NATION

PASSWORD

[PASSED] Respondeat Superior

Where WA members debate how to improve the world, one resolution at a time.

Advertisement

Remove ads

User avatar
Separatist Peoples
GA Secretariat
 
Posts: 14453
Founded: Feb 17, 2011
Civil Rights Lovefest

Postby Separatist Peoples » Sun Dec 25, 2016 11:25 am

Sierra Lyricalia wrote:OOC: I remain convinced the category is inappropriate. The main thrust of grafs 1-2 is to guarantee plaintiff rights at law against private companies, which is the exact opposite of Advancement of Industry. The presence of the AoE "Tort Reform" within that category doesn't magically render all legislation regarding torts suddenly appropriate for Advancement of Industry. Unless you can show why this resolution is a more beneficial market intervention for private companies than the status quo in which nations may (say) prohibit all civil suits against large employers, or do nothing at all, this simply is not AoI.

Ooc: it reduces the need for regulation and advances the legal industry considerably. Bigger lawsuits = larger possible profit margins = industry expansion. One direct and one indirect advancement of industry.

After all, we apply this kind of analysis to Free Trade by allowing minor regulation to ultimately benefit the markets. This ultimately benefits industry by removing the need for a large amount of worker protection legislation. Such a literal reading of Categories would essentially eradicate several, and I am confident that, much like the International Aid subcategory of Health was treated, a less than purely literal interpretation will be acceptable.

Or, I'm wrong and GenSec will have to reconsider the legal standing of the recent Patent legislation as any similar resolutions that fit incompletely but satisfactorily into a category.

His Worshipfulness Lord GA Secretariat,
Authority on All Existence,
Globalist Dog,
Dark Psychic Vampire, and
Chief Populist Elitist!


User avatar
The United Royal Islands of Euramathania
Spokesperson
 
Posts: 126
Founded: Nov 21, 2016
Democratic Socialists

Postby The United Royal Islands of Euramathania » Sun Dec 25, 2016 10:11 pm

Separatist Peoples wrote:
Sierra Lyricalia wrote:OOC: I remain convinced the category is inappropriate. The main thrust of grafs 1-2 is to guarantee plaintiff rights at law against private companies, which is the exact opposite of Advancement of Industry. The presence of the AoE "Tort Reform" within that category doesn't magically render all legislation regarding torts suddenly appropriate for Advancement of Industry. Unless you can show why this resolution is a more beneficial market intervention for private companies than the status quo in which nations may (say) prohibit all civil suits against large employers, or do nothing at all, this simply is not AoI.

Ooc: it reduces the need for regulation and advances the legal industry considerably. Bigger lawsuits = larger possible profit margins = industry expansion. One direct and one indirect advancement of industry.

After all, we apply this kind of analysis to Free Trade by allowing minor regulation to ultimately benefit the markets. This ultimately benefits industry by removing the need for a large amount of worker protection legislation. Such a literal reading of Categories would essentially eradicate several, and I am confident that, much like the International Aid subcategory of Health was treated, a less than purely literal interpretation will be acceptable.

Or, I'm wrong and GenSec will have to reconsider the legal standing of the recent Patent legislation as any similar resolutions that fit incompletely but satisfactorily into a category.


OOC: Yould could argue that by expanding the scope of who may be considered as culpable for a tort, people's civil liberties are increasing because they have more flexability in addressing wrongs, and thus that the resolution is Civil Rights. Though I doubt that it would fit better in that category than its current one, and certainly less obviously. But it leaves the question of how can something that seeks to change tort procedure not be an attempt at reform? It seems a bit unbalanced limit tort reforms to only proposals that shield industry from lawsuits, without providing an opposing category, say a legal reform category, that would allow for such changes. As of now, with the choices available, this is probably the closest category we have to the true effects this resolution would have and reflects its intenion.
From the Office Ambassador of The United Royal Islands of Euramathania,
on behalf of the Eternal Monarch, the Theryiat, and the Most Serene Republic

"Many blessings of falling rain, and fair wind."
GA Ambassador: The Wise and Considered, A. Meridian, of the House of Solus Garden
Assistant Ambassador: The Distinguished, C.J. Wallows
Email: wa-office@uri-euramathania.com Yes, It's real.

