attempts at bribery, which would be all well and good except for the fact that nations and individuals seeking to bribe a WA agency could simply circumvent the ABC system (either directly in contravention to this proposal or indirectly with, say, gifts to employees, etc. etc.). I would prefer that the ABC and all other WA agencies be completely transparent in regards to their finances; that way, if questionable activities take place and bribery is suspected, the World Assembly and the international community can more easily spot possible perpetrators.

Have a glorious day.

Erskine Chauncey
WA Representative, Cartographic Boxes

While I understand your intent in this proposal, and I like most of it, Suozziland cannot support this proposal due to the fact that we are indeed a Dictatorship. If you were to remove the clause that includes "Democratically elected legislatures", we would be most inclined to vote for your proposal if it makes it to the floor of the World Assembly.

No need to reword that last clause, just get rid of it. It serves no purpose other than putting down my form of government. We would like to make clear that this is our only problem with this proposal.

Sincerely,


King Ralph
Suozziland Executive

OOC: I think this is the one I like most so far. I particularly like Articles 1 - I couldn't think of a way of wording it like that, but you've got it - and 4 - the nondisclosure of voluntary donations is brilliant. However, whatever we might think of it politically, Article 8 is really a cling-on, and should be removed, unless you're going to rework the proposal to be a bit more substantively about representation in taxation. I understand it's probably a concession to category, but there would be other ways of making it fit: for example, by allowing nationals of member nations to make requests to review WA financial reports.

And I would really prefer you not refer to the WA as an 'Alliance', because it is not an alliance. However, I will not debate that issue OOC.

I would like to suggest a few minor language changes, if I may be so bold...


REALISING that the operations of this World Assembly itself, and of whatever agencies and programmes it might establish through other resolutions, will need to be paid for somehow,

I hate to start out being so picky, but "somehow" sounds conversational to me. I know, it's a terribly minor thing, but I would prefer "in some manner" or "in some way."

RECOGNISING that it is nations themselves (as represented by their governments), rather than the inhabitants of those nations, that hold membership in this Alliance,

Again, just minor wording I would do differently. (My comments will be less petty soon, trust me). I would take out the italicized words.

UNDERSTANDING that the diversity of economic systems, strengths and traditions amongst those nations, coupled with respect for their governments’ rights, would make any attempts at setting taxes within those nations by the World Assembly highly undesirable;

1. DECLARES that the World Assembly and its agencies and programmes shall be funded by contributions levied from the member nations, but does not tell those nations’ governments how they should raise that money;

2. ESTABLISHES the Alliance Budgetary Committee, or ABC, which shall
i. Draw up budgets for the World Assembly, and for its agencies and programmes;
ii. Determine how the costs of funding those budgets shall be shared out amongst the member nations in the fairest way possible;
iii. Receive and distribute those funds;
iv. Publish full and accurate accounts, along with independent auditors’ reports on these, annually;

Again, being petty, but I'd prefer it be called the Assembly Budgetary Committee.

3. REQUIRES that all member nations pay their assessed contributions to the ABC promptly and in full, unless genuinely kept from doing so by emergencies;

I would add some clause in section 2 giving the ABC the ability to determine whether a nation is in an emergency, or a subsection to section 3 defining what an emergency is. While I certainly support Embolalia's tourism trade, I don't want any nations claiming that their head of state's trip to the north coast is a genuine emergency.

4. STATES that any voluntary donations to any WA agencies or programmes must be channelled through the ABC, which shall not tell those agencies and programmes who the donors were, except when governments are specifically funding operations within their own territories;

5. RESERVES the right of the World Assembly to pass resolutions that would affect tariffs, customs duties, and other taxes and charges, in the specific context of international trade;

6. ACKNOWLEDGES that control of all other legislation about the setting and collection of taxes is and remains a sovereign right for each of the separate national governments;

7. RESERVES the right to have WA agencies charge fees for their services;

Note my italicized addition to clause 5. Also, I would change clause 7 to "RESERVES the right of WA agencies to charge fees for their services." Both help clarify, and my change to 7 makes it sound more active. If you would like, something could be added to my addition saying ", pursuant to their charters," or something similar.

8. URGES all national governments to include democratically elected legislatures in their procedures for making decisions about budgets and taxation.

Clause 8 could be considered a block of national sovereignty rights. I was talking the other day with the former ambassador to the Bureaucracy That Must Not Be Named from Audland, Gordon Ramsey, and he was telling me that the BTMNBN had rules against blocking forms of government. Now, I don't know if that same rule has been established for this organization, nor am I sure that Clause 8 actually forces nations to do anything. But, I know many members of the late BTMNBN are now members of the WA. And Mr. Ramsey was telling me the other day, a lot of those nations are represented by idiots. And while I realize Clause 8 is toothless, many of them may not, and may vote against purely for that.
EDIT:
*snip
...cannot support this proposal due to the fact that we are indeed a Dictatorship. If you were to remove the clause that includes "Democratically elected legislatures", we would be most inclined to vote for your proposal if it makes it to the floor of the World Assembly.
*snip*
I rest my case.
[/EDIT]

Of course, I believe this is a good proposal, and I will vote FOR even without my changes. It is definitely a huge improvement over the BTMNBN resolution that vaguely restricted its funding.

Thank you for your time,
H. Pierce Rallay
Ambassador to the World Assembly
Embolalia

[OOC]BTW, I'm not just some n00b. I've was a United !ations member under other names since '05, if I remember correctly.

Alliance-->Assembly

Remove clause 8, as our benevolent dictatorship has no elected officials. We run on a meritocracy that removes the burden of governance from the citizens in order to keep them happier, since they don't have to pay attention to the atrocities or intracasies of policy.

That's the only 2 points that are of reasonable importance to Tanular.

Nice one, Doctor. I'm not too keen on the whole Alliance business like a lot of the others (OOC: probably because I've just been watching my Firefly DVDs), but apart from that it's a solid job.

Clause 8 could be considered a block of national sovereignty rights.
No it couldn't. It "URGES", which makes it about as effective a blocker as a wet piece of paper. Besides, I've got no problem with urging democractic overview of budgets; any halfway competant bureaucrat learns how to steer politicians into giving the right answer and thinking it was all their idea.

--
Cerys Coch, Permanent Undersecretary

While this clause about "urging democratically elected legislatures" doesn't serve as a blocker, the language itself is divisive and not needed. How can I vote yes on a proposal that includes language that urges democracy when I am an absolute ruler of a country? I would look like a hypocrite. If getting rid of that clause doesn't change the overall proposal, then get rid of it. It just serves as fluff. You would probably get more support by getting rid of the clause, anyway. I want to see this proposal pass, but you need to work with me here.

Besides. Democracies are no fun. How am I supposed to fund the hit TV show, "Who Wants To Be An Immigrant?" with a democratically elected legislature?


Sincerely,


King Ralph,
Suozziland Executive

I don't know why I wrote 'Alliance' rather than 'Assembly', that will be changed immediately and my thanks to all of you who pointed it out.

Clause 5 has been re-written slightly to clarify my intention, and I've added a further sub-clause to it that would leave the WA with the right to over-ride national government's taxation policies in one other important respect (namely 'unfair discrimination') too...

5. RESERVES the right to pass resolutions that would affect tariffs, customs duties, and other taxes and charges, in the specific context of international trade;

actually unnecessary, unless you expect a change in the games mechanics rules. currently its illegal to make an resolution that forbids the WA from making any type of resolution, which would include a tariff resolution.

same with clause seven

Clause #6 of this proposal would make it effectively impossible for the WA to affect tariffs (and other taxes involved in international trade) if Clause #5 didn't exist.

Clause #7 is so that, if any other proposal's author creates an agency and says that it will charge fees, people will not be able to claim that this agreement -- by not mentioning the possibility, in its discussion of WA funding -- rules it out.

8. URGES all national governments to include democratically elected legislatures in their procedures for making decisions about budgets and taxation.

dont like it. dont like it at all. it is a slap in the face to dictatorships, and slightly contrary to "but does not tell those nations’ governments how they should raise that money;"

My nation and its government happen to like democracy... and "URGES" is so mild that dictatorships are free to ignore it anyway.
(OOC: and it helps to justify fitting the proposal into this category... Which category would you suggest, if not FoD?)

I can see issues arising under Clause IV. I presume the intentions of the clause is to thwart attempts at bribery, which would be all well and good except for the fact that nations and individuals seeking to bribe a WA agency could simply circumvent the ABC system (either directly in contravention to this proposal or indirectly with, say, gifts to employees, etc. etc.). I would prefer that the ABC and all other WA agencies be completely transparent in regards to their finances; that way, if questionable activities take place and bribery is suspected, the World Assembly and the international community can more easily spot possible perpetrators.

Have a glorious day.

Erskine Chauncey
WA Representative, Cartographic Boxes

That's a valid point. I'll see what I can do along those lines.

OOC: I think this is the one I like most so far. I particularly like Articles 1 - I couldn't think of a way of wording it like that, but you've got it - and 4 - the nondisclosure of voluntary donations is brilliant.
(OOC: Thank you. :))

However, whatever we might think of it politically, Article 8 is really a cling-on, and should be removed, unless you're going to rework the proposal to be a bit more substantively about representation in taxation. I understand it's probably a concession to category, but there would be other ways of making it fit: for example, by allowing nationals of member nations to make requests to review WA financial reports.
I'll think further about this point.


Alfred Devereux Sweynsson MD
Speaking for the government of
The Kingdom of St Edmund.

seriously, clause 8 still stands? now, i know it isnt illegal. but why have a line that does nothing, but may make nations vote against?

I would like to suggest a few minor language changes, if I may be so bold...
REALISING that the operations of this World Assembly itself, and of whatever agencies and programmes it might establish through other resolutions, will need to be paid for somehow,
I hate to start out being so picky, but "somehow" sounds conversational to me. I know, it's a terribly minor thing, but I would prefer "in some manner" or "in some way."
Done.

RECOGNISING that it is nations themselves (as represented by their governments), rather than the inhabitants of those nations, that hold membership in this Alliance,
Again, just minor wording I would do differently. (My comments will be less petty soon, trust me). I would take out the italicized words.
I'm still inclined to leave them in, unless there's significant support for the change from other people.

2. ESTABLISHES the Alliance Budgetary Committee,
Again, being petty, but I'd prefer it be called the Assembly Budgetary Committee.
Done.

3. REQUIRES that all member nations pay their assessed contributions to the ABC promptly and in full, unless genuinely kept from doing so by emergencies;
I would add some clause in section 2 giving the ABC the ability to determine whether a nation is in an emergency, or a subsection to section 3 defining what an emergency is. While I certainly support Embolalia's tourism trade, I don't want any nations claiming that their head of state's trip to the north coast is a genuine emergency.
You think that the combination of the compliance rule and the word "genuinely" isn't enough? H'mm, maybe so: I'll think about this point.

5. RESERVES the right of the World Assembly to pass resolutions that would affect tariffs, customs duties, and other taxes and charges, in the specific context of international trade;

7. RESERVES the right to have WA agencies charge fees for their services;

Note my italicized addition to clause 5. Also, I would change clause 7 to "RESERVES the right of WA agencies to charge fees for their services." Both help clarify, and my change to 7 makes it sound more active. If you would like, something could be added to my addition saying ", pursuant to their charters," or something similar.
I'll consider that possible change to Clause 5, although as it's the World Assembly that's described (from the top of the proposal's 'Description' section) as taking these actions anyway I think that adding its name in this specific clause probably isn't necessary.

8. URGES all national governments to include democratically elected legislatures in their procedures for making decisions about budgets and taxation.
Clause 8 could be considered a block of national sovereignty rights. I was talking the other day with the former ambassador to the Bureaucracy That Must Not Be Named from Audland, Gordon Ramsey, and he was telling me that the BTMNBN had rules against blocking forms of government. Now, I don't know if that same rule has been established for this organization, nor am I sure that Clause 8 actually forces nations to do anything. But, I know many members of the late BTMNBN are now members of the WA. And Mr. Ramsey was telling me the other day, a lot of those nations are represented by idiots. And while I realize Clause 8 is toothless, many of them may not, and may vote against purely for that.
That rule still apllies, as far as I know, but an "URGES" clause isn't enough to violate it. As I've just said to the representative of Quintessence of Dust, I might end up either dropping this clause (if doing so wouldn't get the proposal deleted for not fitting its claimed category) or replacing it in some way...


Of course, I believe this is a good proposal, and I will vote FOR even without my changes. It is definitely a huge improvement over the BTMNBN resolution that vaguely restricted its funding.

Thank you for your time,
H. Pierce Rallay
Ambassador to the World Assembly
Embolalia
Thank you.


Alfred Devereux Sweynsson MD,
Speaking for the government of
The Kingdom of St Edmund.

I would add a clause in to give the ABC some teeth should nations refuse to pay.

OOC: My point isn't so much about 'democracy' but about 'democratically elected legislatures'. That would, ironically, preclude direct democracies in which tax laws are determined by plebiscite. Unless it's your attention only to sanction parliamentary democracy, which seems rather too narrow and likely to incur general dispute.

OOC: My point isn't so much about 'democracy' but about 'democratically elected legislatures'. That would, ironically, preclude direct democracies in which tax laws are determined by plebiscite. Unless it's your attention only to sanction parliamentary democracy, which seems rather too narrow and likely to incur general dispute.
Ouch! Good point...

I'm making some more changes now, anyway, so I'll take another look at that clause while doing so and see whether I can get it sorted-out.

I would add a clause in to give the ABC some teeth should nations refuse to pay.

What sort of "teeth" would you suggest?
The WA isn't allowed any military or police forces with which to enforce its resolutions.
Resolutions are not allowed to specify any circumstances under which nations can, or must, be expelled from the WA.
And any nation that refused to pay its assessed contributions could, obviously also refuse to pay any financial penalties that were then imposed.
I think that we'll have to rely on the 'mandatory compliance' rule (OOC: which I personally would presume to be covered by a clause in the treaty that nations sign IC when joining the WA: Something along the lines of "All resolutions passed by this body shall immmediately be incorporated into the law-codes of all member nations, and shall be enforced within those nations by the same means that are used to enforce the laws created by those nations' own governments.") for that...

_______________________________________________________________________

The draft in this thread's opening post has now been changed again _

Clause #1 has been made slightly more formal,
Clause #2 has a new sub-clause added on the subject of minimising corruption, fraud and waste.
Clause #3 has been modified slightly, so that nations claiming inability to pay because of emergencies need ABC agreement to withhold contributions.
Clause #4 is unchanged.
Clause #5 has been re-written to express my intentions a bit more clearly.
Clause #6 has just a slight change of wording.
Clause #7 has been modified slightly to express my intentions a bit more clearly.
Clause #8 has been modified to try and deal with the problem pointed out by the representative of Quintessence of Dust.

I think that it's probably ready to be submitted...


Edit (12th April): As there was more than enough room, I've added an appeals procedure as a new Clause #4 and have re-numbered the following clauses accordingly.


St Edmund is now officially recognised as a member of the World Assembly, and unless any of you come up with major objections in the meanwhile I will submit this proposal as soon as we have the necessary two endorsements.


Alfred Devereux Sweynsson MD,
Speaking on behalf of the government of
The Kingdom of St Edmund.

I've improved the wording of Clause #8, and expanded Clause #9: As far as I and my government are concerned, this is the version that I'll be submitting VERY shortly...

Ways and Means

Category: Furtherment of Democracy
Strength: Mild

Description: The World Assembly,

REALISING that the operations of this World Assembly itself, and of whatever agencies and programmes it might establish through other resolutions, will need to be paid for in some way,

RECOGNISING that it is nations themselves (as represented by their governments), rather than the inhabitants of those nations, that hold membership in this Assembly,

UNDERSTANDING that the diversity of economic systems, strengths and traditions amongst those nations, coupled with respect for their governments’ rights, would make any attempts at setting taxes within those nations by the World Assembly highly undesirable;

1. DECLARES that the World Assembly and its agencies and programmes shall be funded primarily by contributions levied from its member nations, but does not attempt to specify how those nations’ governments should raise the money concerned;

2. ESTABLISHES the Assembly Budgetary Committee (or ABC), which shall
i. Draw up budgets for the World Assembly, and for its agencies and programmes;
ii. Determine how the costs of funding those budgets shall be shared out amongst the member nations in the fairest way possible;
iii. Receive and distribute those funds;
iv. Publish full and accurate accounts, along with independent auditors’ reports on these, annually;
v. Oversee the financial management of all World Assembly departments, agencies and programmes, and the financial affairs of senior staff employed in those operations, in order to minimise corruption, fraud and waste;

3. REQUIRES that all member nations pay their assessed contributions to the ABC promptly and in full, unless the ABC accepts that they are genuinely kept from doing so by emergencies;

4. ESTABLISHES an agency called the World Assembly Arbitration Tribunals (or WAAT), commands this to act justly, and gives it the authority
i. To hear appeals by national governments against decisions of the ABC;
ii. To impose binding arbitration in those cases;
iii. To recover the costs of hearing each case from whichever of the parties to that case it considers appropriate;

5. STATES that any voluntary donations to any WA agencies or programmes must be channelled through the ABC, which shall not tell those agencies and programmes who the donors were, except when governments are specifically funding operations within their own territories;

6. RESERVES the right to pass resolutions that would over-rule national governments’ policies on taxation
i. To regulate customs duties, tariffs, and any other taxes and official charges that apply to international trade, for the specific purpose of promoting that trade;
ii. To reduce or end the possible inclusion of unfair discrimination in those policies;

7. ACKNOWLEDGES that control of all other legislation about all other aspects of taxation is and remains a sovereign right for each of the separate national governments;

8. RESERVES the right to grant any WA agency that may be established through any further resolution the authority to charge fees for its services, by specifying this point in that same resolution;

9. URGES all national governments to include some form of democratic process in their procedures for making decisions about budgets and taxation, and to make accurate and audited copies of their accounts (to the extent that concern about national security makes this possible) available to their nations' peoples.


