[PASSED] Repeal "Medical Blockade Restriction"

[Christian Democrats]

No, that's not my point. I'm trying to figure out what a WA statue is.

Yes, and the resolution in question tells us to seek guidance from the WA Statue [sic]. Pray, explain where you see an error.

Our delegation congratulates Dr. Forshaw and his government for getting this to quorum, and look forward to voting for this resolution.

Yours in seeking guidance from statues.

Dr. Crick

[edited to add stuff]

"Statue" is the error.

[Connopolis]

Yes, and the resolution in question tells us to seek guidance from the WA Statue [sic]. Pray, explain where you see an error.

Our delegation congratulates Dr. Forshaw and his government for getting this to quorum, and look forward to voting for this resolution.

Yours in seeking guidance from statues.

Dr. Crick

[edited to add stuff]

"Statue" is the error.

I wrote "statue" intentionally, as opposed to statute. It's poking fun at this clause:

PERMITS the searching of delivery vessels in accordance with WA statues.

Yours,

[Damanucus]

Yes, and the resolution in question tells us to seek guidance from the WA Statue [sic]. Pray, explain where you see an error.

Our delegation congratulates Dr. Forshaw and his government for getting this to quorum, and look forward to voting for this resolution.

Yours in seeking guidance from statues.

Dr. Crick

[edited to add stuff]

"Statue" is the error.

I think we all know that.

I've never had to seek guidance from the WA Statue (although there have been rumours of some of our more...esteemed delegates stumbling out of the Strangers Bar inebriated and consulting it for all sorts of reasons; I remember hearing from a member of another delegation that the last one to do so was consulting it regarding his "knocking up" another delegate, and consequently losing his job because of it).

Stephanie Orman
Representative, Nomadic Peoples of Damanucus

[Starlightia]

*The NLR Member(more or less deligate since I am the sole WA member in my reigon) looked over the original proposal and then the repeal* I agree with this. Lives influence politics, and borders dont matter. You have Starlightia's seal on this.

[Syrkania]

While I am casting Syrkania's vote AGAINST, as I do not necessarily agree with the conclusions drawn about letting any vehicle and all contents into a nation, I am at least reassured that a replacement is clearly in the works.

And why would you not consult the WA Statue? Always provided good advice to me.

Harim Kelsis,
WA Special Envoy for Syrkania

[Scandavian States]

Ambassador Samurakami quickly pressed the button for an affirmative vote and stood, "I would like to personally congratulate the delegation from Connopolis for showing the sort of common sense the Imperial delegation believed the Squishie faction lacked and enthusiastically vote FOR this repeal."

[Gantilgrim]

Supported

[Heistrein]

I would like to agree and support the repeal. However, before I do, I would like to know what the suggested replacement law would be. You mentioned that you would still like to allow life support, but close loopholes. What would you suggest?

[Bears Armed]

I would like to agree and support the repeal. However, before I do, I would like to know what the suggested replacement law would be. You mentioned that you would still like to allow life support, but close loopholes. What would you suggest?

Probably this...

[Ularn]

OOC: As Barrettstia, I remember opposing the passing of the original resolution since it effectively meant that an aircraft carrier had a legal right to be allowed to sail past a blockade as long as they were carrying a box of band-aids or there was some guy on board had once taken a first-aid course. I think I actually had Barrettstia resign from the WA in protest of the whole thing. Glad to see I got back to NS in time to support it's repeal. The entire act could have been sorted if only it had featured a provision exempting ships carrying weapons from a right to pass.

[The Antartic Regions]

The Free Land of The Antartic Regions, noting flaws on the to-be-repealed resolution that put our statues to unnecessary burden, and also noting that less restrictions is almost always better, declares her support to this repeal.

[Frenequesta]

OOC: As Barrettstia, I remember opposing the passing of the original resolution since it effectively meant that an aircraft carrier had a legal right to be allowed to sail past a blockade as long as they were carrying a box of band-aids or there was some guy on board had once taken a first-aid course. I think I actually had Barrettstia resign from the WA in protest of the whole thing. Glad to see I got back to NS in time to support it's repeal. The entire act could have been sorted if only it had featured a provision exempting ships carrying weapons from a right to pass.

Why just weapons? Why not any goods other than medical supplies/personnel at all?

[Saxtony]

We the people of Saxtony feel that no matter how bad it may sound, that in a time of war nothing should be taken off the table. We would hope that countries that are involved in war would allow medical shipments to run freely in and out of the country, but that is all we can do at this point is hope. We have in turn decided to vote against this resolution.

[Wacky Mac party]

To possibly allow weaponry into a zone under blockade would only increase the duration of any fighting in the area and ultimately lead to a greater loss of life. It is important to keep things in perspective and stay aware of possible consequences of our actions.

[Ularn]

OOC: As Barrettstia, I remember opposing the passing of the original resolution since it effectively meant that an aircraft carrier had a legal right to be allowed to sail past a blockade as long as they were carrying a box of band-aids or there was some guy on board had once taken a first-aid course. I think I actually had Barrettstia resign from the WA in protest of the whole thing. Glad to see I got back to NS in time to support it's repeal. The entire act could have been sorted if only it had featured a provision exempting ships carrying weapons from a right to pass.

Why just weapons? Why not any goods other than medical supplies/personnel at all?

I can't think of any supplies other than weapons ('weapons' in this case also meaning tanks, military aircraft, ammunition or basically any non-medical supplies of a military nature) that it would really be necessary to prevent the supply of. I also didn't want to inadvertently exclude the transport of food supplies which might be just as important to refugees and the injured as medical supplies would be.