User avatar
Aclion
Senator
 
Posts: 4529
Founded: Apr 12, 2016
Civil Rights Lovefest

Postby Aclion » Mon Dec 26, 2016 8:50 pm

Separatist Peoples wrote:

Well I'd just replace reference to torts with the more generic term "civil wrong"

OOC: Sorry for the delay I was... being lazy.

Separatist Peoples wrote:Ooc: it reduces the need for regulation and advances the legal industry considerably. Bigger lawsuits = larger possible profit margins = industry expansion. One direct and one indirect advancement of industry.

After all, we apply this kind of analysis to Free Trade by allowing minor regulation to ultimately benefit the markets. This ultimately benefits industry by removing the need for a large amount of worker protection legislation. Such a literal reading of Categories would essentially eradicate several, and I am confident that, much like the International Aid subcategory of Health was treated, a less than purely literal interpretation will be acceptable.

Or, I'm wrong and GenSec will have to reconsider the legal standing of the recent Patent legislation as any similar resolutions that fit incompletely but satisfactorily into a category.

Don't forget the advance it represents to the labor industry.
A free society rests on four boxes: The soap box, the ballot box, the jury box, and the ammo box.
XKI: Recruiter, TITO Knight
TEP: WA Executive Staff member
Forest: Cartographer
Oatland: Caesar, Cartographer

It is the citizen's duty to understand which box to use, and when.

User avatar
Separatist Peoples
GA Secretariat
 
Posts: 14453
Founded: Feb 17, 2011
Civil Rights Lovefest

Postby Separatist Peoples » Mon Dec 26, 2016 10:27 pm

Aclion wrote:
Separatist Peoples wrote:

Well I'd just replace reference to torts with the more generic term "civil wrong"

OOC: Sorry for the delay I was... being lazy.


"A tort is distinct from a civil wrong. Racism is a civil wrong, but racism itself isn't really a tort."

His Worshipfulness Lord GA Secretariat,
Authority on All Existence,
Globalist Dog,
Dark Psychic Vampire, and
Chief Populist Elitist!


User avatar
Aclion
Senator
 
Posts: 4529
Founded: Apr 12, 2016
Civil Rights Lovefest

Postby Aclion » Tue Dec 27, 2016 4:02 am

Separatist Peoples wrote:
Aclion wrote:Well I'd just replace reference to torts with the more generic term "civil wrong"

OOC: Sorry for the delay I was... being lazy.

"A tort is distinct from a civil wrong. Racism is a civil wrong, but racism itself isn't really a tort."


-Celice unplugs her translator-
"Maudit chose"
-and after waiting several seconds plugs it back in.-

"It is broader yes... But I don't see that as a problem. The same principles that you applied to torts are equally valid for other civil wrongs. I'd also like to note that racism is not a civil wrong under WA unless my translator is on the fritz again and you meant racial discrimination. Even if it were in a given nation I'm not sure why you would want to allow employers to immunize themselves against liability for racism that take place under their watch."
Last edited by Aclion on Tue Dec 27, 2016 4:03 am, edited 2 times in total.
A free society rests on four boxes: The soap box, the ballot box, the jury box, and the ammo box.
XKI: Recruiter, TITO Knight
TEP: WA Executive Staff member
Forest: Cartographer
Oatland: Caesar, Cartographer

It is the citizen's duty to understand which box to use, and when.

User avatar
Separatist Peoples
GA Secretariat
 
Posts: 14453
Founded: Feb 17, 2011
Civil Rights Lovefest

Postby Separatist Peoples » Tue Dec 27, 2016 5:33 am

Aclion wrote:
Separatist Peoples wrote:"A tort is distinct from a civil wrong. Racism is a civil wrong, but racism itself isn't really a tort."


-Celice unplugs her translator-
"Maudit chose"
-and after waiting several seconds plugs it back in.-

"It is broader yes... But I don't see that as a problem. The same principles that you applied to torts are equally valid for other civil wrongs. I'd also like to note that racism is not a civil wrong under WA unless my translator is on the fritz again and you meant racial discrimination. Even if it were in a given nation I'm not sure why you would want to allow employers to immunize themselves against liability for racism that take place under their watch."


