[PASSED] Repeal: WA Environmental Council

[Glen-Rhodes]

You clearly misunderstand. I meant to say that my feelings on the matter were obvious, as in everyone could clearly see what they were by reading this debate. I never meant to say it was obvious that a repeal was the best course of action. I would appreciate it if you would stop falsely characterizing my statements, Dr. Castro.

You're engaging in tautology. There is no difference between "I feel repeal is the best option" and "Repeal is the best option" when you are the person proposing a repeal. Unless you're trying to say that you're dropping the repeal, I am not mis-characterizing anything.

- Dr. B. Castro

[Cool Egg Sandwich]

You clearly misunderstand. I meant to say that my feelings on the matter were obvious, as in everyone could clearly see what they were by reading this debate. I never meant to say it was obvious that a repeal was the best course of action. I would appreciate it if you would stop falsely characterizing my statements, Dr. Castro.

You're engaging in tautology. There is no difference between "I feel repeal is the best option" and "Repeal is the best option" when you are the person proposing a repeal. Unless you're trying to say that you're dropping the repeal, I am not mis-characterizing anything.

- Dr. B. Castro

I understand what you are saying, Dr. Castro, believe me. I am simply clarifying that when I inserted the "[obviously]", its intent was to accentuate how obvious it was to the reader what my viewpoints were. It was never intended to specify the correctness of my viewpoints. I have already clarified this twice, and further claims to the contrary are simply speculating on my intentions.

Of course I believe that this resolution should be repealed, that much should be clear by this point; I do not, however, think that such a repeal is the 'obvious' course of action. To assume such would be to exclude the importance of other methods, such as the suggestions you've made.

I hope I have made my statements clear, Dr. Castro.

Rgds.,

[Jari Head]

From what this observer sees, WAEC appears to be an advisory committe, aka a 'paper tiger' all growl, no teeth.

[Great Nepal]

We have alwyse been against any proposal in "environmental" catogory, and support of repeal of those. So we would have no problem to support any repeal attempt of this ecomentalist lunacy.

[Glen-Rhodes]

Of course I believe that this resolution should be repealed, that much should be clear by this point; I do not, however, think that such a repeal is the 'obvious' course of action. To assume such would be to exclude the importance of other methods, such as the suggestions you've made.

I hope I have made my statements clear, Dr. Castro.

You have not. I don't want to quibble over the intent of the 'obviously.' You obviously think that repeal is the best route. Unless you are a completely irrational person, you would not prefer repeal if you thought there were better options.

Either way, you have yet to provide any compelling argument -- and I say this objectively -- as to why a repeal is necessary in light of the fact that you can expand the WAEC's authority without repealing the resolution that founded the council.

And if you had any doubt about who would vote for a repeal, I hope you have become enlightened:

We have alwyse been against any proposal in "environmental" catogory, and support of repeal of those. So we would have no problem to support any repeal attempt of this ecomentalist lunacy.

- Dr. B. Castro

[Destructor Bunnies]

Well I think this is a fine idea and I support the repeal and I don't care why he's repealing it.

[Ardchoille]

Dr Castro, whether the point about "obviously" is clear or not, could you please move back to the content of the repeal?

-- Dicey Reilly, filling in as chairman for the much-missed Secretary General, and when I say "much-missed", I'm remembering my last toothache.

[Glen-Rhodes]

Dr Castro, whether the point about "obviously" is clear or not, could you please move back to the content of the repeal?

I am discussing the content of the repeal. I'm saying it's an irrational endeavor. Why are you oppressing me?!

- Dr. B. Castro

[Mesogirian WA Mission]

Dr Castro, whether the point about "obviously" is clear or not, could you please move back to the content of the repeal?

I am discussing the content of the repeal. I'm saying it's an irrational endeavor. Why are you oppressing me?!

- Dr. B. Castro

Because oppression tastes like strawberries!

[Ardchoille]

Dr Castro, whether the point about "obviously" is clear or not, could you please move back to the content of the repeal?

I am discussing the content of the repeal. I'm saying it's an irrational endeavor. Why are you oppressing me?!

- Dr. B. Castro

I am oppressing you because:

• It' s a slow day at the Secretariat;
• I have to be seen to be earning my pay;
• There weren't any Kennyites available;
• It gets me Brownie points with the NatSovs;
• Why not?

-- Dicey Reilly, who has to do something to stay awake.

