NationStates Jolt Archive

Repeal "Ban Single-Hulled Tankers"

A proposal to repeal a previously passed resolution

Category: Repeal | Resolution: #11 (http://www.nationstates.net/04379/page=UN_past_resolutions/start=10) | Proposed by: Jey (http://www.nationstates.net/04379/page=display_nation/nation=jey)

Description: UN Resolution #11: Ban Single-Hulled Tankers (http://www.nationstates.net/04379/page=UN_past_resolutions/start=10) (Category: Environmental; Industry Affected: All Businesses) shall be struck out and rendered null and void.

Argument: The General Assembly of the United Nations,

APPLAUDING the attempts of Resolution #11: "Ban Single-Hulled Tankers" to prevent serious environmental damages involving oil tanker ships;

NOTING WITH REGRET that Resolution #11 makes no legislative effort to actually prevent the oil spills referenced to, only providing the rhetoric that the United Nations "must unite to ban single-hulled tankers and endorse the use of double-hulled tankers";

CONVINCED that serious environmental issues such as oil spills should be addressed by the United Nations with legislation that contains actionable language to fulfill its intent;

UNDERSTANDING that it is in the interests of the United Nations to eliminate legislation that contains nothing more than rhetoric;

BELIEVING that more comprehensive and effective legislation can and should be enacted to eliminate serious environmental hazards;

REPEALS Resolution #11: "Ban Single-Hulled Tankers."

Approvals: 109
Status: Quorum Reached: In Queue!

The previous discussion concerning this repeal can be found here (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=536087).

For reference, the original resolution:

Ban Single-Hulled Tankers

A resolution to increase the quality of the world's environment, at the expense of industry.

Category: Environmental | Industry Affected: All Businesses | Proposed by: The imperial senators

Description: Ban Single-Hulled Tankers!

Leaky single-hulled tanker ships can cause enormous environmental damage and cost millions of dollars to clean up. Millions of barrels of crude oil are lost to the oil-hungry nations of the world. We must unite to ban single-hulled tankers and endorse the use of double-hulled tankers. This would prevent environmental disasters like the one caused by the damaged tanker off the coast of Spain in 2002 and help lower the cost of fuel as more would be reliably available to every nation. It would also be a boon to fishing, tourism, and shipbuilding industries.

Votes For: 16,664
Votes Against: 2,670

Implemented: Mon Apr 28 2003

I'm excited to see this resolution pass, and am curious to see if/what the replacement resolution will be.

I think this is a ridiculous idea! What about all the third world countries that can't afford double hulled tankers?

Nothing to do with the fact that us building single ones save a whole lot of money...

Problem #1: National Sovereignty.

The UN has no right to legislate for member states.

Problem #2: Will there be another resolution, one that is more effective?

This resolution may only be a "feel-good" piece of fluff, but it's better than nothing. What if nothing is done to replace it?

Problem #1: National Sovereignty.

The UN has no right to legislate for member states.

No right? What are these 243 "resolution" things?

Problem #2: Will there be another resolution, one that is more effective?

If you want one so badly, go write it.

This resolution may only be a "feel-good" piece of fluff, but it's better than nothing.

A resolution that does nothing is nothing, regardless of how it makes its readers feel.

Vance Aceon
Deputy Presiding Jevian United Nations Representative

I think this is a ridiculous idea! What about all the third world countries that can't afford double hulled tankers?

Nothing to do with the fact that us building single ones save a whole lot of money...

Two things, 1, this is a repeal so if this passes you won't have to use double hulled tankers. and 2, the resolution being repealed never required nations to stop using single hulled tankers anyway.

Bob Flibble
UN Representative

I suggest first making a better resolution that LATER will lead to Repeal "Ban Single-Hulled Tankers" since then this resolution would be OBSOLETE.
Now if we ban this resolution we just go back with the standards.

I suggest first making a better resolution that LATER will lead to Repeal "Ban Single-Hulled Tankers" since then this resolution would be OBSOLETE.
Now if we ban this resolution we just go back with the standards.

Welcome TGM to the UN.

Sadly, the rules (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=420465) state that:

You can't amend proposals. Period. You can't add on, you can't adjust, you can't edit. If you want to change an existing Proposal, you have to Repeal it first.

and

Duplication

If the majority of your Proposal is covered by an existing Resolution, your Proposal is toast. We've got enough of these things already, we don't need to double up (i.e. the UN has already banned landmines, we don't need to do it again). As an aside, since the UN has already banned biological weapons, you don't need to include it in your Proposal to ban nuclear and chemical ones. (see: House of Cards)

so a proposed one with teeth would be deleted by the game moderators.

I believe the problem is that no resolution has been proposed so that the environmental risk posed by single-shelled tankers can be dealt with. This is the only resolution we have that does so. If such a (more comprehensive) proposal were to be written, I would support this, but as there is not, my loyalty cannot be had. The Buffalo New York region agrees with the above statement(s).

I believe the problem is that no resolution has been proposed so that the environmental risk posed by single-shelled tankers can be dealt with. This is the only resolution we have that does so.

See, that's the thing. It doesn't. I doesn't do anything at all, in fact. It sits there, with its feel-good name, making people think that it is some important piece of legislation, all the while hoping nobody takes the time to read it and discover its fraudulent existence for what it is.

If such a (more comprehensive) proposal were to be written, I would support this, but as there is not, my loyalty cannot be had. The Buffalo New York region agrees with the above statement(s).

Such a shame that you would rather cast your support behind an empty title instead of actively endeavoring to improve the legislation.

