[Closed] Mandatory honouring of public referendums

[Saint Indopeland]

My first GA proposal, any comments and help are appreciated.

NOTING the amount of WA nations that hold referendums or votes,

REALISING that many of them refuse to uphold the results,

DISGUSTED that some nations pretend to be democracies by holding ‘fake’ referendums,

OBSERVING, however, that some countries wish to not have any referendums,

Hereby declares:

1. Definitions for the purpose of this resolution

1a. ‘Governing body’ refers to the main, lawmaking governing body of any and all WA member states.
1b. ‘General Public’ refers to any person of a WA nation, not including people in or associated with the governing body.
1c. ‘Public Referendums’, or simply ‘Referendums’, refers to any vote, referendum or election held by the governing body, in which are asked to make a decision for the governing body.
1d. ‘Honoured’ means to accept the results of a referendum and therefore try as hard as possible to follow through with the promises of the winning result, whatever that might be.


2. All public referendums held in any WA nation must have their results honoured by the governing body of that nation, unless 2b applies.
3. If it is physically impossible for the governing body to honour the result of the referendum, for any reason, but it was possible when the referendum was initially held, then the governing body must put it on hold until it is possible, and do it then instead.
4. If the governing body changes hands fully, for any reason, while it is on hold, then the result of the referendum can be rendered null and void by the new governing body, if it is against their policies.

[Araraukar]

OOC: Brexit annoyance, I take it?

Anyway, welcome to the forum and all that. You seem to have some idea of what a proposal should look like, but you should also have a look at the rules to learn about categories, and select one for your proposal. (If you're not sure after having read the rules thread, pick one that seems to be closest, and the rest of us can give you further advice. Note that the category depends on the effect of the active clauses.)

Don't spoiler your currentmost draft, only old drafts.

Also, your clause 2 says "unless 2b applies", but there is no 2b. Not even 2a.

Other than that, I don't see this idea having high chances of passing or being workable. The WA is an international organization - for a Real Life example, think of the UN or the EU; neither would make such a resolution/directive as you're proposing, because holding onto promises made of referendums remains a national issue. In a democratic system it's up to the voters to vote in the people who keep their word and vote out those who don't. In a non-democratic system the final power to decide rests on an individual or small collection of individuals anyway, not in the hands of the people, referendums or not.

Additionally, even in RL, most referendums are actually held to find out what people think of a question, rather than actually making it a legal vote to do one thing or another. That's why Brexit turned into such a mess.

NOTING the amount of WA nations that hold referendums or votes,

REALISING that many of them refuse to uphold the results,

DISGUSTED that some nations pretend to be democracies by holding ‘fake’ referendums,

OBSERVING, however, that some countries wish to not have any referendums,

Hereby declares:

1. Definitions for the purpose of this resolution

1a. ‘Governing body’ refers to the main, lawmaking governing body of any and all WA member states.
1b. ‘General Public’ refers to any person of a WA nation, not including people in or associated with the governing body.
1c. ‘Public Referendums’, or simply ‘Referendums’, refers to any vote, referendum or election held by the governing body, in which are asked to make a decision for the governing body.
1d. ‘Honoured’ means to accept the results of a referendum and therefore try as hard as possible to follow through with the promises of the winning result, whatever that might be.


2. All public referendums held in any WA nation must have their results honoured by the governing body of that nation, unless 2b applies.
3. If it is physically impossible for the governing body to honour the result of the referendum, for any reason, but it was possible when the referendum was initially held, then the governing body must put it on hold until it is possible, and do it then instead.
4. If the governing body changes hands fully, for any reason, while it is on hold, then the result of the referendum can be rendered null and void by the new governing body, if it is against their policies.

[Saint Indopeland]

OOC: Brexit annoyance, I take it?

Anyway, welcome to the forum and all that. You seem to have some idea of what a proposal should look like, but you should also have a look at the rules to learn about categories, and select one for your proposal. (If you're not sure after having read the rules thread, pick one that seems to be closest, and the rest of us can give you further advice. Note that the category depends on the effect of the active clauses.)

Don't spoiler your currentmost draft, only old drafts.

Also, your clause 2 says "unless 2b applies", but there is no 2b. Not even 2a.

