NationStates Jolt Archive

Do you vote yey so we can write a replacement, or do you just have no respect for history?
Perhaps he votes yay because the resolution is a pile of crap?

Lord Edward Black
Navanonian UN Representative

protection of historic sights will quash it immediately with the argument that there already is a resolution

A commendable argument. And an argument that I have not seen before.

It seems that this resolution is going to pass by a landslide.

The Allied nation if TirDaClamh has voted to repeal the legislation, consider it pruning, in order for healthy flowers to grow on a plant, older dead-heads must be removed for newer ones to grow and prosper.

The Ausserland delegation stands and applauds the new member from TirDaClamh.

Australasia as a continent decided that it was the new world in the latter part of the 20th century. Historic buildings "hah!" their old get rid of em. Now what is there except a struggle for the cities of this continent to get back in touch with their past & to slap wobbly legislation through thei own governments to protect whats left.
Do we all really want a glass gold fish tank slapped behind the facade of a fabulous georgian architectual delight paying lip service to the flimsy laws & pretending to respect the history of a city as well as its future.

Buildings & history needs protection it's what what makes our future.

i hope a replacement will appear after the ending of the vote. Clearly, the repeal has passed so..waiting for a better resolution considering history and buildings

i hope a replacement will appear after the ending of the vote. Clearly, the repeal has passed so..waiting for a better resolution considering history and buildings

I would direct the esseemed ambassador's attention to the draft that I posted to the genaral assembly 2 days ago (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=530803).

I also know of at least one other delegation that is in the initial stages of drafting a replacement as well.

Perserving history is important. Howver, not everything that is old is of historical value.

I would direct the esseemed ambassador's attention to the draft that I posted to the genaral assembly 2 days ago (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=530803).

I also know of at least one other delegation that is in the initial stages of drafting a replacement as well.


I would like to point out to the General Assembly that there are two possible replacements available. However if neither satisfies the Ambassadors they are free to write their own replacement proposals.

Although I think that my proposal lacks flesh I am confident having received little feedback either from Reclamation and my Region that It is nearly finished but GA debate is more than welcome.

My Draft (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=531004)

Philimbesi's draft (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=530803)

Only question is: How will the stronger version be enforced better than the old version?

Well actually I think the problem isnt a lack of a stonger version. It is a lack of a version at all.

UNR15 is little more than empty rethoric whereas both potental replacement proposals actually address the problem.

We feel the repealing resolution is misleading and have voted against it. The reason given for repealing the original is that it is insufficient and ineffectual: that is a reason for strengthening, not repealing.

We believe the proposer wishes the UN not to protect historic sites and lament the fact that this was not made clear in the resolution. States who want tougher, more effective UN protection have thus been duped into voting for no UN protection.

El Principe

We feel the repealing resolution is misleading and have voted against it. The reason given for repealing the original is that it is insufficient and ineffectual: that is a reason for strengthening, not repealing.
Now go read the rules. Or any of this thread. You cannot amend existing resolutions, so the only way to strengthen it is to repeal it.

Actually that's not strictly true in this case, since UNR#15 is so utterly useless that you can easily write new legislation that would be stronger and legal without duplicating or contradicting it, but that's not a reason to leave it on the books either.

We believe the proposer wishes the UN not to protect historic sites and lament the fact that this was not made clear in the resolution. States who want tougher, more effective UN protection have thus been duped into voting for no UN protection.
UNR#15 offers no protection already. If you want protection, I suggest that you offer comments on the proposal the Ambassador from Philimbesi is putting together.