NationStates

"The final phrase of Clause 4, "whether it be laissez-faire capitalism or communism." seems to suggest that they are the only permissible or existing economic systems; I would recommend removing this phrase as it is irrelevant to the rest of the clause."

East Gondwana wrote:"The final phrase of Clause 4, "whether it be laissez-faire capitalism or communism." seems to suggest that they are the only permissible or existing economic systems; I would recommend removing this phrase as it is irrelevant to the rest of the clause."

"Apologies. I have removed the phrase."

"I would recommend thinking of a different title. This proposal wouldn't be a bill once it is passed, it would be an act or a convention or something similar. Also, “replacement” doesn't sit well with me."

Kenmoria wrote:"I would recommend thinking of a different title. This proposal wouldn't be a bill once it is passed, it would be an act or a convention or something similar. Also, “replacement” doesn't sit well with me."

How does the new title sound? Is it a tad bit too long?

Cute Puppies wrote:

Kenmoria wrote:"I would recommend thinking of a different title. This proposal wouldn't be a bill once it is passed, it would be an act or a convention or something similar. Also, “replacement” doesn't sit well with me."

How does the new title sound? Is it a tad bit too long?

"Being a bit wordy isn't that bad in the General Assembly, it's fine in my eyes."

Section 2 is unacceptable.

Imperium Anglorum wrote:Section 2 is unacceptable.

Why and how can section 2 be improved?

Cute Puppies wrote:Why and how can section 2 be improved?

Inclusion of a line like this:

Imperium Anglorum wrote:

Cute Puppies wrote:Why and how can section 2 be improved?

Inclusion of a line like this:

The World Assembly reserves to itself the power to regulate commerce in member nations for any reason by primary or secondary legislation.

Would it still be alright to keep section 2 if I added that?

Cute Puppies wrote:

Imperium Anglorum wrote:Inclusion of a line like this:

The World Assembly reserves to itself the power to regulate commerce in member nations for any reason by primary or secondary legislation.

Would it still be alright to keep section 2 if I added that?

(OOC: Given the current section two almost diametrically opposes this one, I wouldn't.)

I've included Imperium Anglorum's line, but tried to retain the premise of clause 2.

Well, you didn't. I won't vote for a replacement for NEF that does not block blockers like NEF and the one you have proposed here.

Imperium Anglorum wrote:Well, you didn't. I won't vote for a replacement for NEF that does not block blockers like NEF and the one you have proposed here.

My replacement bill aims to formally recognize nations' local commerce as an issue of national sovereignty. It does not intend to block WA regulation on commerce.

EDIT: I completely forgot about the part which explicitly prevents the WA from interfering in local commerce. I apologize for my blatant obliviousness.

I changed clause 2 and added clause 5. Clause 2 now simply recognizes local commerce as an issue of national sovereignty but does not block the WA from making legislation on these affairs. And clause 5 incorporates your statement.

I think it strange that you want to repeal National Economic Freedoms on the grounds that the restrictions on regulation of commerce are too burdensome, but then want to replace it with a resolution that contains a guarantee that "formally recognizes member nations’ local commerce and economic affairs as an issue of national sovereignty"

It's also strange that the same proposal reserves the power to regulate commerce in member nations for any reason.

You don't seem to have made up you mind on what your position is. Is local commerce a matter of national sovereignty or it is an appropriate field for WA legislation?

"You're missing a space before “Formally” in clause 2."

I second Aclion's question. I'd also add that the provisions relating to eminent domain would be better off in a resolution dedicated to that purpose, rather than as something tacked on to make a blocker legal; the same holds true for the original NEF.

Martin Russell
Chief Ambassador, Auralian Mission to the World Assembly

The original goals I had in mind when making this replacement bill were, in short, to:
A. Remove the ill-defined and unnecessary commission of the original NEF
B. Formally recognize local commerce as an issue of National sovereignty
C. Prevent the GA from making resolutions that intrude and burden nations' economies like NEF, but expand the types of resolutions the GA can make on this issue

I'm going to make another draft soon. I've decided to continue to recognize local commerce as an issue of National sovereignty, and explicitly prevent future legislation that affects this with the exception of resolutions concerning industrial waste disposal and pollution in the manufacturing sect of the economy, workers' rights and welfare, illegal contraband and the trade of hazardous materials, and of interstate commerce.

Didn't recognise Auralia for a second there. I guess he's now a French Communist. But I will oppose any legislation which includes a blocker for future economic legislation. I will also oppose any replacement which does not reserve to the World Assembly the power to create, at its will, future regulations on the economy.

Imperium Anglorum wrote:I guess he's now a French Communist.

Do Communists have a monopoly on the colour red or something?

Imperium Anglorum wrote:Didn't recognise Auralia for a second there. I guess he's now a French Communist. But I will oppose any legislation which includes a blocker for future economic legislation. I will also oppose any replacement which does not reserve to the World Assembly the power to create, at its will, future regulations on the economy.

On second thought, ending all future legislation on local economic affairs from the GA is too dramatic of a mandate, and likely exceeds what a GA proposal or resolution should do.

Would a formal recognition of nations' local commerce and economic affairs as an issue of national sovereignty without barring future economic legislation be a good compromise? I could clarify in the end of the bill that, while this bill thoroughly discourages it, the General Assembly still reserves the right to regulate member nations' local commerce.

Draft 3 is out.

EDIT: I will submit the repeal and replacement proposal very soon. I feel confident that these bills accurately addresses the flaws of GAR#68 and why these necessitate a repeal and replacement. Thank you, everyone, for sharing your opinions and constructive criticism on this proposal. Whether or not this manages to reach quorum, I thank everyone for their help.

I understand that this may be too early to post my draft, but because of personal and health issues unrelated to NS and my coming AP exams, and because I feel confident with proposals' final products, I would like to submit it soon.

For the sake of preventing confusion, I'm submitting this proposal under my alternate account which I intend to use from now on as my WA nation, Zone 71.

Because GAR#68 has not yet been repealed, I have withdrawn this proposal as it would currently be illegal for duplication.

"You are still missing a space before “Formally” at the beginning of clause 2."

Imperium Anglorum wrote:

Wrapper wrote:I can't recall any previous legislation urging/recommending the GA do something, only member nations. I don't see the point.

Repeals do it all the time.

OOC
Repeals "urging" new legislation have tended to get declared illegal because that was itself counted as an operative clause. "Hoping for" the replacement is more acceptable.

Bears Armed wrote:OOC Repeals "urging" new legislation have tended to get declared illegal because that was itself counted as an operative clause. "Hoping for" the replacement is more acceptable.

I explicitly called for a replacement here. viewtopic.php?f=9&t=30&p=32730365&hilit=repeal#p32730365 There was no objection at the time.

And before Fris, or the like, comes here to tell me about how I'm trolling the rules,

1. Where is this rule explicitly? Insofar as it is conditional on what an operative clause is, then:
2. Why should we find clauses, which do not act in any way on member nations, illegal? How does that benefit the game?

Secondarily, since this is non-repeal legislation, insofar as the Assembly can outright block certain types of future legislation, why can't it also recommend or discourage certain other types of future legislation? The power to block must supersede the power to recommend.