[Mousebumples]

I support this repeal as it focuses on a resolution that is only "taking up space" and wasting valuable WA resources.

Yours,
Nikolas Eberhart
Ambassador from the Doctoral Monkey Feet of Mousebumples
WA Delegate for Monkey Island

[Glen-Rhodes]

I support this repeal as it focuses on a resolution that is only "taking up space" and wasting valuable WA resources.

Which means one of two things: Mousebumples would like the World Assembly to dictate environmental policy for its member states -- which isn't very sovereignty-friendly; or Mousebumples thinks that environmental protection is a waste of time, in which case the author seems to have already stated that they want to repeal the resolution because it's not strong enough, so...

- Dr. B. Castro

[Mousebumples]

I support this repeal as it focuses on a resolution that is only "taking up space" and wasting valuable WA resources.

Which means one of two things: Mousebumples would like the World Assembly to dictate environmental policy for its member states -- which isn't very sovereignty-friendly; or Mousebumples thinks that environmental protection is a waste of time, in which case the author seems to have already stated that they want to repeal the resolution because it's not strong enough, so...

It means that Mousebumples would like to see this resolution replaced. I am presently working with the author of this repeal to construct a valid replacement proposal.

I know you disagree with me, Dr. Castro. The whole Assembly can see that as you've made your position more than clear. However, I will not be bullied by yawn-inducing implications such as the one that you just shared.

Yours in opposition,
Nikolas Eberhart
Ambassador for the Doctoral Monkey Feet of Mousebumples
WA Delegate for Monkey Island

[Glen-Rhodes]

I know you disagree with me, Dr. Castro. The whole Assembly can see that as you've made your position more than clear. However, I will not be bullied by yawn-inducing implications such as the one that you just shared.

I implied two things. Apparently the first is the correct characterization, which is a good development if it is genuinely true. Though, it's entirely foolish to repeal a research resolution in order to write a research and policy-making resolution. Nothing in the current resolution prevents the World Assembly from implementing WAEC suggestions in its member states.

- Dr. B. Castro

[Destructor Bunnies]

Well, as I've said before I support this repeal and I don't care what the motive is for repealing it. I also won't be supporting a replacement unless it contains a blocking provision.

[Bears Armed]

OOC: The only reason why I would be willing to consider a repeal of the WAEC is for the stats effect, and as the game already rates Bears Armed's economy as noticeably stronger than I think would actually be the case that isn't a very high priority for me although I do understand that some of you might "need" the economic boost that a repeal would provide. The Bears, from their IC viewpoint, see no reason for a repeal.

[Baptovia]

While I laud the intention of the authors of the original proposal, I do see significant weaknesses in the WAEC work and note its ineffectual nature. We support this repeal with the proviso that a similar resolution with improvements may be prepared.[/quote]

I agree. Simply repealing it does not seem to answer.

[Cool Egg Sandwich]

While I laud the intention of the authors of the original proposal, I do see significant weaknesses in the WAEC work and note its ineffectual nature. We support this repeal with the proviso that a similar resolution with improvements may be prepared.
I agree. Simply repealing it does not seem to answer.

OOC: I have been busy lately with RL junk, but Mousey and myself [likely others, as well] plan to prepare some sort of 'replacement' draft. Of course, I will post something when it's appropriate.

Saludos,

[Darenjo]

If indeed there is a replacement in the works, I, and I'm sure quite a few others, would like to see that presented before the repeal is submitted. At the current time, my support of this is based on the quality of the replacement, and if that is not presented before this repeal is submitted, Darenjo will not be supporting.

[Mousebumples]

If indeed there is a replacement in the works, I, and I'm sure quite a few others, would like to see that presented before the repeal is submitted. At the current time, my support of this is based on the quality of the replacement, and if that is not presented before this repeal is submitted, Darenjo will not be supporting.

We're planning on writing a replacement, but we haven't really had time to proverbially put pencil to paper. I don't know when CES is looking to submit this repeal, however.

[Cool Egg Sandwich]

If indeed there is a replacement in the works, I, and I'm sure quite a few others, would like to see that presented before the repeal is submitted. At the current time, my support of this is based on the quality of the replacement, and if that is not presented before this repeal is submitted, Darenjo will not be supporting.

I have absolutely no immediate plans to submit this repeal.

