NationStates Jolt Archive

Please let me know if the following would be considered legal, and any thoughts. Thank you. I know its weird to have a "repeal" here but I want to make sure everything is legit. Thanks!

"Repeal of the WA General Fund

ACCEPTS the idea of the World Assembly General fund to help support the World Assembly.

BELIEVES that the World Assembly General Fund has the potential to create discrimination of member nations.

BELIEVES the World Assembly General Fund should have included safe guards from discrimination of member nations.

The reasoning for this resolution to repeal the WA General Fund is that member nations may feel that they are required to donate to the World Assembly.

Thus feeling they are required to donate to the World Assembly member feel that this is necessary in order to be heard in front of the World Assembly.

Member of the World Assembly might be discriminated against based on the amount of money that is donated by the said nation.

MANDATES that the WA General Fund should be struck out and voided."

It's legal, as far as I can tell (though obviously I'm not a mod and that's not a ruling). It's also gibberish, which is far more serious.

Honoured Ambassador, this repeal is based on an entirely false premise. The funding resolution it seeks to undo does not discriminate in any way. In fact it requires all member states regardless of any other factor to pay a donation in order to be a member of this organisation. Once a nation has paid its donation in order to be a member of this organisation it may express its national interest in whatever manner it wishes.

There is no question of any nation " feeling" as though it should pay its donation, if it wishes to be a member of this organisation then it must pay its donation.

As to the amount of money a nation has donated being comensurate with its voice or influence in this organisation, that is perfectly absurd. How would this ever be the case? The donations are not publically disclosed, the amount could not be leveraged since no single nation's donation could ever be so great as even a small percentage of the overall membership's contribution, and in any case where is the evidence that such a situation could possibly ever come to pass?

The Authors of this resolution labour in ignorance and misunderstanding. They labour in vain.

yours e.t.c. ,

Let me get this straight, since back when this place was called the UN we've been trying to secure a source of funding for this organization, and now that we've finally managed to do so, we've got some bonehead trying to undo years of work.

Bob Flibble
WA Representative

The WA General Fund brings problems.....Country A donates $500 million dollars to the general fund. Country B donates only $20. Now lets look at, Country B wants to get something passed. Well if Country A doesn't like that country A will submit a rebuttal. Now everyone in the World Assembly possibly can look at it as, "well since Country A cares about the World Assembly and donated $500 million to the general fund, I'll vote him." Thus discrimination because people get the mindset that if they give more, they should get more. The the general fund does not address this and does not provide safe guards from this happening. This is why it needs to be repealed. If the safe guards were put in place then it would be a good resolution, but it does not.

And as far as nations being "required" to donate.....That's just RIDICULOUS! Donate is nothing that is required, its voluntary. This is why the WA General Fund needs to go, it brings out the stupid things that shouldn't be. It causes more issues then just listed. Its needs to be repealed.

The donations are assessed, Ambassador, by the w.a. and the amount to be paid is set by the w.a. not by the member states themselves. These donations are not optional if one wishes to be a member of this organisation

If the honoured Ambasador insists anything else then they are clearly unable to read or comprehend the law they are trying to repeal.

We fear it is possible that the honoured Ambassador has been seduced by the imbecilic council of other nations who's complete lack of legislative acumen also led them into error on the matter of this resolution.

yours e.t.c. ,

This is not what the general fund should be calling for. Monies collected by the World Assembly should be VOLUNTARY! Not FORCED!

I just read the wa general fund, again. And it does not saying anything about having to donate to the general fund based on a set amount. What I saw and I interrupt it is that you are able to donate as much as you wish. If I'm wrong show me the EXACT wording in the resolution that states this. I think you should re-read the resolution.

This is not what the general fund should be calling for. Monies collected by the World Assembly should be VOLUNTARY! Not FORCED!



Well then make that the basis of your repeal Ambassador and not the spurious tripe you have offered up thus far.



yours e.t.c. ,

I just read the wa general fund, again. And it does not saying anything about having to donate to the general fund based on a set amount. What I saw and I interrupt it is that you are able to donate as much as you wish. If I'm wrong show me the EXACT wording in the resolution that states this. I think you should re-read the resolution.