Other than that, I don't see this idea having high chances of passing or being workable. The WA is an international organization - for a Real Life example, think of the UN or the EU; neither would make such a resolution/directive as you're proposing, because holding onto promises made of referendums remains a national issue. In a democratic system it's up to the voters to vote in the people who keep their word and vote out those who don't. In a non-democratic system the final power to decide rests on an individual or small collection of individuals anyway, not in the hands of the people, referendums or not.

Additionally, even in RL, most referendums are actually held to find out what people think of a question, rather than actually making it a legal vote to do one thing or another. That's why Brexit turned into such a mess.

NOTING the amount of WA nations that hold referendums or votes,

REALISING that many of them refuse to uphold the results,

DISGUSTED that some nations pretend to be democracies by holding ‘fake’ referendums,

OBSERVING, however, that some countries wish to not have any referendums,

Hereby declares:

1. Definitions for the purpose of this resolution

1a. ‘Governing body’ refers to the main, lawmaking governing body of any and all WA member states.
1b. ‘General Public’ refers to any person of a WA nation, not including people in or associated with the governing body.
1c. ‘Public Referendums’, or simply ‘Referendums’, refers to any vote, referendum or election held by the governing body, in which are asked to make a decision for the governing body.
1d. ‘Honoured’ means to accept the results of a referendum and therefore try as hard as possible to follow through with the promises of the winning result, whatever that might be.


2. All public referendums held in any WA nation must have their results honoured by the governing body of that nation, unless 2b applies.
3. If it is physically impossible for the governing body to honour the result of the referendum, for any reason, but it was possible when the referendum was initially held, then the governing body must put it on hold until it is possible, and do it then instead.
4. If the governing body changes hands fully, for any reason, while it is on hold, then the result of the referendum can be rendered null and void by the new governing body, if it is against their policies.

Thanks for the feedback. I meant 3, I originally had 2 as 2a, 3 as 2b, etc, and forgot to change it. Do you think it’s worth continuing on this idea, or should I start a new one?

[Tinfect]

Thanks for the feedback. I meant 3, I originally had 2 as 2a, 3 as 2b, etc, and forgot to change it. Do you think it’s worth continuing on this idea, or should I start a new one?

OOC:
It doesn't immediately jump out to me as illegal, but like Ara says, it'd likely be a hard fight to get passed. I highly recommend sticking around and debating other drafts before jumping into drafting another of your own; it'll help you get a feel for legislation and how things work in the GA. It's more valuable than you might think at first.

[Saint Indopeland]

Thanks for the feedback. I meant 3, I originally had 2 as 2a, 3 as 2b, etc, and forgot to change it. Do you think it’s worth continuing on this idea, or should I start a new one?

OOC:
It doesn't immediately jump out to me as illegal, but like Ara says, it'd likely be a hard fight to get passed. I highly recommend sticking around and debating other drafts before jumping into drafting another of your own; it'll help you get a feel for legislation and how things work in the GA. It's more valuable than you might think at first.

I’ll keep this draft for the future. What open topic do you recommend?

[Kenmoria]

OOC:
It doesn't immediately jump out to me as illegal, but like Ara says, it'd likely be a hard fight to get passed. I highly recommend sticking around and debating other drafts before jumping into drafting another of your own; it'll help you get a feel for legislation and how things work in the GA. It's more valuable than you might think at first.

I’ll keep this draft for the future. What open topic do you recommend?

(OOC: There’s a thread at the top of this subforum entitled ‘Ideas for General Assembly proposals’, which would be good to take a look at.)

[Separatist Peoples]

"The public is not always correct. When the public rallies behind a popular but idiotic idea, governments can and should stand in the way."

[Excidium Planetis]

"The public is not always correct. When the public rallies behind a popular but idiotic idea, governments can and should stand in the way."

"That sounds downright fascist." Schultz declares. "The authority of government is derived from the people, and should be held to their will, not the other way around."

[Greifenburg]

"That sounds downright fascist." Schultz declares. "The authority of government is derived from the people, and should be held to their will, not the other way around."

"While I agree with the sentiment, I don't agree with the ultimate assessment." Schreiner grimaces. "If the people, for example, somehow get the idea that a specific group of people should be exterminated, for whatever reason, it would be the morally right thing of the government to oppose this, even if genocide would be, in that case, the will of the people. It might be an extreme example, but the public can be very stupid and short sighted at worst, simply uninformed at best."

