NATIONAL SOVEREIGNTY!!!

[Hiriaurtung Arororugul]

Also, allcaps and multiple exclamation points does not make you seem more strident or more thoughtful, so it would be recomended you try to refrain from doing so in future, especially when it comes to topic titles.

INDEED? WELL I'LL CERTAINLY KEEP THAT IN MIND FOR ANY FUTURE DISCUSSIONS I MIGHT START. THANK YOU O WISE ONE!!!!!!1!

[Enn]

I would have an interest in observing a proposed re-start of the NSO. Following our recent upheavals back home, which some (although never myself) traced back to Enn's (apparent) whole-hearted support of the NSUN (again, I disagree, but what would I know, I was only working at the NSUN at the time), our current People's Assembly is somewhat wary of assigning all powers over to the WA.

In the past, Enn was an 'Observer nation' of the NSO. I myself have been considered a proponent of 'Individual Sovereigntism', that is, that resolutions should not violate national sovereignty except in cases of individualistic rights. This is not necessarily the same as proposals in the 'Human Rights' category. That said, I was certainly never as vociferous in opposition to other areas of apparent sovereignty breaches as other NSO members were.

And to the ambassador from Grays Harbor: That you are unaware of General Arororugul seems surprising to me. He has been very active in this chamber for several months now, certainly since Enn re-established international relations last September. He has appeared in every, or nearly every, At-Vote discussion, and a great many other debates besides.

I suggest that you have perhaps not been paying as much attention as you claim to have. You also look to be ignoring countering arguments to those you have advanced. I wonder at your level of awareness of just what is happening around you.

Stephanie Fulton,
WA Ambassador for Enn

[New Immortallia]

I would argue that a nation should just leave the WA if they don't want it to infringe on their national sovereignty.

Joining the organisation then pretending to be maytred by it's work is attention seeking, nothing else. A nation can leave at any time to avoid disliked legislation, as mine did.

[Enn]

I would argue that a nation should just leave the WA if they don't want it to infringe on their national sovereignty.

Joining the organisation then pretending to be maytred by it's work is attention seeking, nothing else. A nation can leave at any time to avoid disliked legislation, as mine did.

By leaving the WA, you make it easier for proposals you dislike to get voted up. By staying, you have a greater chance of voting up proposals you do like.
I'm not entirely sure why this point needs to be stated again, and again.

[New Immortallia]

I would argue that a nation should just leave the WA if they don't want it to infringe on their national sovereignty.

Joining the organisation then pretending to be maytred by it's work is attention seeking, nothing else. A nation can leave at any time to avoid disliked legislation, as mine did.

By leaving the WA, you make it easier for proposals you dislike to get voted up. By staying, you have a greater chance of voting up proposals you do like.
I'm not entirely sure why this point needs to be stated again, and again.

So nations that want certain proposals get them passed without me causing a nuissence, and I rejoin for ones I like... What's wrong with that?

[Enn]

OOC: But when you rejoin, you are expected to uphold all resolutions, not just those which passed whilst you were a member. Yes, there's no changes to the game stats, but it's an expectation of WA RP.

[New Immortallia]

OoC: Mostly just interesting in preserving my glorious economy! Not worried much about the RP

[Grays Harbor]

I would argue that a nation should just leave the WA if they don't want it to infringe on their national sovereignty.

Joining the organisation then pretending to be maytred by it's work is attention seeking, nothing else. A nation can leave at any time to avoid disliked legislation, as mine did.

The "Leave if you don't like it" argument is as old as NS, and is just as arrogant and assinine now as it was then.

[Nullarni]

I would argue that a nation should just leave the WA if they don't want it to infringe on their national sovereignty.

Joining the organisation then pretending to be maytred by it's work is attention seeking, nothing else. A nation can leave at any time to avoid disliked legislation, as mine did.

The "Leave if you don't like it" argument is as old as NS, and is just as arrogant and assinine now as it was then.

Hear, hear!

By leaving the WA, you make it easier for proposals you dislike to get voted up. By staying, you have a greater chance of voting up proposals you do like.
I'm not entirely sure why this point needs to be stated again, and again.

Because they don't quite get the idea that by quiting they are contributing to the very issue that makes them quit. If you quit the WA because you think its too liberal, you are part of the reason it is too liberal.

