[DRAFT] International Cultural Expositions

[The Sanchez Republic]

to bar entry to representatives from certain member states with which they are in open military conflict should their presence present a clear and present danger to national security

No. That was the main crux of the argument in favor of a repeal, and you are going to attempt to slap it back in there? The Federation remains opposed to this, and will actively fight against it if necessary. nations are fully capable of holding their own "international exposition" without the WA mandating it. As for lies in the repeal? Tell that to every major delegate that voted for it (most of them have access to ministries that evaluate these things). You have not adequately addressed the concerns from the repeal, and as such this will be blown out of the water.

So here's a question, if we were to do that - and wished to invite the nations of the WA - would the initiating nation have to draft a proposal stating that they would like to invite all nations to this World's Fair, and hope it makes it to the general assembly's voting floor, and further hope it passes to become an official invitation? Otherwise, I can't see how one's nation could possibly invite the world PUBLICLY to a gathering of such magnitude.

I will state this for the record, we see the validity of both sides and are a neutral party in this matter; and we would like some clarification to our nations query.

[Astrolinium]

Are we discussing the draft, or reviving the argument over GAR #17?

Supposedly discussing the draft, but in my absence it seems that this assembly has slipped grievously in its understanding of itself, and so a brief education was in order.

No. That was the main crux of the argument in favor of a repeal, and you are going to attempt to slap it back in there? The Federation remains opposed to this, and will actively fight against it if necessary. nations are fully capable of holding their own "international exposition" without the WA mandating it. As for lies in the repeal? Tell that to every major delegate that voted for it (most of them have access to ministries that evaluate these things). You have not adequately addressed the concerns from the repeal, and as such this will be blown out of the water.

So here's a question, if we were to do that - and wished to invite the nations of the WA - would the initiating nation have to draft a proposal stating that they would like to invite all nations to this World's Fair, and hope it makes it to the general assembly's voting floor, and further hope it passes to become an official invitation? Otherwise, I can't see how one's nation could possibly invite the world PUBLICLY to a gathering of such magnitude.

]

Are you asking assuming that this proposal becomes a resolution or assuming that it does not?

[The Sanchez Republic]

Are we discussing the draft, or reviving the argument over GAR #17?

Supposedly discussing the draft, but in my absence it seems that this assembly has slipped grievously in its understanding of itself, and so a brief education was in order.

So here's a question, if we were to do that - and wished to invite the nations of the WA - would the initiating nation have to draft a proposal stating that they would like to invite all nations to this World's Fair, and hope it makes it to the general assembly's voting floor, and further hope it passes to become an official invitation? Otherwise, I can't see how one's nation could possibly invite the world PUBLICLY to a gathering of such magnitude.

]

Are you asking assuming that this proposal becomes a resolution or assuming that it does not?

Assuming it does not.

[Astrolinium]

Supposedly discussing the draft, but in my absence it seems that this assembly has slipped grievously in its understanding of itself, and so a brief education was in order.

]

Are you asking assuming that this proposal becomes a resolution or assuming that it does not?

Assuming it does not.

Well, it's certainly a more efficient and cost-effective option than sending a telegram to over 20,000 nations; I suspect such a proposal would, however, also be illegal on the grounds of branding and possibly also meta-gaming. Regardless of one's opinion on the subject matter of the proposal being discussed currently, it is the most effective and legal way to accomplish that subject matter.

[The Sanchez Republic]

Assuming it does not.

Well, it's certainly a more efficient and cost-effective option than sending a telegram to over 20,000 nations; I suspect such a proposal would, however, also be illegal on the grounds of branding and possibly also meta-gaming. Regardless of one's opinion on the subject matter of the proposal being discussed currently, it is the most effective and legal way to accomplish that subject matter.

Astrolinium has a point. Any response/answer to my question from those who oppose this World's Fair bill draft?

[Jarish Inyo]

As coordination of a worlds fair is done by a committee, I would assume that the committee would be inviting nations to participate.

[Omigodtheykilledkenny]

But host nations can bar entry to anyone trying to enter their sovereign territory - for any reason. The clause specifically "emphasizing" their rights as sovereign nations is entirely unnecessary. Furthermore, the "FURTHER NOTES" clause must be taken out. The WA cannot tell nations whom they must allow or disallow within their own borders. Sounds harsh, but them's the breaks. It's called "sovereign territory" for a reason.

[Jean Pierre Trudeau]

In principle, I support this, but not when you've just included everything that was in the old resolution. Even if this passes, prepare for a very quick repeal.

I have one ready, just in case.

[Astrolinium]

But host nations can bar entry to anyone trying to enter their sovereign territory - for any reason. The clause specifically "emphasizing" their rights as sovereign nations is entirely unnecessary. Furthermore, the "FURTHER NOTES" clause must be taken out. The WA cannot tell nations whom they must allow or disallow within their own borders. Sounds harsh, but them's the breaks. It's called "sovereign territory" for a reason.

"Just as the World Assembly itself is located on the 'sovereign territory' of... some nation, I forget which. That's the point of the World Assembly: our nations give up some of their sovereignty by joining."