I think it is a shame that there are parties in the UN who want to repeal sensible, principles-based legislation and replace them with long-winded detailed legislation that will ultimately do nothing except to ensure that lawyers get plenty of work finding and exploiting loopholes in order to circumvent them.

I oppose this proposal

I the nationstate of Rosie'ka said yes becouse the frist time did not explain what to do.

This is a good repeal. As pointed out above...the current legislation does nothing...and the only way to change that is to first repeal it. So this is a step in the right direction in the eyes of Fotar.

_________________
Fotar
~Vice-Chancellor of the Council of Narnia

I think it is a shame that there are parties in the UN who want to repeal sensible, principles-based legislation and replace them with long-winded detailed legislation that will ultimately do nothing except to ensure that lawyers get plenty of work finding and exploiting loopholes in order to circumvent them.

I oppose this proposal

"So the Minor Islands consider a resolution that does not do thing but make ink peddlers richer to be 'sensible, principle-based legislation'?" Seigfried raised an eyebrow.

"If you fear and loathe loopholes, how can you support the original resolution? It leaves a loop hole I could drive a Hum-Vee through. 'We must unite to ban single-hulled tankers and endorse the use of double-hulled tankers.' Not 'we ban single hull tankers and mandate the sole use of double hull tankers,' but a vague mockery that requires absolutely nothing but a moment of thought before you do what ever you please."

Oh my gosh, why do we have to repeal every single resolution ever passes and replace with something a normal person can't even read? :upyours:

As frustrated as I am that my own repeal on the same subject got the boot a thousand times over, to fight with this one is nonsense. Therefore, I vote FOR this repeal.

We must all stand firm on this resolution! Obviously, in a perfect world, it would be nice if corporations used more than single hull tankers, and it would be a countries right to impose such a ban, but the people of Torgistan, along with all of the peoples of Fennoskandia, must stand firmly opposed to UN communistic meddling. The more laws we impose on businesses, the closer we become to our naive and corrupt Marxist bretheren. We cannot allow the UN to force its views on us. We must oppose all resolutions, support all repeals, and keep the UN as simply a place to talk. The UN is necisary as a non-partisan place to discuss world issues and seek support, but we cannot allow it to become a world government. We give up our soverign rights everytime a resolution is passed, and therefore if we wish to regain the rights stolen from us by the United Nations we must repeal whenever and wherever possible! The UN has no right to tell our ship companies how they may make their ships! That is between the ship company and the mother country of said company. I applaud the one who put forth this repeal, and we must full heartedly support it. Don't let the UN nose into your business! If you object to ships with single hulls, fine by me, but don't force your views on me. Torgistan is a free country, and we will refuse to have the views of others forced on us. Stand by this repeal, and oppose UN Imperialism!

-President of the Senate of Torgistan

We regret that we find ourself politically constrained to stand aside on this vote. Unfortunately the errancies in the author's previous successful repeal have caught the public eye, and it has been made abundantly clear to us that public opinion will not stand for us to cast our vote in favour of this repeal. This is most irksome, since in this case it is straightforwardly clear that Representative Aceon is entirely correct!

And as I feel a need to specify (my apologies for the double post), while we in Torgistan recognize that the author of this resolution feels the oposite way as us, he is just another hypocrite who we are more thanw illing to use to defeat UN imperialism. He (if the author is a female, my sincerest apologies) says that the fault in the first was its lack of any real solutions, while his resolution cites no solutions whatsover! The UN is not permitted to legislate for countries, as was previously pointed out. So when I say we applaud him, we are thanking him for helping us do in his kind. It may seem ahrsh, but anything to stop the United Nations can and will be done by Torgistan. And again, my apologies for the double post.

-President of the Senate of Torgistan

I have plans for a replacement, which will cover single hull tankers along with other thingies.

May I remind all present that the only issue at hand is that of repealing Resolution #11. This is not the time for discussing the merit of the original resolution or what may or may not replace it.

The current "Ban" on single hulled tankers is utterly non-binding, and as such has no place in this legislative body. Regardless of any stance on future issue, I urge all present to vote in favor of this repeal.

-United Nations Representative of New Barrayar

Our country believes this repeal is good because the resolution it destroys is not U.N. material. A replacement is needed!

-Ager Publicus, crazy old man who thinks he is Jesus.

Flibbleites and Great Sussex have hit the nail on the head: the original resolution never took into consideration the fact that many poorer countries will be unable to produce double-hulled tankers. (The mere fact that the resolution was little more than debate topic is beside the point, but certainly worth equal consideration.) As such, given this possibly unintentional but nontheless blatant disregard, Damanucus will vote for the repeal.

(Just on a side note, and I apologise for changing the subject temporarily here, but is there a resolution which incorporates some form of safety standard for goods transportation? It would certainly be more viable if there was.)

Horgen Dush
UN Representative, Nomadic Peoples of Damanucus

I thougt it over so I cheaged my vote from yes to no.

From the UN Rep. of The Federation of Rosieka

I think it is a shame that there are parties in the UN who want to repeal sensible, principles-based legislation and replace them with long-winded detailed legislation that will ultimately do nothing except to ensure that lawyers get plenty of work finding and exploiting loopholes in order to circumvent them.

I oppose this proposal
Oh my gosh, why do we have to repeal every single resolution ever passes and replace with something a normal person can't even read? :upyours:Whatever. The argument used to be that we shouldn't repeal because the repealers WILL NEVER SUBMIT A REPLACEMENT!!! Now that they see replacements are being passed, they oppose the replacements as well:

Sigh, new resolution: Repeal "Ban Single-Hulled Tankers"

Another "Lets repeal everything and rewrite so it appears weaker" repeal.
UN : Repeal "Ban Single-Hulled Tankers".