"No, I mean racism between two parties without a relationship. A broader definition would hold employers liable for actions with no legal repercussions, but might have others. Such a system would be nonsensical at best, and at worse, detrimental to the court. A tort is a very specfic term with a specfic meaning, even if it evades adequate definition. That is why we use such terms of art, to narrow our meaning significantly without overextending ourselves linguistically. I'm not seeing a reason to replace the terms surrounding "tort" when the category itself makes use of the term."

His Worshipfulness Lord GA Secretariat,
Authority on All Existence,
Globalist Dog,
Dark Psychic Vampire, and
Chief Populist Elitist!


User avatar
Separatist Peoples
GA Secretariat
 
Posts: 14453
Founded: Feb 17, 2011
Civil Rights Lovefest

Postby Separatist Peoples » Mon Sep 17, 2018 1:30 pm

OOC: Bump. I'm gonna submit this pretty soon. Like, not long after my other resolution reaches vote.

His Worshipfulness Lord GA Secretariat,
Authority on All Existence,
Globalist Dog,
Dark Psychic Vampire, and
Chief Populist Elitist!


User avatar
Kenmoria
Negotiator
 
Posts: 5248
Founded: Jul 03, 2017
Corporate Bordello

Postby Kenmoria » Mon Sep 17, 2018 1:36 pm

“This looks good to me, full support. That said, and I have read the FAQ, some definitions would be nice.”
A representative democracy with a parliament of 535 seats
Kenmoria is Laissez-Faire on economy but centre-left on social issues
Located in Europe and border France to the right and Spain below
NS stats and policies are not canon, use the factbooks
Not in the WA despite coincidentally following nearly all resolutions
This is due to a problem with how the WA contradicts democracy
However we do have a WA mission and often participate in drafting
Current ambassador: James Lewitt

For more information, read the factbooks here.

User avatar
Separatist Peoples
GA Secretariat
 
Posts: 14453
Founded: Feb 17, 2011
Civil Rights Lovefest

Postby Separatist Peoples » Fri Oct 05, 2018 4:55 am

OOC: Bump

His Worshipfulness Lord GA Secretariat,
Authority on All Existence,
Globalist Dog,
Dark Psychic Vampire, and
Chief Populist Elitist!


User avatar
Liberimery
Envoy
 
Posts: 328
Founded: May 27, 2018
Anarchy

Postby Liberimery » Fri Oct 05, 2018 5:10 am

What if a bus crash company is sued because one of their drivers showed up to work drunk and created an accident along his route? Let's assume that the driver's behavior raised no red flags to the company management or that he skipped procedures to prevent such an incident. This of course assumes that the driver was up to date on all mandatory safety procedures and the company was especially noted for its safety track record? I don't think the company should be held to trial for the damage a rogue employee caused.

User avatar
Desmosthenes and Burke
Envoy
 
Posts: 247
Founded: Oct 07, 2017
Capitalist Paradise

Postby Desmosthenes and Burke » Fri Oct 05, 2018 5:41 am

Liberimery wrote:What if a bus crash company is sued because one of their drivers showed up to work drunk and created an accident along his route? Let's assume that the driver's behavior raised no red flags to the company management or that he skipped procedures to prevent such an incident. This of course assumes that the driver was up to date on all mandatory safety procedures and the company was especially noted for its safety track record? I don't think the company should be held to trial for the damage a rogue employee caused.


We find it unlikely that a bus driver inebriated enough to drunkenly cause an accident would not raise any red flags to his employer, the passengers, or some other person. However, assuming it is true, lawyers are masters at creative...comment dit-on...fucking bullshit. A quick consultation with the one on retainer at our mission here suggests that he would argue that driving drunk is both outside the scope of employment or, in the alternative, both intentional and reckless going either to clauses 1b or 3, depending on what the fact finder buys in a given jurisdiction.