The resolution says that the w.a. will assess the donation on how much the member state is able to pay! for god sake is the Ambassador and Imbecile? a Simpleton?

The payment of this donation in compliance with the resolution is a condition of membership, therfore the w.a. decides how much your nation can afford to pay and then your nation must pay.

The Ambassador is obviously beyond reason if they do not understand this.

yours e.t.c. ,

SHOW ME where in the resolution, in EXACT words where it says that member nations are required to pay up. I have yet to see it and u have yet to provide it

No Ambassador we do not have to do any such thing. We are not obliged to defend what is absolutely obvious to any one with sense to someone who is willfully decided on completely misunderstanding this thing.

Why should we comply with the Ambassador's ill informed and completely insensible, not to say rude commands.

The moderators have made their rulings on this subject, seek them out and heed them.

Read the resolution properly and you will see that its provisions regarding these donations are not optional.

If you continue in your folly Ambassador you will meet with utter failure.

yours e.t.c. ,

Bottom line is, preambule is unimportant, and this repel is legal. Whether the 'donation' in the 'WA general fund' is voluntary or compulsory is unimportant for the porpose of this repel.

urgench,

tell me is this the line your talking about? (ill post it since its hard for you)

4. Provides that national donations to the General Fund shall be assessed annually by the GAO, according to donors' national wealth and ability to give;

Cause I interpreted that differently then you did.

for god sake is the Ambassador and Imbecile? a Simpleton?

That's some persuasive argument..

Don'f forget this passage too

Convinced, however, that a program of solicited donations from national and private benefactors would serve the WA's purpose much greater than a coerced taxation scheme;

So the repeal is left with the complete drivel which is its stated argument against the resolution it seeks to repeal. This repeal claims the W.A. fund resolution does things it cannot possibly do, it is nonsensical and poorly conceived. Is this all that the respected Ambassador for MapleLeafss can concoct against the resolution they ludicrously chose to misunderstand?

If so then we do not hold out too much hope of their success.


yours e.t.c.,

So the repeal is left with the complete drivel which is its argument against the resolution it seeks to repeal. This repeal claims the W.A. fund resolution does things it cannot possibly do, it is nonsensical and poorly conceived. Is this all that the respected Ambassador for MapleLeafss can concoct against the resolution they ludicrously chose to misunderstand?

If so then we do not hold out too much hope of your success.


yours e.t.c.,

I don't speak for ambassador Shadow-Bonzi, who is the author of this repel. He certainly wrote this repel for his own reason. Although I agree that WA general fund need to be repelled.

The Ambassador for MapleLeafss insults the intelligence of this organisation with this flimsy conceit.

The Ambassador's desperate attempts to prove an absurd theory becomes more and more like pantomime.


yours e.t.c.,

If the whole focus of this debate is whether the donations are mandatory or not, then surely this repeal will lose just as badly as the opposition lost on the original vote.

If I detected any real threat here (and I don't), I'd remind the members of this august assembly that, as the honorable Flibbleite gentleman said, securing funding for this institution was hard enough; there's no sense whatsoever in risking it all based upon a naive misreading of the resolution.

But as I said, there's no threat here, so if anyone needs us, they can find us in the Peanut Gallery.

- Jimmy Baca, Deputy Ambassador

I strongly recommend that the resolution should be left alone because this is a resolution that will allow funding of vital projects such as humanitarian aid, which is already in place by me (#5). I recommend WA members to come up with good ideas for the fund, as we need to convince the world, that the WA is doing something for the member nation's people.

While the nation of Deus Ordo was vehemently opposed to the WA General Fund, even we must admit that this resolution makes neither a clear nor concise argument against the General Fund.

urgench,

tell me is this the line your talking about? (ill post it since its hard for you)

4. Provides that national donations to the General Fund shall be assessed annually by the GAO, according to donors' national wealth and ability to give;

Cause I interpreted that differently then you did.




Is the honoured Ambassador speaking to the entire Empire of Urgench in this post or are they addressing its Ambassador to the World Assembly, his Excellency Mongkha Khan of Kasgar?

yours e.t.c. ,