NationStates Jolt Archive

Here is a 1st draft to repeal the probable resolution #122 “Promotion of Solar Panels”.

We just wanted to introduce a 1st draft and hope some Nations will improve it before submitting it
Love and esterel is already working as the co-author of another project about new media and DRMs, and we don’t intend to submit it ourselves.

________________________________
Repeal " Promotion of Solar Panels "
A proposal to repeal a previously passed resolution

Category: Repeal

Description: The UN Resolution #122 “Promotion of Solar Panels is repealed.

Argument:

This resolution is well intentioned, but:

-A- The objective to ban fossil fuels use in 10 years is unrealistic, it’s:
- Too short
- Too much expensive
- Too much consuming in resources and in fossil fuels themselves
- Impossible for many economic activity as aeronautical and airlines sector

-B- If implemented, it will destroy many economies, as it will be mandatory to comply with this objective

-C- Some nation exposure to sun is very low and many new/clean/renewable sources of energy are available; each nation should decide what is the best combination for himselves in order to decrease his use of fossil fuels.
_______________________________________

I will wholeheartedly support this repeal in potentia, I was just about to draft one myself, but I'm glad I checked the forum for ones already present.

I propose the following improvements/extentions, but will not demand their inclusion:

------------------------------------------------------

Let it primarily be noted that the original creator of this resolution, Starcra II, in his own words, has admitted to his resolution having faults and was previously aware of the repeal. He encourages nations to support this repeal as he is writing up a newer, better version of the resolution which will be up for debate before submission to the UN.

This repeal does not condemn solar panels, and the United Nations acknowledges that this resolution is well intentioned, but:

-A- The mandatory objective to ban fossil fuels use in ten years is unrealistic, due to it entailing:
- Too short a timescale for the phasing out of fossil fuels
- Too great a fiscal expense of environmentally-conscious replacements and the introduction of said replacement s
- Too much consumption of resources and of fossil fuels themselves for the materials and processes required for the manufacture of more environmentally-conscious alternatives
- An unforeseen and accidental hindering of many fossil fuel reliant economic sectors such as the aeronautical and airlines sector.
- An impact on power supplies, thus reducing the productive outputs of industries extracting, processing and modifying further resources to make the products that are taken for granted in maintaining our quality of life. This may involve the processing and packaging of foodstuffs, medicines, water and other supplies used in aid programs and our daily lives.

-B- This resolution's requirements will destroy many economies in next 10 years due to the costs of extracting, obtaining and processing the resources required, as mentioned in Section A, and the costs of the economy recovering to the level it was at before the fossil fuel ban would have to come out of already nearly depleted treasuries.

-C- As some nations receive little sunlight each year and many new/clean/renewable sources of energy are available, the nations must be to allowed to decide between these choices, some of which are more suited to their climates and geography, in order to decrease their use of fossil fuels, whilst maintaining the economic viability and practicality of the replacements.

-D- This resolution falsely states that the combustion of fossil fuels results in holes in the Ozone layer, and while the UN accepts that they theoretically assist the Greenhouse Effect and are aware of its implications, this error must be removed to prevent the misinforming of member states.

The United Nations,

PLEASED by the environmental concerns of the original proposal and its promotion of renewable energy source, but

REGRETTING the aforementioned shortcomings,

REPEALS Resolution #122 - "Promotion of Solar Panels".

This resolution was co-authored by Love and esterel

------------------------------------------------------
CHANGES made:

-Point -F- summarised and appended to Point -A-
-Concerns removed altogether to eliminate chance of accidental offense.
-Point -E- removed on basis of little contribution.

------------------------------------------------------

I appreciate the last few points are rather strong and may cause some offence, but in this era of declining UN membership I feel we need to hit it home to the possibly younger and more naive members of the UN community that they should read what they sign. They wouldn't be so quick to jump to conclusions if it involved their possessions in real life - whilst I accept this is just a game as such, it does make it significantly less enjoyable with the rapid jumping to conclusions.

This post will be updated to reflect changes.

Love and esterel is already working as the co-author of another project about new media and DRMs, and we don’t intend to submit it ourselves.


Then I shall submit this resolution should, and when the time comes. Thread subscribed to. I shall check frequently.

*wonders if it should be noted that even Starcra II opposed it and wants it repealed

Do they? They seemed to be defending it to the teeth in the forum. I'll add that if Starcra (I or II) confirms it - thanks for the information.

