Vote Against the Current UN Resolution!
"I can not believe that people are voting for this resolution. You are forcing governments to do things that are not your responsibility! If a government wants to create their own ecological safety laws that's their bussiness, not the bussiness of the UN."
UN Delegate Ulrich Nolte
It is the responsibility of the UN to ensure that irresponsible nations cannot damage the environment since doing so affects all other nations.
We have voted for most of the environmenal proposals at the UN, including the last one, because we feel that what a country does with "its" environment affects everyone else, and is therefore a matter of international concern. But we voted against this resolution, primarily because of the criminal penalties attached. Not every country has a federal form of government, and so the phrase "federal penitentiary" doesn't apply in a majority of instances. Beyond that, we don't think that it is the proper function of the U.N. to micromanage the criminal codes of all the member nations.
It's better to leave the setting of criminal penalties for specific acts to each individual country, while establishing broad international guidelines. We don't really want a "world government" telling everybody what to do. That was why we opposed the "Bill of No Rights", and why we oppose this resolution.
"I can not believe that people are voting for this resolution. You are forcing governments to do things that are not your responsibility! If a government wants to create their own ecological safety laws that's their bussiness, not the bussiness of the UN."
UN Delegate Ulrich Nolte
Well, if you're so strongly against this, my only suggestion would be to leave the UN. Now, I don't want this to sound too pushy of mean, but tha arguement of "This is invading the rights of our government" can really be made for any propsal. And, as for as proposals go, this one's pretty basic.
this proposal needs reworked. as currently written, it bans "all dumping in all waterways." this is open to far too much beyond the needed restrictions, and could become a tyrranical law in the wrong hands.
i'm for a better-worded version of this proposal
"I can not believe that people are voting for this resolution. You are forcing governments to do things that are not your responsibility! If a government wants to create their own ecological safety laws that's their bussiness, not the bussiness of the UN."
UN Delegate Ulrich Nolte
i completely agree which is why i voted strongly against this. i think whowas or whateva his name is should propose this as an issue for EACH AND EVERY GOVERNMENT!!! if the government wants to ban this, THEY CAN BAN IT THEMSELVES
:roll:
We should insist that all U.N. proposals be written in correct English, with proper grammar, spelling and punctuation. It is my policy to vote against any proposal that does not follow such rules.
Such sloppily written proposals have no business being turned into international law.
We did vote for the last proposal. International waterways are, we feel, something the UN should take concern in. However, this most recent proposal is too much micromanaging and interfering into the affairs of individual nations too much.
UN Delegate Ulrich Nolte
The intent of the proposal is good, but there is too much micromanaging and the wording is too lose.
First being for this proposal I now strongly agree with those opposing it.
So if I pee in a stream, that's 5-7 years in prison?
I have been interested to follow this proposal. We voted against it primarily because of the powers it granted the UN to dictate what we must do within our borders.
It strikes me that voting for this proposal is, in effect, saying 'please run my Nation, UN, because we can't or don't want to.'
I am voting for this resolution, though now that I consider it I also would like to see it amended slightly, as Ursoria said.
The Confederacy Of Patoxia agrees with the diplomat from Ursona, The UN should not be interfering with the legal systems of it's member nations. If we allow this precedent where will it end?
The Confederacy is in favor of all attempts to clean up the planet's environment but will not settle for this travesty. We urge all UN member nations to vote against this Resolution!
Charles H. Garland
Patoxian Diplomat
This most definately does interfere in national sovereignty - dictating punishments that nations MUST follow is nothing less.
The article which mentions that EVERY town and city MUST have three non-profit cleaning agencies is, quite frankly, ludicrous.
One cannot vote against a resolution and then simply wait and hope that it will be amended! This version of Stop Dumping needs to be voted down and an entirely new one created.
How much control over your nation are you willing to give to the UN?
Vote AGAINST this proposal because it'll bring everyone's economy rating down and then Corinto will have to work to get back up to Frightening.
On a more personal level, Corinto has voted "NO" because we have no prisons. Our pervasive police force "purges" instances of crime in our nation.
C-G Grim
FoC
Though a good idea in theory, this proposal is flawed in its execution. The entire concept of non-profit organizations funded by donations only cannot work. Who would donate? In addition, does the smallest town really require three seperate entities, as this resolution dictates?
Vote this down, not because of the intentions, but because of its execution.
Though a good idea in theory, this proposal is flawed in its execution. The entire concept of non-profit organizations funded by donations only cannot work. Who would donate? In addition, does the smallest town really require three seperate entities, as this resolution dictates?
Vote this down, not because of the intentions, but because of its execution.