[SUBMITTED] Repeal "National Economic Freedoms"

[Cute Puppies]

Repeal "National Economic Freedoms"
Category: Repeal | Resolution: GA#68 | Proposed by: Cute Puppies

National Economic Freedoms (Category: Free Trade; Strength: Strong) shall be struck out and rendered null and void.

The General Assembly,

Commending the noble efforts of GAR#68 for attempting to protect the integrity of member nations' economies;

However, appalled by the resolution's ambiguity and vague text which makes it exceptionally vulnerable to abuse and loopholes, flaws which essentially prevent the resolution from accomplishing its goal of protecting national economic freedoms;

Distressed by the resolution's mandate stating that "no commerce be generally restricted by the WA except in the instance where the enterprise causes an extreme hazard to national populations,";

1. This clause imposes tremendous limits to the World Assembly's authority to regulate commerce, especially on issues such as the sale of illegal contraband and hazardous materials, workers' rights and discrimination, and on pollution from industrial waste disposal;

Perplexed by the department created by GAR#68, Impartial Mediation Foundation, and its equivocal and ill-defined goals to "investigate, mediate, and arbitrate any conflicts that arise,";

1. The resolution fails to define how the organization, Impartial Mediation Foundation, functions, what it does, and what conflicts it deals with;

Desiring to make way for a resolution that more effectively deals with the issue of economic freedoms of member nations;

Hereby repeals GAR#68, "National Economic Freedoms"

Repeal "National Economic Freedoms"
Category: Repeal | Resolution: GA#68 | Proposed by: Cute Puppies

National Economic Freedoms (Category: Free Trade; Strength: Strong) shall be struck out and rendered null and void.

The General Assembly,

Commending the noble efforts of GAR#68 for attempting to protect the integrity of member nations' economies;

However,

Appalled by the resolution's ambiguity and vague text which makes it exceptionally vulnerable to abuse and loopholes;

Convinced that most of the resolution's text holds little significance, value, or relevance to its mandates despite GAR#68 being classified as a "Strong" resolution on free trade;

1. The "Noting" clause in the preamble fails to provide any context to the subject matter the resolution is based on;
2. Its first mandate, "Allows national governments to regulate commerce within their jurisdiction," is nothing more than negligible rhetoric;

Distressed by the resolution's mandate stating that "no commerce be generally restricted by the WA except in the instance where the enterprise causes an extreme hazard to national populations,";

1. In essence, this clause limits the World Assembly's authority to regulate commerce greatly, especially on issues such as workers' rights, pollution from the manufacturing sector, and welfare;

Perplexed by the department created by GAR#68, Impartial Mediation Foundation, and its equivocal and ill-defined goals to "investigate, mediate, and arbitrate any conflicts that arise,";

1. The resolution fails to define what the Impartial Mediation Foundation does, and what conflicts it deals with;

Hereby repeals GAR#68, "National Economic Freedoms"

GAR#68, National Economic Freedoms

[Imperium Anglorum]

I'd prefer use of alphabetical lists. Also, generally, preamble clauses end with commas rather than semicolons, with lists introduced with colons. I'm also unclear about the purpose of a 1-element list. And the last sentence needs to end with a full stop.

[Cute Puppies]

I'd prefer use of alphabetical lists.

OOC: Noted. I'll revise that.
If you don't mind me asking, how do you feel about repealing GAR#68, and do you believe the reasoning I provided in my proposal effectively deals with why GAR#68 should be repealed?

[Imperium Anglorum]

If you don't mind me asking, how do you feel about repealing GAR#68, and do you believe the reasoning I provided in my proposal effectively deals with why GAR#68 should be repealed?

I support repeal of GA 68. I've written my own resolution to achieve that goal. If you are in earnest with this proposal, I will happily give you authorisation to incorporate portions of that proposal into this one.

[Cute Puppies]

If you don't mind me asking, how do you feel about repealing GAR#68, and do you believe the reasoning I provided in my proposal effectively deals with why GAR#68 should be repealed?

I support repeal of GA 68. I've written my own resolution to achieve that goal. If you are in earnest with this proposal, I will happily give you authorisation to incorporate portions of that proposal into this one.

That's a very generous offer! Thank you so much! I would love to collaborate with you on this topic, and will credit you as co-author for your support if I incorporate portions of your proposal into my proposal. But, because you're undoubtedly a better writer and have far more experience in the WA, if you wish to submit your repeal first, I'll be happy to put my proposal aside.

[Cute Puppies]

OOC: I made some grammatical edits and minor reformatting.