Alfred Devereux Sweynsson MD,
Speaking for the government of
The Kingdom of St Edmund.

Should it come to the event that this proposal, rather than my rival proposal (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=553774), becomes the resolution that allows the WA to receive funding, I will consider it nonetheless a step in the right direction.

However, I do have two concerns about this proposal as currently worded. I have already commented on my nation's preference for complete transparency over the nondisclosure policy proposed by Clause 4, so I won't dwell on that point.

I also have reservations supporting this proposal that does not elaborate at all on what, exactly, "the fairest way [of apportioning dues] possible" entails. There are many competing theories on what is "fair", and while I understand the need for the ABC to have some level of discretion, it should be clear what sense of "fairness" the ABC intends to adopt. Is it fair for every country to pay the exact same amount in dues? Or the exact same percentage? Or would a progressive system of dues be fairer? Your proposal is silent on the matter, which leaves me (and perhaps others) ill at ease.

Erskine Chauncey
WA Representative, Cartographic Boxes

I also have reservations supporting this proposal that does not elaborate at all on what, exactly, "the fairest way [of apportioning dues] possible" entails. There are many competing theories on what is "fair", and while I understand the need for the ABC to have some level of discretion, it should be clear what sense of "fairness" the ABC intends to adopt. Is it fair for every country to pay the exact same amount in dues? Or the exact same percentage? Or would a progressive system of dues be fairer? Your proposal is silent on the matter, which leaves me (and perhaps others) ill at ease.

Alas, I fear that specifying what would count as "fair" in the proposal would also -- no matter which option I gave -- leave some of the national representatives present ill at ease... so leaving it to the Gnomes, who are generally recognised as inherently honest, seemed the easiest approach. (OOC: I really hoped to avoid getting entangled in arguments about the meaning of "fair"... Can't we just leave it as it is, and then -- if it gets passed -- let people RP it as having whichever meaning they favour?) Besides which, there isn't really enough room left to say much about this point...

There was some sort of glitch about St Edmund's initial membership application, but that's now been cleared and we are now in the WA. Endorsements have been handed out to other WA members in our region, and hopefully at least some of those will reciprocate so that I'll be able to submit this proposal on my next visit to this gathering. (OOC: Thursday, early evening, GMT)
I realise that I told you the last draft was "ready to run" in my opinion, but I've just made one more modification: The subclause requiring the ABC to publish accounts has been expanded slightly.


Alfred Devereux Sweynsson MD,
Speaker Afar at the WA
for
The Kingdom of St Edmund.

("No more bloody penguin costume! Hooray!")

Alas, I fear that specifying what would count as "fair" in the proposal would also -- no matter which option I gave -- leave some of the national representatives present ill at ease... so leaving it to the Gnomes, who are generally recognised as inherently honest, seemed the easiest approach.

Granted, but leaving it entirely up to the gnomes to decide what constitutes a "fair" apportionment amounts to granting them carte blanche. And the gnomes, as honest as they are and as faithful as they are to the letter of the law, are no less prone to moral subjectivity than the rest of us.

Which is to say nothing against the gnomes; you cannot help but love them. But it must be asked: seeing as we cannot trust these gnomes enough not to establish an Arbitration Tribunals agency, composed of other gnomes, to consider appeals against the decisions of the ABC (effectively replacing whatever standards of "fairness" the ABC might follow with whatever standards of "fairness" the WAAT dictates the ABC to follow), why are we leaving such a important matter as what a "fair" apportionment is up to the sole discretion of the gnomes?

I would have a difficult time approving this proposal without some tangible language to the effect of describing what the WA and the ABC deems to be a "fair" method of apportionment. To be sure, including this language might elicit some opposition, out of disagreement with the proposal's understanding of "fairness"; but the alternative is to ignore the elephant in the room, which would probably elicit much more opposition (including from my country), out of legitimate concerns with granting the budgetary committee of the WA a blank check.

As for making space for this, you could probably get away with truncating Clauses 6 & 7 into a general statement (to the effect that the WA respects national sovereignty on matters of tax laws provided they do not run counter to other WA resolutions) without effecting the substance of the proposal. If it were up to me, I would also scrap what had been Clause 4 (it seems to have become Clause 5, due to the inclusion of the WAAT clause), but I realize that I am in the minority in objecting to the nondisclosure clause.

Erskine Chauncey
WA Representative, Cartographic Boxes

[OOC: I'm relatively new to the RP'ing aspect of NationStates and the WA, but I would have a hard time seeing how different nations could just RP their own respective views on what is "fair" and ignore the vast discrepancies of ABC policy in different (or the same) RP thread. It just wouldn't be the same as, say, nations interpreting a vague description of a proposal calling for "free and fair elections" differently.

In short, I think this is one of those situations in which you'll have to step on a few toes in order to get the proposal to pass. There'll be a lot of opposition to this bill by its very nature of requiring member nations to pay dues at all, and giving the ABC too much discretion might feed into their rhetoric, to the extent that the proposal's chances of getting passed might be jeopardized.]

In short, I think this is one of those situations in which you'll have to step on a few toes in order to get the proposal to pass. There'll be a lot of opposition to this bill by its very nature of requiring member nations to pay dues at all, and giving the ABC too much discretion might feed into their rhetoric, to the extent that the proposal's chances of getting passed might be jeopardized.

Maybe so, I'll think further about this.

In the meanwhile, I've sent it on a test run to see how well it does in its current form: Approval link here (http://www.nationstates.net/page=UN_proposal1/match=Ways%20and%20Means)...

ummmmm..... im questioning the legality of

7. ACKNOWLEDGES that control of all other legislation about all other aspects of taxation is and remains a sovereign right for each of the separate national governments;

as it may be a games mechanics violation as it

Another example of this is forbidding WA action at a future point in time -- you can't make your Resolution "Repeal-proof" or prohibit types of legislation.

so if it doesnt allow other taxation proposals, i see it as 'forbidding WA action at a future point in time.' this is regardless of wording, it simply doesnt allow anyone to write taxes into a proposal, and is thus "forbidding WA action".

if this is not the intent of this clause, please correct me (and tell me what other purpose it has). or if its possible to reserve rights for the states only, please let me know because i have a lot of rights to reserve (ironically all taxation being the first).

so if it doesnt allow other taxation proposals, i see it as 'forbidding WA action at a future point in time.' this is regardless of wording, it simply doesnt allow anyone to write taxes into a proposal, and is thus "forbidding WA action".

if this is not the intent of this clause, please correct me (and tell me what other purpose it has). or if its possible to reserve rights for the states only, please let me know because i have a lot of rights to reserve (ironically all taxation being the first).

I think you're way off here.

7. ACKNOWLEDGES that control of all other legislation about all other aspects of taxation is and remains a sovereign right for each of the separate national governments

This is trying to say that national governments get to retain the right to pass legislation "about all other aspects of taxation". Also, it's important to note that it says "ACKNOWLEDGES", because it says "We [whoever that would be] are aware". It doesn't say that the WA can't ever pass any taxation proposals.

This is trying to say that national governments get to retain the right to pass legislation "about all other aspects of taxation".

good... good... otherwise it would be illegal....

control of all other legislation about all other aspects of taxation is and remains a sovereign right for each of the separate national governments

so, im also going off of what he wrote on my {blatantly illegal} taxation ban proposal

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=13592109&postcount=49

in which he argues that

You can't forbid the WA to set or collect taxes.
You can, as in the UN resolution 'Representation in Taxation', say that the right to set & collect taxes belongs solely to the national governments... which would have the same effect.

now true.... he doesnt say solely to the national governments, he says sovereign. now, we can debate whether sovereign means sole til our eyes bleed

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/sovereign

adj.

1. Self-governing; independent: a sovereign state.
2. Having supreme rank or power: a sovereign prince.
3. Paramount; supreme: Her sovereign virtue is compassion.
4.
1. Of superlative strength or efficacy: a sovereign remedy.
2. Unmitigated: sovereign contempt.
...

adjective
1. (of political bodies) not controlled by outside forces; "an autonomous judiciary"; "a sovereign state"



and i can say "not controlled by outside forces" (and the WA is an outside force) and "supreme"(and the WA is supreme) and you can say something else, and our eyes bleed pointlessly. cause really, it comes down to mods since nobody gives a fuck what i say. im just trying to make sure the possible illegalities are addressed.

I don't think the mods are nearly that pedantic ... most tax proposals interfere with Game Mechanics and are illegal anyway.

The title is great, but I hate the acronyms. Come up with cleverer ones, or else ones that don't try to be clever at all. ABC should be either a "trust" or "treasury"; "committee" sounds a little off. Or if you simply cannot divorce yourself from the delightful whimsy of "ABC," "commission." :rolleyes:

I don't think the mods are nearly that pedantic ... most tax proposals interfere with Game Mechanics and are illegal anyway.

indeed. which is one of the facets of my efforts to never have a tax passed. why would we have rules if we're not going to follow them?

The title is great, but I hate the acronyms. Come up with cleverer ones, or else ones that don't try to be clever at all. ABC should be either a "trust" or "treasury"; "committee" sounds a little off. Or if you simply cannot divorce yourself from the delightful whimsy of "ABC," "commission." :rolleyes:
I'm not especially attached to either acronym, as both names were simply descriptive labels that I came up with during drafting and decided to use as placeholders unless & until anybody suggested better ones. 'ABC' did seem fairly obvious, given the basic importance of funding to the WA's operations, but I'd be quite happy about changing its last word from 'Committee' to 'Commission' as you suggest... especially considering the way in which that body's proposed responsibilities have been expanded during the discussion here.
Or how do you feel about 'World Assembly Financial Division' ('WAFD'), instead?

now true.... he doesnt say solely to the national governments, he says sovereign. now, we can debate whether sovereign means sole til our eyes bleed

*sigh...*
I suppose there would probably be enough extra characters available, before hitting the maximum length allowed for proposals, for me to insert the word "full" before "control" in that clause...


Alfred Devereux Sweynsson MD,
Speaker Afar to the World Assembly
for the government of
The Kingdom of St Edmund.

________________________________________________________________________

(Edit, OOC)
At 4.10 pm GMT on Saturday (without a TG campaign, this time around) it's at only 26 Approvals: Rantchess, Vacuus Verum, Misplaced States, Cordova I, WZ Forums, Quintessence of Dust, Bijayistan, Chuck Norris Haters, The Derrak Quadrant, Ventei, Costello Music, The Artic Republics, Sensual delights, Black Empire, The Digital Network, Iron Felix, Marcusism, Pagemaster, Ducky McDuck Duck, Alpacadom, Stephanephpolis, Ephidael, Vaantage, Sucram-Leon, Groove st, Jey.
Apparently it expires on Sunday, but I won't be able to get back online until Monday: If anybody else happens to notice who else (if anybody) has approved it at any time closer to that deadline then would they please post the details in this thread, if that wouldn't be too much trouble...

I suppose there would probably be enough extra characters available, before hitting the maximum length allowed for proposals, for me to insert the word "full" before "control" in that clause...

wait..... what?

7. ACKNOWLEDGES that {full} control of all other legislation about all other aspects of taxation is and remains a sovereign right for each of the separate national governments;

how does that make it legal? it seems to reinforce my issue, that you cant give that right to the states, as this "is forbidding WA action at a future point in time" and "prohibit{s} types of legislation."

6. RESERVES the right to pass resolutions that would over-rule national governments’ policies on taxation
i. To regulate customs duties, tariffs, and any other taxes and official charges that apply to international trade, for the specific purpose of promoting that trade;
ii. To reduce or end the possible inclusion of unfair discrimination in those policies;

well here you try to address the issue.... sorta. you cant blatantly outlaw free trade resolutions, or social justice ones, but you do outlaw all other WA taxation. so, hypthetical, you pass this proposal, as is. then i write a clone of the 'protection for orphans act'. but my proposal has a fee charged on every nation to make this "program{sic} be funded primarily by contributions levied from its member nations," (to maintain that database) now, unless fee on nations isnt a tax (and then im at a loss as to what a tax is) you are making that proposal illegal, which is illegal.

so..... nobody agrees that this clause "is forbidding WA action at a future point in time" and "prohibit{s} types of legislation."? fuck the idea that im pedantic, i agree that im an asshole, nobody agrees that it makes a section of legislation illegal? or do people think that this is just an acceptable, small amount to be made illegal?

'Committee' changed to 'Commission'.
Clause #7 re-written, again.

These changes have been made to the draft that's in this thread's opening post.

7. ACKNOWLEDGES that full control over all other aspects of the taxation applicable within any WA member nation is and remains a sovereign right for that nation's own government alone;
So we can't direct member nations to give tax breaks in certain cases (say, for ecologically beneficial behaviour) or increase taxes for other less desirable cases? That's unhelpful, wouldn't you say?

--
Cerys Coch, Permanent Undersecretary

It's hard to dictate taxes to member nations, anyway, since the tax rate is programmed into the game. Most tax proposals are Game Mechanics violations.

So we can't direct member nations to give tax breaks in certain cases (say, for ecologically beneficial behaviour) or increase taxes for other less desirable cases? That's unhelpful, wouldn't you say?

--
Cerys Coch, Permanent Undersecretary

No. However I suppose you could, if you really considered it necessary, direct member nations to reward that behaviour with payments that would be equal in value to part or all of the relevant taxes...


Alfred Devereux Sweynsson MD,
Speaker Afar to the World Assembly
for the government of
The Kingdom of St Edmund.

_________________________________________________________________

OOC: I still think that this is worth passing, but getting it to quorum is obviously going to require a TG campaign... and, owing to RL circumstances, it will almost certainly be July before I'll be able to spend long enough online (during the few days that the proposal would have on the list of submissions) to send any worthwhile number of TGs.
Would any of the people here who have proven records at getting proposals to quorum be willing to volunteer to handle a TG campaign for this proposal? If so, then you can have the honour of your nation's name at the top of the proposal as the one submitting it -- and thus get into the WA's official records for that -- as long as 'St Edmund' is credited as author at the end of the submitted text...

Provisional arrangements have been made: Expect to see this submitted, with a TG campaign, hopefully at some point during the next couple of weeks...

out of curiosity under what category will it be submitted?

out of curiosity under what category will it be submitted?

'Furtherment of Democracy': Look at clause #9...

Ways and Means has now been submitted.

Approval Link (http://www.nationstates.net/page=UN_proposal1/match=ways)

Jey,
Submitter of Ways and Means

I have a question:

5. STATES that any voluntary donations to any WA agencies or programmes must be channelled through the ABC, which shall not tell those agencies and programmes whom the donors were, except when governments are specifically funding operations within their own territories;

Would voluntary clothing and food donations to the ICRC go through the ABC too?

i have a question, why hasnt the author submitted it?

i have a question, why hasnt the author submitted it?

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=13641310&postcount=35

I have a question:

5. STATES that any voluntary donations to any WA agencies or programmes must be channelled through the ABC, which shall not tell those agencies and programmes whom the donors were, except when governments are specifically funding operations within their own territories;

Would voluntary clothing and food donations to the ICRC go through the ABC too?

OOC: Oops! I was only thinking about monetary donations, but I suppose the text as written would affect voluntary clothing & food donations to the ICRC as well...
Then again, given that the ICRC will mainly be coordinating various local NGOs, you could always donate the stuff directly to one of those organisations instead.

OOC: Oops! I was only thinking about monetary donations, but I suppose the text as written would affect voluntary clothing & food donations to the ICRC as well...
Then again, given that the ICRC will mainly be coordinating various local NGOs, you could always donate the stuff directly to one of those organisations instead.

