NationStates Jolt Archive

The governments of St Edmund and of the St Edmundan Antarctic,

NOTING that a proposal to repeal UN Resolution #24, ‘Metric System’, has achieved quorum,

OPPOSED deeply to Resolution #24, because of its attempt to impose one single system of weights and measures on all of the UN’s member-nations for all purposes regardless of their peoples’ wishes, and also because of its badly-phrased wording even though the latter aspect of it left loopholes that we have been able to exploit in order to avoid doing as its author wished,

HOPING therefore that the current proposal to repeal Resolution #24 will be passed by the General Assembly,

REALISING that some of the national governments represented here will probably refuse to vote for this repeal, even if they acknowledge the flaws in Resolution #24, unless a suitable replacement for that measure is also on offer,

ACKNOWLEDGING that there are some circumstances in which the use of the same system of weights and measures by different nations can be advantageous;

PRESENTS the General Assembly with this draft of a potential replacement for their consideration _

Weights and Measures

Category: Free Trade
Strength: Mild

The United Nations,

RECOGNISING that the governments and peoples of many nations have strong preferences about which systems of weights and measures should be used in their countries,

RECOGNISING that the use of different systems of weights and measures in different nations can seriously hinder international trade amongst those nations, and may also be a problem in other fields of activity that occur internationally such as scientific research,

WORRIED that there might even be a few nations that don’t even have standardised systems of weights and measures for use within their territories yet, which would be an even worse hindrance to international activities,

REALISING that the relative simplicity of the 'Metric System' makes it easier to learn than some of the alternative systems available,

RECOGNISING that, because UN Resolutions are not binding on non-member nations, imposing the use of any specific system of weights and measures on all members for all purposes could seriously hinder any trading relationships and other peaceful interactions that some of those nations might have — or wish to develop — with non-members,

WISHING to refrain from infringing unnecessarily on nations’ distinct cultures and self-determination;

REQUIRES each member-nation to define one system of weights and measures that is to be used for all official purposes within its territory, even if they also allow the use of any other systems on a less official basis;

ACCEPTS that which particular system of weights and measures any nation uses for all official purposes within its territories should be decided by that nation’s own government;

STRONGLY URGES all member-nations to ensure that all goods exported from their territories have any relevant measurements accurately defined in the Metric System, as well as in any other system that they use officially, on all of the labels, shipping notes or other relevant documentation;

ACCEPTS that providing information about goods in Metric units is unnecessary if the goods are being exported to a nation that uses the same other system of weights and measures as the exporting nation does;

STRONGLY URGES all member-nations to ensure that all scientific reports and technical writing that may be released publicly within their territories have any relevant measurements accurately defined in the Metric System, as well as in any other system that they use officially, unless this lacks suitable units for describing the matters concerned clearly;

ENCOURAGES all member-nations to include details of the Metric System in their educational system’s curriculum;

URGES member-nations to use any influence they might have with non-members to persuade those other nations to adopt these policies too.


“But what of the tourists?”, I hear some of you ask… “Think of the tourists!”, you exclaim…
My government has considered this point, and looked at the relevant figures. Even taking the most optimistic projections about how much international standardisation a single system of weights and measures across all of the UN’s member-nations might increase tourism into & out of our nation, the combined total numbers of man-days per year that visitors from other UN nations (and ‘Metric System’-using nations that aren’t in the UN) would spend in our country and that our own people would spend visiting ‘Metric System’-using nations would certainly be far lower than the total numbers of man-days per year that our people spent either within our own territories or visiting nations outside of the UN that don’t use that system… You are asking us to inconvenience the many for the sake of the few, but one of our guiding principles is justice and that wouldn’t be just!


Alfred Devereux Sweynsson MD,
Ambassador to the United Nations
for
the Protectorate of the St Edmundan Antarctic
(and still required to wear this double-dashed penguin costume…)

_____________________________________________________________________

OOC: As some of you may recall, Alfred’s superiors said that he will have to wear the penguin costume when on official duties until he gets another one of their proposals passed as a Resolution… So please support both the repeal of #24 and this replacement for it, for Alfred’s sake…

“The ambassador: Think of the ambassador!” ;)

REQUIRES each member-nation to define one system of weights and measures that is to be used for all official purposes within its territory, even if they also allow the use of any other systems on a less official basis;
So, the hidden agenda of the repealers is revealed: to pass an even more anti-sovereign replacement.

Opposed.

-- George Madison
Legislative Director
Quintessence of Dust Department of UN Affairs

So, the hidden agenda of the repealers is revealed: to pass an even more anti-sovereign replacement.

Opposed.

