A mean old man wrote:Charlotte Ryberg wrote:I think under Free Trade that would be a good idea. What do you think, honoured ambassador from A mean old man? I mean, the current proposal doesn't have to be on the queue if the loophole clause is bothering you.
-Ms. S. Harper.
I appreciate this feedback, though it would have been much more helpful to me had it been provided back in December when I wrote this rather than now after I have submitted it. I'll admit Free Trade is a better category for it, however it has already been submitted under Human Rights and still serves its purpose under its current category.Quadrimmina wrote:The Republic of Quadrimmina voices our belief that this resolution would be much more useful as one on the broader area of consumer protection. We look forward to working with the esteemed delegation from A mean old man to make this a reality.
As stands, it is a good idea but one that seems too micromanaging for the WA to push as a mandate. As a line-item on a much more broad resolution, it would serve much better.
I had started writing this as a much broader piece of legislation that covered other areas of consumer protection, however dropped the other ideas I had for the proposal as I find it much more convenient to pass these sorts of things piece-by-piece in order to avoid writing broader pieces of legislation with which varying groups of people will find varying areas of effect that they dislike. Call it micromanaging if you like; I prefer to call it efficiency.
That's okay, we are going to support it anyway because it is very promising.