I believe it should also be noted that the Solar Panels proposal would not only cripple economies over the next ten years, but would have dire consequences far beyond that, as there wouldn't be a nation left with the money to invest on rebuilding industries, and would have far-reaching effects on nations outside the UN as all nations directly impacted by this proposal would remove a large share of the world energy market, and many products that would have come from UN nations would be impossible to produce or transport due to the ban on fossil fuels. Conversely, many products produced and sold by non-UN nations could not be consumed by the bankrupted entities of the UN.

Though this may be a bit redundant, we also feel it should be worth noting the impact this proposal would have on steel and iron industries, plastics, rubber, medicines, insecticides, among many others that are considered essential towards the current standards of quality of life. Also, that some types of solar power collectors, due to the very nature of their manufacture, would likewise also be impossible to produce, again due to the fossil fuels ban.

Ok, I will add to Section B, to extend it to subsequent aftershocks as a result of the change, and will add a Section F to cover the impact the damage to the industries would have on our quality of life until the technologies of solar panels were improved to the point of matching the outputs desired by the fossil-fuel centred economies. Thanks for your suggestions.

Note to all contributors - The current text of the resolution will be updated on the second post of this thread - there is a link on my signature, but this forum doesn't seem to want to display it.

*wonders if it should be noted that even Starcra II opposed it and wants it repealed

I think the following phrase should be added so that nothing will be misunderstood.

The original creator of this resolution, Starcra II, has admitted to his resolution having faults and was previously aware of the repeal. He encourages nations to support the repeal as he is writing up a newer, better version of the resolution which will be up for debate before submission to the UN.

I'd rather have it as it is without changes so that nothing gets misworded, but if someone thinks there's something that I'm missing or should be phrased differently, please TG me.

Cheers ;)
Starcra

Starcra, thanks for your support. I will add the clause, the only modifications being "Let it also be noted that..." the beginning to introduce it, and the adding of "in his own words" to continue the prevention of misunderstandings :)

Starcra, thanks for your support. I will add the clause, the only modifications being "Let it also be noted that..." the beginning to introduce it, and the adding of "in his own words" to continue the prevention of misunderstandings :)

Not a problem ;). And I have no problem with the modifications either.

Cheers ;)
Starcra

Kudos to love and esterel and Ficticious Proportions for getting started on this task so quickly.

Iyira's only suggestion would be that Section A could perhaps mention the food production issues raised in the forums. There seems to be a lot of kneejerk humanitarianism in the voting process, and pointing out that there could be real human suffering as a result of this proposition might appeal to these members in a way that discussions of economic problems might not.

Kudos to love and esterel and Ficticious Proportions for getting started on this task so quickly.

Iyira's only suggestion would be that Section A could perhaps mention the food production issues raised in the forums. There seems to be a lot of kneejerk humanitarianism in the voting process, and pointing out that there could be real human suffering as a result of this proposition might appeal to these members in a way that discussions of economic problems might not.

Thanks for the support so soon. I would perhaps add the food issue as a closing point to Section F, it seems to suit it better, and as a closing point of that section, it would probably gain more impact there as you seem to intend. I'm getting a bit conscious about the word limit! :)

Ficticious Proportions, i don't really care, as i will not be the author
well done for your job
but the idea behind my post was a short, condensed and explicit one

the new proposition by starcka or anybody will be longer

As in a repeal proposition or a replacement proposition for #122?

As in a repeal proposition or a replacement proposition for #122?

I'm working on a replacement if that's what you mean. (Will probably be posted here as soon as the repeal goes to vote, if it's ready) Don't worry, I'm not going to repeal anything unless come Christmas it hasn't been repealed ;).

As in a repeal proposition or a replacement proposition for #122?

it's just a repeal, as amendments or replacements are not possible
Starcra or anybody will submit a new proposition after

it's just a repeal, as amendments or replacements are not possible
Starcra or anybody will submit a new proposition after

I meant for when the original was repealed. I didn't explicitly say that but point taken nonetheless.

Whether it is the hope of this repeal to replace or not is up for you to decide, just know that Starcra II (and perhaps others) will try to pass a replacement should the repeal succeed.

Yes, that is the intention. Starcra has taken on board the reasons from the opposition in his thread, hence he supports the repeal pre-emptively so he can put a better one on the table. I'm not going to steal his thunder. :)

Here is a 1st draft to repeal the probable resolution #122 “Promotion of Solar Panels”.