I now have a general policy of voting AGAINST any repeal; especially those of a progressive nature. If the repeal passes, then a proposal is submitted as promised, AND it's decent, then we can vote FOR. I'm sick and tired of "repeal, repeal, repeal" so it can be written up a second time in fancy bureaucratic language; sometimes watering down the original resolution and/or allowing loopholes for nations to not be bound to the new legislation if they so choose. If it was good enough in 2003 the current resolution (16,000 votes for, 2000 against) what's so wrong now? I am tired of UN drones with dubious motives wanting to bureaucratise everything within an inch of its lives, and at the same time get their name in lights as a successful proposer (ego, ego, EGO). Notice it's usually progressive resolutions these repealers target?

The argument used in this repeal has merit, however, there is no reason to trust the motivations of these people - AT ALL. There are hidden agendas, and I say, vote AGAINST, because the *actual* reality of the new proposal may not reach quorum, an actual new proposal may not even be created and even if it does, as I stated before, might be not that progressive.

If this repeal passes, well, then I can easily endorse the new proposal if it is up to scratch, and if it comes to vote, we can vote FOR.

Simple. Progessive resolution, someone wants to repeal it, one has to ask WHY. Leave it as is, lest we may lose yet another piece of pro-environmental legislation. We lost an old resolution which restricted woodchipping and protection of forests a bit over a year ago. The replacement proposal never made it to vote.

Iain. (ICU disgusted-with-the-UN Delegate, Foreign Affairs Minister)
The anti-repeal wing of this body just keeps getting dumber and dumber by the minute.

The Federal Republic has cast its vote FOR this resolution.

The anti-repeal wing of this body just keeps getting dumber and dumber by the minute.

The Federal Republic has cast its vote FOR this resolution.

"We agree and have voted accordingly. That 'bureaucratic language' is what we like to call 'actionable.' Like, it... uh... you know, does something as opposed to just making a statement."

Quote:

Originally Posted by International Communist Union messageboard
UN : Repeal "Ban Single-Hulled Tankers".

I now have a general policy of voting AGAINST any repeal; especially those of a progressive nature. If the repeal passes, then a proposal is submitted as promised, AND it's decent, then we can vote FOR. I'm sick and tired of "repeal, repeal, repeal" so it can be written up a second time in fancy bureaucratic language; sometimes watering down the original resolution and/or allowing loopholes for nations to not be bound to the new legislation if they so choose. If it was good enough in 2003 the current resolution (16,000 votes for, 2000 against) what's so wrong now? I am tired of UN drones with dubious motives wanting to bureaucratise everything within an inch of its lives, and at the same time get their name in lights as a successful proposer (ego, ego, EGO). Notice it's usually progressive resolutions these repealers target?

The argument used in this repeal has merit, however, there is no reason to trust the motivations of these people - AT ALL. There are hidden agendas, and I say, vote AGAINST, because the *actual* reality of the new proposal may not reach quorum, an actual new proposal may not even be created and even if it does, as I stated before, might be not that progressive.

If this repeal passes, well, then I can easily endorse the new proposal if it is up to scratch, and if it comes to vote, we can vote FOR.

Simple. Progessive resolution, someone wants to repeal it, one has to ask WHY. Leave it as is, lest we may lose yet another piece of pro-environmental legislation. We lost an old resolution which restricted woodchipping and protection of forests a bit over a year ago. The replacement proposal never made it to vote.

Iain. (ICU disgusted-with-the-UN Delegate, Foreign Affairs Minister)

Ah, of course. And you certainly have no agenda, and communists and unions, of which you are both, certainly are always agents fighting beurocracy. Oh, and in case it was unclear to your naive communist mind, yes indeed, that was sarcasm. The soviet Union collapsed in 1991. Perhaps you should stop living 16 years in the past. Communism is dead, and the UN is useless as an agent against war. Every resolution must be opposed, and every repeal must be supported, no matter what the merits. I am sorry to go off topic like that, but I have an obligation as the delegate of Fennoskandia (the last true anti-communist citadel) to oppose communists at every step, so please forgive this. Allthough it is a fair argument against the UN, and therfore a good argument in support of a repeal. But I feel I am ranting now. Vote to repeal this resolution for your own freedoms!

-President of the Senate of Torgistan

I voted no to this resolution because all it does is repeal another resolution, but at the end is the same thing. It accomplishes nothing.

I have plans for a replacement, which will cover single hull tankers along with other thingies.Yay for the boatie people. We hope that said replacement is as environmentally-oriented as it will be transportation-oriented and offer our services in that regard.

Whatever. The argument used to be that we shouldn't repeal because the repealers WILL NEVER SUBMIT A REPLACEMENT!!! Now that they see replacements are being passed, they oppose the replacements as well:

The anti-repeal wing of this body just keeps getting dumber and dumber by the minute.

The Federal Republic has cast its vote FOR this resolution.Ahem. Perhaps the Federal Republic would rather not bring up past unpleasantness. We can assure the Kennyite delegation that the two anti-repeal movements have little in common.

..the original resolution never took into consideration the fact that many poorer countries will be unable to produce double-hulled tankers. (The mere fact that the resolution was little more than debate topic is beside the point, but certainly worth equal consideration.)Begging your pardon, Representative Dush, but we don't give a fuck whether the nation responsible for an oil-spill is poor or rich. If anything, spills resulting from a poor nation's inability (or unwillingness) to maintain safe equipment is more problematic in that they are less likely to be able to ameliorate any damage for which they are responsible. We do understand the inherent inequities that exist between developed and developing regions and hope that those can be addressed in future legislation, but not at the expense of the environment.

