[DEFEATED] National Economic Liberties

[Imperium Anglorum]

National Economic Liberties

---

Category: Free Trade | Strength: Significant | Proposer: Imperium Anglorum

---

Acknowledging the importance of economic actions and the ability for strong economies to guarantee good standards of living for its actors,

Recalling this Assembly's many resolutions and particularly GA Resolution 68, National Economic Freedoms, but,

Conceding that the World Assembly has an extremely strong role in economic freedoms as it can set worldwide policy and prices for goods and services,

This august World Assembly, subject to limitations created by prior resolutions of the World Assembly, hereby

1. Defines, for the purposes of this resolution, 'World Assembly' to mean the General Assembly and all committees and subcommittees thereof as well as all institutions and organisations created by the World Assembly and accountable to the World Assembly;
   
   
2. Prohibits the future imposition of:
   
   
   1. any compulsory contribution to the revenues of the World Assembly (including, but not limited to, taxes or fees based on income, gross domestic product, imports, exports, or wealth) by the World Assembly for a non-general purpose and
      
      
   2. any fixed, static, percentage-based, or pegged price regime on goods or services by the World Assembly;
3. Forbids the World Assembly from levying future mandatory payments on member nations for:
   
   
   1. products or services rendered by the World Assembly outside of World Assembly property or
      
      
   2. services rendered by the World Assembly to member governments;
4. Clarifies that nothing in this resolution is to be interpreted as prohibiting the compulsory contribution of funds for general purposes or levying of fees for the use of World Assembly properties by World Assembly delegations;
   
   
5. Expands the Impartial Mediation Foundation's (IMF) scope to include the mediation of financial and funding disputes between the World Assembly and member nations;
   
   
6. Directs member nations to prohibit egregious examples of insider trading and take actions to liberalise market information.

Edit 1: Added 'for a non-general purpose' to 1.a in attempt to avoid the semantic pedantry on what the word 'assessed' means.
Edit 2: [Fast-tracked] to [Draft].
Edit 3: Spacing error fixed.
Edit 4: Centralised into a defines clause the meaning of World Assembly so I don't have to keep saying 'World Assembly and committees thereof'.
Edit 5: Spacing error fixed.
Edit 6: Do not need the space-filling 'subject to previous World Assembly resolutions' stuff.
Edit 7: --
Edit 8: Fixed errors created by last edit.
Edit 9: Rectified OMGTKK's raised legality issues.
Edit 10: Rectified legality issue I discovered.
Edit 11: Added Edit 10.
Edit 12: Changed system which prohibits fees.
Edit 13: Fixed spacing error.
Edit 14: Added Edit 13.
Edit 15: Changed language.
Edit 16: Added Clarifies clause.
Edit 17: Accepted OMGTKK's (non-complulsory) contributions.
Edit 18: Added above tag.
Edit 19: In the definition, changed from 'institutions and organisations created by the World Assembly or accountable to the World Assembly' to 'institutions and organisations created by the World Assembly and accountable to the World Assembly'.
Edit 20: Made last clause clearer.

[Sierra Lyricalia]

Doesn't 1.a directly, and more or less completely, contradict GAR #17?

[Imperium Anglorum]

Doesn't 1.a directly, and more or less completely, contradict GAR #17?

Nowhere in GA Resolution 17 does it state that the donations spoken of are compulsory. This bans compulsory contributions, not contributions made freely by the member states.

[Sierra Lyricalia]

That's awesome, because I'm pretty sure everyone was itching to have this shitshow discussion again.

Edited to add: not necessarily opposed to the resolution, mind you; just skeptical your "fast track" is going to be.

[Bears Armed]

Illegal. Out of time now, will explain tomorrow.

[Jorren]

Ambassador Gat stands up.

"Greetings, Ambassadors. The Grand Leader of The Borderlands of Jorren has requested clarification. A resolution such as this would prevent other resolutions from requiring its funding coming from member nations, correct? He points out the rewrite of the WSA by Bitely which demanded funding come from half a percent of every member nation's GDP as reference for his question. Protection of his strong economy is one of his highest concerns and does not wish to support any kind of measure, no matter how well-written, that would impose a threat on said economy."

Ambassador Gat nods curtly before taking his seat again.

[Imperium Anglorum]

That's awesome, because I'm pretty sure everyone was itching to have this shitshow discussion again.

Edited to add: not necessarily opposed to the resolution, mind you; just skeptical your "fast track" is going to be.

Ugggggg... I forgot about this idiotic debate about whether the word assessed implies mandatory or not. However it is, I changed the prohibits clause to deal with that problem.

Illegal. Out of time now, will explain tomorrow.

Is it the whether-donations-are-mandatory shitshow?

[Imperium Anglorum]

A resolution such as this would prevent other resolutions from requiring its funding coming from member nations, correct?

Parsons: (calmly) No, but it would prevent future resolutions from requiring that member nations fork over huge sums of money for earmarked pet projects, levy compulsory fees on services rendered, and unilaterally setting international prices for things. Those sums add up over time, you know... 100 resolutions from now, they'll have eaten up all of our GDP with those 1 per cent levies.