We just wanted to introduce a 1st draft and hope some Nations will improve it before submitting it
Love and esterel is already working as the co-author of another project about new media and DRMs, and we don’t intend to submit it ourselves.

________________________________
Repeal " Promotion of Solar Panels "
A proposal to repeal a previously passed resolution

Category: Repeal

Description: The UN Resolution #122 “Promotion of Solar Panels is repealed.

Argument:

This resolution is well intentioned, but:

-A- The objective to ban fossil fuels use in 10 years is unrealistic, it’s:
- Too short
- Too much expensive
- Too much consuming in resources and in fossil fuels themselves
- Impossible for many economic activity as aeronautical and airlines sector

-B- If implemented, it will destroy many economies, as it will be mandatory to comply with this objective

-C- Some nation exposure to sun is very low and many new/clean/renewable sources of energy are available; each nation should decide what is the best combination for himselves in order to decrease his use of fossil fuels.
_______________________________________

I agree with what is said here and have decided to reverse, (almost certainly futily) my vote from For (the resolution) to Against.

Leonard Otterby
Ambassador for the Republic of Compadria to the U.N.

Long live clean-energy Compadria!

Thanks for your support :)

EDIT - Will reply to further posts with proposed edits tomorrow morning ish BST.

Axis Nova STRONGLY recommends you ladies and gentlemen either cause the solar panel resolution to fail or pass this repeal, because 20 NS years after it passes (just to make sure no reserves are left) a campaign of conquest will begin against UN nations-- and with no way to replace anything made out of plastic remaining for UN nations and no way to move heavy land vehicles, we expect our conquest will be relatively simple.

The Republic will support this resolution. We intend to vote "no" on the current resolution as soon as our membership is approved. We will vote "yes" on this proposed one as soon as it is put on the floor.

The Republic of Teruchev will lend its full support to the repeal of "Promotion of Solar Panels".

The imminent passage of this resolution is evidence of apathy run amok, and reflects poorly on the reputation of the UN. Let us all hope that lessons will be learned here.

Steve Perry
President
Republic of Teruchev

Whether it is the hope of this repeal to replace or not is up for you to decide, just know that Starcra II (and perhaps others) will try to pass a replacement should the repeal succeed.

You make it sound as if the replacement would be exactly the same as the current one :rolleyes:

Add that the construction of large-scale solar facilities cause more damage to the environment than a fossil-fuel plant that provides similiar power.

You make it sound as if the replacement would be exactly the same as the current one :rolleyes:If it involves complete independance from fossil fuels, it'll have the same problems.

Fossil fuels are used in so many other sources beyond power generation and vehicle fuels.

If it involves complete independance from fossil fuels,

Well it doesn't, it's only partial. ;)

I've been telegrammed by love and esterel to condense the resolution slightly (I went a bit over the top with the emotive language) and to soften the "SADDENED by..." point slightly because there is a concern that it may be accidentally insulting. The newest transcript is on post 2 of this thread, with the edits.

UPDATE - I shall return in just over 8 hours time (10pm BST) to check for updates.

You make it sound as if the replacement would be exactly the same as the current one :rolleyes:

No, a replacement is one that brings the same intent, but better practicality and quality to the UN. A replacement doesn't repeat an old one. I reserve judgement on it until you've actually proposed it.

Though your comments about it.....have not exactly been promosing.

No, a replacement is one that brings the same intent, but better practicality and quality to the UN. A replacement doesn't repeat an old one. I reserve judgement on it until you've actually proposed it.

Though your comments about it.....have not exactly been promosing.

I haven't commented that much about it :p .

Well, we'll have to see, won't we?

Cheers ;)

Due to further telegrams from Love and esterel, I have condensed the resolution at the loss of point E, which wasn't really contributing to the point, and the points at the end about jumping to conclusions, as I feel that in hindsight a resolution shouldn't really be the place to voice such opinionated concerns about the psychological approach some member states have to UN voting.

I don't care what the text says, I fully support this repeal should it be necessary (hopefully it won't).

Bob Flibble
UN Representative

I don't care what the text says, I fully support this repeal should it be necessary (hopefully it won't).

Bob Flibble
UN Representative
I don't care what language it's in. Hell, they can use webdings for all I care. Just so long as it says Repeal and #122 at the top.

Since today is the end of the voting period I assume you can post the repeal tomorrow and when it goes to vote I can post the draft of the new resolution.

