(SUBMITTED) Repeal WA General Fund

[Grays Harbor]

Repeal the WA General Fund? Really? Excuse us while we go chuckle in the corner.

[Hindopia]

Major problem: Since other resolutions rely on the existence of the WAGF, repealing this would not completely kill the WAGF. If another resolution relies on a committee, organisation etc created by another resolution, and the latter is repealed, the committee etc stays in effect, albeit in a smaller capacity.

Here: "A Proposal must be able to stand on its own even if all referenced Resolutions were struck from existance; however, you may assign duties to an existing committee. Should the Resolution that creates the committe be Repealed, the committee will continue to exist, but in a reduced capacity. If your Proposal "builds on" an existing Resolution, you're ammending that resolution. Excessive back referencing is not acceptable either. Create a new Proposal, don't just parrot existing ones. (see: Duplication)"

To effectively remove the WAGF from existence, you would need to repeal every other resolution that relies on it. Which is, I'm guessing, a lot of resolutions. Good luck. *chuckles quietly*

[Syvorji]

My fellow ambassadors, I understand Hindopia's policy, but rather, the WA General Fund would basically be ceremonial until such time a new resolution is made. And really, what's the opposition doing here? I know the debate, so I hope many do repeal it.

Signed,
Joesphine Katrina

[Genoca (Ancient)]

I believe that any resolution intending to replace the WAGF would, in my opinion, need to be developed concurrently with the repeal to ensure no significant length of time elapsed without a functioning WAGF.

Also the replacement resolution would, of course, need to be called WA General Fund or it would become necessary to repeal several resolutions which no-one wants.

All in all, this does seem to be a lot of hassle to repeal a resolution that no-one is terribly concerned about.

[Omigodtheykilledkenny]

This enterprise is so stunningly ignorant of history it's a wonder the author even remembered that the UN is now the WA. WA General Fund is virtually the only funding program that voters could be compelled to support. It emerged from a long series of funding proposal drafts, all of which failed to garner the necessary support, and years worth of funding debates. During this time it was learned that the UN/WA -- though quite fond of approving expensive new programs for their beloved international organization -- was about as likely to pay for these programs themselves as Lindsay Lohan is to be named Miss Drug-Free America. Two of these programs, presumably more to the Syvorji rep's liking, which instituted mandatory fees and still somehow found their way to quorum, were both defeated by over 75% of the vote. Even Ways and Means, submitted shortly after the WA was formed, when the cause for WA funding was likely at its peak of popularity, was spiked by a 78%-22% margin. After all these failed trials, it was determined that the only way the WA would approve funding for itself was if the resolution relied on public donations, did not include a clause explicitly forcing members to contribute, returned surpluses to contributing states, and included a provision forbidding the direct taxation of citizens. Even the regions of Gatesville, Wysteria and Texas, all of whom were adamantly opposed to all previous funding schemes, could be enticed to support this version. You can find out more here: http://www.nswiki.net/index.php?title=WA_General_Fund

But hey, if you want to repeal a sure thing in favor of a random series of vague ideas that aren't guaranteed to get anywhere, be my guest. I'm no longer in the WA and don't have to suffer from its mistakes.

[Omigodtheykilledkenny]

Major problem: Since other resolutions rely on the existence of the WAGF, repealing this would not completely kill the WAGF. If another resolution relies on a committee, organisation etc created by another resolution, and the latter is repealed, the committee etc stays in effect, albeit in a smaller capacity.

Here: "A Proposal must be able to stand on its own even if all referenced Resolutions were struck from existance; however, you may assign duties to an existing committee. Should the Resolution that creates the committe be Repealed, the committee will continue to exist, but in a reduced capacity. If your Proposal "builds on" an existing Resolution, you're ammending that resolution. Excessive back referencing is not acceptable either. Create a new Proposal, don't just parrot existing ones. (see: Duplication)"

To effectively remove the WAGF from existence, you would need to repeal every other resolution that relies on it. Which is, I'm guessing, a lot of resolutions. Good luck. *chuckles quietly*

WAGF is not a committee, so technically all references to it in succeeding resolutions are House of Cards, not committee expansions. The GAO can be (and has been) expanded by other resolutions, but any resolution relying on "WA General Fund" for resources would be SOL if WAGF is repealed -- unless, as Genoca suggests, the replacement is also named "WA General Fund." Which would be patently ridiculous.

Also, I never realized the rules sticky contained that many typos.

[Flibbleites]

I agree with your statement that the General Fund will pay for it, because donations are voluntary and it leads to confusion, hence why I proposed the repeal.