[Separatist Peoples]

"The public is not always correct. When the public rallies behind a popular but idiotic idea, governments can and should stand in the way."

"That sounds downright fascist." Schultz declares. "The authority of government is derived from the people, and should be held to their will, not the other way around."

"If the public seeks a policy that is outright destructive or harmful, ambassador, the government ought to give it short shrift, regardless of the label foreign dignitaries throw at them like so much waste. If the people support initiating a nuclear exchange with a neighbor the people ought be ignored."

[Excidium Planetis]

"While I agree with the sentiment, I don't agree with the ultimate assessment." Schreiner grimaces. "If the people, for example, somehow get the idea that a specific group of people should be exterminated, for whatever reason, it would be the morally right thing of the government to oppose this, even if genocide would be, in that case, the will of the people. It might be an extreme example, but the public can be very stupid and short sighted at worst, simply uninformed at best."

"Moral arguments are the weakest arguments, Ambassador." Schultz retorts. "Although in this case genocide is outlawed by the World Assembly probably, and the World Assembly acts as a sort of democratic government above that of member nations.

"Regardless, any action supported by the people can be argued to be wrong and immoral by the government. If the will of the people was in favor of legalizing interracial marriage, would you believe a government justified if it opposed the people on the grounds that it would be 'morally right' to do so?"

"If the people support initiating a nuclear exchange with a neighbor the people ought be ignored."

"I assure you, Ambassador Bell, my government has never ignored those people."

[Greifenburg]

"Moral arguments are the weakest arguments, Ambassador." Schultz retorts. "Although in this case genocide is outlawed by the World Assembly probably, and the World Assembly acts as a sort of democratic government above that of member nations.

"Regardless, any action supported by the people can be argued to be wrong and immoral by the government. If the will of the people was in favor of legalizing interracial marriage, would you believe a government justified if it opposed the people on the grounds that it would be 'morally right' to do so?"

"This is where I have to disagree heavily. While morality, in many cases, alone is not a good argument to oppose legislation, for atrocities from the magnitude of genocide it is. The fact that your government would actually consider implementing something like that on the whim of public opinion also leaves saddened, but I'm sure the officials who wave that through would argue that they 'only followed orders'."

Ambassador Schreiner shakes his had.

"Also, trying to put genocide and interracial marriage on one level? Quite childish and by far outlandish."

[Excidium Planetis]

"This is where I have to disagree heavily. While morality, in many cases, alone is not a good argument to oppose legislation, for atrocities from the magnitude of genocide it is. The fact that your government would actually consider implementing something like that on the whim of public opinion also leaves saddened, but I'm sure the officials who wave that through would argue that they 'only followed orders'."

Ambassador Schreiner shakes his had.

"Also, trying to put genocide and interracial marriage on one level? Quite childish and by far outlandish."

"That just sounds like choosing arbitrary levels of moral evil to me." Schultz replies. "Sure, putting genocide and interracial marriage on the same level, which, by the way, I wasn't doing, I was merely pointing out the flaw in your line of argument, may be ridiculous, but Ambassador, tell me, who draws the line on what actions are so morally reprehensible that the government must intervene?

"Also as a point of order, my government absolutely would commit genocide, I would not put that past them in the slightest. I mean, I'm pretty sure some of their military goons are lurking around here trying to kill me as we speak, because once upon a time I once used my power as the WA Ambassador at the time to force them to outlaw slavery, and I'm pretty sure they never forgave me for that. Speaking of which, got to go. Lovely talk." Schultz says, as she pries up the false floorboard she requested be installed in this particular drafting room, and slips into the hidden access tunnel under this part of the Headquarters.

[Separatist Peoples]

"I assure you, Ambassador Bell, my government has never ignored those people."

"That is a failing of your government and not of my argument, ambassador."

[Araraukar]

"Given that madam Schultz seems to be on the run from her own nation, I'm not sure how much - if any - credibility anything she says, actually has," Linda pointed out.

[Separatist Peoples]

"Given that madam Schultz seems to be on the run from her own nation, I'm not sure how much - if any - credibility anything she says, actually has," Linda pointed out.

"Aren't we all," Bell muses.