[DRAFT] The Subsidiarity Principle

[Knootoss]

The Furtherment of Democracy
A resolution to increase democratic freedoms.
Strength: mild

The Subsidiarity Principle

The World Assembly,

BELIEVING that political decisions should be taken as closely as possible to the citizen;

FURTHER BELIEVING that World Assembly resolutions must bring added value over and above what could be achieved by individual or member-state government action alone;

MANDATES HOPES that all future World Assembly resolutions must be necessary either
a) because actions of individuals or member-state governments alone will not achieve the objectives of the action, OR
b) because they secure greater freedoms for individual citizens of World Assembly member-states.

URGES member-states to consider similar principles in their domestic legislation.


OOC: I'm well aware that this proposal might be illegal. This draft borrows from the principle of subsidiarity as established by the European Union. (And a post was just made about not copying things! This is not a literal copy though! I also know that WA resolutions may not limit future resolutions, but that seemed to be about categorical restrictions, not procedural ones. (For example, we have a resolution dictating how the World Assembly is funded.) I'm just putting this draft up for discussion, therefore, and am hoping for some feedback.

[Tarsas]

We could never support a resolution that took power from the Emperor.
Count Paul Marlow VI
Tarsan Ambassador to the WA

[Glen-Rhodes]

OOC: This is considered a "blocker" proposal, which is illegal. It's only purpose is to block certain types of proposals from being legal.

[Knootoss]

OOC: I'm not sure if it is. It might be, but... it does not actually affect any game mechanics, nor does it enforce an ideological ban. It also sets positive standards, rather than banning. I fully expected that argument being made but... I do wonder if this type of phrasing would actually constitute a blocker proposal.

[Flibbleites]

OOC: I'm not sure if it is. It might be, but... it does not actually affect any game mechanics, nor does it enforce an ideological ban. It also sets positive standards, rather than banning. I fully expected that argument being made but... I do wonder if this type of phrasing would actually constitute a blocker proposal.

Looks like a blocker to me.

[Omigodtheykilledkenny]

OOC: This is considered a "blocker" proposal, which is illegal. It's only purpose is to block certain types of proposals from being legal.

Blockers by themselves are not illegal. Specifically forbidding future actions by the WA, however, is, and this resolution appears to cross that line. Of course, I am not a moderator.

EDIT:

Legal: "AFFIRMS the right of nations to set their own standards for table tennis."

Illegal: "FORBIDS the WA from legislating on standards for any sport."

Illegal: "Henceforth the WA shall not consider any more Education and Creativity resolutions."

[Urgench]

Are we still trapped in the endless spiral of nonsense and babble which was the infamous clash of International Federalism and National Sovereigntism? As though the dichotomy were a meaningful one.


That this statute is patently illegal is almost beside the point, that it represents the moribund arguments of a dead politics is rather more to the point.

We could never support the resurrection of such a discourse.

Yours,

[Flibbleites]

Are we still trapped in the endless spiral of nonsense and babble which was the infamous clash of International Federalism and National Sovereigntism? As though the dichotomy were a meaningful one.

Of course we are.

Bob Flibble
NSO Mafia Don

[Hiriaurtung Arororugul]

We could never support the resurrection of such a discourse.

That is because you represent the forces of global communism, Noble Khan.

I for one believe this organization would benefit from a renewed focus on the principles of National Sovereignty, rather than the rampant international federalism which grips it at present.

[Urgench]

We could never support the resurrection of such a discourse.

That is because you represent the forces of global communism, Noble Khan.

I for one believe this organization would benefit from a renewed focus on the principles of National Sovereignty, rather than the rampant international federalism which grips it at present.

Noble General we recommend that you read fewer outlandish fairytales and perhaps avoid doing so while imbibing of the opium pipe, you know very well that "communism" is a completely meaningless term in the context of Urgenchi politics. Why even the terms "leftwing" or "rightwing" have no currency in the CSKU. We oppose the reanimation of the long dead politics of the clash of Natsov and Intfed because it is a meaningless and unproductive battle which completely obscures the actual nature of the WA and tends to drag this organisation in to fruitless and irrelevant discussions regarding nonsensical and abstract ideas which contribute nothing to the quality of legislation this organisation should be endeavouring to constantly improve.

