[DEFEATED] Repeal "National Economic Freedoms"

[Point Breeze]

I'm really struggling to picture a scenario in which the Secretariat realizes, "Seven Hells, this is all wrong!" and somehow this resolution actually gets enforced. There's so much precedent going in the opposite direction.

To be honest, if the repeal fails, the WA is no less off than it was before this funny little conundrum was brought to the table.

[The Dark Star Republic]

I'm really struggling to picture a scenario in which the Secretariat realizes, "Seven Hells, this is all wrong!" and somehow this resolution actually gets enforced. There's so much precedent going in the opposite direction.

There's also a great deal of precedent going the other way, too. But I agree, there's no reason to think the mods will change their minds based on a repeal vote; that was just my forlorn attempts to scrape some positives from this misadventure.

[The Dourian Embassy]

The North Pacific has a treaty obligation to vote in favour

You're seriously overstating TNP's treaty obligations. I can tell you this is absolutely not the case.

[Sciongrad]

The North Pacific has a treaty obligation to vote in favour

You're seriously overstating TNP's treaty obligations. I can tell you this is absolutely not the case.

6. The parties will support resolutions proposed by members of the other party in the General Assembly by a Delegate vote in favor within a minute of it reaching the floor so long as (i) the other party publicly registered the request sufficiently in advance, (ii) accommodated any limitations as to when the Delegate may be available to vote, and (iii) provided that a plurality of active WA members in the Delegate’s region do not thereafter object to the resolution while it is at vote.

Oh.

[The Dark Star Republic]

Oh, I'm not blaming HMS Unicorn for not voting - I'm sure they would have done had they been present - I'm merely irritated as I couldn't have anticipated their absence, and wouldn't have gone ahead with this at this time had I known. I certainly understand that sometimes RL obligations crop up that drag people away from NS :)

[The Dourian Embassy]

6. The parties will support resolutions proposed by members of the other party in the General Assembly by a Delegate vote in favor within a minute of it reaching the floor so long as (i) the other party publicly registered the request sufficiently in advance, (ii) accommodated any limitations as to when the Delegate may be available to vote, and (iii) provided that a plurality of active WA members in the Delegate’s region do not thereafter object to the resolution while it is at vote.

Oh.

Thank you for quoting the relevant portion. I was looking for it so I could explain exactly why. As you can see, at least one, if not more, of the caveats have not been sufficiently satisfied(especially since we started having our forum votes before the proposals even go to the floor).

[Sciongrad]

Oh.

Thank you for quoting the relevant portion. I was looking for it so I could explain exactly why. As you can see, at least one, if not more of the caveats have not been met(especially since we started having our forum votes before the proposals even go to the floor).

OOC: I'm sorry, how can the delegate vote within a minute of voting if they need to wait for a "plurality of active WA members in the [their] region [to object] thereafter?" My dealings with r3n in the past have always been extremely pleasant and he's always stacked and then, if TNP then objects to the resolution, changed his vote.

EDIT: Typing skills, 1/10

[The Dark Star Republic]

he's always stacked and then, if TNP then objects to the resolution, changed his vote.

Yes. Obviously, the final vote is the prerogative of TNP's internal processes; it's the initial "stacking" vote I was referring to.

[The Dourian Embassy]

I'm sorry, how can the delegate vote within a minute of voting if they need to wait for a "plurality of active WA members in the [their] region [to object] thereafter?" My dealings with r3n in the past have always been extremely pleasant and he's always stacked and then, if the TNP then objects to the resolution, changed his vote.

Wait. Was your quoting the line in the treaty a disagreement with me? I thought you were agreeing with me. Did I miss Bears publicly asking for a stack in advance("as long as... the other party publicly registered the request sufficiently in advance,")? If so I apologize(though the forum vote being against would then only require a vote for in the first minute and then allow for the delegate to immediately reverse that vote), and if not, I stand by my statement that DSR overstated the treaty obligations. This isn't that big a deal man, I was simply clarifying the point. I thought it was pretty clear what I was referring to as well. Sorry for any misunderstandings.

