[PASSED] Repeal: Social Assistance Accord

[Vagabundas]

Based on Connopolis arguments, The Vagabundians will be OPPOSED to this Repeal if it doesn't have a Replacement.

I suggest that you create a similiar proposal with a new international agency, comission or just giving the resposability to an old agency in order to help those poor nations.


Yours,

[Knootoss]

There is nothing stopping you from writing a replacement yourself, you know. Voting against a repeal because the repeal author, personally, hasn't written a replacement is intellectually dishonest.


Ambassador Aram Koopman
World Assembly representative for the Dutch Democratic Republic of Knootoss

[Vagabundas]

There is nothing stopping you from writing a replacement yourself, you know. Voting against a repeal because the repeal author, personally, hasn't written a replacement is intellectually dishonest.

(Image)
Ambassador Aram Koopman
World Assembly representative for the Dutch Democratic Republic of Knootoss

Okay so I think that I would be in support of Repealing the SAA but they forget thay I may try to create something new

Yours,

[Unibot II]

This repeal has my support; it's a much stronger draft. I think the clause about nations not being able to afford could be strengthened by noting the resolution doesn't provide a mechanism for international support, so presumably these governments are to accumulate debt to pay for these international welfare obligations.

EDIT: Oh and I accept the co-authorship and am pleasantly surprised with the gesture.

[Vagabundas]

This repeal has my support; it's a much stronger draft. I think the clause about nations not being able to afford could be strengthened by noting the resolution doesn't provide a mechanism for international support, so presumably these governments are to accumulate debt to pay for these international welfare obligations.

EDIT: Oh and I accept the co-authorship and am pleasantly surprised with the gesture.

Maybe, we could negotiate and create a great piece of legislation anyway!

[Knootoss]

Slightly revised draft, now submitted:

The World Assembly,

ACKNOWLEDGES that individuals in need may be deserving of assistance;

HOWEVER, REGRETS that the 'Social Assistance Accord' overreaches on the number of policies it tries to regulate, and that the lack of detail may lead to situations that are clearly unfair:

1. The 'Social Assistance Accord' does not permit Member States to make temporary welfare benefits conditional on reasonable obligations, such as having to actively look for a job. This is unfair to welfare recipients who have been actively seeking opportunities to work, and undermines the general intent behind welfare limitations: to reject 'free-riders';

2. The 'Social Assistance Accord' mandates that individuals be granted 10 weeks paid paternal leave whenever they adopt a child, regardless of parenthood or the child's age;

3. The 'Social Assistance Accord' does not specify whether parental leave must be granted to the father, the mother or both, nor does it grant the power to decide on that issue to Member States;

REALISES that World Assembly resolutions are legally binding and not merely aspirational, and that some of the mandates of the 'Social Assistance Accord' may not be affordable:

1. Poor and developing nations, regardless of their good intentions, may be unable to provide benefits that cover water, nourishment, housing, and utilities to all idle individuals within their borders and their dependants;

2. A right to "immediate access" to all information regarding benefits is equally impractical in remote or isolated areas;

REPEALS the 'Social Assistance Accord'.

Co-author: [nation=short]Unibot II[/nation]

PROPOSAL SUBMITTED: Delegates endorse it here!

[Knootoss]

20 endorsements in 9 hours without a campaign. Not too bad so far!

[Glen-Rhodes]

REALISES that World Assembly resolutions are legally binding and not merely aspirational, and that some of the mandates of the 'Social Assistance Accord' may not be affordable...

This is an incredible reversal of well-settled legal convention. I'm frankly surprised that my colleagues from Unibot would place their names upon a proposal that is so out of touch with reality.

Given this Knootian misinterpretation of World Assembly law, are we now going to have to sit through attempt after attempt at repealing resolutions that can't apply to all member states at the same time? Or does this logic only apply to this one repeal?

- Dr. B. Castro

[Arivali]

I will support the repeal. My people could really use lower taxes. They'll get to keep more of their money and be able to pay their bills without assistance.

[Glen-Rhodes]

I will support the repeal. My people could really use lower taxes. They'll get to keep more of their money and be able to pay their bills without assistance.

So then lower your taxes. The Social Assistance Accord doesn't force Arivali to raise its taxes.

[Goobergunchia]

REALISES that World Assembly resolutions are legally binding and not merely aspirational, and that some of the mandates of the 'Social Assistance Accord' may not be affordable...

This is an incredible reversal of well-settled legal convention. I'm frankly surprised that my colleagues from Unibot would place their names upon a proposal that is so out of touch with reality.

Huh? When did we start making it optional for nations to follow resolutions? "All member-states shall develop" sounds pretty binding to me.

Darren Funkel
Deputy Goobergunchian WA Ambassador
Citizen of the Rejected Realms

[Glen-Rhodes]

This is an incredible reversal of well-settled legal convention. I'm frankly surprised that my colleagues from Unibot would place their names upon a proposal that is so out of touch with reality.

Huh? When did we start making it optional for nations to follow resolutions? "All member-states shall develop" sounds pretty binding to me.

When did we start living in a world where "shall develop" means "shall spring up instantly, no matter if you can't afford it right now?" Sounds like a pretty illogical and silly thing to me.

