NationStates Jolt Archive

I lack two endorsements to submit a repeal proposal for the WA Economic Union, but this is my repeal if anybody with adequate endorsement wishes to do so for me.

The eighth article of the "WA Economic Union" (8. REQUIRES member governments to establish programs to alleviate the possible impact of this resolution on workers and their families. Examples of the services provided by such programs are job retraining, help with relocation of displaced workers and training or assistance in small business start-ups.) is unfair to NationStates that use capitalism as a driving economic force.

In recognition that welfare programs to alleviate free trade are essentially socialist, the capitalist nations of the world request a repeal of the eighth article of the "WA Economic Union."

~Forthitude~

You can't repeal part of a resolution. It's all or nothing.

Luckily for you, I won't have to Warn you for posting an illegal repeal. It's always a good idea to get your proposals vetted here before Submitting.

I support you. Let me know when, and I will submit the proposal. I only request that reasonable protective tariffs be let alone.

-Lawrence J. C. Cornwallis, CMG

You know, it take an exceptionally bad resolution to pull off an "insta-repeal." And by exceptionally bad I'm talking about those resolutions that completely cripple nations' economies (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=9692882&postcount=123) or never should have been allowed to come to vote (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=13132957&postcount=224). the WA Economic Union is neither of these so any attempt to repeal it this soon is pretty much doomed to failure.

Bob Flibble
WA Representative

This completely wrecked my economy. I was at 'World Benchmark' and now my economic rating is 'Frightening'. This needs to be repealed immediately. Let me know when and where.

This completely wrecked my economy. I was at 'World Benchmark' and now my economic rating is 'Frightening'. This needs to be repealed immediately. Let me know when and where.
Frightening is the highest ranking (http://nswiki.net/index.php?title=Economy).

And World Benchmark isn't even an economic rating. It goes Thriving, Powerhouse, All-Consuming, Frightening.

so basically, you want to repeal probably the best passed trading resolution for one clause? i would rather have an insignificantly flawed economic plan than no plan at all. do you have a replacement for it if it does get repealed? if the replacement isn't good, i don't see the point in repealing a pretty well, but not perfect progressive bill.

Wachichi

Hello all, I believe this is my first post ever on this forum after playing for almost 2 years now. But anyway, I would like to say first off I thought this was a great resolution, very well written. However it sounds like the World Trade Organization (from RL) to me and there is a very good reason why the UN (again from real life) does not run the WTO. The WTO is a voluntary organization.

This being the case I think this resolution needs to be repealed at some point as it oversteps the bounds that the WA was made for. Here is what I have so far:

APPLAUDING the efforts of the World Assembly to encourage free and fair trade,

ACKNOWLEDGING the fact that free and fair trade is in the best interest of World Assembly member states,

LAMENTING the fact that the World Assembly grossly overstepped its privileges in the passage of this resolution:

In Section I Article 1 under the principle of National Sovereignty the World Assembly states that members have a right to "exercise freely, without dictation by any other NationState, all its legal powers,"

ARGUING that this includes the right to trade or not trade with any NationState for any reason, The World Assembly hereby repeals resolution #26.

This will not be it's final form (probably) so expect a few revisions coming up. But I want to get you feedback (and criticisms :P) because I am new to this.

Thanks

In Section I Article 1 under the principle of National Sovereignty the World Assembly states that members have a right to "exercise freely, without dictation by any other NationState, all its legal powers,"

As the author of the quoted line, I can assure you that it was never intended to be read alone. Please read the rest of Rights and Duties of WA States, paying special attention to Article 11, which makes your argument entirely moot.

WA nations give up ultimate sovereignty when they join the WA. Resolutions aren't voluntary, they affect all WA members equally (Article 9). The phrase "subject to the immunities recognized by international law" in Articles 2 and 3 specifically limit the "legal powers" by accepting the overarching powers of the WA in lieu of their own national sovereignty. This is the price you pay for enjoying the mutual protection and trade benefits of belonging to this organization.

I'd appreciate it if you didn't quote Rights and Duties as your justification for a repeal.

So will it be repealed because it encourages socialism, because it raises economic ratings from "World Benchmark" (sure it wasn't All-Consuming?) to Frightening, or because the World Assembly has violated national sovereignty and grossly overstepped its "privileges"?

It would be highly entertaining to see a repeal submitted that included all of those arguments.