[Sciongrad]

I'm sorry, how can the delegate vote within a minute of voting if they need to wait for a "plurality of active WA members in the [their] region [to object] thereafter?" My dealings with r3n in the past have always been extremely pleasant and he's always stacked and then, if the TNP then objects to the resolution, changed his vote.

Wait. Was your quoting the line in the treaty a disagreement with me? I thought you were agreeing with me. Did I miss Bears publicly asking for a stack in advance("as long as... the other party publicly registered the request sufficiently in advance,")? If so I apologize(though the forum vote being against would then only require a vote for in the first minute and then allow for the delegate to immediately reverse that vote), and if not, I stand by my statement that DSR overstated the treaty obligations. This isn't that big a deal man, I was simply clarifying the point. I thought it was pretty clear what I was referring to as well. Sorry for any misunderstandings.

Yeah, I was referring to stacking, not TNP's ability to decide on how to vote.

[Potted Plants United]

A large potted plant in a big plantpot with wheels suddenly comes to life, revealing a large leaf curled up to form a cone, from which a somewhat hissing voice can be heard:

"For what it is worth, we have voted for this proposal, in the hopes that all resolutions in the books were considered for legality checks of all future resolutions."

OOC: Here you go, official IC support. Enjoy it while it's warm, I'm sure we'll end up disagreeing about RP soon enough.

[Coroscent]

I wish to state that I the ambassador for Yakus shall be voting AGAINST this resolution. Why should the WA stick its nose into places that it really shouldn't be? The decisions on "National Economic Freedoms" is a matter for nationstate democracy, not for international interference. As long as those freedoms in one member state do not intervene with another member state then the sovereign state should be able to uphold the right to be left to its own business. The resolution #68 should remain void and in effect for the benefit of nationstate democracy.

[Mundiferrum]

I wish to state that I the ambassador for Yakus shall be voting AGAINST this resolution. Why should the WA stick its nose into places that it really shouldn't be? The decisions on "National Economic Freedoms" is a matter for nationstate democracy, not for international interference.

Um, what? Isn't voting on this resolution, and the resolution being repealed, a matter of nationstate democracy and international interference?

The resolution #68 should remain void and in effect for the benefit of nationstate democracy.

Again, what? "Void" and "in effect" are complete antonyms....

Mundiferrum has tentatively voted FOR, though we are considering deferring our support. We shall make a more official statement sometime later.

[Frustrated Franciscans]

The Organic Vegan Commune of Frustrated Franciscans
Official Delegation to the World Assembly
“We praise You, Lord, for Sister Death!”
Friar John Sanders, OFM Ambassador and WA representative
Friar Tuck Ferguson, OFM Assistant Ambassador
Brother Maynard, TOR Keeper of the Holy Hand-grenade

We are opposed to this repeal. First and foremost, we do not like a repeal that is longer than the resolution it is repealing. Second we see this Free Trade resolution that was passed by a 78% margin, and has been on the books forever has not caused any significant damage to member nations. Third, Brother Maynard is in the Stranger's Bar and doesn't want to come out here to give his reason.

[Krawdadsky]

I see that "National Economic Freedoms" is not working to standard. However, I think that if we repeal it, then we are essentially saying that if the WA ignores its previous acts, eventually they will go away; there would be nothing to hold the WA accountable.

Maybe instead, we should draft a bill that essentially says that nations can choose to ignore/implement the mentioned bills as they see fit. I know that seems odd, so I am open to suggestions.

[Defwa]

I see that "National Economic Freedoms" is not working to standard. However, I think that if we repeal it, then we are essentially saying that if the WA ignores its previous acts, eventually they will go away; there would be nothing to hold the WA accountable.