[Krioval]

General? It has been some time since I have had the pleasure of your company. Your command performance in "The Security Council" was inspiration for us all. Ah, but I digress. The NSO should be rebooted. I would happily join if only to combat some of the more ridiculous assaults on individual liberty.

Aleksei-kan Volkov
Imperial Chiefdom of Krioval

[Flibbleites]

National sovereignty is an issue that needs advocates. come speak loudly and I will on behalf of the people of Ainocra join you

Really? The repeal you're drafting says otherwise.

Bob Flibble
NSO Mafia Don

[Urgench]

General? It has been some time since I have had the pleasure of your company. Your command performance in "The Security Council" was inspiration for us all. Ah, but I digress. The NSO should be rebooted. I would happily join if only to combat some of the more ridiculous assaults on individual liberty.

Aleksei-kan Volkov
Imperial Chiefdom of Krioval

If, and we say if with some skepticism, a National Sovereigntist organisation could in fact protect the liberties of the individual rather than the supposed liberties of nations the CSKU would gladly join it. However we have as yet not found evidence that protecting the liberties of the individual was the aim of the National Sovereigntist movement of old, and have no indication that such will be the mission (even in part) of the Noble General's proposed revival.


Yours,

[Brutland and Norden]

Brief Statement from the Royal Nord-Brutlandese Ministry of Foreign Affairs

The United Kingdom of Brutland and Norden fully supports a revival of the NSO. We are of the view that the current World Assembly is interfering too much in our nation's domestic affairs, legislating what should be left to individual states, and burdening our country with useless and potentially detrimental legislation.

OOC: While I'm not that active in the NSWA roleplay now, I still vote in resolutions.

[Embolalia]

I think both the "leave if you don't like it" and the "But I have to stop them!" arguments have a flaw that is all too common.
They assume everyone wants either perfect national sovereignty or complete and utter WA control of each and every nation.
If that's the case, they both make sense. Obviously, that isn't the case, and I don't think anyone thinks that it is. (They just make an argument predicated on such)

As with everything in politics, there is a balance. Without some breach of national sovereignty, the World Assembly can't really do anything. But complete control undermines the principal of self-governance. If we can strike the right balance, the World Assembly can do wonderful things.

I'm not saying I know exactly and empirically where that balance is, or even that it has one static location. I don't think anyone can know for absolutely sure where the perfect balance is. Politics is inherently based on opinion and belief, and no two people have identical beliefs. No matter what the issue is, one party will feel that there is too much of a breach of national sovereignty, the other will feel there is not enough. The best we can do is debate, and try to strike that balance.

So if you'd like to establish an organization to push for your preferred balance location, that's fine. Commendable even. I don't think the Embolalian delegation will participate, because we seem to have different opinions on where the balance lies. But we're certainly always up for a healthy debate.
I yield the floor.

[Omigodtheykilledkenny]

Hell, I'VE never heard of the original poster.

Really? And you are...?

Well then, if we're all done recreating the scene with the smoking caterpillar from Alice in Wonderland, I'd like to move on to more relevant business here. We are delighted at the proposal to revamp the NSO; however, we cannot abide the suggestion that we simply build on the ruins of the former organization. That old saloon is haunted, I tell you! And I don't want our proceedings to be constantly interrupted by the Ghosts of Sovereigntists Past, with HotRodia's specter wandering the aisles, wailing, "In my day, you were all my puppets, and I would spend hours entertaining myself by pulling your strings! Now, dance, puppets, dance! AHAHAHAHA!!", or Chipmunks' spirit, moaning, "Your new microcredit resolution SUCKS!! Why, in my day, we didn't need layers upon layers of useless bureaucracy just to encourage microlending; we just assumed the gnomes would handle everything! Wooooo-oo-oo!", and so forth. That would be quite a distraction. So if it's all the same to everyone, I would prefer we open an all-new saloon, with old spirits (the drinks, not the sovereigntists) and young girls to perform for us -- rather than risk the ghost of Karmicaria wandering in and giving see-through lapdances to our bewildered new patrons.

Jack Riley
Secretary of State

[Unibotian WA Mission]

I perceive that there is a contract between national governments to provide freedoms and rights to their citizens in exchange for citizenship with insurrection or reform being the responsibility of the citizens when their government does not provide them with their half of the bargain.

