NationStates

Nothing stops nations from donating to the fund voluntarily, I suppose. But a replacement would certainly need to be passed in the medium- to long term.

Knootoss wrote:Nothing stops nations from donating to the fund voluntarily, I suppose. But a replacement would certainly need to be passed in the medium- to long term.

The replacement would need to be applied retroactively to other resolutions in the event no state chooses to pay the fund. Is that legal? Could be an amendment violation.

You cannot amend a resolution that has been repealed.

Knootoss wrote:You cannot amend a resolution that has been repealed.

No one said anything about amending a repealed resolution. I was musing aloud whether or not changing the terms of the WAGF as a committee would affect its usage in other resolutions.

Knootoss wrote:Nothing stops nations from donating to the fund voluntarily, I suppose. But a replacement would certainly need to be passed in the medium- to long term.

But that introduces the possibility of the WAGF being unable to fund the ventures of the resolutions which already draw their funding from it, since there's no guaranteed revenue stream. There's definitely an absurdity there, if not an illegality.

Adding new functions to committees is always a possibility. A revenue resolution would be "new" if the old revenue resolution is gone.

A member state with leaders not intelligent enough to understand the meaning of "donations" in WAGF would justify in every way the IntFed cause, as it would invalidate the cry that member states can take care of themselves.

The Sublime Island Kingdom stands opposed.

Knootoss wrote:Adding new functions to committees is always a possibility. A revenue resolution would be "new" if the old revenue resolution is gone.

Of course, yet, until such a replacement was in place, would this repeal not be preventing other resolutions from obtaining reliable funding as is stipulated in their texts? Surely, wouldn't altering, in any way, the way another resolution operates be considered an amendment to that resolution?

This is a very interesting legal debate. The unique nature of the WAGF provides an awful lot of food for thought.

Knootoss wrote:Or does Mr. Castro honestly believe that only Kennyite duplicity could possibly ensure a majority for the WA spending money on things?

OOC: Bearing in mind the fact that my own [earlier] proposal on the subject, which would basically have worked in a similar fashion to WAGF but was honest about the compulsory nature of the payments due, received barely 20% of the votes cast...

I'm against this repeal. Mandatory donations is the way to go, it forces nations like Knootoss to more carefully consider voting for a resolution and likewise means that our humanitarian programs when they do get voted onto the books aren't screwed over just like domestic humanitarian programs.

OOC: It's kind of funny an American wrote WA General Fund because America's "flexible" support of UN funding a la a bratty kid is a pet peeve of mine -- it's currently skimping on UNESCO funding because UNESCO recognizes Palestine.

Glen-Rhodes wrote:our offer, I will take it up. I have real-life engagements this week, though, including possibly heading back to my university to see the President give a speech on energy. I don't know when I'll be able to offer a replacement. But it will probably be before the week is over.

OOC:

Time goes by... so slowly
Time goes by... so slowly
Time goes by... so slowly
Time goes by... so slowly
Time goes by... so slowly
Time goes by... so slowly

Every little thing that you say or do
I'm hung up
I'm hung up on you
Waiting for your call
baby night and day
I'm fed up
I'm tired of waiting on you

Time goes by so slowly for those who wait
No time to hesitate
Those who run seem to have all the fun
I'm caught up
I don't know what to do

Knootoss wrote:BELIEVES that the World Assembly should not spend money without a fair, honest and transparent debate about funding for its expenditures;

Why not?

Because public spending without fairness, transparency and honesty is prone to corruption and bereft of responsibility. The fact that several authors who are keen on big spending resolutions are outright stating that they like the fact that WA General Fund cheats the voters out of their money is deeply disturbing.

Glen-Rhodes wrote:If you have a replacement, please make it public, so that we can judge whether or not it's even likely to pass. Glen-Rhodes isn't going to vote to strip the World Assembly of its progressive funding mechanism, only to end up in a situation where no other mechanism is ever passed. So many resolutions depend upon the General Fund. We've used it to remove the necessity of spending half our resolution text on determining how something should be funded. If the replacement is not viable, then how do you suppose these things will be funded?

- Dr. B. Castro

Maybe the honourable ambassador may kindly inform the assembly how these funds have been used?

Do you not realise that the General Fund is the mechanism by which we are all paid to do this job? I think it states somewhere within our Ambassadorial Agreements that we shall be renumerated for all activities except travel to our nations (for which our national Governments bear the brunt of renumeration) by the General Fund. Without such a mechanism, our salaries and the mechanisms for paying them will disappear. There will be utter anarchy.

Opposed

Klause Uliyan
etc

There is no resolution on the books that says ambassadors are paid a salary by the World Assembly, seeing as we represent our nations and regions. This is a good thing, because it prevents exactly the conflict of interest that Mr. Uliyan just illustrated.


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

Ladies and gentlemen. I have to admit that I am of a mixed mind about this repeal. I find the objections of those who are against this repeal bordering on the moronic. “Oh my,” I hear, “how shall we fund this?” Bah humbug! Let us consider the possible implications should this be repealed.