Maybe instead, we should draft a bill that essentially says that nations can choose to ignore/implement the mentioned bills as they see fit. I know that seems odd, so I am open to suggestions.

Not odd, but entirely and completely illegal and essentially defeating the purpose of this organization.

[Krawdadsky]

I see that "National Economic Freedoms" is not working to standard. However, I think that if we repeal it, then we are essentially saying that if the WA ignores its previous acts, eventually they will go away; there would be nothing to hold the WA accountable.

Maybe instead, we should draft a bill that essentially says that nations can choose to ignore/implement the mentioned bills as they see fit. I know that seems odd, so I am open to suggestions.

Not odd, but entirely and completely illegal and essentially defeating the purpose of this organization.

Okay then, stratch that suggestion.

Maybe we should pass a bill that requires the WA to take previous bills into account. I dunno. That's why I am looking for suggestions.

[The Dark Star Republic]

While I admire your intent, there really is no in-game way for us to rectify the situation: that's exactly why I wrote the repeal, because if the resolution isn't going to be enforced, there is no point keeping it. Obviously, I would much rather the original precedent return and the resolution resume its intended purpose, but neither I nor any other player has the ability to effect that.

[Coroscent]

I wish to state that I the ambassador for Yakus shall be voting AGAINST this resolution. Why should the WA stick its nose into places that it really shouldn't be? The decisions on "National Economic Freedoms" is a matter for nationstate democracy, not for international interference.

Um, what? Isn't voting on this resolution, and the resolution being repealed, a matter of nationstate democracy and international interference?

The resolution #68 should remain void and in effect for the benefit of nationstate democracy.

Again, what? "Void" and "in effect" are complete antonyms....

Mundiferrum has tentatively voted FOR, though we are considering deferring our support. We shall make a more official statement sometime later.

Mr Ambassador for Mundiferrum, I find it amusing that you're criticising my point, yet you aren't even sure whether it not to vote for or against this resolution. Make your mind up first, then and only then come talk to me.

[Defwa]

Um, what? Isn't voting on this resolution, and the resolution being repealed, a matter of nationstate democracy and international interference?


Again, what? "Void" and "in effect" are complete antonyms....

Mundiferrum has tentatively voted FOR, though we are considering deferring our support. We shall make a more official statement sometime later.

Mr Ambassador for Mundiferrum, I find it amusing that you're criticising my point, yet you aren't even sure whether it not to vote for or against this resolution. Make your mind up first, then and only then come talk to me.

Hi there, I've already voted in support of this repeal and would like to agree and restate Mundiferrums point.
Your reasons are contradictory.

[Soviet republicss (Ancient)]

you have our full support , this law needs to be repealed since it prevents us from passing any economic reform

[Mousebumples]

So, I was going to write a Dispatch to accompany this, to explain the things I couldn't legally put in the repeal. I asked Abacathea and Mousebumples which category to use, but unfortunately only Abacathea replied, and Mousebumples did not see fit to.

I'll probably plump for Bulletin>Policy, but if there any suggestions otherwise let me know.

I could have sworn I replied from my phone, but my apologies if that didn't actually happen. I used Bulletin->Policy, which you can see on the dispatch here. I recall typing a response that noted that my category differed from what Aba used but that I figured they'd both be appropriate.

Besides, so far as I'm aware, we don't kill dispatches because they're in the "wrong category." Or at least, if there are objections on that front, I'm not aware of them.

EDIT TO ADD:

I'm reliably informed that "Mousebumples has convinced Europeia to vote against your resolution purely out of unadultered spite".

That's an .... interesting re-interpretation of what I posted to the Europeian forums when we put this resolution to a vote:

Call me petty, if you'd like, but the author of this repeal has been ... less than flattering of our region in the TRR Times. I urge a strong vote against, as a result.

The current forum vote is 1-9, Against. As such, I registered my region's votes accordingly.