[Cool Egg Sandwich]

I just wanted to let everyone know that a replacement draft for WA Environmental Council is currently in the works, and something should be ready very soon. I will, of course, be making a new thread for the replacement, but I also want to re-spark debate on this repeal. I hope we can get a better law on the books, as I see no real benefits from "WA Environmental Council".

Just as a preview:

The new replacement draft will be centered around a semi-strong central research agency. The agency will conduct research in all member nations, and suggest policy directives and publish their research.

Nations will still have the authority to pursue their own environmental policies; however, they are strongly urged to comply with the directives of the research agency. Essentially it's an upgraded, clarified version of the current system. Something shall be posted in the next couple/few days...

[Glen-Rhodes]

The new replacement draft will be centered around a semi-strong central research agency. The agency will conduct research in all member nations, and suggest policy directives and publish their research.

Nations will still have the authority to pursue their own environmental policies; however, they are strongly urged to comply with the directives of the research agency. Essentially it's an upgraded, clarified version of the current system. Something shall be posted in the next couple/few days...

That's not at all different from the current resolution and goes against everything you've said in this debate!

[Cool Egg Sandwich]

The new replacement draft will be centered around a semi-strong central research agency. The agency will conduct research in all member nations, and suggest policy directives and publish their research.

Nations will still have the authority to pursue their own environmental policies; however, they are strongly urged to comply with the directives of the research agency. Essentially it's an upgraded, clarified version of the current system. Something shall be posted in the next couple/few days...

That's not at all different from the current resolution and goes against everything you've said in this debate!

For one, it's not complete; there will be additional things that set it apart. I agree that the WAEC is essentially the framework for the new agency, but the new agency will have expanded authority. Some ideas that we are currently working through are:

1) Nations and their cooperation with the agency
2) Whether or not to provide "incentives" to member nations who comply with the agency's enviro-policy directives
3) Giving the agency authority to direct enviro-policy in "international" territory.

I certainly would like to preserve the right for nations to determine their own policy, but I would definitely like somethingmore in place to encourage nations to cooperate and comply with agency directives.

As you might expect, Dr. Castro, I wouldn't propose a replacement that provided an authoritative environmental agency; however, I do wish for said agency to possess enough power to actually encourage nations to improve their own environments.

The drafting process is certainly not done, I was just providing an update with "solid" material that was more or less determined.

I know what my arguments are against the WAEC, it's ambiguous, nations do not have to cooperate/comply, and I would like something stronger. That doesn't mean I want an environmental agency that dictates every member's policies, but something that actually has the potential to encourage change.

[Glen-Rhodes]

As you might expect, Dr. Castro, I wouldn't propose a replacement that provided an authoritative environmental agency; however, I do wish for said agency to possess enough power to actually encourage nations to improve their own environments.

Your statements and the repeal itself have said otherwise this entire time. The repeal is based entirely on the lack of 'legal authority to resolve environmental problems.' Right now, the WAEC does research and suggests policy. According to the draft I've read and your statements here, the new environmental body would do research and suggest policy.

I know what my arguments are against the WAEC, it's ambiguous, nations do not have to cooperate/comply, and I would like something stronger. That doesn't mean I want an environmental agency that dictates every member's policies, but something that actually has the potential to encourage change.

It just simply does not make an ounce of sense. The WAEC does work with nations to encourage changes in environmental policy. What you're quibbling over is words, not substance.

Your replacement, so far, is not better quality in substance by any metric. It is more ambiguous than the current resolution. The repeal argues that the WAEC is a poor resolution because "it was established without specifics being detailed within the resolution text." Yet, there is no sign that your own replacement would have any specifics whatsoever; it in fact has far less.

The repeal argues that the WAEC is a poor resolution because "member nations are not required to assist WAEC research, cooperate with the WAEC, nor comply with suggestions related to published scientific reports." Yet your draft does not require it either, nor does it even go as far to suggest that nations assist in research.

And finally, the repeal argued that the WAEC is a poor resolution because "the WAEC has no legal authority to resolve environmental problems, and is therefore powerless to act in the face of environmental problems." Yet your draft would ban the World Assembly from ever regulating environmental policy.

I'm not going to go so far as to say that you've been completely disingiuous this entire time. I would have expected a completely different "draft base" to have been written, though, if the repeal text accurrately reflected your views and your intentions in a replacement. Right now, the draft itself is disingiuous. If I had to guess, you're trying to get people to vote for a repeal who would want a stronger resolution, then pull the old bait n' switch on them.

If this is wrong, I apologize. I am merely going by the information available to me.