"The forces of global communism" indeed! Patently absurd.

Yours,

[Enn]

We could never support the resurrection of such a discourse.

That is because you represent the forces of global communism, Noble Khan.

I for one believe this organization would benefit from a renewed focus on the principles of National Sovereignty, rather than the rampant international federalism which grips it at present.

... And yet again, we Individual Sovereigntists get left out in the cold. Our time will come!

Stephanie Fulton, of Enn

[Hiriaurtung Arororugul]

We oppose the reanimation of the long dead politics of the clash of Natsov and Intfed

I submit to you that "Intfed" is actually alive and well and is, in fact, the ideology which dominates this body today. As for "Natsov", it is not dead but merely sleeping and needs to be awakened from its slumber.

because it is a meaningless and unproductive battle which completely obscures the actual nature of the WA

Natsov asserts that nations should be in charge of their internal affairs and the WA should limit itself to truly international concerns. How is that argument meaningless and unproductive?

and tends to drag this organisation in to fruitless and irrelevant discussions regarding nonsensical and abstract ideas

The idea that nations should govern their internal affairs without interference from the WA and that they should not have to cede their right to do so upon joining this organization is neither nonsensical nor abstract. Furthermore, the WA itself is weakened by having to wade into internal national political battles which it is ill-equipped to participate in.

which contribute nothing to the quality of legislation this organisation should be endeavouring to constantly improve.

If the WA is prevented from passing legislation which is ill-advised and overreaching then the quality of legislation is improved.

[Urgench]

I submit to you that "Intfed" is actually alive and well and is, in fact, the ideology which dominates this body today. As for "Natsov", it is not dead but merely sleeping and needs to be awakened from its slumber.

Thus far no federalisation of the members states of the WA has taken place, no organised International Federalist bloc exists, just as no National Sovereigntist bloc exists. The debates proved fruitless in the past and failed to keep themselves relevant or vivid enough to require life support.

Natsov asserts that nations should be in charge of their internal affairs and the WA should limit itself to truly international concerns. How is that argument meaningless and unproductive?

What is unproductive is spending great energy on deciding what is and what is not an issue of international concern, what is meaningless is spending time making the distinction. An issue may or may not be dealt with at a WA level, the enormous range of tasks of government which have not been regulated by the WA rather suggests that its membership has a good idea of what it thinks it can do for itself and what it thinks is better done by international regulation. Which entity has prerogative to regulate is a sideshow.

The idea that nations should govern their internal affairs without interference from the WA and that they should not have to cede their right to do so upon joining this organization is neither nonsensical nor abstract. Furthermore, the WA itself is weakened by having to wade into internal national political battles which it is ill-equipped to participate in.

The concept of the State is an abstract one, given reality only because people choose to do so, an abstract concept given reality by the whim of the human capacity for belief is not something an organisation tasked with dealing with practicalities can ever really concern itself with too greatly. Notionally giving states rights in the manner of recognising the rights of persons is even more absurd and abstruse, the WA would be weakened by being wracked with the obscure distracting debates regarding such utterly metaphysical nonsense.

If the WA is prevented from passing legislation which is ill-advised and overreaching then the quality of legislation is improved.

While we do not think that National Sovereigntism is best placed to achieve this end we will agree that it is a desirable outcome.



Yours,

[Flibbleites]

I submit to you that "Intfed" is actually alive and well and is, in fact, the ideology which dominates this body today. As for "Natsov", it is not dead but merely sleeping and needs to be awakened from its slumber.

Thus far no federalisation of the members states of the WA has taken place, no organised International Federalist bloc exists,

Just becauss there is no organized IntFed movement doesn't mean that the IntFed movement doesn't exist. Heck, the IntFeds tried to organize themselves in the past and never manged to succeed, but even that never stopped the movement from continuing to exist.

just as no National Sovereigntist bloc exists.