-- George Madison
Legislative Director
Quintessence of Dust Department of UN Affairs

How is requiring that nations have an official system of measurement anti-sovereignty when the proposal leaves the choice of system up to the nations to decide?

Bob Flibble
UN Representative

How is requiring that nations have an official system of measurement anti-sovereignty when the proposal leaves the choice of system up to the nations to decide?

AND when it also still allows them to continue using other systems alongside that one, if they so choose?
This proposal was not intended as an "anti-sovereign" one, just to make international trade -- which is one of the few fields of sapeint behavious that my governments, from what many nations have previously considered to be a quite strongly pro-sovereign viewpoint, consider genuinely trans-national enough in scope for reasonable UN regulations to be acceptable -- a bit easier... and, as a side effect, to make it harder for the UN to pass any truly more anti-sovereign proposal about this topic in future.
I wasn't entirely happy about that clause's inclusion myself, in fact, but my political superiors insisted on it... and surely most nations will already have taken such a decision by themselves, anyway, so that it shouldn't have any real effects on many countries at all?


Alfred Devereux Sweynsson MD,
Ambassador to the United Nations
for
the Protectorate of the St Edmundan Antarctic
(and still required to wear this double-dashed penguin costume…)

_________________________________________________________________

OOC
I suppose that certain people around here might get a bit nitpicky about my claiming the original resolution's use of the term "metric system" without definition was open to serious misunderstanding, on the one hand, and my use of the term "Metric System" in this proposal on the other: My defence is that "metric system" all in lower-case letters is just an ordinary or 'common' compound noun, and thus open to any meaning that a good dictionary offers, whereas "Metric System" with the initial letters of its words capitalised becomes a 'proper' compound noun and is clearly the name of a specific concept... and as the only system of measurements that's called "the Metric System" of which I know is the one [originally from RL] to which many people have assumed the original resolution was referring anyway, I hope that the meaning will be clearer in this context...
H'mm, maybe calling it "the 'Metric System' that is already used under that name in many nations" would work, without falling afoul of the rule against 'branding'?
Besides, how else could I have set any international standard? The maximum length allowed for proposals would probably rule out defining a whole new system's units & scales from scratch, I couldn't refer to the system as one used in any specific nation[s] without falling afoul of the rule against 'branding', and trying to use to any system from RL whose existence in NS hadn't already been established (as that of the 'Metric System' presumably has been established, due to many people's interpretation of Resolution #24...) by name would have broken the "No RL references" rule...

I'm pretty sure it's illegal to refer to proposals that have either

1. Not achieved vote

2. Not passed

I'm pretty sure it's illegal to refer to proposals that have either

1. Not achieved vote

2. Not passed

It's not illegal, it's just not wise in most cases.

RECOGNISING that, because UN Resolutions are not binding on non-member nations, imposing the use of any specific system of weights and measures on all members for all purposes could seriously hinder any trading relationships and other peaceful interactions that some of those nations might have — or wish to develop — with non-members,
Or, on reflection, it could equally well promote such relationships. After all, if a particular measure is widely known and well defined, and in particular not overly associated with history, culture and pride of an individual nation, then others might find the use of it less objectionable than a national system of measures that is not their national system of measures.

WISHING to refrain from infringing unnecessarily on nations’ distinct cultures and self-determination;
...then promptly doing so, though for effects that we do not disapprove of.

REQUIRES each member-nation to define one system of weights and measures that is to be used for all official purposes within its territory, even if they also allow the use of any other systems on a less official basis;
Were Gobbannium a younger nation than it is, this requirement would be a recipe for civil disorder. It took generations after our illustrious ancestor united the Thrones of the Princes under one rule before the Royal measures could be introduced without creating rancour, based as they are primarily upon the ancient system of measurements of but one of the cities of our nation. Forcing such an issue could well be to the detriment of some member nations, not their advancement.

STRONGLY URGES all member-nations to ensure that all goods exported from their territories have any relevant measurements accurately defined in the Metric System, as well as in any other system that they use officially, on all of the labels, shipping notes or other relevant documentation;
We observe in passing that the pettifoggery you are indulging in concerning the difference between the 'metric system' and the 'Metric System' is beneath you, ambassador, and does not predispose us positively towards your proposal.

ACCEPTS that providing information about goods in Metric units is unnecessary if the goods are being exported to a nation that uses the same other system of weights and measures as the exporting nation does;
Such information is still useful, we would suggest, in that it provides a comparison with a measure a potential trading partner may find more well-defined or easier to convert to their own measures. Whether being helpful should be mandatory is, of course, another matter.