Quote:

Originally Posted by International Communist Union messageboard
UN : Repeal "Ban Single-Hulled Tankers". <snipped>

Ah, of course. And you certainly have no agenda, and communists and unions, of which you are both, certainly are always agents fighting beurocracy. Oh, and in case it was unclear to your naive communist mind, yes indeed, that was sarcasm. The soviet Union collapsed in 1991. Perhaps you should stop living 16 years in the past. Communism is dead, and the UN is useless as an agent against war. Every resolution must be opposed, and every repeal must be supported, no matter what the merits. I am sorry to go off topic like that, but I have an obligation as the delegate of Fennoskandia (the last true anti-communist citadel) to oppose communists at every step, so please forgive this. Allthough it is a fair argument against the UN, and therfore a good argument in support of a repeal. But I feel I am ranting now. Vote to repeal this resolution for your own freedoms!

-President of the Senate of TorgistanAnd so the anti-UN contingent weighs in. No, Mr. President, we have no intention of forgiving you for flaming another member of this body nor for forgetting that this is not that mythical "real world." You have no obligation to subject this body your ideological war. And you are mistaken--you were ranting from the very moment you opened your mouth.

We will be casting our vote FOR the repeal to make way for an effective resolution on the subject.

Leetha Talone
UN Ambassador, Rubina
Regional Delegate, User Friendlia

I have an obligation as the delegate of Fennoskandia (the last true anti-communist citadel) to oppose communists at every stepBoy, we've been "anti-communist" since your founding fathers were still in diapers.


http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v251/Tindalos/UN/doctor.jpg
Doctor Denis Leary
Ambassador to the UN
The Federated Technocratic Oligarchy of the Most Glorious Hack

I think we should see an alternate proposal for solving this problem before we're gonna repeal the old one. Repealing this without any constructive ideas will be harmful, because it allows building single-hulled tanker vessels until we apply another propsal without any cartainity it'll work better.

Commonwealth of Tobacco Isles is deeply worried about possible leaks from primitively built tanker vessels as we consist mainly of coastal regions. Think about those thousands of nations like us.

Markus Smith

the president of CTI

Ahem. Perhaps the Federal Republic would rather not bring up past unpleasantness. We can assure the Kennyite delegation that the two anti-repeal movements have little in common.What distant past? We were talking about three weeks ago (http://z11.invisionfree.com/Antarctic_Oasis/index.php?showtopic=793&view=findpost&p=7272020)!

The "two anti-repeal movements" have plenty in common, especially since they're led by the very same people!

It is not a question of should an impotent proposal be appealed, the question is what to replace it with after the waste of ink is removed.

Double-Hull only makes sense economically as well as environmentally. The UN should fine those that create the spills in order to aid in cleaning up the disasters created by the leaking single-hull. The funds could be used to subsidize the third world countries in purchasing their own double-hull tankers.

IF the funds are not used to subsidize, the third world countries that can not afford the double-hull let them contract out to the countries that can to either purchase with time payments like so many countries do when they borrow funds from another country or contract them to hull the oil for them.

I think we should see an alternate proposal for solving this problem before we're gonna repeal the old one. Repealing this without any constructive ideas will be harmful


First off, as Mavenu pointed out on page 1 of this thread :

You can't amend proposals. Period. You can't add on, you can't adjust, you can't edit. If you want to change an existing Proposal, you have to Repeal it first.

Therefore we MUST get this repeal passed before we can change the law. Fotar suggests that those that are so concerned about seeing a fit proposal to take its place write one up at this very moment instead of blocking the process that is set up.

Fotar again wishes to state that it strongly supports this repeal.

______________________
Fotar
~Vice-Chancellor of the Council of Narnia

The original resolution is not ambiguous. It is perfectly clear:

"We must unite to ban single-hulled tankers and endorse the use of double-hulled tankers."

This resolution bans single-hulled tankers.

The only ambiguous part is how the UN will "endorse" double-hulled tankers.

However, given that the name is "ban single hulled tankers," our nation believes the resolution is clear, concise, and perfectly sufficient for its purpose.

Sparta supports the original resolution.

Therefore we MUST get this repeal passed before we can change the law. Fotar suggests that those that are so concerned about seeing a fit proposal to take its place write one up at this very moment instead of blocking the process that is set up.


"You are correct on that point, but there's another that the other delegate was making, i.e. that all of industry everywhere would suddenly leap to change their manufacturing and so forth to produce single-hulled tankers and the like. I'm tired of people trying to imply that in the relatively short span of time that we don't have a resolution in place, or indeed if it is removed forever. A good deal of nations would probably continue to only use double-hulled tankers, in this case. Assuming that Everyone Everywhere is going to leap on the gap left in law and destroy Existence as we know it is not really a very realistic view. Most of us are against destroying Existence. Yes, there will be a few who might take the opportunity, but in the realm of Reality, I'm pretty sure it will be an insignificant amount. It's just not really to anyone's advantage really to do most of what we've legislated against, even if we repeal it."

[WOLFEDIT]OOC:
The original resolution is not ambiguous. It is perfectly clear:
"We must unite to ban single-hulled tankers and endorse the use of double-hulled tankers."
This resolution bans single-hulled tankers.
The only ambiguous part is how the UN will "endorse" double-hulled tankers.
However, given that the name is "ban single hulled tankers," our nation believes the resolution is clear, concise, and perfectly sufficient for its purpose.
Sparta supports the original resolution.

The language really isn't in line with the shop standards that we've developed over time. Yes, it can be taken to mean that in that context, but the point behind our repealing a great deal of older legislation seems to be to update the language to keep it in line with the in-character universe. R11 was written when the thing was relatively new, one assumes, so it makes sense that its language doesn't follow the current structure.