In principle, I support this, but not when you've just included everything that was in the old resolution. Even if this passes, prepare for a very quick repeal.

I have one ready, just in case.

Giovanni grabs a hammer, a stake, and a sign, and promptly sets up a 'No Fun Allowed' sign in front of the delegation from Jean Pierre Trudeau.

"Again, Ambassador, I get the vibe off you that you really hate puppies."

[The Dark Star Republic]

"We support the general principles of this proposal, and we're glad you ignored the comically moronic repeal. We don't think a replacement actually has much chance of passing, but we'll support it anyway.

"In terms of how it's written, it's a bit stream of consciousness: just a string of barely connected operative clauses in no discernible order. At times you define terms after they've been introduced, and it's only about halfway you really say what this is all about. We would suggest numbering your operative clauses, and ordering them into a sensible flow.

"As to all the kerfuffle over who is denied entry, anything other than the host nation retaining absolute sovereignty over who enters or is expelled from their territory is a bit of a non-starter for us. Is there potential for that to then be abused? Sure - but their ICE will suck, and no one will want to come. It'll be financially unsuccessful, and self-defeating. Similarly, we can assume the IEA would not award hosting rights to nations that would obviously abuse the privilege of hosting.

"It's a world fair. It really doesn't need all this arm-wrestling over conflict resolution and such. Just set up a few balloon stands and some Pin The Tail On The Gnome. Two tickets please."

~ Daisy Chinmusic
Legislative Intern

[The Sanchez Republic]

As coordination of a worlds fair is done by a committee, I would assume that the committee would be inviting nations to participate.

So would I have to make a WA Resolution to be voted on in order to form this committee? I mean, we would want mass communication in this event so individual messages would be too long and inefficient.

One of the things I am asking the opposition to this draft is this - what alternatives do you suggest to this bill in order to invite all nations of the WA, to organize it, and to manage it? Though compulsory World's Fairs are a bit odd - what is the alternative to a large majority who does want to have them, but (since this adopted resolution is about to die and this new draft won't get enough support) does not have a legal, regimented, efficient, and clear way of doing so?

[Bears Armed]

"It's a world fair. It really doesn't need all this arm-wrestling over conflict resolution and such. Just set up a few balloon stands and some Pin The Tail On The Gnome."

"And the Food stalls: Lots of Food stalls, demonstrating different nations' cuisines..."

^_^

Urra o HighPeaks,
Apprentice Voice,
Bears Armed Mission at the World Assembly

[Normlpeople]

"It's a world fair. It really doesn't need all this arm-wrestling over conflict resolution and such. Just set up a few balloon stands and some Pin The Tail On The Gnome."

"And the Food stalls: Lots of Food stalls, demonstrating different nations' cuisines..."

^_^

Urra o HighPeaks,
Apprentice Voice,
Bears Armed Mission at the World Assembly

"Mmm... food stands... so much honey.. errrr in all honesty, we do not see how allowing communist workers paradises that are actually totalitarian hell holes to set up propaganda displays is somehow worthy of WA resources, or our time.

If we felt the need to host a cultural world fair, we would hold one ourselves, as would most members who feel that need. Lets use the WA resources to actually benefit its members, not emtich the economy and provide entertainment for the citizens of one host nation."

[Jarish Inyo]

As coordination of a worlds fair is done by a committee, I would assume that the committee would be inviting nations to participate.

So would I have to make a WA Resolution to be voted on in order to form this committee? I mean, we would want mass communication in this event so individual messages would be too long and inefficient.

One of the things I am asking the opposition to this draft is this - what alternatives do you suggest to this bill in order to invite all nations of the WA, to organize it, and to manage it? Though compulsory World's Fairs are a bit odd - what is the alternative to a large majority who does want to have them, but (since this adopted resolution is about to die and this new draft won't get enough support) does not have a legal, regimented, efficient, and clear way of doing so?

A resolution has to do more then just create a committee. I would suggest an international non-profit, non-governmental organisation separate from the WA to promote, organize, and manage it. This way you would be able to determine who is actually willing to fund such an endeavor.

[Omigodtheykilledkenny]

But host nations can bar entry to anyone trying to enter their sovereign territory - for any reason. The clause specifically "emphasizing" their rights as sovereign nations is entirely unnecessary. Furthermore, the "FURTHER NOTES" clause must be taken out. The WA cannot tell nations whom they must allow or disallow within their own borders. Sounds harsh, but them's the breaks. It's called "sovereign territory" for a reason.

"Just as the World Assembly itself is located on the 'sovereign territory' of... some nation, I forget which. That's the point of the World Assembly: our nations give up some of their sovereignty by joining."

OK, 1) WAHQ are not located in any country; look it up, and 2) nations being forced to change their laws does not mean that the WA can force them into hosting anybody they don't want in their country. Besides which, using such language in your resolution only invites nations to make up phony grounds for excluding any nation, whether it's terrorism, espionage, incitation, or they just don't like their clothes. Nothing in the resolution actually requires host nations to prove that the people they're excluding or expelling actually did anything wrong. So what's the point of including it?