Or will you be waiting for more comments before proposing the repeal? (I ask because I need to know how fast to work on the replacement)

We cannot believe that, with all this knowledge of what is in this resolution, that it is so likely to pass today. We cannot remember a time when a resolution was so horendous that our friends here where writing repeals before the resolution even passed.

Office of Abraham Brogan
Minister of Foriegn Affairs
Monmouth City, Central-Eastern NJ

... Only after I've read the final version, and only because I don't believe anything could be worse than the existing proposal -- heck, nuclear war would produce less dire consequences, simply because people would die quickly, rather than suffering and starving over a 10-year-period.

After this solar fiasco is done with, I'll be surprised if the UN hasn't lost half its membership. Who thinks up these proposals, anyway?

AK_ID

heck, nuclear war would produce less dire consequences, simply because people would die quickly, rather than suffering and starving over a 10-year-period.

Actually it's after the ten year period that that will happen.

Who thinks up these proposals, anyway?

Goodness knows! :rolleyes: :p

Cheers ;)
Starcra

We support you, but we will not rejoin the UN, which we have come to view as a ship of fools! I have a puppet regime to do that for us ;) and they will support you on our behalf!

The Ntion of Caimex will support the reapeal of resolution #122.

The Union of Tinis has proposed the first repeal of Resolution 122. All who oppose that foolish piece of legislation may wish to endorse it so that we can get it the floor and correct the error that was made. It is currently on the last page of the proposals.

The Union of Tinis has proposed the first repeal of Resolution 122. All who oppose that foolish piece of legislation may wish to endorse it so that we can get it the floor and correct the error that was made. It is currently on the last page of the proposals.

I have seen your repeal, but you really should have waited till you saw this thread since this repeal explains more of the faults and therefore is more likely to make the delegates that read the proposals approve it.

The Russo-Soviets fully support this Repeal.

For anyone wishing to take up arms against the U.N. we will help provide arms but will not activly support

Ficticious Proportions has SUBMITTED this repeal in its present form to the queue. Thank you all for the support and guidance in it's authoring, Please endorse it so we can allow Starcra II to make something better.

Tinis, I appreciate your similar concerns but the only reason I hadn't submitted it yet was because I had work today. Please don't steal Love and esterel's thunder, I continued the project on his behalf (and with his co-operation, I hasten to add) as he's away for a few days. Besides, it's "Chloro-Fluoro-Carbons", not "Coral-Floral-Carbons". The Great Barrier Reef and Florists don't really endanger the OZone layer as such. :p

Wheeeeeeeeeeeeee!
Compliance Ministry
Received: 25 minutes ago Laws have been enacted to bring the Protectorate of Yeldan UN Mission into compliance with the United Nations resolution "Promotion of Solar Panels".
Needless to say, we have approved the repeal.

Scamptica Prime supports this repeal. And will re-join the UN to help it pass.

Ficticious Proportions has SUBMITTED this repeal in its present form to the queue. Thank you all for the support and guidance in it's authoring, Please endorse it so we can allow Starcra II to make something better.

Cheers Ficticious!

Oh and what changes did anyone receive from the compliance ministry? I received none. (I'm not sure if there was a negligible increase in tax but it could be)

Cheers Ficticious!

Oh and what changes did anyone receive from the compliance ministry? I received none. (I'm not sure if there was a negligible increase in tax but it could be)
I think the stats update once a day. I didn't notice any change at NSTracker, but admittedly I didn't check my stats before voting ended. They might change at the next server update.

Cheers Ficticious!

Oh and what changes did anyone receive from the compliance ministry? I received none. (I'm not sure if there was a negligible increase in tax but it could be)

No problem Starcra, I'm just worried that many people are approving "Coral-Floral-Carbons" in a clause criticising your (since acknowledged) Ozone mistake. All supporters, please spread the word to delegates to approve this approved draft that's been drawn up with feedback from several other nations. I hate to have to ham myself up here, but many more people's efforts will go to waste if this repeal proposal fails than any of the others.

I have noted all nations who voted against resolution #122. To prevent duplicate telegramming, contact me for who is yet to be informed if you wish to conduct a campaign.

I think the stats update once a day. I didn't notice any change at NSTracker, but admittedly I didn't check my stats before voting ended. They might change at the next server update.

Ah I see! I'll wait till then.

All supporters, please spread the word to delegates to approve this approved draft that's been drawn up with feedback from several other nations.