OOC: I agree with Aclion, however, about the language. Torts and tortfeasors are a distinctly common law concept. The civil law equivalent would usually be delict (when rendered in English) (which is, at least for your purposes, the same thing) which are defined somewhere in a code but delictfeasor is not a word. I have no problem understanding what you mean by this resolution and translating it accordingly and implementing it (because I am inclined to do so anyway, being a fan of my pretend state having a legal system that functions in a somewhat realistic manner), but using common law terms is an invitation, in my opinion, to non-compliance in fact while maintaining compliance to the strict letter of what you wrote.

User avatar
New Ciceria
Political Columnist
 
Posts: 2
Founded: May 03, 2018
Civil Rights Lovefest

Postby New Ciceria » Fri Oct 05, 2018 7:57 am

The World Assembly representative for New Ciceria runs to the stand, eager to say his peice.

"We really do like this one, fantastic work on the proposal. We, in no way, had to research anything in this legislation and understood it completely from the beginning. The only concern that we have is that this proposal does not seem to impact people in managerial positions, only those in employer-employee relationships, which may still lead to some masters being unanswerable."


OOC:
Separatist Peoples wrote:
1. A plaintiff in a noncriminal case against a single tortfeaser may enjoin and hold liable the tortfeasor's employer where the tortfeasor:


There are two different spellings of tortfeasor here and I'm pretty sure that the first one is spelt incorrectly. There's also a couple other times where you spell it with an e, there might be something I'm missing but I'm fairly sure that its incorrect.

User avatar
Separatist Peoples
GA Secretariat
 
Posts: 14453
Founded: Feb 17, 2011
Civil Rights Lovefest

Postby Separatist Peoples » Fri Oct 05, 2018 2:45 pm

Desmosthenes and Burke wrote:
Liberimery wrote:What if a bus crash company is sued because one of their drivers showed up to work drunk and created an accident along his route? Let's assume that the driver's behavior raised no red flags to the company management or that he skipped procedures to prevent such an incident. This of course assumes that the driver was up to date on all mandatory safety procedures and the company was especially noted for its safety track record? I don't think the company should be held to trial for the damage a rogue employee caused.


We find it unlikely that a bus driver inebriated enough to drunkenly cause an accident would not raise any red flags to his employer, the passengers, or some other person. However, assuming it is true, lawyers are masters at creative...comment dit-on...fucking bullshit. A quick consultation with the one on retainer at our mission here suggests that he would argue that driving drunk is both outside the scope of employment or, in the alternative, both intentional and reckless going either to clauses 1b or 3, depending on what the fact finder buys in a given jurisdiction.

OOC: I agree with Aclion, however, about the language. Torts and tortfeasors are a distinctly common law concept. The civil law equivalent would usually be delict (when rendered in English) (which is, at least for your purposes, the same thing) which are defined somewhere in a code but delictfeasor is not a word. I have no problem understanding what you mean by this resolution and translating it accordingly and implementing it (because I am inclined to do so anyway, being a fan of my pretend state having a legal system that functions in a somewhat realistic manner), but using common law terms is an invitation, in my opinion, to non-compliance in fact while maintaining compliance to the strict letter of what you wrote.


OOC: So adjusted to avoid noncompliance wank.

His Worshipfulness Lord GA Secretariat,
Authority on All Existence,
Globalist Dog,
Dark Psychic Vampire, and
Chief Populist Elitist!


User avatar
Bananaistan
GA Secretariat
 
Posts: 2287
Founded: Apr 20, 2012
Civil Rights Lovefest

Postby Bananaistan » Sat Oct 06, 2018 3:35 am

Desmosthenes and Burke wrote:
Liberimery wrote:What if a bus crash company is sued because one of their drivers showed up to work drunk and created an accident along his route? Let's assume that the driver's behavior raised no red flags to the company management or that he skipped procedures to prevent such an incident. This of course assumes that the driver was up to date on all mandatory safety procedures and the company was especially noted for its safety track record? I don't think the company should be held to trial for the damage a rogue employee caused.