[Krawdadsky]

While I admire your intent, there really is no in-game way for us to rectify the situation: that's exactly why I wrote the repeal, because if the resolution isn't going to be enforced, there is no point keeping it. Obviously, I would much rather the original precedent return and the resolution resume its intended purpose, but neither I nor any other player has the ability to effect that.

Okay, thanks for explaining. Too bad we can't rectify the situation. Darn it.

[Coroscent]

Mr Ambassador for Mundiferrum, I find it amusing that you're criticising my point, yet you aren't even sure whether it not to vote for or against this resolution. Make your mind up first, then and only then come talk to me.

Hi there, I've already voted in support of this repeal and would like to agree and restate Mundiferrums point.
Your reasons are contradictory.

Mr Ambassador for Defwa, I agree with you! My reasons are contradictory! But they are contradictory to the resolution to repeal the National Economic Freedoms bill. I address the WA in general here, not just you Mr Ambassador for Defwa: in what way is it the duty and responsibility of the WA to monitor and control economic activity in any one of its member states? Whatever legitimate activity takes place within a member state's borders is the sole responsibility of the relevant government to control, not the international community. It's a bit like me sticking my nose into someone else's country and telling them they're not allowed to swap trading cards because they don't pay tax on them to the WA's benefit! The economic activity inside a sovereign state, WA member or not, is the responsibility of national, nationstate democracy and not of the delegates of the WA; not me, not you. And that, Mr Ambassador for Defwa, is your "contradictory" statement. But of course, you can't argue much really as the majority of voters agree with me and have voted AGAINST this resolution, and have therefore voted for free market economies as opposed to state regulated international communism.

[Defwa]

Hi there, I've already voted in support of this repeal and would like to agree and restate Mundiferrums point.
Your reasons are contradictory.

Mr Ambassador for Defwa, I agree with you! My reasons are contradictory! But they are contradictory to the resolution to repeal the National Economic Freedoms bill. I address the WA in general here, not just you Mr Ambassador for Defwa: in what way is it the duty and responsibility of the WA to monitor and control economic activity in any one of its member states? Whatever legitimate activity takes place within a member state's borders is the sole responsibility of the relevant government to control, not the international community. It's a bit like me sticking my nose into someone else's country and telling them they're not allowed to swap trading cards because they don't pay tax on them to the WA's benefit! The economic activity inside a sovereign state, WA member or not, is the responsibility of national, nationstate democracy and not of the delegates of the WA; not me, not you. And that, Mr Ambassador for Defwa, is your "contradictory" statement. But of course, you can't argue much really as the majority of voters agree with me and have voted AGAINST this resolution, and have therefore voted for free market economies as opposed to state regulated international communism.

Ambassador and Maestre Wizard Angela Landfree, whose information is clearly identifiable at the bottom of any correspondence from the Defwean Delegation in the form of a convenient fact book hyper link, allows her head to fall to the side out of exhaustion.

"That's not exactly what contradictory means. Your statements contradict each other. You're disputing yourself. And its quite sad that you don't realize that. Perhaps the assembly room translation matrix is being spotty if English is not your primary language or perhaps you have elected to attend drunk today but have not yet mastered drinking on the job."

"To your last statement, I would like to remind you where you are. The world assembly is a group of nations that agree to operate in full compliance with whatever the assembly deems I necessary. Its motto is to improve the world one resolution at a time and thus this assembly with legislate on every topic it can. Every nation in the assembly, by virtue of membership, agrees to comply in full with anything the assembly says and thus in those nations the subjects the assembly has authority on is limited only by what the assembly wants. And i want to reiterate- via being a member, you submit yourself to the authority of this organization. you agree to obey anything the majority says."

"Now were you to read the repeal, you would note that you share an agenda with the author. The author wants the World Assembly to have less control economically, however as written NEF has failed to do its intended duty. It cannot be reinforced because of legal precedent and thus in order for any blanket restriction on WA legislation, NEF must be replaced."