1. Direct taxes upon WA citizens is no longer prohibited.
2. Allows the WA to either operate as a for profit or through deficit spending.
3. Allows the creation of minor funds that can either operate with a profit or through deficit spending.

Yes I hate funding as much as the next person. Voluntary contributions sound nice but I fear that voluntary contributors will place strings on all their donations. The problem is not the fund; the problem is that we recklessly create needless committees that need to be funded. The committees will grow multiply and consume more and more resources. Such is the fate of all progressive utopian organizations and the WA is no different from all the other failed states in the history of the Multiverse.

You know, now that I think of it. Allowing the WA to run as a for profit organization might be a good thing. We could all get dividends at the end of the fiscal year. We could fund the WA by slapping protective tariffs on all non WA member nations. Yes, It's so evil that it would work!

Retired WerePenguins wrote:Ladies and gentlemen. I have to admit that I am of a mixed mind about this repeal. I find the objections of those who are against this repeal bordering on the moronic. “Oh my,” I hear, “how shall we fund this?” Bah humbug! Let us consider the possible implications should this be repealed.

1. Direct taxes upon WA citizens is no longer prohibited.
2. Allows the WA to either operate as a for profit or through deficit spending.
3. Allows the creation of minor funds that can either operate with a profit or through deficit spending.

Yes I hate funding as much as the next person. Voluntary contributions sound nice but I fear that voluntary contributors will place strings on all their donations. The problem is not the fund; the problem is that we recklessly create needless committees that need to be funded. The committees will grow multiply and consume more and more resources. Such is the fate of all progressive utopian organizations and the WA is no different from all the other failed states in the history of the Multiverse.

You know, now that I think of it. Allowing the WA to run as a for profit organization might be a good thing. We could all get dividends at the end of the fiscal year. We could fund the WA by slapping protective tariffs on all non WA member nations. Yes, It's so evil that it would work!

I like the way you think, ambassador. Direct taxation? Protective tariffs? Dividends? It's an IntFed's wet dream! I change my position to "FOR".

Knootoss wrote:Because public spending without fairness, transparency and honesty is prone to corruption and bereft of responsibility.

We agree. However, you have not answered our question. Why is a fair, transparent and honest debate necessary?

The fact that several authors who are keen on big spending resolutions are outright stating that they like the fact that WA General Fund cheats the voters out of their money is deeply disturbing.

Have they? Could you give us a few examples, please?

Astrolinium wrote:

Retired WerePenguins wrote:You know, now that I think of it. Allowing the WA to run as a for profit organization might be a good thing. We could all get dividends at the end of the fiscal year. We could fund the WA by slapping protective tariffs on all non WA member nations. Yes, It's so evil that it would work!

I like the way you think, ambassador. Direct taxation? Protective tariffs? Dividends? It's an IntFed's wet dream! I change my position to "FOR".

We don't like the sound of this...

That is TOO Int-Fed.

We're Int-Fed. But we're not crazy.

We would like to see Mr. Koopman's response to our suggestion that, unless its existing mechanisms remain in place after the repeal, taking GA #17 off the books would be tantamount to an amendment of all resolutions that use the WAGF as a source of funding, as they would be no longer able to rely on the WAGF to fund their activities, opening up the possibility that this repeal would end up preventing other resolutions from functioning.

Merfurian wrote:Do you not realise that the General Fund is the mechanism by which we are all paid to do this job?

Sounds like a certain ambassador has been dipping into the General Fund for personal expenses.
After all, what responsible government wouldn't pay their own ambassador's expenses here?

As for the repeal, I feel that passing it could be beneficial by the debate a new proposal would stir up. And repealing it would not prevent, unless I'm much mistaken, nations from continuing to make voluntary donations to the World Assembly. Or I'm much mistaken. That does happen.

I disagree with the Ossitanian assessment that repealing a resolution would somehow amend existing resolutions. The only way that was possible is if all these existing resolutions were amendments to the General Fund in the first place, in which case they should have been removed for duplication. If the Ossitanian line of reasoning made its way into a campaign I would dismiss it, in strong terms, as baseless scaremongering.

The repeal has been submitted: Repeal "WA General Fund"

Endorse it now!

Knootoss wrote:I disagree with the Ossitanian assessment that repealing a resolution would somehow amend existing resolutions. The only way that was possible is if all these existing resolutions were amendments to the General Fund in the first place, in which case they should have been removed for duplication. If the Ossitanian line of reasoning made its way into a campaign I would dismiss it, in strong terms, as baseless scaremongering.

I'm just pondering out the issue, ambassador, no need to get so jumpy. If this repeal cannot be construed as an amendment, surely you must agree that, after the repeal, the WAGF will continue to be a reliable source of funding for those structures which are funded by it, in which case it must have a reliable mechanism for replenishing its own funds. If the intent of the repeal is to prevent the WAGF from funding itself through mandatory donations, then what will be the mechanism by which it funds itself such that those structures reliant on it can continue to function?

It will be funded by whatever mechanism a majority of the World Assembly decides upon. I don't have special powers.