[Glory to the HYPNOTOAD]

Virkanys psychotic dictatorship believes that this resolution should not be repealed. WA Delegate speaking on behalf of the region. Good day to you sir!

[Cute Puppies]

Virkanys psychotic dictatorship believes that this resolution should not be repealed. WA Delegate speaking on behalf of the region. Good day to you sir!

Why do you believe this resolution should stay on the General Assembly? Would you possibly reconsider supporting this repeal of there was chance of another proposal ammending National Economic Freedoms' problems while reestablishing some of its positive mandates?

[Misthas]

Personally, I'd support repealing any resolution that supports economic freedom. URA!

[Glory to the HYPNOTOAD]

Virkanys psychotic dictatorship believes that this resolution should not be repealed. WA Delegate speaking on behalf of the region. Good day to you sir!

Why do you believe this resolution should stay on the General Assembly? Would you possibly reconsider supporting this repeal of there was chance of another proposal ammending National Economic Freedoms' problems while reestablishing some of its positive mandates?

I believe that this would be a good arrangement for Virkanys phychotic dictatorship, we wish to have our own right on how we govern our economy, however at first it seemed that you were trying to take away that, our apologizes if we misunderstood. Good day to you sir!

EDIT due to grammer

[Cute Puppies]

Bump

[Imperium Anglorum]

This didn't really need a bump.

[Cute Puppies]

OOC Draft 2 is up. I reformatted the proposal, elaborated on some of my clauses, and added a clause which brings attention to GAR#68's mandate, national governments to compensate any individual, group of individuals, or national governments for any physical property or money seized by that national government, excepting those assets used for criminal enterprise," a mandate that I feel to be completely irrelevant to national economic freedoms and free trade.

EDIT: I added a poll

[The New Nordic Union]

despite GAR#68 being classified as a "Strong" resolution on free trade

More of a question than a note: I am not sure in how far the strength classifications are in universe or rather meta-gaming/game mechanics.

[Cute Puppies]

despite GAR#68 being classified as a "Strong" resolution on free trade

More of a question than a note: I am not sure in how far the strength classifications are in universe or rather meta-gaming/game mechanics.

OOC: A resolution can (in increasing order of strength) be considered mild, significant, or strong. According the the official guide, "General Assembly Rules for Proposals," a resolution's strength "determines the effect a proposal has on a nation's policy." The term, strong, refers to a resolution with "a very broad area of policy in a dramatic way" and is the greatest degree of strength a resolution can be.

[The New Nordic Union]

More of a question than a note: I am not sure in how far the strength classifications are in universe or rather meta-gaming/game mechanics.

OOC: A resolution can (in increasing order of strength) be considered mild, significant, or strong. According the the official guide, "General Assembly Rules for Proposals," a resolution's strength "determines the effect a proposal has on a nation's policy." The term, strong, refers to a resolution with "a very broad area of policy in a dramatic way" and is the greatest degree of strength a resolution can be.

Yes, that I know, of course. What I mean, however, is whether this is something we can adress in other resolutions, or not. Because when a proposal has incorrect strength, it is normally illegal, and if I recall correctly, illegality is not a reason for appeal.

[Cute Puppies]

OOC: A resolution can (in increasing order of strength) be considered mild, significant, or strong. According the the official guide, "General Assembly Rules for Proposals," a resolution's strength "determines the effect a proposal has on a nation's policy." The term, strong, refers to a resolution with "a very broad area of policy in a dramatic way" and is the greatest degree of strength a resolution can be.

Yes, that I know, of course. What I mean, however, is whether this is something we can adress in other resolutions, or not. Because when a proposal has incorrect strength, it is normally illegal, and if I recall correctly, illegality is not a reason for appeal.

Apologies. My intention of bringing up its strength in my repeal is to point out how many of its clauses and mandates are very minimal and negligible - not to challenge the legality of the resolution - but to show how the resolution was poorly written.
Thank you for pointing out your concerns. I'll try to rewrite this clause in the next draft in order to get my point across better.

[Kenmoria]

"Do you have a replacement being drafted?"

[Cute Puppies]

"Do you have a replacement being drafted?"

"It's currently being drafted. However, being that I have never made a proposal to the GA that has passed, I would prefer to work closely with an experienced writer and regional delegates to make an improved bill reaffirming nation's economic freedoms and rectifying what GAR68 failed to do."

[Burninati0n]

"It's currently being drafted. However, being that I have never made a proposal to the GA that has passed, I would prefer to work closely with an experienced writer and regional delegates to make an improved bill reaffirming nation's economic freedoms and rectifying what GAR68 failed to do."