We find it unlikely that a bus driver inebriated enough to drunkenly cause an accident would not raise any red flags to his employer, the passengers, or some other person. However, assuming it is true, lawyers are masters at creative...comment dit-on...fucking bullshit. A quick consultation with the one on retainer at our mission here suggests that he would argue that driving drunk is both outside the scope of employment or, in the alternative, both intentional and reckless going either to clauses 1b or 3, depending on what the fact finder buys in a given jurisdiction.

OOC: I agree with Aclion, however, about the language. Torts and tortfeasors are a distinctly common law concept. The civil law equivalent would usually be delict (when rendered in English) (which is, at least for your purposes, the same thing) which are defined somewhere in a code but delictfeasor is not a word. I have no problem understanding what you mean by this resolution and translating it accordingly and implementing it (because I am inclined to do so anyway, being a fan of my pretend state having a legal system that functions in a somewhat realistic manner), but using common law terms is an invitation, in my opinion, to non-compliance in fact while maintaining compliance to the strict letter of what you wrote.


OOC: I'd be utterly amazed if Sep's intent is to drive a stake through the heart of the concept of vicarious liability like so. Your outline would leave the victims of the drunk bus driver entirely without any redress should the driver either have no personal insurance or no assets. It's bonkers. Regardless of whether or not anyone copped the driver was polluted, it is entirely reasonable that the bus company and the driver both be held responsible for his actions, IE civil case or insurance payout from the bus company and criminal case against the driver. In most countries IRL this is how it would work. And in most countries, employees fuck ups on the employer's time are made good by the employer.
Delegation of the People's Republic of Bananaistan to the World Assembly
Head of delegation and the Permanent Representative: Comrade Ambassador Theodorus "Ted" Hornwood
General Assistant and Head of Security: Comrade Watchman Brian of Tarth
There was the Pope and John F. Kennedy and Jack Charlton and the three of them were staring me in the face.

User avatar
Separatist Peoples
GA Secretariat
 
Posts: 14453
Founded: Feb 17, 2011
Civil Rights Lovefest

Postby Separatist Peoples » Sat Oct 06, 2018 5:11 am

OOC: This is why I've left this relatively vague. Whether a drunk driver is acting within the scope of their employment is a question of fact best placed before a jury, not a legislator, and I would leave it to the jury, or individual member states' authority to make it a matter of law, rather than subsume that authority by fiat with a resolution.

His Worshipfulness Lord GA Secretariat,
Authority on All Existence,
Globalist Dog,
Dark Psychic Vampire, and
Chief Populist Elitist!


User avatar
Desmosthenes and Burke
Envoy
 
Posts: 247
Founded: Oct 07, 2017
Capitalist Paradise

Postby Desmosthenes and Burke » Sat Oct 06, 2018 7:21 am

Bananaistan wrote:
Desmosthenes and Burke wrote:
We find it unlikely that a bus driver inebriated enough to drunkenly cause an accident would not raise any red flags to his employer, the passengers, or some other person. However, assuming it is true, lawyers are masters at creative...comment dit-on...fucking bullshit. A quick consultation with the one on retainer at our mission here suggests that he would argue that driving drunk is both outside the scope of employment or, in the alternative, both intentional and reckless going either to clauses 1b or 3, depending on what the fact finder buys in a given jurisdiction.

OOC: I agree with Aclion, however, about the language. Torts and tortfeasors are a distinctly common law concept. The civil law equivalent would usually be delict (when rendered in English) (which is, at least for your purposes, the same thing) which are defined somewhere in a code but delictfeasor is not a word. I have no problem understanding what you mean by this resolution and translating it accordingly and implementing it (because I am inclined to do so anyway, being a fan of my pretend state having a legal system that functions in a somewhat realistic manner), but using common law terms is an invitation, in my opinion, to non-compliance in fact while maintaining compliance to the strict letter of what you wrote.


OOC: I'd be utterly amazed if Sep's intent is to drive a stake through the heart of the concept of vicarious liability like so. Your outline would leave the victims of the drunk bus driver entirely without any redress should the driver either have no personal insurance or no assets. It's bonkers. Regardless of whether or not anyone copped the driver was polluted, it is entirely reasonable that the bus company and the driver both be held responsible for his actions, IE civil case or insurance payout from the bus company and criminal case against the driver. In most countries IRL this is how it would work. And in most countries, employees fuck ups on the employer's time are made good by the employer.