OOC:
That is a good solution, but if it needs to be resubmitted (not sure how many endorsements it has), can humanitarian donations be exempted. Even funds have value in dealing with emergencies. The US government has sent millions to China. The province is the home to one of my employees.

Not to sound anal, but I thought the rules states only co-authors, not authors. I doubt they'd kill it for that, but I was under the assumption that you had to put "co-author".

Not to sound anal, but I thought the rules states only co-authors, not authors. I doubt they'd kill it for that, but I was under the assumption that you had to put "co-author".
They allowed it before, for example "Freedom of Scientific Research". The rule was meant to stop excessive naming, e.g. "Tsunami Warning System", not to prevent legitimate credit.

Quorum! YAY!

Thank you, Jey. Thank you, everybody who's given this proposal their approval already.

It's only a couple of approvals above the threshold, so far, so please keep the support rolling in...

OOC:
That is a good solution, but if it needs to be resubmitted (not sure how many endorsements it has), can humanitarian donations be exempted. Even funds have value in dealing with emergencies. The US government has sent millions to China. The province is the home to one of my employees.

OOC: Those were, however, funds we have probably borrowed from China in the first place. [/ :headbang: ]

I'll be voting for this when it comes up. Good job on the proposal.

Not to sound anal, but I thought the rules states only co-authors, not authors. I doubt they'd kill it for that, but I was under the assumption that you had to put "co-author".Quod's right. A single "other person" is what we're looking for. We just don't want Academy Award-like lists of people. Or regions.

Quod's right. A single "other person" is what we're looking for. We just don't want Academy Award-like lists of people. Or regions.

Not a problem, but it's good to know in the future that listing an "author" is an option.

[/offtopic]

This is definitely needed, and I'm glad to see it up.

...and currently failing. We will probably end up voting in favor, but we wouldn't at all be surprised if this body shoots this down in another of its vain, selfish, hysterical whims. Best of luck to the authors; you've taken on a very difficult issue with this one.

Shemp #3
Ambassador to the WA

Meh. It's a well-constructed proposal, but I'm sitting on the fence for now. I'm just not enthusiastic about endorsing the WA's right to fiddle with bits of tax policy that I don't really want it fiddling with, and simultaneously denying it the right to fiddle with bits of tax policy that I do really want it fiddling with. Hopefully the Ambassador will stop hanging around the bar and get back here before I have to make a decision one way or the other.

--
Cerys Coch, Permanent Undersecretary

the people of urgench are concerned at some of the provisions of this proposal, we ask weather or not clauses six and seven are not in contradiction of eachother and weather or not this will lead to needless complications?
also we feel that the overall tone of the proposal and it's provisions are in conflict with the integrity of national sovereignty, and that it will allow the wa much too much direct influence over natonal policy in economics.
there are after all many models of economic growth in the world, not all of them liberal, capitalist or democratic or any combination of the aforementioned.
in regard to the payment of wa dues, we ask, how will these be assessed and at what rates and how will they be raised on recalcitrant members?
further more what will be the punishments for non payment of dues and who will judge in these matters weather non payment is acceptable?
also who will the puttative ABC report to and under what provisions?

The only concern I have is Clause 6, which gives the World Assembly the power to overule (I would assume by the decision of the WAAT) any legislation regarding tariffs between the nations as it sees fit. I find this arbitrary power slightly disturbing and an infringement on national sovereignty. Nevertheless, recognizing the need for a way to raise revenue for the WA, and applauding the resolution's fairness in dealing with the nations' sensitivies and diverse attitudes towards taxation policy, Amercias and the Region for Advanced Learning endorse this proposal. I do so not becuase I think it is the best, but because I am not convinced that it is not the best.

Thank You,
United States of the Amercias
Regional Delegate for the Region for Advanced Learning

well with no hope of explanation of these points seemingly possible,
the government of urgench has instructed it's delegate to vot no to this proposal, we see this proposal as an attempt by some regions to enforce their will upon the wa membership at large. not least to the detriment of some of the smaller nations or more heterodox economies.

The only concern I have is Clause 6, which gives the World Assembly the power to overule (I would assume by the decision of the WAAT) any legislation regarding tariffs between the nations as it sees fit.

Clause 6's purpose is to prevent this resolution from blocking the entire Free Trade category.

Bob Flibble
WA Representative

Clause 6's purpose is to prevent this resolution from blocking the entire Free Trade category.

So, Clause 6 is saying "this Resolution neither prohibits nor approves of Free Trade?"

It seems to me like it endorses Free Trade (which would be unfair to protectionists).

I'm not really against free trade, so long as it is actually free (that is, one nation is not inequitably charging another a tariff on it's goods) and everyone does it. Also, it is bad if it is a mere proxy to allow the exportation of cheap labor to countries too poor or oppressed to have labor regulations (i.e. it should not be used to support wage slavery or human rights abusers *cough* a certain large country west of Japan *end cough*.

Thank you for responding.
Amercias
Regional Delegate for the Region for Advanced Learning

this is completely messed up.9." URGES all national governments to include some form of democratic process in their procedures for making decisions about budgets and taxation, and to make accurate and audited copies of their accounts (to the extent that concern about national security makes this possible) available to their nations' peoples.":headbang: why? i dont want any democracy in my nation and i believe that i should be able to make the decision if there are or are not democratic freedoms in my country or not.Thats just one of the things that bug me about this proposal.;)

The only concern I have is Clause 6, which gives the World Assembly the power to overule (I would assume by the decision of the WAAT) any legislation regarding tariffs between the nations as it sees fit. I find this arbitrary power slightly disturbing and an infringement on national sovereignty.The WA already has that power; simply stating so does not make the WA's authority any more supreme. As Don Flibble mentioned, the clause is merely a clarification.

So, Clause 6 is saying "this Resolution neither prohibits nor approves of Free Trade?"

It seems to me like it endorses Free Trade (which would be unfair to protectionists).No, it just doesn't want to affect future legislation in a way that would make this resolution illegal. The rant was unnecessary, this isn't a free-trade discussion, and this isn't General.

this is completely messed up. " URGES all national governments to include some form of democratic process in their procedures for making decisions about budgets and taxation, and to make accurate and audited copies of their accounts (to the extent that concern about national security makes this possible) available to their nations' peoples." :headbang: why? i dont want any democracy in my nation and i believe that i should be able to make the decision if there are or are not democratic freedoms in my country or not.Thats just one of the things that bug me about this proposal.;)"URGES" = not mandatory.

This thing's getting creamed right now, with 70% of the voters opposed. Given the general tone of this thread, it's not hard to see why.

Press Release
The Sovereign Maggots' Republic was fine with the resolution until you mentioned the WA power to alter
national taxation. This effectively strips the next clause of any meaningful power. With all due respect, we cannot support this move against our national sovereignty. Our duty to our grubby maggots requires us to oppose this resolution.

His Royal Highness, Wilfred II, King of Wilfredshire has requested that I relay a personal message from his person to the World Assembly concerning the "Ways and Means" resolution under debate. The message reads, "on yer bike!"

Johnny Stardust,
Delegate-of-the-Day,
Kingdom of Wilfredshire.

The United Kingdom of Brutland and Norden applauds the authors on this well-crafted proposal. We also agree with the resolution's intent that the World Assembly and the projects it implements should be funded adequately, fairly, and responsibly.

We especially like section 2 of the resolution - it would ensure responsible spending (because of the auditing) and fair distribution of the burden.

However, the United Kingdom of Brutland and Norden is concerned that the burden may become too overwhelming. This resolution, as we understand it, would assess first the costs of running the WA and its programs, and then charge it to the nations. For us this is not the best way of budgeting. We believe that it should be the other way around: we must know how much money we have first, before allocating it to where it should be spent. Alternatively, we would like to see a limit on how much a member state is required to contribute. We remember a certain piece of legislation (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=527018), which we supported, doing just that.

Our greatest fear is that this assembly and its predecessor, which has an uncanny knack of passing useless (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=540130) and (http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=7029711&postcount=36) worthless (http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=7030085&postcount=49) pieces (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=554058) of (http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=7029658&postcount=31) legislation (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=8012679&postcount=86), may not be responsible enough to know what they are passing, and its associated costs. Simply put, this Assembly may pass so much resolutions that the cost becomes so overwhelming and unreasonable, that every nation may be unable to afford it, or may be spending a lot more into funding pieces of crap than services for their citizens.

Brutland and Norden is not averse to contributing its fair share to the World Assembly. As proof to our commitment to keep the World Assembly up and running, we would be donating one million Nord-Brutlandese livros in order to help this organization.

*presents the pile of money up in front*

But until our concerns had been addressed adequately, the United Kingdom of Brutland and Norden would remain AGAINST this resolution. Thank you.

Maddalena Pedrana
Deputy Royal Nord-Brutlandese Ambassador to the World Assembly

We share the concerns many other nations have expressed in regards to Clause 6. While we understand the intent behind it, we find the wording involved simply too sweeping in scope. For that reason, the Altan Steppes will be voting against, unless directed otherwise by our region.

Jaris Krytellin, Ambassador

We the people of Shadrakahnopoli, do find that point 6, wherein the Proposal states: "RESERVES the right to pass resolutions that would over-rule national governments’ policies on taxation" represents a blatant attack upon the sovereign rights of the people of Shadrakahnopoli. Namely, our right to choose the manner in which to impose taxation upon trade, or labour, both foreign and domestic, inasmuch as it affects our sovereign territories. As such, until such time as this point is stricken from the proposal or is reworded, we will not give our support for it. However, we would like to voice our support of the other points which make up this proposal, and hope that should this proposal be voted down, the author and supportors of it will repropose it in such a manner in which it will be acceptable to the people of Shadrakahnopoli in its entirety.

Shadrakahn, voice of the people.

I am truly sorry. i have to be a bitch here, and respond thusly

Ways and Means

Category: Furtherment of Democracy
Strength: Mild

Description: The World Assembly,

REALISING that the operations of this World Assembly itself, and of whatever agencies and programmes it might establish through other resolutions, will need to be paid for in some way,

RECOGNISING that it is nations themselves (as represented by their governments), rather than the inhabitants of those nations, that hold membership in this Assembly,

UNDERSTANDING that the diversity of economic systems, strengths and traditions amongst those nations, coupled with respect for their governments’ rights, would make any attempts at setting taxes within those nations by the World Assembly highly undesirable;

1. DECLARES that the World Assembly and its agencies and programmes shall be funded primarily by contributions levied from its member nations, but does not attempt to specify how those nations’ governments should raise the money concerned;

2. ESTABLISHES the Assembly Budgetary Commission (or ABC), which shall
i. Draw up budgets for the World Assembly, and for its agencies and programmes;
ii. Determine how the costs of funding those budgets shall be shared out amongst the member nations in the fairest way possible;
iii. Receive and distribute those funds;
iv. Publish full and accurate accounts, for the WA itself and for each WA agency or programme, along with independent auditors’ reports on these, annually;
v. Oversee the financial management of all World Assembly departments, agencies and programmes, and the financial affairs of senior staff employed in those operations, in order to minimise corruption, fraud and waste;

3. REQUIRES that all member nations pay their assessed contributions to the ABC promptly and in full, unless the ABC accepts that they are genuinely kept from doing so by emergencies;

4. ESTABLISHES an agency called the World Assembly Arbitration Tribunals (or WAAT), commands this to act justly, and gives it the authority
i. To hear appeals by national governments against decisions of the ABC;
ii. To impose binding arbitration in those cases;
iii. To recover the costs of hearing each case from whichever of the parties to that case it considers appropriate;

5. STATES that any voluntary donations to any WA agencies or programmes must be channelled through the ABC, which shall not tell those agencies and programmes whom the donors were, except when governments are specifically funding operations within their own territories;

6. RESERVES the right to pass resolutions that would over-rule national governments’ policies on taxation
i. To regulate customs duties, tariffs, and any other taxes and official charges that apply to international trade, for the specific purpose of promoting that trade;
ii. To reduce or end the possible inclusion of unfair discrimination in those policies;

7. ACKNOWLEDGES that full control over all other aspects of the taxation applicable within any WA member nation[/color] is and remains a sovereign right for that nation's own government alone;

8. RESERVES the right to grant any WA agency that may be established through any further resolution the authority to charge fees for its services, by specifying this point in that same resolution;

9. URGES all national governments to include some form of democratic process in their procedures for making decisions about budgets and taxation, and to make accurate and audited copies of their accounts (to the extent that concern about national security makes this possible) available to their nations' peoples.

Author: St Edmund.

first: note my proposals death at this same arguement.

how is this not a game mechanics violation?



now, i am an idiot, but how does that not [QUOTE]forbidding WA action at a future point in time

make forbidding past tense and my aguement is as stands...... ive gotten in enough trouble for misqouting, so i dare not sic your qoute. a simple link to the mod thread would suffice, i honestly have been away and have not seen it.

i also question how

The Furtherment of Democracy
A resolution to increase democratic freedoms.

Political Stability
A resolution to restrict political freedoms in the interest of law and order.

These are exactly opposed types of resolutions and affect Political Freedoms. "The Furtherment of Democracy" increases these freedoms while "Political Stability" reduces them. Remember that these freedoms primarily discuss the domestic Political policies of WA member nations; Shall the WA require its members to grant more or less say in the operations of their government? Who makes the decisions? Whether or not you even get to vote on anything (or anyone) is a Political Freedoms issue. Total Political Freedoms represent something akin to pure democracies, where every single citizen has a direct vote in every single matter. Zero Political Freedoms means that the citizens (or subjects, or slaves) have no say in the operations of government whatsoever. Imposing regulation on campaign finances is a mild form of reducing Political Freedoms.

"Mild" versions of either category will push nations in a particular direction, but only as far as the center. Stronger versions will push nations towards a more extreme end of the spectrum.

how does this increase political freedoms? seiously, im not being an ass here, a simple link to the mod thread would suffice, im simply to drunk to look. i question how requiring a nation to tax its populace in order to fund the WA would increase democratic freedoms. especially without a necessitated referendum. what happens if a populace rejects such a measure? does the WA not tax that nation? does the WA act in the exact opposite manner as the referendum? wouldnt that be the opposite of inreasing political freedoms? just questions to raise, i dont intend to respond to this with the necessarilly freakishly har rebuttlals than normal. i only object to its legality. and again, that can be fixecd with a simple link to a thread. i simply havent been attentive enough to reject that thread, with finals and interviews and all..............

dt

There's no point making rules questions once a proposal's reached vote; even if it were illegal, it couldn't be removed. You should have raised such predictably mind-numbing questions during the lengthy drafting stage.

The Holy Empire of Bakamyht must, regrettably, register its opposition to this otherwise well-intentioned proposal due to two substantive flaws, and two procedural ones.

1) The substantive problem which our government has with this proposal is that the ABC would set its own budget. Therefore it could legitimately demand as much money as it likes, with no possibility for the WA membership as a whole to object to the size of the proposed budget. This goes against the fundamental principle of international law - that of equally sovereign states bound only to the extent that they consent.

2) The other problem, which is of far greater importance, is that the proposal contains a hidden clause giving the ABC complete control over national import tariffs. This is a reprehensible attempt to secure the stealth enaction of a major violation of sovereign rights under the guise of a "Mild" "Furtherment of democracy" provision.

3) The procedural flaws in the proposal are that appeals against the ABC's decisions would be to another - surely against the principle that no one shall be a judge in his own cause - and the fact that costs in such proceedings may be awarded against "whichever of the parties to that case it considers appropriate". In other words, a state which has been maliciously over-taxed by the ABC could find itself having to pay the ABC's costs.

I must emphasise that point 2, and the deliberate deception which it references it, is of grave concern to our nation. If this proposal is enacted, our nation will resign its membership of the World Assembly immediately.

Signed,

Markus Berens
Foreign Minister, Holy Empire of Bakamyht

The Free Land Of Derham applaudes the intent and reason with which this resolution was proposed. Nevertheless, we will not endorse it for several reasons.
We believe that, while integration in international structures is important in this day and age, the costs of such should not befall upon the people without their having a say in the matter. If anything, the contribution and the source of it (i.e. taxes, voluntary donations, and others) should be voted and decided by our citizens. The role of the ABC on deciding this would strongly defeat our nations principle of democracy and possibly make our citizens feel betrayed. Not only would collecting funds influence their lives, but also the WA's control of import tariff's would disrupt their established commerce as well as our sovereignty over these matters.
Also, how "fair" is "fair"? While I agree that, should this resolution be passed, no nations should be forced to contribute a completely ludicruous amount that would affect severely their economy, would there not be the possibility of some bias towards bigger-amounts-contributors? And certainly, how could the WA fairly determine something so deeply dependent on specific contexts and systems? Diversity and democracy should be something to be proud of, and not be disregarded by the application of standards created by a group of people in an "alliance".
Not only would the application of said standards interfere with our nation's sovereignty over our economy, but so would the WA's determination upon tariffs. What consequences could this bring to many nations? It is not only the economy and how much goes into any institution's safes, but how this would affect our populations' lives!
Therefore, Derham votes against this proposition.