David Watts
Ambassador
The Dominion of New Leicestershire

No. It will be repealed, then replaced with a near-exact copy which gives allowance for limited (meaning reasonable) protective tariffs as determined by the WTO, instead of mandating completely against them. That is the only issue I have with this bill.

No. It will be repealed, then replaced with a near-exact copy which gives allowance for limited (meaning reasonable) protective tariffs as determined by the WTO, instead of mandating completely against them. That is the only issue I have with this bill.
I doubt it will ever be repealed and in the unlikely event that it is you will not be submitting a "near-exact copy". You would need the permission of my government to do that.

David Watts
Ambassador
The Dominion of New Leicestershire

As the author of the quoted line, I can assure you that it was never intended to be read alone. Please read the rest of Rights and Duties of WA States, paying special attention to Article 11, which makes your argument entirely moot.

WA nations give up ultimate sovereignty when they join the WA. Resolutions aren't voluntary, they affect all WA members equally (Article 9). The phrase "subject to the immunities recognized by international law" in Articles 2 and 3 specifically limit the "legal powers" by accepting the overarching powers of the WA in lieu of their own national sovereignty. This is the price you pay for enjoying the mutual protection and trade benefits of belonging to this organization.

I'd appreciate it if you didn't quote Rights and Duties as your justification for a repeal.

Ahh, thank you. :hail:

*goes back to drawing boards*

So will it be repealed because it encourages socialism, because it raises economic ratings from "World Benchmark" (sure it wasn't All-Consuming?) to Frightening, or because the World Assembly has violated national sovereignty and grossly overstepped its "privileges"?

It would be highly entertaining to see a repeal submitted that included all of those arguments.Your wish is my command (http://www.nationstates.net/04831/page=UN_proposal/start=9). :D

Omigodtheykilledkenny, I support your proposal, but am unable to support your proposal by the link provided.

Your wish is my command (http://www.nationstates.net/04831/page=UN_proposal/start=9). :D

lol...

As for the complete lack of cooperation from New Leicestershire, I have but one thing to say: You bloody fool. I am willing, and support a proposal, to merely amend one small aspect of your proposal, leaving the major brainchild untouched. It is your narrow-minded foolery that blocks your ability to accept a mere change that over 1000 people found to be unacceptable, a full 33% of all who voted.

As for the complete lack of cooperation from New Leicestershire, I have but one thing to say: You bloody fool. I am willing, and support a proposal, to merely amend one small aspect of your proposal, leaving the major brainchild untouched. It is your narrow-minded foolery that blocks your ability to accept a mere change that over 1000 people found to be unacceptable, a full 33% of all who voted.

*cough* That'd be plagiarism, RBA. The original author needs to give permission for his old (UN, or WA) resolution/proposal to be recycled into a new resolution... and by insulting him thusly, I'm highly positive that he won't be providing it any time soon.

Also. One could make the case that the WA EU was acceptable to 66% of the WA who voted...and by doing this repeal you're shutting down their voice ;)

Omigodtheykilledkenny, I support your proposal, but am unable to support your proposal by the link provided.

that was meant to be a joke. i think.

Also, you're not a WA delegate of a region, so that's why you can't vote on it.

Regardless, welcome to the Assembly, Peneeria.

Sara Mavenu

Your wish is my command (http://www.nationstates.net/04831/page=UN_proposal/start=9). :D
*pouts*

It was my idea. I should have gotten a co-authorship.

David Watts
Ambassador
The Dominion of New Leicestershire

As for the complete lack of cooperation from New Leicestershire, I have but one thing to say: You bloody fool. I am willing, and support a proposal, to merely amend one small aspect of your proposal, leaving the major brainchild untouched. It is your narrow-minded foolery that blocks your ability to accept a mere change that over 1000 people found to be unacceptable, a full 33% of all who voted.
If by some miracle you ever do manage to repeal it, I'll submit the replacement and the next version will eliminate all protectionist devices immediately rather than as part of a gradual process.

David Watts
Ambassador
The Dominion of New Leicestershire

Very well. New Leicestershire, while we have fundamental differences, I am willing to work together with you to achieve this if you will. I had but one problem with your proposal and was unfortunately too late to discuss an alteration before it went to the vote.