He points out the rewrite of the WSA by Bitely which demanded funding come from half a percent of every member nation's GDP as reference for his question.

Parsons: (nodding slowly) That was one of the main considerations.

[Jorren]

Ambassador Gat stands up again.

"The Great Leader has authorized me to give support to this measure. As I stated before, protection of our economy is one of our chief concerns. He has stated that he has no desire to see it siphoned into, and I quote: 'The blackhole [redacted]hole of other delegates' insatiable greed.' Forgive him. He's not going to forget the WSA anytime soon."

Ambassador Gat nods curtly before taking his seat.

[Omigodtheykilledkenny]

Even if according to certain definitions this doesn't contradict WAGF, this is more or less a conscious effort to amend WAGF by clarifying that all donations are not mandatory. (Which is perplexing to me because I always thought it to be perfectly clear what the nature of the "donations" is.)

Either way, this is illegal.

EDIT: This also contradicts WAHQ, and other resolutions which already authorize fees for specific WA services (in WAHQ's case, rent for office space/contracts for vendors).

[Imperium Anglorum]

Even if according to certain definitions this doesn't contradict WAGF, this is more or less a conscious effort to amend WAGF by clarifying that all donations are not mandatory. (Which is perplexing to me because I always thought it to be perfectly clear what the nature of the "donations" is.)

I don't see how you could interpret it in that fashion. Please explain.

Either way, this is illegal.

EDIT: This also contradicts WAHQ, and other resolutions which already authorize fees for specific WA services (in WAHQ's case, rent for office space/contracts for vendors).

It only contradicts WAHQ and Meteorological Cooperation. This can be solved by changing the prohibition into one for compulsory fees on member nations for services not rendered on WA property.

[Omigodtheykilledkenny]

Even if according to certain definitions this doesn't contradict WAGF, this is more or less a conscious effort to amend WAGF by clarifying that all donations are not mandatory. (Which is perplexing to me because I always thought it to be perfectly clear what the nature of the "donations" is.)

I don't see how you could interpret it in that fashion. Please explain.

An amendment is an attempt at changing or clarifying an existing law. Given the clear intent of this proposal and its obvious relevance to WAGF, I really don't see how anyone could interpret it any other way.

EDIT: This also contradicts WAHQ, and other resolutions which already authorize fees for specific WA services (in WAHQ's case, rent for office space/contracts for vendors).

It only contradicts WAHQ and Meteorological Cooperation. This can be solved by changing the prohibition into one for compulsory fees on member nations for services not rendered on WA property.

Even if members were willing to accept your peculiar assertion that WASP's services are rendered "on WA property," would it really solve the proposal's more obvious problems of amendment and/or contradiction?

[Imperium Anglorum]

An amendment is an attempt at changing or clarifying an existing law. Given the clear intent of this proposal and its obvious relevance to WAGF, I really don't see how anyone could interpret it any other way.

OOC: Then walk me through how you see it that way, since, not having drafted 'WA General Fund' can't see it that way. The proposal has no clauses which state 'donations are voluntary'.

It only contradicts WAHQ and Meteorological Cooperation. This can be solved by changing the prohibition into one for compulsory fees on member nations for services not rendered on WA property.

Even if members were willing to accept your peculiar assertion that WASP's services are rendered "on WA property," would it really solve the proposal's more obvious problems of amendment and/or contradiction?

Parsons: (annoyed) Heavens, not this again. I know you love playing tag with authors, blurting out some statement and simply not explaining how you got to such a conclusion, but seriously mate, explain your reasoning! How does it contradict what resolution in what way?

[Omigodtheykilledkenny]

An amendment is an attempt at changing or clarifying an existing law. Given the clear intent of this proposal and its obvious relevance to WAGF, I really don't see how anyone could interpret it any other way.

OOC: Then walk me through how you see it that way, since, not having drafted 'WA General Fund' can't see it that way. The proposal has no clauses which state 'donations are voluntary'.

Then maybe you should explain the intent of your proposal, if it is not effectively to amend WAGF via outlawing "compulsory contributions" or "mandatory fees" for services.

[Jarish Inyo]

OOC: Then walk me through how you see it that way, since, not having drafted 'WA General Fund' can't see it that way. The proposal has no clauses which state 'donations are voluntary'.

Then maybe you should explain the intent of your proposal, if it is not effectively to amend WAGF via outlawing "compulsory contributions" or "mandatory fees" for services.

I don't see how it amends the WAGF as the WAGF doesn't state that its a "compulsory contributions" or "mandatory fees".

[Imperium Anglorum]

Then maybe you should explain the intent of your proposal, if it is not effectively to amend WAGF via outlawing "compulsory contributions" or "mandatory fees" for services.

I don't see how it amends the WAGF as the WAGF doesn't state that its a "compulsory contributions" or "mandatory fees".

Parsons: (begging) Please do not start that argument in this thread again! Even I, with my years at university, cannot stand this semantic pedantry! Heavens no!

[Jarish Inyo]

I will not restart that argument as long as others do not make claims that this contradicts or amends the WAGF.