Signed,
Joesphine Katrina

Would you be so kind and do me a favor, could you please point out exactly where in the WAGF resolution it states that the donations to the General Fund are voluntary?

Bob Flibble
WA Representative

[Syvorji]

I agree with your statement that the General Fund will pay for it, because donations are voluntary and it leads to confusion, hence why I proposed the repeal.

Signed,
Joesphine Katrina

Would you be so kind and do me a favor, could you please point out exactly where in the WAGF resolution it states that the donations to the General Fund are voluntary?

Bob Flibble
WA Representative

The deceptive wording causes the assumption that donations are voluntary. The source is on the NSWiki page of the WA General Fund.

I believe that any resolution intending to replace the WAGF would, in my opinion, need to be developed concurrently with the repeal to ensure no significant length of time elapsed without a functioning WAGF.

Also the replacement resolution would, of course, need to be called WA General Fund or it would become necessary to repeal several resolutions which no-one wants.

All in all, this does seem to be a lot of hassle to repeal a resolution that no-one is terribly concerned about.

Congratulations, your title idea just parrots the repealed resolution. Be my guest, if you want to do so.

Signed,
Joesphine Katrina

[Flibbleites]

Would you be so kind and do me a favor, could you please point out exactly where in the WAGF resolution it states that the donations to the General Fund are voluntary?

Bob Flibble
WA Representative

The deceptive wording causes the assumption that donations are voluntary. The source is on the NSWiki page of the WA General Fund.

Exactly, people assume that the donations are voluntary, when in fact they aren't. That's how we got it passed in the first place, as was pointed out here, every time the mandatory nature was made obvious, the proposal failed miserably. So now the question is, why do you want to take away the WA's funding?

Bob Flibble
WA Representative

[Syvorji]

The deceptive wording causes the assumption that donations are voluntary. The source is on the NSWiki page of the WA General Fund.

Exactly, people assume that the donations are voluntary, when in fact they aren't. That's how we got it passed in the first place, as was pointed out here, every time the mandatory nature was made obvious, the proposal failed miserably. So now the question is, why do you want to take away the WA's funding?

Bob Flibble
WA Representative

Because donations are mandatory and if it were pointed out, it would be a whole lot easier in the WA, so people can actually donate a lot, and the deceptive wording just confuses people.

Signed,
Joesphine Katrina

[Omigodtheykilledkenny]

So, basically, you've read all the info on why the UN/WA kept rejecting explicit mandatory-funding resolutions before WAGF, and you still think a more hardline approach is a better idea? I wish to revise my previous statement that your delegation is ignorant of history. Just scratch the "of history" part.

[Charlotte Ryberg]

If the WA General Fund is repealed, how would the organization would be able to benefit from huge cash injections from Minoa (Charlotte Ryberg) and Jey in 2009? (according to this post, however the figures may have changed since.)

[Flibbleites]

Exactly, people assume that the donations are voluntary, when in fact they aren't. That's how we got it passed in the first place, as was pointed out here, every time the mandatory nature was made obvious, the proposal failed miserably. So now the question is, why do you want to take away the WA's funding?

Bob Flibble
WA Representative

Because donations are mandatory and if it were pointed out, it would be a whole lot easier in the WA, so people can actually donate a lot, and the deceptive wording just confuses people.

Signed,
Joesphine Katrina

Nice try, but I'm not going to let you spin here. Now answer my question, why are you trying to repeal a proposal that finds the WA to replace it with one that explicitly spells out mandatory contributions when you know full well that when when that tried in the past it failed?

Bob Flibble
WA Representative

[Jesoland]

Alexander Bonaga-Tronchera is scribbling on the margins of his newspaper, drawing a caricature of the Flibbleites ambassador, when a sudden idea turns in his mind. He chuckles to himself for his salaciousness, then he tells it to his neighbor in the seats.

But, if WA cheated...

"What?" - his neighbor is a bit deaf, so Alexander has to repeat

But, if WA misleads member nations with this story of compulsive donations, it is the same than a government deceiving his citizens! How can we make the world a better place if we behave as the most devious of the dictatoships?

It seems not a good, but a very good reason to repeal that resolution.

Besides, you know that a lot of member nations don't contribute to General Fund, because they claim that donations are voluntary; and I can hardly blame them.

I don't know, obviously, how the things go in your nation, but in my country a donation must be voluntary, otherwise it isn't valid (in absentia animi donandi, non est donatio, as a proverb says that I just invented).

Think about the mess that would be if someone else realized this...