Mavenu: You do realize that the plagiarism aspect has already be discussed, no? Secondly, many nations don't even read the proposals. They see a new act and select yes based on the title. The figures of 66% is most definitely not an accurate portrayal of the real answer. Those who voted no probably did read the proposal. Otherwise, they would have no idea what they would be voting no to! LOL

Those who voted no probably did read the proposal. Otherwise, they would have no idea what they would be voting no to! LOL
Pfft, yeah right.:rolleyes: You've obviously never heard of Gatesville, that region pretty much opposes everything.

Bob Flibble
WA Representative

Very well. New Leicestershire, while we have fundamental differences, I am willing to work together with you to achieve this if you will.
Are you daft? Why on earth would I want to work with you to "achieve this"?

Mavenu: You do realize that the plagiarism aspect has already be discussed, no?
Yes it's been discussed. You said you would submit a "near-exact copy" of my Resolution. I said "no, you won't". Drop it.

David Watts
Ambassador
The Dominion of New Leicestershire

To protect the virgin nature of your hard work. This is one small aspect. Why would you want your act to be utterly and completely ruined?

I never said I would plagiarize. I felt it need not be replied to.

Mavenu: You do realize that the plagiarism aspect has already be discussed, no?

Yes, but you seemed to ignore it. You chose to attack the original writer when he declined to give you permission, insulted him (the "you bloody fool" bit), and THEN you expected him to give you permission to use his original work.

I never said I would plagiarize.

Would you rather I called it Proposal Stealing then? (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=420465) (as taken from the rules for WA proposal)

Secondly, many nations don't even read the proposals. They see a new act and select yes based on the title. The figures of 66% is most definitely not an accurate portrayal of the real answer. Those who voted no probably did read the proposal. Otherwise, they would have no idea what they would be voting no to! LOL

I can assure you people do read the proposal text. how else would they start talking about pastafarism (sorry, spelling) and pirates into the debate when i (and St. Edmund) brought forth, "suppress international piracy"... and yes, proposals have been defeated, so apparently somebody's reading them (http://www.nswiki.net/index.php?title=WA_Timeline)

Thank you for merely commenting on what I have previously dismissed.
Flibbleites: I specifically used 'probably' because I acknowledged the possibility such people existed.

Mavenu:

I attacked him for the blindness he expressed. A massive opposition movement has let forth. I have made myself readily available to uphold everything but the tariff. If he wants his law destroyed by us, then so be it.

Plagiarizing is stealing somebody else's work without citing them as a source. Have you any idea the ease with which this could be done? Furthermore, I specifically said 'near-exact copy' to allow for the certain changes that would need to be done, whether they be legal or logistical.

Finally, I specifically said 'many nations,' which you so willingly quoted for me. This implies that there is a sizable amount that do not read the actual text, and vote only by title. This allows that there are many who do not do this, even a vast amount. With about 5000 people actively participating, many could be but 50.

In conclusion, Mavenu, I sincerely hope that you are not a lawyer, for if you were I would have to fire you. You continuously quote me, then attempt to twist my words to make what I said binding in one way or another. I usually leave a measure of doubt in my writing so that this very thing is impossible. If you further wish to show your ineptitude of debate, I suggest you quote more. Until then, do not interfere unless you have something constructive to add which transcends mere dribble of allegations without base or even accurate empirical proof.

Enough, Royal British America. We have rules against personal attacks on these forums, which you are ignoring. If you continue to attack the player rather than the argument, you will receive warnings and/or bans.

Furthermore, these players are citing the game definition of plagiarism, which differs from yours substantially. You're in NationStates, and NationStates rules apply here. They're even published for your reference, and you've been provided links to investigate their claims.

Now drop this line and concentrate on passing legislation, or be ready for the consequences.

Frisbeeteria
Senior Game Mod

Thank you for merely commenting on what I have previously dismissed.
Flibbleites: I specifically used 'probably' because I acknowledged the possibility such people existed.

Mavenu:

I attacked him for the blindness he expressed. A massive opposition movement has let forth. I have made myself readily available to uphold everything but the tariff. If he wants his law destroyed by us, then so be it.

Plagiarizing is stealing somebody else's work without citing them as a source. Have you any idea the ease with which this could be done? Furthermore, I specifically said 'near-exact copy' to allow for the certain changes that would need to be done, whether they be legal or logistical.

Finally, I specifically said 'many nations,' which you so willingly quoted for me. This implies that there is a sizable amount that do not read the actual text, and vote only by title. This allows that there are many who do not do this, even a vast amount. With about 5000 people actively participating, many could be but 50.