Whoever told you that is sadly misinformed. The NSO might be a little dormant right now, but we're still here.

Bob Flibble
NSO Mafia Don

[Urgench]

Just becauss there is no organized IntFed movement doesn't mean that the IntFed movement doesn't exist. Heck, the IntFeds tried to organize themselves in the past and never manged to succeed, but even that never stopped the movement from continuing to exist.

If it is not organised in any way, how can it be called a movement?

Whoever told you that is sadly misinformed. The NSO might be a little dormant right now, but we're still here.

For all intents and purposes this dormancy constitutes the verisimilitude of death.



Yours,

[Knootoss]

Does Urgench actually challenge the assertions in the proposal? Do you not believe that World Assembly resolutions ought to have added value above individual or member-state government action?

[Urgench]

Does Urgench actually challenge the assertions in the proposal? Do you not believe that World Assembly resolutions ought to have added value above individual or member-state government action?

We do not believe that it is necessary to make such a stipulation in the form of a resolution. What constitutes "added value" is in any case completely nebulous, though presumably that value is assessed by member states on a resolution by resolution basis. What the criterion for this "added value" might be is frankly so contestable that any attempt to construct it would be like trying to herd starlings. Besides any resolution can be repealed, meaning that merely stating what resolutions should or should not be able to deal with (besides being illegal) would become instantly a hostage to fortune were it to be assented to by this organisation, making that criterion both meaningless and fleeting.


Ultimately trying to define the purpose of the WA is like trying to define the purpose of one's hands, certainly there is a basic underlying utility to them but beyond that basis is an infinite variety of possible uses which it would be utterly foolish and illogical to discount by being wedded to some narrow and clumsy doctrine.


Yours,

[Hiriaurtung Arororugul]

Does Urgench actually challenge the assertions in the proposal? Do you not believe that World Assembly resolutions ought to have added value above individual or member-state government action?

We do not believe that it is necessary to make such a stipulation in the form of a resolution. What constitutes "added value" is in any case completely nebulous, though presumably that value is assessed by member states on a resolution by resolution basis. What the criterion for this "added value" might be is frankly so contestable that any attempt to construct it would be like trying to herd starlings. Besides any resolution can be repealed, meaning that merely stating what resolutions should or should not be able to deal with (besides being illegal) would become instantly a hostage to fortune were it to be assented to by this organisation, making that criterion both meaningless and fleeting.


Ultimately trying to define the purpose of the WA is like trying to define the purpose of one's hands, certainly there is a basic underlying utility to them but beyond that basis is an infinite variety of possible uses which it would be utterly foolish and illogical to discount by being wedded to some narrow and clumsy doctrine.


Yours,

I take "added value" to mean that it is something which national governments could not achieve on their own, or something which could be done more efficiently with WA involvement.

[Hiriaurtung Arororugul]

For all intents and purposes this dormancy constitutes the verisimilitude of death.

Your dismissive attitude makes me think now is the time to reinvigorate the NSO and undertake a recruiting campaign.

A revival! Hallelujah!

[Urgench]

I take "added value" to mean that it is something which national governments could not achieve on their own, or something which could be done more efficiently with WA involvement.

That is a deceptively simple rubric Noble General, one given to a plethora of interpretations and disputes.

Your dismissive attitude makes me think now is the time to reinvigorate the NSO and undertake a recruiting campaign.

A revival! Hallelujah!

A revival we will be happy to have been the provocation of.

Yours,

[Diatraba]

To the Honourable members of this Assembly;
We, the Council of Directors, having received advice from the Assembly and the House, do not grant our assent and do not condone this, The subsidiarity principle bill. Thus, we order that this Bill be dismissed forthwith, at this time, 20:18, on the, Eighth of May in the Year of 2010
We dismiss this bill because we consider this bill to be in violation of the fundamental laws of this Assembly - that no bill, however well written, may attempt to subvert, or pervert the course of any of the fundamental laws of this Assembly.
May the World Assembly prosper forevermore, our best regards, the Council of Directors.