Signed,
Tsura Tesoura
President of Derham

We share the concerns many other nations have expressed in regards to Clause 6. While we understand the intent behind it, we find the wording involved simply too sweeping in scope. For that reason, the Altan Steppes will be voting against, unless directed otherwise by our region.Would the honorable representative care to elaborate on this clause's "sweeping" scope, and how it supposedly gives the WA powers it does not already have?

Shemp #3
Ambassador to the WA

the people of urgench are concerned at some of the provisions of this proposal, we ask weather or not clauses six and seven are not in contradiction of eachother and weather or not this will lead to needless complications?
No, they're not.
Clause #6 explains which aspects of tax policy the WA reserves the right to legislate about in future: Clause #7 then confirms that all other aspects of tax policy, aprt from those aforementioned-ones, are purely a matter of national concern..


also we feel that the overall tone of the proposal and it's provisions are in conflict with the integrity of national sovereignty, and that it will allow the wa much too much direct influence over natonal policy in economics.
National sovereignty applies within nations. Requiring the payment of dues to an international organisation which those nations have chosen to join does not conflict with this. Allowing that international organistion some say over the extent to which taxes could be applied to international trade does not conflict with this. Okay, allowing that organisation to reduce or eliminate unfair discrimination within national taxation policies does clash with this to some extent.
2 points to me, 1 point to you.

in regard to the payment of wa dues, we ask, how will these be assessed and at what rates and how will they be raised on recalcitrant members?
further more what will be the punishments for non payment of dues and who will judge in these matters weather non payment is acceptable?
They will be assessed "in the fairest way possible". The rates will have to depend on what other resolutions the WA subsequently passes, because those might or might not require WA funding of new agencies and programmes. The questions about 'reclacitrant members' and 'non payment' are irrelevant, because the way the WA works is that while you're a member compliance with [the letter of] all current resolutions is mandatory. It will be the ABC that decides whether non-payment is acceptable, as is actually specified in the clause of this proposal that establishes it.

also who will the puttative ABC report to and under what provisions?
OOC: Unfortunately the rules of the game don't allow direct oversight of any WA organisations. The only sanction that the organisation's members have, if they don't like the way in which a WA agency works, is to repeal the relevant resolution.

well with no hope of explanation of these points seemingly possible,OOC: After you'd waited for less than half an hour...

this is completely messed up.9." URGES all national governments to include some form of democratic process in their procedures for making decisions about budgets and taxation, and to make accurate and audited copies of their accounts (to the extent that concern about national security makes this possible) available to their nations' peoples.":headbang: why? i dont want any democracy in my nation and i believe that i should be able to make the decision if there are or are not democratic freedoms in my country or not.Thats just one of the things that bug me about this proposal.;)
As that clause only 'URGES' rather than (for example) 'REQUIRES', you are perfectly free to ignore it --no matter how much my government might like democracy -- if you so choose. It was included in this text to that the proposal would fit into the 'Furtherment of Democracy' category, because every proposal has to fit into one or another of the official categories in order to be legal and there wasn't a more appropriate one available.
(OOC: and the effect of this on your nation's stats would merely counterbalance the effect of the recent resolution that gave the WA a headquarters building.)

My government does have some questions (OOC: which have not been asked or answered in character yet, time for that later) concerning Clause 5.

But we wanted to express our strong support for Clause 2:

2. ESTABLISHES the Assembly Budgetary Commission (or ABC), which shall
i. Draw up budgets for the World Assembly, and for its agencies and programs;
ii. Determine how the costs of funding those budgets shall be shared out amongst the member nations in the fairest way possible;
iii. Receive and distribute those funds;
iv. Publish full and accurate accounts, for the WA itself and for each WA agency or program, along with independent auditors’ reports on these, annually;
v. Oversee the financial management of all World Assembly departments, agencies and programs, and the financial affairs of senior staff employed in those operations, in order to minimise corruption, fraud and waste;

I'll emphasize the last point. This message of minimizing waste is the heart of this resolution. We previously adopted a resolution that promotes and in fact authorizes WA groups to ignore requests and delay doing their core functions. We have also created other groups that many nations claim would behave the same way: slowly and inefficiently.

With this in mind, the governments that voted against previous resolutions on the grounds that resources would be lost or wasted should consider the scope of the Assembly Budget Committee to be a tool that can be used to address their former fears.

This entire clause is clear and well written.

Cassandra Thonberger

2) The other problem, which is of far greater importance, is that the proposal contains a hidden clause giving the ABC complete control over national import tariffs. This is a reprehensible attempt to secure the stealth enaction of a major violation of sovereign rights under the guise of a "Mild" "Furtherment of democracy" provision.

Markus Berens
Foreign Minister, Holy Empire of Bakamyht

Minister Berens,

Could you please point to the hidden clause and share with us your opinion on how this clause controls national import tariffs?

Danke,
Cassandra Thonberger
Deputy Ambassador, Confederated City States of Mikitivity

Press Release
The Sovereign Maggots' Republic was fine with the resolution until you mentioned the WA power to alter national taxation. This effectively strips the next clause of any meaningful power. With all due respect, we cannot support this move against our national sovereignty. Our duty to our grubby maggots requires us to oppose this resolution.
Unfortunately the WA already possesses the potential power to alter national taxation, and I have already seen a number of proposals submitted that would have done so. This proposal would actually place considerable limits on that power, if you read it carefully, and in fact that was one of my government's main reasons for producing this measure in the first place.

However, the United Kingdom of Brutland and Norden is concerned that the burden may become too overwhelming. This resolution, as we understand it, would assess first the costs of running the WA and its programs, and then charge it to the nations. For us this is not the best way of budgeting. We believe that it should be the other way around: we must know how much money we have first, before allocating it to where it should be spent. Alternatively, we would like to see a limit on how much a member state is required to contribute. We remember a certain piece of legislation (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=527018), which we supported, doing just that.

Our greatest fear is that this assembly and its predecessor, which has an uncanny knack of passing useless (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=540130) and (http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=7029711&postcount=36) worthless (http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=7030085&postcount=49) pieces (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=554058) of (http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=7029658&postcount=31) legislation (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=8012679&postcount=86), may not be responsible enough to know what they are passing, and its associated costs. Simply put, this Assembly may pass so much resolutions that the cost becomes so overwhelming and unreasonable, that every nation may be unable to afford it, or may be spending a lot more into funding pieces of crap than services for their citizens.
That is a reasonable concern, and one that some members of my government actually share... but what, really, is the alternative? If we give the WA a budget with strictly-defined limitations and the WA then passes a set of resolutions whose costs would exceed that limit, then we would have the ABC -- an unelected body -- having to decide which of those internationally-mandated programmes wouldactually recieve proper funding...
(OOC: Oh, if only we could require that the ABC's budgets be subject WA votes...
But, unfortunately I don't see how this would be possible...)

We the people of Shadrakahnopoli, do find that point 6, wherein the Proposal states: "RESERVES the right to pass resolutions that would over-rule national governments’ policies on taxation" represents a blatant attack upon the sovereign rights of the people of Shadrakahnopoli. Namely, our right to choose the manner in which to impose taxation upon trade, or labour, both foreign and domestic, inasmuch as it affects our sovereign territories. As such, until such time as this point is stricken from the proposal or is reworded, we will not give our support for it. However, we would like to voice our support of the other points which make up this proposal, and hope that should this proposal be voted down, the author and supportors of it will repropose it in such a manner in which it will be acceptable to the people of Shadrakahnopoli in its entirety.

Shadrakahn, voice of the people.
Please see my reply, slightly earlier, to the representative of 'Maggoty Maggots'...


(OOC: Out of time, alas! I'll be back on Tuesday...)

We haven't been around much to comment on the proceedings here, but I find myself nodding in agreement with the St. Edmundian delegation. An excellent piece of legislation, you have our support.

Nemö Taranton
Ambassador Plenipotens

the government of his supreme majesty the emperor of urgench wishes to apologise for it's impatience with the highly respected delegate of st Edmund, we would like to thank them for their response to our querries, regarding the proposals relationship with national sovereignty, and our confusion as to the relationship between clauses 6 and 7.
we feel that the aims of the proposal are exremely laudable, since dues to thw w.a. must be paid and in full and promptly.
unfortunately our government (and his supreme majesty himself) still believe that the proposal still tends to give the w.a. too much say in affairs it considers to be indissoluable from it's sovereignty i.e. international trade.
we also agree with the comments of other delegates who have suggested that the proposed a.b.c. should not asses for itself what it's budget should be but that the w.a. should set a budget for the a.b.c.
having said that we are sure the highly respected delegates proposal has foreseen this point and made provision for it, and that we have simply made an error in our reading of the proposal.

as a result of these and other considerations we still feel we must vote against this proposal, excellently written though it may be, and have not changed our instructions to our delegate.

his excellency, the grand chancellor of urgench, tamerlane khan of samarkand and bukhara
and nogai khan of tabagatai minister for foreign affairs of urgench

Votes For: 982

Votes Against: 2,682
Idiots.

I thought I had more to say on this matter, but that about covers it.

the government of his supreme majesty the emperor of urgench wishes to apologise for it's impatience with the highly respected delegate of st Edmund, we would like to thank them for their response to our querries, regarding the proposals relationship with national sovereignty, and our confusion as to the relationship between clauses 6 and 7.
we feel that the aims of the proposal are exremely laudable, since dues to thw w.a. must be paid and in full and promptly.
unfortunately our government (and his supreme majesty himself) still believe that the proposal still tends to give the w.a. too much say in affairs it considers to be indissoluable from it's sovereignty i.e. international trade.
we also agree with the comments of other delegates who have suggested that the proposed a.b.c. should not asses for itself what it's budget should be but that the w.a. should set a budget for the a.b.c.


*looks around the largely empty World Assembly forum chambers*

I think the fact that it is a cool Saturday and many representatives have chosen to be some place else might give us a good opportunity to dive into some of the details.

At present the resolution is not showing enough support. This could still easily change. However, my government is very interested in how your government feels this proposal impacts international trade.

"indeed highly respected delegate mikitivity, the w.a. is very under attended today.
our government feels that international trade is quintessentialy a component of national sovereignty. our government makes trade deals with other governments which have the standing of treaties in our law, also the economic benefits of international trade are essential for the furtherance of our nations developement and growth, it is therefore merely an extension of our national sovereignty. we dislike any w.a. resolution that would inhibit, adapt or hinder our trade treaties and agreements, since we see this as an infringement of our national sovereignty, though clearly the highly respected delegate from st. Edmunds disagrees with us"

delegate nogai smiles and bows his head

"indeed highly respected delegate mikitivity, the w.a. is very under attended today.
our government feels that international trade is quintessentialy a component of national sovereignty.You do realize you just contradicted yourself in the same sentence, don't you? What this body may decide in matters of international trade are quintessentially an object of international law, not national sovereignty. Moreover, this resolution does not make any provisions for regulating international trade. That language you are likely reading is merely intended not to trample on this body's right to make such regulations in the future. If you have objections regarding the international regulation of international trade, you best save them for when this body considers a resolution addressing that issue. This isn't it.

the government of the emperor of urgench begs to differ, respected delegate schuttegod, the provisions of clause six directly affect our nations abilities to make trade agreements, since no certainty could be guaranteed in them.
in order for nations to make effective trade agreements with other nations their ability to guarantee the details of such agreements is paramount. furthermore control of what levies we may raise at our countries borders are of absolute importance to the integrity of our national sovereignty.
there is no contradiction in saying that without the nation there is no internation. we seek respect for the former, to foster the increase of the latter.
we strongly advocate the need for the raising of dues for the w.a. however and would have liked to be able to support this resolution.
it is the resolutions clauses which bring in ti debate the regulation of international trade, not us

Idiots.

Precisely! Or as the previously passed resolution so elegantly put it ...

Ignoring the findings of a recent census of WA diplomats, revealing a disturbing prevalence among international envoys of "drunks, stoners, weirdos, military fruitcakes, sex addicts, rejects, dear little kiddies, honest family types" and militant machistas;

No matter how hard anyone may try, no matter how many times the legislative slate may be wiped clean, the idiots run this asylum and don't you ever forget that.

Clause 6 alone is intolerable; how can they expect we'll surrender our duty and responsibility, as heads of state, to tax our people as we see fit.

the delegate of the government of the empire of urgench welcomes the sound reasoning of the delegate of the greater union.

The Government of Gervia agrees, Clause 6 is enough alone to vote against it. That and we don't think it's ever a good idea to vote for a bill that contradicts it-self!

So the WA is not just full of bureaucratic, corrupt, greedy, and/or idiotic delegates, nice to see. The Greater Union recognizes and supports the opinions of its contemporaries, Gervia and Urgench.

A proposal to oppress economic freedoms of Sovereignties abroad should have never made it to the Resolution stage.

"indeed highly respected delegate mikitivity, the w.a. is very under attended today.
our government feels that international trade is quintessentialy a component of national sovereignty. our government makes trade deals with other governments which have the standing of treaties in our law, also the economic benefits of international trade are essential for the furtherance of our nations developement and growth, it is therefore merely an extension of our national sovereignty. we dislike any w.a. resolution that would inhibit, adapt or hinder our trade treaties and agreements, since we see this as an infringement of our national sovereignty, though clearly the highly respected delegate from st. Edmunds disagrees with us"

delegate nogai smiles and bows his head

Thank you.

My government, and I suspect the majority of those here, agrees that international trade is essential to maintaining and improving the standard of living of all our nations. With that in mind, my government spent years promoting a Free Trade proposal to relax tariffs on a certain type of luxury item in an effort to increase international trade.

What I do not understand is how clause 6 has a negative impact on international trade.

6. RESERVES the right to pass resolutions that would over-rule national governments’ policies on taxation
i. To regulate customs duties, tariffs, and any other taxes and official charges that apply to international trade, for the specific purpose of promoting that trade;
ii. To reduce or end the possible inclusion of unfair discrimination in those policies;

I should clarify ... Clause 6 does not change anything that does not already exist. The World Assembly can already debate Free Trade resolutions, which can regulate tariffs.

In trying to understand the position your government, and several others have taken, would it be fair to say that your fear is not so much that clause 6 directly impacts international trade, but it makes it all the more likely that the World Assembly might do so via another resolution in the future?

Ambassador Katzman is not here right now, but he has been unsuccessfully promoting a Free Trade agreement in this body's predecessor, the United Nations, for years. While my government agrees that over time language in resolutions that simply reminds us of the ability of an international organization to address certain topics can further that topic, we do not fear that anything in clause 6 represents a significant "nudge" in the wrong direction. If anything, Mikitivity is hoping that should this resolution pass, that member states might be interested in our Alcohol Tariff Reduction proposal.

Essentially we view the World Assembly as a vehicle to promote peace and international trade and also as a body to improve safety via communication and networking.

Cassandra Thonberger

thankyou ms. Thonberger delegate nogai khan has forwarded your view and i am enlightened by it.
indeed it is the government of the empire of urgenchs position that the resolution does repressent "a nudge in the wrong direction" since control over duty and levie on trade is central to control of trade between nations.
we do not dispute that the world assembly could vote for resolutions in the area of international trade and would welcome the debate on such a resolution. however we do not see the need to attach a clause which will affect trade to a resolution about w.a. dues.
we wonder at the motives of such a thing in fact.
as we have said elsewhere we would have been delighted to vote for this resolution had it not been for clause 6
we also note with dismay a marked swing in the voting toward ratifying this resolution.


your servant, his excellency, the grand chancellor of the empire, tamerlane, khan of samarkand and bhukhara

We previously adopted a resolution that promotes and in fact authorizes WA groups to ignore requests and delay doing their core functions.

Cassandra Thonberger

You know Ms. Thonberger, I let your kevetching about that one clause slide for some time now, but I've gotten to the point where I can't let it slide any longer. Yes, there is a huge backlog of unprocessed office space requests and with good reason. I'm the only fucking person in my department! (http://ns.goobergunch.net/wiki/un_building_mgmt.html#Directory_Maintence) I process them as fast as I can but they come in faster than I can process them. Further complicating matters is the fact that since the new building is still under construction, technically there is no office space to allocate currently. Hell, at this point I don't even have an office. I'm currently working out of the Stranger's Bar while trying my best to ignore the dirty looks Neville keeps shooting at me for working in the bar. And even before the old UN building was blown up, I had more problems that added to the delays, namely that I was locked out of the Directory (http://ns.goobergunch.net/wiki/un_building.html). Now, if I hear one more word out of you about that clause, I will come over there and defenestrate your ass, and if the building isn't finished yet then I'm just going to kick your ass!