STRONGLY URGES all member-nations to ensure that all scientific reports and technical writing that may be released publicly within their territories have any relevant measurements accurately defined in the Metric System, as well as in any other system that they use officially, unless this lacks suitable units for describing the matters concerned clearly;
We would observe that all the arguments against the universal appropriateness of the Metric system still apply. We happen not to put any great weight on them, but those who do will surely feel obliged to also oppose your proposal lest they be accused of hypocrisy.

REQUIRES each member-nation to define one system of weights and measures that is to be used for all official purposes within its territory, even if they also allow the use of any other systems on a less official basis;

First, I like the way the text was presented via a national resolution. ;) Now, to my first thought, how important is it to have "one system" instead of "at least one system"?

I'm pretty sure it's illegal to refer to proposals that have either

1. Not achieved vote

2. Not passed

:) He tricked us. The text that is quoted is the draft proposal, while the text above it is a wrapper for roleplay. I like it BTW.

How is requiring that nations have an official system of measurement anti-sovereignty when the proposal leaves the choice of system up to the nations to decide?
Because it requires them to set one single official system and permit no others on an official basis. This means nations are prohibited from allowing states or territories within them from using their own systems. Hence this isn't really about regional autonomy: isn't about moving the dictatorial fascism down one rung on the ladder. If having their own system of counting is so important, and given the size of some NS nations, then we can't expect nations to have one single system within them.

-- George Madison
Legislative Director
Quintessence of Dust Department of UN Affairs

Because it requires them to set one single official system and permit no others on an official basis. This means nations are prohibited from allowing states or territories within them from using their own systems. Hence this isn't really about regional autonomy: isn't about moving the dictatorial fascism down one rung on the ladder. If having their own system of counting is so important, and given the size of some NS nations, then we can't expect nations to have one single system within them.

-- George Madison
Legislative Director
Quintessence of Dust Department of UN Affairs

Director Madison,

While I agree with your position, I think that the point of draft proposal discussions are to refine the text. I wouldn't go so far as to classify the intent of this proposal to be anti-sovereignty based. Furthermore of all the active UN nations, the cantons of Mikitivity are well known for having their own unique laws, thus making one-size fits all legislation an extreme burden for my confederation to deal with. However, I would suggest that my proposed amendment to the first operative clause from "one" to "at least one" (along with a trimming of the conditional statement at the end of the clause) would be consistent with the goal of the proposed replacement and easily pass the "cantonal test" to which you are really advocating.

Howie T. Katzman

Because it requires them to set one single official system and permit no others on an official basis.
...which could be amended in the draft, though I don't see you suggesting anything.
This means nations are prohibited from allowing states or territories within them from using their own systems.
How is this detrimental? If they belong to us, we will conform them to our will.
Hence this isn't really about regional autonomy: isn't about moving the dictatorial fascism down one rung on the ladder.
So now we're being accused of fascism. Great. Why don't you suggest a change, if you're so concerned?

If having their own system of counting is so important, and given the size of some NS nations, then we can't expect nations to have one single system within them.
I don't know about you, by I can expect anything I want. Besides, it's not that hard to do.

Seeing no problems with the draft, we plan on supporting. Plus we have compassion for anyone who has to wear a penguin costume.

Respectfully,
Dr. Jules Hodz
Akimonad UN Ambassador

I think the issue is more of the hypocracy than of whether the draft should be improved.

Seeing no problems with the draft, we plan on supporting. Plus we have compassion for anyone who has to wear a penguin costume.
We take it that in your haste you have not noted the contributions to this debate from ourself and the Ambassador of Mikitivity, both of which have pointed out serious flaws.

Our problem with the fix the Ambassador Katzman proposes is that it renders the clause somewhat redundant. We would prefer to see it struck from the draft in its entirety.

We take it that in your haste you have not noted the contributions to this debate
Yes, I have. You should assume less.

both of which have pointed out serious flaws.

Flaws are in the eye of the beholder.

But do you mean the "only one system" requirement? That doesn't bother me.

I still think it's terrific!

I think the issue is more of the hypocracy than of whether the draft should be improved.

Do you mean "hypocrisy"? And please elaborate.

Respectfully,
Dr. Jules Hodz

Do you mean "hypocrisy"? And please elaborate.

Respectfully,
Dr. Jules Hodz

The representative of St Edmund preaches about how the UN should not dictate to the nations, but then dictates to the nations that they should dictate to the state, provincial, territorial, municipal and other, more local governments. Instead of dictating a system of measurements to which all UN members should adopt alongside their own, he will dictate the structure of organization amongst the member nations in terms of national vs other governmental powers.