Because of the sudden silence that was made around, Alexander realizes that everyone heard him

[Syvorji]

Because donations are mandatory and if it were pointed out, it would be a whole lot easier in the WA, so people can actually donate a lot, and the deceptive wording just confuses people.

Signed,
Joesphine Katrina

Nice try, but I'm not going to let you spin here. Now answer my question, why are you trying to repeal a proposal that finds the WA to replace it with one that explicitly spells out mandatory contributions when you know full well that when when that tried in the past it failed?

Bob Flibble
WA Representative

Because it prevents confusion. End of story.

Signed,
Joesphine Katrina

[Grays Harbor]

We fail to see what is so 'confusing' about the WA General Fund. We will oppose this repeal attempt vigorously.

[Flibbleites]

Nice try, but I'm not going to let you spin here. Now answer my question, why are you trying to repeal a proposal that finds the WA to replace it with one that explicitly spells out mandatory contributions when you know full well that when when that tried in the past it failed?

Bob Flibble
WA Representative

Because it prevents confusion. End of story.

Signed,
Joesphine Katrina

But a replacement that explicitly calls for mandatory contributions will fail miserably, history proves that. So why do you what to strip the WA of its funding?

Bob Flibble
WA Representative

[Xanthal]

Xanthal's strong distaste for the General Fund is among our more well-documented WA positions. However, as much as I would like to see it go, the WA has come to rely on the taxation the General Fund enables. Unless the General Accounting Office is shown to be abusing its powers to the detriment of member states, I cannot in good faith support a repeal of the General Fund without an acceptable replacement on the table.

Riley Fluffer

[Jesoland]

We fail to see what is so 'confusing' about the WA General Fund. We will oppose this repeal attempt vigorously.

Honorable Ambassador,

1. Declares that the World Assembly shall be funded by donations from member states;
(omissis)
4.Provides that national donations to the General Fund shall be assessed annually by the GAO, according to donors' national wealth and ability to give;

Furthermore, we may peruse our annals - as suggested by Omygodtheykilledkenny - and we would read

Much confusion was sown in the early hours of the debate as several delegations, led by the gormless MapleLeafss representatives (who initially favored the legislation), claimed the ambiguity of the resolution's language meant the donations would be voluntary. Jaynova and Scotchpinestan chimed in in agreement, announcing their opposition to the bill on the grounds that the text was "unclear." Marx-Rawls' diplomat also agreed that the donations were voluntary, though we're unsure as to his actual position on the bill; we assume he only participated in the debate so he could demonstrate his immense wanking skills.
Proponents Urgench and Powerhungry Chipmunks took issue with MapleLeafss' claims, arguing that the donations were clearly intended to be mandatory. Before long, PC and ML were quoting dueling dictionaries to each other, and the assembly floor descended into chaos as delegates dithered endlessly over the definitions of "assessed" "solicited," and "donations." Cerys Coch of Gobbannium flashed the Kennyites an "I told you so" look, having forewarned that the wording might cause such a situation.But privately, the Kennyites could not have been happier over the discord, knowing that as long as the assembly remained clueless as to whether nations would be required to pay or not, many would vote in favor, on the basis that they wouldn't.(boldface by me)
(omissis)
the Kennyites had even openly boasted about their duplicitous tactics mere days before voting began -

Now, we understand that "that's done, is done" but we think you cannot agree with us that this is a misconduct in international policy as it would be in domestic one.

We acknowledge that a replacement resolution would be awkward both to write and to approve, but it isn't a good reason to go on with this.

Our office, with the support of Jesolandic Ministry for Foreign Affairs, would have - has - a such proposal, if this assembly deems it worthy to be heard.

[Grays Harbor]

(you are seriously using an obviously tongue-in-cheek RP as the primary argument for repealing this?)

Despite your highlighted sections of the resolution, we still fail to see anything confusing about this. Nothing.

[Xanthal]

(you are seriously using an obviously tongue-in-cheek RP as the primary argument for repealing this?)

((Tongue-in-cheek, perhaps, but nonetheless a faithful representation of reality. I know, I was there. And I'm just as unhappy OOC as Xanthal's delegation was and is IC about the deceptive tactics Kenny openly admitted to using.))

[Jesoland]

(you are seriously using an obviously tongue-in-cheek RP as the primary argument for repealing this?)

Despite your highlighted sections of the resolution, we still fail to see anything confusing about this. Nothing.

Our primary argument is that this resolution is misleading and probably written in bad faith (id est, it was intentionally misleading in order to be approved): and the proof that it's misleading is the ambiguity about so-called "donations".