Lucy Jones
Directory Maintence Supervisor
WA Building Management

ms. thonberger we would like to further clarify our position if we may,

the government of the empire of urgench fully realises that the w.a. has power in the field of international trade and we will seeking to further the freeing of such trade within the w.a. in the future.

it is indeed our belief that clause 6 of this resolution might make it more likely that such powers might be used, but in this case without the framework of regulationprovided by a voted for resolution on trade to give it validity. in effect clause 6 is trade control through the back door ( to use an ugly phrase)


Nogai, khan of tabagatai, minister of foreign affairs of urgench

It was included in this text to that the proposal would fit into the 'Furtherment of Democracy' category, because every proposal has to fit into one or another of the official categories in order to be legal and there wasn't a more appropriate one available."As I see it-"

But before ambassador Gardner can continue, he is interrupted by a tall Plutonian woman who has strode in as if she knew what she was doing. She has long, elaborately braided black hair, and jabbers quickly on too fast for anyone to hear, including Gardner.

His PDO (O for organizer: classifying it as merely an "assistant" is seen as a grave insult) repeats the message in a more comprehensible way. "Quit wasting the Assembly's time! You had opportunities to speak your mind."

"What do you call this debate?" he retorts. "Er, excuse me. As I was saying, this proposal increases the Assembly's power to function, similarly to the previous resolution, which seems to imply that a classification of "Political Stability" would be appropriate. It also requires that nations pay contributions, decreasing their political freedoms, which suggests "Social Justice"-"

His compatriot says something else incomprehensible. The PDO translates. "This doesn't increase anybody's welfare, does it?"

"Well," he stammers, "the WA is going to increase democratic freedoms if this passes. You want that, don't you? You're an anarchist-"

"Libertarian," she spits. Even he understands.

"They told me-"

"They're idiots. Or you."

And she struts out of the room, Gardner following slowly behind.

UNDERSTANDING that the diversity of economic systems, strengths and traditions amongst those nations, coupled with respect for their governments’ rights, would make any attempts at setting taxes within those nations by the World Assembly highly undesirable;


1. DECLARES that the World Assembly and its agencies and programmes shall be funded primarily by contributions levied from its member nations,

As this resolution first acknowledges that imposing a WA tax on member states is "highly undesirable," then mandates the establishment of such a taxation program, the Allied States of Salzland vehemently oppose this bill as an infringement upon our national sovereignty.

We recognize that the World Assembly requires funding in order to execute its policies as a supranational body politic, but allowing the World Assembly to determine how large or small its budget will be: 2. ESTABLISHES the Assembly Budgetary Commission (or ABC), which shall
i. Draw up budgets for the World Assembly, and for its agencies and programmes

Granting it the authority to levy these funds from as many or as few nations as it desires (emphasis added): ii. Determine how the costs of funding those budgets shall be shared out amongst the member nations in the "fairest" way possible;

And giving the World Assembly exclusive control over any and all appeals that arise from situations where unfair taxation is alleged as well as allowing the WA to enforce penalties in situations where it would clearly have a conflict of interest: 4. ESTABLISHES an agency called the World Assembly Arbitration Tribunals (or WAAT), commands this to act justly, and gives it the authority
i. To hear appeals by national governments against decisions of the ABC;
ii. To impose binding arbitration in those cases;
iii. To recover the costs of hearing each case from whichever of the parties to that case it considers appropriate;

All stand as unacceptable expansions of World Assembly powers at the expense of duly recognized member state soverignty.

The Salzland government also objects to Article Eight (Allowing WA agencies to add any charges that they see fit in addition to funds provided for in their budgets, then mandating that said funds be provided by WA members without any option to contest these allocations other than through a biased "Tribunal"), and we are outright offended that Article Nine can call for the expansion of the "democratic process," with regards to budgets and taxation among WA member nations while this resolution stands as little more than a dictatorial fiat granting the World Assembly a blank check, paid for by whomever it wishes.

The Article that Salzland finds most objectionable, however, is Article Six.

6. RESERVES the right to pass resolutions that would over-rule national governments’ policies on taxation
i. To regulate customs duties, tariffs, and any other taxes and official charges that apply to international trade, for the specific purpose of promoting that trade;
ii. To reduce or end the possible inclusion of unfair discrimination in those policies;

This article, in addition to creating a World Assembly veto over any and all freely-negotiated and legally-binding trade agreements, grants the WA broad and vague authority to intervene in domestic policies relating to trade. No limits are presented as to what "Customs, duties, tariffs and any other taxes and official charges that apply to international trade" are open to WA intervention, meaning that this organization could claim authority to establish policy in a broad range of domestic areas, from national fiscal policy (through mandating low-or no-interest loans to promote the expansion of businesses, to the point of bankrupting financial institutions because they are unable to keep up with the demand for money) to human rights (through mandating that minimum wage laws constitute an "official charge" that restricts trade by artificially increasing the costs of production) to any number of other areas that this resolution could impact disastrously.

Additionally, the reference to ending or limiting "unfair discrimination in those [taxation] policies" by its very wording implies that there can be a "fair discrimination," which (again, by a strict interpretation of this resolution) would be permissible. Granting the World Assembly the authority to authorize punitive trade agreements where one party receives, to use an expression, "The short end of the stick," with no possible recourse (as the WA would have complete authority to isolate the complaining nation from international trade if it protested its mistreatment) is a frightening proposition, to say the least. An extreme example, perhaps, but one that the World Assembly could very well be confronted if it had the powers this resolution would assign it, powers which the people and government of Salzland cannot and will not stand for.

For the aforementioned reasons, the Allied States of Salzland completely and utterly reject this proposed World Assembly resolution.

Signed,

J. Marcus Davis,
Minister for Foreign Relations, Allied States of Salzland

That is a reasonable concern, and one that some members of my government actually share... but what, really, is the alternative? If we give the WA a budget with strictly-defined limitations and the WA then passes a set of resolutions whose costs would exceed that limit, then we would have the ABC -- an unelected body -- having to decide which of those internationally-mandated programmes wouldactually recieve proper funding...
But, unfortunately I don't see how this would be possible...)
While I personally agree that you certainly have a point there, unfortunately, that still didn't satisfy our cost-cutting, tax-slashing, save-and-scrimping Treasury Minister. As we reiterated earlier, Brutland and Norden does not believe in that kind of budgeting, and that a strict budget may provide a disincentive for this assembly to pass worthless stuff and to minimize waste even more.

The Nord-Brutlandese treasury minister has some ideas and alternatives that she can share, but this debate is not the right forum for that right now. It would be better suited for a drafting committee. Should this need a re-draft, we would be more than happy to contribute. Thank you.

Maddalena Pedrana
Deputy Royal Nord-Brutlandese Ambassador to the World Assembly

(OOC: Oh, if only we could require that the ABC's budgets be subject WA votes...
(OOC: Yeah. If only we could. I would like that too... :( )

we do not dispute that the world assembly could vote for resolutions in the area of international trade and would welcome the debate on such a resolution. however we do not see the need to attach a clause which will affect trade to a resolution about w.a. dues.
we wonder at the motives of such a thing in fact.
as we have said elsewhere we would have been delighted to vote for this resolution had it not been for clause 6


The motive in including clause 6 would be to remind some nations that this resolution would not prevent the World Assembly from adopting future resolutions concerning domestic taxation policies.

Often resolutions are criticized for doing things they don't, so authoring nations sometimes remind nations what a resolution isn't doing.

Cassandra Thonberger

As this resolution first acknowledges that imposing a WA tax on member states is "highly undesirable," then mandates the establishment of such a taxation program, the Allied States of Salzland vehemently oppose this bill as an infringement upon our national sovereignty.

The preamble is not saying that the WA should not impose taxes on nations. It says that the, "diversity of economic systems ... would make any attempts at setting taxes within those nations" undesirable.

In other words, the resolution is not saying taxes are bad. In fact, it is saying it is the cost of World Assembly membership for the World Assembly to take something from its members. If a nation has a problem with that, it should leave. Immediately.

But at the same time, it is actually respecting sovereignty by saying it does not want to instruction nations how to deal with their domestic system for taxing their own citizens.

Cassandra Thonberger

Before I can make a solid decision, would someone please give me an official ruling on this paragraph:

6. RESERVES the right to pass resolutions that would over-rule national governments’ policies on taxation
i. To regulate customs duties, tariffs, and any other taxes and official charges that apply to international trade, for the specific purpose of promoting that trade;
ii. To reduce or end the possible inclusion of unfair discrimination in those policies;

To me, it sounds like a meta-gaming thing, but I may be wrong.

Horgen Dush
WA Representative, Nomadic Peoples of Damanucus

It's already at vote and can't be changed or deleted, even if it was by some stretch a metagaming violation. There's your ruling.

*After the break, ambassadors start returning to their tables and find a piece of paper sitting on their table*

My government is still concerned with the strong opposition that this resolution has, and based on many of the comments here concerning "sovereignty" we believe that the nature of the resolution might be misunderstood.

My government did attend a few of the sessions in which a large number of nations worked together to prepare this resolution, but we are by no means an official author, so please take my opinion as one government's opinion.

That said, while we had our last recess, I've placed a crude representation of how this resolution works relative to national / domestic taxation policies.

http://i26.photobucket.com/albums/c111/mcalamari/NationStates/WaysMeans.gif

The key element of this resolution is that it establishes a formal name for the group within the World Assembly that takes funds from member states (not their citizens) and requires that the contributions members pay be fair (it later sets up yet another independent body to provide a check and balance on the first group).

Nothing in this resolution tells nations how to structure their domestic or international trade agreements. But it does tell nations where they need to send funds and how much. Another key element of the second clause is that it only authorizes the ABC, to take resources the World Assembly needs.

Naturally my government is in support of this resolution. If any of the authors would like me to change this figure, I will gladly do so. I hope this might help matters.

Danke,
Cassandra Thonberger

To me, it sounds like a meta-gaming thing, but I may be wrong.


OOC:
SchutteGod is right, it is not metagaming. :) It is like the Rights and Duties resolution(s). That statement really is just confirming the existing game mechanics.

Is that all that is holding up your decision? :)

...

That said, while we had our last recess, I've placed a crude representation of how this resolution works relative to national / domestic taxation policies.

http://i26.photobucket.com/albums/c111/mcalamari/NationStates/WaysMeans.gif

The key element of this resolution is that it establishes a formal name for the group within the World Assembly that takes funds from member states (not their citizens) and requires that the contributions members pay be fair (it later sets up yet another independent body to provide a check and balance on the first group)

...

Danke,
Cassandra Thonberger

The main objection I have is that there is no defined limit to how large that red arrow can be between the treasury and the WA.

I will never endorse such an act!!! I'm not having some non-beneficial organisation which sit's at a desk all day long waving around bit's of paper taking my nations hard earned money!!! What is this? Compulsary charity?

this legislation was doomed the moment you added a hand wringing plea urging people to include democratic methods.
i would honestly vote for this legislation if it were not there, it is unnecessary and has served only to kill this otherwise quite well thaught out piece of law.
i would bet pounds to pennies that if you removed what many people feel to be a vieled insult this would pass.

such a small foolish thing to hang on to that serves no purpose and has alienated many people.

The preamble is not saying that the WA should not impose taxes on nations. It says that the, "diversity of economic systems ... would make any attempts at setting taxes within those nations" undesirable.

In other words, the resolution is not saying taxes are bad. In fact, it is saying it is the cost of World Assembly membership for the World Assembly to take something from its members. If a nation has a problem with that, it should leave. Immediately.

But at the same time, it is actually respecting sovereignty by saying it does not want to instruction nations how to deal with their domestic system for taxing their own citizens.

Cassandra Thonberger

(OOC: Leaving in a few minutes, so this is going to be quick)

Respectufully, the preamble specifically states that taxes established by the WA are bad ("Any attempts at setting taxes within those nations by the World Assembly highly undesirable," Preamble) and Salzland is somewhat confused as to how this resolution, which mandates the establishment of a WA tax ("DECLARES that the World Assembly and its agencies and programmes shall be funded primarily by contributions levied from its member nations," Article One), actually respects sovereignty by saying that it will not tell us how to deal with taxing our citizens, then telling us that we have to tax our citizens to pay for the WA (unless the WA suggests that Salzland hold a bake sale to pay for the World Assembly, our government's only source of revenue is through taxation, meaning that we must create a tax to pay our WA mandate, AKA this resolution would mean Salzland either establish a WA tax, which this resolution specifically said it would not do, or give up domestic programs to pay for the WA, which would be an infringement on our domestic policies).

Salzland is also intrigued by the statement that "It is the cost of World Assembly membership for the World Assembly to take something from its members. " We respectfully disagree, and maintain that it is not the duty of the WA to "take" anything from its member states. This organization should exist to meet the needs of its member states, true, but funding should be voluntary and based on genuine merit and need, not a blank check that can be drawn upon at any time

(OOC: Sorry for cutting off abruptly, but I actually really have to go)

For these reasons and others not elaborated upon, Salzland maintains its opposition to this resolution.

at current there is debate and a vote over this measure in my region, and as La Mafias delegate - I will have the peoples desire shortly and will act upon, many of them bring up the urging of democratic changes and such and clause 6 in objections. I will state my delegated vote once its made.

Sir Wence
President of the Confederacy of Wencee
Regional Delegate of La Mafia

The people have spoken! The people are idiots! The idiots have spoken!

The members of the WA obviously want various programs instituted by the WA. Clearly they want this because otherwise they would have nothing to do all day. Yet at the same time they don’t want to actually pay for anything. (Don’t worry, they will, they just don’t know it yet.) They object to the thought of giving the WA money because they might actually vote to spend their money.

(Smart people realize that if you don’t want to pay for WA programs don’t vote for programs that require spending money. Better yet quit the WA and you will never have to spend a single currency unit on a WA resolution.)

No these idiots simply want any WA funding to come by magic, from the ether, or the Easter Bunny or some other nonsense. Therefore I suggest that should this resolution fail we give them what they deserve. The next funding measure should allow the WA to print currency! If they object to a standard WA currency we can always print the currency of the member nations! The idiots would love it. Money for nothing and the checks are free! Never mind we would be wrecking the economy of every nation in the WA by messing with their monetary supply policy.

The people have spoken! The people are idiots! The idiots have spoken!

The members of the WA obviously want various programs instituted by the WA. Clearly they want this because otherwise they would have nothing to do all day. Yet at the same time they don’t want to actually pay for anything. (Don’t worry, they will, they just don’t know it yet.) They object to the thought of giving the WA money because they might actually vote to spend their money.

(Smart people realize that if you don’t want to pay for WA programs don’t vote for programs that require spending money. Better yet quit the WA and you will never have to spend a single currency unit on a WA resolution.)

No these idiots simply want any WA funding to come by magic, from the ether, or the Easter Bunny or some other nonsense. Therefore I suggest that should this resolution fail we give them what they deserve. The next funding measure should allow the WA to print currency! If they object to a standard WA currency we can always print the currency of the member nations! The idiots would love it. Money for nothing and the checks are free! Never mind we would be wrecking the economy of every nation in the WA by messing with their monetary supply policy.



the government of the emperor of urgench holds the esteemed and sagacious delegate of Tzorsland in the highest of respect. but we beg to differ with their summatoin of the motives of the delegacy in voting no to this resolution.
our government would gladly pay a reasonable sum to the w.a. for it's work and so would the majority of those who vote no, we suspect. but the resolution contains clauses and provisions that at the least our government finds troubling and so do many others, as a result of this we have voted no to the resolution.
were another resolution to be brought before the w.a. pertaining to mthe issue of funding that did not contain such troublesome clauses we would gladly vote yes to it, as we are sure many other nations would.



yours e.t.c. Nogai, khan of tabagatai, minister for foreign affairs of urgench.

:sniper: i believe the WA should have this power.Even thouth they sorta already have the power.It would be good for the WA nations,but something should be donated to the countries who arent in the WA.

I like this, vote for it!

Signed,
President John Smith

I'm so sorry I had to vote against.

It seems that so many WA members have serious concerns about your proposal, and to be a responsible delegate is actually to listen to those concerns: and one way is to be on their side.

The people have spoken! The people are idiots! The idiots have spoken!

They object to the thought of giving the WA money because they might actually vote to spend their money.