OOC: That was an in-character comment. In character, that would be at least arguable in my jurisdiction for the simple fact that I, and therefore my state, are generally hostile to vicarious liability and refuse to make employers liable for the criminal acts of employees, as they are, by definition, outside the scope of employment. I am given to understand that even the most backwards of jurisdictions actually have at least some limit on those grounds, even if they do not actually extend quite to the posited scenario.

Out of character, I doubt this ever makes it to trial, since on publicity alone its cheaper to pay the victim with a settlement that includes a silence order and sweep it under the rug as quickly and quietly as possible. Even if I thought I would win in court, I would probably still tell my corporate client to pay the "hush money" and avoid the vultures that are the press.

Also, see the post by Sep, as apparently he at least intended to allow the rest of us to, as your hyperbolic pronouncement stated, "drive a stake through the heart" of this anyway.

User avatar
Ru-
Ambassador
 
Posts: 1086
Founded: Aug 01, 2016
Left-Leaning College State

Postby Ru- » Sat Oct 20, 2018 10:51 pm

This is well reasoned tort law, respondent superior in general is a just and common sense philosophy for tort damages

However, we do not believe it is the WA's place to mandate the specifics of case law for member nations. As we have always felt that the WA members are better served by this assembly minding it's own business and sticking to issues of pure and obvious international scope, we oppose.

ooc: basically i'd support this as legislation/case law for my own nation, but because i am sick and tired of people treating the WA like the EU rather then like the UN i am voting against it as a WA resolution
Last edited by Ru- on Sat Oct 20, 2018 10:59 pm, edited 4 times in total.
A civilization with an over 3,000 year history of lizard people killing each other and enslaving everyone else. Now they've finally calmed down and formed a modern westernized constitutional monarchy. (long live King Yoshio!)
Still with Her.

----> King Yoshio Q&A Thread! <----
(please help keep it alive if you can. lol )

User avatar
Firstaria
Powerbroker
 
Posts: 8406
Founded: Jun 29, 2007
Corrupt Dictatorship

Postby Firstaria » Sun Oct 21, 2018 1:15 am

The Overlord Kingdom has examined this resolution quite a lot, and if on one side we understand the wishes of the nation of proposed it, and agree with the desire....we also find that such issue may not be suited for an international deliberation, nor it has been explored in full in this resolution.

The lack of definitions is, as noted by the proposer, done so that it will not became a debate on those...but in such claim, he points out how it would be difficult to fully enact this resolution in the way intended and how it could be twisted around by nations who decide to not comply.

Our vote against is not because the scope of the resolution is wrong, but because the issues with it needs to be addressed and resolved, and the resolution itself reformed to compliance to the result of the debate, in order to have an actual text that can stand in a proper court of law and do it's job.

OOC: Is a good proposal, but really, you cannot skip a difficult part and then justify "because it will be a mess". By saying it will be a mess, you shot yourself in the foot.
Last edited by Firstaria on Sun Oct 21, 2018 1:17 am, edited 1 time in total.
OVERLORD Daniel Mercury of Firstaria
Original Author of SC #5 and SC #30

User avatar
HerpDeDerp
Spokesperson
 
Posts: 197
Founded: Sep 18, 2016
Father Knows Best State

Postby HerpDeDerp » Sun Oct 21, 2018 6:59 am

This is a blatant attack on economy and communist in nature. If this passes, Nighteye has said the following "The Separatist Peoples will feel the full wrath of trade sanctions for proposing a bill like this. We will not follow these rules, even if it means being kicked out"
I dont use NS stats

User avatar
Separatist Peoples
GA Secretariat
 
Posts: 14453
Founded: Feb 17, 2011
Civil Rights Lovefest

Postby Separatist Peoples » Sun Oct 21, 2018 7:59 am

Firstaria wrote:The Overlord Kingdom has examined this resolution quite a lot, and if on one side we understand the wishes of the nation of proposed it, and agree with the desire....we also find that such issue may not be suited for an international deliberation, nor it has been explored in full in this resolution.