I suppose it would be worth including a provision also excluding ships with medical supplies that also carry goods banned in the destination nation (e.g. narcotics) so as to prevent smuggling of such goods under the banner of "medical aid" but would expect that would be covered by domestic law in any event.

In other words, as long as the ship carrying medical supplies isn't also carrying weapons or banned goods, I can't see why there would be a need to prevent them passing a blockade. Did you have any other particular goods in mind?

[Ecans]

If there were another resolution to allow the supply of medical needs or if the present resolution were to be amended we would support it. Given the absence of these, we cannot vote for repeal.

[Ularn]

Another problem I see is that the old resolution applied only to 'Vessels' but doesn't give an adequate definition of what a vessel is. Taking it with its usual meaning, it would imply that the resolution only applies to seaborne ships and not to other modes of transport like aircraft, land-based transport or possibly (if you're an FT nation like me) starships, thereby creating another glaring loophole in this ineffective and poorly drafted law.

If there were another resolution to allow the supply of medical needs or if the present resolution were to be amended we would support it. Given the absence of these, we cannot vote for repeal.

The law cannot be amended until the existing resolution is repealed. After that we can draft a more effective, better written, and better conceived resolution to replace it. This is the only way laws can be amended in the WA so if you agree the law needs changing then you should support the repeal so we can vote in a better version afterwards.

[Campinia]

If there were another resolution to allow the supply of medical needs or if the present resolution were to be amended we would support it. Given the absence of these, we cannot vote for repeal.

Another resolution is being drafted as we speak, however it cannot be proposed until this one is repealed.

[Ularn]

If there were another resolution to allow the supply of medical needs or if the present resolution were to be amended we would support it. Given the absence of these, we cannot vote for repeal.

Another resolution is being drafted as we speak, however it cannot be proposed until this one is repealed.

Can you post a link to that draft? Thanks

[Campinia]

Another resolution is being drafted as we speak, however it cannot be proposed until this one is repealed.

Can you post a link to that draft? Thanks

It was already posted just above your first post, but here

[Bears Armed]

Another resolution is being drafted as we speak, however it cannot be proposed until this one is repealed.

Can you post a link to that draft? Thanks

I posted a link earlier on this same page...

[Ularn]

Can you post a link to that draft? Thanks

I posted a link earlier on this same page...

Only just got onto page three of the back-reading. Thanks!

[Frenequesta]

Why just weapons? Why not any goods other than medical supplies/personnel at all?

I can't think of any supplies other than weapons ('weapons' in this case also meaning tanks, military aircraft, ammunition or basically any non-medical supplies of a military nature) that it would really be necessary to prevent the supply of. I also didn't want to inadvertently exclude the transport of food supplies which might be just as important to refugees and the injured as medical supplies would be.

I suppose it would be worth including a provision also excluding ships with medical supplies that also carry goods banned in the destination nation (e.g. narcotics) so as to prevent smuggling of such goods under the banner of "medical aid" but would expect that would be covered by domestic law in any event.

In other words, as long as the ship carrying medical supplies isn't also carrying weapons or banned goods, I can't see why there would be a need to prevent them passing a blockade. Did you have any other particular goods in mind?

"I had the impression that wars weren't the only situations where blockades happen. What if the blockade is made as part of a boycott to pressure a country to stop their human/civil rights violations? No war (certainly not one with bullets) declared there. Second, an old adage goes that "an army moves on its belly", soldiers got to eat in order to fire the gun. Perhaps you would rather see a resolution where civilians are not to be affected by the blockade?"

[Ularn]

I can't think of any supplies other than weapons ('weapons' in this case also meaning tanks, military aircraft, ammunition or basically any non-medical supplies of a military nature) that it would really be necessary to prevent the supply of. I also didn't want to inadvertently exclude the transport of food supplies which might be just as important to refugees and the injured as medical supplies would be.

I suppose it would be worth including a provision also excluding ships with medical supplies that also carry goods banned in the destination nation (e.g. narcotics) so as to prevent smuggling of such goods under the banner of "medical aid" but would expect that would be covered by domestic law in any event.

In other words, as long as the ship carrying medical supplies isn't also carrying weapons or banned goods, I can't see why there would be a need to prevent them passing a blockade. Did you have any other particular goods in mind?

"I had the impression that wars weren't the only situations where blockades happen. What if the blockade is made as part of a boycott to pressure a country to stop their human/civil rights violations? No war (certainly not one with bullets) declared there. Second, an old adage goes that "an army moves on its belly", soldiers got to eat in order to fire the gun. Perhaps you would rather see a resolution where civilians are not to be affected by the blockade?"

"A good point and one I hadn't considered. I admit I was mainly fixated on the use of blockades in the military context without considering their diplomatic applications. You're right that in such circumstances a wording as I had suggested would defeat the purpose of the blockade,"

- Ambassador Zhed
Ularn Interstellar Federation

[Cowardly Pacifists]

I must admit that I did not think my nation would be on board with an effort to repeal a resolution as benign as the Medical Blockade Restriction Act. However, I must say I have not seen a repeal with such a convincing argument in all of my (admittedly short) time as ambassador to the WA. While I think that this repeal may have been worded a bit better ("regardless of its intended content?"), I agree that the MBR has a massive loophole that causes it to be quite problematic. The way the MBR is written, a ship carrying a nuclear payload and a single physician's assistant may be inspected but must ultimately be allowed to pass through a blockade. This absurd result cannot be allowed to stand.

The Armed Republic of Cowardly Pacifists stands in favor of repealing the MBR so that it can be replaced with a more effective resolution. As such, we support this Repeal effort.