And please feel free to include that if delegates have any queries or doubts (Particularly to the entry about me)they may TG me and I can confirm.

The replacement is ready and I'll post it on the forum ahead of time :).

Starcra, the support is in the text in "his[your] own words". I think only the severely cynical would disbelieve, although thanks for the offer and support as ever. :)

Does it matter what way this is repealed, Just so long as it is repealed and NOW before it can do any severe damage?
Wether a replacement is in the works or not, let make haste in having this repealed.

Starcra's proposed repeal (in another thread here) is almost as intrusive and ill-composed as the recently passed solar resolution. In the catastrophic aftermath of the the ill-thought-out solar proposal, I wouldn't support the solar author if he/she/it proposed to buy me dinner.

I've posted this on another thread, but I'll repeat it here: I just received the following message: Laws have been enacted to bring the Empire of AK_ID into compliance with the United Nations resolution "Promotion of Solar Panels". I consider the above message to be a UN declaration of war upon all free nations of the planet, and I will respond accordingly.

-- A Pissed-Off AK_ID

Starcra's proposed repeal (in another thread here) is almost as intrusive and ill-composed as the recently passed solar resolution. In the catastrophic aftermath of the the ill-thought-out solar proposal, I wouldn't support the solar author if he/she/it proposed to buy me dinner.

WHAT REPEAL??? I'm not proposing a repeal!!! I'm proposing a replacement! Didn't you read the text? Did it occur to you that the only place it mentioned repeal was in the first sentence and it said that it noted the passing of my resolution and it's repeal.

I'm not angry, just so you know, I'm just surprised that you didn't notice ;)

Does it matter what way this is repealed, Just so long as it is repealed and NOW before it can do any severe damage?

Well, I disagree there. I believe that regardless of the state of the original resolution, the better written repeal should be the one presented (In this case this one).

WHAT REPEAL??? I'm not proposing a repeal!!! I'm proposing a replacement! Didn't you read the text? Did it occur to you that the only place it mentioned repeal was in the first sentence and it said that it noted the passing of my resolution and it's repealAK_ID obviously meant the proposed resolution.

I second AK_ID's assertion that the proposed resolution is almost as intrusive and ill-composed as the recently passed solar resolution. In the catastrophic aftermath of the the ill-thought-out solar proposal, I wouldn't support the solar author if he/she/it proposed to buy me dinner.I further believe that Starcra II ought to consider the comments made in the thread concerning the last proposal and reflect upon those comments, rather than arguing against them, in order to improve his perspective on the situation of fossil fuels.

I second AK_ID's assertion that the proposed resolution is I further believe that Starcra II ought to consider the comments made in the thread concerning the last proposal and reflect upon those comments, rather than arguing against them, in order to improve his perspective on the situation of fossil fuels.

Arguing against them? All I'm arguing against is the fact that some people are NOT READING what I'm posting and just posting blind comments.

I have considered, the comments made, and perhaps instead of dismissing it and refusing to work decently you should come over to the threads in question and bring up specific concerns constructively which help improve the new resolution like many other who opposed the original resolution are.

Oh and I don't intend to buy anyone dinner just so you know.

I have considered, the comments made, and perhaps instead of dismissing it and refusing to work decently you should come over to the threads in question and bring up specific concerns constructively which help improve the new resolution like many other who opposed the original resolution are.Having read every comment in the 41 page thread regarding the original solar panel proposal, (as well as the (current) four in the repeal and the two in the 'new' Starcra proposal) I can confidently say that Starcra II chooses which points will be addressed and which will be ignored. For example, I do not see any post in which Starcra II specifically acknowledges the inaccuracy of the original proposal in regard to the 'fossil fuels destroying the Ozone layer, which causes melting polar caps' section.

I again request a public apology for the farcical nature of the original proposal, and reassert that Starcra II ought to seriously consider all of the comments made during the prior thread. For example, without fossil fuels there will be no plastics nor air travel. At this point in time it would be sensible to suggest only a reduction in fossil fuel use - as low as 25% of current levels would be possible, but a complete cessation of fossil fuel use is presently counterproductive until replacement technologies have been developed.

40 approvals at the time of posting. Thanks to everyone who has endorsed the proposal in it's quest to reach quorum - we have till Tuesday to get it up to the 131 presently required.