This ban will only hurt the people of the world.

The capitalist class will profit more from the risks associated with cheap and dangerous tankers. The workers of the world will be left paying the environmental costs of the spills caused by capitalist recklessness. Please vote against the repealing of this environmental protection.

Official pronouncement of the People's Democratic Republic of Sukeban Deka.

This ban will only hurt the people of the world.

The capitalist class will profit more from the risks associated with cheap and dangerous tankers. The workers of the world will be left paying the environmental costs of the spills caused by capitalist recklessness. Please vote against the repealing of this environmental protection.

Official pronouncement of the People's Democratic Republic of Sukeban Deka.

"Good job paying attention to what's been said. It is NOT to the capitalists advantage to ruin the place. Capitalists are not outright evil. They might take some underhanded methods and such, but an oil spill happening is not going to help them, and I doubt they'll risk it. Sure, there might be a few in a few nations, but, given the scale of Existence, it's not really a problem. Besides, what about all those non-member nations that we can't command, anyway? The whole point of this kind of thing is to get as many people as possible on board with a good idea. Most of Existence will continue to protect their environments."

What distant past? We were talking about three weeks ago (http://z11.invisionfree.com/Antarctic_Oasis/index.php?showtopic=793&view=findpost&p=7272020)!

The "two anti-repeal movements" have plenty in common, especially since they're led by the very same people!
Ah, in that case, yes, we can see the seeming contradiction.

It is not a question of should an impotent proposal be appealed, the question is what to replace it with after the waste of ink is removed.That is a question for the replacement. Perhaps you should contact the Cobdenians with your concerns and suggestions.

The original resolution is not ambiguous. It is perfectly clear:

"We must unite to ban single-hulled tankers and endorse the use of double-hulled tankers."

This resolution bans single-hulled tankers.
Well no, actually what it does is authorize a big get-together at which presumably single-hulled tankers would be banned. Unfortunately, that get-together isn't specified to occur as a formal meeting of the Assembly, and thus nothing official could occur. Besides, knowing how our big get-togethers go, the vast majority of delegates attending would be three sheets to the wind and incapable of accomplishing anything.

--L.T.

Although I'd frankly prefer otherwise, my government has ordered me not to support this repeal. Therefore, we shall be abstaining at this time.

Ikir Askanabath, Ambassador

All of you who have voted in favor of this resolution are apparently naive. Although we would all enjoy the idea of helping to save our environment, repealing Resolution 11 will do absolutely nothing. First off, as previously stated, many small blooming countries will not be able to afford the extra steel necessary to double-hull. Secondly, there is absolutely no guarantee that a new resolution would be passed. Therefore, at this point in time, it is in our best interest, and our duty as a legislation designed to protect the world to vote Nay on repealing Resolution 11.

"I'm sorry... what?"

in my opinion I do not feel there is any thing set and ready to go to take its place, It seems the goal is to repeal it.. and then ponder what to do next and hope you can get a resolution to re ban them to a vote.

The Confederacy of Wencee will not support this.

The Wolf Guardians;13560387']"You are correct on that point, but there's another that the other delegate was making, i.e. that all of industry everywhere would suddenly leap to change their manufacturing and so forth to produce single-hulled tankers and the like. I'm tired of people trying to imply that in the relatively short span of time that we don't have a resolution in place, or indeed if it is removed forever. A good deal of nations would probably continue to only use double-hulled tankers, in this case. Assuming that Everyone Everywhere is going to leap on the gap left in law and destroy Existence as we know it is not really a very realistic view. Most of us are against destroying Existence. Yes, there will be a few who might take the opportunity, but in the realm of Reality, I'm pretty sure it will be an insignificant amount. It's just not really to anyone's advantage really to do most of what we've legislated against, even if we repeal it."

[WOLFEDIT]OOC:


The language really isn't in line with the shop standards that we've developed over time. Yes, it can be taken to mean that in that context, but the point behind our repealing a great deal of older legislation seems to be to update the language to keep it in line with the in-character universe. R11 was written when the thing was relatively new, one assumes, so it makes sense that its language doesn't follow the current structure.


I AGREE, AND WOULD LIKE TO ADD THAT IF NEW LEGISLATION IS FORTHCOMING, AND SINGLE HULLED TANKERS ARE GOING TO BE BANNED AGAIN, THEN IT WOULD BE DOUBLY EXPENSIVE FOR THOSE WHO BUILT SINGLE HULLED TANKERS, AND THEN WOULD HAVE TO DISMANTLE THEM.

The new legislation won't affect current craft (only newly constructed), and then only in certain circumstances

I AGREE, AND WOULD LIKE TO ADD THAT IF NEW LEGISLATION IS FORTHCOMING, AND SINGLE HULLED TANKERS ARE GOING TO BE BANNED AGAIN, THEN IT WOULD BE DOUBLY EXPENSIVE FOR THOSE WHO BUILT SINGLE HULLED TANKERS, AND THEN WOULD HAVE TO DISMANTLE THEM.

"D'oh! You missed the point!

"ONLY CRAZIES ARE GOING TO SWITCH TO PRODUCING SINGLE-HULLED TANKERS. MOST OF US ACCEPT ENVIRONMENTAL RESPONSIBILITY AND SEMI-EXPECT A NEW RESOLUTION BANNING THEM, MAKING PRODUCTION OF SINGLE-HULLS NON-VIABLE EVEN WITHOUT RES 11!"

(ooc: Not that they were properly banned in the first place...)