In conclusion, Mavenu, I sincerely hope that you are not a lawyer, for if you were I would have to fire you. You continuously quote me, then attempt to twist my words to make what I said binding in one way or another. I usually leave a measure of doubt in my writing so that this very thing is impossible. If you further wish to show your ineptitude of debate, I suggest you quote more. Until then, do not interfere unless you have something constructive to add which transcends mere dribble of allegations without base or even accurate empirical proof.


The honoured Ambassador for Royal British America is intent on making themselves and the cause of this repeal as unpopular as they can and with the very nations who's goodwill it might well be best to court.

The honoured Ambassador's insistence that the recently ratified W.A.E.U. is some how fundamentally flawed by one aspect of its mandate is yet to be properly explained by them. If the honoured Ambassador could make a cogent and irrefutable case as to why a perfectly efficacious and excellently written resolution which took many months to write and which was strikingly popular with the membership of this organisation should be repealed instead of making foolish presumptions about the character of the w.a. and flinging insults at highly respected Ambassadors of well regarded member states then perhaps, just perhaps their notions would be being given a more patient hearing.

As it is, the honoured Ambassador for Royal British America has not made any case for the logic of this repeal. They have instead insisted that their own fatuous conception of economics and the character of this organisation are inherently correct and insisted that those who for good reason disagree are foolish and misinformed. The behaviour of the honoured Ambassador has won them the reward of the contempt of this organisation.


Prove that your case is irrefutable, honoured Ambassador, and do so while encouraging the respect and cooperation of other member states and maybe your efforts will not be sunk in ignominy and condemnation.

Remember, you are a diplomat before all else honoured Ambassador.



Yours e.t.c. ,

The Office of the Right Honorable
Lawrence James Charles Cornwallis CMG, MP
Royal Ambassador to The British Empire
World Assembly Delegate of the United Kingdom of Britain

To the Right Honorable Members and Delegates of the World Assembly:

In light of the injustice being conferred here, as my case has been stated, I have abode by all rules of civilized confrontation, and I was the one who as first attacked, plan to withdraw my support for legislation against the World Assembly Economic Union until such time as a solid case can be presented against it to prove it unsound economic practice. I cite, however, the blatant impossibility to prove the effectiveness or defectiveness of something that fails to exist in NationStates anyway, and the impossibility to prove or disprove absolutely the sanctity of any idea. Therefore, in the name of civilized diplomacy and the Honor of the United Kingdom of Britain, the Grand Duchy of Royal British America, and myself, I withdrawal from these discussions.

Before I leave, however, I must make it well known that I, and the United Kingdom of Britain, endorse only what is best for the world. Whilst this is a translucent definition and basis of decision, I pray that the defense of myself from the continuous onslaught of unfriendly and undiplomatic remarks does nothing to lessen the view of the United Kingdom of Britain, the Grand Duchy of Royal British America, or my tenure as Delegate. I apologize if I have terribly offended anyone, and wait until an act of repeal is drawn up to lend my support.

Sincerely,

The Right Honorable Lawrence J. C. Cornwallis CMG, MP
Royal Delegate of the United Kingdom of Britain to the World Assembly
Royal Ambassador of the United Kingdom of Britain to The British Empire
Companion of the Order of St. Michael and St. George
Leader of the Loyal Opposition (Liberal Democrat Party)
Archduke of the Grand Duchy of Royal British America
Member of Parliament

I only have one quarrel the removal of tariffs. I believe that tariffs are essential to the economies of many nations.

I will read the replies to my post as i view all of your opinions with respect and believe that we should work together to make WA nations better off and influential in Nationstates and i do not wish to argue with my fellow WA delegates over an issue like this.

Ashley Scorah leader of Stonham Aspall.

And i also wish to say that i am surprised at the actions of royal british america

OK, I'm back at it...

Same general idea... minus the citing of a previous resolution... this will basically come down to what people think about the resolution. but unfortunately most members of the WA end up voting for whatever is placed in front of them.

here it is:

APPLAUDING the efforts of the World Assembly to encourage free and fair trade,

ACKNOWLEDGING the fact that free and fair trade is in the best interest of World Assembly member states,

LAMENTING that a resolution so sweeping goes against many of the fundamental beliefs of World Assembly Nations and that the World Assembly Trade Commission will be just another factor in an already overly bureaucratic world that can be bypassed by states retaining individual sovereignty over the matter,

The World Assembly hereby repeals resolution #26

Short and sweet...