We do not agree that a vote no is a vote from a nation of idiots. We support this resolution, but recognize that ultimately the goal of this forum is the expression of ideas. We are paying attention, and respectfully ask that opponents continue to consider our thoughts as well. :)

In the days of the United Nations, a number of nations promoted blockers. A blocker resolution would effectively prohibit the United Nations from creating future resolutions dealing with very specific issues. A classic example is nuclear arms. The United Nations passed a resolution that guaranteed the right of nations to posses nuclear arms.

Not defining a mechanism to fund the World Assembly is clearly going to be an easy method for groups like Gatesville to block one type of World Assembly resolution: programmatic resolutions.

Unfortunately with fewer programmatic resolutions, the World Assembly will then focus on developing more domestic policy management (Human Rights) resolutions. Owning nukes is a domestic policy management resolution. But creating a World Assembly headquarters is a programmatic one.

Cassandra Thonberger

I'm so sorry I had to vote against.

It seems that so many WA members have serious concerns about your proposal, and to be a responsible delegate is actually to listen to those concerns: and one way is to be on their side.

Can you ask the members of your region if they could change only two clauses, what would they change?

I'd like to ask proponents that if this fails that we try again.

OOC:
Can somebody who is around on Tuesday collect a list of the Delegates that voted in favour to aid us if we wish to resubmit this as a modified proposal? (I'll be at work.)

At present slightly over 5,000 votes have been tallied. With only another 5,000 left to reach a 0.5 activity ratio (which is norm), I think things are slowing down. :(

the government of the emperor of urgench, would gladly vote yes to reasonable proposals on the subject of w.a. funding.
we urge the writers of this resolution to rethink it's controversial provisions, and to re-submit it for the consideration of the w.a.
if this is done we and we suspect many others will passionately advocate it's ratification.


Nogai, khan of tabagatai, minister for foreign affairs of urgench.:)

However, the United Kingdom of Brutland and Norden is concerned that the burden may become too overwhelming. This resolution, as we understand it, would assess first the costs of running the WA and its programs, and then charge it to the nations. For us this is not the best way of budgeting. We believe that it should be the other way around: we must know how much money we have first, before allocating it to where it should be spent.
My nation's representative has carefully browsed through all the replies in this forum and has found no text contradicting this probability. Henceforth, my government has to inform the assembly my country's stance is AGAINST. However, we too are not averse to supplying the WA with funding to their various projects, which are truly worthwhile and we would most certainly have been voting FOR if the aforementioned possibility be nonexistent. We thank the delegate for Brutland and Norden for pointing this out.

Charlotte has sent telegrams to WA Member Nations, asking for their views.

I think Ambassador Sweynson made a basic tactical error in clauses 6 & 7. If he'd either dropped 6 entirely or reduced the pair of them to the old "the WA may not tax citizens directly" level, he'd have avoided the read-nothings' problems with perceived interference with sovereignty. He'd also have avoided the more pertinent problem of losing the support of nations who don't believe in Free Trade and who did actually read the proposal, but that doesn't seem to be regarded as a problem.

--
Cerys Coch, Permanent Undersecretary

RESERVES the right to pass resolutions that would over-rule national governments’ policies on taxation
i. To regulate customs duties, tariffs, and any other taxes and official charges that apply to international trade, for the specific purpose of promoting that trade;



the government of the emperor of urgench, holds the esteemed delegate in nothing but the greatest of respect, but it disagrees fundimentally with their reading of the clause qouted above.
as we pointed out in earlier debates, this clause errodes the ability of member nations to guarantee the conditions of their trade agreements, since even a well meaning w.a. could accidently invalidate these conditions.
let alone the possibility that the w.a. might become enamoured of some particular economic model or other and seek to enforce it through this clause, under the guise of "free trade", though the government of the emperor of urgench highly doubts this, it is still a theoretical possibility.
aside from these points, it is dangerous to include clause 6 of this resolution in a resolution that does not contain enough qualification of the powers it sets up. this resolution simply does not have the requisite checks and balances, that a properly debated resolution on taxation in international trade would hopefully have.
with respect it is not because our government has not read this resolution that we have voted no to it, but on the contrary because we have read it very well and decided that on balance, though much of it is extremely needfull, it contains certain dangerous clauses we can not assent to.



yours, Nogai, khan of tabagatai, minister for foreign affairs of urgench

Unfortunately, this is not going to pass.

St Edmund,

I would be more than willing to resubmit this, but apart from the revisiting of Clause 6 and other concerns, can I strongly suggest a revising of the title? I'm certain that a huge portion of the voters base their vote on the title and/or the current voting trend. "Ways and Means" screams an economic national sovereignty violation to many, I'd bet. Something less extreme-sounding would push this over to the passed column.

I just dont think that people want/like the posssiblity of being overruled in their own nation.also some nations are strictly a dictatorship and dont want democracy at all in their nation,personally i dont want to be overruled in my decisions at all

What if the resolution passed, how can it possibly affect the game. Its not like the WA is actually gonna read the resolution.

Recognized for two minutes, the President of The Allied States of Rukkiz, Casey Fenton...

A new WA member here, this will actually be my nation's first registered vote in the system.

My nation does what it feels is right for it's citizens, as do all of the WA members. That being said, any included statement such as: "9. URGES all national governments to include some form of democratic process in their procedures for making decisions about budgets and taxation, and to make accurate and audited copies of their accounts (to the extent that concerns of national security makes this possible) available to their nations' peoples." in any clause, can NOT be supported by my nation.

While the World Assembly takes democratic measures to pass resolutions, those voting do not all hold the same personal bureaucratic stances. The WA should continue and forever be about our relationship and interaction amongst each other. Whatever happens legally within a state's own borders should be held under zero jurisdiction of the WA.

Thank you.

Unfortunately, this is not going to pass.

St Edmund,

I would be more than willing to resubmit this, but apart from the revisiting of Clause 6 and other concerns, can I strongly suggest a revising of the title? I'm certain that a huge portion of the voters base their vote on the title and/or the current voting trend. "Ways and Means" screams an economic national sovereignty violation to many, I'd bet. Something less extreme-sounding would push this over to the passed column.

I agree with Jey.

I have another suggestion. If we can get a bookkeeping category, then clause 9 could also be removed.

I just dont think that people want/like the posssiblity of being overruled in their own nation.also some nations are strictly a dictatorship and dont want democracy at all in their nation,personally i dont want to be overruled in my decisions at allThen you made a very unwise decision when you opted to join the World Assembly.

Good God! Did everyone take a stupid pill right before this vote was called or something? We are beside ourselves over the hostile, and quite hysterical, reception this resolution has received. All it does is provide the WA with a constant, reliable source of funding, and makes further assurances that the money collected is not wasted or misspent. We would think that all these fairweather friends of sovereignty that have gathered in opposition to this bill would be heartened by the provision giving your selfish governments autonomy over most domestic taxation policies, thus forbidding the WA from collecting taxes from your citizens. But apparently no one has been able to read past Clause 6.

We would like to take a moment to remind the members in these hallowed halls that reaffirming powers the WA already has was never a problem, in the context, for example, of Rights and Duties of WA States. If only the WA were also empowered to pull those giant sticks out of your asses! It would solve many more problems this body faces, outside the deplorable and negligent lack of funding.

Shemp #3
Ambassador to the WA

Would the honorable representative care to elaborate on this clause's "sweeping" scope, and how it supposedly gives the WA powers it does not already have?

Shemp #3
Ambassador to the WA

Actually, I can't. I now realize that we have completely misinterpreted the intent of that clause, thinking it was actually doing more than it really is. However, when we make a mistake, we're willing to own up to it. We hope that other delegations will take another look at this resolution and change their votes in favor, rather than perhaps relying on stubborn pride and refusing to reconsider their vote, or unwillingness to recognize that they may have made a mistake.

The Trilateral Federation has changed its vote accordingly, although it appears it will not make a difference at this point. For any role we may have played, however inadvertently, in shooting this resolution down, we apologize.

Jaris Krytellin, Ambassador

"We would think that all these fairweather friends of sovereignty that have gathered in opposition to this bill would be heartened by the provision giving your selfish governments autonomy over most domestic taxation policies, thus forbidding the WA from collecting taxes from your citizens. But apparently no one has been able to read past Clause 6."



the government of the emperor of urgench is shocked at the respected delegates words in the above quoted statement, and at other less fitting language, for "these hallowed halls" as they call them, used by the esteemed delegate.

our government at least is no "fairweather friend to sovereignty" we will defend it to the best of our abilities as will many others we are sure. and it ill behoves the delegate to bandy insults about in this way.
it must be pointed out that we are not deigned our national sovereignty by the w.a. or any clique within it, and therefore we are deeply troubled at the honoured delegates reference to "selfish governments" being in some way allowed some control over "most" of our domestic taxation.
the respected delegate would be wise to remember that the world of international politics is contantly in flux, and can be turned upon it's head in the blink of an eye. just because things are or have been a particular way, does not mean they will always be that way.
resolutions which allow the w.a. control over national taxation are very few in number and strikingly vage in their import. so exactly which pre existing powers the esteemed delegate for schuttegod and others have reffered to should be enumerated, before they are used as justification for clause six of this resolution.
our government has strenuously pointed out that it is axiomatic that the world assembly may bring forward resolutions regarding national taxation if it wishes and that doubtless robust debate will follow, and votes ensue.
is it really necessary to point out to such a highly regarded delegate as the delegate for schuttegod that this resolution is not about national taxation and should therefore not contain clauses affecting it.
so clause 6 represents some piece of needless burocracy which was ill advised, or a cynical and underhand method of national taxation control. the references to free trade in that case being a fig leaf, since no free trade may be promoted or defended by law by the very nature of free trade.
either way clause six and other considerations were the death of this resolution not the so called "selfishness" of governments, who were merely trying to save there people from the rigours of a w.a. mandated global comand economy.
as our government has repeatedly stressed, we are absolutely four-square behind any resolution which seeks to fairly raise money for the actions of the w.a. as we are sure the majority of no voting nations are too. bring this resolution back before the w.a. amended and we are sure it will pass.


yours e.t.c. Nogai, khan of tabagatai, minister for foreign affairs of urgench

I've voted against it unfortunately, and I didn't follow any voting trends, but something clearly disturbed me in issue 9, which is:

9. URGES all national governments to include some form of democratic process in their procedures for making decisions about budgets and taxation, and to make accurate and audited copies of their accounts (to the extent that concerns of national security makes this possible) available to their nations' peoples.

Our country won't include any of our People about taxation, they'll surely complain a lot. We are trying to be transparent to the nation's people, but I won't let any citizens got involved in taxation and budgets.

~The People's Republic of Golmir

the government of the emperor of urgench would like to refer the words of the honoured delegate of schuttegod to the esteemed delegate of the altan steppes for an indication of the attitude of the supporters of this resolution toward the integrity of national trade policy.
undoubtedly the resolution may not have had any intention of impinging on national rights but with some of our fellow nations views on the matter being so extreme, is it not possible that the resolution is open to abuse?

yours e.t.c. Nogai, khan of tabagatai, minister for foreign affairs of urgench

We are trying to be transparent to the nation's people, but I won't let any citizens got involved in taxation and budgets.

Then you're being about as "transparent" as a mud brick. Providing information about, and input concerning, taxation and budgets (which is ultimately information about how the citizens' money is taken from them and spent) is a fundamental foundation of any effort to provide transparent and accountable government. Also, clause 9 only urges you to make such changes, it does not mandate it. If that is your basis for objection, you may want to reconsider.

Jaris Krytellin, Ambassador

the government of the emperor of urgench would like to refer the words of the honoured delegate of schuttegod to the esteemed delegate of the altan steppes for an indication of the attitude of the supporters of this resolution toward the integrity of national trade policy.

While I appreciate the delegate from Urgench rising to defend me, it's entirely not necessary; I've been an ambassador here on two separate occasions, and have spent a lot of time here. I've heard far worse directed at me, and have directed far worse at others. Besides, as I stated earlier, we were wrong in our stance. It was a reasonable correction, in our estimation.

undoubtedly the resolution may not have had any intention of impinging on national rights but with some of our fellow nations views on the matter being so extreme, is it not possible that the resolution is open to abuse?

No. It's really not, because it's not "impinging on national rights" any more than the WA already does so.

Jaris Krytellin, Ambassador

I voted against this resolution, but not for the (now infamous) "URGES Clause"

I think the details and specifics behind the Assembly Budgetary Commission need to be laid out in slightly more detail.

A bulleted list of concerns:
- A country, in financial distress, creates a genocide or massacre of it's people and then requests WA relief. How will the WA/Committee prevent these types of corruptions?
- Will there be a varying taxation scale for, as the proposal puts it "the diversity of economic systems"? As a new and growing nation, will I be paying the same % of my GDP as a large and established nation?
- In what situations is aid going to be most essential? What will the priority list look like? Disaster relief, budget bailout, military aid, and other types of financial need will need to be categorized and determined level of importance.

While, I understand, a lot of these concerns can be addressed by the committee itself I feel it's important to include documentation of it in the proposal.

Perhaps a solution to some people's taxation problems would be an inclusion on the committee. If you pay the taxes, you're obviously eligible for aid. If you don't, you aren't. Then include a clause for those who do not pay, and then find themselves in extreme need (e.g. natural disaster) they can immediately apply for aid with a pay back plan, increased tax % over time.

As long as there is a "fail safe" where corruption and misrepresentation of funds within the committee can be recovered or prevented, I will support a future submission.

resolutions which allow the w.a. control over national taxation are very few in number and strikingly vage in their import. so exactly which pre existing powers the esteemed delegate for schuttegod and others have reffered to should be enumerated, before they are used as justification for clause six of this resolution.Try Section III, Article 9 of Rights and Duties:

Article 9 § Every WA Member State has the duty to carry out in good faith its obligations arising from treaties and other sources of international law, including this World Assembly, and it may not invoke provisions in its constitution or its laws as an excuse for failure to perform this duty. Meaning anything this body passes at a future date must be implemented by your government, whether it regards taxation, education, or Ladies Night at Club 64.

the respected delegate would be wise to remember that the world of international politics is contantly in flux, and can be turned upon it's head in the blink of an eye. just because things are or have been a particular way, does not mean they will always be that way.International events have no affect on international law in the world of NationStates; international law is constant. Your only way around is repeal or resignation.

is it really necessary to point out to such a highly regarded delegate as the delegate for schuttegod that this resolution is not about national taxation and should therefore not contain clauses affecting it.It is about national taxation, as it enlists national governments to provide for the WA's stability by taking funds from their own coffers. As these funds are most likely publicly provided, governmental policy regarding their levy is at issue here.

Thankfully, this resolution contains no clauses affecting national taxation. It preserves the status quo over national taxation policies -- except in areas where the WA has clear jurisdiction, such as international trade. The resolution itself contains no regulations regarding international trade, mind you; just a reminder it can issue such regulations in the future.

so clause 6 represents some piece of needless burocracy which was ill advised, or a cynical and underhand method of national taxation control. the references to free trade in that case being a fig leaf, since no free trade may be promoted or defended by law by the very nature of free trade.
either way clause six and other considerations were the death of this resolution not the so called "selfishness" of governments, who were merely trying to save there people from the rigours of a w.a. mandated global comand economy.This makes no sense whatsoever. By defeating this bill you are robbing yourselves of any national protection vis a vis domestic taxation, and in fact are insuring that the WA can pass bills forcing your hand in collecting revenue from your citizens. You haven't "saved" your people from anything; you misread a simple modifying clause, overreacted, and voted with your jerking knees. You and your comrades dealt a serious blow to the cause of national sovereignty today. Congratulations.

Then you're being about as "transparent" as a mud brick. Providing information about, and input concerning, taxation and budgets (which is ultimately information about how the citizens' money is taken from them and spent) is a fundamental foundation of any effort to provide transparent and accountable government. Also, clause 9 only urges you to make such changes, it does not mandate it. If that is your basis for objection, you may want to reconsider.

Jaris Krytellin, Ambassador

My pardon, but clause 2 is also my concern. Although we'll never know, but corruption will happens. Except if you want to make Corruption Investigators.

Alexander Daniel, Prime Minister

Good God! Did everyone take a stupid pill right before this vote was called or something? We are beside ourselves over the hostile, and quite hysterical, reception this resolution has received. All it does is provide the WA with a constant, reliable source of funding, and makes further assurances that the money collected is not wasted or misspent.
You're being disingenious, Ambassador Shemp, even if you are accurate about the alleged thought processes of most of the nay-sayers here.

The resolution also blocks any WA from fiddling with nations' tax policies for any purpose that isn't Free Trade. I'd have taken it without the rider, or without clauses 6&7 both, but trying to write an implicit endorsement of Free Trade into the act was never going to enthuse me. It's not enough to get me voting against, but it is enough to stop me voting for.