The lack of definitions is, as noted by the proposer, done so that it will not became a debate on those...but in such claim, he points out how it would be difficult to fully enact this resolution in the way intended and how it could be twisted around by nations who decide to not comply.

Our vote against is not because the scope of the resolution is wrong, but because the issues with it needs to be addressed and resolved, and the resolution itself reformed to compliance to the result of the debate, in order to have an actual text that can stand in a proper court of law and do it's job.

OOC: Is a good proposal, but really, you cannot skip a difficult part and then justify "because it will be a mess". By saying it will be a mess, you shot yourself in the foot.


OOC: The entire point of leaving definitions out is to leave freedom to member states on how to implement those meanings.

His Worshipfulness Lord GA Secretariat,
Authority on All Existence,
Globalist Dog,
Dark Psychic Vampire, and
Chief Populist Elitist!


User avatar
Separatist Peoples
GA Secretariat
 
Posts: 14453
Founded: Feb 17, 2011
Civil Rights Lovefest

Postby Separatist Peoples » Sun Oct 21, 2018 7:59 am

HerpDeDerp wrote:This is a blatant attack on economy and communist in nature. If this passes, Nighteye has said the following "The Separatist Peoples will feel the full wrath of trade sanctions for proposing a bill like this. We will not follow these rules, even if it means being kicked out"

"Ambassador, I don't think you understand what this does."

His Worshipfulness Lord GA Secretariat,
Authority on All Existence,
Globalist Dog,
Dark Psychic Vampire, and
Chief Populist Elitist!


User avatar
Noralia
Bureaucrat
 
Posts: 63
Founded: Mar 29, 2015
Democratic Socialists

Postby Noralia » Sun Oct 21, 2018 8:46 am

The Noralian Ambassador to the World Assembly cleared his throat before speaking.

"We admire the good intentions behind this proposal by Separatist Peoples. However, we find the lack of definitions disturbing, as we believe it gives other nations the leeway to ignore the provisions in this proposed resolution, if so they choose, with no negative consequences whatsoever. Therefore we will vote against this resolution."
The Federation of Noralia...
  1. is MT (rarely PT)
  2. has a population of 72 million (36 million if PT)
  3. has an average and a growing economy
  4. is a federal republic, with a federal president and two state presidents
  5. uses SOME of the things stated in the Nation Overview such as space capability, nukes and compulsary military service.
  6. uses 1 NS dollar = 2.65 Noralian pesos as exchange rate.

User avatar
Imperial Polk County
Envoy
 
Posts: 317
Founded: Aug 22, 2017
Compulsory Consumerist State

Postby Imperial Polk County » Sun Oct 21, 2018 9:09 am

"I am sorry, Ambassador Bell, but I cannot vote in favor of this. I can think of several situations where an employer should not be liable for the actions of an employee. To give just one example, let's say an employee, in the course of his workday, is required by his employer to travel from one work site to another in his own car, and gets into a motor vehicle accident en route, damaging a potential defendant's car or property. Why should this person be able to sue the employee's company in this case? Our society is too litigious as it is, and a proposal like this would make it worse."
-- Herbert Jackson Drane IV, WA Ambassador of the newly independent Imperial Polk County, Population 665,000. That "xxx million" population stat? It's most certainly a typo.

User avatar
The Confederate Territory
Attaché
 
Posts: 71
Founded: Nov 08, 2017
Ex-Nation

Postby The Confederate Territory » Sun Oct 21, 2018 9:11 am

I do not support this resolution and voted against it.
Freedoms rise, Stratons despise!

User avatar
TooBigRabbits
Political Columnist
 
Posts: 2
Founded: Oct 20, 2018
Ex-Nation

Postby TooBigRabbits » Sun Oct 21, 2018 9:21 am

As an ambassador for a new nation in the assembly my words may not hold much weight, but I do not believe this is or should be in the scope of the WA and therefore I opposed. I encourage other member nations to oppose as well lest the WA will continue to attempt to pass legislation outside of it's scope.

PreviousNext

Advertisement

Remove ads

Return to General Assembly

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Dreamersistan, East Meranopirus, The New Nordic Union

Advertisement

Remove ads