The confusing point is that a donation, to be true, must be two properties donations in GA#17 don't have:

1. The donor must be driven by animus donandi, id est he mustn't be required to do so
2. The donee can be required a service in return, but it mustn't exhaust the value of the donation. Requiring that any surplus is returned to member nations, it follows that WA doesn't enrich. And donee's enrichment is the second necessary condition for defining a donation.

So, those prescribed by GA#17 are donations neither de facto nor de jure.

[Coxnord]

APPLAUDING GA Resolution #16, WA General Fund, for it's (sic) intent to help fund WA organizations,

...

ARGUING that the deceptive wording have (sic) ruined the intents of GA Resolution #16,

The Holy Empire would like to ask in what way the so-called deceptive wording has ruined the intent to help fund WA organisations.

[Syvorji]

APPLAUDING GA Resolution #16, WA General Fund, for it's (sic) intent to help fund WA organizations,

...

ARGUING that the deceptive wording have (sic) ruined the intents of GA Resolution #16,

The Holy Empire would like to ask in what way the so-called deceptive wording has ruined the intent to help fund WA organisations.

Because it led members to assume donations are voluntary when in reality, donations are mandatory, hence the repeal.

Signed,
Joesphine Katrina

[Jesoland]

Xanthal's strong distaste for the General Fund is among our more well-documented WA positions. However, as much as I would like to see it go, the WA has come to rely on the taxation the General Fund enables. Unless the General Accounting Office is shown to be abusing its powers to the detriment of member states, I cannot in good faith support a repeal of the General Fund without an acceptable replacement on the table.

Riley Fluffer

I am not very good at writing resolutions (actually, I never tried), but I think I sufficiently know international law to point out the very core of the matter.

WA needs funds, it can’t be helped, and member nations must contribute to it, without loopholes.

Being WA an international body, it hasn’t per se a real sovereignty, but its member nations have. I acknowledge that this position is very similar to which of NatSov party, but it’s the case in international law.

Applying for WA, members nations sign a treaty which must have not only legislative clauses (the obligation to enact WAGA resolutions, above all) but also economic ones.
It isn’t a taxation by WA, or a some kind of tribute, but a contribution to WA functioning. The difference it’s that one individual citizen cannot refuse to pay taxes, while a nation can resign WA if don’t want to contribute to it (in the same way it can resign not for enacting a resolution). In this spirit, WA is (and should be, if I can say) more similar to a supranational alliance than to a “real” government.

So, my draft might sound like this:

This assembly,

COMMITTING to providing for a stable, reliable and fair source of funding for the World Assembly and its operations,
ACKNOWLEDGING that World Assembly subsist because of the will of the member nations;
RECOGNIZING that WA membership is voluntary and every member nation has the possibility to leave WA in any moment;
BEING DETERMINED to prevent anti-economical and/or not founded practices

1. ESTABLISHES WA General Fund which shall be the central source for the funding of WA operations, and the monies from which shall be spent only on maintaining the administration of the WA and missions established by a vote of the World Assembly;
   
2. ESTABLISHES the WA General Accounting Office (GAO) to collect contributes to General Fund, calculate available and projected fund for each fiscal year, publish an annual budget for the World Assembly, and certify that all appropriation therein are disbursed and utilized in a responsible manner;
   
3. PROVIDES that national contributions to the General Found shall be bilaterally set by GAO and member nations according to member nation’s national wealth and ability to give;
   3a. ALLOWS the amount of contribution to be adjusted annually, with the agreement of both the parties;
   
4. INFERS that nations applying for the admission are aware of the economic side of WA membership and hence
   4b. REQUIRES that GAO and candidate members shall sign a financial agreement simultaneously with the WA admission.
   
5. FORBIDS the WA from engaging in deficit spending;
   
6. AFFIRMS the right of member nations to maintain full authority over domestic taxation policies, barring those that may be in contrast with WA general legislation;
   
7. STRONGLY ENCOURAGES member states to provide for an appropriate degree of public accountability and transparency in decisions made regarding budgets and taxation.
   
8. ENCOURAGES individuals citizens, private companies and corporations to voluntarily donate to WA General Fund or to WA organizations and offices;
   8a. RECOMMENDS member states to facilitate such donations by a dedicated tax system.

I used a lot of ohmygodtheykilledkenny’s words because of this new resolution is a sort of amendment of his one and I agree with the function of General Fund and GAO as it has been established.

Of course, I will welcome tips and modifications which won't change its basic meaning.