A right is an inalienable entitlement that a government must protect to retain legitimacy as a government.

I further perceive that there is a contract between national governments and the World Assembly, in exchange for their compliance, the World Assembly provides them with further political legitimacy.

A non-legitimate government should be overthrown, and I perceive it as the prerogative of the World Assembly to “make the World a better place” – as the entire world does not comply to the WA, it must be the place of the World Assembly Member Nations to invade, condemn, claim or assist in national revolutions of other governments who cannot be considered legitimate governments because they do not protect the rights of their ‘citizens’.

We’d fight for education, health, equality, freedom from slavery – we wouldn’t fight for the homogenization of certain economic practices –- so to comply to them ourselves is silly to us as a delegation.

The World Assembly has the power to strip away national governments’ power to do just about anything, but it only has the duty to strip away national government’s power to impede the rights of their citizens or hold national governments responsible on a global scale for polluting the international environment. It is thus the responsibility of member nations to scrutinize the ramifications of resolutions to determine if the duty of the World Assembly is being upheld by every law passed.

If that makes me a National Federalist, then so be it, if that makes me a National Sovereignist, then so be it.

[Mushet]

Hell I'll join if this was made again TG me if it does, but would I have to be a WA member to join because I quit due to it's biased nature, just update the forums a bit, and I'll join, unless it's a requirement to be a WA member

[Knootoss]

Naturally, as an old NSO member, the Dutch Democratic Republic of Knootoss will support this initiative.
~ Aram Koopman
Knootian ambassador to the World Assembly

[Aabceef]

How about you put together a proposal specifically laying out what you think the limits of the WA should be and submit a draft like everybody else?

[Enn]

How about you put together a proposal specifically laying out what you think the limits of the WA should be and submit a draft like everybody else?

... You quite clearly haven't understood the point of this. This is about potentially (re)setting up an offsite forum for like-minded GAers, who would between them write a number of different proposals. It's not a single issue.

[Aabceef]

How about you put together a proposal specifically laying out what you think the limits of the WA should be and submit a draft like everybody else?

... You quite clearly haven't understood the point of this. This is about potentially (re)setting up an offsite forum for like-minded GAers, who would between them write a number of different proposals. It's not a single issue.

So like, an alternate World Assembly? How would that help solve the problem of stoppint the WA from infringing on national sovereignty

[Flibbleites]

How about you put together a proposal specifically laying out what you think the limits of the WA should be and submit a draft like everybody else?

Because that would stand a very good chance of being declared illegal.

Bob Flibble
WA Representative

[Quadrimmina]

The Republic of Quadrimmina agrees with the position that a National Sovereignty Organization should be in place. But we are curious as to what the prior role of the organization was.

We would also like to note that we feel any such organization should score proposed WA resolutions, to provide some insight into its effect on sovereignty.

[Omigodtheykilledkenny]

OOC all:

So like, an alternate World Assembly? How would that help solve the problem of stoppint the WA from infringing on national sovereignty

No, just a forum to discuss promoting sovereigntism in the real World Assembly. Or are you just doing this to troll? If so, buzz off.

The Republic of Quadrimmina agrees with the position that a National Sovereignty Organization should be in place. But we are curious as to what the prior role of the organization was.

http://www.nswiki.net/index.php?title=N ... ganization

We would also like to note that we feel any such organization should score proposed WA resolutions, to provide some insight into its effect on sovereignty.

We tried that in the old org, and it was just so much work. I'd sooner not try it again.

[Unibot]

OOC:

After reading this...

NSO membership represented a variety of perspectives on national sovereignty, with some members choosing to advocate absolute sovereignty, others limited sovereignty, and still others holding very specific criteria regarding what constitutes sovereignty and to what extent the NSUN should respect it. Members were usually referred to as "sovereigntists" or "NatSovers", though the terms could also be used to describe adherents to the wider NS "sovereigntist movement," which included more extreme and anti-UN elements such as ACCEL and Gatesville. Most active members of NSO took a more pragmatic approach to sovereignty and the formulation of international law.

... if you'll have me, the Unibotian Delegation wouldn't mind joining the NSO. I can write up a formal letter, or a resume or whatever, if you like, Yelda.