--
Cerys Coch, Permanent Undersecretary

the government of the emperor of urgench wishes to point out to the highly esteemed delegate of the altan steppes, that we have accepted that the w.a. already has the consent of it's members to change the nature of their national sovereignty, that much is obvious. and in the area of national taxation policy those powers such as they are clearly not our main concern.
we feel that the inclusion of clause 6 is an un-regulated intrusion in this area of national policy and is open to abuse since it is un-qualified.
the government of the emperor of urgench wishes to clarify also that we were not seeking to defend you in our earlier statement, but to point out the attitude of other governments to the integrity of national sovereignty, and by that hoping to show you how this clause might be put to an injurious use by these governments, who seemingly do not care how much power the w.a. has over it's membership. or is it possible that these government are infact anxious to extend the powers of the w.a. in order to extend their own influence and power?

we are saddened to see that your government has been seduced by the blandishments of the proponents of integration. but we respect the hounourable reasons your government made it's decision.

yours e.t.c. Nogai, khan of tabagatai, minister for foreign affairs of urgench

the government of the emperor of urgench regards the delegate of schuttegod only with the highest respect, and so it is dimayed at their talk of the w.a. issuing commands as though it were not the sum of it's voting parts, and were in fact a world secretariat.
we note that the respected delegate only has one provision of one resolution to quote on the matter of national sovereignty and that it is an extremely vague one, which only allows for future powers to be allowed and does not explicitly refer to taxation of international trade.
we remind the delegate that the formation of international law is in fact the very same thing as international politics, the former being entirely dependant upon the later, without which it would not exist
since the honoured delegate pointed it out, there is an explicit protection of national taxation policy, namely resignation from the w.a.
is the respected delegate asking all those nations who do not agree with their national policy on tax harmonisation to avail of this ultimate sanction?


yours e.t.c. Nogai khan of tabagatai. minister for foreign affairs of urgench

The resolution also blocks any WA from fiddling with nations' tax policies for any purpose that isn't Free Trade. False. You know very well the WA can also restrict international trade, under the auspices of Advancement of Industry. You also know very well that the clause was only added so that the resolution would not illegally close off an entire category, and that all this grandstanding about "implicitly endorsing" free trade is fantastically off-point. Admittedly the Edmundans could have phrased the clause better than they did, but let's be honest with ourselves: the language was only added as a legal measure, not an ideological one. For God's sake, Ms. Coch, give us a little credit.

*snip*You still haven't pointed out how restating a power the WA already has -- as per Resolution #2 and the rules -- is such a hostile intrusion on your precious national sovereignty. Start with that, and maybe, just maybe, we'll be able to get somewhere with this.

~Shemp #3

6. RESERVES the right to pass resolutions that would over-rule national governments’ policies on taxation
i. To regulate customs duties, tariffs, and any other taxes and official charges that apply to international trade, for the specific purpose of promoting that trade;
ii. To reduce or end the possible inclusion of unfair discrimination in those policies;

My government has a major problem is with 6(i) of this resolution. We don't like the idea that the World Assembly is given the power of a free trade organization to regulate tariffs on member states. We are absolutely committed to ensuring funding for the World Assembly, however this provision troubles us deeply.

In fact, 6(ii) could become problematic as well. The whole point of tariffs are to ensure that nations can protect their own local industries to prevent a foreign takeover. In Kennedosia, we recently passed legislation to protect our auto industry through tariffs. The measure has significantly helped our economy, which, at the time, was quite fragile. How can we ask member nations to forfeit the ability to protect themselves through peaceful means?

Bob Smith
Ambassador
Permanent Mission of Kennedosia to the World Assembly

the government of the emperor of urgench wishes to point out the highly sagacious ambassador shemp, delegate for schuttegod, that our government has pointed out exactly how clause 6 of this resolution is more dangerous than other provisions of other resolutions.
it grants definitive powers in specific areas of national sovereignty, without sufficient balances of responsibility. it allows the w.a. to arbitrarily interfere in taxation of member states without providing those states with anything like adequate means to challenge this frankly oximoronic power.
bring before the w.a. resolutions on taxation of international trade if you wish, bring resolutions on w.a. dues before it too if you wish, bring resolutions on promoting democracy also if you wish, but trying to squeeze powers over one area, that are un-regulated, into a resolution pertaining to a totally different area of compitence seems,is in our opinion highly misguided

yours e.t.c. Nogai, khan of tabagatai, minister for foreign affairs of urgench

There's nothing that says every nation has to have Democracy as a matter of fact a large majority of world nations are strictly no democratic and follow doctoral lines or are monarchs, just because a nation is a Dictatorship or Monarchy doesn't make it unqualified to rule or an unjust power. The fact of that matter is that if enough people in the nation disliked the government there is nothing that government could do to stop regime change. It is not the responsibility of the international community to step in whenever they feel there has been a violation of rights. National Sovereignty should be respected as the most sacred ideal of this institution.

... as a matter of fact a large majority of world nations are strictly no democratic and follow doctoral lines or are monarchs, just because a nation is a Dictatorship or Monarchy doesn't make it unqualified to rule or an unjust power.

The fact of that matter is that if enough people in the nation disliked the government there is nothing that government could do to stop regime change.

Is Cronisia a democracy?

Hi I am the leader of The Armed Republic of La Bulk and I am unable to support the Ways and Means motion and as such I have now voted again this measure because it appears not to be in the best interest of my country

( I'm back. Sorry about the hiatus, but I can rarely get online on Sundays, and this Monday was a public holiday over here in the UK which also rendered the computers that I normally use for this purpose unavailable then as well... My deep thanks to those of you who have been defending this proposal in my absence.)

_________________________________________________________________

His Royal Highness, Wilfred II, King of Wilfredshire has requested that I relay a personal message from his person to the World Assembly concerning the "Ways and Means" resolution under debate. The message reads, "on yer bike!"

Johnny Stardust,
Delegate-of-the-Day,
Kingdom of Wilfredshire.

And what alternative method for funding the WA's activities would His Majesty seriously care to suggest? I somehow doubt whether sponsored ambassadorial cycle-rides, by themselves, would be able to raise sufficient funds...

Clause 6 alone is intolerable; how can they expect we'll surrender our duty and responsibility, as heads of state, to tax our people as we see fit.
You have already given this Assembly that power, by joining: This proposal would limit the WA's ability in that respect.

The Government of Gervia agrees, Clause 6 is enough alone to vote against it. That and we don't think it's ever a good idea to vote for a bill that contradicts it-self!
See my preceding comment; and, as I have already explained to another nation's ambassador, this proposal does not contradict itself.

we do not dispute that the world assembly could vote for resolutions in the area of international trade and would welcome the debate on such a resolution. however we do not see the need to attach a clause which will affect trade to a resolution about w.a. dues.
we wonder at the motives of such a thing in fact.
The motive was to exclude the WA from meddling with member nations' policies concerning taxation of purely internal matters, without blocking potential resolutions on Free Trade, without having to pass two resolutions when one (hopefully) would do... and when the clause urging democratic oversight within nations' taxation systems would provide a legal 'category' into which to fit the rules on WA funding.
However given the poor reception that this proposal has faced, and some of the more reasonable comments that other people have made (some of which would require incorporating additional details into any future draft of a 'WA funding' proposal), a separation into two distinct proposals instead does now seem likely.

ms. thonberger we would like to further clarify our position if we may,

the government of the empire of urgench fully realises that the w.a. has power in the field of international trade and we will seeking to further the freeing of such trade within the w.a. in the future. Good.

it is indeed our belief that clause 6 of this resolution might make it more likely that such powers might be used, but in this case without the framework of regulationprovided by a voted for resolution on trade to give it validity.
In which case any such attempts, lacking validity, could safely be IGNORED by the member nations...

As this resolution first acknowledges that imposing a WA tax on member states is "highly undesirable," then mandates the establishment of such a taxation program, the Allied States of Salzland vehemently oppose this bill as an infringement upon our national sovereignty.
It does not impose a 'WA Tax' on member nations, it imposes a requirement for those nation's governments to pay contributions to the WA... and leaves it entirely up to those governments how they raise the money concerned. Some governments might even do so by re-directing money from their existing budgets, instead of by raising additional taxes...

We recognize that the World Assembly requires funding in order to execute its policies as a supranational body politic, but allowing the World Assembly to determine how large or small its budget will be:
( Unfortunately the game-mechanics don't make subjecting budgets to vote by the Assembly's members possible. Please see my earlier comment to 'Brutland and Norden'... )

Granting it the authority to levy these funds from as many or as few nations as it desires (emphasis added):
And requiring that it do so "in the fairest way possible", which should preclude any mis-use of that power.

And giving the World Assembly exclusive control over any and all appeals that arise from situations where unfair taxation is alleged as well as allowing the WA to enforce penalties in situations where it would clearly have a conflict of interest:
And what alternative sort of appeals system ( that would be legal under this game's rules ) would you favour? At least I made the tribunals separate from the budgetary commission, and not completely dependent upon it for funding, which should hopefully make them more capable of looking at those disputes dispassionately...

The Salzland government also objects to Article Eight (Allowing WA agencies to add any charges that they see fit in addition to funds provided for in their budgets, then mandating that said funds be provided by WA members without any option to contest these allocations other than through a biased "Tribunal"),
The option of having agencies charge fees was included for the sake of those members who would prefer to have the WA's services paid for mainly by their users, rather than by all of the membership, and who might therefore wish to propose future resolutions accordingly. It was only meant to apply in cases where the use of those agencies' services would be optional for the member nations, although I accept that this point wasn't actually stated in the current text.
And the Tribunal, having been commanded by this text to act "justly", would NOT be "biased" as you suggest...

and we are outright offended that Article Nine can call for the expansion of the "democratic process," with regards to budgets and taxation among WA member nations while this resolution stands as little more than a dictatorial fiat granting the World Assembly a blank check, paid for by whomever it wishes.
My government's reason for including Clause #9 has already been explained... and this proposal hardly qualifies as "a dictatorial fiat", given that it is being voted upon (and, alas, rejected) quite democratically.

The Article that Salzland finds most objectionable, however, is Article Six.

This article, in addition to creating a World Assembly veto over any and all freely-negotiated and legally-binding trade agreements, grants the WA broad and vague authority to intervene in domestic policies relating to trade. No limits are presented as to what "Customs, duties, tariffs and any other taxes and official charges that apply to international trade" are open to WA intervention, meaning that this organization could claim authority to establish policy in a broad range of domestic areas, from national fiscal policy (through mandating low-or no-interest loans to promote the expansion of businesses, to the point of bankrupting financial institutions because they are unable to keep up with the demand for money) to human rights (through mandating that minimum wage laws constitute an "official charge" that restricts trade by artificially increasing the costs of production) to any number of other areas that this resolution could impact disastrously.
That would not be an intended consequence of this proposal, but I agree that the limits on this power could have been made clearer: Inserting the word "specifically" after "apply" in the "that apply to international trade" line should do so adequately enough, I think.

Additionally, the reference to ending or limiting "unfair discrimination in those [taxation] policies" by its very wording implies that there can be a "fair discrimination," which (again, by a strict interpretation of this resolution) would be permissible.
That sub-clause was meant to allow future resolutions against unfair discrimination to include taxation in the overall range of matters that they cover, rather than as implying 'fair' discrimination to be possible within taxation policies... but some nations' governments would probably claim that it was possible: After all, many nations within the WA -- although, I recognise, not your own homeland -- tax the wealthy at much higher rates than they do the less-well-off, which is surely discrimination gainst the wealthy, and they would presumably claim that as fair even if you or I might disagree.

Granting the World Assembly the authority to authorize punitive trade agreements where one party receives, to use an expression, "The short end of the stick," with no possible recourse (as the WA would have complete authority to isolate the complaining nation from international trade if it protested its mistreatment) is a frightening proposition, to say the least. An extreme example, perhaps, but one that the World Assembly could very well be confronted if it had the powers this resolution would assign it,
No, it couldn't. The WA's basic rules forbid it to single out any particular nation or nations in the way that you are suggesting might occur. All resolutions passed must apply, at least potentially, to all member nations.

The Nord-Brutlandese treasury minister has some ideas and alternatives that she can share, but this debate is not the right forum for that right now. It would be better suited for a drafting committee. Should this need a re-draft, we would be more than happy to contribute. Thank you.

Maddalena Pedrana
Deputy Royal Nord-Brutlandese Ambassador to the World Assembly

Thank you. If my government decides to continue with this project then your minister's contributions to the discussion will be welcomed.

*After the break, ambassadors start returning to their tables and find a piece of paper sitting on their table*

My government is still concerned with the strong opposition that this resolution has, and based on many of the comments here concerning "sovereignty" we believe that the nature of the resolution might be misunderstood.

My government did attend a few of the sessions in which a large number of nations worked together to prepare this resolution, but we are by no means an official author, so please take my opinion as one government's opinion.

That said, while we had our last recess, I've placed a crude representation of how this resolution works relative to national / domestic taxation policies.

http://i26.photobucket.com/albums/c111/mcalamari/NationStates/WaysMeans.gif

*Alfred Sweynsson carefully places his copy of this diagram in his briefcase*

"My thanks, Freelady Thonberger."

The main objection I have is that there is no defined limit to how large that red arrow can be between the treasury and the WA.
( That will really be determined by the categories & strengths of the resolutions passed in future: They'll affect your nation's economy whether this particular proposal passes or -- as now seems likely -- fails, and all that this proposal would do in that respect is provide an IC explanation for those effects. )

this legislation was doomed the moment you added a hand wringing plea urging people to include democratic methods.
i would honestly vote for this legislation if it were not there, it is unnecessary and has served only to kill this otherwise quite well thaught out piece of law.
i would bet pounds to pennies that if you removed what many people feel to be a vieled insult this would pass.

such a small foolish thing to hang on to that serves no purpose and has alienated many people.
As has already been explained, without that clause this proposal wouldn't really have fitted into any of the official categories and would therefore have been illegal.

No these idiots simply want any WA funding to come by magic, from the ether, or the Easter Bunny or some other nonsense.
"I am not 'nonsense'... but I'm not paying for every bright (or stupid) idea that this Assembly might come up with, either."

The Easter Bunny.

OOC: Can somebody who is around on Tuesday collect a list of the Delegates that voted in favour to aid us if we wish to resubmit this as a modified proposal? (I'll be at work.)
( I've got a list as of about half an hour ago, and will look again when I've caught up on commenting to this thread. )

_________________________________________________________________________

I think Ambassador Sweynson made a basic tactical error in clauses 6 & 7. If he'd either dropped 6 entirely or reduced the pair of them to the old "the WA may not tax citizens directly" level, he'd have avoided the read-nothings' problems with perceived interference with sovereignty. He'd also have avoided the more pertinent problem of losing the support of nations who don't believe in Free Trade and who did actually read the proposal, but that doesn't seem to be regarded as a problem.

--
Cerys Coch, Permanent Undersecretary
I and my government were trying to replace the former NSUN resolution 'Representation in Taxation', as well as the 'UN Taxation Ban' one... and we decided that we would rather lose the support of the latter set of nations than pass a resolution actively blocking Free Trade.

Unfortunately, this is not going to pass.

St Edmund,

I would be more than willing to resubmit this, but apart from the revisiting of Clause 6 and other concerns, can I strongly suggest a revising of the title? I'm certain that a huge portion of the voters base their vote on the title and/or the current voting trend. "Ways and Means" screams an economic national sovereignty violation to many, I'd bet. Something less extreme-sounding would push this over to the passed column.
Thank you for the offer. I'm not sure yet whether my government will wish me to continue with this project, but if we do then your help -- with drafting the revised version, as well as in sponsoring it -- will be gratefully welcomed. I see what you mean about the title, which was adopted because the proposal's combination of roles (i.e. funding the WA, keeping the WA out of nations' internal taxation policies, and establishing WAAT for use not in in this matter but in future proposals too) made using a fairly "generic" description like that one seem appropriate, and any new draft will have a new one instead.

What if the resolution passed, how can it possibly affect the game. Its not like the WA is actually gonna read the resolution.
( From a practical & purely OOC viewpoint, its only effects would be to make any proposals that tried to have the WA impose taxes within the member nations -- or to meddle in national taxation systems in any ways not specifically allowed by the combination of clauses #6 & #7 -- illegal: The clauses about funding the WA would apply solely from an IC viewpoint...)

I have another suggestion. If we can get a bookkeeping category, then clause 9 could also be removed.
( Agreed. I'm seriously tempted to leave the WA-funding aspects of this until we get a 'bookkeeping' category, now, and to split off the bits keeping the WA out of taxation policies as a separate proposal... )

The Trilateral Federation has changed its vote accordingly, although it appears it will not make a difference at this point. For any role we may have played, however inadvertently, in shooting this resolution down, we apologize.

