REPEAL 'WA GENERAL FUND'

[Queen Alexa]

Our most honourable General Assembly,

SATISFIED by the effort presented in the resolution to provide a legal method of income for the World Assembly to execute the task of an active and effective international body of government, however,

CONCERNED that the resolution only mentioned charity as the only method of earning income in the World Assembly,

CONVINCED that a state, group, company, or organisation may abuse theopportunity to donate money to the World Assembly to gain influence in shaping policy in favour of private interest, and

PERSUADED by common logic that the General Accounting Office will not be able to execute the task of detecting corruption as the office is funded by a system already vulnerable to corruption,

must decide to repeal 'WA General Fund' at once.

[Tinhampton]

The "donations from member states" provisions of the WA General Fund are almost universally interpreted as meaning that all member states are required to pay a certain amount of money to the WAGF on an annual basis. It does not mean that any old fucker can just turn up and throw whatever he wants at the fund.

[The New California Republic]

The "donations from member states" provisions of the WA General Fund are almost universally interpreted as meaning that all member states are required to pay a certain amount of money to the WAGF on an annual basis. It does not mean that any old fucker can just turn up and throw whatever he wants at the fund.

Yes exactly. There's a general understanding that interpretations of WA provisions need to be the most reasonable, and clause 1 explicitly states: "Declares that the World Assembly shall be funded by donations from member states", and the most reasonable interpretation of that does not include groups, companies, and organisations. It also makes reference to "national donations", which further clarifies that it's referring to donations from the nation itself, rather than companies etc that may be residing therein.

[Arpasia]

Our most honourable General Assembly,

Never heard of that, though I've only heard of "The World Assembly," I think this needs some reworking to do.

I thought that this Proposal was made by Texkentuck

[Outer Sparta]

Not a good repeal argument.

[Queen Alexa]

The "donations from member states" provisions of the WA General Fund are almost universally interpreted as meaning that all member states are required to pay a certain amount of money to the WAGF on an annual basis. It does not mean that any old fucker can just turn up and throw whatever he wants at the fund.

A donation is the voluntary act of giving money to support a mission or goal. Money that is earned because a state is required to pay an annual amount to the World Assembly cannot be considered an act of donation.

[Tsaivao]

The "donations from member states" provisions of the WA General Fund are almost universally interpreted as meaning that all member states are required to pay a certain amount of money to the WAGF on an annual basis. It does not mean that any old fucker can just turn up and throw whatever he wants at the fund.

A donation is the voluntary act of giving money to support a mission or goal. Money that is earned because a state is required to pay an annual amount to the World Assembly cannot be considered an act of donation.

Membership of the World Assembly is itself a voluntary action. Furthermore this doesn't address the point that you are worried about private or corporate entities making donations that could cause corruption, even though it is explicitly stated that the GAO will take donations from member nations.

[Bananaistan]

OOC: This is almost certainly an honest mistake. The target used politically expedient at the time convoluted language to somewhat hide the requirements that member states fund the GA. Section 4 explicitly refers to the GAO assessing what the contributions should be [1/6 GenSec]

[Bears Armed]

OOC: This is almost certainly an honest mistake. The target used politically expedient at the time convoluted language to somewhat hide the requirements that member states fund the GA. Section 4 explicitly refers to the GAO assessing what the contributions should be [1/6 GenSec]

OOC: Agreed. [=> 2/6GenSec]

[Separatist Peoples]

OOC: This is almost certainly an honest mistake. The target used politically expedient at the time convoluted language to somewhat hide the requirements that member states fund the GA. Section 4 explicitly refers to the GAO assessing what the contributions should be [1/6 GenSec]

OOC: Agreed. [=> 2/6GenSec]

3/6. There is a great deal of discussion relative to the meaning of the language in GAR#17. The only reasonable interpretation of "donation" that squares with the rest of the resolution is one where donations are mandatory.

[Sierra Lyricalia]

OOC: Agreed. [=> 2/6GenSec]

3/6. There is a great deal of discussion relative to the meaning of the language in GAR#17. The only reasonable interpretation of "donation" that squares with the rest of the resolution is one where donations are mandatory.

4/6. Charitable donations are solicited. Mandatory payments are assessed.

[Grays Harbor]

3/6. There is a great deal of discussion relative to the meaning of the language in GAR#17. The only reasonable interpretation of "donation" that squares with the rest of the resolution is one where donations are mandatory.

4/6. Charitable donations are solicited. Mandatory payments are assessed.

Yup. 5/6