Having read every comment in the 41 page thread regarding the original solar panel proposal, (as well as the (current) four in the repeal and the two in the 'new' Starcra proposal) I can confidently say that Starcra II chooses which points will be addressed and which will be ignored. For example, I do not see any post in which Starcra II specifically acknowledges the inaccuracy of the original proposal in regard to the 'fossil fuels destroying the Ozone layer, which causes melting polar caps' section.

I again request a public apology for the farcical nature of the original proposal, and reassert that Starcra II ought to seriously consider all of the comments made during the prior thread. For example, without fossil fuels there will be no plastics nor air travel. At this point in time it would be sensible to suggest only a reduction in fossil fuel use - as low as 25% of current levels would be possible, but a complete cessation of fossil fuel use is presently counterproductive until replacement technologies have been developed.

I will not bother with you anymore. You have not, no matter what you say, read ANY of the new resolution, ANY of the last few pages in the previous resolution, ANY of the discussion on the repeal, and for some reason missed the clause in the repeal that I included.

I'll support this "replacement" under duress, and I'll squeal and protest all the way. There is another, more sane, proposal on another thread, though.

AK_ID

I'll support this "replacement" under duress, and I'll squeal and protest all the way. There is another, more sane, proposal on another thread, though.

I think you have repeal and replacement mixed up. This is the repeal and it is the only one in existence on this forum.

HOW can a repeal be legal when it was begun under the term "probable?" Sounds kinda tentative to me.

HOW can a repeal be legal when it was begun under the term "probable?" Sounds kinda tentative to me.

The thread was started 2 days before the resolution was passed. At the time, they were looking at the trend so called it probable. They also declared it a draft at the time since they couldn't actually submit it until the resolution was passed. Since titles can't be changed unless by a mod, they couldn't update the status.

It's current status is "SUBMITTED: repeal of resolution #122 "Promition of Solar Panels".

quorum reach,

Ficticious Proportions, congrats

if the repeal pass, solar panel will become the fastest resolution repealed

Oh thank god the repeal got through - As someone who has a masters in conservation ecology I was appalled that this had gotten through. On my own regional messageboards usually I and another nation or two are the vocal environmentalist but we were among the loudest voices appealing people not to vote for this - I'd totally support (and get my region to support)a more realistic version of the proposal as long as it leaves out the fiction about the hole in the ozone being linked to global warming, and allowing for other renewable energy sources to be used (I was just in Finland where they get 24 hour darkness in part of the country every winter - so if this affected them they'd be kinda screwed)- but I like these parts:

2) That each nation that burns fossil fuels does damage to other nations as well as their own.

3) That burning fossil fuels is putting a limit on how free our children and other future generations will be in the world when it comes to enjoying luxuries that are disappearing as we speak such as, fresh air, clean oceans and community gardens.

- nicely articulated those parts. Sorry if this all has been said before but just coming in at the end of obviously a long discussion (I see there's a few thread dedicated to different parts of this) after having been away from the net for a little while
Adios
T.

Congratulations, Fictitious Proportions (and BTW, what a GREAT nic -- wish I'd thought of it first).

AK_ID

Okay, one repeal is in the Queue already, why is there a second repeal with nearly enough votes in the list of proposals?

Also, now that the repeal is underway has anyone given thought to how they are going to revise the original proposal? There is going to have to be something otherwise the next half made proposal that comes along is just going to replace it.
EDIT: Never mind, just found it farther down in the board. :P Teach me to look before I leap.

Two drafts have been brought up for the revision, though there's a lot of kinks to work out - especially in terms of emissions targets

Oh thank god the repeal got through - As someone who has a masters in conservation ecology I was appalled that this had gotten through. T.

Where did you go for your masters? I am currently looking for grad schools with programs along those lines.

I will support a repeal as it is not the government's job to enforce such things. If you want to contact me, send me a telegram at the Empire of Odelion because I am rarely on the forums.

This is a report to announce that the proposal has REACHED QUORUM with 158 approvals at the time of writing.

Thanks to all nations for their support during the campaign. Now for the vote...

This is a report to announce that the proposal has REACHED QUORUM with 158 approvals at the time of writing.

Thanks to all nations for their support during the campaign. Now for the vote...

Yes and I feel we can win this one, congratulations to all who helped hammer out this repeal and the replacement resolution that will follow it. I thank you all on behalf of the people of Compadria.

May the blessings of our otters be upon you all.

Leonard Otterby
Ambassador for the Republic of Compadria to the U.N.