I AGREE, AND WOULD LIKE TO ADD THAT IF NEW LEGISLATION IS FORTHCOMING, AND SINGLE HULLED TANKERS ARE GOING TO BE BANNED AGAIN, THEN IT WOULD BE DOUBLY EXPENSIVE FOR THOSE WHO BUILT SINGLE HULLED TANKERS, AND THEN WOULD HAVE TO DISMANTLE THEM.

Prince Rhodri firmly removes the loudhailer from the Drasangan delegation, and pulls some cotton wool out of his ears. "We must agree that under the circumstances, and given the opinions expressed in this chamber, any nation building single-hulled tankers would be doubly idiotic. Then again, we cannot see a bad side to punishing such idiocy."

I AGREE, AND WOULD LIKE TO ADD THAT IF NEW LEGISLATION IS FORTHCOMING, AND SINGLE HULLED TANKERS ARE GOING TO BE BANNED AGAIN, THEN IT WOULD BE DOUBLY EXPENSIVE FOR THOSE WHO BUILT SINGLE HULLED TANKERS, AND THEN WOULD HAVE TO DISMANTLE THEM.

WHY ARE YOU SHOUTING?

I any case, my government supports this, and will wholeheartedly support a replacement- especially anything presented by the Cobdenian delegation, which ahs established itself as the "King" of boaty resolutions.

The Federated States votes AYE.

Harmalan Shandreth
Ambassador Plenipotens

... what will the replacement be? I think single-hulled tankers should have to meet an expectation, but I agree that third-world countries can't pay for anything any bigger.
I'd like to look at a replacement before I vote for this. Seeing none, I voted against it.
I think the proposal should repeal this bill as part of its intent.

I appoligize for my earlier discourtesy, and would like to point out that there is now a replacement resolution in the proplsal stage. So, if your support was contingent on there being a replacement, then you now have no standing on that ground. The new resoloution is very concise, and not only replaces, but improves the current one. Again, i would offer my most sincere appology to the assembly over my... over enthuastiac representation of Drasanga's voice on the floor.

sweet, any ideas of what this new legislation is??

Vote Yay!!

OOC: I would like to point out that the replacement proposal is technically illegal for duplication at this moment, as the original is still in place until the repeal is successful. I assume we can just ignore that fact until the repeal passes or fails, though. I'm not a Mod. As for The Graz's response, you CANNOT do what you propose. It is against the coding of the game. Repeal, THEN replace. There is no other way to do it. You CANNOT repeal the old one INSIDE its replacement. CLICK HERE for proof. (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=8913201&postcount=1) Take note of this: Yes, you can Repeal, provided you use the Repeal function. If you make your own Proposal in some other category and calling it a Repeal, it's going to be deleted. Remember, Repeals can only repeal the existing resolution. You can provide reasons for repeal, but not any new provisions or laws.

Viz, you cannot repeal and introduce new legislation or "provisions or laws" at the same time. It is a two step process. Repeal old crap, pass new crap.

WOLFEDIT: Also, not that anyone cares, I'm still pissed that we assume that as soon as the law is repealed everyone everywhere is immediately going to begin breaking it. This is a bad, unrealistic assumption. If we repeal, say, an anti-rape law or something, it doesn't mean every single church minister and their uncle is going to go out an rape everyone, does it? Because we're administering law to NATIONS. NATIONS that already have their own, mostly-not-insane rules. Now, this might be true with some things, and I'll give it to you that it's more likely in the case of Res 11, but I still don't think that 1) everyone will scrap their double-hulls (that the old one didn't actually have actionable language to require anyway) and build single-hulls. 2) Those same Everyone will go out and remove every other safety protocol they have against spills that 1) cost the company an assload and 2) damage the environment. Common sense would dictate that those already following the spirit of Res 11 will continue to do so anyway.

MOREWOLFEDIT: Not that common sense exists in this bloody multiverse.

"This is the new legislation, and as previosly stated it more than adaquately replaces the ineffective predecessor. However noble the intentions of the previous legislation, the truth is that it does nothing more than urge, prompt, and support double hulls." Pausing to take a sip of water, the Drasangan speaker consults some personal notes. "And to adress the most prudent comment of my most estemmed collague that the proposal is illegal under duplication laws, as a referanda process has already begun, surely this legislation is the equivlent of an independant bill?"

Single Hull Tanker Ban 2
A resolution to increase the quality of the world's environment, at the expense of industry.


Category: Environmental
Industry Affected: All Businesses
Proposed by: Holenland

Description: Single Hull Tankers carrying hydrocarbon products such as oil, liquefied petroleum gas (LPG), and liquefied natural gas (LNG)chemicals, such as ammonia, chlorine, and styrene monomer can cause enormous environmental damage and cost millions of dollars to clean up. Millions of dollars in Economic damage is caused when these chemicals are spilled. As in previous legislation we recognize there would also be a boon to fishing, tourism, and shipbuilding industries if environmental disasters such as oil spills could be reduced.

1.The construction of single hulled tankers shall be banned immediately.

2.All existing single hulled tankers that meet the safety requirements of the nation in which they are registered will be allowed.

3.The refit and major overhaul of single hull tankers to bring them back into regulation is banned if the ship in question is over 20 years old.

"We could pretend not to notice it until this passes, since it'll be the same net effect, but strictly speaking, until Resolution Eleven is removed, the new proposal is illegal.

"That aside, I'd prefer if the new one used standard UN language, too. That is, saying
THE UNITED NATIONS:

REALIZING that blah blah

BANS blah blah

REQUIRES blah blah blah.