Jaris Krytellin, Ambassador
Your apology is accepted. There has clearly been so much opposition to this proposal that your earlier objection was not a deciding factor.

I think the details and specifics behind the Assembly Budgetary Commission need to be laid out in slightly more detail.

A bulleted list of concerns:
- A country, in financial distress, creates a genocide or massacre of it's people and then requests WA relief. How will the WA/Committee prevent these types of corruptions?
- Will there be a varying taxation scale for, as the proposal puts it "the diversity of economic systems"? As a new and growing nation, will I be paying the same % of my GDP as a large and established nation?
- In what situations is aid going to be most essential? What will the priority list look like? Disaster relief, budget bailout, military aid, and other types of financial need will need to be categorized and determined level of importance.

While, I understand, a lot of these concerns can be addressed by the committee itself I feel it's important to include documentation of it in the proposal.
And that would only be "slightly" more detail?
Apart from any other problems that such an approach might face, there are the facts that WA proposals are subject to a strict limit on the maximum length allowable, and that this particular proposal was right up at that maximum already...

Perhaps a solution to some people's taxation problems would be an inclusion on the committee. If you pay the taxes, you're obviously eligible for aid. If you don't, you aren't. Then include a clause for those who do not pay, and then find themselves in extreme need (e.g. natural disaster) they can immediately apply for aid with a pay back plan, increased tax % over time.

As long as there is a "fail safe" where corruption and misrepresentation of funds within the committee can be recovered or prevented, I will support a future submission.
( According to the rules of the game, WA committees _
1/. Can not include representatives of any specific nations;
2/. Are authomatically deemed to be honest & efficient. )

False. You know very well the WA can also restrict international trade, under the auspices of Advancement of Industry. You also know very well that the clause was only added so that the resolution would not illegally close off an entire category, and that all this grandstanding about "implicitly endorsing" free trade is fantastically off-point. Admittedly the Edmundans could have phrased the clause better than they did, but let's be honest with ourselves: the language was only added as a legal measure, not an ideological one.
To be absolutely honest, there was an ideological factor involved. If I got the wording there right, and I think that that was so, then although the sub-clause in question would certainly leave mandatory resolutions on Free Trade possible it would severely hinder (but not, I think, completely block) the use of mandatory clauses in any proposals concerning the introduction of protective tariffs...

To be absolutely honest, there was an ideological factor involved. If I got the wording there right, and I think that that was so, then although the sub-clause in question would certainly leave mandatory resolutions on Free Trade possible it would severely hinder (but not, I think, completely block) the use of mandatory clauses in any proposals concerning the introduction of protective tariffs...It seems I misread your intent on that clause, and if that is truly what you meant to do, then this probably deserves to fail.

The resolution "Ways and Means" was defeated 7,038 votes to 2,039.

Votes For: 2032: Political Intolerance [3], Mivvin [3], Planet 11 [3], Metz-Lorraine [14], Crisorbia [16], Scififanaticz [7], Tilgate [2], Tadin [2], Bjarred [2], Yuehan land [3], Crados [5], Ecia [12], The European Dream [9], Soldnerism [16], The Overlook Hotel [8], Uber Goblins of Nirude [3], Bibliotecia [3], Drenhollista [2], Drolleke [7], Iron Felix [27], Great-Brabant [2], Glenlogan [10], Flibbleites [5], Storm City [4], Amercias [6], Kindjal [7], Zagarthia [2], Land of Blocks [3], Gustenian [3], Selemantra [2], Zimbinstan [2], Captain Carl [2], Los Santos [3], Anglo-Arrius [3], Uberwald [2], Buffolo ruairi [2], Enjuekk [6], Discordials [10], South Thasland [4], Jodesian [23], Bacon Major [3], Homeschooling Norges [9], hugheslands [5], Solaea [3], Our Lord Hedlund [11], Tyras-Sueb [2], Lord Sumguy [6], Oshanla [2], Insomnians [8], Mikey73084 [6], Bijayistan [3], Jey [8], East Ferrins [2], Crowbania [2], Tinis [10], Lmao Rofl [2], Cool Hippies [8], Apul Piiz [2], Szegedorszag [12], GlassWorld [14], Soviet Remnants [16], Remba [3], Rotovia- [2], Herrenhausen [11], Allied Tion [3], WZ Forums [2], Istrians [12], Nazakya [2], Ymmij Gnest [5], Ardagard [2], New Old New New York [4], Marari [5], Fulstaria [2], Lurch1837 [2], Axelton [6], Science and Soul [3], Judsland [3], Seraph_heSter [2], Cahuilla [4], Ohargeran [2], Immortalland [3], The Artic Republics [7], Teslanistan [2], Kardavia [2], Chazzistan [18], The Digital Network [12], Advanced States [2], Lesser Mordak [8], Willielandville [5], Rira [4], Sancte Michael [4], Power States [2], Peucetia [3], Pheonix Flight [3], Wutlolzomfg [2], Crockeria [2], Rantchess [17], Loserer revived [2], Anselmus [3], The 4 Regions [2], The Southern Outlands [3], Drendade [2], Kaelere [3], Vengrontia [2], Karianis [2], Licata Jihadists [11], Surken [3], Kumatous [4], Brazykystan [4], pklanka [2], Gabriel Possenti [2], Austrance [5], Frankline [2], The Altan Steppes [4], Gwenstefani [39], Cullandia [5], Dissimilation [4], Body Parts Ressurected [3], Antillees [2], Knight Broken Cross [8], Fat Angel [6], East Hylia [29], Sock Puppets [2], Technoviking [5], Misplaced States [2], Grandmaster Flashers [3], Paradica [22], Laak [30], Shinfundo [14], Great Bights Mum [282], , Ruccola[2], , , Alpacadom[2], The Seniors of Zion[3], Kyrakkarin[2], Epasradian Islands[3], Marcusism[6], Wot2the[2], Ecler[3].

So, roughly 14:4 against... Is that an even lower share of the vote in favour than for the late & unlamented NSUN proposal on ID cards?
Oh well, my government will buy a round of drinks for everybody here who voted in favour of it anyway...

What I'm going to do next is separate the 'WA Taxation Ban'/'Representation in Taxation' elements of this proposal out from this mixture, and re-write them slightly, to form a 'National Freedom in Taxation' proposal that I hope Jey (or somebody else here) will also be willing to sponsor.
Then I'll try to redraft a revised 'WA Funding' proposal (whose title will be a matter on which I'd definitely like advice), without equivalents of this version's clauses 6, 7 & 9, and with changes to deal with some of the points that the more reasonable commentators raised in this debate: There'll be an upper ceiling on the ABC's budget ( even though this won't actually limit the effects that other resolutions could have on national economies... ), a modification of the former clause #5 so that it only applies to monetary donations, a clarification of the former clause #8 to specify that WA agencies will only be granted fee-charging powers if the use of their services isn't compulsory, and possibly other changes too...
This will probably be a 'Bookkeeping' proposal, and consequently will not be (even potentially) viable unless & until that category becomes official...


Alfred Devereux Sweynsson MD,
Speaker Afar to the World Assembly
for the government of
The Kingdom of St Edmund.

It is likely that it will ever make it pass the votes with radical overhauls. A way and means of funding the WA IS possible but it is an incredibly sensitive topic.

Kosovo telegrammed me to tell you the re-assess Section 3 and 4.

For me, how about this: the level of taxes is based on the strength of the economy and treasury, such that poor nations pay less and rich nations pay more.

the government of the emperor of urgench wishes to congratulate the world assembly and the esteemed delegate of st. Edmund in there great wisdom, they have confirmed our faith in the world assemblys excellent common sense.


from the office of his excellency, Tamerlane, khan of samarkand and bhukhara, grand chancelor of the empire of urgench,
and Nogai, khan of tabagatai, minister for foreign affairs of urgench, w.a. delegate

So, roughly 14:4 against... Is that an even lower share of the vote in favour than for the late & unlamented NSUN proposal on ID cards?22.2% (UNID Card Act) vs. 22.5% (Ways and Means).

Not quite, but close.

What I'm going to do next is separate the 'WA Taxation Ban'/'Representation in Taxation' elements of this proposal out from this mixture, and re-write them slightly, to form a 'National Freedom in Taxation' proposal that I hope Jey (or somebody else here) will also be willing to sponsor.Given that those provisions are largely why this failed, maybe that's not such a hot idea. And if these projects are so important to you, you might as well wait until you can submit and telegram for them yourself.

Then I'll try to redraft a revised 'WA Funding' proposal (whose title will be a matter on which I'd definitely like advice), without equivalents of this version's clauses 6, 7 & 9, and with changes to deal with some of the points that the more reasonable commentators raised in this debate: There'll be an upper ceiling on the ABC's budget ( even though this won't actually limit the effects that other resolutions could have on national economies... ), a modification of the former clause #5 so that it only applies to monetary donations, a clarification of the former clause #8 to specify that WA agencies will only be granted fee-charging powers if the use of their services isn't compulsory, and possibly other changes too...
This will probably be a 'Bookkeeping' proposal, and consequently will not be (even potentially) viable unless & until that category becomes official...Your proposal failed by a 55-point margin, so I would suggest a complete overhaul if you expect this to pass.

the government of the emperor of urgench wishes to congratulate the world assembly and the esteemed delegate of st. Edmund in there great wisdom, they have confirmed our faith in the world assemblys excelent common sense.That's as delicious a backhanded compliment as I've seen on this forum. :D

they have confirmed our faith in the world assemblys excelent common sense.

And here I am thinking that this vote proves that common sense is not as common as the name would have one believe.

Bob Flibble
WA Representative

The Government of Salzland wishes to applaud the effort placed forth by St. Edmund and all associated with bringing this bill before us for vote. Even though we did not support the resolution, it is people like you that make the World Assembly worth attending.

Thank you

I and my government were trying to replace the former NSUN resolution 'Representation in Taxation', as well as the 'UN Taxation Ban' one... and we decided that we would rather lose the support of the latter set of nations than pass a resolution actively blocking Free Trade.
Fair enough. I wasn't a big fan of 'Representation in Taxation' in the first place, so I'd have rather you took the third way (OOC: hee!) of leaving it to a separate resolution.

I think the rest of 'Ways and Means' was a very solid piece of writing, by the by, and you should still be congratulated on it. I completely underestimated the amount of sheer stupidity that would latch onto clause 6, which is probably the biggest factor in the vote, otherwise I'd have argued against 6 & 7 harder while you were drafting. Sorry about that.

--
Cerys Coch, Permanent Undersecretary

We of Axmanland honestly would have voted for this bill if it hadn't been used as a way of promoting democratic methods.

other than that it was a good bill and its a shame it was used as a way of promoting democratic propaganda.

Given requests on the matter by proponents of this failed resolution, our government has issued ts requirements for support of any future similar resolution:

a) Removal of Clause 6 in its entirety. Taxation and commerce are the two most important domestic duties of a state. Giving an unelected WA quango a right of veto over such matters would destroy our national sovereignty.

b) Replacing the proposed Appeals Tribunal with one chosen by a committee of member states' representatives (OOC: I mean the hypothetical sort of members committee that the rules allow) rather than one appointed by the very body whose decisions it is supposed to scrutinise

Markus Berens,
Foreign Minister,
Holy Empire of Bakamyht

a) Removal of Clause 6 in its entirety. Taxation and commerce are the two most important domestic duties of a state. Giving an unelected WA quango a right of veto over such matters would destroy our national sovereignty.

Markus Berens,
Foreign Minister,
Holy Empire of Bakamyht

Minister Berens, the WA already has that authority, it's called the "Free Trade" category.

Bob Flibble
WA Representative

Given that those provisions are largely why this failed, maybe that's not such a hot idea.
Yes, the inclusion of those clauses was one of the main reasons why this failed; and widespread misunderstanding about what those clauses actually meant was one of the main reasons why this failed; objection in principle to 'Free Trade' was a reason (although perhaps not a "main" one) why this failed; objection to the very idea of requiring nations to contribute funds to the WA was certainly one of the main reasons why this failed, too... and then there was the title, and some nations' objection to the lack of of any upper limit on the contributions that could be required, and some nations' objection to the lack of scope for oversight of the funding process by national representatives... and possibly other factors too.
Obviously the first and third of those problems would still apply, as you say, if I split the "No WA Taxation" clauses off as a separate proposal... but I think that the extra space available should let me explain their meaning clearly enough for most nations' representatives to understand, I'd be able to use a more specific (& hopefully more appealing) title, and of course the other reasons for objection that I've listed here would no longer apply.
I think that it might be worth a try.

Given requests on the matter by proponents of this failed resolution, our government has issued ts requirements for support of any future similar resolution:

a) Removal of Clause 6 in its entirety. Taxation and commerce are the two most important domestic duties of a state. Giving an unelected WA quango a right of veto over such matters would destroy our national sovereignty.
This power was not being gven to "an unelected WA quango", it was being held by the Assembly itself -- which, as has already been pointed out several times during this debate, already possessed it -- for use through possible future resolutions.

b) Replacing the proposed Appeals Tribunal with one chosen by a committee of member states' representatives (OOC: I mean the hypothetical sort of members committee that the rules allow) rather than one appointed by the very body whose decisions it is supposed to scrutinise
The staff of WAAT would not have been appointed by the ABC, they would have been organised separately by the WA secretariat... and WAAT was specifically assigned the power to reclaim its expenses from the people involved in the cases that it would have heard, to reduce its dependence on the ABC for funding and thus make it even more independent of that body.

(OOC: Please show me that rule...)

(OOC: Please show me that rule...)

OOC: What I meant was that the rules say that any 'committees' mentioned in a proposal have to be a hypothetical/imaginary committees, rather than ones of actual NationStates players.

OOC: What I meant was that the rules say that any 'committees' mentioned in a proposal have to be a hypothetical/imaginary committees, rather than ones of actual NationStates players.
Since what you're proposing is a committee of nation states' representatives (i.e. players) to choose a tribunal, you're still breaking the rules. In character, more than a few nations would have a go at you for the bureaucratic waste too.

Since what you're proposing is a committee of nation states' representatives (i.e. players) to choose a tribunal, you're still breaking the rules. In character, more than a few nations would have a go at you for the bureaucratic waste too.

OOC:
I see both sides. If we can have imaginary World Assembly buildings, budgets, and bureaucrats, I *do* see the value in also assuming that there might be some other mechanism set aside to staff the committee with people that in theory are loyal to their nations and not the WA.

Is this illegal? Maybe.

Do the rules in NationStates change. Absolutely.

At some point this idea is certainly worth debating what sorts of negative games mechanisms issues and positive roleplay issues it allows. But all of *this* sub-thread could easily be split off into a game mechanics discussion. :)

No matter what, I'm pleased to see people discussing ideas instead of just calling anybody who disagrees with them an idiot.

IC:
Mikitivity was sad to see this resolution not pass. We voted in favour and while we do not share other nation's objections to clauses 6 or 9, we do not feel they need to be included in a future proposal. We call upon the World Assembly Secretariat to consider enabling nations to submit "Bookkeeping" resolutions, giving some measure of power back to nations.

When this idea is revisited, we'd like to see voluntary donations for humanitarian assistance be exempted from passing through the ABC.

OOC:
I see both sides. If we can have imaginary World Assembly buildings, budgets, and bureaucrats, I *do* see the value in also assuming that there might be some other mechanism set aside to staff the committee with people that in theory are loyal to their nations and not the WA.

Is this illegal? Maybe.

Do the rules in NationStates change. Absolutely.

At some point this idea is certainly worth debating what sorts of negative games mechanisms issues and positive roleplay issues it allows. But all of *this* sub-thread could easily be split off into a game mechanics discussion. :)

No matter what, I'm pleased to see people discussing ideas instead of just calling anybody who disagrees with them an idiot.

IC:
Mikitivity was sad to see this resolution not pass. We voted in favour and while we do not share other nation's objections to clauses 6 or 9, we do not feel they need to be included in a future proposal. We call upon the World Assembly Secretariat to consider enabling nations to submit "Bookkeeping" resolutions, giving some measure of power back to nations.

When this idea is revisited, we'd like to see voluntary donations for humanitarian assistance be exempted from passing through the ABC.

OOC
Re committees: Further information (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=557681).
I'm now in the process of splitting this proposal's contents into two separate proposals, a 'Bookkeeping' one for funding the WA (hopefully with some sort of oversight/voting-[although only "offstage"]-on-budgets mechanism added) and a new 'Furtherment of Democracy' one to replace the former NSUN resolutions 'UN Taxation Ban' & 'Representation in Taxation'. I'll use some of the extra characters that this division will make available for each of those topics to try clarifying the main points of 'W&M' about which some people got confused, and although I'll probably leave monetary donations as having to go through the ABC the direct donation of 'relief supplies' to agencies will probably be allowed.