This does come into conflict GAR#8 as others have stated.

[Imperium Anglorum]

I will not restart that argument as long as others do not make claims that this contradicts or amends the WAGF.

This does come into conflict GAR#8 as others have stated.

No it doesn't. WA Headquarters states that the WA 'Determines that in addition to its regular duties the OBM, as a self-sustaining entity, shall determine fair and reasonable rental fees for all nations who maintain office space at WA Headquarters, and additional fees for nations who regularly use WA facilities'.

EDIT: This proposal no longer forbids the World Assembly from levying mandatory payments for the rent of World Assembly properties. I hate the use of the Clarifies clause, but there is no other way of solving the issue without making the prohibiting statement too convoluted.

[Bears Armed]

Illegal. Out of time now, will explain tomorrow.

Is it the whether-donations-are-mandatory shitshow?

OOC: No, it's the"Prohibits" and "Forbids" wording.
You can legally acknowledge in a proposal that whatever you're discussing should & shall be handled at the national level rather than by the WA, as long as that's not all you do (and clauses 5 & 6 here do get you away from the potential 'pure blocker' and 'committee-only' situations), but you can't legally Prohibit/Forbid future WA action outright.
Sorry.

[Imperium Anglorum]

Is it the whether-donations-are-mandatory shitshow?

OOC: No, it's the"Prohibits" and "Forbids" wording.
You can legally acknowledge in a proposal that whatever you're discussing should & shall be handled at the national level rather than by the WA, as long as that's not all you do (and clauses 5 & 6 here do get you away from the potential 'pure blocker' and 'committee-only' situations), but you can't legally Prohibit/Forbid future WA action outright.
Sorry.

I just read the rules sticky again. Where does it state that?

[NoFrellsGiven]

National Economic Liberties

I feel the title is vague and does not match the intent of the bill which is to limit the taxation capablities of the WA.

[*]Prohibits the imposition of:

1. any compulsory contribution to the revenues of the World Assembly (including, but not limited to, taxes or fees based on income, gross domestic product, imports, exports, or wealth) by the World Assembly for a non-general purpose and
   
   

Is this designed to ban progressive taxation?

any fixed, static, percentage-based, or pegged price regime on goods or services by the World Assembly;

Sounds the same as:

[*]Forbids the World Assembly from levying mandatory payments on member nations for:

1. products or services rendered by the World Assembly outside of World Assembly property or
2. services rendered by the World Assembly to member governments;

And now flat taxes are also forbidden?

[*]Clarifies that nothing in this resolution is to be interpreted as prohibiting the levying of fees for the rent of World Assembly properties;

Will rents on offices be the only way the WA can raise funds besides donations?


My personal brainstorming could see a combination of both progressive and flat taxes. Progressive taxes based on GDP for initial funding of a new WA project. Followed by flat taxes for those who continue to utilize said services.

[Separatist Peoples]

National Economic Liberties

I feel the title is vague and does not match the intent of the bill which is to limit the taxation capablities of the WA.

"But it sounds damn fine to the voters."

Is this designed to ban progressive taxation?

And now flat taxes are also forbidden?

"The ambassador is attempting to prevent any form of taxation beyond what the General Fund already requires, which is really just a donation."

My personal brainstorming could see a combination of both progressive and flat taxes. Progressive taxes based on GDP for initial funding of a new WA project. Followed by flat taxes for those who continue to utilize said services. Flat taxes could also be normalized by GDP while not increasing exponentially by GDP.

"Requiring nations to fork over cash on endeavors that will benefit foreign nationals at the cost of their own citizens is probably one of the fastest ways to empty the ranks of the World Assembly. C.D.S.P. greenbacks are for C.D.S.P. citizens."

[NoFrellsGiven]

"The ambassador is attempting to prevent any form of taxation beyond what the General Fund already requires, which is really just a donation."

Role playing ideology would have me choose between flat or progressive taxes or some combination thereof. Defunding the WA altogether is a backdoor attempt to abolish the WA. A majority yes vote on a WA resolution is acknowledgement that the nations are willing to pay for it one way or another.

[NoFrellsGiven]

"But it sounds damn fine to the voters."

Could the taxation method by which each state pays the WA resolutions bills be best served by a National Issues Resolution. Each state can decide whether its citizens pay the WA bill's progressively or flat. And the WA would not be abolished by a backdoor defunding resolution.

[Separatist Peoples]

"The ambassador is attempting to prevent any form of taxation beyond what the General Fund already requires, which is really just a donation."

Role playing ideology would have me choose between flat or progressive taxes or some combination thereof. Defunding the WA altogether is a backdoor attempt to abolish the WA. A majority yes vote on a WA resolution is acknowledgement that the nations are willing to pay for it one way or another.

"As the recent debacle with the WSA proved, a majority vote on a resolution is little more than an acknowledgement that the proposal had a pretty-sounding title.

"While I can't say I agree with this attempt, or that I disagree with the idea that defunding the WA is a backdoor attempt to eliminate it (which this isn't), conflating a basic majority with acceptance of all the associated costs is flat out wrong, and the evidence is basically the last week and a half."