- Dr. B. Castro

[Eternal Yerushalayim]

Huh? When did we start making it optional for nations to follow resolutions? "All member-states shall develop" sounds pretty binding to me.

When did we start living in a world where "shall develop" means "shall spring up instantly, no matter if you can't afford it right now?" Sounds like a pretty illogical and silly thing to me.

- Dr. B. Castro

So that means "shall develop ... whenever you can/want to"?

Without a time limit, in that case, let it be known that WA member states shall develop the mandated systems a millennium after this moment.

Just watch! You will have a lonesome departure, no one shall see or hear you, no one shall remember you, and there shall not be a single letter of your name left in historical records!!!

*spits out blood and faints*

[Glen-Rhodes]

So that means "shall develop ... whenever you can/want to"?

There's a very obvious difference between can and want.

[Eternal Yerushalayim]

So that means "shall develop ... whenever you can/want to"?

There's a very obvious difference between can and want.

*wakes up*

Is that recognised by the law?

[Glen-Rhodes]

There's a very obvious difference between can and want.

*wakes up*

Is that recognised by the law?

... I really don't know what you're trying to get at, here. What I said wasn't that difficult to understand.

[Eternal Yerushalayim]

*wakes up*

Is that recognised by the law?

... I really don't know what you're trying to get at, here. What I said wasn't that difficult to understand.

Your logic is that "shall develop" does not specify a time limit, am I correct? Or is it that "shall develop" somehow magically allows member nations to develop the system using nothing, thus resulting in nothing?

If it is the second, I have nothing to say. But I would concur with the first view, of course, which would logically extend that exception to unwillingness, in addition to inability.

[Glen-Rhodes]

If it is the second, I have nothing to say. But I would concur with the first view, of course, which would logically extend that exception to unwillingness, in addition to inability.

No. There is a difference between being unable to do something and being unwilling to do it. Don't twist my words into something I have not said. What I've said is that it's ridiculous to repeal this resolution because poor and developing nations can't afford it. It's true that they may not be able to afford it right now. But it's absurd and illogical to think that the Social Assistance Accord requires welfare systems to spring up magically the next morning. Poor and developing states must work towards the creation of the welfare system mandated, but only an incredibly stupid idea of how the World Assembly works would say that they're in violation because they haven't yet reached the economic level where they can afford welfare.

[Knootoss]

The idea of the author, the idea he advanced during its original passage, was that states who could not afford his welfare plans simply had no right to exist.

[Glen-Rhodes]

The idea of the author, the idea he advanced during its original passage, was that states who could not afford his welfare plans simply had no right to exist.

The author's wrong, then. Or perhaps the author believed that all states, no matter their economic status, should work towards the creation of a welfare state, which is not an uncommon belief. I don't know. I wasn't there for much of the debate. Either way, the lower half of this repeal is just malarkey and lacks common sense.

The first half is complaining about things that I thought were relatively common. Why is it so controversial that both parents gets 10 weeks of parental leave when they adopt a child, regardless of age? What, should we just be adopting children and leaving them to figure out their new life for themselves the next day? I'm sure they can figure out for themselves how to enroll in school, let alone readjust to a new family, who probably aren't there because they have to work all day.

- Dr. B. Castro

[Connopolis]

The idea of the author, the idea he advanced during its original passage, was that states who could not afford his welfare plans simply had no right to exist.

Is that so? You're sure I didn't say something that implied the unlikeliness of a member state being so poor that it cannot comply with this resolution?

Mr. Koopman, if a state cannot afford such expenses, I fear the state may not be stable enough to support itself in the first place.

Oh, that's right; I did. Mr. Koopman, I have no problem with you attacking the merits of my argument, but do not take my words out of context to accomodate with your argument.

Yours in taking his seat angrily,

[Knootoss]

I think you and Mr. Castro from Glen-Rhodes should first go fight over the "unlikeness" that a state will be so poor that it cannot provide universal welfare benefits and instant information thingimajings, and then get back to me with a common position. Dr. Castro claims it is "common sense" that many nations will be unable to afford it, after all.


Ambassador Aram Koopman
World Assembly representative for the Dutch Democratic Republic of Knootoss

[Connopolis]

I think you and Mr. Castro from Glen-Rhodes should first go fight over the "unlikeness" that a state will be so poor that it cannot provide universal welfare benefits and instant information thingimajings, and then get back to me with a common position. Dr. Castro claims it is "common sense" that many nations will be unable to afford it, after all.

(Image)
Ambassador Aram Koopman
World Assembly representative for the Dutch Democratic Republic of Knootoss

Dr. Castro and I are not one, singular unit you know; we do have contrasting opinions, mine being the belief that any nation who cannot afford this resolution would probably end up dissolving due to civil unrest caused by economic tension.

Yours in placing a sticky-note on his name plate so that it reads: 'Hi! My name is Dr. Connor J. Forshaw not Dr. Castro!'

[Knootoss]

Well, Dr. Castro, what do you think about that statement by the author of the original Social Assistance Accord?


Ambassador Aram Koopman
World Assembly representative for the Dutch Democratic Republic of Knootoss

[Toddsville]

Dr. Castro and I are not one, singular unit you know; we do have contrasting opinions, mine being the belief that any nation who cannot afford this resolution would probably end up dissolving due to civil unrest caused by economic tension.

Just because a nation is poor doesn't mean it will dissolve.