NationStates Jolt Archive

I agree with UN resolution #3 in its entirety. But it is covered by resolution #28! Going in to details - UN resolution #3 offers free education to all under 16. Resolution 28# offers free education to all under 18. So resolution 3# is now pointless and simply clogs up the 'UN reolutions throughout history' section. The UN has simply made a minor error and it can be fixed very quickly by delegates approving the so called 'repeal' (although it is simply pointing out an error). It needs enough approvals by thursday.

Cheers!
If that went right over you head - a copy of the repael itself is bellow.




"Repeal "Education For All"
A proposal to repeal a previously passed resolution


Category: Repeal
Resolution: #3
Proposed by: Teken

Description: UN Resolution #3: Education For All (Category: Social Justice; Strength: Significant) shall be struck out and rendered null and void.

Argument: This has already been covered by resolution #28, which gives education free to all under the age of 18. It simply 'clogs up' the UN resolution throughout history section.

Approvals: 5 (Teken, South Falklands, JS Nijmegen, WZ Forums, NewTexas)

Status: Lacking Support (requires 137 more approvals)

Voting Ends: Thu Dec 9 2004 "

It looks like you're trying to repeal an unnecessary resolution. Isn't that what it's supposed to look like?

Supported. You been busy on the telegrams?

Well, he telegrammed me at least.

Sending my support.

All I have to do is wait until Tiamat's regional delegate gets deleted for inactivity and then I can support.

thanks alot guys. In answer to you question I was worried that people would take glace at the title (repeal on education to all) and think that I disagree with the resolution.

not approved enough unfortunatly, the loophole remains. :headbang:

But people have caught on should get rid eventually.

Well, most people would still glance at the title and not vote for it; because a majority of the UN delegates do not think anymore than the majority of UN members..... A majority of UN delegates and members are what I call "agenda voters"... they have a certain philosophy, and anything that supports the elements of that philosophy (regardless of how poorly implimented) will be accepted by them, without any significant weighing of the context and function of the proposal hey have accepted... Anything which seems to be against that philosophy, against with no consideration of contextual reasons or logic, will be disapproved.... It's the inherant problem with this UN system; it's only as functional as its weakest member... and it has thousands of weakest members...