Any comments, suggestions, or critiques would be appreciated.

i really don't see the point of repeal the entire thing for a simple sentence or two. it's not like the sentence will completely destroy all trading in the world anyway. and who really cares. nations can't even trade in this version. so it doesn't even matter. they can only trade using a nation's imagination.

Wachichi

The wording of this repeal is not in disagreement with one or two sentences but with the general idea.

Although I cannot add it to the resolution my reason for repealing this is because although I love the concept of the resolution (I am an economics major)... there are VERY good reasons why in RL the WTO is a separate organization from the UN. I believe these reasons should apply to our nations here too.

That being said there are many many nations that would like to repeal this for other reasons so I leave it generally vague for that reason.

The wording of this repeal is not in disagreement with one or two sentences but with the general idea.

Although I cannot add it to the resolution my reason for repealing this is because although I love the concept of the resolution (I am an economics major)... there are VERY good reasons why in RL the WTO is a separate organization from the UN. I believe these reasons should apply to our nations here too.

That being said there are many many nations that would like to repeal this for other reasons so I leave it generally vague for that reason.


If the honoured Ambassador is intent on using the mythical "Real World" for a model then why do they ignore the tales which tell of the so called "European Union" which had both an economic and a political function?

Yours e.t.c. ,

Thank you for your comment... :D As it is, the World Assembly is most like the UN and is not like the European Union which has a largely different role.

That being said I hope I didn't draw too close a correlation between "that place" and this repeal. That was just my basic thinking behind the matter and I've heard different reasons from different people.

Thank you for your comment... :D As it is, the World Assembly is most like the UN and is not like the European Union which has a largely different role.

That being said I hope I didn't draw too close a correlation between "that place" and this repeal. That was just my basic thinking behind the matter and I've heard different reasons from different people.



The legislative record of this organisation would say completely the opposite, honoured Ambassador. And besides this organisation has infinitely more power than the mythical "Real World" United Nations ever dreamt of.

Yours e.t.c.,

True, and that is why it is just my own personal reason... :D

I'd just like to say to everyone supporting a 'cherrypicking' repeal that this is the exact reason it's good to take an active role in contributing to drafts.

This proposal was available in draft form for months before it was submitted. During that time, we did make the effort to help with drafting, and several (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=13860972&postcount=8) of our (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=13892480&postcount=21) suggestions (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=13894890&postcount=30) were then adopted.

We got our way, because we bothered to ask for it. You cannot expect legislators to magically divine your wishes before their proposals go to vote, especially when they make such assiduous efforts to solicit such opinions.

I'd planned on staying out of further discussion of this, but I would like to point out two things.

1. It's doubtful I would have agreed to weaken the language any further in regards to tariffs. WAEU is a Free Trade Resolution after all and the purpose of such resolutions is to reduce barriers to free trade and commerce, such as tariffs.

2. WATC being established by the WA is not the same as the hypothetical case of the WTO being part of the RLUN. That's not how committees work in NationStates. Once established by a resolution, committees generally just go on their merry way. They are more or less autonomous of the General Assembly. The General Assembly does not select their members, it doesn't set their agenda, make their by-laws, or anything else like that which isn't outlined in the establishing resolution. How could it?

Why is it that everything surrounding this resolution seems to attract an inordinate amount of outright lunancy, if not gibbering idiocy?

Incidentally, that is why even though I virulently oppose "free trade" I simply decided not to take part in the discussion. Also I was on holiday during the voting period, and I am exploiting loopholes to maintain Kelssek's IC trade policy of absolutely no (official) trade with non-IFTA members.

...an inordinate amount of outright lunancy, if not gibbering idiocy?
I see you read the pie fight in the 'At Vote' thread. I'm sorry.

Incidentally, that is why even though I virulently oppose "free trade" I simply decided not to take part in the discussion. Also I was on holiday during the voting period, and I am exploiting loopholes to maintain Kelssek's IC trade policy of absolutely no (official) trade with non-IFTA members.
It does have provisions which are exploitable by those determined to do so. I don't think of them as loopholes, it's just me being realistic. You can't beat people upside the head and force them to do what they are dead-set against doing.