"I don't like hardcoding numbers into resolutions, either, namely the twenty-year requirement. Some nations might have incredibly robust ships that last centuries, whilst others might have ones that fall apart after five years. I'd also prefer it mention banning the use of single-hull tankers for environmentally dangerous things. While this might be most of what they transport, surely there's some niche uses where they carry something completely innocuous? I am pleased at the inclusion of other safety protocols. And, I hate myself for saying this, but perhaps generating a committee to establish safety protocols for the ships would be a good idea, as well as judging the refittability of old ships and the like.

"But then, this is not the time or place (OOC: Thread, that is) for discussing the replacement. We are discussing the current repeal."

The Athenian Democracy of Zanyo feels that it must vote in favor of this resolution, for the previously stated reason that Resolution # 11 is nothing but a rally cry against single-hulled tankers. UN resolutions are not for suggesting solutions but putting them into action.

I'd like to address all of the nations opposed to this repeal because of the possibility that a new resolution may not be effective or even brought to vote. I would like you to dwell on this thought for at least a moment: What would you lose? As I stated before, you have nothing but a rally cry. If this is repealed, you will simply lose that. A rally cry. Fortunately, you still have the UN Forums for such things, which is where it should have been all along. If a new resolution is passed, there's no way it could not be more effective than the current one, unless it is just another rally cry. And if it is, you've neither lost nor gained nothing. If it is more than that, even just a little, you've at least gained a resolution that does something. Addressing the possibility of loopholes, they would be better than what we have now, as they can possibly do something. True the current resolution may not have loopholes. But it does nothing that someone needs to find a loophole around.

In conclusion, Zanyo fully supports this resolution and encourages others to vote FOR it in favor of a more effective resolution.

Ruben Akiro
Zanyo Head of UN Resolutions

And so the anti-UN contingent weighs in. No, Mr. President, we have no intention of forgiving you for flaming another member of this body nor for forgetting that this is not that mythical "real world." You have no obligation to subject this body your ideological war. And you are mistaken--you were ranting from the very moment you opened your mouth.

We will be casting our vote FOR the repeal to make way for an effective resolution on the subject.

Leetha Talone
UN Ambassador, Rubina
Regional Delegate, User Friendlia

Ah yes, you won't forgive me for falming another member, so you do it to me instead. You have no obligation to subject this body to your interventionist ideological war any more than I do to mine. But I do strongly aplaud your willingness to stand by what you believe despite logic saying otherwise. It's good comitment, a quailty very admirable even when on the wrong side. And we all know that people will forget by the next resolution. Nothing is acomplsihed by this resolution aside from what i want acomplished by it. So thank you for the vote for repeal.

Best regards,
The President of the Senate of Torgistan

Boy, we've been "anti-communist" since your founding fathers were still in diapers.


http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v251/Tindalos/UN/doctor.jpg
Doctor Denis Leary
Ambassador to the UN
The Federated Technocratic Oligarchy of the Most Glorious Hack

And for this, we in Torgistan and Fennoskandia salute you. Our regional factoid may seem dismissive of other anti-communists, and I will discuss it with the regional founder, in order to remove the words "the last true" from it. But for the time being, it stands. Best of luck in the war on communism, and my apologies if this is a double post.

- President of the Senate of Torgistan

The Confedracy of Willage is in favour of this resolution, as the U.N. should stand for more then just idle rhetoric and instead put into action the ideals and morals that its members believe to be the in the best interest of all constituent nations.

Archon Baseilius
Hector

This resolution can be repealed on one condition that all ships with single hull will be strengthened, or require single hull ships to be made of stronger materials. Not only leaking tankers are environmental disasters, it costs millions of dollars in damage, as well as massive compensations.

*Jenny Kahn from the Timur Lenk UN-office grabs the word*

Firstly, our delegation supports the Jeyian intention to remove such peculiar and obviously ineffective legislation. *Stops to clap hands*. Good for you Jeyians.

Secondly, although the original resolution is, hmm, how shall we put it, unsatisfactory, this is an area where our office actually would like to see some sort of international regulation. So, the question, of course, is this; is there, to anyones knowledge, some sort of process of writing a replacement? If this has been stated earlier by other representatives, forgive me, but I make an habit of not really listening to what other people say.

In any case, we will be casting our vote FOR this proposal, seeing as even if no one has a written replacement at this moment, one will surely present itself. Or else there should be no bigger "hustle" than to write one of our own. And seriously, the time during repealing this and replacement legislation, what's likely to happen with tankers, single our double? I doubt any state or company within a state will simply get rid of their nice double-hulled tankers just because the floor is open för singles.

Thank you, ladies and gents.

Jenny Kahn,
Timur Lenk UN-office (TLUNO)
Resident Bureaucrat

I applaud the repeal of this ineffective legislation but how long can this go on? Endless repealing of mediocre resolutions is alright by me, but generally there is no replacement legislation and when there is someone else repeals it ad the whole process begins again. It is fairly pointless, unless someone submits their replacement resolution directly after the elimination of the former piece of legislation.

I belive it is better for the ecomany I hope that will pound some scence into your heads:headbang::headbang:

I really don't see what the problem with oil spills is as long as they aren't happening in my country's waters. :rolleyes:

Ah yes, you won't forgive me for falming [sic] another member, so you do it to me instead. Mr. President, were there any flames in our comments to you, we'd apologize.

I hope that will pound some scence into your heads:headbang::headbang:If you continue to pound your head against that wall, we're afraid the only thing you'll achieve is a massive headache.

I really don't see what the problem with oil spills is as long as they aren't happening in my country's waters. :rolleyes:Good luck with that.

--L.T.