IA is in favor of this because GAR#68 effectively blocks the GA from imposing certain kinds of free trade / free market policies, which I presume he wishes could be established. (Incidentally, it also effectively blocks the GA from imposing certain anti-trade/anti-market policies.)

However, given the current flavor of the WA, it's probably not wise to repeal GAR#68 unless you're immediately intending to block the imposition of certain free trade / free market policies, since the WA vote leans a bit in that direction. That said, there are huge issues with GAR#68, many of which you mention.

So in short, I would like to see GAR#68 repealed, but only with some assurance that its repeal won't be a door opening to the imposition of neoliberal policies on nations (such as my own) that have no interest in being ravaged by the disaster that is neoliberalism.

[Cute Puppies]

"It's currently being drafted. However, being that I have never made a proposal to the GA that has passed, I would prefer to work closely with an experienced writer and regional delegates to make an improved bill reaffirming nation's economic freedoms and rectifying what GAR68 failed to do."

IA is in favor of this because GAR#68 effectively blocks the GA from imposing certain kinds of free trade / free market policies, which I presume he wishes could be established. (Incidentally, it also effectively blocks the GA from imposing certain anti-trade/anti-market policies.)

However, given the current flavor of the WA, it's probably not wise to repeal GAR#68 unless you're immediately intending to block the imposition of certain free trade / free market policies, since the WA vote leans a bit in that direction. That said, there are huge issues with GAR#68, many of which you mention.

So in short, I would like to see GAR#68 repealed, but only with some assurance that its repeal won't be a door opening to the imposition of neoliberal policies on nations (such as my own) that have no interest in being ravaged by the disaster that is neoliberalism.

What would you specifically like to see in the replacement proposal?

[Burninati0n]

What would you specifically like to see in the replacement proposal?

Basically the remainder of the proposal after the excision of the clause about having to compensate private property owners. (That clause would essentially make it an international violation to have a communist revolution if people were reading it closely.) The blocker on the WA being used for arbitrary trade restrictions (or loosenings) serves to protect us from a neoliberal firestorm, and I appreciate that.

However, this is not at all an area in which I am familiar with writing, so good luck with that

[Separatist Peoples]

What would you specifically like to see in the replacement proposal?

Basically the remainder of the proposal after the excision of the clause about having to compensate private property owners. (That clause would essentially make it an international violation to have a communist revolution if people were reading it closely.) The blocker on the WA being used for arbitrary trade restrictions (or loosenings) serves to protect us from a neoliberal firestorm, and I appreciate that.

However, this is not at all an area in which I am familiar with writing, so good luck with that

"That assumes that a revolution wouldn't operate as a de facto resignation. A transition from not-communist to communist over time wouldn't face significant cost issues, since nationalization could be done on schedule based on available funds. But a sudden revolution that effectively changes the government would bring up continuity issues. In effect, the old government is destroyed and the new government is installed, making many of the old laws defunct. That seems to me like a de facto repudiation of membership, since we can assume the new government would have to ratify the decision to join the World Assembly. There is no law that so specifies this, but based on the nature of sudden government changes, I don't see why this would be an unreasonable position to take on the matter."

[Desmosthenes and Burke]

What would you specifically like to see in the replacement proposal?

Basically the remainder of the proposal after the excision of the clause about having to compensate private property owners. (That clause would essentially make it an international violation to have a communist revolution if people were reading it closely.) The blocker on the WA being used for arbitrary trade restrictions (or loosenings) serves to protect us from a neoliberal firestorm, and I appreciate that.

However, this is not at all an area in which I am familiar with writing, so good luck with that

In opposition, we would want to see the clause on compensating private property owners strengthened. We would only support a repeal and replacement that further strengthened a global system of capitalistic free trade. We see making it more difficult for nations to practice the great evils known as Socialism and Communism as a feature, not a bug and are only interested in a repeal to the extent it clears the way to relegating such evils to the dustbin of history where they belong.

OOC: Or, in plainer terms, I am not sure this should be repealed. I do not believe a replacement could be written without alienating either the left or right, while the status quo basically leaves neither of them with what they want.

[Burninati0n]

In opposition, we would want to see the clause on compensating private property owners strengthened. We would only support a repeal and replacement that further strengthened a global system of capitalistic free trade. We see making it more difficult for nations to practice the great evils known as Socialism and Communism as a feature, not a bug and are only interested in a repeal to the extent it clears the way to relegating such evils to the dustbin of history where they belong.

^ This position demonstrating the reason it might be prudent to leave even the flawed GAR68 in place!