It is, indeed, less sovereignty friendly, just in a VERY different manner.

We take it that in your haste you have not noted the contributions to this debate from ourself and the Ambassador of Mikitivity, both of which have pointed out serious flaws.

Our problem with the fix the Ambassador Katzman proposes is that it renders the clause somewhat redundant. We would prefer to see it struck from the draft in its entirety.

My apologies, I only started my amendment without stating how I actually envisioned a write of the first clause:

"REQUIRES each member-nation to define at least one system of weights and measures that is to be used for all official purposes within its territory, in order to allow importers to conform to an official standard(s);"

Would that work?

However, I would suggest that my proposed amendment to the first operative clause from "one" to "at least one" (along with a trimming of the conditional statement at the end of the clause) would be consistent with the goal of the proposed replacement and easily pass the "cantonal test" to which you are really advocating.
If I thought such a suggestion would be adopted, I'd have advocated it myself. But the preamble states:
WORRIED that there might even be a few nations that don’t even have standardised systems of weights and measures for use within their territories yet, which would be an even worse hindrance to international activities,
There is a consistency to the draft: this is a worry, so action is required. One of the stated aims of the proposal is to dictatorially impose one system of measurement on nations and fascistically prevent them from allowing accommodations to the will of their people (which, oddly, is mentioned elsewhere in the preamble as a concern, there ending the consistency).
...which could be amended in the draft, though I don't see you suggesting anything.
See above. The very purpose of this proposal is to force nations to suppress regional diversity; suggesting an amendment would be the approximate equivalent of my suggesting you not repeal Stop privacy intrusion. A nice thought, maybe, but of little consequence in a debate about a proposal to do just that.
How is this detrimental? If they belong to us, we will conform them to our will.
UN nations belong to the UN. But they should be free to not conform to the UN's will.

States belong to the nation. But they must conform to the nation's will.

Excuse me, I have to go put out a fire in my logic section.
So now we're being accused of fascism. Great. Why don't you suggest a change, if you're so concerned?
No, the author of the proposal is; I wasn't addressing you. And I'd be happy to suggest a change if I thought it'd be accepted. But given what the purpose of this proposal is, it would make no sense to adopt such an amendment. You'd end up with:
The UN,

Worried not all nations have a standardised system,

Allows nations to not have standardised systems anyway.
Looks like that fire's really raging now.
I don't know about you, by I can expect anything I want. Besides, it's not that hard to do.
Very well, but I'm supportive of some degree of a concept called 'sovereignty'. It's the principle that nations should retain certain rights of self-governance and that the UN should not denude national governments of every aspect of power; there's even an organization (http://s11.invisionfree.com/NatSovOrg) devoted to it.
The representative of St Edmund preaches about how the UN should not dictate to the nations, but then dictates to the nations that they should dictate to the state, provincial, territorial, municipal and other, more local governments. Instead of dictating a system of measurements to which all UN members should adopt alongside their own, he will dictate the structure of organization amongst the member nations in terms of national vs other governmental powers.

It is, indeed, less sovereignty friendly, just in a VERY different manner.
This is more or less exactly the point, and though the phrase might be looked down upon by some of the stuffier members of these halls, 'QFT'.

-- George Madison
Legislative Director
Quintessence of Dust Department of UN Affairs

I accept that -- as several of you have pointed out -- our drafting team did not adequately consider those cases where different political subdivsions within a single nation might have differing systems, and this point has been passed to them for further consideration. In the meanwhile, I would point out that as our current draft allows the use of other systems alongside the official one "on a less official basis" it does at least allow for the continued use of those local systems as well as whichever one might be chosen for 'national' use.


Alfred Sweynsson MD,
Ambassador to the United Nations
for
The Protectorate of the St Edmundan Antarctic
(And still required to wear this blasted penguin costume...)

________________________________________________________________

OOC: I'll reply in more detail to your comments tomorrow, but unfortunately have run out of time now...

If I thought such a suggestion would be adopted, I'd have advocated it myself. But the preamble states:

WORRIED that there might even be a few nations that don’t even have standardised systems of weights and measures for use within their territories yet, which would be an even worse hindrance to international activities,


I'm less concerned, because that section reads systems in plural form. :)

"REQUIRES each member-nation to define at least one system of weights and measures that is to be used for all official purposes within its territory, in order to allow importers to conform to an official standard(s);"

Would that work?
A large measure of our problem with this in logical terms is exemplified by the necessary ugliness of the phrase "an official standard(s)". Either one has an official standard or one does not, as far as importers are concerned, and multiplying the numbers of standards seems to us to be likely to divide their enthusiasm. We still are not convinced that such an approach is universally beneficial, and as such would simply prefer the clause to be dropped.