Pour les membres de cette honorable Assemblée;
Nous, le Conseil d'administration, ayant reçu un avis de l'Assemblée et de la Chambre, ne pas accorder notre assentiment et nous n'admettons pas cela, le projet de loi principe de subsidiarité. Ainsi, nous ordonnons que ce projet de loi soit rejeté sans délai, à cette époque, 20:18, sur le, huitième mois de mai de l'année 2010
Nous rejetons ce projet de loi parce que nous considérons ce projet de loi à être en violation des lois fondamentales de cette Assemblée - qu'aucun projet de loi, aussi bien écrite, peut essayer de subvertir, ou détourner le cours de l'une des lois fondamentales de la présente Assemblée.
Que l'Assemblée mondiale de la prospérité à tout jamais, nos meilleures salutations, le Conseil d'administration.

A los miembros de esta Honorable Asamblea;
Nosotros, el Consejo de Administración, tras haber recibido el asesoramiento de la Asamblea y la Cámara, no otorgan su consentimiento y no toleran esto, el proyecto de ley principio de subsidiariedad. Por lo tanto, pedimos que este proyecto se desestimó de inmediato, en este momento, 20:18, en el, ocho de mayo en el Año de 2010
Rechazamos este proyecto porque consideramos que este proyecto de ley para estar en la violación de las leyes fundamentales de esta Asamblea - que ningún proyecto de ley, por muy bien escrita, puede tratar de subvertir o pervertir el curso de cualquiera de las leyes fundamentales de esta Asamblea.
Que la Asamblea Mundial de la prosperidad para siempre, nuestros mejores deseos, el Consejo de Administración.

Per gli onorevoli parlamentari di questa Assemblea;
Noi, il Consiglio di Amministrazione, dopo aver ricevuto un parere da parte dell'Assemblea e la Casa, non concedere il nostro assenso e non tolleriamo questo, la polizza principio di sussidiarietà. Pertanto, ordiniamo che questo progetto venga respinto immediatamente, in questo momento, 20:18, sulla, otto maggio del 2010 l'Anno
Noi respingere questo disegno di legge perché riteniamo questo progetto di legge per essere in violazione delle leggi fondamentali di questa Assemblea - che nessun disegno di legge, per quanto ben scritto, può tentare di sovvertire, o pervertito corso di una delle leggi fondamentali di questa Assemblea.
Possa l'Assemblea Mondiale prosperare per sempre, i nostri migliori saluti, il Consiglio di Amministrazione.

OOC: Basically, I'm saying that I'm not supporting this because I think it's metagaming

[Embolalia]

Yikes. The Ambassador from Embolalia would like to ask the Ambassador from Diatraba to settle down. This proposal is absolutely against the rules of the World Assembly. But I don't think you get to "order" it to be removed. Try "request". Even "insist". Catch more flies with honey, yeah?
I yield the floor.

[Sargassah]

Yikes. The Ambassador from Embolalia would like to ask the Ambassador from Diatraba to settle down. This proposal is absolutely against the rules of the World Assembly. But I don't think you get to "order" it to be removed. Try "request". Even "insist". Catch more flies with honey, yeah?
I yield the floor.

I also mentioned that 'votes' are for the GA [General Assembly].
I can't quite remember where I put it down now... (looks for his glasses)

[Hiriaurtung Arororugul]

Thus, we order that this Bill be dismissed forthwith, at this time, 20:18, on the, Eighth of May in the Year of 2010

Just shut up. You don't have the authority to dismiss anything.

[Embolalia]

Yikes. The Ambassador from Embolalia would like to ask the Ambassador from Diatraba to settle down. This proposal is absolutely against the rules of the World Assembly. But I don't think you get to "order" it to be removed. Try "request". Even "insist". Catch more flies with honey, yeah?
I yield the floor.

I also mentioned that 'votes' are for the GA [General Assembly].
I can't quite remember where I put it down now... (looks for his glasses)

Repeal General Patent Charter. The Ambassador for Diatraba was ordering that off the floor too.