By enacting this policy we caused many companies they use tankers to transport fresh water and other environmental friendly substances to spend more to do what?...keep the fresh water from entering the ocean? Only those companies that transport crude oil and the likes should be forced to have double hulled tankers.

The Drasangan Senior Delagate leaps to his feet, shocking the floor with his abrupt reaction, " My lord General, what does the matieral being transported have to do with the security of the hull? The mere fact that you would set such a double standard is slightly offensive. Wouldn't the material standard then involve the creation of yet another comittee to be sure that the tankers were indeed, to use your example, fresh water and not crude oil, and wouldn't the afore mentioned comittee be in quite the staffing situation, having to setup posts in every harbor and port of any and every UN Member nation in the wide world we live in?" Resuming his seat to see what would be said next the elderly delagate looked slightly redfaced.

Why do all these repeals keep passing. People, STOP voting yes on these, with no replacement legislation

The following note was read to the Special Committee on the Repeal:

Delegates all,

We have observed, with some interest, the debate proceeding.

We have noted the argument put forward by proponents, notable the Wolf Guardians' delegation, that the market will, in effect, self-regulate. We have noted, further, the argument that the original resolution is "unprofessional" in its language, and further, that it is ineffective.

In reply, we make these arguments:

(1) It is demonstrably proven that the market will not self-regulate to any acceptable level. Particularly in environmental matters, the market embraces excess, cut corners and damage to bystanders. Therefore, repealing a ban on single-hulled tankers will result in the construction of such resuming. Also, noting that the owners will assume a replacement of the resolution preasssumes that the owner-capitalist classes will not pressure their nation's delegations to squash any such fresh resolution. In order to retain such cost-cutting capacity, they surely will.

(2) The professional standards have changed over time, it's true, but this is hardly sufficient to repeal resolutions passed years ago.

(3) The resolution appears to be quite effective - it makes the will of the NSUN clear to even the most dense onlooker.

In light of the fallacy of the proponents' arguments, the Emperor has instructed the New Chalcedonian delegation to vote in the negative.

Sincerely,

Alexius Probastos,
Dragoman to the United Nations for the Empire of New Chalcedon.

Too more repeals!! Wait some time and we will have "Repeal to repeal to repeal to repeal to repeal to repeal to repeal to repeal to repeal to repeal to repeal to repeal to repeal to repeal to repeal to repeal to repeal to repeal to repeal to repeal to repeal to <any UN Proposal>"

It is demonstrably proven that the market will not self-regulate to any acceptable level.Really? Not in NS it hasn't.

The resolution appears to be quite effective - it makes the will of the NSUN clear to even the most dense onlooker.This "most dense onlooker" remains unclear as to the "will of the UN" on this (now defunct) resolution. All it does is condemn an unsubstantiated incident of environmental damage "off the coast of Spain" (to our mind, Francos Spain never reported such an incident off its coast), and blabber about how "we must unite to ban single-hulled tankers," which doesn't ban anything. It's mere grandstanding.

Too more repeals!! Wait some time and we will have "Repeal to repeal to repeal to repeal to repeal to repeal to repeal to repeal to repeal to repeal to repeal to repeal to repeal to repeal to repeal to repeal to repeal to repeal to repeal to repeal to repeal to <any UN Proposal>"Dude, just shut up already.

Congratulations to Jey on another successful repeal.

Congratulations to Jey on another successful repeal.

Thanks, Kenny. This resolution was long overdue for repeal. It looks just fine in gray strikeout.

I suggest that instead of striking out every resolution, that Jay actually writes one to replace the ones he destroys. Seems a bit hypocritical: "This resolution is clearly not good enough, but I'm not going to replace it with anything better." I am disapointed that this repeal was passed without any safty net. Buffalo New York vehamently opposes this repeal.

I suggest that instead of striking out every resolution, that Jay actually writes one to replace the ones he destroys. Seems a bit hypocritical: "This resolution is clearly not good enough, but I'm not going to replace it with anything better." I am disapointed that this repeal was passed without any safty net. Buffalo New York vehamently opposes this repeal.

Two things, A, replacements can't be submitted until the resolution they're replacing have been repealed, and B, repeal authors are in no way, shape or form obligated to provide a replacement for the resolution they're repealing.

Bob Flibble
UN Representative

@Science and Soul:

Two things, A, replacements can't be submitted until the resolution they're replacing have been repealed, and B, repeal authors are in no way, shape or form obligated to provide a replacement for the resolution they're repealing.And C, another nation has already offered to write the replacement. Which gives you two options: supporting the replacement, or at least giving suggestions to make it effective and workable; or, whining like a spoiled brat. It's your call.

Congratulations, Jey. Logic prevails. Well done.

@Science and Soul:

And C, another nation has already offered to write the replacement. Which gives you two options: supporting the replacement, or at least giving suggestions to make it effective and workable; or, whining like a spoiled brat. It's your call.

Would the representative from OMGTKK please direct us towards where this process is taken place, or if not begun, which nation/s are you refering too?

Thank you very much in advance

Jenny Kahn
Resident Bureaucrat
Timur Lenk UN-office (TLUNO)

When the author (Cobdenia) is ready to start drafting, he'll post his proposal on this forum. Till then, be patient. There is another replacement draft (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=553053) already posted, which, incidentally, does not suck.

When the author (Cobdenia) is ready to start drafting, he'll post his proposal on this forum. Till then, be patient. There is another replacement draft (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=553053) already posted, which, incidentally, does not suck.
And which has, in fact, already been submitted...

Thank you.

Jenny Kahn
Resident Bureaucrat
Timur Lenk UN-office (TLUNO)

If anyone wonded I voted for yay a few days back.