Datavia wrote:While it is true that "Food and Drug Standards" empowers WAFDRA to the closure of regulatory facilities, it can be argued that it actually doesn't establlish any provisions for the enforcement of that power. Which begs the question: how specific must GA resolutions be? And how much intervention is too much intervention or a breach of national sovereingty. According to the current vote, most nations are content with establishing international standards and being able to know what's up in that suspicious nuclear plant of their neighbour.
Which is what standardizing and overseeing are about.
So you finally agree that it doesn't do anything then, albeit in a rather mealy-mouthed way. And no, people are voting in favour because they haven't read it properly. Of the 20 of my constituents who voted in favour of this, 14 have switched their vote since I TG'ed round to point out that the NESC doesn't have any actual authority.
how specific must GA resolutions be?
To my knowledge no-one is asking for anything to be made more specific, merely that the NESC actually has the authority so that it isn't a pointless resolution. A few added words should do it.
