Repeal GA #204 "Nuclear Power Safety Act" (DEFEATED)

[Bergnovinaia]

All y'all delegates, please approve here!

Repeal "Nuclear Power Safety Act"
Category: Repeal | Resolution: GA#204 | Proposed by: Bergnovinaia

Argument:
THE WORLD ASSEMBLY:

CONCERNED that the Resolution in question establishes the NESC and its duties but does not require nations to comply with its suggestions;

APPALLED at the idea that energy corporations and national nuclear energy industries may pick and choose guidelines that suit their corporation’s or nation’s needs without regards to civilian safety;

WORRIED that in order to maximize energy output and profits, corporations and national nuclear energy industries will cut corners, putting the everyday worker and civilian in harm's way from the many dangers of radiation from nuclear power;

TROUBLED that the mandate that member nations “follow adequate building designs" to construct nuclear power plant facilities may lead to corporations or national energy industries using older, more hazardous plans deemed as "adequate”;

ANXIOUS that while nations are required to "establish procedures and arrangements to maintain safety and stability", that they are not required to update these procedures on a regular basis;

FRIGHTENED that the same mandate does not give any real form of direction and thus gives corporations and national energy industries the freedom to implement potentially inefficient and non-protective safety codes;

HOPING that any future resolutions related to safety in Nuclear Power address these issues;

REPEALS GA Resolution #204.

Co-Author: [nation=short]Individuality-ness[/nation]

Comments and suggestions are welcome!

[Individuality-ness]

But we're giving credit to Funkadelia for giving us the bones. We'd also credit him as co-author, but if I recall correctly, only one co-author can be listed per proposal... Funk, it's yours if you want it. Just notify us.

Allie Youngblood

[Christian Democrats]

Support repeal. No replacement.

[Funkadelia]

It's fine, because I'm no longer in the WA anymore, anyhow. Also, you misspelled Frightened.

[Frisbeeteria]

I'm no longer in the WA anymore

That's irrelevant for co-author credit. A lot of our authors aren't in the WA, or stay in via a puppet. It's still your choice.

[Yandera]

Support this Repeal with no replacement.

[Pollepao]

But we're giving credit to Funkadelia for giving us the bones. We'd also credit him as co-author, but if I recall correctly, only one co-author can be listed per proposal... Funk, it's yours if you want it. Just notify us.

Allie Youngblood

There is nothing I can see in the laws that makes it illegal to list more than one co-author if they truly contributed. Unless a Secretariat has ruled over wise previously?

[Frisbeeteria]

There is nothing I can see in the laws that makes it illegal to list more than one co-author if they truly contributed. Unless a Secretariat has ruled over wise previously?

It's one co-author, per the section on Branding. I could have sworn we said "one" somewhere in the rules, but it appears we just used the term "co-author" and assumed people could tell the difference between singular and plural.

[Knootoss]

Support the repeal. No replacement.

[Ossitania]

Support the repeal. No replacement.

We rise in agreement with the gentleman from Knootoss.

[Flibbleites]

There is nothing I can see in the laws that makes it illegal to list more than one co-author if they truly contributed. Unless a Secretariat has ruled over wise previously?

It's one co-author, per the section on Branding. I could have sworn we said "one" somewhere in the rules, but it appears we just used the term "co-author" and assumed people could tell the difference between singular and plural.

I know the previous iteration of the rules thread did.

[Pollepao]

Ah, that makes thing confusing. Such a thing really should be corrected, to make the rules clearer. But we will leave that to the Secretariat to discuss.

[Individuality-ness]

Okay, now that we got the "can we have more than one co-author?" discussion, and received an answer from two members of the Secretariat, can we direct our attention to the proposal before the WA floor before we go further off track?

Allie Youngblood

[Paper Flowers]

We supported the previous attempt at a repeal and support this version as well. One minor change that might be worth considering based on the comments of the representatives thus far would be to remove the "HOPING" clause as there seems to be little initial interest in further legislation on this issue.

Deputy Ambassador Saunders

[Funkadelia]

We, as a nation with a rich Uranium refining sector, feel that safety regulations in that are are important. Of course, we support this repeal due to it being very flawed, however we fear what may happen in nations that have less than desirable safety regulations, and then end up with a nuclear disaster. I hope those opposed to a replacement will consider this point.

Charles Mayfield

[Knootoss]

The author is still determined to proceed with this, I hope?


Ambassador Aram Koopman
World Assembly representative for the Dutch Democratic Republic of Knootoss

[Ungodly Despotism]

I also support repeal without replacement.

I should be able to pursue nuclear power as I wish. Not everyone values the safety of their citizens.

Perhaps I should leave the World Assembly.

[Bergnovinaia]

The ambassador from Bergnovinaia is prepared to proceed with this proposal. We are still awaiting any further input.

OOC: I am currently mobile due to travel w/o access to a computer of mine, so i will probably submit both of my proposals come Saturday evening or sunday when i have time and the computer to type and do a tag campaign for approval.

[Bergnovinaia]

This will be submitted later today because I have time to campaign. Any last minute suggestions/things to change?

[Ossitania]

HOPING that any future resolutions related to safety in Nuclear Power address these issues;

To make it clear that we neither expect nor desire a replacement.

[Kaputer]

A repeal without a replace would best serve the people of the world.

[Bergnovinaia]

HOPING that any future resolutions related to safety in Nuclear Power address these issues;

To make it clear that we neither expect nor desire a replacement.

Edited.

[Mallorea and Riva]

Use the nation=short tag for listing your coauthor.

[Bergnovinaia]

Use the nation=short tag for listing your coauthor.

Like the edit or something different?

[Kaputer]

If you just eliminate: HOPING that any future resolutions related to safety in Nuclear Power address these issues;
This Proposal will garner the full support of Kaputer, and I expect many other nations.