I accept that -- as several of you have pointed out -- our drafting team did not adequately consider those cases where different political subdivsions within a single nation might have differing systems, and this point has been passed to them for further consideration. In the meanwhile, I would point out that as our current draft allows the use of other systems alongside the official one "on a less official basis" it does at least allow for the continued use of those local systems as well as whichever one might be chosen for 'national' use.
Regrettably that is no less politically insensitive. If one applies the same arguments to official national languages, for example, we suspect that the honoured ambassador will be able to think of not a few nations whose citizens would lynch him for such a suggestion.

A large measure of our problem with this in logical terms is exemplified by the necessary ugliness of the phrase "an official standard(s)". Either one has an official standard or one does not, as far as importers are concerned, and multiplying the numbers of standards seems to us to be likely to divide their enthusiasm. We still are not convinced that such an approach is universally beneficial, and as such would simply prefer the clause to be dropped.


Regrettably that is no less politically insensitive. If one applies the same arguments to official national languages, for example, we suspect that the honoured ambassador will be able to think of not a few nations whose citizens would lynch him for such a suggestion.

OOC: In some US States there are multiple legal systems of measurement ... this is especially true when it comes to land ownership. In recall that Texas still uses the vara in addition to the Imperial / English System of measurement. In matters of water law, California has both riparian, prior appropriation, beneficial use, and pueblo rights <-- it makes things a bit tricky but the old saying, where there is a will there is a way hails true. Having a half dozen legal systems in a nation isn't going to be that big of a deal. Importers will figure out the system that best conforms to their tooling and work within that scope. Really all the resolution is saying (I believe) is to write down and stick to a system of measurement. I guess fickle nations really are the ones that have the most to worry about. Or ones that get stuck with silly unit names. ;)

OOC: [snip]Really all the resolution is saying (I believe) is to write down and stick to a system of measurement.

OOC: true, but still problematic. Suppose you have a nation that consists of a number of smaller nations or city states welded into one (pretty common, really) that is young enough that there is a large amount of nationalist feelings in the constituent parts. Telling them that they all have to use the weights and measures from this one part is a damn good way of getting that nation to fall to bits.

It happens that all the good examples of weights and measures are old ones (except for the UK's partial metrication, which was done (and is still being done) with a lot of tact and inconsistency), but the situation with languages is comparable. Try telling someone from Quebec that the have to use English as their official language and you won't get far :-)

OOC: true, but still problematic. Suppose you have a nation that consists of a number of smaller nations or city states welded into one (pretty common, really) that is young enough that there is a large amount of nationalist feelings in the constituent parts. Telling them that they all have to use the weights and measures from this one part is a damn good way of getting that nation to fall to bits.

It happens that all the good examples of weights and measures are old ones (except for the UK's partial metrication, which was done (and is still being done) with a lot of tact and inconsistency), but the situation with languages is comparable. Try telling someone from Quebec that the have to use English as their official language and you won't get far :-)

OOC: Perhaps you do not realize this, but Mikitivity is one of those nations ... "Confederation of City States". And it is modeled after real-life Switzerland (a country I love). Switzerland has four official languages: German, French, Italian, and Romansch. Worse, I actually can speak some crude German, but Swiss German (and Swiss Italian) is different than many other forms of German (though I think it is actually easier to get at first than the form of German spoken in Saxony -- Sachsen -- though given exposure I actually find the Sachsen German extremely pleasant sounding). Anyhow, the Swiss do find having different languages ... in fact, it has forced them (most Swiss speak excellent English) to challenge themselves to learning multiple languages, and in doing so they are extremely forward thinking. The same can be argued of the Dutch, whom were undisputed *Masters* of commerce and trade. In fact, the 21st century Netherlands is still an economic powerhouse ... and a crafty one that they stay under the visible radar, but still pull the strings as they like.

While I agree that there is a point of diminishing returns ... Italy, where there are so many different dialects that movement within the country is problematic, thus commerce is strained, I am willing to (if an Italians will to contest this) agree that the language barrier isn't as bad as it is made out to be in the US. :)

When I was in St. Mortiz and wandering around town I remember when a group of women started talking to me in Romansch and I replied in German asking if they spoke English. They were rather shocked, as they obviously had me pegged as a local -- hence speaking to me in the local language (Romansch is its own unique language), but *one* of the women also spoke in some language (I can't remember which one, only what she said), "Oh, I think he is an American". So there is also a part of me that finds things like this charming ... and I'm convinced I'm not alone in this opinion.